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.

I wish crusade was set up for points... maybe a supplement can do that. Sort of bolt on rules ...

 jeff white wrote:
I wish crusade was set up for points... maybe a supplement can do that. Sort of bolt on rules ...

Or you could learn how to multiply by twenty.

Okay, many responses, but I suck at multiquote and it never works out for me- please forgive the dog's breakfast that is this post.

To the guy who said IGOUGO doesn't derve 40k: My opinion on the issue is well known, so I won't go too far, but here's the deal: Warhammer 40k is the most popular table-top game in the world, and it has been IGOUGO for 33 years. I'd say it's serving pretty well.

To the guy who didn't get immersion: when Crusade comes, play it. In another two years one you've got a Chapter Master that you've been playing since he was a scout, I suspect you'll get it.

I've got characters who have played in Spacehulk, Kill Team, Blackstone, 40k and Apocalypse, and I've tracked experience for them across all 5 game systems. I used to have to do it with house rules.

My current Cannoness Comander, Jahalla Athebraxis, joined my army as Dominion in 2008. She was promoted to a Superior after her squad gunned down a custom Ork Warlord on a Snowmobile! In 2009, she became a Palatine, and earned her title as the Cannoness of her Mission after recovering Alicia Domenica's Praesidium Proctiva from a hidden vault beneath the Altar of the Chapel of Saint Katherine's Aegis. Under her leadership, the mission has grown to become it's own Preceptory.

Immersion doesn't happen in one game. For Jahalla, it's been 12 years. As a video gamer though, I can see the semantics; with videogames, immersion is tied to the senses- the hi-def visuals on the screen and spatial sound. With pen and paper RPG's and tabletop strategy games, it's more about maintaining the truth of the fictional world within which the game occurs.

For all of you talking about 12CP: it's not 12 CP. It's 12 CP plus one per turn, plus any of your CP generating rules from your dex- and yes, I know not everyone has that good fortune and capability. So that's the first thing.

The second is even if you're right, the part of your argument I take exception to is the implication that it was more fair under the previous system. Because the codex imbalance that causes the problem existed before 9th came along, except in 8th, you also had to deal with wonky CP generation imbalances between armies ON TOP of the codex imbalance.

I don't play Orks, and I don't own their Codex, but I have had recent discussions with folks about how this edition will put Orks at a disadvantage because the new system helps them less than it helps a lot of other armies. I'm not saying a problem doesn't exist. But getting away from CP by detachment WAS a step in the right direction, even if it didn't solve every problem.

I also know it's created a lot of anxiety for Drukhari and Daemons, especially at lower scales of play, because we need multiple detachments in order to use all of our units, and at 500 points, we only get one detachment. Despite the fact I actually play both Drukhari and Daemons, I can say theat I think fixed CP is better for the game as a whole.

Popularity and sales does not equate to quality on any level. Again, every Michael bay transformers movie makes a billion dollars. None of them are good movies on any level.

PenitentJake wrote:
Okay, many responses, but I suck at multiquote and it never works out for me- please forgive the dog's breakfast that is this post.
To the guy who didn't get immersion: when Crusade comes, play it. In another two years one you've got a Chapter Master that you've been playing since he was a scout, I suspect you'll get it.

I've got characters who have played in Spacehulk, Kill Team, Blackstone, 40k and Apocalypse, and I've tracked experience for them across all 5 game systems. I used to have to do it with house rules.

My current Cannoness Comander, Jahalla Athebraxis, joined my army as Dominion in 2008. She was promoted to a Superior after her squad gunned down a custom Ork Warlord on a Snowmobile! In 2009, she became a Palatine, and earned her title as the Cannoness of her Mission after recovering Alicia Domenica's Praesidium Proctiva from a hidden vault beneath the Altar of the Chapel of Saint Katherine's Aegis. Under her leadership, the mission has grown to become it's own Preceptory.

Immersion doesn't happen in one game. For Jahalla, it's been 12 years. As a video gamer though, I can see the semantics; with videogames, immersion is tied to the senses- the hi-def visuals on the screen and spatial sound. With pen and paper RPG's and tabletop strategy games, it's more about maintaining the truth of the fictional world within which the game occurs.

Yeah alright, that's fair. My idea of Immersion is more based on senses than story crafting.
Either one is good for getting invested in the game, I suppose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I don't understand this talk of immersion.
This isn't an atmospheric horror game or RPG, its a tabletop wargame with actual physical models and a human opponent. Immersion is a non-factor, rules take priority.
Models and rules should make sense in context of the game's setting, but that's not really immersion, that's more consistency. The game already has so many abstractions given its medium that talking about immersion and realism in terms of gameplay is pointless.

