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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 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.

Won't that plan go all wrong when everyone starts just theorycrafting lists in the app? I've got tons of lists in battlescribe that I've never played, some with models and armies I don't even have.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm saying that things are actually different now than they were in the past...

*looks at current state of 8th*

Are they though?

Ice_can wrote:

 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.

And even if intercessors have to start paying for their weapons how do we know that cultists won't? Why should we assume that autoguns are still free if bolt rifles suddenly have a price?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 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.

And even if intercessors have to start paying for their weapons how do we know that cultists won't? Why should we assume that autoguns are still free if bolt rifles suddenly have a price?

i seriously doubt also that any boltgun is costing 5 pts for that is what you'd assume the intercissor would get at a free autogun level, to reach about the same hike in price.

and even then the intercissor would still be superior to the cultists in any way and form. Everything less and you end up with another "relative" buff for intercissors.

 Chamberlain wrote:

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.

Sadly I think there will be a fair amount of resistance as folk have armies that fit that point level, and dropping it means having to leave something out and unless it's just a 'oh I guess i'll waste may last points on these mooks' unit people won't want to loose them (or drop the sizes of several units to let them keep everything)

after all there were plenty of complaints about (tournament) games not finishing, but very few tournament player and organisers actually dropped down and played games at lower point levels despite this (and i'm sure the tournaments asked their player base informally if lower points levels would be acceptable as it would have made event running much easier but they didn't do it because the players didn't want it)

So my 2000pts army is now 4000pts as such I can split in two armies now. My collections just doubled.

I think those getting started box sets are going to be actually a chunk of the armies.

I like it.

Did nobody else notice that the Four Pillars deployment map seems to imply the table size is now smaller? 4x5 perhaps.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I'm saying that things are actually different now than they were in the past...

*looks at current state of 8th*

Are they though?

8th took steps to actively try and balance the game more proactively as well as work to correct major rule loopholes. That's a massive change over Kirby's GW era.

And 9th has ramped up playtesting and seems like it's going to be starting in an even better place than 8th did.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 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.

And even if intercessors have to start paying for their weapons how do we know that cultists won't? Why should we assume that autoguns are still free if bolt rifles suddenly have a price?

i seriously doubt also that any boltgun is costing 5 pts for that is what you'd assume the intercissor would get at a free autogun level, to reach about the same hike in price.

and even then the intercissor would still be superior to the cultists in any way and form. Everything less and you end up with another "relative" buff for intercissors.

Because you know which army needs buffs you know just the army with in excess of an avarage 60% Win rate against all other codex's

I like that the game size is right on the mission page. Eternal War - Strike Force is right on The Four Pillars.

My hope is that every scenario was actually tested at the size indicated. Sometimes scenarios just don't work well for smaller games and seeing them actually consider the game size in scenario design is a hopeful sign that they will actually work for the size they say they are for.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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!

The biggest thing that changes is that current point granularity is a bit small on the low end. THe meaningful distinction between a grot, a brimstone horror, a guardsman and a cultist is not really there, and that's caused major issues in 8th with units on the low end.

Raising points across the board adds granularity to the point scale.

 Therion wrote:
Did nobody else notice that the Four Pillars deployment map seems to imply the table size is now smaller? 4x5 perhaps.

Table size is relative to points level, so it's likely a 1k mission.

 Therion wrote:
Did nobody else notice that the Four Pillars deployment map seems to imply the table size is now smaller? 4x5 perhaps.

I think GW said in one of the recent Q&As that they wanted more options for table sizes as not everyone has a 6x4 table at home. 3x5 is quite a common size for dining tables.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Therion wrote:
Did nobody else notice that the Four Pillars deployment map seems to imply the table size is now smaller? 4x5 perhaps.

Table size is relative to points level, so it's likely a 1k mission.

The mission tells you the size right on it. Strike Force. That's 2k. 12 command points.

I feel like Zion has a secret life goal to respond to literally every other post in this thread, no matter how pedantic. Just so I can scroll through 50% more bickering to check the news and developments.



*hits Filter Thread and checks his page count*

 Chamberlain wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Therion wrote:
Did nobody else notice that the Four Pillars deployment map seems to imply the table size is now smaller? 4x5 perhaps.

Table size is relative to points level, so it's likely a 1k mission.

The mission tells you the size right on it. Strike Force. That's 2k. 12 command points.

2k on a 4x4? The game must be getting a fair bit smaller than i thought.

Almost everything shown is good for Marines so far. Horde damage buff. Reduction in starting CP when they are one of the least reliant on it. Soup penalties while they have extra buffs for "choosing" to mono faction. Lesser points increases than the troops choices from their Chaos Worshipping brethren.

Will take seeing what non Marine 9th books look like but the reigning champ is looking almost unscathed so far.

 Red Corsair wrote:
I feel like Zion has a secret life goal to respond to literally every other post in this thread, no matter how pedantic. Just so I can scroll through 50% more bickering to check the news and developments.



*hits Filter Thread and checks his page count*

I'm building a Land Raider Crusader and mostly replying while parts dry at the moment.

 Eldarain wrote:
Almost everything shown is good for Marines so far. Horde damage buff. Reduction in starting CP when they are one of the least reliant on it. Soup penalties while they have extra buffs for "choosing" to mono faction. Lesser points increase than their mirror.

Will take seeing what non Marine 9th books look like but the reigning champ is looking almost unscathed so far.

