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 armor cast titans were licensed from GW, so they are GW titans not armorcast designs. The titan designs that came after those and before the current are truly painful. These I like, but I am old.

Can we get back on topic please and take all off-topic banter elsewhere? Many thanks!

Also, please do NOT quote massive slabs of text, only to reply with a single line of text. Either cut the quote or put it in spoilers.

One week ago:
"Power levels are a joke. Points are where it's at because they're balanced!"

Now:
"These points are unbalanced. What a joke!"

Is it the same people saying that, though?

I don't see how "PL is bad because it's unbalanced" is inconsistent with "these new points values are unbalanced too." Unfortunately, just because GW fails at using one metric to create balanced games doesn't mean it can't also fail when using another metric.

Does it matter if anyone is saying it?

It'd be one thing if these seemed to be the pinnacle of points perfection (and then people complained), but the reaction is leaning hard the other direction.

Points poorly performed provide a poor plea to Power.

 gorgon wrote:
One week ago:
"Power levels are a joke. Points are where it's at because they're balanced!"

Now:
"These points are unbalanced. What a joke!"

It's almost as if some sort of large event happened this week...

Voss wrote:
Does it matter if anyone is saying it?

It'd be one thing if these seemed to be the pinnacle of points perfection (and then people complained), but the reaction is leaning hard the other direction.

Points poorly performed provide a poor plea to Power.

This honestly now looks more like deliberately sabotaging Points to say use PL no different anyway. When you reduce things to multiples of 5 then 10 and PL is in multiples of 20 points.

It does make the potential granularity of points less useful for balance.

It means you could see it would be the superior system and decieded to deliberately destroy the system as part of a managment strategy.

Do we know if the new FW book will contain 40k rules for the ad mech units that was supposedly receiving rules when Alan was writing fires over cyraxus

 gorgon wrote:
One week ago:
"Power levels are a joke. Points are where it's at because they're balanced!"

Now:
"These points are unbalanced. What a joke!"

These statements are not mutually exclusive.

In all reality, are the current points that big of a deal? How many events are people playing right now. Surely just getting in some games at the moment to try out the new rules should be the focus, and figuring out how your army plays around the new mission formats. Points will change at some point I'm sure, but this is some novel territory as GW release a brand new edition at a time when people aren't playing a lot of games. It's quite unique really.

They've supposedly been testing it for over a year. But more importantly, the main reason people are perplexed here is because the approach they took to the points here is a huge step backwards from what they did just 8 months ago in CA2019. Those points adjustments may not have been perfect, but they're a hell of a lot better than the junk they gave us in this update - better proofread, too, incidentally.

It is 100% clear this was "run the old points through a formula then nerf a few things to make it look like we were paying attention to individual units." There is no possible way they actually thought that Howling Banshees and Striking Scorpions were the units in the Eldar Codex that needed the biggest nerfs.

None of this has anything at all to do with a new edition or a pandemic. It's just lazy spread-sheet based updating.

 gorgon wrote:
One week ago:
"Power levels are a joke. Points are where it's at because they're balanced!"

Now:
"These points are unbalanced. What a joke!"

Spoiler:

No one in the history of warhammer has ever claimed the points are balanced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

Voss wrote:
Does it matter if anyone is saying it?

It'd be one thing if these seemed to be the pinnacle of points perfection (and then people complained), but the reaction is leaning hard the other direction.

Points poorly performed provide a poor plea to Power.

This honestly now looks more like deliberately sabotaging Points to say use PL no different anyway. When you reduce things to multiples of 5 then 10 and PL is in multiples of 20 points.

It does make the potential granularity of points less useful for balance.

It means you could see it would be the superior system and decieded to deliberately destroy the system as part of a managment strategy.

Problem is that PL still doesn't change whether I have a bolter or a lascannon

gungo wrote:
Do we know if the new FW book will contain 40k rules for the ad mech units that was supposedly receiving rules when Alan was writing fires over cyraxus

Probably?

This is about what to expect, if it happens. It is worth mentioning that we're pretty likely to see it, seeing as how the Dunerider and Transvector both allow for "Secutarii" to be transported.

 Kanluwen wrote:

gungo wrote:
Do we know if the new FW book will contain 40k rules for the ad mech units that was supposedly receiving rules when Alan was writing fires over cyraxus

Probably?

This is about what to expect, if it happens. It is worth mentioning that we're pretty likely to see it, seeing as how the Dunerider and Transvector both allow for "Secutarii" to be transported.

I dunno I haven’t seen anything since and Alan book is now vaporware... this new index is likely just a quick redo looking at the effort put into points and FAQs mistakes. Considering I don’t see a lot of points leaked in the CA book.. they might just not include all those heresy units in 40k because the effort is to much. However they would give ad mech a lot of cool new robots and transports and a few superheavies to play with.

