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.

https://patreon.com/posts/ep-49-1-we-talk-39363410
  

Ep. 49.1 We talk to a Playtester all about Points

Tony Kopach joins John DeMaris and Nick Nanavati to talk about play testing the points values for 9th edtion.

 
It's a competetive 40k Podcast, but it's interesting to hear high level players, as well as a playtester, talk about the way points shook out.

God, it's so funny listening to them come up with dumb gak justifications for how awful the point values are.

"GW is balancing the game based on how they want armies to look, not for cross-faction balance, that's why cultists are awful on purpose they dont' want CSM armies to be all cultists"

OK cool, so they don't want Dark Eldar armies to include...ANY dark eldar troops then? What units DO they want to see in Dark Eldar armies?

the_scotsman wrote:
God, it's so funny listening to them come up with dumb gak justifications for how awful the point values are.

"GW is balancing the game based on how they want armies to look, not for cross-faction balance, that's why cultists are awful on purpose they dont' want CSM armies to be all cultists"

OK cool, so they don't want Dark Eldar armies to include...ANY dark eldar troops then? What units DO they want to see in Dark Eldar armies?

Sslyth, obviously. Their 6 point drop is just the begining ....."Sslyth party bus!"

 harlokin wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
God, it's so funny listening to them come up with dumb gak justifications for how awful the point values are.

"GW is balancing the game based on how they want armies to look, not for cross-faction balance, that's why cultists are awful on purpose they dont' want CSM armies to be all cultists"

OK cool, so they don't want Dark Eldar armies to include...ANY dark eldar troops then? What units DO they want to see in Dark Eldar armies?

Sslyth, obviously. Their 6 point drop is just the begining ....."Sslyth party bus!"

I would totally build an army of Sslyth.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
God, it's so funny listening to them come up with dumb gak justifications for how awful the point values are.

"GW is balancing the game based on how they want armies to look, not for cross-faction balance, that's why cultists are awful on purpose they dont' want CSM armies to be all cultists"

OK cool, so they don't want Dark Eldar armies to include...ANY dark eldar troops then? What units DO they want to see in Dark Eldar armies?

Sslyth, obviously. Their 6 point drop is just the begining ....."Sslyth party bus!"

I would totally build an army of Sslyth.

I, for one, welcome our new Sslyth overlords.

the_scotsman wrote:
God, it's so funny listening to them come up with dumb gak justifications for how awful the point values are.

"GW is balancing the game based on how they want armies to look, not for cross-faction balance, that's why cultists are awful on purpose they dont' want CSM armies to be all cultists"

OK cool, so they don't want Dark Eldar armies to include...ANY dark eldar troops then? What units DO they want to see in Dark Eldar armies?

See, this is what legitimately pisses me off. It's one thing for playtesters to stay quiet about points or even give a half-hearted justification like TTT did (I still don't agree with them, but I think they knew there wasn't a lot to say to defend some of the changes). But to go out "on the offense" basically as the propaganda arm for GW, that rubs me the wrong way. I get not biting the hand that feeds, but you can stay quiet! This is when playtesters lose credibility.

"Orks I think will make great use of the Outflank rules, like bringing a unit of Lootas onto the board, you have a lot of options of bringing them in"

YES, CLEARLY this is the cunning strategy tactical mastery that us neanderthal ork players have been missing in the new edition! We haven't considered spending CP to NOT have our 48" range guns on the board turn 1 and bringing them on turn 2 being infantry moving and firing heavy weapons so they hit on 6s!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

 harlokin wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
God, it's so funny listening to them come up with dumb gak justifications for how awful the point values are.

"GW is balancing the game based on how they want armies to look, not for cross-faction balance, that's why cultists are awful on purpose they dont' want CSM armies to be all cultists"

OK cool, so they don't want Dark Eldar armies to include...ANY dark eldar troops then? What units DO they want to see in Dark Eldar armies?

Sslyth, obviously. Their 6 point drop is just the begining ....."Sslyth party bus!"

I would totally build an army of Sslyth.

I, for one, welcome our new Sslyth overlords.

This is how GW quietly brings Lizardmen/Seraphon to 40k.

I don't think he was really defending them, he was saying that the points aren't balanced because balance isn't what GW wanted to do. That doesn't sound like a defense to me.

