Nick Nanavati talks to Playtester Tony Kopach about the points changes

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.

**the_scotsman**

Trasvi wrote:
The adjusted points costs are pretty weird in some places, but gee people seem quick to forget the bad old days of 3rd-7th edition where nary a points update was seen? Armies could go entire editions, sometimes two, without getting a look in or even an FAQ?
The points updates are far from perfect. Its pretty lazy in fact. And it makes me angry that GW's so-called writers did something so lazy and in many cases completely undid 3 years worth of balancing. But just the fact that GW has addressed points costs after an edition change AT ALL is a small step in, maybe not quite the right direction, but not completely backwards.

With any luck, after the first couple of events roll in, we'll see refined points costs coming in before the end of the year.

IronNerd wrote:
I know I'm not the first person to say this, but it seems more pertinent than the constant bickering that dominates this thread.

I don't need *perfect* balance, I just want the extreme outliers to be brought in line. Eradicators are 40 ppm? That's insane value, most people agree they got that unit wrong. Grots are 5 ppm? Holy crap, who thought that was a good idea?!?

Eliminate the outliers so we can at least pretend there is some balance. If GW wants to enforce how armies "should look" then bring back unit limits like the old days.

Its kinda funny because most of the competitive marine players I'm talking to don't think eradicators are must-takes, because the entire rest of the marine roster is still so strong. Grav Devastators in Drop pods sound like a thing though.

Regarding Grots etc... I think GW has kind of woken up to the idea that there is some inherent value in simply putting bodies on the board no matter how terrible they are. People will still take 50pt Grot units because 50pts is about the minimum you should pay for 'existing on the table', and 10 Grots are roughly as good as 10 Boyz at doing that job.

6 point cultists vs 5 point guardsmen is criminal though.

For 1/2 that point cost, I can have a mek, who can secure the same objectives, perform all the same actions, and is far, far easier to hide on the table. You can even stash him by a vehicle and make him untargetable.

This argument that 50pts is the minimum for a unit to exist is immediately proven to be horsegak by pointing out one of the many, many, many other units that still cost less than 50pts and do all the same things grots can do.

**A.T.**

Trasvi wrote:
The adjusted points costs are pretty weird in some places, but gee people seem quick to forget the bad old days of 3rd-7th edition where nary a points update was seen? Armies could go entire editions, sometimes two, without getting a look in or even an FAQ?

I was saying much the same early in 8th.

Incremental changes through the edition to make the game more balanced are a good thing. But I don't think it's unfair to suggest that GWs efforts have been half-assed, and the cynical might say intentionally so.

**Kanluwen**

I refuse to be convinced that a Guard Infantry Squad shouldn't get some kind of discount since the Sergeant doesn't come with a meaningful ranged weapon!

**Martel732**

Kanluwen wrote:
I refuse to be convinced that a Guard Infantry Squad shouldn't get some kind of discount since the Sergeant doesn't come with a meaningful ranged weapon!

You can have a discount after the guardsmen themselves are priced appropriately at 6-8 ppm.

**the_scotsman**

Kanluwen wrote:
I refuse to be convinced that a Guard Infantry Squad shouldn't get some kind of discount since the Sergeant doesn't come with a meaningful ranged weapon!

How bout 7ppm guardsmen and 6ppm sergeant. Sound fair?

**Kanluwen**

the_scotsman wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
I refuse to be convinced that a Guard Infantry Squad shouldn't get some kind of discount since the Sergeant doesn't come with a meaningful ranged weapon!

How bout 7ppm guardsmen and 6ppm sergeant. Sound fair?

Nah. Not unless we're getting unique deployment methods.

Because that's one of your complaints for GSC Neophytes right? That you cost more than a Guardsman?

You get unique deployment methods. That absolutely, 100% should be factored in from the outset.
You also get access to more heavy/special options in a squad than an Infantry Squad does...which in and of itself is a bit ridiculous.

