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.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Spoiler:

 MinscS2 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Grots costing the same as guardsmen is prima facie absurd. The burden lies with the guard players who support this to prove that these units are equivalent across many games.

Not everything is about killing power.

No? So is it about durability? Mobility? Access to weapon options? Access to support units?

Or do you not have a scenario in which unit A is better than unit B at anything so you'll just say "nuh uh" and gesture vaguely?

God, I can't believe I ever used to respect your opinion as someone to listen to on this hellsite.

I have no personal part in your quarrel with Daedalus81, but I had to chime in after reading this last bit;

I have been away from dakkadakka for quite some time (partly because low interest in 40k during the last year, but also because I got tired of the general mentality of a lot of forum members here. I blame Warseer shutting down on that last part. Seems most of the whiners found their way here.) so I have no distinct knowledge or remembrance of most of the users here, but you have in the short time I've been back established yourself as "that guy who feels compelled to whine about how bad his gretchin has become, over and over", and now I see you type this.

Have you ever considered that this forum is a "hellsite" due to the rampart negativity and pessimism spread by its own members; negativity and pessimism that you yourself help to spread right now in this very thread?

Anyway, this topic is essentially a circlejerk in complaints about 9th, an edition which I actually already like and consider a step-up from 8th in almost every way.
I thoroughly enjoyed the 4 test-games I had this weekend, but just reading this topic caused me to doubt myself whether I like 9th or not...
So I'm basically gonna scoot before I get dragged down in the cesspool of negativity where (sadly, genuinely so) so many forum members who have decided that they hate 9th before it's even officially released already are.

I have definitely seen Scotsman saying positive things about 9th, it's not all whining, all the time. He, like others, has identified 9th as being the MSU/anti-horde edition, and that's not really that controversial of a thing to say.

The frustration that you're seeing today is a result of these new points/FAQs that seem wildly out of whack with the actual state of the game. Unless in your 9th practicing, you used the new points (which I'm sure you didn't unless you're a reviewer/playtester), your point is moot. The points craziness is really where the wheels are falling off here. I was pretty optimistic about 9th too until I woke up to this crazy state of things. I don't blame anybody getting angry about it today.

MSU? Anti-Horde? Neither of those things are true. As far as I can tell. Where is the thread for this?

Ah, I can see by your oblivious nature to this statement that you have not been visiting the 9th edition thread in news and rumours. You are a wise man.

What? You mean it's not a well reasoned, rational, civil discussion on dakka? First time for everything I guess.

Ice_can wrote:

ccs wrote:
Just relax, they'll fix all the pt values in CA 2021.

So everyone else gets to enjoy getting tabled by indomitous marines and Custodes, GK and TS for the next year.

Yeah, and the best part is you have to PAY for that update! How cool is that?

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Spoiler:

 MinscS2 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Grots costing the same as guardsmen is prima facie absurd. The burden lies with the guard players who support this to prove that these units are equivalent across many games.

Not everything is about killing power.

No? So is it about durability? Mobility? Access to weapon options? Access to support units?

Or do you not have a scenario in which unit A is better than unit B at anything so you'll just say "nuh uh" and gesture vaguely?

God, I can't believe I ever used to respect your opinion as someone to listen to on this hellsite.

I have no personal part in your quarrel with Daedalus81, but I had to chime in after reading this last bit;

I have been away from dakkadakka for quite some time (partly because low interest in 40k during the last year, but also because I got tired of the general mentality of a lot of forum members here. I blame Warseer shutting down on that last part. Seems most of the whiners found their way here.) so I have no distinct knowledge or remembrance of most of the users here, but you have in the short time I've been back established yourself as "that guy who feels compelled to whine about how bad his gretchin has become, over and over", and now I see you type this.

Have you ever considered that this forum is a "hellsite" due to the rampart negativity and pessimism spread by its own members; negativity and pessimism that you yourself help to spread right now in this very thread?

Anyway, this topic is essentially a circlejerk in complaints about 9th, an edition which I actually already like and consider a step-up from 8th in almost every way.
I thoroughly enjoyed the 4 test-games I had this weekend, but just reading this topic caused me to doubt myself whether I like 9th or not...
So I'm basically gonna scoot before I get dragged down in the cesspool of negativity where (sadly, genuinely so) so many forum members who have decided that they hate 9th before it's even officially released already are.

