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.

The purpose of points is to attempt to make a comparable army when playing someone else. Something that is worth x points in one army might be functionally worth more in a different army just because of rules, stratagems, and other differences. . What might not be good in one book would be a no brainer another book. Obviously it’s not perfect and other synergies within any given list will have disparate impact but the idea is there.

I was saying that percentages are easily deceptive/misleading in trying to compare different units across books. If it was an internal comparison like scouts to intercessors or cultists to chaos marines then we could have a much more concrete discussion.

Someone says cultists went up by 50% while marines went up x% I can argue that marines went up by 50% more than cultists did. Again both are true statements, but the impression given is the opposite.

tneva82 wrote:
They most definitely need to be lot cheaper than marines(who btw have 2 wounds per model vs your 1...So 1 basic primaris marine is 20 pts, 3+, 2 wounds vs your 24 pts for 2 4+ save wounds).

If you ever needed more proof that GW designs things in a vacuum, look no further than this example.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
They most definitely need to be lot cheaper than marines(who btw have 2 wounds per model vs your 1...So 1 basic primaris marine is 20 pts, 3+, 2 wounds vs your 24 pts for 2 4+ save wounds).

If you ever needed more proof that GW designs things in a vacuum, look no further than this example.

I think it proves that dakka posters complain in a vacuum. Points are based on more the bit of data quoted. that 24 pts buys 2 guns vs 1, there are different other abilities (resurection vs ATSKNF etc). It may work out as bad, but not simply in the vacuum of saves and wounds.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Latro_ wrote:
On the playtester front i agree about bias, even if its unintentional and even if they did the most balanced testing ever and fed that back it matters not.

40K for GW is a package, it always has been. The rules are one component of that. They wanna build a package which also has lore, art style, model coolness, buisness and marketability factors.

For them its like the equalizer on an old stereo, they tweak each lever until they get an overall sound they are happy with.

Well can someone please tell them to turn the knob away from Dragon Force and back towards Bolt Thrower?

Mine is stuck on Gloryhammer.

Gaahhh!!! Dang it! I looked that up. Do you know how much black metal I'll have to listen to to bleach that out of my ears? (Actually, that won't be a bad thing).

What, no Baby Metal?

puree wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
They most definitely need to be lot cheaper than marines(who btw have 2 wounds per model vs your 1...So 1 basic primaris marine is 20 pts, 3+, 2 wounds vs your 24 pts for 2 4+ save wounds).

If you ever needed more proof that GW designs things in a vacuum, look no further than this example.

I think it proves that dakka posters complain in a vacuum. Points are based on more the bit of data quoted. that 24 pts buys 2 guns vs 1, there are different other abilities (resurection vs ATSKNF etc). It may work out as bad, but not simply in the vacuum of saves and wounds.

yeaaah looking at defence while ignoring offense is downright silly. we all know firepower is almost always > defence.

Leth wrote:The purpose of points is to attempt to make a comparable army when playing someone else. Something that is worth x points in one army might be functionally worth more in a different army just because of rules, stratagems, and other differences. . What might not be good in one book would be a no brainer another book. Obviously it’s not perfect and other synergies within any given list will have disparate impact but the idea is there.

I was saying that percentages are easily deceptive/misleading in trying to compare different units across books. If it was an internal comparison like scouts to intercessors or cultists to chaos marines then we could have a much more concrete discussion.

Someone says cultists went up by 50% while marines went up x% I can argue that marines went up by 50% more than cultists did. Again both are true statements, but the impression given is the opposite.

Ok, what "rules, strategems, and other differences" explain why a 1W, 6+ save chaff unit that doesn't get legion traits went up by 50% while a 2W, 3+ save unit that benefits from chapter tactics, doctrines, and super doctrines and is generally considered to be the best troops choice in the game only went up by 17%?

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Latro_ wrote:
On the playtester front i agree about bias, even if its unintentional and even if they did the most balanced testing ever and fed that back it matters not.

40K for GW is a package, it always has been. The rules are one component of that. They wanna build a package which also has lore, art style, model coolness, buisness and marketability factors.

For them its like the equalizer on an old stereo, they tweak each lever until they get an overall sound they are happy with.

Well can someone please tell them to turn the knob away from Dragon Force and back towards Bolt Thrower?