Everybody knows by now the points changes were dialed in back at the end of 2019 and haven't been changed since despite playtester feedback that they were garbage for the current state of the game. GW just pulled another IH supplement and said "we don't care, we're releasing it anyway, suck it up."

fluffstalker wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
God, it's so funny listening to them come up with dumb gak justifications for how awful the point values are.

"GW is balancing the game based on how they want armies to look, not for cross-faction balance, that's why cultists are awful on purpose they dont' want CSM armies to be all cultists"

OK cool, so they don't want Dark Eldar armies to include...ANY dark eldar troops then? What units DO they want to see in Dark Eldar armies?

Sslyth, obviously. Their 6 point drop is just the begining ....."Sslyth party bus!"

I would totally build an army of Sslyth.

I, for one, welcome our new Sslyth overlords.

This is how GW quietly brings Lizardmen/Seraphon to 40k.

They still need to bring Skaven into 40k as an actual army. It's not like it needs much fluff justification: they tunneled in via the warp by accident.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
God, it's so funny listening to them come up with dumb gak justifications for how awful the point values are.

"GW is balancing the game based on how they want armies to look, not for cross-faction balance, that's why cultists are awful on purpose they dont' want CSM armies to be all cultists"

OK cool, so they don't want Dark Eldar armies to include...ANY dark eldar troops then? What units DO they want to see in Dark Eldar armies?

See, this is what legitimately pisses me off. It's one thing for playtesters to stay quiet about points or even give a half-hearted justification like TTT did (I still don't agree with them, but I think they knew there wasn't a lot to say to defend some of the changes). But to go out "on the offense" basically as the propaganda arm for GW, that rubs me the wrong way. I get not biting the hand that feeds, but you can stay quiet! This is when playtesters lose credibility.

It was a genius move on GWs part, the top tier of competitive players are more or less on GWs payroll at this point - not necessarily literally as I doubt any of them are really getting paid, but they get early access looks to upcoming stuff, playtesting, and I believe in the past GW has flown out some playtesters and competitive players to Nottingham for special events, etc - so maybe they get all expenses paid vacations out of it too. I'm sure they also get some free stuff and swag out of it. Even if they don't have to sign some sort of policy that gags their ability to speak negatively, they still have a compelling reason to stay on GWs good side and be cheerleaders for everything GW does, lest they lose the minor luxuries and status that GWs patronage affords them, as a result GW gets to leverage the soft-power afforded over the community by way of the influence and clout these guys have in the community as a result of their status as major competitors (I mean, i'll be honest I've never heard of these dudes because IDGAF about competitive play, and even if I did I have better things to do than feed some dudes ego over toy soldiers, but I recognize that there are others in the community that put a lot of stock into what top-tier players think).

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
God, it's so funny listening to them come up with dumb gak justifications for how awful the point values are.

"GW is balancing the game based on how they want armies to look, not for cross-faction balance, that's why cultists are awful on purpose they dont' want CSM armies to be all cultists"

OK cool, so they don't want Dark Eldar armies to include...ANY dark eldar troops then? What units DO they want to see in Dark Eldar armies?

See, this is what legitimately pisses me off. It's one thing for playtesters to stay quiet about points or even give a half-hearted justification like TTT did (I still don't agree with them, but I think they knew there wasn't a lot to say to defend some of the changes). But to go out "on the offense" basically as the propaganda arm for GW, that rubs me the wrong way. I get not biting the hand that feeds, but you can stay quiet! This is when playtesters lose credibility.

I'm not terribly shocked. When they started naming 'playtesters and top tournament players' in the faction focus articles, I kinda chuckled to myself. It seemed like they were presenting ready-made scapegoats, and here we are.

Honorable mention to when the playtester guys said you could Fire and Fade Dark Eldar units... not to be a BCB-type but GW's incompetence is never not funny.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Honorable mention to when the playtester guys said you could Fire and Fade Dark Eldar units... not to be a BCB-type but GW's incompetence is never not funny.

In fairness, you used to be able to. The 9th edition errata stopped that cheese, however.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
God, it's so funny listening to them come up with dumb gak justifications for how awful the point values are.

"GW is balancing the game based on how they want armies to look, not for cross-faction balance, that's why cultists are awful on purpose they dont' want CSM armies to be all cultists"

OK cool, so they don't want Dark Eldar armies to include...ANY dark eldar troops then? What units DO they want to see in Dark Eldar armies?