I have definitely seen Scotsman saying positive things about 9th, it's not all whining, all the time. He, like others, has identified 9th as being the MSU/anti-horde edition, and that's not really that controversial of a thing to say.

The frustration that you're seeing today is a result of these new points/FAQs that seem wildly out of whack with the actual state of the game. Unless in your 9th practicing, you used the new points (which I'm sure you didn't unless you're a reviewer/playtester), your point is moot. The points craziness is really where the wheels are falling off here. I was pretty optimistic about 9th too until I woke up to this crazy state of things. I don't blame anybody getting angry about it today.

Yeah, honestly, if points were unchanged I would think 9th was my favorite edition yet. from the games I've played of it, I like

1) more involved missions, while not being as kill-focused as ITC missions were.

2) miles better terrain system, even if like in all editions many of the terrain traits are kinda silly/low impact. If you make sure you've got a lot of the best ones (Defensible, Obscuring, Dense Cover, Light Cover) and you kind of ignore the weird ones (Heavy Cover, Difficult Ground, Exposed Positions, the non-rules for Hills) then the terrain system is quite nice and varied. Also, I greatly appreciate the engagement range and new coherency rules for making it not a nightmare as soon as you get up into the upper levels of any given terrain piece.

3) Tanks are no longer encouraged to be stationary gun turrets sitting as far away from the enemy as possible, and are no longer required to have mooks standing in front of them.

4) you at least get to use 1-2 stratagems in the later turns thanks to 1CP in the command phase.

I believe I am allowed to be positive on those aspects of the game that I like, while also being incredibly frustrated that I'm looking at some 70% of my model collection being shelfwarmers until the next CA rolls around and GW notices that every army that's not space marines is only fielding vehicles and flyers.

I look at my armies and it's like:

Orks: Buggies look good! Tankbustas in Trukks look good! Maybe some MANz in a BW?

GSC: Buggies look good! neophytes with heavy weapons in Goliaths look good! Naked bikers look like they're my objective holders.

Drukhari: Big ball of talos/grotesques looks good! Wych cult flyers with Test of Skill look good! black heart ravagers look good!

Thousand Sons: Big ball of double shooting rubrics looks good! Mobile psykers looks good!

Everything that was currently competitive before, is competitive now, possibly more so with stuff gaining the ability to shoot into melee. I take admech and I bring mars dakka bots: Good fething luck, dude, they're gonna sit there and murder you all day long. Everything that was casual/just for fun games where I know my opponent is bringing a fluffy silly list, I basically need to approach with like a Christian Gray contract now.

Seems like better rules, but worse balance.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Spoiler:

 MinscS2 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Grots costing the same as guardsmen is prima facie absurd. The burden lies with the guard players who support this to prove that these units are equivalent across many games.

Not everything is about killing power.

No? So is it about durability? Mobility? Access to weapon options? Access to support units?

Or do you not have a scenario in which unit A is better than unit B at anything so you'll just say "nuh uh" and gesture vaguely?

God, I can't believe I ever used to respect your opinion as someone to listen to on this hellsite.

I have no personal part in your quarrel with Daedalus81, but I had to chime in after reading this last bit;

I have been away from dakkadakka for quite some time (partly because low interest in 40k during the last year, but also because I got tired of the general mentality of a lot of forum members here. I blame Warseer shutting down on that last part. Seems most of the whiners found their way here.) so I have no distinct knowledge or remembrance of most of the users here, but you have in the short time I've been back established yourself as "that guy who feels compelled to whine about how bad his gretchin has become, over and over", and now I see you type this.

Have you ever considered that this forum is a "hellsite" due to the rampart negativity and pessimism spread by its own members; negativity and pessimism that you yourself help to spread right now in this very thread?

Anyway, this topic is essentially a circlejerk in complaints about 9th, an edition which I actually already like and consider a step-up from 8th in almost every way.
I thoroughly enjoyed the 4 test-games I had this weekend, but just reading this topic caused me to doubt myself whether I like 9th or not...
So I'm basically gonna scoot before I get dragged down in the cesspool of negativity where (sadly, genuinely so) so many forum members who have decided that they hate 9th before it's even officially released already are.

I have definitely seen Scotsman saying positive things about 9th, it's not all whining, all the time. He, like others, has identified 9th as being the MSU/anti-horde edition, and that's not really that controversial of a thing to say.

