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.

I got the new rules recently and I have been building lists and I noticed something odd. I currently am using three main armies; Space marines, Custodes and Ad Mech, and I built an army list for all three for the 2000 point range and I took a look at the power levels for the armies and I discovered a really large difference between them. My Custodes list has a power level of 120 my Ad Mech a power level of 108 and my Space Marines... 88. Now I know that power levels are not meant to be balanced but a general rating of the strength of the unit but these differences seem way to much for me for each army to be around the 2000 point range.

Not only that but I made a list with my SM that had a power level of 108 and the points cost was 2480 and at 120 2780. I think someone screwed up either the power levels or the points somewhere.

Is anyone else noticing this with other armies?

GW says that as 9E codices come online they're going to try to adjust power levels a bit etc. so at least they reckongize the problem

Where are you getting the power levels? I don’t think they’ve updated the power levels for 9th edition yet, so it’s likely you’re using 8th edition PL with 9th Ed points so discrepancies are likely.

Hopefully the updated PL for 9th will be more in line with the points when they arrive.

Points have changed several times since the drop of 8th. Power level has not.

 KingGarland wrote:
I got the new rules recently and I have been building lists and I noticed something odd. I currently am using three main armies; Space marines, Custodes and Ad Mech, and I built an army list for all three for the 2000 point range and I took a look at the power levels for the armies and I discovered a really large difference between them. My Custodes list has a power level of 120 my Ad Mech a power level of 108 and my Space Marines... 88. Now I know that power levels are not meant to be balanced but a general rating of the strength of the unit but these differences seem way to much for me for each army to be around the 2000 point range.

Not only that but I made a list with my SM that had a power level of 108 and the points cost was 2480 and at 120 2780. I think someone screwed up either the power levels or the points somewhere.

Is anyone else noticing this with other armies?

PL's haven't been updated. Points have been. That alone creates huge disparity.

BrianDavion wrote:GW says that as 9E codices come online they're going to try to adjust power levels a bit etc. so at least they reckongize the problem

ok but codex can take a very long time to come out, some over a year after the new edition. I feel like GW should release an errata with new power levels.

Aash wrote:Where are you getting the power levels? I don’t think they’ve updated the power levels for 9th edition yet, so it’s likely you’re using 8th edition PL with 9th Ed points so discrepancies are likely.

Hopefully the updated PL for 9th will be more in line with the points when they arrive.

hopefully but i compared the powerlevels for the new units with old ones. The space marines are around what other units are and for Necrons the same with a few down a little.

Pretty sure they did say they are going to update PL's on launch. Either got delayed(like tons of things) or I misremember.

And btw necron warriors and overlord went down in PL despite going up in points. Shows how badly they need update from start of 8th ed...

 KingGarland wrote:
I think someone screwed up either the power levels or the points somewhere.

Ahhh, sweet innocence. Both are borked in their own weird ways. Pts can be fixed, PL will never be amazing, but I imagine PL currently has better balance than 9th pts because the 9th pts are terrible.

 vict0988 wrote:

 KingGarland wrote:
I think someone screwed up either the power levels or the points somewhere.

Ahhh, sweet innocence. Both are borked in their own weird ways. Pts can be fixed, PL will never be amazing, but I imagine PL currently has better balance than 9th pts because the 9th pts are terrible.

What are you talking about GW clearly playtested so well, that the playtesters were concerned !

But they are just responding to what the comunity wanted.

40k Community

Marine players with their new OP units

It's really sad as it esentially makes ninth edition either matched or crusade a joke balance wise untill everyone has a codex.

what two armies got squatted?

Not Online!!! wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 KingGarland wrote:
I think someone screwed up either the power levels or the points somewhere.

Ahhh, sweet innocence. Both are borked in their own weird ways. Pts can be fixed, PL will never be amazing, but I imagine PL currently has better balance than 9th pts because the 9th pts are terrible.

What are you talking about GW clearly playtested so well, that the playtesters were concerned !

A Relic contemptor is clearly just as good as a mortis contemptor.

Eradicators are way worse than a devastator squad with 4 Multimelta and a combi melta, clearly they had to be 50pts cheaper to be usable.

Tank Commanders arent used enough, lets increase their points only by a bit while slapping regular LR tanks with a big fat tax.

The list is endless

BrianDavion wrote:
what two armies got squatted?

Rouges and Hertics ans Elysians though to be fair both decended into unplayable as GW has utterly ignored FW rules since they took them over 2+ years ago, and still won't acknowledge the promised updated during 8th edition books, while spewing primaracrap.

BrianDavion wrote:
what two armies got squatted?

FW renegades and Elysians I think

BrianDavion wrote:
what two armies got squatted?

Elysian Drop Troops and Renegades and Heretics.