See, this is what legitimately pisses me off. It's one thing for playtesters to stay quiet about points or even give a half-hearted justification like TTT did (I still don't agree with them, but I think they knew there wasn't a lot to say to defend some of the changes). But to go out "on the offense" basically as the propaganda arm for GW, that rubs me the wrong way. I get not biting the hand that feeds, but you can stay quiet! This is when playtesters lose credibility.

I agree. I think that Tabletop Tactics handled it well, and followed up their video by making an announcement in the comments that "The Munitorum Field Manual points ARE a massive ball drop by GW".

I'd somewhat contrast them with the Splintermind podcast, who were similarly involved in the play testing, but have something of a history of thumbing their nose at Drukhari fans (apparently Blood of The Phoenix was a good update and Drukhari bros just need to git gud), and this time said that Kabalites deserved to go up 50%, and those who complained were "just getting on the wambulance".

 harlokin wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
God, it's so funny listening to them come up with dumb gak justifications for how awful the point values are.

"GW is balancing the game based on how they want armies to look, not for cross-faction balance, that's why cultists are awful on purpose they dont' want CSM armies to be all cultists"

OK cool, so they don't want Dark Eldar armies to include...ANY dark eldar troops then? What units DO they want to see in Dark Eldar armies?

See, this is what legitimately pisses me off. It's one thing for playtesters to stay quiet about points or even give a half-hearted justification like TTT did (I still don't agree with them, but I think they knew there wasn't a lot to say to defend some of the changes). But to go out "on the offense" basically as the propaganda arm for GW, that rubs me the wrong way. I get not biting the hand that feeds, but you can stay quiet! This is when playtesters lose credibility.

I agree. I think that Tabletop Tactics handled it well, and followed up their video by making an announcement in the comments that "The Munitorum Field Manual points ARE a massive ball drop by GW".

I'd somewhat contrast them with the Splintermind podcast, who were similarly involved in the play testing, but have something of a history of thumbing their nose at Drukhari fans (apparently Blood of The Phoenix was a good update and we just need to git gud), and this time said that Kabalites deserved to go up 50%, and those who complained were "just getting on the wambulance".

Ha, wow... at the very least I hope they recognize that BotP didn't give DE much stuff at all, even if there were like 1 or 2 decent things in it. But yeah, I don't see much point to defending 9 point Warriors... unless you're comparing them to 10 point Guardians I guess

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
God, it's so funny listening to them come up with dumb gak justifications for how awful the point values are.

"GW is balancing the game based on how they want armies to look, not for cross-faction balance, that's why cultists are awful on purpose they dont' want CSM armies to be all cultists"

OK cool, so they don't want Dark Eldar armies to include...ANY dark eldar troops then? What units DO they want to see in Dark Eldar armies?

See, this is what legitimately pisses me off. It's one thing for playtesters to stay quiet about points or even give a half-hearted justification like TTT did (I still don't agree with them, but I think they knew there wasn't a lot to say to defend some of the changes). But to go out "on the offense" basically as the propaganda arm for GW, that rubs me the wrong way. I get not biting the hand that feeds, but you can stay quiet! This is when playtesters lose credibility.

I agree. I think that Tabletop Tactics handled it well, and followed up their video by making an announcement in the comments that "The Munitorum Field Manual points ARE a massive ball drop by GW".

I'd somewhat contrast them with the Splintermind podcast, who were similarly involved in the play testing, but have something of a history of thumbing their nose at Drukhari fans (apparently Blood of The Phoenix was a good update and we just need to git gud), and this time said that Kabalites deserved to go up 50%, and those who complained were "just getting on the wambulance".

Ha, wow... at the very least I hope they recognize that BotP didn't give DE much stuff at all, even if there were like 1 or 2 decent things in it. But yeah, I don't see much point to defending 9 point Warriors... unless you're comparing them to 10 point Guardians I guess

Or 11ppm Dire Avengers.

I can buy the idea of inner codex pointing to push things relative to each other, because cross codex it's a mess. It's not really a defense of what was done, but it does kind of make some sense on what GW was trying to do at least.

Are there even any major GTs going on in 2020, given the coronavirus situation and the fact we're all broke right now?