The frustration that you're seeing today is a result of these new points/FAQs that seem wildly out of whack with the actual state of the game. Unless in your 9th practicing, you used the new points (which I'm sure you didn't unless you're a reviewer/playtester), your point is moot. The points craziness is really where the wheels are falling off here. I was pretty optimistic about 9th too until I woke up to this crazy state of things. I don't blame anybody getting angry about it today.

MSU? Anti-Horde? Neither of those things are true. As far as I can tell. Where is the thread for this?

Ah, I can see by your oblivious nature to this statement that you have not been visiting the 9th edition thread in news and rumours. You are a wise man.

What? You mean it's not a well reasoned, rational, civil discussion on dakka? First time for everything I guess.

Are you two REALLY claiming the rules are friendly for hordes?

I don't think they're really claiming anything, other than endlesswaltz saying "you deserve to get stomped horribly if you play a grot list, stop complaining." That seems to be "the game isn't supposed to be balanced" more than any actual argument about balance.

Everybody's entitled to their opinion, but "don't complain about balance if you army is bad because it's bad so you deserve to lose if you play it" doesn't seem like a particularly convincing argument about why the new points values make sense.

Goonhammer's take on the points changes has some high level insights that made sense to me.

https://www.goonhammer.com/the-9th-edition-munitorum-field-manual-points-review/

It's long, but worth a read. He took the time to work out the principles GW employed for points increases and I can't find much to argue with.

From the Goonhammer article:

"As soon as you get to 30pts or higher (or are dealing with equipment at any cost), there’s a big drive to have things cost round numbers of points (multiples of 5), and increases are almost always in 5-point chunks (or are 5-point chunks plus whatever it takes to round their old cost up to the nearest 5)."

I found this particularly interesting. Just spitballing based on nothing here, but I wonder if this is being done as a way to start making points roll into PL more cleanly?

It is a great article btw.

Tycho wrote:
From the Goonhammer article:

"As soon as you get to 30pts or higher (or are dealing with equipment at any cost), there’s a big drive to have things cost round numbers of points (multiples of 5), and increases are almost always in 5-point chunks (or are 5-point chunks plus whatever it takes to round their old cost up to the nearest 5)."

I found this particularly interesting. Just spitballing based on nothing here, but I wonder if this is being done as a way to start making points roll into PL more cleanly?

It is a great article btw.

Which would be GW totally missing why PL never went anywhere in 8th the balance with PL was terrible.
Rounding things to multiples of 5 points is the same idiots having PL is good if we make points match PL everyone will Love PL thoughts.
No PL sucks because it can not and will not provide the granularity required to balance the armies.
Stop trying to be lazy and do what your payed to do dang it.

Tycho wrote:
From the Goonhammer article:

"As soon as you get to 30pts or higher (or are dealing with equipment at any cost), there’s a big drive to have things cost round numbers of points (multiples of 5), and increases are almost always in 5-point chunks (or are 5-point chunks plus whatever it takes to round their old cost up to the nearest 5)."

I found this particularly interesting. Just spitballing based on nothing here, but I wonder if this is being done as a way to start making points roll into PL more cleanly?

It is a great article btw.

What I find so odd about the principle is that there are many 1pt/2pt options that seemingly got hit by that.

Some examples:

Sisters of battle Hand Flamer: Went from 1pt to 5pts
GSC hand flamer: went from 1pt to 2pts

GSC Webber: went from 1pt to 5pts
now you have a S4 Ap- d1 weapon that gets 1 autohit at 18" range....right next to a S4 Ap- D1 weapon that gets D6 hits at 8" range. very interesting. much choice.

Harlequin pistols too
5pts: S4 Ap-3 d3, d1 vs vehicles, 12" range
also 5pts, on exact same models: S8 Ap-4 Dd6, 6" range, gets the melta rule.

So, are we just throwing our hands up and saying " i dunno, balance too hard at small points!" or are we not? Why have ALMOST everything rounded to 5s while having, in the same faction, stuff that costs 2s and 3s?

The normalization of weapons is very hard to understand. Why was it a problem that things cost points relative to their worth? Why was it a good idea to make a power fist cost the same as a chain fist, despite being simply worse? Why does it make any sense that power swords went up in cost but embraces - literally just a power sword with +1 STR, went down and now cost the same 5 points? How does this add to the game?

