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.
2020/07/25 13:25:33
Subject: Nick Nanavati talks to Playtester Tony Kopach about the points changes
ClockworkZion wrote: Most players want choice, and a fair number of competetive players prefer the game in a state where it can be "solved" as it lets them control the game state and win the game more often.
Neither of those things lend themselves to balance. Limiting army composition and funneling them towards a specific way to play each faction with a limited number of options would give us the most tactical and balanced game.
It's also piss off most of the player base as it takes away options and leaves people nothing to "solve". Neither group would really argue they don't want a more balanced game, but when you get down to it most people don't want to give up things to make the game more balanced.
And that has always made the devs deal with a major issue of how to balance a game with a community that doesn't want anything removed.
Now there are ways to still balance the game, and I feel 9th is pushing the game towards being more balanced with how it scores the game and with how it gives you an incentive for using patrol, battalion or brigade detachments over the specialist detachments (via refunding CP). Points are only on facet of balance and I think GW has started to look at other levers they can pull to shift the game to a more balanced state without just slapping on a points bump or nerfing the rules.
But do people want choice, or do they want a as high as possible number of options and units, as this give them a chance that with some of them it is possible to build a good list? also GWs balance seems to be very much based around what army someone is playing. If someone had a good codex with a good army in 8th, they could have claimed that 8th was great and more balanced then prior editions. And vice versa. My GK coming in to 9th are practicaly irrecognisible to what they were throuhg most of 8th, even with a skew secondary, they still seem strong and fun to play. If someone plays an army that is mechanicaly made to not work in 9th ed , by lets say the fact that playing knights means you don't have msu units to grab different objectives or have an edge in kill point missions, because kill points aren't really much a thing anymore, then for those people 9th is not going to be much balanced. And this is just general army stuff, before we consider that someone may want to play a specific historical build for a faction or may not want to use the new primaris etc
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2020/07/25 18:41:30
Subject: Re:Nick Nanavati talks to Playtester Tony Kopach about the points changes
What was the point of them - what did they actually do?
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Well they can say it was playtested. It is like politicians say that the new law was well researched.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2020/07/26 00:25:14
Subject: Re:Nick Nanavati talks to Playtester Tony Kopach about the points changes
What was the point of them - what did they actually do?
Let GW say they had it playtested and it's "the most balanced edition of 40k yet". It's very likely that GW ignored what they said or didn't see it. We have no idea since they keep the NDA so we can't have the playtesters reveal everything (which would be great if they could)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/26 00:25:33
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2020/07/26 03:28:04
Subject: Nick Nanavati talks to Playtester Tony Kopach about the points changes
Karol wrote:But do people want choice, or do they want a as high as possible number of options and units, as this give them a chance that with some of them it is possible to build a good list? also GWs balance seems to be very much based around what army someone is playing. If someone had a good codex with a good army in 8th, they could have claimed that 8th was great and more balanced then prior editions. And vice versa. My GK coming in to 9th are practicaly irrecognisible to what they were throuhg most of 8th, even with a skew secondary, they still seem strong and fun to play. If someone plays an army that is mechanicaly made to not work in 9th ed , by lets say the fact that playing knights means you don't have msu units to grab different objectives or have an edge in kill point missions, because kill points aren't really much a thing anymore, then for those people 9th is not going to be much balanced. And this is just general army stuff, before we consider that someone may want to play a specific historical build for a faction or may not want to use the new primaris etc
I'd argue people want choice. Think of the wailing and gnashing of teeth that happens -anything- is removed from a codex no matter how good or bad it was. People want options, and they don't want the stuff they like to stop being valid game options.
Mr Morden wrote:Sooo if the playesters feedback was ignored.
What was the point of them - what did they actually do?
Where's this claim that playtesters were ignored? I don't buy this. Not with the way GW has tackled the day one FAQs, or from how tight they've tried making their language. Playtesters were definitely involved in most of the game design (Reese claims to not know the mininmum board size thing was going to happen, so some things may not have been handled by playtesters, but that doesn't mean nothing the playtesters did was ignored).