Agree with all of this.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Therion wrote:
Did nobody else notice that the Four Pillars deployment map seems to imply the table size is now smaller? 4x5 perhaps.

Table size is relative to points level, so it's likely a 1k mission.

The mission tells you the size right on it. Strike Force. That's 2k. 12 command points.

2k on a 4x4? The game must be getting a fair bit smaller than i thought.

Personally I think this can sink the whole edition. Less room for maneouvres and flanks means it’s a straight up push all in to the middle from both sides. The game area should be bigger, not smaller.

 Therion wrote:
Did nobody else notice that the Four Pillars deployment map seems to imply the table size is now smaller? 4x5 perhaps.

It specifically doesn't state a size, it follow the AoS style where everything ia measured from the center, so it can theoretically be played on almost any size of table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Virules wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
Almost everything shown is good for Marines so far. Horde damage buff. Reduction in starting CP when they are one of the least reliant on it. Soup penalties while they have extra buffs for "choosing" to mono faction. Lesser points increase than their mirror.

Will take seeing what non Marine 9th books look like but the reigning champ is looking almost unscathed so far.

Agree with all of this.

Early 9th certainly looks like Marines will still be army to beat to break the meta.

 Eldarain wrote:
Almost everything shown is good for Marines so far. Horde damage buff. Reduction in starting CP when they are one of the least reliant on it. Soup penalties while they have extra buffs for "choosing" to mono faction. Lesser points increase than their mirror.

Will take seeing what non Marine 9th books look like but the reigning champ is looking almost unscathed so far.

Yup. "hey folks we definitely want to make sure there isn't just one best faction when things start out"

*Releases MASSIVE, CRAZY MARINE BUFFS a couple months before new edition, shattering years of a relatively balanced competitive meta*

the_scotsman wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
Almost everything shown is good for Marines so far. Horde damage buff. Reduction in starting CP when they are one of the least reliant on it. Soup penalties while they have extra buffs for "choosing" to mono faction. Lesser points increase than their mirror.

Will take seeing what non Marine 9th books look like but the reigning champ is looking almost unscathed so far.

Yup. "hey folks we definitely want to make sure there isn't just one best faction when things start out"

*Releases MASSIVE, CRAZY MARINE BUFFS a couple months before new edition, shattering years of a relatively balanced competitive meta*

Don't forget all the new models. I'm sure their rules won't be remotely OP.

 Sasori wrote:

 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.

Just because they change points for everything doesn\t mean everything goes up and it most definitely don't mean everything goes up same. The stuff that was junk either needs serious help in rules or by minimum stay same points(While others go up) or even go down. Yes even if other stuff goes up there's stuff that still deserves point drops. Stompa, warhound, warlord, reaver to name some extreme ones.


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.

And you know they didn't basically do that...how? After all if we see every unit go up equally then we know they weren't even trying to balance the points.

 Therion wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Therion wrote:
Did nobody else notice that the Four Pillars deployment map seems to imply the table size is now smaller? 4x5 perhaps.

Table size is relative to points level, so it's likely a 1k mission.

The mission tells you the size right on it. Strike Force. That's 2k. 12 command points.

2k on a 4x4? The game must be getting a fair bit smaller than i thought.

Personally I think this can sink the whole edition. Less room for maneouvres and flanks means it’s a straight up push all in to the middle from both sides. The game area should be bigger, not smaller.

The map shown for the example mission doesn't specify a table size though, all measurments on it are relative to the centre of the table. Exactly like they did in 8th in fact, where all measurments on the deployment maps were either relative to the centre, board edge or each other, but never stipulated a table size, though the matched play rules did suggest that you play on a 6x4 at 2K.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
Almost everything shown is good for Marines so far. Horde damage buff. Reduction in starting CP when they are one of the least reliant on it. Soup penalties while they have extra buffs for "choosing" to mono faction. Lesser points increase than their mirror.

Will take seeing what non Marine 9th books look like but the reigning champ is looking almost unscathed so far.

Yup. "hey folks we definitely want to make sure there isn't just one best faction when things start out"

*Releases MASSIVE, CRAZY MARINE BUFFS a couple months before new edition, shattering years of a relatively balanced competitive meta*

Don't forget all the new models. I'm sure their rules won't be remotely OP.

You mean like the new CSM were, or Howling Banshees?

 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.

Just one issue. GW doesn't control that value. Players do. Which of course leads to major issue because playerds are quite likely to up to 2500 or 3000 or whatever gives about same models they got before. And then complain "40k armies cost so many $$$ it's ridiculous!" forgetting they are to blame as well. They did this already. Them doing it again wouldn't even be surprise.

What GW can do is change point costs of units and HOPE players don't up the game size in response...AGAIN.

The kit didn't have the Chaincannon did it?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

They said no such thing(unless I missed something). They said they want model count go down. The chart also indicates 3k is not the default for GW(default isn't biggest one for GW)

that points increase is no surprise

there was just no room left to balance anything on the lower end

but my fear is that a lot of people are now going to aim for 3k points instead of 2k.

We have seen something similar at the beginning of 8th were all those voices called for 2k standard game size because after the point increase for vehicles they cannot get their collection on the table at lower points.

and this time there will also be people who say that 12CP is not enough and 3k is the minimum for a good game

so I won't be suprised if ITC starts with 3000 point tournaments as the new standard

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The kit didn't have the Chaincannon did it?

No, the CSM kit only has the 3 Specials, Heavy Bolter, and Missile Launcher. Chain Cannons, Lascannons, and Autocannons only come in the Havoc kit.