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.

An across-the-board points jump doesn't do that much to balance, but it does mean that they've got space to adjust points values more precisely.

I have only seen 100+ model armies from Orks I believe, despite going to tournaments. The big tournaments don't seem to have had lots of time issues since introducing chess clocks. It's trying to fix a problem that wasn't a real problem anymore.

I like more granularity. I dislike 'across the board' hikes. Custodes could already barely make a TAC. You just hike everything 20%-50% and they're gonna be in real trouble.

 Sabotage! wrote:
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.

I'm genuinely curious why you think GW increasing the points value of units will have any effect on how many models players choose to play with.

 harlokin wrote:

 Sabotage! wrote:
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.

I'm genuinely curious why you think GW increasing the points value of units will have any effect on how many models players choose to play with.

I'm confused. If each model costs more points, then I have less models I can fit within the point limit. If I'm a 2000 point tournament player and each of my models costs 5 more points, I'll have to choose some models to drop from that list. It'll also have a meta-shift. If the hordes player has to drop a couple dozen grunts to make things work, horde armies become much weaker to attrition than they were previously, while elite small-model count armies don't lose out as much. I might shift my own firepower away from being as hordes-focused as it was in 8th.

So just looking at the jumps of intercessors vs cultists, it looks like the average point level is going up about 20% with the worst increases, percentage wise, happening to the cheapest units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 harlokin wrote:

 Sabotage! wrote:
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.

I'm genuinely curious why you think GW increasing the points value of units will have any effect on how many models players choose to play with.

Basic understanding of how math works?

Because the hike will not be so big as to make people abandon the 2k rang. Going over 2k means changing table, changing missions, changing CPs.... It's not just a simple number incresase.

Audustum wrote:
I have only seen 100+ model armies from Orks I believe, despite going to tournaments. The big tournaments don't seem to have had lots of time issues since introducing chess clocks. It's trying to fix a problem that wasn't a real problem anymore.

I like more granularity. I dislike 'across the board' hikes. Custodes could already barely make a TAC. You just hike everything 20%-50% and they're gonna be in real trouble.

You're ignoring the fact that A. Not all tournaments have chess clocks, and B. Most of those games still only make it to turn 3, they just end up having the non-ork player getting a free turn or two in depending on how slow the Ork player is. Hell, a big part of why the Harlequin player in the semi-finals or w/e got creamed as hard as he did was because he had to rush out his last 2-3 turns in like 15 total minutes to not give the IH guy free time.

Time is still an issue with Chess Clocks, it's just not as UNFAIR of an issue.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 Sabotage! wrote:
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.

I'm genuinely curious why you think GW increasing the points value of units will have any effect on how many models players choose to play with.

I'm confused. If each model costs more points, then I have less models I can fit within the point limit. If I'm a 2000 point tournament player and each of my models costs 5 more points, I'll have to choose some models to drop from that list. It'll also have a meta-shift. If the hordes player has to drop a couple dozen grunts to make things work, horde armies become much weaker to attrition than they were previously, while elite small-model count armies don't lose out as much. I might shift my own firepower away from being as hordes-focused as it was in 8th.

Because that 2'000 point total wasn't handed down by god. It is simply an army size that allows for a certain amount of customisation and decsion making, while providing a game that can be completed within a certain time period. To my mind, doubling the points cost of units across the board, all other things being equal, would simply result in 4'000 point tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:
So just looking at the jumps of intercessors vs cultists, it looks like the average point level is going up about 20% with the worst increases, percentage wise, happening to the cheapest units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 harlokin wrote:

 Sabotage! wrote:
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.

I'm genuinely curious why you think GW increasing the points value of units will have any effect on how many models players choose to play with.

Basic understanding of how math works?

Amazing that you can't ask a reasonable question without someone acting like a witch.

 harlokin wrote:

 ChargerIIC wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 Sabotage! wrote:
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.

I'm genuinely curious why you think GW increasing the points value of units will have any effect on how many models players choose to play with.

I'm confused. If each model costs more points, then I have less models I can fit within the point limit. If I'm a 2000 point tournament player and each of my models costs 5 more points, I'll have to choose some models to drop from that list. It'll also have a meta-shift. If the hordes player has to drop a couple dozen grunts to make things work, horde armies become much weaker to attrition than they were previously, while elite small-model count armies don't lose out as much. I might shift my own firepower away from being as hordes-focused as it was in 8th.

Because that 2'000 point total wasn't handed down by god. It is simply an army size that allows for a certain amount of customisation and decsion making, while providing a game that can be completed within a certain time period. To my mind, doubling the points cost of units across the board, all other things being equal, would simply result in 4'000 point tournaments.