And it isn't even uniform, because you still do have stuff like 6 point harlequin weapons.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Quick and dirty "how to make yourself a competitive 9th list"

step 1: Take your competitive 8th list.

Step 2: Drop anything that was for killing infantry until you're down to 2k.

That's it! you're done!

Oh so it isn't the anti-horde edition now?

I think it still is. Just that you don't have to kill the hordes yourself when the edition does it for you.

Rounding to 5 works as long as you do that when the rounding is a small percentage of the total value. After 30 you can do it, you are below 10%.

Fortunately they didn't do it at lower point levels and we still have wargear costs that range from 1 to 5 points.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Quick and dirty "how to make yourself a competitive 9th list"

step 1: Take your competitive 8th list.

Step 2: Drop anything that was for killing infantry until you're down to 2k.

That's it! you're done!

Oh so it isn't the anti-horde edition now?

I think it still is. Just that you don't have to kill the hordes yourself when the edition does it for you.

Yep. At least until CA2021 anyway. My 9th ed lists are going to include some elements that can be used against light infantry if needed, but nothing that only works on light infantry and does not also efficiently work vs elite infantry or tanks.

For example:

Slashing Impact+test of Skill for all my wych cult stuff, with maximum number of blasters and Grav Talons on Reavers and a 5-man grotesque squad with PoF to go get on objectives and be tough turn 1.

If my opponent brings light infantry, I can shred them with those things incidentally, but you won't see me including a blast weapon in my list anticipating seeing 11+ model hordes.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Point values are and will always continue to be nonsense.

Thank heavens for Power Level instead.

Power Level really needs to be open to amendment in CA or start-of-edition errata, though.

Quasistellar wrote:
OOF--the Astraeus got absolutely dunked on. I'm almost thinking it's a mistake it went up so much. Maybe the Twin Macro Accelerator Cannon is supposed to be free? (there's a similar inconsistency with the Castellan/Chaos Equivalent Knight)

It's a tax to cover the cost of repairing people's sight after they have to look at it...

Quasistellar wrote:
And heavy bolters being so expensive now--anyone have insight as to why HBs went up so much?

It is a weird one.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Vehicles can fire them while engaged in close combat now.

True, but are 3xS5 AP-1 D1 shots (per gun) really enough of a threat to warrant a hike? I can kinda understand it for Heavy Flamers, given the auto-hit, but not HB.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 Spartan089 wrote:
I'm blown away by some of these point costs, especially in guard, 28 point increase to the basic Leman Russ, 15 points for a single heavy bolter? 40 points for plasma sponsons?! 235 points for a fully kitted out Tank Comander (BC, plasma sponsons, hull Lascannon) seems way too expensive.

Some of the new weapon costs make no sense without a rules change.

So perhaps the rules for those weapons are changing.
Or perhaps they just make no sense.

They no longer suffer a -1 for moving and shooting, and they can always shoot even when engaged in combat. I.E. you will fire all the weapons on that vehicle every turn.

As opposed to the past where you could easily shut down a tank by charging it, now that just means your being shot at point blank range.

Eh, on that specific build the only weapon you fire every turn is the hull lascannon - the Battle Cannon and both Plasma Cannon have Blast, so won't be firing if the tank gets tied up in melee.

Spoletta wrote:
Rounding to 5 works as long as you do that when the rounding is a small percentage of the total value. After 30 you can do it, you are below 10%.

Fortunately they didn't do it at lower point levels and we still have wargear costs that range from 1 to 5 points.

Well, sometimes anyway.
Looks at Condemnor Boltguns that went up from 1pt to 5pts, despite the fact that all the do is kill multi-wound psykers ever so slightly better than a regular boltgun.

What I find so odd about the principle is that there are many 1pt/2pt options that seemingly got hit by that.

Some examples:

Sisters of battle Hand Flamer: Went from 1pt to 5pts
GSC hand flamer: went from 1pt to 2pts

GSC Webber: went from 1pt to 5pts
now you have a S4 Ap- d1 weapon that gets 1 autohit at 18" range....right next to a S4 Ap- D1 weapon that gets D6 hits at 8" range. very interesting. much choice.

Harlequin pistols too
5pts: S4 Ap-3 d3, d1 vs vehicles, 12" range
also 5pts, on exact same models: S8 Ap-4 Dd6, 6" range, gets the melta rule.

