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 was reading the article on points values in the new edition of AoS and a particular section caught my eye:

"We increased the points values for several reasons. Firstly, during the last edition of Warhammer Age of Sigmar, the points values of many different units were adjusted, usually seeing a steady drop. While this promoted better balance, the size of armies went up, which meant battles took longer to complete. This points rise will help battles come to their conclusion in a timely manner by reducing the size of armies once more."

When I read this I took it to mean that GW is intentionally creating points values in AoS, and by extension in 40k, not for the purposes of creating an internal balance between the factions but to decrease play time. While I can understand the desire to keep play time in check I don't feel it should be/needs to be at the expense of internal balance. It also brings up another thing; this pattern was something I noticed in 8th and so far in 9th edition. Were they start with every faction having high points costs and steadily lower them over a few years till a new edition comes around were they raise all the points again under the excuse of play time.

For a new player that comes in with a new edition it is better to start him with 50-60 models needed to play, then blast him with 70-90 from day one. Same with bigger pricier kits , which aren't one per army, becoming better later in edition. Not many new players want to start the game with buyings 3+ of a specific tank, and infantry based army is easier to collect, paint etc But later in to the edition when those armies are already bought, you can tweek the rules so that people do want to buy those chaplain dreads, primaris tanks etc. You need a non started army like DE to make people want to buy 6 tanks day one, and they have to have really good rules for it to work.

yeah, yeah, it's the same old routine. They put the points up at the beginning of an edition, and then gradually drop them as time goes by, cuz "balance".

Well, so far the released Codizes in 9th didn't have massive points drops, right?

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Well, so far the released Codizes in 9th didn't have massive points drops, right?

9th ed codices? not too my knowledge, at least not systemically. but during the all-factions point update in january, the custodes by and large saw large and significant points reductions on some of their core units, with their core infantry loosing like 5 PPM and thier bikes dropping 10PPM. i think my 2K list i had on paper dropped a hundred points for all the savings i was getting.

Increasing points cost sometime is healthy, I appreciated the hikes in 40k when the 9th dropped. But that's not a problem of newbies who should focus on learn the mechanics and paint their armies; I think it's totally reasonable if someone that starts the hobby plays lower formats for a while.

I don't think that increasing points values is a matter of speed, but rather a matter of avoiding overcrowded tables or the chance to bring the unkillable superheroes to smaller formats. Both things are unhealthy for the game and I praise the price hikes if they contribute to avoid those issues.

One thing about point drops is psychological. People like it when their units get cheeper, and hate it when they go up. GW would rather drop the points on 75% of the units in the game instead of raising the points on 25%.

It also promotes people buying new units. (Hey, with all those points I saved I can add a X into my list now!)

Edition changes let them hit the reset button, which they need to do as there is just not enough space in the points to differentiate units when everything costs the same.

 Nevelon wrote:


It also promotes people buying new units. (Hey, with all those points I saved I can add a X into my list now!)

Only to a certain degree. Take Smasha Gunz, they're among the best ork units since 3 years now, they have been spammed in some top ork lists and yet they aren't that common. Do you wanna know why? Because people are not happy to pay 50$ for a 40ppm model, no matter how good it is. Same with wracks, which had a flat out OP set of rules in the 9th codex that last months before the FAQ nerfed it, and yet they weren't common outside official events, as just like mek gunz their kit is utterly expensive for a 40-60ppm unit. Making units too cheap don't always promote people buying new kits.

I'd like my mek gunz to be 120ppm model, not 40ppm, since they cost 50$ each and which is in line with ork buggies as they cost the same amount of money. Of course with a set of rules that reflects that cost in points.

I think part of it might be related to what GW envisage as a standard army. IIRC GW were pushing for 40K standard tournament armies to be 1850pts at one point. AFAIK, this was largely ignored by the community where standard battles tended (and still tend) to be 1000, 1500 or 2000pts.

I expect some points changed with a mind to making the “intended” 1850pt armies to be recalculated at 2000pts. Which would tie in with what was said about allowing games to be finished in a certain time frame.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there was feedback influencing this from TOs relating to being able to complete a set number of games per day or over a weekend etc. And that round numbers for points limits are generally preferred.

They DE build fit very neatly in to 2000pts though.

Aash wrote:
I think part of it might be related to what GW envisage as a standard army. IIRC GW were pushing for 40K standard tournament armies to be 1850pts at one point. AFAIK, this was largely ignored by the community where standard battles tended (and still tend) to be 1000, 1500 or 2000pts.