Mine is stuck on Gloryhammer.

Gaahhh!!! Dang it! I looked that up. Do you know how much black metal I'll have to listen to to bleach that out of my ears? (Actually, that won't be a bad thing).

What, no Baby Metal?

Are you a Dark Eldar? Please, stop the torture.

No idea, I don’t have enough information to make a claim one way or the other on it.

Also, your argument would be better served by saying one went from x points to y rather than using the percentage argument that we already know is a skewed representation of the information. As I have shown I can present it as just as skewed with percentages in the opposite direction.

Same with sticking to within book comparisons rather than across books. If something isn’t an option for a book then it is not a Realistic comparison point since those are not the options for any given army.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
They most definitely need to be lot cheaper than marines(who btw have 2 wounds per model vs your 1...So 1 basic primaris marine is 20 pts, 3+, 2 wounds vs your 24 pts for 2 4+ save wounds).

If you ever needed more proof that GW designs things in a vacuum, look no further than this example.

So you're saying an army with 2-wound models DOES have something going for it?

 gorgon wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
They most definitely need to be lot cheaper than marines(who btw have 2 wounds per model vs your 1...So 1 basic primaris marine is 20 pts, 3+, 2 wounds vs your 24 pts for 2 4+ save wounds).

If you ever needed more proof that GW designs things in a vacuum, look no further than this example.

So you're saying an army with 2-wound models DOES have something going for it?

Beautifully done. All the better when the 2nd Marine book was 8th's 3.5 Chaos dex

 gorgon wrote:
So you're saying an army with 2-wound models DOES have something going for it?

Seems that way.

Meshuggah or get rekt

Leth wrote:No idea, I don’t have enough information to make a claim one way or the other on it.

Also, your argument would be better served by saying one went from x points to y rather than using the percentage argument that we already know is a skewed representation of the information. As I have shown I can present it as just as skewed with percentages in the opposite direction.

Same with sticking to within book comparisons rather than across books. If something isn’t an option for a book then it is not a Realistic comparison point since those are not the options for any given army.

No, you can't. It is a fact that cultists increased in price by 50% while intercessors increased by 17%. Your argument isn't a fair comparison. It twists numbers.

Eldarain wrote:Beautifully done. All the better when the 2nd Marine book was 8th's 3.5 Chaos dex

That's sacrilege!

 Leth wrote:
Also, your argument would be better served by saying one went from x points to y rather than using the percentage argument that we already know is a skewed representation of the information. As I have shown I can present it as just as skewed with percentages in the opposite direction.

Your argument would be better served by using math correctly. There's nothing wrong with comparing percentage increases. In fact, the whole point of doing it that way is so that we can compare relative increases between models that currently have different base costs. You cannot argue that a model whose cost goes up by 50% isn't somehow worse off relative to a model whose cost goes up by 17%, all else being equal. Now we know that all else is not equal because the rules are changing too. But that's different than somehow arguing that percentages don't work.

Intercessors increased in points by 50% more than cultists did, true or false? Cultists received 33% less of a points increase than intercessors did, true or false?

I didn’t say percentages don’t work, I said that they present a skewed picture as I just illustrated. Percentages only work when comparing reasonably close items, otherwise so many other variables can account for the variance in outcomes that a direct comparison is pointless at best and maliciously misleading at worst.

Now if you want to argue that cultists and intercessors fill comparable roles on the battlefield in a marine and chaos army, and that they are primarily used for the same thing, then you might be making a valid comparison. However that would require a lot of quantifying of different stats, it’s values, and other such things that I highly doubt you have done.

If someone’s primary goal is to fill a battalions troop requirements for a cheap as possible than a cultist is vastly more efficient than an intercessors. If they want their unit to have offensive output? Then the intercessors is vastly more efficient, So on and so forth.

Hence, I can’t say that one is significantly better than the other given they fill significantly different purposes and roles, especially with how army composition has changed. Before you might need 60 cultists to get the CP you want, now you only need 30.

 Leth wrote:
Intercessors increased in points by 50% more than cultists did, true or false? Cultists received 33% less of a points increase than intercessors did, true or false?

I didn’t say percentages don’t work, I said that they present a skewed picture as I just illustrated. Percentages only work when comparing reasonably close items, otherwise so many other variables can account for the variance in outcomes that a direct comparison is pointless at best and maliciously misleading at worst.