So, are we just throwing our hands up and saying " i dunno, balance too hard at small points!" or are we not? Why have ALMOST everything rounded to 5s while having, in the same faction, stuff that costs 2s and 3s?

I feel your pain on some of this. From our test games this weekend, I can tell you that GSC already had a tough road ahead. Seeing these points hikes makes it even trickier for them. I think the article did a pretty good job of pointing out that it didn't seem like the question of "Should this be raised in points" was ever really asked and that's where I think GW fell down a bit here. Prior to today, I was also one of the more vocal in saying that this wasn't necessarily going to make games smaller or faster. The article and the test games I played all seem to be agreeing with that. So if this was the desired effect (smaller, faster games) it missed the mark. 9th takes about as long as 8th, or just slightly longer if you have a few particularly rough morale phases, and you can shift your list to still be fairly "big".

The added issue is that (as the article also points out) a lot of things are going to go back to never seeing play now. It just feels like they needed one more step in the process and they'd have been fine (the step being to ask that question of "does this REALLY need an increase). Over-all though, I don't feel like this was nearly as bad as I was bracing for, and I'm sure most of it will be corrected in a December CA. Unfortunate that it has to be that way, and also unfortunate that the "Summer" CA isn't just free, but it is what it is. My group is talking about sticking to 8th until December to see if they release another CA that corrects some of the issues (or to see if what we're concerned about even is really an issue). Guess we'll see.

I doubt you'll see a CA untill summer next year at the earliest opportunity. With lockdowns and limitations of large gatherings and most clubs etc still down and the lead time of CA I could see these being the points untill CA 2021 in November next year.

We may get some FAQ and errata in 6 months.

The other issue will be Codex releases moving the goal posts from whats broken vrs 8th edition codex to whats just balanced against the other 9th edition codex's to what's actually broken compaired to 9th edition codex's.

Ice_can wrote:
I doubt you'll see a CA untill summer next year at the earliest opportunity. With lockdowns and limitations of large gatherings and most clubs etc still down and the lead time of CA I could see these being the points untill CA 2021 in November next year.

We may get some FAQ and errata in 6 months.

The other issue will be Codex releases moving the goal posts from whats broken vrs 8th edition codex to whats just balanced against the other 9th edition codex's to what's actually broken compaired to 9th edition codex's.

They have no choice but to do a CA equiv December. This whole editions wacked points wise. The rules are better, all they need to do is redo these once and it's the best edition since probably 5th.

So looks like my current collection went from 2,484 points to 2,791. That's fine but I won't lie, Russes got hit hard. I can't think of a reason to take sponsons on a Russ now. Maybe a single TC or Pask?

ERJAK wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
I doubt you'll see a CA untill summer next year at the earliest opportunity. With lockdowns and limitations of large gatherings and most clubs etc still down and the lead time of CA I could see these being the points untill CA 2021 in November next year.

We may get some FAQ and errata in 6 months.

The other issue will be Codex releases moving the goal posts from whats broken vrs 8th edition codex to whats just balanced against the other 9th edition codex's to what's actually broken compaired to 9th edition codex's.

They have no choice but to do a CA equiv December. This whole editions wacked points wise. The rules are better, all they need to do is redo these once and it's the best edition since probably 5th.

They do have a choice. They can wait- its far too late in the year to start at CA2020 version 2- I'm not even sure they could make the printing deadlines if they started literally right now (keeping in mind the time for printing and distribution). Even if they could, it'd be a rushed and fairly crap job.
Good data is going to be down due to the pandemic anyway.

Personally, one of the biggest flaws of 8th was the rush from Indexes to Codexes without pause and then into the two 2.0 Codexes and PA books. They dragged a lot of systemic problems along for the ride that the codex have nipped in the bud had they let the indexes ride for a year.

I honestly want them to wait until December for CA 2021.
These points aren't great, but there's no point doing another rush job and mucking it up again.

It's very clear from looking at this that the points values were done using a formula, not unit-by-unit or army-by-army.

Grots and brimstones went up to 5 points because that was the minimum value, not because of some kind of careful consideration of their value. It's the same reason that aspect warriors got totally screwed - they fell into the points bracket that got kicked up 15%, whether they needed to be or not, so they got kicked up.

