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.

Yes please. No more 200 model armies with 1000+ dice rolls.

 p5freak wrote:
Yes please. No more 200 model armies with 1000+ dice rolls.

because they slowed down the game and not the incessant rerolling associated with any type of marine?

 p5freak wrote:
Yes please. No more 200 model armies with 1000+ dice rolls.

"You're having fun wrong!"

Speaking from the smaller end of the scale( 500 pts or less ), I don't mind so long as the larger units can field half their current minimum model count.

I find it strange that Kabalites can have 5 models, but Guardians are a minimum of 10. Back in the old days(3rd edition, which was rather good), this was reversed. Which is a bit pointless these days as both are now practically the same and packing heavy support weapons. I really don't see the point of 10 guardians babysitting a heavy platform, when five of them could be off doing better things - or even becoming a small storm-squad. Speaking of which, when did they change the minimum counts for the Guardians?

And what in the name of Eldrad happened to our Black Guardians!? I demand justice!

Would be good if Warlocks could be a proper unit leader for Guardians, similar to how the Sybarite leads the Kabalites. Guardians are a bit bland these days...

SamusDrake wrote:

Would be good if Warlocks could be a proper unit leader for Guardians, similar to how the Sybarite leads the Kabalites. Guardians are a bit bland these days...

Warlocks would be less bland if they were simply Guardians with +1A and +1Ld?

Yeah 8th edition which technically catered to any size of game doesn't really become a functional game for most codex's untill you pass 1000 points.

Many codex's don't actually become functionally powerful until you hit 1500 to 2000 points.

A 500 point game is esentially bordering on Killteams reason for being, a 500 point game is going to be 1-2 units and a charictor or 2 thats all. Your asking for a change that while making sence for you would have massive implications for all other sizes of game.

Ice_can wrote:
Yeah 8th edition which technically catered to any size of game doesn't really become a functional game for most codex's untill you pass 1000 points.

Many codex's don't actually become functionally powerful until you hit 1500 to 2000 points.

A 500 point game is esentially bordering on Killteams reason for being, a 500 point game is going to be 1-2 units and a charictor or 2 thats all. Your asking for a change that while making sence for you would have massive implications for all other sizes of game.

And it breaks down once you reach certain point. And balance is all wonky outside 2k. That's what happens when you have non-scalable rules. Stratagems are more effective the smaller the game, necron RP goes from very good in small games to near useless at 2k to "why even bother printing" at 3k+ etc etc etc.

 harlokin wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:

Would be good if Warlocks could be a proper unit leader for Guardians, similar to how the Sybarite leads the Kabalites. Guardians are a bit bland these days...

Warlocks would be less bland if they were simply Guardians with +1A and +1Ld?

...with a 4+ invulnerable save, +1 wound, a decent melee weapon and also...gasp!...a Psyker! They are also quite the fashion statement too, with those fetching robes and witchblades....

SamusDrake wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:

Would be good if Warlocks could be a proper unit leader for Guardians, similar to how the Sybarite leads the Kabalites. Guardians are a bit bland these days...

Warlocks would be less bland if they were simply Guardians with +1A and +1Ld?

...with a 4+ invulnerable save, +1 wound, a decent melee weapon and also...gasp!...a Psyker! They are also quite the fashion statement too, with those fetching robes and witchblades....

Point taken

Realistically we will just end up seeing another 2-3 years worth of points deflation over time as GW makes adjustments just like we saw with 8th. My original 2000 point militarum tempestus list at the start of 8th is currently worth ~1700 points after all the adjustments that were made over the course of the edition, I can see similar trends occurred in my various other armies. I have no reason to believe that this trend won't continue, in general points adjustments are a gakky way to attempt to balance the game as it produces a ripple effect across the game with nth order consequences. It would be far better to try to balance by adjusting stats/abilities instead, reserving point adjustments as a point of last resort.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Points should be changed in relation to balance, not to game size. You should pay the points for what something is worth.

Thats now how points or balance works though. Its a common perception that increased granularity means better fine tuning, etc. but points are designed to achieve balance at the army level (specifically within a target "balance point" range, for example 1500-2000 pts), not at the unit level - as such small fine-tuning adjustments are largely pointless and subject to diminishing returns. There are too many external factors that cannot easily be accounted for that factor in to a units effectiveness/relative balance. Strategems, relics, inter-unit synergy for example. Some of these things have a multiplicative effect on the effectiveness of a model or a unit if they are taken in conjunction - for this to be accurately reflected in the "worth" of the unit you are paying for, then it couldn't have a fixed points value, etc. This is why balance doesn't really scale well/is subject to fluctuation with game size, you see this at the extreme ends of the spectrum - at 500 points different armies dominate the meta than at 2000 points, and at 5000 points its another game altogether.

1. Things like Guard and Cultists are so cheap currently that a change of one point either direction is a massive percentage change - that makes them extremely hard to adjust. Larger base values allow for better fine-tuning.