**JNAProductions**

Kanluwen wrote:
I refuse to be convinced that a Guard Infantry Squad shouldn't get some kind of discount since the Sergeant doesn't come with a meaningful ranged weapon!

So a S3 12" Pistol isn't worth 5 PPM?

So why are Grots 5 PPM, when that's their gun and they have WORSE CC and Durability stats than a Guardsman?

**yukishiro1**

Sergeants missing the weapon their squad has is all over GW.

**Martel732**

Access shouldn't cost points. That's double charging for gear. I'll let scotsman handle it from here.

**Kanluwen**

JNAProductions wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
I refuse to be convinced that a Guard Infantry Squad shouldn't get some kind of discount since the Sergeant doesn't come with a meaningful ranged weapon!
So a S3 12" Pistol isn't worth 5 PPM?

So why are Grots 5 PPM, when that's their gun and they have WORSE CC and Durability stats than a Guardsman?

I must have missed where I said Grots are worth 5ppm...

Because I could have swore that I said this:

I don't get why we keep trying to use the Infantry Squad as the basis for these kinds of units instead of Conscripts getting downgraded to Grot/Cultist stats and bumping Infantry Squads up a bit.

But hey, if you want me to attempt to make a reason?
It's because you're not taking Grots at a required unit size that cannot be shifted. Infantry Squads are.
You want 10 model strong units that you get at a discounted price but you cannot increase or reduce the unit size while having a unit leader with a weapon that is half range? I'm all for it!

**slave.entity**

auticus wrote:

If at the end of the day you choose to not believe me, thats fine. I'm not going to go do the work to dig out old polls because it doesn't really matter to me very much if you do or do not believe me. It will not change that most of you will continue to write blank checks to GW for your new 40k fix regardless of how badly balanced it is. If I thought it was going to change anything, I'd be more inclined.

If there is any mantra among game designers I've seen hold true just about 100% of the time, it's that players are notoriously bad at describing what they want. This only becomes obvious after you've spent a lot of time on the other side designing game experiences for people. Otherwise there is really no way to convince the average fan that their emotional reactions to their games are "wrong". It'd be like trying to convince a blind man that red is superior to blue.

Personally I don't rate balance nearly as high on my list of priorities in games as you do because, as you've stated, balance doesn't sell. And if you don't have at least some level of commercial success, then you have no game. And I like games more than I like balance.

**Kanluwen**

Martel732 wrote:
Access shouldn't cost points. That's double charging for gear. I'll let scotsman handle it from here.

Try reading sometime.

You get charged for the deployment method, not access to gear.

**Tyel**

Missing out on a BS4+ S3 AP- shot really adds up.

**Trasvi**

Hey I didn't say its "the designers told me this is exactly why it is so". Its a theory I have. Based on the emergence of horde meta, particularly at the start of 8th (where armies of 300+ 2pt brimstone horrors were a thing) and persisting all the way to the end of 8th (where people still took the objectively terrible 3pt brimstone horrors or grots to hold board space, and armies like gant hordes still did well).

Perhaps there are a few sub 50pt characters. Can they definitely do the same thing though? How well can a single 50pt model screen deep strikers or chargers? How many stray Smites or mortars can he take? How many of said character can you take in an army? How many victory points does he give up to the enemy?

**Platuan4th**

Tyel wrote:
Missing out on a BS4+ S3 AP- shot really adds up.

Missing out on one? No. Missing out on the 2 extras during a 12" FRFSRF? Yes.

**the_scotsman**

Kanluwen wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
I refuse to be convinced that a Guard Infantry Squad shouldn't get some kind of discount since the Sergeant doesn't come with a meaningful ranged weapon!

How bout 7ppm guardsmen and 6ppm sergeant. Sound fair?

Nah. Not unless we're getting unique deployment methods.

Because that's one of your complaints for GSC Neophytes right? That you cost more than a Guardsman?