2020/07/26 03:30:24
Subject: Nick Nanavati talks to Playtester Tony Kopach about the points changes
Haha. His store front is a pretty magical place if he didn't know about the board size change, yet somehow it already sells 70 different prints of game mats in that _exact_ size.
Efficiency is the highest virtue.
2020/07/26 03:34:15
Subject: Nick Nanavati talks to Playtester Tony Kopach about the points changes
Voss wrote: Haha. His store front is a pretty magical place if he didn't know about the board size change, yet somehow it already sells 70 different prints of game mats in that _exact_ size.
Like it's hard to put in orders with the manufacturer for a new size of mat to be added. And he didn't have the new size to go day one. He had to get them made later after GW announced it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/26 03:34:42
2020/07/26 03:38:03
Subject: Nick Nanavati talks to Playtester Tony Kopach about the points changes
Voss wrote: Haha. His store front is a pretty magical place if he didn't know about the board size change, yet somehow it already sells 70 different prints of game mats in that _exact_ size.
Like it's hard to put in orders with the manufacturer for a new size of mat to be added. And he didn't have the new size to go day one. He had to get them made later after GW announced it.
Day one is today. I noticed they were up a week or two ago.
Efficiency is the highest virtue.
2020/07/26 03:54:21
Subject: Nick Nanavati talks to Playtester Tony Kopach about the points changes
Voss wrote: Haha. His store front is a pretty magical place if he didn't know about the board size change, yet somehow it already sells 70 different prints of game mats in that _exact_ size.
Like it's hard to put in orders with the manufacturer for a new size of mat to be added. And he didn't have the new size to go day one. He had to get them made later after GW announced it.
Day one is today. I noticed they were up a week or two ago.
And GW announced the board size change like nearly a month ago.
2020/07/26 04:10:31
Subject: Nick Nanavati talks to Playtester Tony Kopach about the points changes
Mr Morden wrote:Sooo if the playesters feedback was ignored.
What was the point of them - what did they actually do?
Where's this claim that playtesters were ignored? I don't buy this. Not with the way GW has tackled the day one FAQs, or from how tight they've tried making their language. Playtesters were definitely involved in most of the game design (Reese claims to not know the mininmum board size thing was going to happen, so some things may not have been handled by playtesters, but that doesn't mean nothing the playtesters did was ignored).
It's the points. All evidence seems to suggest that they were set in stone a long time before the playtesters got started. How do you decide on points values before the game is tested to see what's good and what isn't? The only answer I can come up with is that the rules were already decided on before playtesting began. Which means playtesters had no effect on the core rules, errata on those core rules maybe, but not the core of the game. And definitely not the points, which are pretty ridiculous in a lot of ways. They don't seem to be based on any playtester input, just whatever algorithm gw used and some special attention for some particular units, and so far the comments from the playtesters bare that out.
2020/07/26 04:14:33
Subject: Nick Nanavati talks to Playtester Tony Kopach about the points changes
Mr Morden wrote:Sooo if the playesters feedback was ignored.
What was the point of them - what did they actually do?
Where's this claim that playtesters were ignored? I don't buy this. Not with the way GW has tackled the day one FAQs, or from how tight they've tried making their language. Playtesters were definitely involved in most of the game design (Reese claims to not know the mininmum board size thing was going to happen, so some things may not have been handled by playtesters, but that doesn't mean nothing the playtesters did was ignored).
It's the points. All evidence seems to suggest that they were set in stone a long time before the playtesters got started. How do you decide on points values before the game is tested to see what's good and what isn't? The only answer I can come up with is that the rules were already decided on before playtesting began. Which means playtesters had no effect on the core rules, errata on those core rules maybe, but not the core of the game. And definitely not the points, which are pretty ridiculous in a lot of ways. They don't seem to be based on any playtester input, just whatever algorithm gw used and some special attention for some particular units, and so far the comments from the playtesters bare that out.
I was listening to a podcast earlier and they pointed out that in 8th the points were heavilly based on how things were in 7th, and then had to be adjusted from there. Thinking about that has me thinking that it's plausible that GW decided to reset the board completely and work from there because the points were being redefined relative to 8th more than how the new edition truly worked.
