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.

I'm waiting to see more on the points regarding the Intercessors in the example given, for all we know, each weapon option the unit has may now be costed, and mean a base line Marine could be more expensive on top of this base value. It all depends how they've gone for units with upgrades this edition.

Hopefully the next round of books just cuts strategems by 3/4 and leaves just a few powerful game changers so we don't have to leaf through pages of gak we never use. Maybe move some of those abilities back into unit datasheets.

*looks at example mission*

How tall is a pillar?
How wide is a pillar?
Does it block LOS?
Does it provide cover?
Is the limit on scoring the Primary Objective (15 VPs) per turn or per game?


And if they've increased the points on everything, then the durability has to have gone up. Things are so damned deadly in this game. I can't imagine paying more points for a Carnifex given how fragile they are.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

Latro_ wrote:wow CP at 2k a lot lower than expected[/img]

No kidding. My usual Dark Eldar build just lost like 8CP, possibly more depending on how additional Deatchments work.

tneva82 wrote:Hopefully they have improved them somehow so scenarios won'' be marine gunline favouring like itc

Doesn't sound like it if they're wanting you to select them based on your army's "narrative".

They might give you extra CP still for Battleforged and perhaps a bonus if you went Brigade? I dunno but I was doing Marine Brigade in the first place so I have the same amount of CP.

We know you gain command points in the command phase. Presumably, you will have fewer at the start of the game because each turn you will gain some, which is a very good thing IMO. Reduce the number of "big CP wombo combos" increase the number of CPs tthat get used on later turns of the game.

While I hate the wombo combo play style as well, they need to fix the armies that they've shoehorned into it. And why have cultists gone up 50% but intercessors only 17%? I don't play cultists but many csm players do, and that seems a bit biased.

That's base cost. Chances are wargear also went up, which would hike Intercessors even further.

Aren't all the various intercessor bolt gun variants currently free? So they'll only go up if free equipment goes away.

Man. I love that they are making everything more expensive to allow for less miniatures per game and more granularity.


The problem? I know how this community works. People hate when they can't take ALL the toys. So the new standard will be 2,5k or 3k points and then with Chapter Approved after Chapter Approved costs will go down again because thats how GW balances nearly everything, making them cheaper, and we'll end up with much bigger armies.

Thats something I have always find very hypocrite. People always says GW makes things cheaper so we need to buy more to play but then most people when things like this happen always claim for playing games with more points instead of just accepting to take a couple less units or models and just changing lists from game to game to use your collection.


Also I have a great dislike for ITC style secondaries that warp the value of many types of units because "they give secondaries too easy" but just the idea of seeing the "face" of Ishagu makes it nearly worth it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
*looks at example mission*

How tall is a pillar?
How wide is a pillar?
Does it block LOS?
Does it provide cover?
Is the limit on scoring the Primary Objective (15 VPs) per turn or per game?


And if they've increased the points on everything, then the durability has to have gone up. Things are so damned deadly in this game. I can't imagine paying more points for a Carnifex given how fragile they are.

By the looks of it, a Pillar is just a fancy name for a objective marker in this case. So probably about the same size as a objective marker, and probably doesn't affect LoS or cover.

It seems the VP cap is for the entire game, not per round. Otherwise that would defeat the purpose of a cap.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
*looks at example mission*

How tall is a pillar?
How wide is a pillar?
Does it block LOS?
Does it provide cover?
Is the limit on scoring the Primary Objective (15 VPs) per turn or per game?


And if they've increased the points on everything, then the durability has to have gone up. Things are so damned deadly in this game. I can't imagine paying more points for a Carnifex given how fragile they are.

Durability can stay the same even if the model count drops game wide, meaning less lethal weapons on the table resulting in less lethal games.

And terrain rules are determined by keyword.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
.... or maybe they didnt expect Stratagems to become 90% of list building?

I've always felt like stratagems, these dynamic cinematic, tide turning, pivotal gaming "action scenes" were better suited for Narrative play.

I like this limited CP thing. Kinda shows me they never intended 20+ cp builds, but gamers gonna game the system.

Yeah. I've been focusing on AT now for months, and that game's approach to stratagems is jarringly different -- very limited number of points to spend and strats have to be purchased pre-game. So they're thematic and impactful without being game-tipping or the game-within-the-game that they are in 40K.

