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.

Karol wrote:
Plus there could also be a few factions whose player wouldn't be interested in playing 500pts games.

I wouldn't be interested with any faction at 500 points, it's not a fun game. It's way too swingy based on dice of your 1 strong model and every game is pretty much the same thing. 1,000 is much more enjoyable and almost as fast. That's really the minimum point level that 40k requires. I'm not against smaller games, 1,500 or 1,750 might even be better than 2,000 for tournaments as it forces you to make more decisions when listbuilding. I have just never enjoyed a 500pt game.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Karol wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
People said that 20+ years ago.

The sky is not falling. Your conclusions are just speculation. The company is in rude health.

I have seen pictures from games in stores in the 90s or early 2000s, they seemed to be full of people my age or younger. Stores don't look like that anymore. Adds, army construction, the basic entry army non of those things is build for someone who is 13-15y old. 2-3 squads, 1-2 vehicles and 1-2 heros is a game a teen can play. Starting with 9+ of anything is not. The focus on large kits, on nostalgia only someone playing 10 or even 20+ years ago, those are things that GW does. Which clearly point at the fact that they do seem to think their buyers are older. The complication in the game systems, not impossible to learn when you are a teen, but to be honest boring. Who wants to go through 4 multiple steps of overlaping rules that could have just been changed to unit X wounds on +2 and hits on +2 this turn.

And you can easily check it. Take older rules from older editions and ask someone who is my age or younger, if they would rather play those or something like 9th ed ad mecha.

All those kids bought units one at a time and played with what they had in their houses with friends. Magically you don't need 2000 points to play.

And 2,000 points was generally fewer models. In 2nd, your standard Tactical marine was 30ish points. Terminators were 65 or so.

I still remember when 1500 was seen as the tournament standard, then it was 1750/1850, now it's 2000. Then as you said, units were typically more expensive back then.

Jarms48 wrote:
I still remember when 1500 was seen as the tournament standard, then it was 1750/1850, now it's 2000. Then as you said, units were typically more expensive back then.

It's a (sad) consequence of introducing heroes and big stuff to the regular game. They have to cost more than the standard specialists and vehicles so in order to be played without sinking the whole points budget, which would make them unplayable, games have to be this large.

Things were more expensive in 2nd, not in 3rd-7th.

In 3rd edition the most expensive single model I could bring with orks was the Battlewagon which was 120-135 points and limited to max one per army, other than a couple of named characters. And named characters couldn't be played without the opponent's permission. The other most expensive single models were the warboss (100ish points full kitted) and the deff dread (80ish points). Things weren't much different in 4th and 5th, although named characters became part of the regular roster then.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:


Tactics and manuvering are more important in 40k than anyone gives it credit for, but usually gets dismissed because it's "gamey"; like a tank having wet paper mache for rear armor isn't 'gamey'.

The real reason behing the nerf of flyers is tied to maneuvering, not the stats of the most powerful ones. Specifically the tactics of an ork player who positioned his flyers in order to prevent his other units to be assaulted.

 Tyran wrote:
Ok, although good luck selling taking away ATSKNF from Space Marines players, Mob rule from Orks and commissars from IG.

Mob rule has already been taken away from orks.

Karol wrote:
I can imagine that if a generation of generation of players focuses on playing the game at a points level which is equal to the local or world standard tournament game, the acceptance to someone asking to play half or a third of that, could be rather low. Plus there could also be a few factions whose player wouldn't be interested in playing 500pts games. Not many knight, custodes or GK would like that, when their codex are build for playing with at least three times as many points.

500 would face a lot of resistance because plenty of armies would have trouble fielding anything beyond a basic HQ and 2 troops but I have never really seen an issue with people trying to get 1k point games, especially if they are a new player.

The results at the weekend would suggest a game dangerously close to balance. Certain factions are probably too easy (Tyranids) - and some too hard - but some of that is choice. The idea Tyranids would be more broken than Harlequins doesn't seem to have come to pass.

If anyone can do the magic - I'd love to see Tyranid win rates by going first and second.

Ad Mech might need help - although it feels like no one is interested in playing them. (Hmmm... inner snowflake/Johnny activated).

Tyel wrote:
The results at the weekend would suggest a game dangerously close to balance. Certain factions are probably too easy (Tyranids) - and some too hard - but some of that is choice. The idea Tyranids would be more broken than Harlequins doesn't seem to have come to pass.

I think they're pretty close to Harlies, but perhaps a bit easier to score on, which keeps them slightly lower. Interestingly the book is pretty diverse so there's not a lot of samey lists for Nids.

