Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Vankraken wrote:

Darsath wrote:
I think the AP and save system needs to have made some changes early into the edition. Changing Invulnerable Saves to work similarly to Ward Saves would have alleviated some of the issues with the edition early on, but now that high AP and Invulns are given out like candy, I don't think you can undo it.

Would be nice if they had some sort of save that was given due to environmental factors like terrain, units being the way of a shot, etc that wasn't reduced by AP..... Not sure such a crazy concept has ever been done before but maybe it would help keep the game from being a total blood bath.

Snarkyness aside the game has really gone overboard with firepower and their recent addiction to MtG style wombo combos has made the game into an excercise in inflicting rapid mass casualties.

New mechanic for 9th. Wombo Combo BREAKER!!!

Spend 3 cp to break any wombo combo.

“Get got? Got them back for 3cp! The game you asked for!”

To some extent though, most things that made current 8th increasingly lethal compared to, say, index 8th in 2017 (which people already perceived as super-lethal compared to 7th) were all changes generally approved of / demanded by players.

More CP (e.g. upping CP for Batallions and Brigades) inevitably leads to more frontloading of the game early with more stratagems (especially as things like double shooting, double fighting, etc.. entered the game).

Defensive mechanics (e.g. Alaitoc) were always extremely unpopular and generally GW has moved to mitigate or even remove (hello Raven Guard) them.

Things like vehicles degrading, penalties for moving with heavy weapons, etc.., etc.. are all slowly being replaced by special rules, strats, doctrines, etc.., as people generally don't like their models at "sub-optimal" efficiency.

Turning back the trend, giving stuff less shots (or removing double-shooting rules like Grinding Advance or double-shooting/fighting strats to space out damage), making penalties for degrading, moving, etc.. more meaningful, making defensive mechanisms like -to hit penalties more meaningful again, making "whiffs" more common again by removing re-rolls, "safety-strats" for deepstriking, charging, etc.. or reducing CP in general, all would be deeply unpopular changes, even if they'd make the game a bit less lethal again and provide a more meaningful progression over the 6-7 turns of a game.

 catbarf wrote:
I think implementing the obscurement and range penalty rules from Kill Team would make a huge difference to early-turn lethality, with minimal impact to the overall rules.

It is contingent on players using enough terrain, though. Most tables I see don't have anywhere near the recommended 25%.

In 8th a lot of the problem is that you need meaningful terrain which is large, clunky, or immersion breaking where as in past editions the smaller stuff like wrecks, barracades, rocks, craters, etc where practical because it didn't need to cover a whole unit to have a gameplay effect.

That said the killteam rules seem to punish armies like Orks more due to flat modifiers hurting poor BS armies more than better BS skill armies.

Pancakey wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:

Darsath wrote:
I think the AP and save system needs to have made some changes early into the edition. Changing Invulnerable Saves to work similarly to Ward Saves would have alleviated some of the issues with the edition early on, but now that high AP and Invulns are given out like candy, I don't think you can undo it.

Would be nice if they had some sort of save that was given due to environmental factors like terrain, units being the way of a shot, etc that wasn't reduced by AP..... Not sure such a crazy concept has ever been done before but maybe it would help keep the game from being a total blood bath.

Snarkyness aside the game has really gone overboard with firepower and their recent addiction to MtG style wombo combos has made the game into an excercise in inflicting rapid mass casualties.

New mechanic for 9th. Wombo Combo BREAKER!!!

Spend 3 cp to break any wombo combo.

“Get got? Got them back for 3cp! The game you asked for!”

Well, that is Vect and its 4CP now.

 Vankraken wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I think implementing the obscurement and range penalty rules from Kill Team would make a huge difference to early-turn lethality, with minimal impact to the overall rules.

It is contingent on players using enough terrain, though. Most tables I see don't have anywhere near the recommended 25%.

In 8th a lot of the problem is that you need meaningful terrain which is large, clunky, or immersion breaking where as in past editions the smaller stuff like wrecks, barracades, rocks, craters, etc where practical because it didn't need to cover a whole unit to have a gameplay effect.

That said the killteam rules seem to punish armies like Orks more due to flat modifiers hurting poor BS armies more than better BS skill armies.