Alternatively, they could have reset the points as a basis and waited for playtester feedback but didn't get a clear response from everyone that pointed one way or the other, so just kept the reset instead.
Remember, there are a bunch of different groups doing this, and it could be possible that they all had different feedback on what things should go up or down based on things like terrain density, or how they played the blast rule against 6-10 model units.
2020/07/26 04:46:10
Subject: Nick Nanavati talks to Playtester Tony Kopach about the points changes
Mr Morden wrote:Sooo if the playesters feedback was ignored.
What was the point of them - what did they actually do?
Where's this claim that playtesters were ignored? I don't buy this. Not with the way GW has tackled the day one FAQs, or from how tight they've tried making their language. Playtesters were definitely involved in most of the game design (Reese claims to not know the mininmum board size thing was going to happen, so some things may not have been handled by playtesters, but that doesn't mean nothing the playtesters did was ignored).
It's the points. All evidence seems to suggest that they were set in stone a long time before the playtesters got started. How do you decide on points values before the game is tested to see what's good and what isn't? The only answer I can come up with is that the rules were already decided on before playtesting began. Which means playtesters had no effect on the core rules, errata on those core rules maybe, but not the core of the game. And definitely not the points, which are pretty ridiculous in a lot of ways. They don't seem to be based on any playtester input, just whatever algorithm gw used and some special attention for some particular units, and so far the comments from the playtesters bare that out.
I was listening to a podcast earlier and they pointed out that in 8th the points were heavilly based on how things were in 7th, and then had to be adjusted from there. Thinking about that has me thinking that it's plausible that GW decided to reset the board completely and work from there because the points were being redefined relative to 8th more than how the new edition truly worked.
Alternatively, they could have reset the points as a basis and waited for playtester feedback but didn't get a clear response from everyone that pointed one way or the other, so just kept the reset instead.
Remember, there are a bunch of different groups doing this, and it could be possible that they all had different feedback on what things should go up or down based on things like terrain density, or how they played the blast rule against 6-10 model units.
That's my theory, the points are a reset to bring everything back to an index level, they have nothing to do with balance. But I don't believe that none of the changes wouldn't have rung the same alarm bells for the majority of playtesters. No one thinks grots are equal to guardsmen, or that cultists are better than said guardsmen. I don't think anyone could possibly think relic and mortis contemptors are equal. The points for the new primaris Eradicators could only mean either playtesters were ignored or the new unit wasn't playtested. No one could possibly think flamers should be the same as plasma.
Gw did the points reset and stuck with it, the playtesters were ignored.
2020/07/26 05:03:45
Subject: Nick Nanavati talks to Playtester Tony Kopach about the points changes
Mr Morden wrote:Sooo if the playesters feedback was ignored.
What was the point of them - what did they actually do?
Where's this claim that playtesters were ignored? I don't buy this. Not with the way GW has tackled the day one FAQs, or from how tight they've tried making their language. Playtesters were definitely involved in most of the game design (Reese claims to not know the mininmum board size thing was going to happen, so some things may not have been handled by playtesters, but that doesn't mean nothing the playtesters did was ignored).
It's the points. All evidence seems to suggest that they were set in stone a long time before the playtesters got started. How do you decide on points values before the game is tested to see what's good and what isn't? The only answer I can come up with is that the rules were already decided on before playtesting began. Which means playtesters had no effect on the core rules, errata on those core rules maybe, but not the core of the game. And definitely not the points, which are pretty ridiculous in a lot of ways. They don't seem to be based on any playtester input, just whatever algorithm gw used and some special attention for some particular units, and so far the comments from the playtesters bare that out.
I was listening to a podcast earlier and they pointed out that in 8th the points were heavilly based on how things were in 7th, and then had to be adjusted from there. Thinking about that has me thinking that it's plausible that GW decided to reset the board completely and work from there because the points were being redefined relative to 8th more than how the new edition truly worked.
Alternatively, they could have reset the points as a basis and waited for playtester feedback but didn't get a clear response from everyone that pointed one way or the other, so just kept the reset instead.
Remember, there are a bunch of different groups doing this, and it could be possible that they all had different feedback on what things should go up or down based on things like terrain density, or how they played the blast rule against 6-10 model units.