Couple of reasons this isn't true:

1. It isn't double. It's MAYBE 20% on the whole and it's already shown to not be evenly distributed. Some of the units that are severe underperformers may see no increases at all. There's no reason to adjust tournament sizes when any adjustment that would be made is ultimately just some arbitrary (and small) amount of 'Up'.

2. Games were getting too big as it is, at least at the tournament level. Even with chess clocks, a lot of armies face a significant time crunch in 2:45 to 3 hour games, especially for people who are still in the process of really learning the nuances of their army (i.e. locals.)

3. People like round numbers. 2000 is a good standard to have because it's simple and easy. Sure, 2134 may be more accurate to the overall size and scope of the game now, but that's an ugly value to build a list to. Same as it's been in the last couple of CAs that saw mostly across the board drops.

4. The new CP system means that going up 1 point would net another 6CP, which isn't technically handed down by god either, but GW is as close as it gets for 40k. Pretty much only the ITC has the influence to overrule them on a large scale and even then, only in certain regions of North America.

That makes sense, thanks.

Audustum wrote:
I have only seen 100+ model armies from Orks I believe, despite going to tournaments. The big tournaments don't seem to have had lots of time issues since introducing chess clocks. It's trying to fix a problem that wasn't a real problem anymore.

It addresses a problem that events were forced to introduce an element outside the rules to address (the clock), which also impacted people from bringing certain kinds of armies due to time issues. Now the issue might able to be addressed within the scope of the game without potentially having to artificially effectively ban certain types of army builds as the scope in general will be smaller.

I like more granularity. I dislike 'across the board' hikes. Custodes could already barely make a TAC. You just hike everything 20%-50% and they're gonna be in real trouble.

You can't get more granularity by only increasing cost on some units, otherwise it's just a straight nerf to those units and you just move the granularity issue up the cost range. Everything will go up, and most armies will have to cut some things. We'll have to see where everything ends up.

Spoletta wrote:
Because the hike will not be so big as to make people abandon the 2k rang. Going over 2k means changing table, changing missions, changing CPs.... It's not just a simple number incresase.

Yeah, it sounds like there's a lot of moving pieces involved here, and that there's still a fair bit to be unveiled.

As pretty much anything depends on how it is handled. But I'd regard it as a positive move, since as stated it gives more room for precise point adjustement, and at the same time won't necesseraly change the fact you can still play 40K-ish overssized carnage games as well, just have to double the minimal amount of point per side I guess!

We've not seen enough to make any kind of judgement yet.
Intercessor weapons could be going up whilst auto guns are free which changes the relative value of the units significantly, we've just got to be patient and see the whole picture before making any real judgements.

I would be glad they are increasing the points cost of everything, allows for finer tuning - but GW will just use it as a springboard to drop points with each book release to spur buying more models/sell more books & CA.

All raising the pts values is going to do in my circles is to potentially cause our "standard" games to be played at a higher pt value.

IMHO (and this is important to read that it is indeed my opinion) from what ive seen of 9th I have zero intrest in playing it. Its the first edition to have this effect on me. OP shooting hasn't been addressed and that should have been one of the first problems tackled and previewed.

This point increase, im hoping, does not translate to the sales they think it will. Perhaps it will. If I want a small game ill play a 1000 point game. Raising unit points across the board is one of the worst ideas I have ever seen come out of GW. And they have had some really, really, really bad takes in the past.

And while I will certainly wait to see the rules in full before retiring my armies for the edition...this is the first time I have had very little hope.

The point of raising the pts value is to have more room.
That way you can have more granularity between guardsmen, conscripts, cultists and termagants instead of all of them costing the same

People will likely play "bigger" games to make up for the increased cost, so I doubt the number of models will actually change.

jeff white wrote:Now. If only there were a 1500 point level standard, on 8x4tables, with realistic terrain interactions, slower aberage movement, no random charge distances, and tanks that cant be hurt with boltpistols ...

I have that now because I still play 3rd Ed.

Vector Strike wrote:In general, yes. Less miniatures means a cheaper game. I'm starting a new army, so it is really good.

However, it also must come with balance.

Actually, you're on to something. Price hikes across the board for models happens right as they're announcing less models to use in games, can't be a coincidence.

About 10% of their line goes up every June, so no its not coincidence. We all knew it was coming b.c it always comes.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
About 10% of their line goes up every June, so no its not coincidence. We all knew it was coming b.c it always comes.

…

No, I meant the fact that they're lowering the size of the game (in theory) timed around a price "adjustment".