Nah. Ever more ridiculous terrain, huge L-shaped LoS-blockers, house-rules for LoS-blocking ruins at the 1st floor, terrain-shaming Tournament Organisers who don't fill their tables with buckets of stuff, etc.. are just the response to the growing lethality, just like in 7th Ed. independent FAQs were the response to the rules growing ambiguity and confusing complexity. They help keep the game playable for a bit longer (but also disguise the structure problems for a while). Ultimately, these counter-measures are not sustainable however, if the underlying problematic trend isn't addressed.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
To some extent though, most things that made current 8th increasingly lethal compared to, say, index 8th in 2017 (which people already perceived as super-lethal compared to 7th) were all changes generally approved of / demanded by players.

More CP (e.g. upping CP for Batallions and Brigades) inevitably leads to more frontloading of the game early with more stratagems (especially as things like double shooting, double fighting, etc.. entered the game).

Defensive mechanics (e.g. Alaitoc) were always extremely unpopular and generally GW has moved to mitigate or even remove (hello Raven Guard) them.

Things like vehicles degrading, penalties for moving with heavy weapons, etc.., etc.. are all slowly being replaced by special rules, strats, doctrines, etc.., as people generally don't like their models at "sub-optimal" efficiency.

Turning back the trend, giving stuff less shots (or removing double-shooting rules like Grinding Advance or double-shooting/fighting strats to space out damage), making penalties for degrading, moving, etc.. more meaningful, making defensive mechanisms like -to hit penalties more meaningful again, making "whiffs" more common again by removing re-rolls, "safety-strats" for deepstriking, charging, etc.. or reducing CP in general, all would be deeply unpopular changes, even if they'd make the game a bit less lethal again and provide a more meaningful progression over the 6-7 turns of a game.

+1!

Yeah, people DEMAND that their stuff not suck, and then get mad when the game is all about optimizing their stuff. I've joined a team with the intent to go to a team event, and one of my friends on the team is playing Space Marines. And he is loving the Marines right now, and he's all like "Oh man I hope these units get cheaper in Chapter Approved because that would be awesome for us!", not realizing that it gets stronger for everyone else too, and that unless the rest of our team gets stronger, such changes actually make our competitive stance weaker in comparison to our opponents. Having just had a game of "Trash" 40k where we played with purposefully bad lists, you can really see just how crazy optimized everything is in the game. Absolutely - you want more interesting games? GW would have to make all their stuff much worse.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I think nostalgia has colored your glasses. Leaf Blower's aim was to totally remove your army from the table. You can't hold objectives if you don't have models

One manticore, two medusa, and two hydras, at 2500 points.

 Yarium wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
To some extent though, most things that made current 8th increasingly lethal compared to, say, index 8th in 2017 (which people already perceived as super-lethal compared to 7th) were all changes generally approved of / demanded by players.

More CP (e.g. upping CP for Batallions and Brigades) inevitably leads to more frontloading of the game early with more stratagems (especially as things like double shooting, double fighting, etc.. entered the game).

Defensive mechanics (e.g. Alaitoc) were always extremely unpopular and generally GW has moved to mitigate or even remove (hello Raven Guard) them.

Things like vehicles degrading, penalties for moving with heavy weapons, etc.., etc.. are all slowly being replaced by special rules, strats, doctrines, etc.., as people generally don't like their models at "sub-optimal" efficiency.

Turning back the trend, giving stuff less shots (or removing double-shooting rules like Grinding Advance or double-shooting/fighting strats to space out damage), making penalties for degrading, moving, etc.. more meaningful, making defensive mechanisms like -to hit penalties more meaningful again, making "whiffs" more common again by removing re-rolls, "safety-strats" for deepstriking, charging, etc.. or reducing CP in general, all would be deeply unpopular changes, even if they'd make the game a bit less lethal again and provide a more meaningful progression over the 6-7 turns of a game.

+1!

Yeah, people DEMAND that their stuff not suck, and then get mad when the game is all about optimizing their stuff. I've joined a team with the intent to go to a team event, and one of my friends on the team is playing Space Marines. And he is loving the Marines right now, and he's all like "Oh man I hope these units get cheaper in Chapter Approved because that would be awesome for us!", not realizing that it gets stronger for everyone else too, and that unless the rest of our team gets stronger, such changes actually make our competitive stance weaker in comparison to our opponents. Having just had a game of "Trash" 40k where we played with purposefully bad lists, you can really see just how crazy optimized everything is in the game. Absolutely - you want more interesting games? GW would have to make all their stuff much worse.

+1 your +1.

So much truth on the boards today. Did we all smoke something?

Yoyoyo wrote:
An old school list looks like this, and would come in at less than 800pts before wargear.

