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.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 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?

Increased granularity being a design goal tells me we should expect to see wargear costs shift in points cost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

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.

I think the tinfoil hatting is getting a little silly. As I pointed out earlier, they were the most common troops choices of 8th, making them good, easy to recognize examples everyone can recognize with little to no need to go check CA 2019.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Increased granularity being a design goal tells me we should expect to see wargear costs shift in points cost.

*kicks hornet's nest*

Unless you're playing PL.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Increased granularity being a design goal tells me we should expect to see wargear costs shift in points cost.

*kicks hornet's nest*

Unless you're playing PL.

We'll see. We don't know if they fixed that or not yet.

Interesting. If its really a global points increase, I'm glad to see it. The current system is utterly flawed by the low floor.

Was going to complain about the lack of 1500 point games, but the fit in the chart without a problem. 1500- 9 CP.
Wish they'd worked that in as a standard size rather than 3000, however.

Secondary objectives seem interesting, but its hard to tell. Some of the details are heavily obscured by GW buzzwords and corp-speak. 'bespoke deployment zones' in particular had my eyes rolling.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

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.

Oh yeah those playtesters that didn't let Castellans or Iron Hands or -5 to hit Hemlocks happen or give Word Bearers the most amazing Legion tactic in the whole CSM schema. We are certainly going to be okay you're right. There's no pattern from GW ever!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Oh yeah those playtesters that didn't let Castellans or Iron Hands or -5 to hit Hemlocks happen or give Word Bearers the most amazing Legion tactic in the whole CSM schema. We are certainly going to be okay you're right. There's no pattern from GW ever!

Sarcasm noted, and then discarded as useless to actual discussion.

The playtesting group for 8th was clearly smaller than the one for 9th. IIRC they said they had one for each game type...and that was basically it. 9th looks like it has a nice range of playtesting groups, some of which cover multiple game types (like Tabletop Tactics).

Look, GW can always screw this up, but putting the cart before the horse doesn't promote discussion, it just leads to one of many "the sky is falling" panic attacks this board is known for everytime any change is announced.

Ice_can wrote:
Just a different target audience, the people making the most use from PL don't care how powerful it is/isn't necessarily. They're the people who insist on running tacticals with missiles and flamers because they like how it looks, or only putting the thunder hammer on a squad leader because that makes sergeant Somename stand out. Maybe they have an army where every weapon upgrade is a flamer, not efficient but they love their theme.

I have scions with not a single plasma weapon in the whole army.

Author-lost-in-editing wrote:
Except GW is now trying to say that the two systems are balanced enough that you can use your crusade force (in PL) against a match play army in Points. That seems totally at odds with the point of creating two systems in the first place as they aren't going to be balanced.

I've played about twenty PL vs Points games in 8th and they were fine. What determines if it will work? Are the players on the same page in terms of army building approach? If one player is about making their army as strong as possible and the other is picking what they think looks cool, no points or PL or any other system will make up for that.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Kaneda88 wrote:
This is the 9 edition thread...

And in their latest 9th Ed preview, GW talked about how PL and points armies can play against one another. So...

And they could in 8th. I did it a lot. How much is each army optimized? That's the determinant of whether or not it will work, not whether you are using points system 1 or points system 2.

BaconCatBug wrote:
Why Oh Why bother with an alternative "point" system which fell totally flat the first time around (8th ed).

GW has a source of information you don't have. Usage statistics for Combat Roster. They know exactly how many times people used that and made a PL based list and saved it or printed it or whatever. I bet there are loads of more casual home gamers like myself who used it all the time. Everyone thinks that they way they play is the vast majority, but it's likely not true. Not everyone plays like you, not everyone plays like me. GW has data, we don't. They are keeping PL for the new edition.

About the latest article:

"Finally, as part of developing the new edition, points values were reviewed and have been adjusted UP across every faction. This may sound odd at first, but it yields several benefits. Firstly, games will play faster with, generally speaking, smaller armies on either side. This also makes starting a fresh army for the new edition a more accessible, quicker experience."

I am all for a reduced model count. The game bogs down enough. Hopefully both PL and Points are based on this sort of approach.

The scenarios they've been talking about with things like passing a psychic test to score a progressive objective sound cool too.

Voss wrote:
Interesting. If its really a global points increase, I'm glad to see it. The current system is utterly flawed by the low floor.