This wasn't balance-based pointing, it was just spread-sheet based, aside from a very small handful of stuff that got targeted nerfs (assault centurions, TFCs, that kind of thing).

 MinscS2 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Grots costing the same as guardsmen is prima facie absurd. The burden lies with the guard players who support this to prove that these units are equivalent across many games.

Not everything is about killing power.

No? So is it about durability? Mobility? Access to weapon options? Access to support units?

Or do you not have a scenario in which unit A is better than unit B at anything so you'll just say "nuh uh" and gesture vaguely?

God, I can't believe I ever used to respect your opinion as someone to listen to on this hellsite.

I have no personal part in your quarrel with Daedalus81, but I had to chime in after reading this last bit;

I have been away from dakkadakka for quite some time (partly because low interest in 40k during the last year, but also because I got tired of the general mentality of a lot of forum members here. I blame Warseer shutting down on that last part. Seems most of the whiners found their way here.) so I have no distinct knowledge or remembrance of most of the users here, but you have in the short time I've been back established yourself as "that guy who feels compelled to whine about how bad his gretchin has become, over and over", and now I see you type this.

Have you ever considered that this forum is a "hellsite" due to the rampart negativity and pessimism spread by its own members; negativity and pessimism that you yourself help to spread right now in this very thread?

Anyway, this topic is essentially a circlejerk in complaints about 9th, an edition which I actually already like and consider a step-up from 8th in almost every way.
I thoroughly enjoyed the 4 test-games I had this weekend, but just reading this topic caused me to doubt myself whether I like 9th or not...
So I'm basically gonna scoot before I get dragged down in the cesspool of negativity where (sadly, genuinely so) so many forum members who have decided that they hate 9th before it's even officially released already are.

Yes, people could be more civil when discussing gamers, and the bickering can get out of hand.

And yes, there is a lot of negativity. But that is largely of GW's own making. GW sets the absurd prices. GW misinforms their different teams and allows miscommunication to be commonplace. GW. The people responsible for the rules are GW employees. The larger problem is that despite all of GW's many failings, people continue to expect them, to change, and continue to spend there hobby dollars on GW minis, despite their dissatisfaction with the rules or GW's other practices, which means GW has zero incentive to change. Therefore, there are many negative things to express There are constructive ways to express it, and others that are not. It doesn't help that oftentimes people become upset, angry, by the mere existence of another's criticism or negative opinion- then the complaints about complaints begin, and the thread disintegrates.

It's great 9th is appealing to you. Could you provide some detail as to why that is?

I quit 40k partly because of the poor balance, which hasn't improved, and because gameplay is little more than listbulding, placing minis on the table, then your and your opponent make each other remove said minis until the game ends. This hasn't changed from 9th. I want more depth, tactics, and by the Lion, more movement! There are plenty of other minis games with more depth than GW's, and they're simple as well, so I'm building up forces for those instead.

GW refuses to allow 40k and WHFB/AOS to reach their full potential. At minimum, 40k would become a much more engaging and tactical game with AA, comparative values for shooting and melee, like an Evasion stat that would also help Eldar/LandSpeeders/any fast-but-fragile unit, utilizing Area Terrain and more intuitive LOS rules, and a morale/suppression system. They've left so much on the table it would be funny- if it weren't so sad and frustrating.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's very clear from looking at this that the points values were done using a formula, not unit-by-unit or army-by-army.

Grots and brimstones went up to 5 points because that was the minimum value, not because of some kind of careful consideration of their value. It's the same reason that aspect warriors got totally screwed - they fell into the points bracket that got kicked up 15%, whether they needed to be or not, so they got kicked up.

This wasn't balance-based pointing, it was just spread-sheet based, aside from a very small handful of stuff that got targeted nerfs (assault centurions, TFCs, that kind of thing).

Precisely. Competitive play is going to be a mess until we get a few cycles of points adjustments from these values.

ERJAK wrote:

They have no choice but to do a CA equiv December. This whole editions wacked points wise. The rules are better, all they need to do is redo these once and it's the best edition since probably 5th.

They need to make the armybuilder part of their new app free. Then they can adjust the points via that whenever needed. Printing books for points changes is an outdated concept.

yukishiro1 wrote:
The normalization of weapons is very hard to understand. Why was it a problem that things cost points relative to their worth? Why was it a good idea to make a power fist cost the same as a chain fist, despite being simply worse? Why does it make any sense that power swords went up in cost but embraces - literally just a power sword with +1 STR, went down and now cost the same 5 points? How does this add to the game?