Let me guess... you started with CCGs?

Chess and Checkers, actually.
Then RTS and TBS games, then miniature wargames.

In retrospect, this is probably why I never really bothered giving my army an elaborate backstory.
Funnily enough, my first and primary army are necrons, who I started in 4th edition, back when they were a faceless and emotionless legion of killing machines, marching under the orders of their immortal masters.
You know, like your armies in Total War or any given RTS. Or chess, if we are to go into abstractions.

 Lance845 wrote:
Popularity and sales does not equate to quality on any level. Again, every Michael bay transformers movie makes a billion dollars. None of them are good movies on any level.

Bay's movies are crafted to appeal to a wide audience, provide momentary distraction, and be inoffensive. Compare them to equally inane but unsuccessful movies like Garfield and you'll see that there is a certain skill in execution as well thoughtfulness required. As far as corporations go, sales is the only measure of worthy of note, because quality is subjective, but monetary success is quantifiable. Also we are grown adults playing with plastic toy soldiers, set in a world were genetically modifed super soldiers fly across the galaxy to hit fantasy deniziens with pointy sticks, lets not put on airs here.

*edit* I'll defer to ERBs defense of Micheal Bays movies:

Dont really care until I see the rules in full and an FAQ that's sure to follow because there is like 0% they will get it right given their track record.

 jeff white wrote:
I wish crusade was set up for points... maybe a supplement can do that. Sort of bolt on rules ...

I'm pretty sure you could just decide on point values for campaigns if you want. That's probably what I'll do if my group runs a Crusade.

To the guy who said IGOUGO doesn't derve 40k: My opinion on the issue is well known, so I won't go too far, but here's the deal: Warhammer 40k is the most popular table-top game in the world, and it has been IGOUGO for 33 years. I'd say it's serving pretty well.

Do you have an actual good reason to keep IGOUGO beyond the fact that it's been part of the game for so long? Is there a functional reason to keep it?

40K is the most popular table top game in the world for quite a few reasons, IGOUGO is not one of them.

Boohoo, something doesn't use points. Get over it.

Pretty oddly aggressive statement given 95% of players use points instead of PL.

When you consider the fact that PL was never really properly balanced to begin with, and was never actually touched by GW in terms or re-balancing things, it was kind of a dead mechanic. It is a bit of a head-scratcher that they would shoehorn Crusade into using PL only. Especially since, in at least one of the live streams a GW person mentioned even being able to use PL in tournament settings. You know, tournaments ... those things that pretty much universally use points instead of PL ...

Playing in multiple stores across multiple states (this combines tournaments as well as just pick-up games), I think I managed to get three games using PL? So that averages to a little more than twice a year over the course of 8th's life. Not great.

I actually like using PL when I can as it makes army building faster, but GW has a long way to go if the idea is to get PL "ready for prime time".

For all of you talking about 12CP: it's not 12 CP. It's 12 CP plus one per turn, plus any of your CP generating rules from your dex- and yes, I know not everyone has that good fortune and capability. So that's the first thing.

The second is even if you're right, the part of your argument I take exception to is the implication that it was more fair under the previous system. Because the codex imbalance that causes the problem existed before 9th came along, except in 8th, you also had to deal with wonky CP generation imbalances between armies ON TOP of the codex imbalance.

I don't play Orks, and I don't own their Codex, but I have had recent discussions with folks about how this edition will put Orks at a disadvantage because the new system helps them less than it helps a lot of other armies. I'm not saying a problem doesn't exist. But getting away from CP by detachment WAS a step in the right direction, even if it didn't solve every problem.

From a semi-competitive to competitive standpoint, your average Ork army is currently starting with way more than 12, and no, getting "one point per turn" on top of that doesn't really help. Especially considering that, in order to function at a BASE level - Orks NEED those strats. It's not a "My army is ok, but when I CP farm, it becomes incredible" type situation. It's a "My army is generally too weak with several over-costed units and I need those strats just to get to OK" type situation. I haven't seen anyone say in this thread claim (or even imply) that it was "more fair" the other way. What most (myself included) are saying is that this probably wasn't the way to fix it. I agree that CP farming is a huge problem. That said, Orks are an army set up to be the poster children of CP farming and yet, all that extra CP just earns them a close-to-level foothold with the other middle tier armies. That's a problem. So here comes GW saying "Points go up across the board and you all start w/12cp". So Orks, who already have a handful of units that need to go DOWN in points are getting the nerfbat because "too many models", AND they won't get the CP they need (20+ in some cases) to function. Keep in mind that the strats are currently set up assuming a very different CP situation. So now we go back to, they can't do what they say they're doing, balance the game, AND maintain functionality of the 8th ed books. These three things don't work simultaneously. You can have any two, but not all three. So now you have to wonder - which line are the wrong(or outright lying) about?