Not saying 40K should use the AT approach to strats, but there are reasons why I've been leaving them out of the 40K games I've been playing with my oldest. It's a massive distraction from the actual gameplay that he doesn't need as he learns the game. When I introduce them, it'll probably be in an AT style fashion at first. I get that the existing system is fine with all the warhammer pro athletes, but that isn't the bulk of GW's customers and I can absolutely see why reining them in a little would be on their to-do list.

 Galas wrote:
Man. I love that they are making everything more expensive to allow for less miniatures per game and more granularity.


The problem? I know how this community works. People hate when they can't take ALL the toys. So the new standard will be 2,5k or 3k points and then with Chapter Approved after Chapter Approved costs will go down again because thats how GW balances nearly everything, making them cheaper, and we'll end up with much bigger armies.

Thats something I have always find very hypocrite. People always says GW makes things cheaper so we need to buy more to play but then most people when things like this happen always claim for playing games with more points instead of just accepting to take a couple less units or models and just changing lists from game to game to use your collection.


Also I have a great dislike for ITC style secondaries that warp the value of many types of units because "they give secondaries too easy" but just the idea of seeing the "face" of Ishagu makes it nearly worth it.

Sad but true. Even if it gives a better game balance to play at lower points people want as much of their toys on the table at once as humanly possible. And then some.

I'm honestly hoping GW doesn't do massive points drops over time, and instead looks at bumping strong units and options up in points but not dropping things lower than we start at.

As for secondaries, with there being set core ones, and the requirement for you to take different types, I don't see the ITC issue being as prevelant due to people not being able to gear up to only kill things to gain points.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And if they've increased the points on everything, then the durability has to have gone up. Things are so damned deadly in this game. I can't imagine paying more points for a Carnifex given how fragile they are.

I'm not sure this follows, whilst the carnifex will have gone up in points the points of everything shooting at the carnifex will also have gone up, presumably resulting in fewer guns pointing at it. What actually matters is the end points ratio of carnifex to opposing gun, the advantage of increasing all the points costs is that they have more room to modify that ratio than they do now.

Another thing I believe worth mentioning, is that in the article they specifically use the word "meta" and "alpha strike". I don't think they used those gamer terms before on WHC, and I would guess it comes from more competent playtesters and listening to their feedback that encourages them to use this vocabulary. It shows they're at least AWARE of the main components of competitive play. I remember a WD article or something where they invited top tournament players at their studios and were "shocked" or something upon discovering their list was a mess of a soup. It revealed they had no idea what was actually going on in the average game of 40k.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Man. I love that they are making everything more expensive to allow for less miniatures per game and more granularity.


The problem? I know how this community works. People hate when they can't take ALL the toys. So the new standard will be 2,5k or 3k points and then with Chapter Approved after Chapter Approved costs will go down again because thats how GW balances nearly everything, making them cheaper, and we'll end up with much bigger armies.

Thats something I have always find very hypocrite. People always says GW makes things cheaper so we need to buy more to play but then most people when things like this happen always claim for playing games with more points instead of just accepting to take a couple less units or models and just changing lists from game to game to use your collection.


Also I have a great dislike for ITC style secondaries that warp the value of many types of units because "they give secondaries too easy" but just the idea of seeing the "face" of Ishagu makes it nearly worth it.

Sad but true. Even if it gives a better game balance to play at lower points people want as much of their toys on the table at once as humanly possible. And then some.

I'm honestly hoping GW doesn't do massive points drops over time, and instead looks at bumping strong units and options up in points but not dropping things lower than we start at.

As for secondaries, with there being set core ones, and the requirement for you to take different types, I don't see the ITC issue being as prevelant due to people not being able to gear up to only kill things to gain points.

Look, you both know point drops are going to happen. Intercessors were originally 20 to begin with, and for the current edition they're 17. Why hope for something that we all GW won't listen to?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Man. I love that they are making everything more expensive to allow for less miniatures per game and more granularity.


The problem? I know how this community works. People hate when they can't take ALL the toys. So the new standard will be 2,5k or 3k points and then with Chapter Approved after Chapter Approved costs will go down again because thats how GW balances nearly everything, making them cheaper, and we'll end up with much bigger armies.