All things considered, this is not a bad time for GW to move into the next edition. It's just kind of silly they released a half-baked points rebalance instead of taking their time and communicating that they're still in the process of evaluating units. It strikes me as the influence of executives following a mandated release schedule, rather than a goal of the design team.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 harlokin wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
God, it's so funny listening to them come up with dumb gak justifications for how awful the point values are.

"GW is balancing the game based on how they want armies to look, not for cross-faction balance, that's why cultists are awful on purpose they dont' want CSM armies to be all cultists"

OK cool, so they don't want Dark Eldar armies to include...ANY dark eldar troops then? What units DO they want to see in Dark Eldar armies?

See, this is what legitimately pisses me off. It's one thing for playtesters to stay quiet about points or even give a half-hearted justification like TTT did (I still don't agree with them, but I think they knew there wasn't a lot to say to defend some of the changes). But to go out "on the offense" basically as the propaganda arm for GW, that rubs me the wrong way. I get not biting the hand that feeds, but you can stay quiet! This is when playtesters lose credibility.

I agree. I think that Tabletop Tactics handled it well, and followed up their video by making an announcement in the comments that "The Munitorum Field Manual points ARE a massive ball drop by GW".

I'd somewhat contrast them with the Splintermind podcast, who were similarly involved in the play testing, but have something of a history of thumbing their nose at Drukhari fans (apparently Blood of The Phoenix was a good update and we just need to git gud), and this time said that Kabalites deserved to go up 50%, and those who complained were "just getting on the wambulance".

Ha, wow... at the very least I hope they recognize that BotP didn't give DE much stuff at all, even if there were like 1 or 2 decent things in it. But yeah, I don't see much point to defending 9 point Warriors... unless you're comparing them to 10 point Guardians I guess

Well technically, Blood of the Phoenix just gave you models. Phoenix Rising, the book, didn't do anything for Drukhari

They weren't still in the process, though. They came up with these values back in 2019 and then fixed them and made clear to playtesters they weren't taking any more feedback on them.

The problem isn't that they were still in the process, it's that they finished the process 7+ months ago and then said "la la la! not listening!" when the playtesters said "uh, these points suck."

And then had the absolute chutzpah to sell the CA2020 book with the tagline that "points have been painstakingly balanced with feedback from playtesters," which I guess is technically true: the feedback was that the points were terrible; they ignored the feedback, but they did get it!

It's the IH supplement all over again. Exactly the same thing.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Are there even any major GTs going on in 2020, given the coronavirus situation and the fact we're all broke right now?

All things considered, this is not a bad time for GW to move into the next edition. It's just kind of silly they released a half-baked points rebalance instead of taking their time and communicating that they're still in the process of evaluating units. It strikes me as the influence of executives following a mandated release schedule, rather than a goal of the design team.

I feel like they knew they needed to up the points, but with major tournaments not going on they lacked the information of how PA is affecting the game and they just had to push something out there, but they didn't seem to do any cross codex balancing.

These points were fixed long before corona; TT got involved sometime around December 2019 and has said that the points were already determined then and no further feedback was solicited. They have not changed since the end of 2019 at a minimum, and possibly have been fixed in place for even longer than that.

hence this is appropriate

What armies where squatted?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
What armies where squatted?

most likely elysians and R&H

.

Armies that aren't really armies.....Corsairs and R+H

Not Online!!! wrote:
most likely elysians and R&H.

Are you sure it's not a copy & paste error?

Yoyoyo wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
most likely elysians and R&H.

Are you sure it's not a copy & paste error?

With GW? Who the feth knows?

Heck, there are allready obvious faults pts wise....

I'm with Chaos on this one, theres being keen on a game and then theres peddling half-truths for yt/patreon cash, reminds me all too much the mtg shills

the_scotsman wrote:
God, it's so funny listening to them come up with dumb gak justifications for how awful the point values are.

"GW is balancing the game based on how they want armies to look, not for cross-faction balance, that's why cultists are awful on purpose they dont' want CSM armies to be all cultists"

OK cool, so they don't want Dark Eldar armies to include...ANY dark eldar troops then? What units DO they want to see in Dark Eldar armies?

Is that actually quote from video? If yes then they are absolutely murdering use of word balancing because that is NOT balancing things