That's my theory, the points are a reset to bring everything back to an index level, they have nothing to do with balance. But I don't believe that none of the changes wouldn't have rung the same alarm bells for the majority of playtesters. No one thinks grots are equal to guardsmen, or that cultists are better than said guardsmen. I don't think anyone could possibly think relic and mortis contemptors are equal. The points for the new primaris Eradicators could only mean either playtesters were ignored or the new unit wasn't playtested. No one could possibly think flamers should be the same as plasma.
Gw did the points reset and stuck with it, the playtesters were ignored.
I feel people are still basing points on combat ability, and failing to recognize that taking up space on the table and being able to perform actions has value. 9th isn't solely about killing your opponent, but has a strong centering on holding ground. It only makes sense that there would be a charge for that.
Beyond that, I've said my piece on possible reasons, but unless GW says something we don't know. You assume malice, I assume they didn't have a clear picture back from play testers, either way neither of us has proof and it's all meaningless.
EDIT: Also points for Eradicators are likely balanced based on being in the Indomitus box specifically to fight Necrons. GW did something like that with Shadowspear and adjusted points for Obliterators when the codex proper dropped.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/26 05:04:39
2020/07/26 05:19:03
Subject: Nick Nanavati talks to Playtester Tony Kopach about the points changes
ClockworkZion wrote: Where's this claim that playtesters were ignored? I don't buy this. Not with the way GW has tackled the day one FAQs, or from how tight they've tried making their language. Playtesters were definitely involved in most of the game design (Reese claims to not know the mininmum board size thing was going to happen, so some things may not have been handled by playtesters, but that doesn't mean nothing the playtesters did was ignored).
There's definitely an argument to be made that Reese is not a trustworthy source, however.
ClockworkZion wrote: Remember, there are a bunch of different groups doing this, and it could be possible that they all had different feedback on what things should go up or down based on things like terrain density, or how they played the blast rule against 6-10 model units.
I'd like to think that if they had any confusion about the 6-10 model aspect of Blast, they'd be feeding that back after the first game, rather than keeping quiet about it until final feedback. If a couple of groups came back to them early to query this, you'd expect GW to clarify it for all playtest groups, so they're working from a common perspective.
Of course, reality and what I'd like to think happened rarely line up, but there you go.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
2020/07/26 05:34:58
Subject: Nick Nanavati talks to Playtester Tony Kopach about the points changes
Mr Morden wrote:Sooo if the playesters feedback was ignored.
What was the point of them - what did they actually do?
Where's this claim that playtesters were ignored? I don't buy this. Not with the way GW has tackled the day one FAQs, or from how tight they've tried making their language. Playtesters were definitely involved in most of the game design (Reese claims to not know the mininmum board size thing was going to happen, so some things may not have been handled by playtesters, but that doesn't mean nothing the playtesters did was ignored).
It's the points. All evidence seems to suggest that they were set in stone a long time before the playtesters got started. How do you decide on points values before the game is tested to see what's good and what isn't? The only answer I can come up with is that the rules were already decided on before playtesting began. Which means playtesters had no effect on the core rules, errata on those core rules maybe, but not the core of the game. And definitely not the points, which are pretty ridiculous in a lot of ways. They don't seem to be based on any playtester input, just whatever algorithm gw used and some special attention for some particular units, and so far the comments from the playtesters bare that out.
I was listening to a podcast earlier and they pointed out that in 8th the points were heavilly based on how things were in 7th, and then had to be adjusted from there. Thinking about that has me thinking that it's plausible that GW decided to reset the board completely and work from there because the points were being redefined relative to 8th more than how the new edition truly worked.
Alternatively, they could have reset the points as a basis and waited for playtester feedback but didn't get a clear response from everyone that pointed one way or the other, so just kept the reset instead.
Remember, there are a bunch of different groups doing this, and it could be possible that they all had different feedback on what things should go up or down based on things like terrain density, or how they played the blast rule against 6-10 model units.