Thats something I have always find very hypocrite. People always says GW makes things cheaper so we need to buy more to play but then most people when things like this happen always claim for playing games with more points instead of just accepting to take a couple less units or models and just changing lists from game to game to use your collection.


Also I have a great dislike for ITC style secondaries that warp the value of many types of units because "they give secondaries too easy" but just the idea of seeing the "face" of Ishagu makes it nearly worth it.

Sad but true. Even if it gives a better game balance to play at lower points people want as much of their toys on the table at once as humanly possible. And then some.

I'm honestly hoping GW doesn't do massive points drops over time, and instead looks at bumping strong units and options up in points but not dropping things lower than we start at.

As for secondaries, with there being set core ones, and the requirement for you to take different types, I don't see the ITC issue being as prevelant due to people not being able to gear up to only kill things to gain points.

Look, you both know point drops are going to happen. Intercessors were originally 20 to begin with, and for the current edition they're 17. Why hope for something that we all GW won't listen to?

I don't know anything about what GW will do long term. I just have a hope that they won't fall down the same slippery slope of racing points to the bottom.

And citing 8th ed doesn't work as well when there is a clear different design goal to actively balance the game and them making a clear note that points costs going up were to add granularity into the game. I don't see them overturning that too easily unless they screw something up.

Thats what I said. GW WILL lower points of units but people will refuse to go back from the new bigger point standard to 2k again so the end result will be bigger games. And with fantasy we know how that ends.

fingol23 wrote:
I'm not sure this follows, whilst the carnifex will have gone up in points the points of everything shooting at the carnifex will also have gone up, presumably resulting in fewer guns pointing at it.

Individual guns are vastly more dangerous than they were in previous editions. It doesn't take much to kill a Carnifex. The opponent having 6 Lascannons rather than 8 isn't going to change that.

 Galas wrote:
Thats what I said. GW WILL lower points of units but people will refuse to go back from the new bigger point standard to 2k again so the end result will be bigger games. And with fantasy we know how that ends.

And I'm saying I don't agree that it will be an inevitability. If anything the desire to take all their toys will likely just result in 3k being the new tournament standard and nothing changes on that level, while lower points levels get more room to breathe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

fingol23 wrote:
I'm not sure this follows, whilst the carnifex will have gone up in points the points of everything shooting at the carnifex will also have gone up, presumably resulting in fewer guns pointing at it.

Individual guns are vastly more dangerous than they were in previous editions. It doesn't take much to kill a Carnifex. The opponent having 6 Lascannons rather than 8 isn't going to change that.

Terrain is changing though, which means protecting your Carnifex will likely be easier. Plus not all points hikes will be equal. Expensive models may see smaller bumps to their base cost for example.

 Aaranis wrote:
Another thing I believe worth mentioning, is that in the article they specifically use the word "meta" and "alpha strike". I don't think they used those gamer terms before on WHC, and I would guess it comes from more competent playtesters and listening to their feedback that encourages them to use this vocabulary. It shows they're at least AWARE of the main components of competitive play. I remember a WD article or something where they invited top tournament players at their studios and were "shocked" or something upon discovering their list was a mess of a soup. It revealed they had no idea what was actually going on in the average game of 40k.

Guessing you didn't recognise this article is written by Mike Brandt ex Nova open has been heavily involved in Competitive 40k, the guy GW "just hired" as their events guru.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

fingol23 wrote:
I'm not sure this follows, whilst the carnifex will have gone up in points the points of everything shooting at the carnifex will also have gone up, presumably resulting in fewer guns pointing at it.

Individual guns are vastly more dangerous than they were in previous editions. It doesn't take much to kill a Carnifex. The opponent having 6 Lascannons rather than 8 isn't going to change that.

That is just factually wrong. In a game of probabilatty 6 lascannons will have less chancre of killing a carnifex then 8 of the same lascannons will.

 Galas wrote:
And with fantasy we know how that ends.

End Times proved bigger armies weren't an issue on their own.