And like I said earlier, my DG and my friend's Custodes didn't need points increases. His army already only has like 16 models in it. Since I insist on using Plague Marines, my DG army is also small and elite, and now likely unplayable at 2000pts. Other armies like Space Wolves are in the same boat. So how does an across-the-board increase help any of that? It doesn't. Unless they've also rewritten the rules to the point that the 8th ed books really aren't truly compatible.

I also know it's created a lot of anxiety for Drukhari and Daemons, especially at lower scales of play, because we need multiple detachments in order to use all of our units, and at 500 points, we only get one detachment. Despite the fact I actually play both Drukhari and Daemons, I can say theat I think fixed CP is better for the game as a whole.

There are a ton of examples like this where it's bad, and a bunch where it's good. I don't really think it's going to truly be a "fix". It's a classic GW solution - we fixed one thing and broke 9 others ... It will likely be the same but different if you get my meaning.

The other issue with the points increase is that fact that, as I said before, model count doesn't have nearly as much an effect on game length (at the current 2000 point scale) as people seem to think it does. Yeah, you get that guy who has that complaint about the time a ork player w/200 models slow played him, but do we want an across-the-board adjustment for fringe cases? I don't. But I digress - the real reason games are taking so long is the re-rolls and strategems. Take those out and play a 2000 point game using all the other rules (just don't use rerolls or strats) and watch how much faster the game goes. So you would think that's where GW is focusing their attention, and hey, MAYBE they will once we see the full rules, but with what we've seen right now - no. They are doubling down on those mechanics AND ADDING additional rules, phases and complexity. I'll happily make a sig-bet with anyone on Dakka about this, but my bet is, games of 9th will have 10-15% fewer models and still take nearly as long, or longer than 8th ed games. So points will have gone up, but will not have had the desired outcome of making the game shorter, and will subsequently start coming back down in the following CA.

40K is the most popular table top game in the world for quite a few reasons, IGOUGO is not one of them.

Agreed. I would make the argument that 40k is the most popular in spite of it's rules. Not because of them.

Tycho wrote:

Boohoo, something doesn't use points. Get over it.

Pretty oddly aggressive statement given 95% of players use points instead of PL.

I'd love to see your data to back that up. I'm sure it would totally include sources and the like, and not a single one of that "95% of players" using points would simply be people who don't care enough to argue it in their local communities.
Not. A. Single. One.



People can get over it using Power instead of Points. It's there to allow for flexibility in lists that you cannot get when you have crap like weapons having 2 point variations because it's a different barrel or whatever.

When you consider the fact that PL was never really properly balanced to begin with, and was never actually touched by GW in terms or re-balancing things, it was kind of a dead mechanic. It is a bit of a head-scratcher that they would shoehorn Crusade into using PL only.

It was more balanced than points have ever been or probably will ever be. Until we set new 'basic' statlines to work from for infantry/vehicles, there will always be a "best in points" category. And that simply means balance cannot exist with points, as if balance were in fact to exist with points then everything should be...oh what's the word. Balanced?
Also worth mentioning, since your next line is misinformation or wilful ignorance that I'll address separately, that GW has flatout committed to rebalancing Power in the coming edition. They had left it alone because they considered it to be a relatively balanced metric for pick-up games but apparently some people didn't "get" how it was supposed to work.

Especially since, in at least one of the live streams a GW person mentioned even being able to use PL in tournament settings. You know, tournaments ... those things that pretty much universally use points instead of PL ...

That isn't what was "mentioned". It was that someone who was using a tournament list could still play games with Crusade players for their "tournament prep". They just wouldn't have the same perks/downsides that the guy who had been playing Crusade would have--but otherwise nothing would be different.

Playing in multiple stores across multiple states (this combines tournaments as well as just pick-up games), I think I managed to get three games using PL? So that averages to a little more than twice a year over the course of 8th's life. Not great.

You included a game type that had people actively hostile to Power Levels for ridiculous reasons(many of which cited the dumpsterfire arguments of the AoS reject crowds) while hailing arbitrary numbers for wargear as perfection.