I just don't understand how GW can have dropped the ball so hard with so many playtesters including a lot of veteran players and some GT winning players that can spot this sort of stuff a mile away. We need some insight into how GW playtests stuff and then we need to help them with how to direct playtesting and process playtester feedback in a productive manner. Get some game devs with this sort of knowledge and a track record of making one or more balanced games involved. Some games would be terrible to have balance in, roguelikes need to be imbalanced to make the gambling aspect of the genre pop. Reading the munitorum field manual should not be like doing a scratch card.

 vict0988 wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
what two armies got squatted?

Elysian Drop Troops and Renegades and Heretics.

I just don't understand how GW can have dropped the ball so hard with so many playtesters including a lot of veteran players and some GT winning players that can spot this sort of stuff a mile away. We need some insight into how GW playtests stuff and then we need to help them with how to direct playtesting and process playtester feedback in a productive manner. Get some game devs with this sort of knowledge and a track record of making one or more balanced games involved. Some games would be terrible to have balance in, roguelikes need to be imbalanced to make the gambling aspect of the genre pop. Reading the munitorum field manual should not be like doing a scratch card.

But you see, GW uses unbalanced stuff and "mistakes" to sell you their Fix.

It's like Ubisoft selling you "time skippers" for a game they made artificially too grindy



Automatically Appended Next Post:

nekooni wrote:

Spoiler:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 KingGarland wrote:
I think someone screwed up either the power levels or the points somewhere.

Ahhh, sweet innocence. Both are borked in their own weird ways. Pts can be fixed, PL will never be amazing, but I imagine PL currently has better balance than 9th pts because the 9th pts are terrible.

What are you talking about GW clearly playtested so well, that the playtesters were concerned !

A Relic contemptor is clearly just as good as a mortis contemptor.

Eradicators are way worse than a devastator squad with 4 Multimelta and a combi melta, clearly they had to be 50pts cheaper to be usable.

Tank Commanders arent used enough, lets increase their points only by a bit while slapping regular LR tanks with a big fat tax.

The list is endless

The list is hillarious, hell a grot now is a guardsmen?!? a Cultists inferior to a guardsmen costs MORE?
Wtf is the reasoning for guardsmen to pay the same for a flamer or PG?


but that's "Fine" and just "Wait and see" because GW will clearly fix the "mistakes", even though playtesters all allready tested with finished dexes, which then will be released staggered because of course, "just wait your turn" then the statement will be never mind that you potentially have to play 1.5 years with an gakky index against dex armies because of the staggering, what ? you don^t like that ? Especially not because you play orks or GSC and had to wait until the dexes showed up and were at a constant heavy disadvantage?

Tough...

Not Online!!! wrote:

The list is hillarious, hell a grot now is a guardsmen?!? a Cultists inferior to a guardsmen costs MORE?
Wtf is the reasoning for guardsmen to pay the same for a flamer or PG?

Thing is, most of those can be argued as "well they're in a different army and we took that into account" or some BS like that. But Tank Commander and LRBT are the same thing, the TC is just better all around,and was even before points adjustments the option everyone was using.even worse is the contemptor thing - the ONLY thing that the Relic contemptor has as a downside is that you have to bring another Elite choice. It's stat line is much better, it's got better options for war gear and it's not using a rare HS slot.

And the whole notion of "well the codex will fix it" is just insulting, to be honest. Those books will have a section with updated points, and for some armies their updates will be in a year. How can you honestly think that it's fine to feth up their points for a whole year just because you can't be arsed to put at least SOME effort into the field manual? And how could you defend that decision as a player / playtester

nekooni wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

The list is hillarious, hell a grot now is a guardsmen?!? a Cultists inferior to a guardsmen costs MORE?
Wtf is the reasoning for guardsmen to pay the same for a flamer or PG?

Thing is, most of those can be argued as "well they're in a different army and we took that into account" or some BS like that. But Tank Commander and LRBT are the same thing, the TC is just better all around,and was even before points adjustments the option everyone was using.even worse is the contemptor thing - the ONLY thing that the Relic contemptor has as a downside is that you have to bring another Elite choice. It's stat line is much better, it's got better options for war gear and it's not using a rare HS slot.

No you can't, even if you just look internally, there's NO way in hell a conscript is 5 pts worth aswell.
Or a PG should cost the same as a flamer.


And it is by far not the only such internal messed up thing, Heck compare the new raptor prices to Warptalons.

No , scuse me this is BS and i will call it what it is.
GW messed up willingly to let the suckers dangle a bit to get more money out of them.
That is what this is, the same btw with why SM got condensed into one dex and then all forced to buy supplements if they are not just barebones SM because Feth you give me your money for that second supplementary book you need.

Not Online!!! wrote:


No you can't, even if you just look internally, there's NO way in hell a conscript is 5 pts worth aswell.
Or a PG should cost the same as a flamer.

That was my point, I agree with you. You could come up with excuses for eg plasma vs flamer, but there's no excuse for conscripts vs guardsman, TC vs LRBT, mortis vs Relic contemptor to name a few.