You get unique deployment methods. That absolutely, 100% should be factored in from the outset.
You also get access to more heavy/special options in a squad than an Infantry Squad does...which in and of itself is a bit ridiculous.

no, GSC neophytes are pretty solid at 6ppm IMO. +1LD and blip/deep strike. The troops slot is in no way the problem with GSC. The problem is their hideously mangled elites slot with gak like Aberrants, who are essentially TH/SS terminators with no 2+, no 3++, and no shock assault, and cost exactly 5 points less.

Charging for access to upgrades is pretty stupid though. Just make sure the cost of those upgrades is commensurate with what they're actually worth. Which incidentally, for a ton of the gsc stuff, they absolutely are not. Really it's just mining lasers that are worth anything, unless you're super psyched to pay 12pts for a 12" range, damage 2 heavy bolter or 5pts for an 18" range flamer that gets 1 shot instead of D6 shots.

Heck, I even think Brood Brothers are just about fine at 5ppm.

Because they get no subfaction tactics, no aura abilities, and no orders without spending CP on a second detachment.

**Kanluwen**

Tyel wrote:
Missing out on a BS4+ S3 AP- shot really adds up.

Considering how much people complained about lasguns at the start of 8th while never acknowledging that "First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire!" was less effective on even unupgraded Infantry Squads than it was on Conscript Squads for this specific reason?
Because you know that FRFSRF no longer affects laspistols or hotshot laspistols, right? And that it loses effectiveness the more upgrades you put onto a unit?

Yeah, it's a lasgun. But it's also a weirdly specific penalty that doesn't need to exist.

**the_scotsman**

Trasvi wrote:
Hey I didn't say its "the designers told me this is exactly why it is so". Its a theory I have. Based on the emergence of horde meta, particularly at the start of 8th (where armies of 300+ 2pt brimstone horrors were a thing) and persisting all the way to the end of 8th (where people still took the objectively terrible 3pt brimstone horrors or grots to hold board space, and armies like gant hordes still did well).

Perhaps there are a few sub 50pt characters. Can they definitely do the same thing though? How well can a single 50pt model screen deep strikers or chargers? How many stray Smites or mortars can he take? How many of said character can you take in an army? How many victory points does he give up to the enemy?

Screening charges, taking stray smites and mortars is not what cheap infantry is for in 9th. Cheap infantry is for objective holding, performing actions, and scoring secondaries. And yeah, a 25pt character is infinitely superior at doing those things than a 50pt t2 ld4 sv7+ infantry unit.

**Kanluwen**

the_scotsman wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
I refuse to be convinced that a Guard Infantry Squad shouldn't get some kind of discount since the Sergeant doesn't come with a meaningful ranged weapon!

How bout 7ppm guardsmen and 6ppm sergeant. Sound fair?

Nah. Not unless we're getting unique deployment methods.

Because that's one of your complaints for GSC Neophytes right? That you cost more than a Guardsman?

You get unique deployment methods. That absolutely, 100% should be factored in from the outset.
You also get access to more heavy/special options in a squad than an Infantry Squad does...which in and of itself is a bit ridiculous.

no, GSC neophytes are pretty solid at 6ppm IMO. +1LD and blip/deep strike. The troops slot is in no way the problem with GSC. The problem is their hideously mangled elites slot with gak like Aberrants, who are essentially TH/SS terminators with no 2+, no 3++, and no shock assault, and cost exactly 5 points less.

CC units like Aberrants are always badly priced though. Look at Sicarian for AdMech. They don't seem to know what to do with any units that aren't a 3+ save.

Charging for access to upgrades is pretty stupid though. Just make sure the cost of those upgrades is commensurate with what they're actually worth. Which incidentally, for a ton of the gsc stuff, they absolutely are not. Really it's just mining lasers that are worth anything, unless you're super psyched to pay 12pts for a 12" range, damage 2 heavy bolter or 5pts for an 18" range flamer that gets 1 shot instead of D6 shots.