You didn't illustrate anything. The stats you posted are irrelevant. Why are you dividing the pts increase of the intercessors by the pts increase of cultists? What question does that calculation seek to answer?

I can take any 2 random pt values and divide them to come up with a percentage too. That doesn't make the percentage meaningful. But the percent increase in cost however is meaningful. You get a certain amount of utility for the pts you pay. For cultists that utility is now 50% more expensive. For primaris it's 17%. Unless the underlying utility of each unit also changed a comparable amount under the new ruleset the cultists received a nerf relative to primaris. How is this difficult to understand?

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Intercessors increased in points by 50% more than cultists did, true or false? Cultists received 33% less of a points increase than intercessors did, true or false?

I didn’t say percentages don’t work, I said that they present a skewed picture as I just illustrated. Percentages only work when comparing reasonably close items, otherwise so many other variables can account for the variance in outcomes that a direct comparison is pointless at best and maliciously misleading at worst.

You didn't illustrate anything. The stats you posted are irrelevant. Why are you dividing the pts increase of the intercessors by the pts increase of cultists? What question does that calculation seek to answer?

I can take any 2 random pt values and divide them to come up with a percentage too. That doesn't make the percentage meaningful. But the percent increase in cost however is meaningful. You get a certain amount of utility for the pts you pay. For cultists that utility is now 50% more expensive. For primaris it's 17%. Unless the underlying utility of each unit also changed a comparable amount under the new ruleset the cultists received a nerf relative to primaris. How is this difficult to understand?

Honestly why is anyone trying to compare percentages of points increase between two units in two different codexes whose points costs aren't even that close to each other to start with?

No one posting here arguing the points changes in any direction knows more than anyone else. All this back and forth about one unit getting shafted or not is honestly premature. For all we know there may be a rule for scoring that favors hordes, or Cultists might lose the "Mere Mortal" rule in 9th. Who the heck knows.

Yes, in 8th edition such a points hike for Cultists would only break the unit further, but in 9th? Can anyone honestly say they know for a fact that Cultists are going to be better or worse than before?

Really the issue of % increase in the cost of Intercessors versus Cultist is looking at the issue the wrong way. The question isn't which unit had a bigger % increase in points. The question is are the current points values a better representation of their overall effectiveness in the game. In sort, which if these is more accurate:

A) 1 Intercessor (17 points) is slightly better than 4 Cultist (4 points each for 16 points)
B) 1 Intercessor (20 points) is slightly better than 3 Cultist (6 points each for 18 points)

 alextroy wrote:
Really the issue of % increase in the cost of Intercessors versus Cultist is looking at the issue the wrong way. The question isn't which unit had a bigger % increase in points. The question is are the current points values a better representation of their overall effectiveness in the game. In sort, which if these is more accurate:

A) 1 Intercessor (17 points) is slightly better than 4 Cultist (4 points each for 16 points)
B) 1 Intercessor (20 points) is slightly better than 3 Cultist (6 points each for 18 points)

Both of which are impossible to judge on the basis of 9th ed's standards.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Intercessors increased in points by 50% more than cultists did, true or false? Cultists received 33% less of a points increase than intercessors did, true or false?

I didn’t say percentages don’t work, I said that they present a skewed picture as I just illustrated. Percentages only work when comparing reasonably close items, otherwise so many other variables can account for the variance in outcomes that a direct comparison is pointless at best and maliciously misleading at worst.

You didn't illustrate anything. The stats you posted are irrelevant. Why are you dividing the pts increase of the intercessors by the pts increase of cultists? What question does that calculation seek to answer?

I can take any 2 random pt values and divide them to come up with a percentage too. That doesn't make the percentage meaningful. But the percent increase in cost however is meaningful. You get a certain amount of utility for the pts you pay. For cultists that utility is now 50% more expensive. For primaris it's 17%. Unless the underlying utility of each unit also changed a comparable amount under the new ruleset the cultists received a nerf relative to primaris. How is this difficult to understand?

Honestly why is anyone trying to compare percentages of points increase between two units in two different codexes whose points costs aren't even that close to each other to start with?