Was going to complain about the lack of 1500 point games, but the fit in the chart without a problem. 1500- 9 CP.
Wish they'd worked that in as a standard size rather than 3000, however.

Secondary objectives seem interesting, but its hard to tell. Some of the details are heavily obscured by GW buzzwords and corp-speak. 'bespoke deployment zones' in particular had my eyes rolling.

I doubt it's global. Some units are already over costed. If they increase the price of the marine super heavys any more they might as well stop making rules for them in 40k and only sell them for hh.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 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:

Spoiler:

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?

Increased granularity being a design goal tells me we should expect to see wargear costs shift in points cost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

Spoiler:

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.

I think the tinfoil hatting is getting a little silly. As I pointed out earlier, they were the most common troops choices of 8th, making them good, easy to recognize examples everyone can recognize with little to no need to go check CA 2019.

If that's the case and intercessors no longer get free weapons what is the good reason not to show that in the artical and avoid pissing people off?

Nightmare scenario:

GW puts the price of units up without factoring in whether they are effective at all (let's use the Trygon as an example).

GW then rewrites the Tyranid Codex and makes Trygons better (yay!) and then says "Well, we made it better... so we'd better increase its points cost!" without factoring in that they already did that.

Given how often GW design Codices/units in a vacuum, I'm worried about units being "double dipped", so to speak, in the points area.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Voss wrote:
Interesting. If its really a global points increase, I'm glad to see it. The current system is utterly flawed by the low floor.

Was going to complain about the lack of 1500 point games, but the fit in the chart without a problem. 1500- 9 CP.
Wish they'd worked that in as a standard size rather than 3000, however.

Secondary objectives seem interesting, but its hard to tell. Some of the details are heavily obscured by GW buzzwords and corp-speak. 'bespoke deployment zones' in particular had my eyes rolling.

I doubt it's global. Some units are already over costed. If they increase the price of the marine super heavys any more they might as well stop making rules for them in 40k and only sell them for hh.

They were pretty explicit in the stream about changing the points for everything. They mentioned that the current points may have suited 8th, but they don't suit 9th.

Will that mean every single thing got it's points adjusted? Probably not, but the vast, vast majority will.

GW point increase is allready flawed. If you want to make a general point increase to make games "smaller" and have more room on the low cost units the increase should be the same in % for every unit.

Then after that you can start costing things individually and adjusting based in performance, of course, but thats a totally different beast.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nightmare scenario:

GW puts the price of units up without factoring in whether they are effective at all (let's use the Trygon as an example).

GW then rewrites the Tyranid Codex and makes Trygons better (yay!) and then says "Well, we made it better... so we'd better increase its points cost!" without factoring in that they already did that.

Given how often GW design Codices/units in a vacuum, I'm worried about units being "double dipped", so to speak, in the points area.

I would put nothing past them, this could happen.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nightmare scenario:

GW puts the price of units up without factoring in whether they are effective at all (let's use the Trygon as an example).

GW then rewrites the Tyranid Codex and makes Trygons better (yay!) and then says "Well, we made it better... so we'd better increase its points cost!" without factoring in that they already did that.

Given how often GW design Codices/units in a vacuum, I'm worried about units being "double dipped", so to speak, in the points area.

I think it's more likely we'll see them continuing their current stance of "You didn't like using this unit, well we've made it better and cheaper" which can be a good thing given how massively far off from OK the stat blocks and abilities of units like the Trygon (seriously, S7 and T6 on a model that big?) started out, but 8th showed they are quite likely going to swing too hard in many cases.

Well, you see, cultists have far less firepower than intercessors so when you forego a turn of shooting to run the flag up the flagpole for the "At Full Mast" mission objective they lose out on a lot less. This makes them far more valuable and thus their pts cost went up. That's why in 9th the better a unit is, the less pts it costs! It all makes sense if you think about it.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Voss wrote:
Interesting. If its really a global points increase, I'm glad to see it. The current system is utterly flawed by the low floor.

Was going to complain about the lack of 1500 point games, but the fit in the chart without a problem. 1500- 9 CP.
Wish they'd worked that in as a standard size rather than 3000, however.

Secondary objectives seem interesting, but its hard to tell. Some of the details are heavily obscured by GW buzzwords and corp-speak. 'bespoke deployment zones' in particular had my eyes rolling.

I doubt it's global. Some units are already over costed. If they increase the price of the marine super heavys any more they might as well stop making rules for them in 40k and only sell them for hh.