Honestly, the big thing is to not consider them as "indices" but rather "supplements". They showed a mock-up of the Marines one last year, and the thing looked beefy.

Obviously not every single unit will make the jump(some stuff frankly should not, since it was tied to the Traitor Legions or the Loyalists), but there's enough stuff that it would be serviceable alongside of fluff as a full book.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't see how "PL is bad because it's unbalanced" is inconsistent with "these new points values are unbalanced too." Unfortunately, just because GW fails at using one metric to create balanced games doesn't mean it can't also fail when using another metric.

Correct. Which means what about what you guys are seeking from GW and 40K?

 gorgon wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't see how "PL is bad because it's unbalanced" is inconsistent with "these new points values are unbalanced too." Unfortunately, just because GW fails at using one metric to create balanced games doesn't mean it can't also fail when using another metric.

Correct. Which means what about what you guys are seeking from GW and 40K?

That they failed. Egregiously. Even just reverting the changes would be better.

 bullyboy wrote:
In all reality, are the current points that big of a deal? How many events are people playing right now. Surely just getting in some games at the moment to try out the new rules should be the focus, and figuring out how your army plays around the new mission formats. Points will change at some point I'm sure, but this is some novel territory as GW release a brand new edition at a time when people aren't playing a lot of games. It's quite unique really.

The pandemic is out of GW's control. Unit pricing in 40k is fully 100% up to GW. The former in no way excuses GW's over 30 years of incompetence.

 gorgon wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't see how "PL is bad because it's unbalanced" is inconsistent with "these new points values are unbalanced too." Unfortunately, just because GW fails at using one metric to create balanced games doesn't mean it can't also fail when using another metric.

Correct. Which means what about what you guys are seeking from GW and 40K?

Nothing. It just means you're drawing false conclusions.

I get it. You prefer chicken to beef. But a frozen Steak-umm left to warm to room temperature doesn't prove your taste is superior, or even applicable to anyone else.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Honestly, the big thing is to not consider them as "indices" but rather "supplements". They showed a mock-up of the Marines one last year, and the thing looked beefy.

Obviously not every single unit will make the jump(some stuff frankly should not, since it was tied to the Traitor Legions or the Loyalists), but there's enough stuff that it would be serviceable alongside of fluff as a full book.

I don't remember seeing that, got a link please Kan?

And the csm book better be pretty damned good considering the disparity in points we've seen so far:

Double storm cannon leviathan: 350 vs double butcher cannon hellforged leviathan: 420.

Relic contemptor (with 2 more wounds and a 6+++) same price as a hellforged contemptor.

Astreus: 718 with wargear vs hellforged fellblade: 880 with wargear.

Karybdis: just gone, even though the model is still in production. Good balance gw.

Blastaar wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
In all reality, are the current points that big of a deal? How many events are people playing right now. Surely just getting in some games at the moment to try out the new rules should be the focus, and figuring out how your army plays around the new mission formats. Points will change at some point I'm sure, but this is some novel territory as GW release a brand new edition at a time when people aren't playing a lot of games. It's quite unique really.

The pandemic is out of GW's control. Unit pricing in 40k is fully 100% up to GW. The former in no way excuses GW's over 30 years of incompetence.

My point is that people are freaking out about points at a time when many people just aren't playing anyway. It's not like there is a huge tournament in 2 weeks and your army has now been nerfed heavily. People will have time to play out all the units with garagehammer and get a better idea how they function in 9th.
Of course, the flipside to this is that due to the lack of games played, it might be a long time before glaring oversights or errors are addressed.

 bullyboy wrote:
My point is that people are freaking out about points at a time when many people just aren't playing anyway. It's not like there is a huge tournament in 2 weeks and your army has now been nerfed heavily. People will have time to play out all the units with garagehammer and get a better idea how they function in 9th.
Of course, the flipside to this is that due to the lack of games played, it might be a long time before glaring oversights or errors are addressed.

I get what you are saying, but this is a product that we pay money for. Just because a lot of people are restriced in their gaming, doesn't make their concerns for what they feel is a substandard product any less valid.

Plus, you know it's going to be like this for a while. At least I would be shocked if it wasn't.

I think I'm slipping into acceptance though.

I guarantee you the vast majority of the glaring oversights and errors were raised by playtesters and GW just didn't bother to do anything about them.

Best case scenario is we get a day-1 FAQ on CA2020 that fixes the super stupid stuff. But I'm not holding my breath, because if they didn't bother to fix it before, why would they suddenly start to care about it now?

GW has accomplished an amazing PR trick though in convincing a large percentage of its fanbase that it is too much to expect them to proofread their books before sending them to the printer.

 bullyboy wrote:
In all reality, are the current points that big of a deal? How many events are people playing right now. Surely just getting in some games at the moment to try out the new rules should be the focus, and figuring out how your army plays around the new mission formats. Points will change at some point I'm sure, but this is some novel territory as GW release a brand new edition at a time when people aren't playing a lot of games. It's quite unique really.