By your logic, matched play isn't great from my experience as I've played almost exclusively Power Level since 8th dropped. There were a few exceptions(one was me doing a teaching game with someone who insisted on points rather than Power because "I saw on reddit that Power was broken" and the others involved a short-lived Escalation League that died out when the organizer got a case of the "ooooh, shinies!" with Star Wars Legion), but yeah...not great for points!

I actually like using PL when I can as it makes army building faster, but GW has a long way to go if the idea is to get PL "ready for prime time".

Prior to the Covid shutdowns, I had gotten in 5 games using PL since January with another 10 in 2019. But I make a point of not playing with people who love to insist upon "eVeRyThInG mUsT bE pOiNtS!!1!!".
Only game I play using points at this juncture is Age of Sigmar, and that's because there is no Power equivalent sadly!

What is the difference between Points and PL?

Because no one, as far as I can see, claimed Points are perfect. But what IS claimed is that they can be far more precise and accurate than PL can by their very nature.

By your logic, matched play isn't great from my experience as I've played almost exclusively Power Level since 8th dropped. There were a few exceptions(one was me doing a teaching game with someone who insisted on points rather than Power because "I saw on reddit that Power was broken" and the others involved a short-lived Escalation League that died out when the organizer got a case of the "ooooh, shinies!" with Star Wars Legion), but yeah...not great for points!

the difference is that unlike PL or narrative play, people from all around the world, playing in different metas say that neither of those are played or used that often. Every poll made on dakka or other sites, showed narrative/open as being less played and less supported then match played.

Saying that people play points is like saying people eat bread. There maybe places where they don't, but comparing to the places where they do, we may as well say that they all do.


And as the balance thing goes, there is no way that a less precise tool is going to give better results, over multiple uses. Now does that doesn't mean that GW are master of balance and points are right , fixed and neeed no changes. We wouldn't be getting day 1 errata/faq and CA if that was true. But they sure are more precise the PL . What PL could try to achive is to be as close to points as possible. They would never reach the level and how close they would be depends on how someone views GWs ability to point stuff the right way. And in 8th where PL were never updated with each FAQ/CA that changed points and rules, they got less and less precise.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
I wish crusade was set up for points... maybe a supplement can do that. Sort of bolt on rules ...

I'm pretty sure you could just decide on point values for campaigns if you want. That's probably what I'll do if my group runs a Crusade.

We don't know how the mechanics for crusade are set up. What if requisition points are linked to PL somehow. You can't just say that X PL is Y points, because the costs do not overlap between even units from the same army, not to mention units from different ones.

 JNAProductions wrote:
What is the difference between Points and PL?

Because no one, as far as I can see, claimed Points are perfect. But what IS claimed is that they can be far more precise and accurate than PL can by their very nature.

When people refuse to play power because "it's broken" while insisting points are "balanced"? That's exactly what is being claimed.

PL is junk, allways have been right from start and 3 years ahead.

No one wanted to use it in my club (after trying some games with it), be it sigmar fans and haters alike.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What is the difference between Points and PL?

Because no one, as far as I can see, claimed Points are perfect. But what IS claimed is that they can be far more precise and accurate than PL can by their very nature.

When people refuse to play power because "it's broken" while insisting points are "balanced"? That's exactly what is being claimed.

Points is less broken.

When people refuse to play power because "it's broken" while insisting points are "balanced"? That's exactly what is being claimed.

No. I'm saying what JNAProductions said - at this point, the point levels have been adjusted every year. PL has NEVER been adjusted. So at this point in the edition, a mechanic that was dubiously balanced to begin with, has gotten even less balanced as time has gone on. Are points perfect? No. But they are more precise, and have been actively addressed on a regular basis.

Also worth mentioning, since your next line is misinformation or wilful ignorance that I'll address separately, that GW has flatout committed to rebalancing Power in the coming edition. They had left it alone because they considered it to be a relatively balanced metric for pick-up games but apparently some people didn't "get" how it was supposed to work.

LOL No.

My next statement was phrased as it was specifically BECAUSE GW "committed to re-balancing PL, while also saying they considered it balanced". If you don't see the issue there .....
I mean, building using PL is absolutely faster and easier, so I'd be all for it, and if they can get it right then great. But I'm not holding my breath either.

Tycho wrote:

When people refuse to play power because "it's broken" while insisting points are "balanced"? That's exactly what is being claimed.