- Captain
- Chaplain
- 3x10 Tacticals
- Assault Squad
- Dreadnought
- Predator

Does that look much like what people are fielding in 2000pt tournaments?

It's Apoc at this point. Flyer wings, knight armies, Primarchs and flocks of Daemon Princes, etc. More points cuts are coming too in CA, so expect this trend to continue!

well if you replace the units with their primaris replacment it ain't that bad. 4 buffbots, 6 units of intercessors, 2 units of aggressors, 2 dreads and two executors is a valid army in my area.

Bharring wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
To some extent though, most things that made current 8th increasingly lethal compared to, say, index 8th in 2017 (which people already perceived as super-lethal compared to 7th) were all changes generally approved of / demanded by players.

More CP (e.g. upping CP for Batallions and Brigades) inevitably leads to more frontloading of the game early with more stratagems (especially as things like double shooting, double fighting, etc.. entered the game).

Defensive mechanics (e.g. Alaitoc) were always extremely unpopular and generally GW has moved to mitigate or even remove (hello Raven Guard) them.

Things like vehicles degrading, penalties for moving with heavy weapons, etc.., etc.. are all slowly being replaced by special rules, strats, doctrines, etc.., as people generally don't like their models at "sub-optimal" efficiency.

Turning back the trend, giving stuff less shots (or removing double-shooting rules like Grinding Advance or double-shooting/fighting strats to space out damage), making penalties for degrading, moving, etc.. more meaningful, making defensive mechanisms like -to hit penalties more meaningful again, making "whiffs" more common again by removing re-rolls, "safety-strats" for deepstriking, charging, etc.. or reducing CP in general, all would be deeply unpopular changes, even if they'd make the game a bit less lethal again and provide a more meaningful progression over the 6-7 turns of a game.

+1!

Yeah, people DEMAND that their stuff not suck, and then get mad when the game is all about optimizing their stuff. I've joined a team with the intent to go to a team event, and one of my friends on the team is playing Space Marines. And he is loving the Marines right now, and he's all like "Oh man I hope these units get cheaper in Chapter Approved because that would be awesome for us!", not realizing that it gets stronger for everyone else too, and that unless the rest of our team gets stronger, such changes actually make our competitive stance weaker in comparison to our opponents. Having just had a game of "Trash" 40k where we played with purposefully bad lists, you can really see just how crazy optimized everything is in the game. Absolutely - you want more interesting games? GW would have to make all their stuff much worse.

+1 your +1.

So much truth on the boards today. Did we all smoke something?

Probably the glue kicking in

Imo at this point it is pretty clear, that due to the lethality and the range escalation the terrain rules needed to be improved.

And GW has expanded their range of games quite a bit, and not all suffer the issues 40k atm does.
F.E: someone brought up KT rules, which make A manouverability ALOT more significant and B Does curb some of the issues with shooting over long range at peak efficency and C has an inbuilt functioning cover system and simplification for Los rules which make it just a more stable system imo.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
To some extent though, most things that made current 8th increasingly lethal compared to, say, index 8th in 2017 (which people already perceived as super-lethal compared to 7th) were all changes generally approved of / demanded by players.

More CP (e.g. upping CP for Batallions and Brigades) inevitably leads to more frontloading of the game early with more stratagems (especially as things like double shooting, double fighting, etc.. entered the game).

Defensive mechanics (e.g. Alaitoc) were always extremely unpopular and generally GW has moved to mitigate or even remove (hello Raven Guard) them.

Things like vehicles degrading, penalties for moving with heavy weapons, etc.., etc.. are all slowly being replaced by special rules, strats, doctrines, etc.., as people generally don't like their models at "sub-optimal" efficiency.

Turning back the trend, giving stuff less shots (or removing double-shooting rules like Grinding Advance or double-shooting/fighting strats to space out damage), making penalties for degrading, moving, etc.. more meaningful, making defensive mechanisms like -to hit penalties more meaningful again, making "whiffs" more common again by removing re-rolls, "safety-strats" for deepstriking, charging, etc.. or reducing CP in general, all would be deeply unpopular changes, even if they'd make the game a bit less lethal again and provide a more meaningful progression over the 6-7 turns of a game.

+1!

Yeah, people DEMAND that their stuff not suck, and then get mad when the game is all about optimizing their stuff. I've joined a team with the intent to go to a team event, and one of my friends on the team is playing Space Marines. And he is loving the Marines right now, and he's all like "Oh man I hope these units get cheaper in Chapter Approved because that would be awesome for us!", not realizing that it gets stronger for everyone else too, and that unless the rest of our team gets stronger, such changes actually make our competitive stance weaker in comparison to our opponents. Having just had a game of "Trash" 40k where we played with purposefully bad lists, you can really see just how crazy optimized everything is in the game. Absolutely - you want more interesting games? GW would have to make all their stuff much worse.

