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.
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:
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.
Yes, these points are perfectly fine if you don't play any games with them.
I think this is my favorite one so far. Keep 'em coming!
I think his point is that there is a difference between a technical difference and a functional difference.
If all you care about is something being technically true? then you are going to approach it one way.
If all you care about is something being functionally true? Then you are going to approach it another way.
So yes, the imbalance on paper seems to be pretty significant in a technical sense, but until we see it on the table, as well as any early corrections, it is premature to freak out. At least what I gathered from what they are saying rather than the strawman being presented.
Lets just say it is difficult to balance 1000s of variables that have to go into hundreds of situations.That's before separating it into internal balance and external balance. Not to mention the lore/thematic rules attached to specific armies etc all balanced around a d6 die roll.
This message was edited 12 times. Last update was at 2020/07/15 03:05:03
People who stopped buying GW but wont stop bitching about it are the vegans of warhammer
I think GW did a fairly decent job with the indexs in 8th edition
Mind you they had to do some pretty quick 1-2 week faqs to fix a small handful of issues like razorwing spam but after fixing those 1-2 really bad units most index army were decent. Ya I realized they kept tweaking after that like multi nerfing conscripts but I still think they went overboard there too.
You don't need to play games to know typos are typos. Warp talons shouldn't be 27 points, that's obviously just a case of them making you pay twice for the claws.
You also don't need to play games to know that Scorpions that nobody used at 9 points are not going to suddenly become good when raised to 13 points.
I don't think it's too much to expect GW to either (1) proofread their own books or (2) listen to feedback from their playtesters who I am sure flagged this sort of stuff.
If GW is going to charge people money for updated points, it should at least do a halfways decent job at it.
yukishiro1 wrote: You don't need to play games to know typos are typos.
Of course not, but for weeks now we've had a certain group keep moving the goal posts.
*GW reveals new rule*
"Wait for the full rules!"
*Full rules get leaked*
"Wait for the points values!"
*Points values get leaked*
"Wait for the FAQs!"
*FAQs come out*
"You need to play real games!"
And on and on it goes...
I am usually in the 'wait and see' camp but yeah, at this point it is fair to call it for the most part. Sure the details may not all be figured, something may not be quite as bad or quite as good, but when you have obviously huge imbalances like grot=guardsman telling people voicing criticism that their conclusions are invalid becomes an insult.
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.
Yes, these points are perfectly fine if you don't play any games with them.
I think this is my favorite one so far. Keep 'em coming!
can't hide from the truth though!! Heck, GW is the most balanced game ever produced....if no one plays it. It's perfect.
But seriously, there are a few freakish outliers, but there are probably also some things that are stronger/worse in game than what first appears. Without the games, it's only speculation (although some speculation alsways turns out to be true when it comes to this stuff).
If GW was doing all this stuff for free it'd be one thing, but they aren't. GW doesn't do anything for free.
When a company is charging you money for something - and a lot of money, at that - it's fair to expect a basic level of competence and professionalism. When GW fails to meet those standards, it's fair to call them out for it.
yukishiro1 wrote: You don't need to play games to know typos are typos. Warp talons shouldn't be 27 points, that's obviously just a case of them making you pay twice for the claws.
You also don't need to play games to know that Scorpions that nobody used at 9 points are not going to suddenly become good when raised to 13 points.
I don't think it's too much to expect GW to either (1) proofread their own books or (2) listen to feedback from their playtesters who I am sure flagged this sort of stuff.
If GW is going to charge people money for updated points, it should at least do a halfways decent job at it.
Agreed on the Warp talons, that one is definitely off. As for Scorps, they got a points raise like most things, but it's not points that is hurting aspect warriors (in 8th and right now). They need some serious attention/help to matchup with newer units.
A 40% points increase certainly didn't help things, though. And again, it's something that anyone actually looking at the spreadsheet after they ran it through the formula would have spotted and said "whoa, wait a minute, there's no way this makes any kind of sense, our formula isn't producing valid results in this case." Anyone familiar with competitive Eldar could have and would have told them after 2 minutes of looking at the spreadsheet that that can't possibly be a fair valuation. So either nobody who had the faintest idea did look at it, or somebody did, told GW about it, and they just released it anyway. Either way, it's pretty damning.
Almost everything about these points is just so lazy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/15 04:19:15
Because you can’t reliably compare internal balance to external balance.
Something could be pretty balanced within its own book while being unbalanced against other books and vice versa. Unless you look at units, and the roles they fill in a complete list then it is an unreasonable comparison to make. Which is what I see a lot of the “wait and see” people advocating before going full doom and gloom. Cross book comparisons are not typically going to be useful since it doesn’t paint a very accurate picture. There are plenty of units that would be god mode in another book, but are mediocre in their own. External versus internal.