No. I'm saying what JNAProductions said - at this point, the point levels have been adjusted every year. PL has NEVER been adjusted. So at this point in the edition, a mechanic that was dubiously balanced to begin with, has gotten even less balanced as time has gone on. Are points perfect? No. But they are more precise, and have been actively addressed on a regular basis.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure they're "more precise".

That's why tournament lists all look so similar, right? Because they're "balanced", not because they're constantly shifting in response to a meta dictated from a closed environment that makes up its own stupid houserules.

Also worth mentioning, since your next line is misinformation or wilful ignorance that I'll address separately, that GW has flatout committed to rebalancing Power in the coming edition. They had left it alone because they considered it to be a relatively balanced metric for pick-up games but apparently some people didn't "get" how it was supposed to work.

LOL No.

My next statement was phrased as it was specifically BECAUSE GW "committed to re-balancing PL, while also saying they considered it balanced". If you don't see the issue there .....
I mean, building using PL is absolutely faster and easier, so I'd be all for it, and if they can get it right then great. But I'm not holding my breath either.

Your "next statement" was wrong because you used something that was never said.

Tycho wrote:Especially since, in at least one of the live streams a GW person mentioned even being able to use PL in tournament settings. You know, tournaments ... those things that pretty much universally use points instead of PL ...

The closest was a mention of someone using a tournament list for "practice" could still play games with Crusade players for their "tournament prep". There was a brief joke about "doing Power Level tournaments", which was a follow-on from the bit about committing to rebalancing Power Level "as necessary".

That's why tournament lists all look so similar, right? Because they're "balanced", not because they're constantly shifting in response to a meta dictated from a closed environment that makes up its own stupid houserules.

So I don't think I'd get too many arguments if I were to say that pre-nerf Iron Hands were the most OP thing in 8th (rediculously OP). Now, let's take that level of OP, but add it to a system that hasn't been balanced in ... ever actually, and see how much better it gets. Like everyone here has said, no, points are not perfect. But PL was less balanced even on launch, and hasn't been touched since. So it can actually amplify the problems that still exist in points. As I've said like 5 times now, I actually like PL because it is faster and easier to pull a quick list together, but I've stopped using it because it really isn't balanced correctly. You especially see this in units like Plague Marines where you could have pretty extreme fluctuations in how "good" a unit is based on which of the myriad of options that unit takes. These fluctuations are taken into account with points. They are not taken into account in PL, so out of the gate it's awkward. Now fast forward 3+years and PL hasn't been adjusted ever. The awkwardness just gets worse.

Are points perfect? No. Are they a significantly better measure than PL? Yes. For sure, that could change and maybe they fix it, but I don't think they can without also drastically altering the rules for certain units, so we're now back to the triangle I mentioned earlier where something has to give, and it's probably going to be 8th ed books being compatible w/9th.

Your "next statement" was wrong because you used something that was never said.

Yes. My bad. Typo. I said "PL" but I meant the "Crusade System". They mentioned using Crusade in tourneys, but Crusade is PL only soooooo .....

My next statement was phrased as it was specifically BECAUSE GW "committed to re-balancing PL, while also saying they considered it balanced". If you don't see the issue there .....
I mean, building using PL is absolutely faster and easier, so I'd be all for it, and if they can get it right then great. But I'm not holding my breath either.

By definition the only way to PL work in w40k is either to make all models and units pre build with no gear options or star making units pay PL for extra stuff they take, but then we just get a different type of point system.

 Crimson wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
I wish crusade was set up for points... maybe a supplement can do that. Sort of bolt on rules ...

Or you could learn how to multiply by twenty.

Seems like 10 now, no?

You want to know why Crusade isn't flogging points?

Because points are a trash mechanic that encourages TFGs.

If you want to talk about the "RPG DM micromanager" in you, then you should damn well know that there will always be someone trying to squeeze every single last bit of cheek out of the system they can. Using Power rather than Points ensures that people don't really have to worry as much about TFGs, since they can swap in things on the fly.

 Kanluwen wrote:
You want to know why Crusade isn't flogging points?

Because points are a trash mechanic that encourages TFGs.

If you want to talk about the "RPG DM micromanager" in you, then you should damn well know that there will always be someone trying to squeeze every single last bit of cheek out of the system they can. Using Power rather than Points ensures that people don't really have to worry as much about TFGs, since they can swap in things on the fly.

I try to ignore those people.
Sorry for liking points...