+1 your +1.

So much truth on the boards today. Did we all smoke something?

Probably the glue kicking in

Imo at this point it is pretty clear, that due to the lethality and the range escalation the terrain rules needed to be improved.

And GW has expanded their range of games quite a bit, and not all suffer the issues 40k atm does.
F.E: someone brought up KT rules, which make A manouverability ALOT more significant and B Does curb some of the issues with shooting over long range at peak efficency and C has an inbuilt functioning cover system and simplification for Los rules which make it just a more stable system imo.

And (D) nobody can call me a dirty Eldar player because CWE isn't bonkers OP.

 Yarium wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
To some extent though, most things that made current 8th increasingly lethal compared to, say, index 8th in 2017 (which people already perceived as super-lethal compared to 7th) were all changes generally approved of / demanded by players.

More CP (e.g. upping CP for Batallions and Brigades) inevitably leads to more frontloading of the game early with more stratagems (especially as things like double shooting, double fighting, etc.. entered the game).

Defensive mechanics (e.g. Alaitoc) were always extremely unpopular and generally GW has moved to mitigate or even remove (hello Raven Guard) them.

Things like vehicles degrading, penalties for moving with heavy weapons, etc.., etc.. are all slowly being replaced by special rules, strats, doctrines, etc.., as people generally don't like their models at "sub-optimal" efficiency.

Turning back the trend, giving stuff less shots (or removing double-shooting rules like Grinding Advance or double-shooting/fighting strats to space out damage), making penalties for degrading, moving, etc.. more meaningful, making defensive mechanisms like -to hit penalties more meaningful again, making "whiffs" more common again by removing re-rolls, "safety-strats" for deepstriking, charging, etc.. or reducing CP in general, all would be deeply unpopular changes, even if they'd make the game a bit less lethal again and provide a more meaningful progression over the 6-7 turns of a game.

+1!

Yeah, people DEMAND that their stuff not suck, and then get mad when the game is all about optimizing their stuff. I've joined a team with the intent to go to a team event, and one of my friends on the team is playing Space Marines. And he is loving the Marines right now, and he's all like "Oh man I hope these units get cheaper in Chapter Approved because that would be awesome for us!", not realizing that it gets stronger for everyone else too, and that unless the rest of our team gets stronger, such changes actually make our competitive stance weaker in comparison to our opponents. Having just had a game of "Trash" 40k where we played with purposefully bad lists, you can really see just how crazy optimized everything is in the game. Absolutely - you want more interesting games? GW would have to make all their stuff much worse.

Play with stuff that doesn't have good synergy (or better yet, deliberately build lists that don't have big combos) and play with limited Command Points per turn (say 3) and the game seems a lot more reasonable. I think the focus on creating big combos, and stacking auras and stratagems is hurting the game at this point. Things need toned down pretty hard, at least in my opinion.

Darsath wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
To some extent though, most things that made current 8th increasingly lethal compared to, say, index 8th in 2017 (which people already perceived as super-lethal compared to 7th) were all changes generally approved of / demanded by players.

More CP (e.g. upping CP for Batallions and Brigades) inevitably leads to more frontloading of the game early with more stratagems (especially as things like double shooting, double fighting, etc.. entered the game).

Defensive mechanics (e.g. Alaitoc) were always extremely unpopular and generally GW has moved to mitigate or even remove (hello Raven Guard) them.

Things like vehicles degrading, penalties for moving with heavy weapons, etc.., etc.. are all slowly being replaced by special rules, strats, doctrines, etc.., as people generally don't like their models at "sub-optimal" efficiency.

Turning back the trend, giving stuff less shots (or removing double-shooting rules like Grinding Advance or double-shooting/fighting strats to space out damage), making penalties for degrading, moving, etc.. more meaningful, making defensive mechanisms like -to hit penalties more meaningful again, making "whiffs" more common again by removing re-rolls, "safety-strats" for deepstriking, charging, etc.. or reducing CP in general, all would be deeply unpopular changes, even if they'd make the game a bit less lethal again and provide a more meaningful progression over the 6-7 turns of a game.

+1!