And it isn't even uniform, because you still do have stuff like 6 point harlequin weapons.

My guess is this way makes PL more viable. The big rip I heard on PL was that you can kit out your units with all the bells and whistles you want and it doesn’t change PL. if all the weapons are uniform no one can make that complaint anymore.

Not the greatest reason but maybe an explanation. I really like the idea of PL and hope it can work.

TheAmazinGreat wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The normalization of weapons is very hard to understand. Why was it a problem that things cost points relative to their worth? Why was it a good idea to make a power fist cost the same as a chain fist, despite being simply worse? Why does it make any sense that power swords went up in cost but embraces - literally just a power sword with +1 STR, went down and now cost the same 5 points? How does this add to the game?

And it isn't even uniform, because you still do have stuff like 6 point harlequin weapons.

My guess is this way makes PL more viable. The big rip I heard on PL was that you can kit out your units with all the bells and whistles you want and it doesn’t change PL. if all the weapons are uniform no one can make that complaint anymore.

Not the greatest reason but maybe an explanation. I really like the idea of PL and hope it can work.

Not everything will change PL...but PL tends to be priced with the highest items possible in mind. Usually PL will be affect the number of models in the unit. To use an example, Conscripts and a Guard Infantry Squad are both 3 Power. One of those is 10 models with the option to add a Heavy Weapons Team and a Special Weapon and a Vox-Caster and the Sergeant can take items from the Ranged Weapons list and a Chainsword or Power Sword...the other is 20 models with a +1 Power Rating option to bump it to 30.

The "big rip" on it was that "I DON'T LIKE IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT POINTS!!!11!". It's the same trash argument that was used against points-less AoS, where some theoretical boogeyman is taking the most powerful thing every single time and that we had to protect the narrative players from these curbstomping jerks...never minding that those people would have zero interest in narrative playstyles to start with.

TheAmazinGreat wrote:

My guess is this way makes PL more viable. The big rip I heard on PL was that you can kit out your units with all the bells and whistles you want and it doesn’t change PL. if all the weapons are uniform no one can make that complaint anymore.

Not the greatest reason but maybe an explanation. I really like the idea of PL and hope it can work.

Yes, making the points intentionally worse makes the PL relatively better. It still doesn't actually improve the PL though. It just means that we have two inaccurate and non-granular armybuilding systems. I don't think sabotaging the points to promote PL is a great tactic.

Blastaar wrote:
I quit 40k partly because of the poor balance, which hasn't improved, and because gameplay is little more than listbulding, placing minis on the table, then your and your opponent make each other remove said minis until the game ends. This hasn't changed from 9th. I want more depth, tactics, and by the Lion, more movement! There are plenty of other minis games with more depth than GW's, and they're simple as well, so I'm building up forces for those instead.

I think one should play something before they judge it, because what you talked about is what 9th seems to be from my perspective. To dismiss it whole cloth is one thing. To dismiss it and then claim how GW is doing nothing is a little bit of the blind leading the blind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sterling191 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's very clear from looking at this that the points values were done using a formula, not unit-by-unit or army-by-army.

Grots and brimstones went up to 5 points because that was the minimum value, not because of some kind of careful consideration of their value. It's the same reason that aspect warriors got totally screwed - they fell into the points bracket that got kicked up 15%, whether they needed to be or not, so they got kicked up.

This wasn't balance-based pointing, it was just spread-sheet based, aside from a very small handful of stuff that got targeted nerfs (assault centurions, TFCs, that kind of thing).

Precisely. Competitive play is going to be a mess until we get a few cycles of points adjustments from these values.

At least a year before we see tournaments again I'd wager.

It's going to be garage-hammer for a long time.

I'm surprised people are at all arguing with Kan about Guard.

Everyone should know by now that they could have 1 point guard with space marine stats and he'd argue that they'd be balanced because of reasons... Or more likely that they still are too weak.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

It's going to be garage-hammer for a long time.

Honestly i've had much more fun playing since i stopped minmaxing all my lists and started bringing the models i like, garagehammer is a win in my books.

Still, for many people that are more competitive and not in the US, having competitive be a mess will be annoying since smaller tournaments might start firing for them.