I personally accept that I don’t have enough experience with the missions, and how they play out, to even make a fully functional list right now. Top of turn combined with progressive scoring alone put everything up in the air to how you play the game.
We know there are errors, it’s a GW product, there always are. So lets take some time now, especially during the pandemic with no big tournaments anytime soon, to really try and see how it actually looks so we can give some constructive feedback and help make the edition better via valid comparisons. I don’t expect it to be balanced, I expect lots of things to be off, but that doesn’t mean I turn into a Karen about it.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2020/07/15 04:34:04
People who stopped buying GW but wont stop bitching about it are the vegans of warhammer
Justyn wrote: I'm curious to know what you think they should be worth?
The common working theory with Warp Talons right now is that the person who fethed up wrote the points values put the lightning claws into their base cost, but then made them also have to pay for lightning claws. So basically take their current full points value, and remove the cost of the LC, and you get what they should be.
This theory exists because so many weapons were rolled into the base costs of units, that when something like the Warp Talon price comes along it tends to stick out.
bullyboy wrote: But seriously, there are a few freakish outliers, but there are probably also some things that are stronger/worse in game than what first appears. Without the games, it's only speculation (although some speculation alsways turns out to be true when it comes to this stuff).
Equally true is that units could be even worse/better than current estimates, or units not currently viewed to be a problem could turn out to be. The 'wait and see' element in this instance has two sides, only one of which certain people seem interested in acknowledging.
Justyn wrote: I'm curious to know what you think they should be worth?
The common working theory with Warp Talons right now is that the person who fethed up wrote the points values put the lightning claws into their base cost, but then made them also have to pay for lightning claws. So basically take their current full points value, and remove the cost of the LC, and you get what they should be.
This theory exists because so many weapons were rolled into the base costs of units, that when something like the Warp Talon price comes along it tends to stick out.
GW also terribly overprices ignoring Overwatch, which really isn't something to care about now even against Tau!
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Justyn wrote: So they should be 17 points? For Jumping, Lightning Claw equipped, 5++ Marines. When Chaos Marines are 14 points and Raptors are 18. Interesting.
No. It seems like what likely happened is that 17 points was their rolled-in cost before the 9th edition adjustment, which would have ended up with them at 20 points if you look at intercessors.
27 points is an absolute joke, and 100% indicative of something going wrong in the formula. It's hard to say exactly what, but if GW really thought they should get an 8 points a model hike, we're in much bigger trouble than we think because that would mean they're in pants-on-head territory.
yukishiro1 wrote: You don't need to play games to know typos are typos.
Of course not, but for weeks now we've had a certain group keep moving the goal posts.
*GW reveals new rule*
"Wait for the full rules!"
*Full rules get leaked*
"Wait for the points values!"
*Points values get leaked*
"Wait for the FAQs!"
*FAQs come out*
"You need to play real games!"
And on and on it goes...
I start here and end here:
"You need to play real games!"
Which requires all of the above, which seems to be interpreted as goal post moving when it isn't.
But I do get a kick out of this:
Spoiler:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: I am usually in the 'wait and see' camp but yeah, at this point it is fair to call it for the most part. Sure the details may not all be figured, something may not be quite as bad or quite as good, but when you have obviously huge imbalances like grot=guardsman telling people voicing criticism that their conclusions are invalid becomes an insult.
I played 3 games against Orks. Grots (3 points at the time) were pretty much primary/secondary scoring MVPs.
That's where my position comes from.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Justyn wrote: So they should be 17 points? For Jumping, Lightning Claw equipped, 5++ Marines. When Chaos Marines are 14 points and Raptors are 18. Interesting.
Spoiler:
I mean...probably not 27 though.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2020/07/15 05:43:44
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.
Right. You don't get to play so it's okay these points have no thought or real playtesting behind. Nevermind those who get to play in flgs and tournament.
... points are still fetched. First of all anything chaos has space marines either have the same of and pay 1ppm extra to add way better rules to, and access to at least as good stratagems to, or they have a plain better one of. My balancing solution is to flat out refuse to play space marine players until GW fixes it or unless I get a handicap. It would be great if space marine players would boycott space marine releases so that the rest of the Xenos could get their model lines updated... why aren’t we coordinating to make good changes for the hobby and game anyways?
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut
Leth wrote: I think his point is that there is a difference between a technical difference and a functional difference.
If all you care about is something being technically true? then you are going to approach it one way.
If all you care about is something being functionally true? Then you are going to approach it another way.
So yes, the imbalance on paper seems to be pretty significant in a technical sense, but until we see it on the table, as well as any early corrections, it is premature to freak out. At least what I gathered from what they are saying rather than the strawman being presented.