The issues with Fantasy were manyfold including

1) A rules system that didn't work well at smaller point values. Because of the whole rank and file nature of the game a 500point battle was rather on the boring side. You only had very limited blocks on the table so a lot of the manoeuvring and such didn't work as well and you didn't really have all the parts of an army to make it work. So the rules system itself needed bigger armies.

2) Lack of heavy marketing of smaller game modes (and as point 1 points out also provision of effective game modes). These two points combined meant that the game itself pushed you to need bigger armies and that there wasn't as much on offer for smaller values.

3) A lack of effective marketing. The game started to slip into a downward spiral where newbies got rarer and rarer. The result of which is that you get increased disparity between beginner and established populations. Now instead of a few beginners mucking around at smaller point values; you had your pros with 2K+ armies and one or two beginners at a time. So there was less of a population to help bridge the gap

4) A general lack of marketing and release attention.

Overall points 3 and 4 I think were partly the result of Lord of the Rings appearing as the big fantasy breadwinner and getting the lions share of attention.
Once you hit a downward player spiral its hard to pull out of it and GW didn't really try until End-Times. By which point management had already written the game off.



In today's market 40K has many benefits. Killteam, skirmish games and such are far more advertised as their own thing. Killteam -nothing new in itself - is now advertised and packaged up to gamers; its not just a page of rules in the big rule book. It's its own game. There's also games like Blackstone Fortress which help ease people in with smaller collections and model counts. Basically GW have worked hard to establish far more of a bridge in the game itself between lower and higher point games. When you combine that with effective marketing and market growth you introduce the potential for greater numbers of newbies, which helps other newbies settle in and move up the scale as they build up their armies. It also means there's perhaps less pressure on the need to have 2K armies to get to the fun bits.



Big armies are a concern, but at present I'd say that GW have moved 40K and also AoS into positions where there are ample tools and entertainment options to help newbies along to steadily reach the 2K whilst having games along the way. Rather than the old world style where you were almost waiting in massive game limbo before you got to 2K (or at least 1.5K) and could then play "proper games".

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Terrain is changing though, which means protecting your Carnifex will likely be easier. Plus not all points hikes will be equal. Expensive models may see smaller bumps to their base cost for example.

Depends on whether points increases are across the board for all units, or just for select units. I mean, forget the 'Fex for a second, let's look at the Trygon. Trygon are a liability now as they're not tough enough to stand up to any amount of firepower. If the points for a T6 Trygon do up, they might as well stop producing the miniature.

Given GW's unceasing dedication to balancing via pendulum swing rather than fixing specific problems, I'm worried that they've just increased the cost on everything without really thinking it through. Are Cultists worth 6 points? Did they also put CSM, which no one is bringing, up as well?

 Niiai wrote:
That is just factually wrong. In a game of probabilatty 6 lascannons will have less chancre of killing a carnifex then 8 of the same lascannons will.

Oh brother... if you can't figure out what I meant, then, really why reply?

I don't quite get why intercissors only go up 17% whilest cultists go up 50 %, mostly because if they really intended to make the game smaller then all units would've gone up x ammount of points.

Also when a baseline cultists is now 6 pts the all around supperior IS should be 7 and the worse conscripts 5.

However i allready see 7pts militia coming because of course .

Not Online!!! wrote:
I don't quite get why intercissors only go up 17% whilest cultists go up 50 %, mostly because if they really intended to make the game smaller then all units would've gone up x ammount of points.

Also when a baseline cultists is now 6 pts the all around supperior IS should be 7 and the worse conscripts 5.

However i allready see 7pts militia coming because of course .

Its worrying that they decided to highlight these two uits and the huge difference in the relative change in points. Whilst we don't know alot of context its a fairly provocative choice.

Not Online!!! wrote:
I don't quite get why intercissors only go up 17% whilest cultists go up 50 %, mostly because if they really intended to make the game smaller then all units would've gone up x ammount of points.

Also when a baseline cultists is now 6 pts the all around supperior IS should be 7 and the worse conscripts 5.

However i allready see 7pts militia coming because of course .

Something people seem to be ignoring is that this is just the base cost of the model and in all likelihood Astartes will be paying more for even their basic wargear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I don't quite get why intercissors only go up 17% whilest cultists go up 50 %, mostly because if they really intended to make the game smaller then all units would've gone up x ammount of points.