Didn't say you get charged for access to upgrades. Just that you have them.

You do get charged for blip deployment methods though.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Screening charges, taking stray smites and mortars is not what cheap infantry is for in 9th. Cheap infantry is for objective holding, performing actions, and scoring secondaries. And yeah, a 25pt character is infinitely superior at doing those things than a 50pt t2 ld4 sv7+ infantry unit.

Said before, saying again:
Mortars never should have been able to be taken by Infantry Squads.

**the_scotsman**

Kanluwen wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
I refuse to be convinced that a Guard Infantry Squad shouldn't get some kind of discount since the Sergeant doesn't come with a meaningful ranged weapon!

How bout 7ppm guardsmen and 6ppm sergeant. Sound fair?

Nah. Not unless we're getting unique deployment methods.

Because that's one of your complaints for GSC Neophytes right? That you cost more than a Guardsman?

You get unique deployment methods. That absolutely, 100% should be factored in from the outset.
You also get access to more heavy/special options in a squad than an Infantry Squad does...which in and of itself is a bit ridiculous.

no, GSC neophytes are pretty solid at 6ppm IMO. +1LD and blip/deep strike. The troops slot is in no way the problem with GSC. The problem is their hideously mangled elites slot with gak like Aberrants, who are essentially TH/SS terminators with no 2+, no 3++, and no shock assault, and cost exactly 5 points less.

CC units like Aberrants are always badly priced though. Look at Sicarian for AdMech. They don't seem to know what to do with any units that aren't a 3+ save.

Charging for access to upgrades is pretty stupid though. Just make sure the cost of those upgrades is commensurate with what they're actually worth. Which incidentally, for a ton of the gsc stuff, they absolutely are not. Really it's just mining lasers that are worth anything, unless you're super psyched to pay 12pts for a 12" range, damage 2 heavy bolter or 5pts for an 18" range flamer that gets 1 shot instead of D6 shots.

Didn't say you get charged for access to upgrades. Just that you have them.

You do get charged for blip deployment methods though.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Screening charges, taking stray smites and mortars is not what cheap infantry is for in 9th. Cheap infantry is for objective holding, performing actions, and scoring secondaries. And yeah, a 25pt character is infinitely superior at doing those things than a 50pt t2 ld4 sv7+ infantry unit.

Said before, saying again:
Mortars never should have been able to be taken by Infantry Squads.

I love that we're so deep in the internet gak that you're quoting a post where I agreed with you as if I disagreed and restated your argument, and then reinterpreted "taking stray smites and mortars" as "getting upgraded with mortars" instead of "getting shot by mortars."

**ClockworkZion**

the_scotsman wrote:
Trasvi wrote:
Hey I didn't say its "the designers told me this is exactly why it is so". Its a theory I have. Based on the emergence of horde meta, particularly at the start of 8th (where armies of 300+ 2pt brimstone horrors were a thing) and persisting all the way to the end of 8th (where people still took the objectively terrible 3pt brimstone horrors or grots to hold board space, and armies like gant hordes still did well).

Perhaps there are a few sub 50pt characters. Can they definitely do the same thing though? How well can a single 50pt model screen deep strikers or chargers? How many stray Smites or mortars can he take? How many of said character can you take in an army? How many victory points does he give up to the enemy?

Screening charges, taking stray smites and mortars is not what cheap infantry is for in 9th. Cheap infantry is for objective holding, performing actions, and scoring secondaries. And yeah, a 25pt character is infinitely superior at doing those things than a 50pt t2 ld4 sv7+ infantry unit.

Depends on the character. A lot of armies are seeing less access to characters with the loss of Supreme Command Detachments, and characters doing actions turns off their special rules that many armies rely on.

I'm not saying it doesn't work, but I'm a bit hesitant to say that characters are always a replacement for troops, however underwhelming those troops may be.