Lets just say it is difficult to balance 1000s of variables that have to go into hundreds of situations.That's before separating it into internal balance and external balance. Not to mention the lore/thematic rules attached to specific armies etc all balanced around a d6 die roll.
Yet people correctly find out what's too good and junk before actually trying out. Even bad players.
Gw isn't about subtle tactics etc. It's list building.
And gw isn't trying for balance. It uses points and rules as marketing tool. Every time they change things it's to change what people buy. And to make sure it works they shout it out so loud even deaf hears it.
You can say wait and see but all it accomplishes is you being wrong.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/15 06:09:09
yukishiro1 wrote: You don't need to play games to know typos are typos.
Of course not, but for weeks now we've had a certain group keep moving the goal posts.
*GW reveals new rule*
"Wait for the full rules!"
*Full rules get leaked*
"Wait for the points values!"
*Points values get leaked*
"Wait for the FAQs!"
*FAQs come out*
"You need to play real games!"
And on and on it goes...
We really need to wait until all the codices are redone. In fact, it's probably best to withhold judgement entirely until after the edition is over. Like 8th edition terrain rules - what were they thinking amirite? See? It's acceptable to complain about that now. Especially if it's something that 9th fixes. But 9th? We just have to WAIT AND SEE.
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: We really need to wait until all the codices are redone. In fact, it's probably best to withhold judgement entirely until after the edition is over. Like 8th edition terrain rules - what were they thinking amirite? See? It's acceptable to complain about that now. Especially if it's something that 9th fixes. But 9th? We just have to WAIT AND SEE.
BRB guys. Gonna go buy stock in straw and poles. The market is booming!
Points aren't really a big deal - only for the most crazed competitive players who can't stand anything to stand in the way of their skills.
It just changes the meta on the competitive scene. The majority of players will still build their lists with what they like to play, and move on.
By the way, PL was always playable. It's just a lot of players tried to discredit it because they were so used to play with points they couldn't think of another way to build their list - and so kept showing wild examples of abuse to "prove" it can't work.
Of course it can work. And yes, it's not very accurate. But the small difference doesn't make the game unplayable, in reality.
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: We really need to wait until all the codices are redone. In fact, it's probably best to withhold judgement entirely until after the edition is over. Like 8th edition terrain rules - what were they thinking amirite? See? It's acceptable to complain about that now. Especially if it's something that 9th fixes. But 9th? We just have to WAIT AND SEE.
Lets wait until 10th is announced to judge about 9th it see if it was worth the afford
For now, just continue to spend money on rules and models to show GW that their work is worth our money
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sarouan wrote: Points aren't really a big deal - only for the most crazed competitive players who can't stand anything to stand in the way of their skills.
It just changes the meta on the competitive scene. The majority of players will still build their lists with what they like to play, and move on.
now I wonder how 1st Edition AoS failed so hard as the only thing missing was points
and if they are not a big deal why was it so important for the casual players that they made up their own points to play the game
the other thing is, we pay for points
it is not that they are offered for free but we pay for them and if a company want my money for something I want the product to be good
no other company would be able to sell a faulty product with the community cheering them for the afford as it is not a big deal anyway if it is working or not
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/15 07:07:45
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
I really wish our primary thread for reading about leaks and aggregating the latest spoiled content ... was not also the most toxic, chicken little-filled, place at the same time.
I understand that a lot of these folks think they’re posting ‘analysis’ but it’s the same thing over and over—this change is bad and GW is terrible and has always been terrible.
Abadabadoobaddon wrote: We really need to wait until all the codices are redone. In fact, it's probably best to withhold judgement entirely until after the edition is over. Like 8th edition terrain rules - what were they thinking amirite? See? It's acceptable to complain about that now. Especially if it's something that 9th fixes. But 9th? We just have to WAIT AND SEE.
BRB guys. Gonna go buy stock in straw and poles. The market is booming!
Have you looked at politics lately? Naw man, those stocks went through the roof like 4 years ago. You missed the window.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/15 07:22:04
Possibly. I've never used them, don't know what strats make them better etc. 27 makes them 2 points cheaper than Loyalist equivalents (Vanguard Vets with Lightning Claws) while having 1 attack less and none of the other Loyalist advantages. It seems like they should be cheaper than that, but not 17 points. It makes me wonder if when they priced them they looked at the points for a single Lightning Claw as opposed to two. I'd probably guess 22-24 seems about right. But again I've never used them.
Noise Marines also seem to be far too expensive. I think that however is endemic of making entirely too many cheap pieces of gear 5 points. Which to me is the worst mistake they have made in their new points setup.