They said each faction, but they didn't say every model.

Knowing how this works, it means everything but Cenobyte Servitors will go up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
If that's the case and intercessors no longer get free weapons what is the good reason not to show that in the artical and avoid pissing people off?

People have been pissed off at every article this week due to "how little" information is being presented. It's clear they won't show their hand all at once and they want to save stuff for later.

 Chamberlain wrote:


About the latest article:

"Finally, as part of developing the new edition, points values were reviewed and have been adjusted UP across every faction. This may sound odd at first, but it yields several benefits. Firstly, games will play faster with, generally speaking, smaller armies on either side. This also makes starting a fresh army for the new edition a more accessible, quicker experience."

I know this isn't directed at the poster of the quote, but GW in general.

So... adjusting points for everything in the entire game upwards to make the game a little smaller.
Just a thought... wouldn't changing a single number for game size downwards accomplish the same thing? Eg, drop from 1750 games to 1500 or whatever values are used these days.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nightmare scenario:

GW puts the price of units up without factoring in whether they are effective at all (let's use the Trygon as an example).

GW then rewrites the Tyranid Codex and makes Trygons better (yay!) and then says "Well, we made it better... so we'd better increase its points cost!" without factoring in that they already did that.

Given how often GW design Codices/units in a vacuum, I'm worried about units being "double dipped", so to speak, in the points area.

An interesting theory, but they don't playtest in a vacuum and it seems they're starting to listen to the playtesters a lot more.

Plus I did see someone put forth the idea that they might use the app to collect data on the lists people are building and use that to help spot units that are rarely, if ever, being played.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
GW point increase is allready flawed. If you want to make a general point increase to make games "smaller" and have more room on the low cost units the increase should be the same in % for every unit.

Then after that you can start costing things individually and adjusting based in performance, of course, but thats a totally different beast.

That only works if the core rules stay the same. Cheap chaffe units might have gained more value as units who preform actions (like siphoning in that example mission) since they're easy to spam meaning they needed a bigger points hike then already expensive elite infantry. That's just a guess, but considering they said points changes were made because of the changes to the game changing strengths and weaknesses of various units I could see that being the sort of thinking that would lead to different points hikes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:


About the latest article:

"Finally, as part of developing the new edition, points values were reviewed and have been adjusted UP across every faction. This may sound odd at first, but it yields several benefits. Firstly, games will play faster with, generally speaking, smaller armies on either side. This also makes starting a fresh army for the new edition a more accessible, quicker experience."

I know this isn't directed at the poster of the quote, but GW in general.

So... adjusting points for everything in the entire game upwards to make the game a little smaller.
Just a thought... wouldn't changing a single number for game size downwards accomplish the same thing? Eg, drop from 1750 games to 1500 or whatever values are used these days.

10:1 people would still just play larger sized games no matter what GW said the points ceiling is, so they tried to account for that and said 3k is the new 2k pre-emptively.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:


About the latest article:

"Finally, as part of developing the new edition, points values were reviewed and have been adjusted UP across every faction. This may sound odd at first, but it yields several benefits. Firstly, games will play faster with, generally speaking, smaller armies on either side. This also makes starting a fresh army for the new edition a more accessible, quicker experience."

I know this isn't directed at the poster of the quote, but GW in general.

So... adjusting points for everything in the entire game upwards to make the game a little smaller.
Just a thought... wouldn't changing a single number for game size downwards accomplish the same thing? Eg, drop from 1750 games to 1500 or whatever values are used these days.

I think its more of a means to increase the range of points costs so you have more to play with when pointing one unit vs another.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
Just a thought... wouldn't changing a single number for game size downwards accomplish the same thing? Eg, drop from 1750 games to 1500 or whatever values are used these days.

Stop using logic. That is verboten!

Given that they are changing every unit showing the full cost of the two unit including all options would have been far more useful as a guide as to what to expect.

Yeah. I mean GW did. use 1750 as the standard for most of 8th and the (tournament) world largely ignored it.

If anything, GW has always been unsuccessful in getting people to play the smaller games they think represent the “default”.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
So... adjusting points for everything in the entire game upwards to make the game a little smaller.
Just a thought... wouldn't changing a single number for game size downwards accomplish the same thing? Eg, drop from 1750 games to 1500 or whatever values are used these days.