If this means that more games would be under 2000pts, in todays points, it would be great. If it means we are going to play 3000 as the new standard, making the new games the same old 2000pts games or more points it is going to be not so fun.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
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.

Well I don't have 8'x6' board and 6'x4' is already too cramped in 8th ed 2k games. Been too cramped for several editions already. Removes importance from movement and makes game less strategic, more of just roll dices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
All raising the pts values is going to do in my circles is to potentially cause our "standard" games to be played at a higher pt value.

I hope your group isn't going to complain about price of 40k in money? Because that would be two faced thing. GW makes it cheaper, players make it more expensive and then complain about cost of armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Table wrote:
IMHO (and this is important to read that it is indeed my opinion) from what ive seen of 9th I have zero intrest in playing it. Its the first edition to have this effect on me. OP shooting hasn't been addressed and that should have been one of the first problems tackled and previewed.

This point increase, im hoping, does not translate to the sales they think it will. Perhaps it will. If I want a small game ill play a 1000 point game. Raising unit points across the board is one of the worst ideas I have ever seen come out of GW. And they have had some really, really, really bad takes in the past.

And while I will certainly wait to see the rules in full before retiring my armies for the edition...this is the first time I have had very little hope.

You a) enjoy idea of 1 pts grots(as that's where they were heading with all the price drops) for HUGE swarms b) enjoy spending more money to models?

I love this. Indirectly lower the size of 2k points without changing the points. It would be nice if 2k points was more like 1750 size wise.

lowering the points for "smaller games" is a GW fallacy. People already have the models, they will just up the points for their games so they can use the same models.

And anyways, GW will keep reducing points in each future book anyways, so we'll be right back where we started by the time they're ready to roll out 10th ed.

This is all just smoke and mirrors folks. Granting "official" permission to do the things folks have already doing for editions.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
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.

Sir, you speak to my heart. I’ve only ever played 2k games because that’s what everyone does. One day my dreams may come true.

I think it's going to do much good. No idea who liked bringing 200+ models to the tables, if you're just gonna remove half of them anyway at the end of battle round 1. Yes people liked playing with all their toys, but really, were you playing with them if you just brought them out to remove them and put them back in the box?

Though, apparently one of the play testers said that his primaris marine army only lost like one squad in the transition from 8th to 9th, and we know that primaris marine themselves only increased by like 3 points. However, cultist increased by a whooping 50% points. So either swarm are getting nerfed to hell, or there's some marine bias and they will be very, very good!

The minimum table size will probably kill the shift towards playing larger points games to make up for the points increases. Of course, they are just guidelines and people will play however they want, but for many I suspect the "official guidance" which says to play 3000 point games on a table which is effectively 4'x8' or larger will probably be a deal breaker, especially for tournament organizers which tend to favor squeezing more players in by using smaller table sizes - its why 40k went from a 4x8 table recommendation in 4th edition to 4x6 in 5th.

I think it’s a little too early to decide if it’s good or bad. But according to some of the more experienced players that have been helping me understand the game, Custodes, Grey knights, and Imperial Knights for example don’t really need a point increase given how much they cost already. Whereas certain horde armies are likely to be hit much harder by this.

Yes but only if its done fairly consistently and balanced across all the faction. Simply so I dont have to remove as many models off the board right after putting them there. My T3 1w 5+ troops don't last long..

However... the likely hood of this happening in reality by GW? I would say maybe 5%. And im being generous.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
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.

Reducing the effective points allotment has many beneficial effects:
1: Shorter playtime. This means that you're more likely to actually finish the game before somebody has to go home, and you can finish multiple games under pressure in tournament settings. How many large apocalypse-scale games have you played that amounted to setting up huge armies for like 2-3 hours and then playing for 2 turns? Actually playing the game is a lot more fun than any sense of epic-ness.
2: Less intense startup. The cost of starting an army is high, reducing the model count of standard play allows new players to more easily enter into the hobby and for players to pick up new armies.
3: Less crowded board. The board is just too small for many armies right now; I've played games where I literally have no place to put down another vehicle between terrain and the small board size relative to army size. Reducing the crowing also opens up more freedom for position and maneuver and makes it matter more, since there's both room to do it and you can not longer have everything everywhere.
4: Finally, with lower allotment for things to bring, you also have to make more careful consideration of exactly what you're going to bring and how it's going to interact, and things brought are a more severe trade-off to what else could have been brought, so there's more care and depth to the planning and strategic part of the game too.


Obviously, there's a point where the game is too small, but I think that the current 2k is too big. Really, I think the past 1875 was too big.