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.

it seems to me more than a few people are entirely of the mind that the points are so garbage in 2020 that itd be preferable to just keep using the 8th points, both online and in my community. What are your opinions on the matter? I personally will use the new points, but agree that theyre flawed heavily.

Just my opinion, but I think the poll would be less contentious if it asked what people intend to do, rather than what 'everyone should do'.

Anyway, I suspect that my friends will want to play with the new points, as they play Harlequins/1KS/Custards, who all did ok out of the debacle. I guess my Drukhari will get spanked for a while, but I'll console myself with Crusade.

The poll responses do seem a bit biased. I get a slight feeling that you don't like the new points...

I mean, I don't like them either. However, your poll is sort of flawed if you don't try to make it as neutral as possible.

The new points are a terrible lazy hack job, but you can't really not use them, any more than you can say "you know what, I don't like X part of 9th, so we'll just pretend it doesn't exist." You can do that among friends, but you aren't playing standard 40k any more.

Now it's true that if enough people agree to depart, you get a new game. Just like competitive 8th ran nearly 100% on an alternate terrain ruleset. But that's much easier to get people to buy into when the game itself doesn't have any rules in that area to speak of. If GW in 8th had had some complex terrain system that simply sucked, I don't think you would have seen 95% of competitive formats buy into something else. It's because there basically were *no* terrain rules that that was possible.

Either XX, XY or YY. The wording might sound bias but its perfectly balanced.

And Im not putting a power option, because if GW wants to totally ignore power players for balance then so will I.

Meta Article from Yesterday:

We’re also taking this opportunity to tweak the Power Ratings of a few units in light of the new edition’s rules. We’ll be making those free to download next month, so stay tuned for the latest updates.

You were saying?

They flatout said in the livestreams early on as well that they're going to be balancing Power this edition.

 vaklor4 wrote:
Either XX, XY or YY. The wording might sound bias but its perfectly balanced..

That isn't how polls work. Wording matters a lot more than... whatever you think is 'perfectly balanced' about this.
Just the fact that you use 'we should' in the first two but an imperative command in the third passes a lot of your assumptions along.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Meta Article from Yesterday:

We’re also taking this opportunity to tweak the Power Ratings of a few units in light of the new edition’s rules. We’ll be making those free to download next month, so stay tuned for the latest updates.

You were saying?

They flatout said in the livestreams early on as well that they're going to be balancing Power this edition.

Well it is more important to balance power, as now there is no such thing as a non-power game. Unless you don't use reserves that is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:
That isn't how polls work. Wording matters a lot more than... whatever you think is 'perfectly balanced' about this.
Just the fact that you use 'we should' in the first two but an imperative command in the third passes a lot of your assumptions along.

Poll wording is a subject which people can spend their entire lives studying. It is insane how tiny word changes can affect the results. That's why it's best to keep them as simple as possible, and try to use the same wording in the responses.

 vaklor4 wrote:
Either XX, XY or YY. The wording might sound bias but its perfectly balanced.

And Im not putting a power option, because if GW wants to totally ignore power players for balance then so will I.

actually, power level is significantly more balanced than points. all you need to do is look at how many units received points adjustments over the course of the edition versus how many units received PL adjustments. I think you'll find that its like 100:1 (pts:pl) difference. So it seems like GW, took the aggregated power potential(across all loadouts/options)for a unit and determined that 10pl(hasnt changed) was a good # rather than 200pts(changed 5times).

I'm just gonna use the old points, there's no reason to use 2020's copy unless you need it for tourneys.

Racerguy180 wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:
Either XX, XY or YY. The wording might sound bias but its perfectly balanced.

And Im not putting a power option, because if GW wants to totally ignore power players for balance then so will I.

actually, power level is significantly more balanced than points. all you need to do is look at how many units received points adjustments over the course of the edition versus how many units received PL adjustments. I think you'll find that its like 100:1 (pts:pl) difference. So it seems like GW, took the aggregated power potential(across all loadouts/options)for a unit and determined that 10pl(hasnt changed) was a good # rather than 200pts(changed 5times).

The only reason power level EVER changed was to be updared in codexes and other books to go along with the new points. At no point has power changed independently from points. Its always been GW playing a slow game of catch up with their real system.

a fat guy wrote:
I'm just gonna use the old points, there's no reason to use 2020's copy unless you need it for tourneys.

I don't really agree with that. There are a fair number of marginal or bad decisions in the new points, but there is a large number of severely underpriced things in the 8th edition points that can just farm VPs in 9th.
Transports alone are game changers to get into contesting or outright claiming objectives early.

It'll be ridiculously easy for some armies to win on objectives with 8th edition points.

'Just use the old points' is an outright terrible idea, even if you're fielding one of the armies that got stomped by the new points.

If you're going to make a super biased poll to stroke your own ego, just make a normal thread instead.

And it's not XX, XY, YY, as written it's 'OBEY GW!' 'Let's use a more familiar also terrible points system in a new game' 'play 8th'.

Also if you expect a perfectly worded poll from some randy online then youre probably new to dakkadakka.

I will use the new points.

You can wait for perfection and you will never play, or you can play with imperfection. Sometimes you just have to play.

 vaklor4 wrote:
Also if you expect a perfectly worded poll from some randy online then youre probably new to dakkadakka.

I guess expecting someone to put any effort in disguising their desperate plea for attention and validation as anything but a desperate plea for attention and validation is a little bit too much to expect.

ERJAK wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:
Also if you expect a perfectly worded poll from some randy online then youre probably new to dakkadakka.

I guess expecting someone to put any effort in disguising their desperate plea for attention and validation as anything but a desperate plea for attention and validation is a little bit too much to expect.

And YOU are getting way too riled up over a forum post for a game.