**Kanluwen**

the_scotsman wrote:

I love that we're so deep in the internet gak that you're quoting a post where I agreed with you as if I disagreed and restated your argument, and then reinterpreted "taking stray smites and mortars" as "getting upgraded with mortars" instead of "getting shot by mortars."

Sorry, I just don't usually see mortars taken outside of Infantry Squads. Which is why I think it's a bit daft as they shouldn't be able to be taken there.
I definitely misread your other bit.

**the_scotsman**

ClockworkZion wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Trasvi wrote:
Hey I didn't say its "the designers told me this is exactly why it is so". Its a theory I have. Based on the emergence of horde meta, particularly at the start of 8th (where armies of 300+ 2pt brimstone horrors were a thing) and persisting all the way to the end of 8th (where people still took the objectively terrible 3pt brimstone horrors or grots to hold board space, and armies like gant hordes still did well).

Perhaps there are a few sub 50pt characters. Can they definitely do the same thing though? How well can a single 50pt model screen deep strikers or chargers? How many stray Smites or mortars can he take? How many of said character can you take in an army? How many victory points does he give up to the enemy?

Screening charges, taking stray smites and mortars is not what cheap infantry is for in 9th. Cheap infantry is for objective holding, performing actions, and scoring secondaries. And yeah, a 25pt character is infinitely superior at doing those things than a 50pt t2 ld4 sv7+ infantry unit.

Depends on the character. A lot of armies are seeing less access to characters with the loss of Supreme Command Detachments, and characters doing actions turns off their special rules that many armies rely on.

I'm not saying it doesn't work, but I'm a bit hesitant to say that characters are always a replacement for troops, however underwhelming those troops may be.

Sure, it's only in orks, imperial guard, Tau, drukhari (teeeeeeeeeechnically not characters because they did remove the CHARACTER keyword from the court of the archon guys for some reason nobody understands but, they're basically character units), and GSC where you can take super cheap elite slot or slotless characters to do the jobs that light infantry used to do and do it vastly better.

The factions that can't are basically the factions that get to have functional elite infantry anyway. Except for eldar, who goes to cry in the corner with their 30pt supplementary support characters who take up HQ slots for reasons.

Here are a short sampling of the various character keyword models who cost 30pts or less who can perform actions as INFANTRY keyword models without needing to give up any of their abilities:

-Techpriest Enginseer
-Mek
-Sslyth
-Dark Disciples
-Kroot Shaper
-Lictor
-Nexos
-Acolyte

If you don't think these various little gaks are going to turn up in a ton of competitive lists to hide somewhere out of LOS and perform cheeky actions for secondary points then I dunno, maybe you just aren't evil enough.

**Trasvi**

the_scotsman wrote:
Trasvi wrote:
Hey I didn't say its "the designers told me this is exactly why it is so". Its a theory I have. Based on the emergence of horde meta, particularly at the start of 8th (where armies of 300+ 2pt brimstone horrors were a thing) and persisting all the way to the end of 8th (where people still took the objectively terrible 3pt brimstone horrors or grots to hold board space, and armies like gant hordes still did well).

Perhaps there are a few sub 50pt characters. Can they definitely do the same thing though? How well can a single 50pt model screen deep strikers or chargers? How many stray Smites or mortars can he take? How many of said character can you take in an army? How many victory points does he give up to the enemy?

Screening charges, taking stray smites and mortars is not what cheap infantry is for in 9th. Cheap infantry is for objective holding, performing actions, and scoring secondaries. And yeah, a 25pt character is infinitely superior at doing those things than a 50pt t2 ld4 sv7+ infantry unit.

My limited experience with 9th so far (not sure anyone can say they have many games under their belt) has shown me that the need for screening and zoning hasn't gone away - it actually seems more important in some instances as smaller board size makes it easier to zone out large areas from deep strikers, and changes to charge rules make it much more frustrating to charge past a screen.