That's my theory, the points are a reset to bring everything back to an index level, they have nothing to do with balance. But I don't believe that none of the changes wouldn't have rung the same alarm bells for the majority of playtesters. No one thinks grots are equal to guardsmen, or that cultists are better than said guardsmen. I don't think anyone could possibly think relic and mortis contemptors are equal. The points for the new primaris Eradicators could only mean either playtesters were ignored or the new unit wasn't playtested. No one could possibly think flamers should be the same as plasma.
Gw did the points reset and stuck with it, the playtesters were ignored.
I feel people are still basing points on combat ability, and failing to recognize that taking up space on the table and being able to perform actions has value. 9th isn't solely about killing your opponent, but has a strong centering on holding ground. It only makes sense that there would be a charge for that.
Beyond that, I've said my piece on possible reasons, but unless GW says something we don't know. You assume malice, I assume they didn't have a clear picture back from play testers, either way neither of us has proof and it's all meaningless.
EDIT: Also points for Eradicators are likely balanced based on being in the Indomitus box specifically to fight Necrons. GW did something like that with Shadowspear and adjusted points for Obliterators when the codex proper dropped.
I don't assume malice, I think this was done as a reset before the new codexes, it was just done very, very poorly. Yes, holding ground and performing actions are important in 9th, but guardsmen can do that as well as grots and cultists while being better at fighting back. That also goes no way to explain the many other discrepancies, just going over the ones I mentioned: a Relic Contemptor does everything better than a Mortis Contemptor, and no one thinks flamers are of equal value as plasma. Nothing explains those things being the same price. I'm not going into anything else, as you seem to have made up your mind, and the arguments have already been made multiple times.
2020/07/26 06:16:51
Subject: Nick Nanavati talks to Playtester Tony Kopach about the points changes
ClockworkZion wrote:I feel you're missing the mark. The design studio has shown us during 8th edition in how they want a game that is enjoyable for people at all levels. That means balance passes, points adjustments and now Power Level adjustments.
Saying they have some imagined bias against competetive is laughable at best and frankly should be tossed out. If GW is screwing something up it isn't part of some grand master conspiracy but because the people involved are human beings who are fallible and prone to are as much as the rest of us shaved apes.
You don't decide to change all special weapons to the same cost because ... I don't even know what you were getting a towards the end. Decisions like that are done to reduce player decision making and make the game more accessible for some ideal customer, there is clear logic behind it. At best you could say that they don't know what to make the new point so are putting them all at the same value to be changed later; but that is still horrible, the kind of mass customer beta-testing usually only reserved for the worst software developers.
If the former is true, then fundamental points changes are being made for the sake of people who don't care about points. If the former, then GW has abandoned any idea of ever play testing their game and is content to charge money in CA for the privilege of doing it for them. I don't know which is worse, but what is true in both cases is that the tournament scene and people who like fair points are a tertiary consideration at best.
Dysartes wrote:
Eipi10 wrote: @ClockworkZion
I think you misunderstood and I wasn't very clear. I'm not saying 9th will be unplayable, but I am saying better balance will not be a goal of 9th in the least and it will suffer for that. TO's who stand by GW, keeping their missions and not using house rules, will be rewarded as FLG has and more. Those who don't and attempt to fix 9th's obvious flaws (the same way ITC tried to fix 8th's terrain rules) will be ignored and fail to grow the way officially sanctioned tournaments grow.
Not wanting to drail the thread too much, but what do you see as 9th's "obvious flaws" at this stage?
The points changes are the worst and clearest problem right now but others will show themselves in time. I have a few other nitpicks, like capped modifiers making infantry heavy weapons shoot as well as light weapons against flyers despite moving, that I could see people wanting changed but GW refusing to do so.
2020/07/26 14:58:27
Subject: Nick Nanavati talks to Playtester Tony Kopach about the points changes
Voss wrote: Haha. His store front is a pretty magical place if he didn't know about the board size change, yet somehow it already sells 70 different prints of game mats in that _exact_ size.
Like it's hard to put in orders with the manufacturer for a new size of mat to be added. And he didn't have the new size to go day one. He had to get them made later after GW announced it.
Day one is today. I noticed they were up a week or two ago.
And GW announced the board size change like nearly a month ago.
Yeah there was plenry of time to call your factory and gave them make the same thing sliced to a different size.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