 Overread wrote:
You can wait for perfection and you will never play, or you can play with imperfection. Sometimes you just have to play.

Aye. My local meta would be playing with the new points so I'd be expected to play with the new points, too. Still locked down anyways, so no much playing will be happening regardless.

You know that you can play with Power instead of Points, right?

Thereby making a potentially bad situation even worse .....

Ignoring whether or not I think poll is any good and focusing on the actual question at hand -

Our group has been playing with the new rules and points since it all became public. Honestly, at the larger sizes (mostly at the "new" 2000 points) it feels weird to us and we can't say why. For us 9th feels better at around the new "1000" level. We've only got about 13 or 14 games in and not all of those used the new points, but we are content to go back to 8th for a few more months and see how 9th shakes out once enough games have been played by the community at large to see where the real problems are vs where the perceived problems are.

One big issue ive already caught is that a lot of the secondaries feel really unbalanced even in broad strokes. The psyker ones are an outright trap unless youre playing tsons, greys or tzeentch for example.

yukishiro1 wrote:
The new points are a terrible lazy hack job, but you can't really not use them, any more than you can say "you know what, I don't like X part of 9th, so we'll just pretend it doesn't exist." You can do that among friends, but you aren't playing standard 40k any more.

{shrugs} Oh no, what a catastrophe! How will I sleep at night knowing that I've deviated from the word of GW (yet again)? I sure hope it doesn't rip a hole in reality or something.

Hows this sound?
If my group decides x, I'll do x. If we decide Y, I'll do Y. Should I play elsewhere? Then I'll just play however they do. You know, "When in Rome" & all....

Right now, I don't foresee getting much 40k gaming in anytime soon due to world events that isn't solo gaming at home. Thus far, there's nothing in any of the 9E stuff that I feel is spectacularly compelling to urge me to run it, and so at least as far as solo home gaming goes, I'm going to just keep using 8th in general, especially as I won't be dealing with SM supplements or any of the derpier stuff. Once stuff starts to open back up and events start running, I'll get in on 9th for whatever that entails, but that'll be a while at this rate.

EDIT: Also, lets tone down some of the tempers and tone here please

One big issue ive already caught is that a lot of the secondaries feel really unbalanced even in broad strokes. The psyker ones are an outright trap unless youre playing tsons, greys or tzeentch for example.

Yeah, I think the missions in general, and the secondaries in particular will take some fine tuning. We've found that the right secondaries combined with going first can make for a real headache because of the way things are scored. You can really start to snowball, and if the other player picked their secondaries poorly ... yikes.

It's nothing super broken, or anything that couldn't be fixed in a 1 paragraph FAQ so it's not like the sky is falling, but there do seem to be problems.

My group will play with the latest points available.

If individuals feel their army got hosed too much, I'm totally open to use the CA 2019 points instead.

To me the new points aren't more flawed or better than in the previously 5 editions I've been part of.

Some units are costed on point. Some are alright-ish and some don't make sense. If we sat down and said "let's wait for proper points" in 3rd edition, we would not have played a single game since then


I agree that the wording for the poll options does not seem objective.

I'll use whatever Battlescribe spits out when I build my first list for 9th
I must say after 3 editions of the game I'm of the opinion most of the discussions about points values are pretty irrelevant to me as you hardly have any impact in the actual game whether your flamers cost 6 or 5 points or whatever. Not saying points don't matter at all, but when I build a list it's more about the theme and the models rather than their respective costs.
I used Possessed when DakkaDakka said they're unplayable, I used Mutilators when DakkaDakka said nobody plays Mutilators and I'll take flamers even if they cost the same as Plasma because flamers rock.

If everyone else in my local meta is using the new points then I will too. I'm really hoping that the new fw books are out before I get a game of 9th in though. Some of those ca fw prices can't be right.

Voss wrote:

a fat guy wrote:
I'm just gonna use the old points, there's no reason to use 2020's copy unless you need it for tourneys.

I don't really agree with that. There are a fair number of marginal or bad decisions in the new points, but there is a large number of severely underpriced things in the 8th edition points that can just farm VPs in 9th.
Transports alone are game changers to get into contesting or outright claiming objectives early.

It'll be ridiculously easy for some armies to win on objectives with 8th edition points.

'Just use the old points' is an outright terrible idea, even if you're fielding one of the armies that got stomped by the new points.

I think its a better idea than using the new system that penalises non-elite armies wholesale. If GW actually wanted to balance and enhance point granularity, they should have started by doubling every models points cost, then try to balance the result. Instead we no longer have models below 5 points anymore even if it makes no sense whatsoever.

The older chapter approved was also at least at the stage where you roughly knew which units were overpowered and you could agree with your opponent what was or wasn't okay to bring to a casual game. Now the casual game is completely unfair for horde units, and some armies are just not going to be fun to play with or against (unless you're a jerk or a masochist).

I really don't like the direction GW are going these days...

 vaklor4 wrote:
it seems to me more than a few people are entirely of the mind that the points are so garbage in 2020 that itd be preferable to just keep using the 8th points, both online and in my community. What are your opinions on the matter? I personally will use the new points, but agree that theyre flawed heavily.

These new points aren't more unbalanced than 8th edition ones. The only real difference is that armies are 10% smaller in terms of models on average, not always even true.

People that keep old points are players that are refusing to adapt and change their army. Maybe because they can't maybe because they don't want, I'm not judging. But overall balance shouldn't be any different than late 8th, so why not playing with the new points?

*shrug*, haven't played 40K since earlier this year, so falling back to 8E's points isn't an issue for me. I'll go by whatever is in battlescribe anyways, I wager.

Funnily enough, last game I played we used power and it worked for me, didn't see an issue at all.