You and I must play in significantly different metas, but I definitely would think hard about using one (or more) of my precious HQ slots on a W3 character when I could get a W10 troops unit to do the same job.
... who am I kidding, I would use the troops unit every day of the week and twice on Sundays. I ain't got no HQ slots to waste.

But anyway. It's just a theory of mine.
There are other competing theories out there that also have weight - that GW is trying to encourage you to take more thematic armies centered around Boyz, or that GW is incompetent when pricing models. You pick.

edit - seems like Meks are Elites rather than Troops. Maybe we will see armies spamming individual Meks or Shapers to grab sneaky objectives - though the new character targetting rules make that a much riskier proposition than 8th and we didn't see it much there.

**the_scotsman**

Trasvi wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Trasvi wrote:
Hey I didn't say its "the designers told me this is exactly why it is so". Its a theory I have. Based on the emergence of horde meta, particularly at the start of 8th (where armies of 300+ 2pt brimstone horrors were a thing) and persisting all the way to the end of 8th (where people still took the objectively terrible 3pt brimstone horrors or grots to hold board space, and armies like gant hordes still did well).

Perhaps there are a few sub 50pt characters. Can they definitely do the same thing though? How well can a single 50pt model screen deep strikers or chargers? How many stray Smites or mortars can he take? How many of said character can you take in an army? How many victory points does he give up to the enemy?

Screening charges, taking stray smites and mortars is not what cheap infantry is for in 9th. Cheap infantry is for objective holding, performing actions, and scoring secondaries. And yeah, a 25pt character is infinitely superior at doing those things than a 50pt t2 ld4 sv7+ infantry unit.

My limited experience with 9th so far (not sure anyone can say they have many games under their belt) has shown me that the need for screening and zoning hasn't gone away - it actually seems more important in some instances as smaller board size makes it easier to zone out large areas from deep strikers, and changes to charge rules make it much more frustrating to charge past a screen.

You and I must play in significantly different metas, but I definitely would think hard about using one (or more) of my precious HQ slots on a W3 character when I could get a W10 troops unit to do the same job.
... who am I kidding, I would use the troops unit every day of the week and twice on Sundays. I ain't got no HQ slots to waste.

But anyway. It's just a theory of mine.
There are other competing theories out there that also have weight - that GW is trying to encourage you to take more thematic armies centered around Boyz, or that GW is incompetent when pricing models. You pick.

edit - seems like Meks are Elites rather than Troops. Maybe we will see armies spamming individual Meks or Shapers to grab sneaky objectives - though the new character targetting rules make that a much riskier proposition than 8th and we didn't see it much there.

None of the units I highlighted are in HQ slots. They're either slotless, or elites, which you get 6 of in a battalion.

Screening vs deep strike and chargers can be done in addition to securing your objectives with these much cheaper Troops slot alternatives, and gives you much more flexibility on the field when your troops aren't required to be sitting around doing nothing.

A mek or an enginseer positioned next to a vehicle can hold the objective, perform an action, and repair the vehicle all on the same turn, because repairing is not an aura ability, shooting attack, psychic power or charge.

what i'm trying to speak to here is the notion that the punitive point cost increases to units like grots, cultists, guardians and kabalites were warranted because there needs to be a "minimum cost for a unit" due to the new mission structure.

Maybe 60pt squads of cultists will still be necessary for screening the board from deep strikers and the like - a job they're now 1/2 as effective at, thanks to the new coherency rules, of course - but I'm not seeing it. I've played against some pretty hyperelite armies so far in my games of 9th, and a couple of units like the putrid blightspawn was all it took to make charging from deep strike a pretty much pointless exercise to consider.

**ClockworkZion**

the_scotsman wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Trasvi wrote:
Hey I didn't say its "the designers told me this is exactly why it is so". Its a theory I have. Based on the emergence of horde meta, particularly at the start of 8th (where armies of 300+ 2pt brimstone horrors were a thing) and persisting all the way to the end of 8th (where people still took the objectively terrible 3pt brimstone horrors or grots to hold board space, and armies like gant hordes still did well).