Yeah, people DEMAND that their stuff not suck, and then get mad when the game is all about optimizing their stuff. I've joined a team with the intent to go to a team event, and one of my friends on the team is playing Space Marines. And he is loving the Marines right now, and he's all like "Oh man I hope these units get cheaper in Chapter Approved because that would be awesome for us!", not realizing that it gets stronger for everyone else too, and that unless the rest of our team gets stronger, such changes actually make our competitive stance weaker in comparison to our opponents. Having just had a game of "Trash" 40k where we played with purposefully bad lists, you can really see just how crazy optimized everything is in the game. Absolutely - you want more interesting games? GW would have to make all their stuff much worse.

Play with stuff that doesn't have good synergy (or better yet, deliberately build lists that don't have big combos) and play with limited Command Points per turn (say 3) and the game seems a lot more reasonable. I think the focus on creating big combos, and stacking auras and stratagems is hurting the game at this point. Things need toned down pretty hard, at least in my opinion.

I found, back in 6th, that games are a lot more fun if I stick to a "demi-company" style list. Defensive basic troop, offensive basic troop (basically 2 Tac squads), fast skirmisher (Assault Marine squad), a heavy support backfielder (Dev Marines), lead by a beatstick (Captain/CM), assisted by a support character (Libby/Chap/etc). Add some support or depth (Rhinos, Preds, etc). Call it a list. I do this a lot with Marines and CWE, but most factions (all, I think?) can do it.

Doesn't work so well when going up against tourny-quality lists anymore. And it just keeps getting worse. And worse yet, harder to do.

To add insult to injury, even bulking it up some, that list that used to be the core of a decent sized list? It's now just a small fraction of the points you need to fill out. So even when you start with that as a core, by time you've filled out 2k points, your list looks nothing like that.

And finally, much of what it does doesn't matter. There's no difference between Marines holding position or pushing forward anymore. There's no deadspace on the table to make the skirmishers matter. And there's no "winning combat", and less locking stuff up, so those skirmishers can't do more than how much they can kill. The strengths (such as limited vulnerability) and limitations (volume, penalties for moving, etc) that existed on the heavy support firepower have all but evaporated. Beatsticks that fought with some of your men got replaced by blenders who ate armies, and/or buffbubbles who you need to blob around for moar dakka.

Instead of combined arms, there's no real point in not just taking tons of nasty firepower. Because all you're doing is trading numbers.

Darsath wrote:
Play with stuff that doesn't have good synergy (or better yet, deliberately build lists that don't have big combos) and play with limited Command Points per turn (say 3) and the game seems a lot more reasonable. I think the focus on creating big combos, and stacking auras and stratagems is hurting the game at this point. Things need toned down pretty hard, at least in my opinion.

Haha, want to see the lists? I'll post up a Battle Report and link to it.

Here's the link: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/782841.page#10642642

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
If you primaris-fy this list, you have:
- Gravis Captain
- Primaris Chaplain
- 3x 10 intercessors
- Inceptor Squad
- Conteptor Dreadnought
- Repulsor Executioner

That's about 1400 points, toss in another primaris unit of your choice and you're at a commonly played point level, with the same amount of models as in the past, and it probably won't do terrible either.

Yes except almost all of those models double the firepower and resiliency of the army, that's why there's a ~600pt delta between them!

If everything in the game doubled firepower and resilience, we would not be having a problem, right?

 Jidmah wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
If you primaris-fy this list, you have:
- Gravis Captain
- Primaris Chaplain
- 3x 10 intercessors
- Inceptor Squad
- Conteptor Dreadnought
- Repulsor Executioner

That's about 1400 points, toss in another primaris unit of your choice and you're at a commonly played point level, with the same amount of models as in the past, and it probably won't do terrible either.

Yes except almost all of those models double the firepower and resiliency of the army, that's why there's a ~600pt delta between them!

If everything in the game doubled firepower and resilience, we would not be having a problem, right?

Assuming everybody would get updated around the same time. In actuality, Games Workshop would probably just half the points costs of everything they couldn't be bothered to update.

Darsath wrote:

Play with stuff that doesn't have good synergy (or better yet, deliberately build lists that don't have big combos) and play with limited Command Points per turn (say 3) and the game seems a lot more reasonable. I think the focus on creating big combos, and stacking auras and stratagems is hurting the game at this point. Things need toned down pretty hard, at least in my opinion.

Yeah but the obvious problem here is that you just remove a huge part of the game and flatten a lot of the faction diversity that comes from the stratagems and synergies.