Also when a baseline cultists is now 6 pts the all around supperior IS should be 7 and the worse conscripts 5.

However i allready see 7pts militia coming because of course .

Its worrying that they decided to highlight these two uits and the huge difference in the relative change in points. Whilst we don't know alot of context its a fairly provocative choice.

Intercessors are a popular C:SM unit, while Cultists where the backbone of most CSM lists for most of 8th. That is likely why they were picked, because everyone has some idea about them because they've seen them regularly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

Latro_ wrote:wow CP at 2k a lot lower than expected[/img]

No kidding. My usual Dark Eldar build just lost like 8CP, possibly more depending on how additional Deatchments work.

tneva82 wrote:Hopefully they have improved them somehow so scenarios won'' be marine gunline favouring like itc

Doesn't sound like it if they're wanting you to select them based on your army's "narrative".

They might give you extra CP still for Battleforged and perhaps a bonus if you went Brigade? I dunno but I was doing Marine Brigade in the first place so I have the same amount of CP.

We know you gain command points in the command phase. Presumably, you will have fewer at the start of the game because each turn you will gain some, which is a very good thing IMO. Reduce the number of "big CP wombo combos" increase the number of CPs tthat get used on later turns of the game.

While I hate the wombo combo play style as well, they need to fix the armies that they've shoehorned into it. And why have cultists gone up 50% but intercessors only 17%? I don't play cultists but many csm players do, and that seems a bit biased.

That's base cost. Chances are wargear also went up, which would hike Intercessors even further.

Aren't all the various intercessor bolt gun variants currently free? So they'll only go up if free equipment goes away.

Bolters and Bolt Rifles are currently free, all others cost points. I assume we'll see all of them go up to compensate for Chapter Tactics at minimum.

It does seem almost designed to cause people to freak out. Especially if intercessor wargear does now cost points - after all, it currently does not, so you'd assume that's the full cost of both of the models being presented.

And you've got one model currently considered overnerfed for its current cost going up much more than, again, the single best troop choice unit in the game currently.

Ice_can wrote:

 Aaranis wrote:
Another thing I believe worth mentioning, is that in the article they specifically use the word "meta" and "alpha strike". I don't think they used those gamer terms before on WHC, and I would guess it comes from more competent playtesters and listening to their feedback that encourages them to use this vocabulary. It shows they're at least AWARE of the main components of competitive play. I remember a WD article or something where they invited top tournament players at their studios and were "shocked" or something upon discovering their list was a mess of a soup. It revealed they had no idea what was actually going on in the average game of 40k.

Guessing you didn't recognise this article is written by Mike Brandt ex Nova open has been heavily involved in Competitive 40k, the guy GW "just hired" as their events guru.

Haha guessed right, I skipped straight to the content of the article ! It's cool they hire people like him though.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Man. I love that they are making everything more expensive to allow for less miniatures per game and more granularity.


The problem? I know how this community works. People hate when they can't take ALL the toys. So the new standard will be 2,5k or 3k points and then with Chapter Approved after Chapter Approved costs will go down again because thats how GW balances nearly everything, making them cheaper, and we'll end up with much bigger armies.

Thats something I have always find very hypocrite. People always says GW makes things cheaper so we need to buy more to play but then most people when things like this happen always claim for playing games with more points instead of just accepting to take a couple less units or models and just changing lists from game to game to use your collection.


Also I have a great dislike for ITC style secondaries that warp the value of many types of units because "they give secondaries too easy" but just the idea of seeing the "face" of Ishagu makes it nearly worth it.

Sad but true. Even if it gives a better game balance to play at lower points people want as much of their toys on the table at once as humanly possible. And then some.

I'm honestly hoping GW doesn't do massive points drops over time, and instead looks at bumping strong units and options up in points but not dropping things lower than we start at.

As for secondaries, with there being set core ones, and the requirement for you to take different types, I don't see the ITC issue being as prevelant due to people not being able to gear up to only kill things to gain points.

Look, you both know point drops are going to happen. Intercessors were originally 20 to begin with, and for the current edition they're 17. Why hope for something that we all GW won't listen to?

I don't know anything about what GW will do long term. I just have a hope that they won't fall down the same slippery slope of racing points to the bottom.