Perhaps there are a few sub 50pt characters. Can they definitely do the same thing though? How well can a single 50pt model screen deep strikers or chargers? How many stray Smites or mortars can he take? How many of said character can you take in an army? How many victory points does he give up to the enemy?

Screening charges, taking stray smites and mortars is not what cheap infantry is for in 9th. Cheap infantry is for objective holding, performing actions, and scoring secondaries. And yeah, a 25pt character is infinitely superior at doing those things than a 50pt t2 ld4 sv7+ infantry unit.

Depends on the character. A lot of armies are seeing less access to characters with the loss of Supreme Command Detachments, and characters doing actions turns off their special rules that many armies rely on.

I'm not saying it doesn't work, but I'm a bit hesitant to say that characters are always a replacement for troops, however underwhelming those troops may be.

Sure, it's only in orks, imperial guard, Tau, drukhari (teeeeeeeeeechnically not characters because they did remove the CHARACTER keyword from the court of the archon guys for some reason nobody understands but, they're basically character units), and GSC where you can take super cheap elite slot or slotless characters to do the jobs that light infantry used to do and do it vastly better.

The factions that can't are basically the factions that get to have functional elite infantry anyway. Except for eldar, who goes to cry in the corner with their 30pt supplementary support characters who take up HQ slots for reasons.

Here are a short sampling of the various character keyword models who cost 30pts or less who can perform actions as INFANTRY keyword models without needing to give up any of their abilities:

-Techpriest Enginseer
-Mek
-Sslyth
-Dark Disciples
-Kroot Shaper
-Lictor
-Nexos
-Acolyte

If you don't think these various little gaks are going to turn up in a ton of competitive lists to hide somewhere out of LOS and perform cheeky actions for secondary points then I dunno, maybe you just aren't evil enough.

I think you're misunderstanding.me there. I wasn't saying that it can't be a thing, I was saying I feel that it's a solution that doesn't fix problems for everyone. Like Craftworlds who need their characters casting psychic powers all the time.

It's just one.of those things that works well.for some armies, but not all armies, a feeling I also share with MSU as for some.armies it opens them up to give away VP from the Attrition (or Grind Them Down if you play GT missions) secondary.

**Nitro Zeus**

Kanluwen wrote:Can you source a poll the disproves what he's saying?

I'm not going to say there's a poll anywhere, but he's not really wrong that the same people complaining loudly for "balance" are usually the same that will be complaining loudly when something they like is balanced in a way they dislike.

I'm incredibly guilty of this in that I think the nonsense with Conscripts and Commissars was handled in the worst possible manner, and have loudly said so since it happened. They both didn't go far enough and went the wrong way to start with!

Kanluwen wrote:
Karol wrote:

Well from what the designer says, the points are not about balance, but about what GW thinks people should buy and play with.
They want people to use the new erdictors and they do not want swarms of cultists or grots in their respective armies. It does of course go against the your dudes thing, but I guess that is how GW games are.

See, this? This is the kind of comment you ask for a source on.

Which designer? When?

Un-freaking believable. This guy is whipping out statistics and referencing polls that he refuses to share, as his indisputable proof as to why he’s right, and you said WE need to source a poll that disproves him, just to ask for his source?

Whereas Karol mistakenly attributes something to a designer instead of the play tester, and you’re up in arms about him needing a source.

Kanluwen, just stop posting. You are WAY too openly biased to ever contribute anything of value to a discussion.

**Vaktathi**

Everyone, if I might ask the favor that we return the conversation to Nick & Tony's discussion of point changes, and set aside the tangents, it would be more productive for the thread. Thanks!

**Galas**

I ussed to complaint about infantry squads comparing them with my tactical marines. Now I use intercessors and Tau fire caste warriors and I don't complain anymore.

**Karol**

What is the difference between a tester and a designer?
Besides the salary, maybe. they both have to follow what ever GW tells them the game should be.