The TC and LRBT difference is actually due to the fact that HQ slots in general have seen a much lower increase, since they are now a really limited slot.

Also, IMO there is a limit to how much you can make someone pay for a vehicle without an invul save. What are they at now, 190 points before sponsons?

I thought most of us felt that they took the base 8th edition points when designing for 9th and forgot that they had changed them several times over the years

Power level update is coming in August. Patience.

Spoletta wrote:
The TC and LRBT difference is actually due to the fact that HQ slots in general have seen a much lower increase, since they are now a really limited slot.

Also, IMO there is a limit to how much you can make someone pay for a vehicle without an invul save. What are they at now, 190 points before sponsons?

Doesn't change the fact that the LRBT wasn't used in 8th and won't be used in 9th since you'd always go with a TC where possible,and instead of fixing that they made it worse

Wayniac wrote:
I thought most of us felt that they took the base 8th edition points when designing for 9th and forgot that they had changed them several times over the years

I think the most common hypothesis is what Goonhammer came up with, where units got put into weird arbitrary categories and changed based on that and mostly by way of a static number rather than a % of their CA19 cost. But Goonhammer also points out that sometimes it's apparent that GW has taken a stance with some points costs and deliberately buffed or nerfed something. It's just a mess. In a 100% random rebalance you would find as many things worth applauding as you can with 9th pts.

Personally I wish GW had increased ALL of the point costs; it would have made balancing the game so much easier. Model points, Wargear points, Game points, etc.

For Example: I would raise a Guardsman to 20points before wargear and an Intercessor to 50points before wargear. But the standard game size (currently 2000points) would also increase to say 5000 points.

After a little meta/playtesting Guardsmen are under performing, drop them to 19ppm. Auto Bolt Rifles are syncing really well with this new strat, raise them a point or two. IMO would be much easier.

Slap a 0 onto everything, done. But the issue isnt granularity, that's just fine tuning. The issue is that they had no idea what they were doing.

nekooni wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

The list is hillarious, hell a grot now is a guardsmen?!? a Cultists inferior to a guardsmen costs MORE?
Wtf is the reasoning for guardsmen to pay the same for a flamer or PG?

Thing is, most of those can be argued as "well they're in a different army and we took that into account" or some BS like that. But Tank Commander and LRBT are the same thing, the TC is just better all around,and was even before points adjustments the option everyone was using.even worse is the contemptor thing - the ONLY thing that the Relic contemptor has as a downside is that you have to bring another Elite choice. It's stat line is much better, it's got better options for war gear and it's not using a rare HS slot.

And the whole notion of "well the codex will fix it" is just insulting, to be honest. Those books will have a section with updated points, and for some armies their updates will be in a year. How can you honestly think that it's fine to feth up their points for a whole year just because you can't be arsed to put at least SOME effort into the field manual? And how could you defend that decision as a player / playtester

All contemptors having the same price (everything from the plastic codex loyalist model to the hellforged version) proves that they were simply priced by name. Whoever, or whatever if we go with the algorithm theory, determined the points for contemptors merely assumed that since they all had the same name they were equal. That shows how lazy some of the points changes were. Others are just straight up biased: storm cannon arrays stayed the same, butcher cannon arrays went up 87%, because it was apparently csm who were breaking the game with unkillable leviathans recently.

Ive made several 2k pts list towars the end of 8th.
These varied wildly within the same codex ranging from about 98 to 125...

To me power levels are basically points. Just smaller amount of points for some appear to be even worse balanced than the matched play point system..

What I mean is if you decide to have a game using 110 power levels its essentially giving each player 110 pts rather than use a 2000pts list building method.
To me the two are essentially the same thing so dont really get the point of power levels.

Power level does admittedly make weirder but cool builds like csm squads with heavy/special weapon and fist/plasma pistol champ more doable on the tabletop... “oh no your lascannons are free!” Bah humbug. It’s a god send for people like me that love running suboptimized lists in a game plagued by emphasis on optimization.

 Argive wrote:
Ive made several 2k pts list towars the end of 8th.
These varied wildly within the same codex ranging from about 98 to 125...

To me power levels are basically points. Just smaller amount of points for some appear to be even worse balanced than the matched play point system..

What I mean is if you decide to have a game using 110 power levels its essentially giving each player 110 pts rather than use a 2000pts list building method.
To me the two are essentially the same thing so dont really get the point of power levels.

Power level is easier to math out in your head and instead of doing cost-benefit analysis of wargear options you just have to figure out which wargear option has the highest value making it simpler to powergame.

macluvin wrote:
Power level does admittedly make weirder but cool builds like csm squads with heavy/special weapon and fist/plasma pistol champ more doable on the tabletop... “oh no your lascannons are free!” Bah humbug. It’s a god send for people like me that love running suboptimized lists in a game plagued by emphasis on optimization.

True, unless the person in question loves running the cheap unoptimized option like flamers which would under normal circumstances be cheaper than a plasma gun.