The core rules are so basic that any of the diversity or tactics (such as they are) has to come from things like stratagems and auras.

Bharring 782835 10642624 wrote:
And (D) nobody can call me a dirty Eldar player because CWE isn't bonkers OP.

You maybe suprised. I have been called a WAAC GK player for wanting a 4th or 5th ed codex back, when I didn't play back then. Dirty stuff stays dirty, unless it makes up the majority. that is why only marines always will be pure.

Dumb Smart Guy wrote:

Darsath wrote:

Play with stuff that doesn't have good synergy (or better yet, deliberately build lists that don't have big combos) and play with limited Command Points per turn (say 3) and the game seems a lot more reasonable. I think the focus on creating big combos, and stacking auras and stratagems is hurting the game at this point. Things need toned down pretty hard, at least in my opinion.

Yeah but the obvious problem here is that you just remove a huge part of the game and flatten a lot of the faction diversity that comes from the stratagems and synergies.

The core rules are so basic that any of the diversity or tactics (such as they are) has to come from things like stratagems and auras.

Those are aspects that I criticised when 8th got launched. Faction as it stands is actually rather poor, around the same as the Daemon-star meta (probably the worst meta).

8th edition really remind me of 8th fantasy (but with the minimum amount of bell and whistles that a company should have in the 21th century).

Luckily for the hobby there are the boardgames... can't imagine anyone that starts the hobby with the goal of playing 2000 points games.

1250 is the new 1750.

Darsath wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
If you primaris-fy this list, you have:
- Gravis Captain
- Primaris Chaplain
- 3x 10 intercessors
- Inceptor Squad
- Conteptor Dreadnought
- Repulsor Executioner

That's about 1400 points, toss in another primaris unit of your choice and you're at a commonly played point level, with the same amount of models as in the past, and it probably won't do terrible either.

Yes except almost all of those models double the firepower and resiliency of the army, that's why there's a ~600pt delta between them!

If everything in the game doubled firepower and resilience, we would not be having a problem, right?

Assuming everybody would get updated around the same time. In actuality, Games Workshop would probably just half the points costs of everything they couldn't be bothered to update.

Isn't that what they're doing NOW?

You are correct. There is an issue with the core of 8th edition that prevents just changing points from solving the problem. Issues like Rule of 3, Deployment space, Aura ranges etc prevent this alone from being an effective solution. It's why we're seeing elite units coming to 20-30 points now.

My dad showed me a battle between two armies in an old white dwarf that had ultramarines and IG, fighting vs tyranids on some ice planet. heavy stuff could sink in to the ice depths. I don't think that both armies had a 100 models on the table.

I don't know when, but at some time the point drop of everything must have been huge. Like 50% on everything or more. Oddly enough in an old GK codex, they still cost 20 plus points.

Karol wrote:
My dad showed me a battle between two armies in an old white dwarf that had ultramarines and IG, fighting vs tyranids on some ice planet. heavy stuff could sink in to the ice depths. I don't think that both armies had a 100 models on the table.

I don't know when, but at some time the point drop of everything must have been huge. Like 50% on everything or more. Oddly enough in an old GK codex, they still cost 20 plus points.

8th looks like a massive acceleration in this regard. Points have been going down, and army size up, since I got into the hobby. But it's speed looks to have accelerated.

I used to have a fairly set 1500 point list. Bunch of Aspects lead by Asurmen and a Serpent - as I didn't have the points to use a Falcon instead.

Then, the new CWE book hit, and I had to add lots of points - another tank, additional squads - just to hit 1250.

Kinda absurd.

Right -- weren't Scions something like 70pts base in 7th?

They're literally half the cost after CA19.

Size inflation has been an issue since 3rd edition. In fact, according to the legend that's why 3rd edition was done the way it was; originally it was a cleaned-up 2nd edition but management wanted to increase the scale so people would buy more, so 3rd edition was hastily thrown together based on a homebrew WW2 game Rick Priestly had.

Ever since editions have increased the size of the game to the utter ridiculousness it is now where it's 28mm Epic. Superheavies, even flyers don't belong in normal games of 40k, and 2000 points is too large IMHO.

This has been the case since at least 5th edition.

 Crimson wrote:
You are not wrong.

Exalted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This thread is awesome.

I'm still wondering why I can't fit my 5th edition ork army into 2000 points though...

 Jidmah wrote:
I'm still wondering why I can't fit my 5th edition ork army into 2000 points though...

I wanna say it's probably the cost of vehicles/bikes?