I expect some points changed with a mind to making the “intended” 1850pt armies to be recalculated at 2000pts. Which would tie in with what was said about allowing games to be finished in a certain time frame.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there was feedback influencing this from TOs relating to being able to complete a set number of games per day or over a weekend etc. And that round numbers for points limits are generally preferred.

in the early 2000's when i played 3e eldar (badly, i might add), the standard points value was 1,500, and a 2,000 point force was a notably "big". i went into GW remission for 12+ years, but upon re-joining the game, i discovered that the standard points had crept up to 2,000. I believe they went though a phase of 1,750-1,850 point standard in the interim. I could be that phase you are thinking of, or people pushing to return to those times.

It also promotes people buying new units. (Hey, with all those points I saved I can add a X into my list now!)

this is pretty much what i have done with the custodes savings. I've invested them back into a squad of sisters of silence to hold a point for me.

 Blackie wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:


It also promotes people buying new units. (Hey, with all those points I saved I can add a X into my list now!)

Only to a certain degree. Take Smasha Gunz, they're among the best ork units since 3 years now, they have been spammed in some top ork lists and yet they aren't that common. Do you wanna know why? Because people are not happy to pay 50$ for a 40ppm model, no matter how good it is. Same with wracks, which had a flat out OP set of rules in the 9th codex that last months before the FAQ nerfed it, and yet they weren't common outside official events, as just like mek gunz their kit is utterly expensive for a 40-60ppm unit. Making units too cheap don't always promote people buying new kits.

I'd like my mek gunz to be 120ppm model, not 40ppm, since they cost 50$ each and which is in line with ork buggies as they cost the same amount of money. Of course with a set of rules that reflects that cost in points.

I'm sure no one will object if you want to spend x3 for each Mek Gun you take.

 KingGarland wrote:
I was reading the article on points values in the new edition of AoS and a particular section caught my eye:

"We increased the points values for several reasons. Firstly, during the last edition of Warhammer Age of Sigmar, the points values of many different units were adjusted, usually seeing a steady drop. While this promoted better balance, the size of armies went up, which meant battles took longer to complete. This points rise will help battles come to their conclusion in a timely manner by reducing the size of armies once more."

When I read this I took it to mean that GW is intentionally creating points values in AoS, and by extension in 40k, not for the purposes of creating an internal balance between the factions but to decrease play time. While I can understand the desire to keep play time in check I don't feel it should be/needs to be at the expense of internal balance. It also brings up another thing; this pattern was something I noticed in 8th and so far in 9th edition. Were they start with every faction having high points costs and steadily lower them over a few years till a new edition comes around were they raise all the points again under the excuse of play time.

It's not balance VS speed it's balance AND speed. The difference between 5 and 6 points is relatively small compared to the difference between 2 and 3 points (20% increase vs 50% increase). Models costing more points means more fine-tuning being possible. If GW wanted quicker games they could simply recommend playing 1500 points, everyone did it in 7th when 2k was generally agreed to be too time-consuming so people played 1850 to speed the game up.

Whilst GW will put up the cost of a unit if it is clearly over-performing their primary method of rebalancing seems to be by looking for units that aren't seeing play and dropping their points costs to the point where they become a viable option. This improves the internal balance of armies but also leads to army size inflation, especially among people who weren't running super-optimised lists. Over the course of 8th this was very noticeable (my eldar were running 3-4 more units by the end of the edition). Raising the points costs at the start of 9th 40k and 3rd AoS is in part intended to address this inflation. It also allows them to rebalance more in the other direction by giving a comparatively bigger increase to over-performing units without getting so much of a backlash.

I think the lessons of WFB also haunt GW to some extent as one of the reasons that game died was that the number of models needed to field a battle ready army inflated to such an extent the game became prohibitively expensive for new players. People seem committed to 2000pts being a standard game size because it is a round number, so if GW thinks that is too much it is easier for them to inflate the cost of everything rather than try to get the entire community to move to a smaller points value.

It isn't really a case of balance vs speed. If you increase the cost of everything in the game by 10% it is still just as (un)balanced as before, it just reduces game size and duration and makes it easier to fit into the reduced playing area.

Imbalance comes in when costs are increased by 3, 5, 10 or 20 instead of 10% and when points aren't tested and adjusted properly afterwards.

And to fit on smaller tables...

In 9th a 2k points army went up to 2100-2200.
Due to balancing, some then went back down.

It really had no impact on anything.

I think its a war between "we think there'd be a bigger market place for it if it didn't take a whole afternoon to play a game" and "if 1k points ever became the norm we'd sell significantly less."

I'd expect changes in AoS to be comparable.

Tyel wrote:
I think its a war between "we think there'd be a bigger market place for it if it didn't take a whole afternoon to play a game" and "if 1k points ever became the norm we'd sell significantly less."

You'd think the logical answer would be 1500pts. Better still, add a sideboard mechanic so people bring 2000pts to a game anyways.

ccs wrote:


I'm sure no one will object if you want to spend x3 for each Mek Gun you take.