No one posting here arguing the points changes in any direction knows more than anyone else. All this back and forth about one unit getting shafted or not is honestly premature. For all we know there may be a rule for scoring that favors hordes, or Cultists might lose the "Mere Mortal" rule in 9th. Who the heck knows.

Yes, in 8th edition such a points hike for Cultists would only break the unit further, but in 9th? Can anyone honestly say they know for a fact that Cultists are going to be better or worse than before?

No, but it's unlikely that anything could warrant that much of an increase relative to intercessors. Losing "Mere Mortals" wouldn't do it. The only mission we've seen so far doesn't seem to favor hordes. In fact, the inclusion of secondary objectives is supposed to make it easier to score with different types of forces. So it seems doubtful that hordes will be favored. New information could change these perceptions, but until anything new comes forward the points increase of cultists relative to intercessors doesn't make sense and looks unfair.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Really the issue of % increase in the cost of Intercessors versus Cultist is looking at the issue the wrong way. The question isn't which unit had a bigger % increase in points. The question is are the current points values a better representation of their overall effectiveness in the game. In sort, which if these is more accurate:

A) 1 Intercessor (17 points) is slightly better than 4 Cultist (4 points each for 16 points)
B) 1 Intercessor (20 points) is slightly better than 3 Cultist (6 points each for 18 points)

Both of which are impossible to judge on the basis of 9th ed's standards.

Then why argue about the merits of the relative points increase?

Besides, which is closer to true in 8th Edition? 9th will have changes, but nothing so far is so earth shattering to make the comparison completely useless before you have the full rules in your hand.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Intercessors increased in points by 50% more than cultists did, true or false? Cultists received 33% less of a points increase than intercessors did, true or false?

I didn’t say percentages don’t work, I said that they present a skewed picture as I just illustrated. Percentages only work when comparing reasonably close items, otherwise so many other variables can account for the variance in outcomes that a direct comparison is pointless at best and maliciously misleading at worst.

You didn't illustrate anything. The stats you posted are irrelevant. Why are you dividing the pts increase of the intercessors by the pts increase of cultists? What question does that calculation seek to answer?

I can take any 2 random pt values and divide them to come up with a percentage too. That doesn't make the percentage meaningful. But the percent increase in cost however is meaningful. You get a certain amount of utility for the pts you pay. For cultists that utility is now 50% more expensive. For primaris it's 17%. Unless the underlying utility of each unit also changed a comparable amount under the new ruleset the cultists received a nerf relative to primaris. How is this difficult to understand?

Honestly why is anyone trying to compare percentages of points increase between two units in two different codexes whose points costs aren't even that close to each other to start with?

No one posting here arguing the points changes in any direction knows more than anyone else. All this back and forth about one unit getting shafted or not is honestly premature. For all we know there may be a rule for scoring that favors hordes, or Cultists might lose the "Mere Mortal" rule in 9th. Who the heck knows.

Yes, in 8th edition such a points hike for Cultists would only break the unit further, but in 9th? Can anyone honestly say they know for a fact that Cultists are going to be better or worse than before?

No, but it's unlikely that anything could warrant that much of an increase relative to intercessors. Losing "Mere Mortals" wouldn't do it. The only mission we've seen so far doesn't seem to favor hordes. In fact, the inclusion of secondary objectives is supposed to make it easier to score with different types of forces. So it seems doubtful that hordes will be favored. New information could change these perceptions, but until anything new comes forward the points increase of cultists relative to intercessors doesn't make sense and looks unfair.

Honestly this is the issue when dealing with comparisons across such a massive points spread.

If I said unit A got a 2ppm increase but Unit B got a 3ppm increase in a vaccuum that sounds like Unit B got the larger increase. If you say Unit A went up 50%ppm while unit B went up 20%ppm then it sounds like unit A got the larger increase.

Neither represents the fact that Unit A was 4ppm while unit B was 17ppm.

And that information doesn't reflect the unknown variables we haven't seen.

Look, I get that people want to make snap decisions from incomplete information, but jumping to conclusions on how the game works, or will work based on what we know is just setting yourself up to end up burnt out from being upset about everything all the time.