And citing 8th ed doesn't work as well when there is a clear different design goal to actively balance the game and them making a clear note that points costs going up were to add granularity into the game. I don't see them overturning that too easily unless they screw something up.

I mean, you can look at previous editions for the clear going down of units, with the only prime difference being that Chapter Approved made it a faster process.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I don't quite get why intercissors only go up 17% whilest cultists go up 50 %, mostly because if they really intended to make the game smaller then all units would've gone up x ammount of points.

Also when a baseline cultists is now 6 pts the all around supperior IS should be 7 and the worse conscripts 5.

However i allready see 7pts militia coming because of course .

Something people seem to be ignoring is that this is just the base cost of the model and in all likelihood Astartes will be paying more for even their basic wargear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I don't quite get why intercissors only go up 17% whilest cultists go up 50 %, mostly because if they really intended to make the game smaller then all units would've gone up x ammount of points.

Also when a baseline cultists is now 6 pts the all around supperior IS should be 7 and the worse conscripts 5.

However i allready see 7pts militia coming because of course .

Its worrying that they decided to highlight these two uits and the huge difference in the relative change in points. Whilst we don't know alot of context its a fairly provocative choice.

Intercessors are a popular C:SM unit, while Cultists where the backbone of most CSM lists for most of 8th. That is likely why they were picked, because everyone has some idea about them because they've seen them regularly.

How can you be sure? Currently intercessor bolt weapons are free except for auto bolt rifles. Why would you think free basic weapons are going to start having a price?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Man. I love that they are making everything more expensive to allow for less miniatures per game and more granularity.


The problem? I know how this community works. People hate when they can't take ALL the toys. So the new standard will be 2,5k or 3k points and then with Chapter Approved after Chapter Approved costs will go down again because thats how GW balances nearly everything, making them cheaper, and we'll end up with much bigger armies.

Thats something I have always find very hypocrite. People always says GW makes things cheaper so we need to buy more to play but then most people when things like this happen always claim for playing games with more points instead of just accepting to take a couple less units or models and just changing lists from game to game to use your collection.


Also I have a great dislike for ITC style secondaries that warp the value of many types of units because "they give secondaries too easy" but just the idea of seeing the "face" of Ishagu makes it nearly worth it.

Sad but true. Even if it gives a better game balance to play at lower points people want as much of their toys on the table at once as humanly possible. And then some.

I'm honestly hoping GW doesn't do massive points drops over time, and instead looks at bumping strong units and options up in points but not dropping things lower than we start at.

As for secondaries, with there being set core ones, and the requirement for you to take different types, I don't see the ITC issue being as prevelant due to people not being able to gear up to only kill things to gain points.

Look, you both know point drops are going to happen. Intercessors were originally 20 to begin with, and for the current edition they're 17. Why hope for something that we all GW won't listen to?

I don't know anything about what GW will do long term. I just have a hope that they won't fall down the same slippery slope of racing points to the bottom.

And citing 8th ed doesn't work as well when there is a clear different design goal to actively balance the game and them making a clear note that points costs going up were to add granularity into the game. I don't see them overturning that too easily unless they screw something up.

I mean, you can look at previous editions for the clear going down of units, with the only prime difference being that Chapter Approved made it a faster process.

Previous editions don't work as much because they never had someone like Mike Brandt running their event planning in the past, nor did they have such a large group of playtesters on the project.

Basically "well they used to do X" doesn't work because a lot of the evidence is from a different company leadership (who actively pushed model sales over everything else) and a different design ethos from the rules team. 8th stepped away from 3-7th's design ethos, but 9th is sprinting away from it.

"Marines are broken!"

*points adjustments*

"Let's play 3000 points instead!"

I think I need a break from the internet today

the_scotsman wrote:
It does seem almost designed to cause people to freak out. Especially if intercessor wargear does now cost points - after all, it currently does not, so you'd assume that's the full cost of both of the models being presented.

And you've got one model currently considered overnerfed for its current cost going up much more than, again, the single best troop choice unit in the game currently.

It's almost like they are trying to upset the player base which i have heard of outrage marketing but this feels like one heck of a gamble given a lot of people are probably going to be reassessing priorities qith lockdowns layoffs and etc.