In fact they shouldn't. But I'm also increasing by 3x the model's staying power and damage output then .

 Blackie wrote:

ccs wrote:


I'm sure no one will object if you want to spend x3 for each Mek Gun you take.

In fact they shouldn't. But I'm also increasing by 3x the model's staying power and damage output then .

No no, that's not what you wished for. You merely stated you wanted your gunz to cost more points because the kit costs as much as a buggy kit $$ wise.
I'll admit that I don't follow your reasoning on why the dollar value of the kit should influence the pts cost. But nowhere in there did you wish for better stats for your gunz.

Linking pts value and $ cost of a model is absurd, as pts value is arbitrarily applied by designers. I can see the marketing team working with a slider, which shows them how much Blackie would want to pay for a model, if they increased its pts value

"Move the slider a few points more, Steve, up to somewhere around 45pts/model. We want the kit to sell at least for 25$ not 18$ a piece"

ccs wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

ccs wrote:


I'm sure no one will object if you want to spend x3 for each Mek Gun you take.

In fact they shouldn't. But I'm also increasing by 3x the model's staying power and damage output then .

No no, that's not what you wished for. You merely stated you wanted your gunz to cost more points because the kit costs as much as a buggy kit $$ wise.
I'll admit that I don't follow your reasoning on why the dollar value of the kit should influence the pts cost. But nowhere in there did you wish for better stats for your gunz.

It is. You missed the "Of course with a set of rules that reflects that cost in points." part .

The dollar value of the kit should influence the point cost of a kit for one reason: if there's a huge gap between armies or even units belonging to the same army some lists will be more common than other ones, regardless of the rules. So a 40ppm Smasha gun can be amazing or even OP (it actually was in 8th at 33ppm) but still quite uncommon since not many players are willing to invest 50$ for a 40ppm model and not everyone wants or can convert/scratch build stuff. Balancing money value and points value helps to increase variety, which is always a good thing.

I feel that historically there was quite a strong link to £ and points (it used to be about 4 - so a 2k points army for many factions would cost around £500.) Kits which were materially outside this were the exception.

That was however seemingly abandoned several years ago. These days it seems to be more "a box is £30-40, points.... whatever the rules guys decide". Hence Flayed ones being just scraping in at over 2 points per £. Mech guns are amongst the worst though. It really should be 80-100~ point unit - like the comparably costed buggies. Really wouldn't be difficult to just double its stats.

For folks who play on both real tables and virtually, I wonder how the lists/meta change between them? If you remove the cost of the models from the equation, how does it change the armies? Related, the idea of assembling/painting the models for a list.

For top end tournaments, I’d guess not a whole lot. If you are a dedicated meta chaser, you are probably going plonk down the cash to bring the best list.

In prior editions you could do some very nice things with drop pods. But they were a chunk of change for like a 35 point model. That was hell to build/paint. There are few things more iconic then a steel rain of marines doing a drop pod assault, but I had to stop at 3, and even that almost cost my sanity.

While I had the marines for the full company formation that would let me get the free transports, I lacked the budget and the drive to buy/paint them. A lot of people did do it though. Even when the point cost was zero, the $/model cost was too high.

For flood the board lists, be it with boys/crons/gaunts/conscripts how much does cost come into play to keep those lists theoretical vs. practical? There is also the time to play when the model count gets that high.

Pay to Win is a phrase that gets tossed about a bit. You shell out more money, you get the better army. For things with high $ costs, and low point costs and solid rules, I can see that being relevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
I feel that historically there was quite a strong link to £ and points (it used to be about 4 - so a 2k points army for many factions would cost around £500.) Kits which were materially outside this were the exception.

That was however seemingly abandoned several years ago. These days it seems to be more "a box is £30-40, points.... whatever the rules guys decide". Hence Flayed ones being just scraping in at over 2 points per £. Mech guns are amongst the worst though. It really should be 80-100~ point unit - like the comparably costed buggies. Really wouldn't be difficult to just double its stats.

I felt this when I finished my Howling Banshees. That box was expensive for a 5 girl squad of glass hammers (light on the hammer) that cost some crazy low points. If I wanted to field a army centered around them, how much would it cost? Even if I just wanted to bump them up to a 10 strong squad, I’m not sure I want to put that kind of money on something that’s going to evaporate once they step out of their wave serpent.

Again when I finished painting a penitent engine for a friend’s army. 50 points for that level of frustration and model of that size/cost? ouch.

ccs wrote:
No no, that's not what you wished for. You merely stated you wanted your gunz to cost more points because the kit costs as much as a buggy kit $$ wise.
I'll admit that I don't follow your reasoning on why the dollar value of the kit should influence the pts cost.