If anyone can do the magic - I'd love to see Tyranid win rates by going first and second.

That comes from the ITC Battles App, which hasn't been updated since 2021. It's fairly unreliable overall since it requires self reported data.

Ad Mech might need help - although it feels like no one is interested in playing them. (Hmmm... inner snowflake/Johnny activated).

Orks and Admech could do with some nerf reversals ( not flyers though ).

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Orks and Admech could do with some nerf reversals ( not flyers though ).

A reversal of the flyer nerf is definitely something that should happen, after which GW can properly balance/nerf the Ork and AdMech flyers, rather than all flyers.

Hankovitch wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Its just the conflict between whether you want 40k to be a sort of collective RPG sim, or futuristic chess.

IIRC GW have said (rightly imo) that the feedback they got on people losing control of their models (pinning, falling back etc) was very negative. Which is why they rolled out fearless to almost every faction.

9th edition has been a perfect case study of changing the game to make it "more fun and more action packed" and then trashing the game in the process.

Making the engagement space smaller and shooting ranges longer, is meant to make the game more exciting, as Timmy gets to roll dice and kill models even in turn 1. This makes lethality go nuts, and negates maneuvering aside from "are you behind LOS blocking cover, y/n."

Removing things like pinning debuffs, forced fallbacks, etc is meant to ensure that Timmy doesn't get frustrated when he can't do what he wants whenever he wants. This strips out tactical effects from the game beyond "kill models," and makes the ruleset dumber and (again) cranks up the lethality.

I think the real feedback Timmy gave was "it doesn't make sense that games are ending with more than half my army still on the table", because Timmy is a rube and has no comprehension that wars are not fought to the death and traditionally casualties are only a small fraction of the size of forces deployed. So then GW said, "right, we need to make sure at least 80% of a players models are killed before the game ends". Removing pinning and fall backs, etc. are a way to ensure the models stay in the fight longer so they can become actual casualties - because the other thing Timmy said is "I want my dudesmen to go down fighting gloriously like action movie heroes, not flee the field like craven dogs".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Orks and Admech could do with some nerf reversals ( not flyers though ).

A reversal of the flyer nerf is definitely something that should happen, after which GW can properly balance/nerf the Ork and AdMech flyers, rather than all flyers.

this 100%

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Orks and Admech could do with some nerf reversals ( not flyers though ).

A reversal of the flyer nerf is definitely something that should happen, after which GW can properly balance/nerf the Ork and AdMech flyers, rather than all flyers.

I wonder how long you can continue to be in full denial over the fact that flier spam is a general problem for the game, just like indirect fire was.

Flyers were a mistake in general. They're just an awkward unit for this scale, especially with their crazy movement rules.

Funnily enough, if they wanted to add airstrikes to the game that would have been a best served with a stratagem or some army ability.

Jarms48 wrote:
I still remember when 1500 was seen as the tournament standard, then it was 1750/1850, now it's 2000. Then as you said, units were typically more expensive back then.

So, I've been around for a very long time and have seen / been part of some things over the years.

The move to 1750 was because tourney-gakkers didn't want to have to think; make the hard choice of what units / models to cut out of their army. This idea is true to this day. Removal of critical thinking is their MO. Hence, one gak GT mission and fixed terrain layout to rule them all.

The move to 1850 was done specifically to accommodate some 'popular' tourney-gakkers that founds some broken-ass gak that just couldn't be pulled off at 1750. Truth!

The move to 2000 was done to try and shift the meta; to assist players / factions who couldn't compete by giving them more points to work with. As well as 1850 being the stupidest most unhelpful points limit to have ever been conceived. The results are arguable.

 Jidmah wrote:


I wonder how long you can continue to be in full denial over the fact that flier spam is a general problem for the game, just like indirect fire was.

It's only a problem for overperforming flyers.

The move to 1750 was because tourney-gakkers didn't want to have to think; make the hard choice of what units / models to cut out of their army.

There are a ton of armies which just don't work at 1500pts, no thinking involve but when your basic troop units costs 200pts for 5 and 400pts for 10 unupgraded and characters cost 250+pts playing 1500pts is not going to be fun. And it can be much worse for armies like knights, who before they got the mini knights came in +400pts chunks.

Karol wrote:

The move to 1750 was because tourney-gakkers didn't want to have to think; make the hard choice of what units / models to cut out of their army.

There are a ton of armies which just don't work at 1500pts, no thinking involve but when your basic troop units costs 200pts for 5 and 400pts for 10 unupgraded and characters cost 250+pts playing 1500pts is not going to be fun. And it can be much worse for armies like knights, who before they got the mini knights came in +400pts chunks.