I prefer to be mad knowing everything so I can form a coherent and complete argument over all this back and forth over what is basically a big case of "well it looks bad out of context".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Really the issue of % increase in the cost of Intercessors versus Cultist is looking at the issue the wrong way. The question isn't which unit had a bigger % increase in points. The question is are the current points values a better representation of their overall effectiveness in the game. In sort, which if these is more accurate:

A) 1 Intercessor (17 points) is slightly better than 4 Cultist (4 points each for 16 points)
B) 1 Intercessor (20 points) is slightly better than 3 Cultist (6 points each for 18 points)

Both of which are impossible to judge on the basis of 9th ed's standards.

Then why argue about the merits of the relative points increase?

Besides, which is closer to true in 8th Edition? 9th will have changes, but nothing so far is so earth shattering to make the comparison completely useless before you have the full rules in your hand.

My point is there is no merit in arguing over the points changes based on what we know. Because we basically don't know anything right now and it's a waste of time spending page after page arguing if Cultists really got screwed or not.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Intercessors increased in points by 50% more than cultists did, true or false? Cultists received 33% less of a points increase than intercessors did, true or false?

I didn’t say percentages don’t work, I said that they present a skewed picture as I just illustrated. Percentages only work when comparing reasonably close items, otherwise so many other variables can account for the variance in outcomes that a direct comparison is pointless at best and maliciously misleading at worst.

You didn't illustrate anything. The stats you posted are irrelevant. Why are you dividing the pts increase of the intercessors by the pts increase of cultists? What question does that calculation seek to answer?

I can take any 2 random pt values and divide them to come up with a percentage too. That doesn't make the percentage meaningful. But the percent increase in cost however is meaningful. You get a certain amount of utility for the pts you pay. For cultists that utility is now 50% more expensive. For primaris it's 17%. Unless the underlying utility of each unit also changed a comparable amount under the new ruleset the cultists received a nerf relative to primaris. How is this difficult to understand?

Honestly why is anyone trying to compare percentages of points increase between two units in two different codexes whose points costs aren't even that close to each other to start with?

No one posting here arguing the points changes in any direction knows more than anyone else. All this back and forth about one unit getting shafted or not is honestly premature. For all we know there may be a rule for scoring that favors hordes, or Cultists might lose the "Mere Mortal" rule in 9th. Who the heck knows.

Yes, in 8th edition such a points hike for Cultists would only break the unit further, but in 9th? Can anyone honestly say they know for a fact that Cultists are going to be better or worse than before?

No, but it's unlikely that anything could warrant that much of an increase relative to intercessors. Losing "Mere Mortals" wouldn't do it. The only mission we've seen so far doesn't seem to favor hordes. In fact, the inclusion of secondary objectives is supposed to make it easier to score with different types of forces. So it seems doubtful that hordes will be favored. New information could change these perceptions, but until anything new comes forward the points increase of cultists relative to intercessors doesn't make sense and looks unfair.

Honestly this is the issue when dealing with comparisons across such a massive points spread.

If I said unit A got a 2ppm increase but Unit B got a 3ppm increase in a vaccuum that sounds like Unit B got the larger increase. If you say Unit A went up 50%ppm while unit B went up 20%ppm then it sounds like unit A got the larger increase.

Neither represents the fact that Unit A was 4ppm while unit B was 17ppm.

And that information doesn't reflect the unknown variables we haven't seen.

Look, I get that people want to make snap decisions from incomplete information, but jumping to conclusions on how the game works, or will work based on what we know is just setting yourself up to end up burnt out from being upset about everything all the time.

I prefer to be mad knowing everything so I can form a coherent and complete argument over all this back and forth over what is basically a big case of "well it looks bad out of context".

I agree that we don't have enough information to get angry. I'm just explaining why this doesn't look good. The problem is that gw is being tight lipped and nothing they've shown so far explains the disparity between the two units. The Necron Warriors increase throws another monkey wrench into the whole thing. I don't want to argue about it for pages on end either. But right now it looks bad. I hope they have a reason for these points changes, and I hope they hurry up and show it to us. And it had better be good.

Then we can get back to more important stuff, like making fun of each others tastes in music. I mean, you really like that stuff?

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Intercessors increased in points by 50% more than cultists did, true or false? Cultists received 33% less of a points increase than intercessors did, true or false?