Then you wouldn't gain the increased granularity in point balance between units, the right thing to do is to increase the scale to allow for more subtle changes. There was a huge mess on the forum where people wanted Guardsmen to go from 4 to 5 pts, but then that would mean Veterans would have to go from 5 to 6, and then why bother using a Veteran when x unit is already 6 pts... And so forth. If they multiply all values by two we can have 8 pts Guardsmen that go up to 9 pts, while the Veteran stays at 10 or 11. Something like that.

Unless somehow the community decides to jump to 2500 or 3000 point games as a result, I admit I am pretty bummed about this change. I really enjoyed the points costs getting lowered and having more diversity in the amount and variety of models in my army and my opponent's army. I appreciate that they want to make the game faster but I was really hoping they could do that through rules changes rather than just be forcing people to bring less models.

I am also skeptical that they will get the granularity right, if the Cultist versus Intercessor comparison is anything to go by....those changes seem really off, at least for 8th, to the detriment of the Chaos player.

 Virules wrote:
...those changes seem really off, at least for 8th, to the detriment of the Chaos player.

So, business as usual then?

 Mr Morden wrote:
Given that they are changing every unit showing the full cost of the two unit including all options would have been far more useful as a guide as to what to expect.

That assumes that isn't what they have already shown us as currently 2 of the three weapons options are free for intercessors.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Oh yeah those playtesters that didn't let Castellans or Iron Hands or -5 to hit Hemlocks happen or give Word Bearers the most amazing Legion tactic in the whole CSM schema. We are certainly going to be okay you're right. There's no pattern from GW ever!

Sarcasm noted, and then discarded as useless to actual discussion.

The playtesting group for 8th was clearly smaller than the one for 9th. IIRC they said they had one for each game type...and that was basically it. 9th looks like it has a nice range of playtesting groups, some of which cover multiple game types (like Tabletop Tactics).

Look, GW can always screw this up, but putting the cart before the horse doesn't promote discussion, it just leads to one of many "the sky is falling" panic attacks this board is known for everytime any change is announced.

It isn't a panic. It's known they will inevitably screw up. I don't need to play 9th to know it will end up the same as 4th-8th. It's what GW does for a living. Essentially you're saying "give them a 5th chance!" after the last several editions.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Virules wrote:
...those changes seem really off, at least for 8th, to the detriment of the Chaos player.

So, business as usual then?

Don't remind me. Engine War :(

Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:


About the latest article:

"Finally, as part of developing the new edition, points values were reviewed and have been adjusted UP across every faction. This may sound odd at first, but it yields several benefits. Firstly, games will play faster with, generally speaking, smaller armies on either side. This also makes starting a fresh army for the new edition a more accessible, quicker experience."

I know this isn't directed at the poster of the quote, but GW in general.

So... adjusting points for everything in the entire game upwards to make the game a little smaller.
Just a thought... wouldn't changing a single number for game size downwards accomplish the same thing? Eg, drop from 1750 games to 1500 or whatever values are used these days.

Yes. I think people like round numbers. 1500 as the standard lasted for a long long time and I think 2000 will last a long time as well. It's all just psychology, but I think it'll make the 2000 as a standard full sized game stick even with a few less models. I don't think we'll see too many events going to 2250. 8th has had issues with games at events finishing in a timely manner and I don't think we'll see any resistance to a lower model count 2000 points.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Oh yeah those playtesters that didn't let Castellans or Iron Hands or -5 to hit Hemlocks happen or give Word Bearers the most amazing Legion tactic in the whole CSM schema. We are certainly going to be okay you're right. There's no pattern from GW ever!

Sarcasm noted, and then discarded as useless to actual discussion.

The playtesting group for 8th was clearly smaller than the one for 9th. IIRC they said they had one for each game type...and that was basically it. 9th looks like it has a nice range of playtesting groups, some of which cover multiple game types (like Tabletop Tactics).

Look, GW can always screw this up, but putting the cart before the horse doesn't promote discussion, it just leads to one of many "the sky is falling" panic attacks this board is known for everytime any change is announced.

It isn't a panic. It's known they will inevitably screw up. I don't need to play 9th to know it will end up the same as 4th-8th. It's what GW does for a living. Essentially you're saying "give them a 5th chance!" after the last several editions.

I'm saying that things are actually different now than they were in the past, so it's less "give them a chance" and more "let's see what they actually do before saying they screwed it all up".