People are singularly focused on the weird looking things and failing to assess the points in context of the new edition. Both the missions and detachments drastically change a lot about how you approach an army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Trickstick wrote:


I get what you are saying, but this is a product that we pay money for. Just because a lot of people are restriced in their gaming, doesn't make their concerns for what they feel is a substandard product any less valid.

Plus, you know it's going to be like this for a while. At least I would be shocked if it wasn't.

I think I'm slipping into acceptance though.

Too many are judging it without using it though. What might look terrible on paper for 8th might be the right thing for 9th and the only way to find out is to kick off some garagehammer for now.

ERJAK wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't see how "PL is bad because it's unbalanced" is inconsistent with "these new points values are unbalanced too." Unfortunately, just because GW fails at using one metric to create balanced games doesn't mean it can't also fail when using another metric.

Correct. Which means what about what you guys are seeking from GW and 40K?

That they failed. Egregiously. Even just reverting the changes would be better.

When has it ever really been good? When beyond a brief moment or two in its history has 40K balance been really good or even seemingly a focus for GW? The player base can't even agree on what balance is. A player of a given army might complain about a codex's terrible internal balance even as a more competitive player only interested in cherry-picking calls it a good one based on two or three units. You can say 'roll it back' but in doing that there would still be stuff that *completely sucks*. Often they aren't getting external OR internal balance right. They *could* do a better job if that was the focus. It would mean structuring and marketing the game differently, but they could do it. GW itself has made and currently makes better balanced games. But 40K has always been something to do with cool models that have a cool background.

How can you guys act surprised by this over and over again? There is no spoon. gak, forget about points and balance -- I've been waiting for 20-something years for my Tyranids to again *play* like the fast and deadly swarm they were when I first started them. LOL. Or at least would be waiting if I hadn't packed up my thousands and thousands of points in boxes a few years back. I got disgusted by the merry-go-round. So I'm off it and it feels good. 40K is something I play with my kid...I paint up new models and goof around with it and it works really well for that. I can't imagine being in the current tournament scene and chasing that gak again with the current game.

AT is my #1 GW game now and it scratches my itch. Great models but not too many required. More expensive than a skirmish game but cheaper than 40K for sure. Same universe. Alternating activation, maneuver that matters, positioning that matters, and games being won on the tabletop, not because of listbuilding and CCG-like combos. But hell, if people love and are happy with 40K as is, then power to 'em. It just doesn't seem like some of you are very happy. And at that point the issue becomes about you and your actions and not GW's fairly consistent approach to the game since 1987.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Honestly, the big thing is to not consider them as "indices" but rather "supplements". They showed a mock-up of the Marines one last year, and the thing looked beefy.

Obviously not every single unit will make the jump(some stuff frankly should not, since it was tied to the Traitor Legions or the Loyalists), but there's enough stuff that it would be serviceable alongside of fluff as a full book.

I don't remember seeing that, got a link please Kan?

And the csm book better be pretty damned good considering the disparity in points we've seen so far:

Double storm cannon leviathan: 350 vs double butcher cannon hellforged leviathan: 420.

Relic contemptor (with 2 more wounds and a 6+++) same price as a hellforged contemptor.

Astreus: 718 with wargear vs hellforged fellblade: 880 with wargear.

Karybdis: just gone, even though the model is still in production. Good balance gw.

This was the article, posted on January 24th of this year.


That's the mock-up of the book, seemingly. They're hardcovers with pretty layouts.

yukishiro1 wrote:
But I'm not holding my breath, because if they didn't bother to fix it before, why would they suddenly start to care about it now?

GW has accomplished an amazing PR trick though in convincing a large percentage of its fanbase that it is too much to expect them to proofread their books before sending them to the printer.

They're so beyond a sane schedule. If the FAQs were written in September and playtesting started in earnest in December then that means they were pumping this out alongside all the marine books, PA books, and CK along with the Fall FAQ and CA19 (oh and slap in the FW rewrite).

GW continually fixed things that were broken, but each new release presented its own challenge to the system at the time and sometimes you need a book to be out there long enough so you don't make knee-jerk descisions.

Blastaar wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
In all reality, are the current points that big of a deal? How many events are people playing right now. Surely just getting in some games at the moment to try out the new rules should be the focus, and figuring out how your army plays around the new mission formats. Points will change at some point I'm sure, but this is some novel territory as GW release a brand new edition at a time when people aren't playing a lot of games. It's quite unique really.

The pandemic is out of GW's control. Unit pricing in 40k is fully 100% up to GW. The former in no way excuses GW's over 30 years of incompetence.

If you love chocolate ice cream but have been frequenting a shop that only sells vanilla for 30 years...who's at fault?

You're comparisons really aren't working gorgon.