Likewise, the idea that a larger points scale allows for better granularity or resolution/fine tuning is also a myth. Points are a limiting mechanic for army construction, it doesn't matter if bumping the cost of one of these units by 1 point per model makes it 20-30% more expensive, so long as, at a zoomed out level, a 2000 pt army (or whatever the "balance point" may be) averages to an approx. 50/50 win/loss. There are "internal balance" issues that need to be addressed, in terms of relative points efficiencies, but that never really goes away and can be offset in other ways.

Theres a growing number of games out there that use much smaller point scales (up to 100 pts) that have significantly greater internal and external balance than most games that use larger scales like 40k and AoS. Warmachine/Hordes and Team Yankee/FoWv4, for example, are two that come o mind immediately.

tneva82 wrote:

And it breaks down once you reach certain point. And balance is all wonky outside 2k. That's what happens when you have non-scalable rules. Stratagems are more effective the smaller the game, necron RP goes from very good in small games to near useless at 2k to "why even bother printing" at 3k+ etc etc etc.

Not played it but I'd assume that Apocalypse would make sense beyond 2K points?

 Jidmah wrote:

rbstr wrote:
Make plenty of sense to me two main reasons:
1. Things like Guard and Cultists are so cheap currently that a change of one point either direction is a massive percentage change - that makes them extremely hard to adjust. Larger base values allow for better fine-tuning.
2. I think the points reductions have really lead to armies being too big. Alpha strikes have gotten too strong, and that's partly as a function of that army size. And also you get to basically bring everything and the kitchen sink right now and that really reduces list-building tradeoffs with many armies.

This basically says it all. More room for balance adjustments and less scattered tables are both welcome.

Of course, with a huge change to all points like that, the beginning of 9th is going to be a mess. But at least we know that GW is not shy of stepping in and adjusting things in this age.

They should be shy because they're expecting people to still pay for their printed product.

SamusDrake wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

And it breaks down once you reach certain point. And balance is all wonky outside 2k. That's what happens when you have non-scalable rules. Stratagems are more effective the smaller the game, necron RP goes from very good in small games to near useless at 2k to "why even bother printing" at 3k+ etc etc etc.

Not played it but I'd assume that Apocalypse would make sense beyond 2K points?

Where we have gone if 3k counts these days apocalypse When it first came out apoc was more like 12k per side.

 p5freak wrote:
I also like the point increase. You cant give a model 5.5 pts., if 5 is too cheap, and 6 is too expensive. Increasing the points for everything gives more wiggle room for adjustments. I also agree that doubling or tripling would have been even better.

You can't you use 5.5? Just round final fractions of 0.5 up.

tneva82 wrote:


Where we have gone if 3k counts these days apocalypse When it first came out apoc was more like 12k per side.

12K games!

I think that would be like a maniple from Adeptus Titanicus!

Guess I'll be in the minority and say "no", I don't like it. When they launched 8th, they claimed it was a very "fast playing edition". Speed of play was an early selling point. Most of us saw, almost instantly, (and even when we were still playing index 40k), that this wasn't the case. Yes, the rules were streamlined, but even smaller games were NOT going faster. This had nothing to do with game size and everything to do with the fact that, when you have so many re-rolls, you're essentially playing the game twice in one sitting (side note - also kind of proves they really weren't play testing like they claimed. Stuff like this happened all through 8th ed. You have to wonder what Reece and co were ACTUALLY doing because one would think they would have caught stuff like this but I digress).

Add in the 50 million extra strats most armies got once the codexes came out, and the auras that gave even MORE rerolls and forget about it. The game became slow as feth. Under the same, or similar rules system, games are still going to take too long. Even at smaller sizes. Increasing points across the board just further punishes armies like Death Guard and Space Wolves who are already too expensive. It's classic GW. I swear if the rules team was a Doctor's office instead of a rules team, and you went in with a case of exercise induced vertigo, they would solve it by cutting off your legs to keep you from working out.

No thanks.

tneva82 wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

And it breaks down once you reach certain point. And balance is all wonky outside 2k. That's what happens when you have non-scalable rules. Stratagems are more effective the smaller the game, necron RP goes from very good in small games to near useless at 2k to "why even bother printing" at 3k+ etc etc etc.

Not played it but I'd assume that Apocalypse would make sense beyond 2K points?

Where we have gone if 3k counts these days apocalypse When it first came out apoc was more like 12k per side.

Apoc was always advertised as 3K+ even in the original 2007 release, people played higher, but GW always advertised the ruleset for pretty much taking a 2K army and adding a Titan or other superheavy with a bit of extra support and going up from there.

SamusDrake wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Where we have gone if 3k counts these days apocalypse When it first came out apoc was more like 12k per side.

12K games!

I think that would be like a maniple from Adeptus Titanicus!

I think that sounds about right, but I never did own the actual original Apocalypse book, someone else in my old playgroup did. But I do recall that our first Apoc game was 10,000 points of my Necrons vs a combination 10,000 points of Guard and Ultramarines. It is why I bought and built five Monoliths to run that datasheet for a Phalanx (or whatever it was called). Despite them having a Thunderhawk with a D-cannon, I still ended up winning that game. That was still with the 3rd edition codex for Necrons though, so with all the new 5th Edition stuff, I'm sure fielding 12k points would be pretty easy.