That's cool and all, but the system isn't being built for it. It's seemingly being built specifically to discourage TFGs and munchkins from trying their stuff that can kill off escalation leagues basically overnight.

Problem with power level is that every DC gets a hammer

As bad as their points can be Power Level is far more open to abuse.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Because points are a trash mechanic that encourages TFGs.

Are you for real?

Just like with narrative games in 8th many people will simply use points for crusade as well, because why wouldn't you? With Battlescribe or the new App the main appeal of Power Level is gone. WarCom and WD featured several narrative players that use points. So if you're afraid of GW coming to your home and dreadsocking you because of using points in crusade - they probably won't, they'll rather write an article about how diverse the approaches to the Hobby are.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What is the difference between Points and PL?

Because no one, as far as I can see, claimed Points are perfect. But what IS claimed is that they can be far more precise and accurate than PL can by their very nature.

When people refuse to play power because "it's broken" while insisting points are "balanced"? That's exactly what is being claimed.

Just because a certain falcon is no longer around to pick apart your asinine "argument" you cannot have free reign with it...

PL is the drizzling gaks, that does not make pts good- however, it is a better fething system than PL, that is blatantly obvious and you're just playing internet contrarian again.

Personally I think PL and points are both useful and are there for different things.

Points is certainly more granular and is theoretically more balanced and is the only way to play competitively because of the max loadout ability of PL, but PL is useful for other reasons.

I'd actually say that PL is "better" in that it is better able to serve its use as intended.

Points are "supposed' to be balanced and provide players with a measure to determine if the lists facing each other are fairly matched. It fails at this much of the time.

PL is there to provide a quick and easy way to establish an approximate overall strength with no real aspirations to have things perfectly balanced. Its ideal for Open and Narrative play.

When I play in a local tournament or a more competitive matched play, I use points and try to be fairly savvy with my choices to get an effective list. at other times I use PL for Narrative games, or just more relaxed/friendly matched play games. When doing this I don't give every model the absolutely best loadout, I play WYSIWYG, I model based on what I like the look of and it gives me an opportunity to play with different wargear etc without worrying if a unit is under or over-performing.

TLDR
PL and points serve different purposes and both have their place. Which is better? Arguably PL is "better" because it actually works as intended, whereas points often falls short.

Tycho wrote:

From a semi-competitive to competitive standpoint, your average Ork army is currently starting with way more than 12, and no, getting "one point per turn" on top of that doesn't really help. Especially considering that, in order to function at a BASE level - Orks NEED those strats. It's not a "My army is ok, but when I CP farm, it becomes incredible" type situation. It's a "My army is generally too weak with several over-costed units and I need those strats just to get to OK" type situation. I haven't seen anyone say in this thread claim (or even imply) that it was "more fair" the other way. What most (myself included) are saying is that this probably wasn't the way to fix it. I agree that CP farming is a huge problem. That said, Orks are an army set up to be the poster children of CP farming and yet, all that extra CP just earns them a close-to-level foothold with the other middle tier armies. That's a problem. So here comes GW saying "Points go up across the board and you all start w/12cp". So Orks, who already have a handful of units that need to go DOWN in points are getting the nerfbat because "too many models", AND they won't get the CP they need (20+ in some cases) to function. Keep in mind that the strats are currently set up assuming a very different CP situation. So now we go back to, they can't do what they say they're doing, balance the game, AND maintain functionality of the 8th ed books. These three things don't work simultaneously. You can have any two, but not all three. So now you have to wonder - which line are the wrong(or outright lying) about?

My biggest fear as an ork player isn't the 12+6 CPs we could start with, is the fact that we must go mono-detachment in order to keep those 12+6 and not start with less. Tipycally only 3 HQs and only 3 HS are way too low for a 2000 points game, and it would be impossible to keep both the CPs and the needed units. Going brigade isn't a solution as it would force us to bring several expensive tax units, which is even worse. Last but not least only a couple of klans can really go mono-detachment at competitive levels, one of them implies the most boring way to play them (a pure gunline).

Tycho wrote:

And like I said earlier, my DG and my friend's Custodes didn't need points increases. His army already only has like 16 models in it. Since I insist on using Plague Marines, my DG army is also small and elite, and now likely unplayable at 2000pts. Other armies like Space Wolves are in the same boat. So how does an across-the-board increase help any of that? It doesn't. Unless they've also rewritten the rules to the point that the 8th ed books really aren't truly compatible.

I also fear that with my SW, but at least avoiding primaris stuff I should get a fair number of models on the table anyway, even if they aren't the most competitive choices.