Outside of a few named characters, I own pretty much every plastic and metal ork unit in existence at least once, with the exception of mek guns.
The reason is that a single unit of mek guns is 150€, even if you can get them heavily discounted. You then need to go buying, build and paint five vehicle model and 25 infantry models, and for your troubles instead of something that should have been the ork equivalent of a squad of imperial basilisk, you instead get a heavy weapon team.
What's worse is that they rely on being super cheaper for durability, which means you have to spam them to actually get anything out of your models. Just one or two or gradually building up some of them doesn't work well at all.

In the end, most ork players just use a wazbom, gunwagon, kannonwagon, lootas or a pair of buggies for their artillery needs, because being twice as good doesn't justify paying two to three times as much money.

If a single mek gun was 120 points and had the stats to show for it, you could easily just run one or two in an army without wasting your precious heavy support slots. And I would totally buy one or two for my collection.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:
For folks who play on both real tables and virtually, I wonder how the lists/meta change between them? If you remove the cost of the models from the equation, how does it change the armies? Related, the idea of assembling/painting the models for a list.

Personally, I tend to toy more with units that I usually wouldn't spend money or time on just to have some gimmick. For example I can play three full units of warbikers, try a trio of squigbuggies or just put every single unit inside a trukk. In real games the list building usually starts with "what from my collection do I want to play?" and go from there.

 Nevelon wrote:
For folks who play on both real tables and virtually, I wonder how the lists/meta change between them? If you remove the cost of the models from the equation, how does it change the armies? Related, the idea of assembling/painting the models for a list.

Depends on how many models you own IRL and if people let you proxy. In TTS I have spammed every unit in the codex, IRL I am more limited in what I can spam and I have a few units that I can take in smaller amounts. Making the most competitive list possible for your faction is not that hard, what's hard is having variety so you can experiment and mess around and that's easier virtually.

 KingGarland wrote:
I was reading the article on points values in the new edition of AoS and a particular section caught my eye:

"We increased the points values for several reasons. Firstly, during the last edition of Warhammer Age of Sigmar, the points values of many different units were adjusted, usually seeing a steady drop. While this promoted better balance, the size of armies went up, which meant battles took longer to complete. This points rise will help battles come to their conclusion in a timely manner by reducing the size of armies once more."

When I read this I took it to mean that GW is intentionally creating points values in AoS, and by extension in 40k, not for the purposes of creating an internal balance between the factions but to decrease play time. While I can understand the desire to keep play time in check I don't feel it should be/needs to be at the expense of internal balance. It also brings up another thing; this pattern was something I noticed in 8th and so far in 9th edition. Were they start with every faction having high points costs and steadily lower them over a few years till a new edition comes around were they raise all the points again under the excuse of play time.

Increasing points doesn't have to affect balance. If everything gets upped 10% balance stays same


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

ccs wrote:


I'm sure no one will object if you want to spend x3 for each Mek Gun you take.

In fact they shouldn't. But I'm also increasing by 3x the model's staying power and damage output then .

No no, that's not what you wished for. You merely stated you wanted your gunz to cost more points because the kit costs as much as a buggy kit $$ wise.
I'll admit that I don't follow your reasoning on why the dollar value of the kit should influence the pts cost. But nowhere in there did you wish for better stats for your gunz.

" Of course with a set of rules that reflects that cost in points."

Did you even read what he posted? Or deliberately just cherrypicked words to suit your agenda?

tneva82 wrote:
Increasing points doesn't have to affect balance. If everything gets upped 10% balance stays same

That is not true unless the point limits rise by 10% as well. Some armies lose essential tools when they have to get by with less, others just remove some redundant options.

 Jidmah wrote:

ccs wrote:
No no, that's not what you wished for. You merely stated you wanted your gunz to cost more points because the kit costs as much as a buggy kit $$ wise.
I'll admit that I don't follow your reasoning on why the dollar value of the kit should influence the pts cost.

Outside of a few named characters, I own pretty much every plastic and metal ork unit in existence at least once, with the exception of mek guns.
The reason is that a single unit of mek guns is 150€, even if you can get them heavily discounted. You then need to go buying, build and paint five vehicle model and 25 infantry models, and for your troubles instead of something that should have been the ork equivalent of a squad of imperial basilisk, you instead get a heavy weapon team.
What's worse is that they rely on being super cheaper for durability, which means you have to spam them to actually get anything out of your models. Just one or two or gradually building up some of them doesn't work well at all.

In the end, most ork players just use a wazbom, gunwagon, kannonwagon, lootas or a pair of buggies for their artillery needs, because being twice as good doesn't justify paying two to three times as much money.

If a single mek gun was 120 points and had the stats to show for it, you could easily just run one or two in an army without wasting your precious heavy support slots. And I would totally buy one or two for my collection.

Because scratch building orky equipment has never been an answer....

Just a question but can you just the black templar conversion kit on primaris interceccors