I don't think point increases are necessarily bad, it all depends on the relative adjustments to each other, not relative to up or down in isolation though.

 Vaktathi wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

And it breaks down once you reach certain point. And balance is all wonky outside 2k. That's what happens when you have non-scalable rules. Stratagems are more effective the smaller the game, necron RP goes from very good in small games to near useless at 2k to "why even bother printing" at 3k+ etc etc etc.

Not played it but I'd assume that Apocalypse would make sense beyond 2K points?

Where we have gone if 3k counts these days apocalypse When it first came out apoc was more like 12k per side.

Apoc was always advertised as 3K+ even in the original 2007 release, people played higher, but GW always advertised the ruleset for pretty much taking a 2K army and adding a Titan or other superheavy with a bit of extra support and going up from there.

Did a Titan cost 2k points back then though?

Play war warhound these days and you have 1k points left.

Appocolypse seems to be more aimed at the 4-5k range now, with 40k going up to that.


Speaking of which GW for the love of resin can you please give us fair points for our forgeworld models please, it sucks when your model costing twice as much as a codex model has the same defence and less offence.

Would also be nice if you adressed the similar issue of different codex's paying 5 times the points for the same firepower.

I don't see this as a guarantee of anything changing. If just problem units were changed then it would be a fix but as everything is being raised then there's nothing stopping the standard point value being raised to render any change pointless.

Overall I like it, still building an army, so I'm going to stop for a bit and see how what I already have works out to be. But saving me a few $ in the short term might not be all that bad (though after shelling out for the rulebook, it might end up a wash anyway!)

 harlokin wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:

Would be good if Warlocks could be a proper unit leader for Guardians, similar to how the Sybarite leads the Kabalites. Guardians are a bit bland these days...

Warlocks would be less bland if they were simply Guardians with +1A and +1Ld?

...with a 4+ invulnerable save, +1 wound, a decent melee weapon and also...gasp!...a Psyker! They are also quite the fashion statement too, with those fetching robes and witchblades....

Point taken

Yeah, I would not mind if it were an actual option to use a warlock's invulnerable save to protect a guardian unit. I would not mind them functioning more like Aspiring Sorcerors than what they are currently, a totally redundant unit thanks to the existence of the spiritseer or a TERRIBLE, HORRIBLY overpriced all-psykers unit.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kcalehc wrote:
Overall I like it, still building an army, so I'm going to stop for a bit and see how what I already have works out to be. But saving me a few $ in the short term might not be all that bad (though after shelling out for the rulebook, it might end up a wash anyway!)

If it's like 8th, you should be able to use the free core rules they put out pretty effectively. I don't think I ever bought an 8th ed BRB.

I have mixed feelings about this.

On one hand, we had really nowhere to go on the bottom end of points.

On the other hand, I'm a fluff player who has a hard time fitting everything I want to take into my armies already. I always build my armies around 3000 points anyway. I don't like the idea of not being able to take that extra unit.

I guess I'll never understand people's desire for small quick games.

When I set up any game I want it to be epic. Like watching the LotR trilogy in one sitting.

So just play 3K in the new system.

So just play 3K in the new system.

Yeah, I already do. Thats my point. So I will be losing models.

I guess I could bump it up even further. I dunno. We'll see how this shakes out. We'll probably see massive points drops anyway with each chapter approved.

I don't play points, but even I'm on board with increasing points across the board. If everything has more points, 1 point makes less of a difference, so balance can be less *drastic*. I mean, if a Space Marine was 10 points, and you change their cost by 1 point, that's a 10% change. If Space Marines are 20 points, and you change their cost by 1 point, that's a 5% change.

It doesn't mean that armies need to get smaller. You just change what size you choose to play at.

In all fairness, that's actually a gripe I just have generally with people complaining "40k's too big/too small" - there's nothing stopping you playing at 1000 points or 3000 points or whatever size you prefer.

Brutus_Apex wrote:

So just play 3K in the new system.

Yeah, I already do. Thats my point. So I will be losing models.

So play 4k?

The back and forth with the “New GW” is amazing.

Less points better! More points better!

Lots of rules bad! Lots of rules good!

It’s just laughable at this point.

Pancakey wrote:
The back and forth with the “New GW” is amazing.

Less points better! More points better!

Lots of rules bad! Lots of rules good!

It’s just laughable at this point.

It's almost like different people have different opinions. Wild, Crazy, I'm sure you're the only one who's ever noticed this.

"Why, then, ’tis none to you, for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison."



Also, marketing 101...

Personally I think this is one of the best things that can happen to the game. The armies were just getting way too big and games were taking way too long, as Joe moves his swarm of two hundred gaunts/cultists/guardsmen across the table. I really wish the games were dialed back in size to the size they were in 4th. Having less models means quicker games, more room to maneuver, and easier start-up for new players.