I didn’t say percentages don’t work, I said that they present a skewed picture as I just illustrated. Percentages only work when comparing reasonably close items, otherwise so many other variables can account for the variance in outcomes that a direct comparison is pointless at best and maliciously misleading at worst.

You didn't illustrate anything. The stats you posted are irrelevant. Why are you dividing the pts increase of the intercessors by the pts increase of cultists? What question does that calculation seek to answer?

I can take any 2 random pt values and divide them to come up with a percentage too. That doesn't make the percentage meaningful. But the percent increase in cost however is meaningful. You get a certain amount of utility for the pts you pay. For cultists that utility is now 50% more expensive. For primaris it's 17%. Unless the underlying utility of each unit also changed a comparable amount under the new ruleset the cultists received a nerf relative to primaris. How is this difficult to understand?

I’m with Leth on this one. No matter what they did with Cultist points, they’d go up more than the 17% of Intercessors, because just 1 point is worth 25% for a cultist. The funny thing is, even at 6ppm there’s not much granularity with them, they’re still so damn cheap. But at least every point isn’t worth a quarter of your cost.

 Leth wrote:

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Percentages in these discussions is pretty deceptive. Low cost units are always going to be significantly more impacted.

A cultist at 4 points is changed in increments of 25% so even a 1 point change is going to be more than most units will be.

I will withhold judgement until we will see how the points costs of things are overall. I know that with the change to detachments, and how army list construction will change as a result, I can see more expensive basic troops having less of an impact than people are concerned about.

I don't understand. You can't raise the cost of a 4 pt model by 10% but you can certainly raise the cost of a 20 pt model by 25%. They apparently chose not to do so. That doesn't mean a 25% increase for the 4 pt model is somehow not a 25% increase.

My point is that because something can not possibly change by less than 25% that by presenting it solely as a percantage it paints a much more deceptive picture on the overall impact the change will have on the game/an army list when it’s points change.

10 cultists is 20 more points and 10 Intercessors are 30 more points, i could present it as intercessors went up by 50% more than cultists did” naturally everyone would call this a flawed presentation of the situation. Comparing two fundamentally different units in different books is fundamentally flawed from a balance perspective

It's the absolute value that is deceptive. If you want to show how it REALLY affects things is % increase.

50% up vs 17% is lot more truthfull and meaningful than 2 pts and 3 pts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
That article is so weird, and it's even weirder they're putting the words in the mouth of a supposedly top tournament player, when a lot of the advice is just so obviously bad. For example:

With the updated rules for Aircraft in the new edition, Necron Flyers will no longer fear having their movement blocked by units on the ground,

Um, move-blocking flyers will still very much be a thing, because they still can't land somewhere their base overlaps with the bases of any other model according to the rules we were given. The ability to move within 1" makes it substantially harder to move block with a flyer, but does comparatively little to make it harder to move block the flyer with other models. All you need to do is spread out your models so there's no room for a flyer's huge base to fit. The idea that you'll "no longer have to fear" having a flyer's movement blocked is the sort of thing that anyone who has played competitive 40k at all will immediately say "no, that's just wrong." Now if he had said "it will be slightly harder to move block flyers," that would be true. But the statement is such a ridiculous exaggeration that the person makes it loses a lot of credibility.

I suppose the other possibility is that the rules we have been given for aircraft are not accurate, and you actually can end a move on top of another model. But if they were going to do something that radical a departure from the basic rules of the game, wouldn't they have said so? And what a mess that would be too - talk about wobbly model syndrome.

Eh there's difference between "have to go offboard and come back later" and "boom you are destroyed". DUCY?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
If you don't mind losing a turn of shooting - and he says that after the comma. But the point is the bit before the comma is just wrong, unless we've been misled as to what the rule is.

Losing a turn of shooting is an improvement over losing the model. It is definitely an improvement.

Yes, but it is simply not true to say that flyers "will no longer fear having their movement blocked by units on the ground." I dunno why you're arguing this. Nobody said it isn't an improvement, but the statement made is simply categorically wrong based on the rules we have been given.

So you are "ah I'm going to lose a vehicle. Nothing to fear about it! Let it gooooo! Let it GOOOOOOO!"?

Taking out vehicles by movement blocking has been valid strategy for 3 years. That goes away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Leth wrote:
Someone says cultists went up by 50% while marines went up x% I can argue that marines went up by 50% more than cultists did. Again both are true statements, but the impression given is the opposite.

You could...And you would be lying. Cultist went up 50%, marine went up 17%. That's the only comparison that matters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

puree wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
They most definitely need to be lot cheaper than marines(who btw have 2 wounds per model vs your 1...So 1 basic primaris marine is 20 pts, 3+, 2 wounds vs your 24 pts for 2 4+ save wounds).

If you ever needed more proof that GW designs things in a vacuum, look no further than this example.

I think it proves that dakka posters complain in a vacuum. Points are based on more the bit of data quoted. that 24 pts buys 2 guns vs 1, there are different other abilities (resurection vs ATSKNF etc). It may work out as bad, but not simply in the vacuum of saves and wounds.

yeaaah looking at defence while ignoring offense is downright silly. we all know firepower is almost always > defence.

If I had put that down as well necron warrior would be looking even more silly...They don't even posses good offensive output.

I was trying to be kind to the necron warriors and not just slam them to dirt. But thanks for bringing up how bad they are.

Oh and ATSKNF is worthless but so is RP(both suffer from same issue. To use it one has to actually survive it). But marines have other free bonuses that trump necron ones. Necrons have 1 bonus from dynasty, marines 2. And no super doctrine either.

I really don't get how so many people are confused with very straightforward math.

In 8th edition, you get about 21 cultist for 5 intercessors. In 9th edition, you get about 16 cultists for 5 intercessors. It's fairly obvious that cultists have gone up in points more.

In addition, the relative worth of cultists has dropped even more with new blast rules (and general access to blast weapons across the armies), so there's nothing to indicate that the cost hike is objectively justified.

All in all, it appears that marines will come out of all this with yet another buff in the form of relative price reduction.

Denial. Or they are playing marine gun lines and are happy their army gets buff but want to play it down "no no it's totally fine"

 Dreamchild wrote:
I really don't get how so many people are confused with very straightforward math.

In 8th edition, you get about 21 cultist for 5 intercessors. In 9th edition, you get about 16 cultists for 5 intercessors. It's fairly obvious that cultists have gone up in points more.

In addition, the relative worth of cultists has dropped even more with new blast rules (and general access to blast weapons across the armies), so there's nothing to indicate that the cost hike is objectively justified.

All in all, it appears that marines will come out of all this with yet another buff in the form of relative price reduction.

There is still a chance yet that the intercessor weapons have an inflated points cost to match, not necessarily to outweigh the change, but might narrow the gap.

Another factor is opportunity cost, your 60 point cultist unit not moving or shooting to score a vp might be better than your 5 intercessors doing that.

True, the new actions may make the mere existence of a squad more valuable

 BoomWolf wrote:
True, the new actions may make the mere existence of a squad more valuable

An existence so pitifull that they die when secondary or tertiary armament Looks in their average direction.

And no there are no defensive buffs on them worth mentioning, because those will be needed in the actual workers of a csm list to compensate the lack of half the bloddy csm roster in regards to traits.

So no that Argument ist nonsense.

Dudeface wrote:

 Dreamchild wrote:
I really don't get how so many people are confused with very straightforward math.

In 8th edition, you get about 21 cultist for 5 intercessors. In 9th edition, you get about 16 cultists for 5 intercessors. It's fairly obvious that cultists have gone up in points more.

In addition, the relative worth of cultists has dropped even more with new blast rules (and general access to blast weapons across the armies), so there's nothing to indicate that the cost hike is objectively justified.

All in all, it appears that marines will come out of all this with yet another buff in the form of relative price reduction.

There is still a chance yet that the intercessor weapons have an inflated points cost to match, not necessarily to outweigh the change, but might narrow the gap.

Another factor is opportunity cost, your 60 point cultist unit not moving or shooting to score a vp might be better than your 5 intercessors doing that.

I respectfully disagree. 16 wounds with non-existent save will crumble much faster than 10 wounds with 3+. And even before we factor in various buffs (from terrain to auras, spells, Stratagems and passive army buffs), 5 intercessors can easily wipe out the cost-equivalent cultist unit with shooting & morale combined, whereas cultists can't so much as graze the intercessors. With all those buffs, the outcome leans even further to intercessors' favour, especially given the smaller terrain size.