They work, you just can't do a mega Deathstar. And the Terminator spam list you own would actually do better at lower points.

When the game is about capturing 3 objectives and being in 2-3 places at the time stoping the other side from claiming theirs and army which runs 3-4 units of infantry and 2-3 characters will lose. Not sure what a death star is. If it is a big high cost unit, then yeah people would also not be able to take those. unimportant to armies that don't have to take those units to have a working army. But if you are a necron at the start of 9th ed, telling him that he can't take a ctan shard is a bit like telling him that he should not play at all or play to lose. The upcoming knight books have a ton of rules and interaction, which require running one of the really big knights. Without those a lot of the rules in the book stay dead.

Karol wrote:
When the game is about capturing 3 objectives and being in 2-3 places at the time stoping the other side from claiming theirs and army which runs 3-4 units of infantry and 2-3 characters will lose. Not sure what a death star is. If it is a big high cost unit, then yeah people would also not be able to take those. unimportant to armies that don't have to take those units to have a working army. But if you are a necron at the start of 9th ed, telling him that he can't take a ctan shard is a bit like telling him that he should not play at all or play to lose. The upcoming knight books have a ton of rules and interaction, which require running one of the really big knights. Without those a lot of the rules in the book stay dead.

The mission changes when you get to lower points....

Necrons at the start of 9th were actually fine without Ctans.

Knights are obviously the ONE army thats more problematic at lower pts value, but adding armigers fixed that problem. Oh and the Dominus knights still won't see play even at 2k

My troops 10 termintors cost 400pts, like a knight. Custodes have the same problem with their troops.
The fix you propose is a thing when you try to optimise the list, aka make it more tournament, which is , or at least that I was told, not suppose to be a thing. What if someone doesn't like the mini knights, I for one sure do hate power armoured GK. Or want to run a Dominus. should they be screwed on the list building level, just because the decided to not play the most optimal list.

Karol wrote:
When the game is about capturing 3 objectives and being in 2-3 places at the time stoping the other side from claiming theirs and army which runs 3-4 units of infantry and 2-3 characters will lose.

This seems like an issue with the scenario, rather than with the points.

Karol wrote:
My troops 10 termintors cost 400pts, like a knight. Custodes have the same problem with their troops.
The fix you propose is a thing when you try to optimise the list, aka make it more tournament, which is , or at least that I was told, not suppose to be a thing. What if someone doesn't like the mini knights, I for one sure do hate power armoured GK. Or want to run a Dominus. should they be screwed on the list building level, just because the decided to not play the most optimal list.

Your 10-man terminator has combat squads, so its not really a problem.

You're already screwed for not running the most optimal list in regular 2000pts 40k.

I love Magnus but i know everytime i'm bringing him, i'm gonna do worse than if i just brough 10 termis instead (yeah i know, someone did well with a magnus list last weekend)

I play Night lords and i know Raptors are trash, yet i still bring them

It still doesn't work that well when other armies can scale down much better. A knight, GK or Cusodes army at 1000pts or 1500pts doesn't work that well. While something like CWE or Harlis is much easier to scale down, just by cutting dups or trips. And some armies like the nids are just so undercosted that playing them with a more elite army at 1500pts just makes no sense, unless you army got some very good buffs of their own and probably unintentional rules interactions like GK do right now.

 Polonius wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Seven different factions out of ten.

fake news. we all know that 40k is terribly balanced an only the most recent codexes can win

GT Mollerussa: (144 Players)


De Bermeo GT (133 Players)


FactorumDZ GT (28 Players)


War in the Burg GT (64 Players)


Battle Shock GT (44 Players)


West of Scotland GT (34 Players)


Total: 6 GT/Majors. Total of 48 Top 8 placings.
Nidz: 13 (27%)
Harlies: 6 (12.5%)
Tau: 5 (10.4%)
Grey Knights: 4 (8.3%)
Drukhari: 3 (6.25%)
1k Sons: 3 (6.25%)
Eldar: 3 (6.25%)
Sisters: 2 (4.16%)
Custards: 2 (4.16%)
Death Watch: 1 (2.08%)
Dark Angels: 1 (2.08%)
Death Guard: 1 (2.08%)
Genestealers: 1 (2.08%)
Chaos Marines: 1 (2.08%)
Ad Mech: 1 (2.08%)
Orkz: 1 (2.08%)

So yeah...new codex is dominating, Harlequins and Tau the next newest are still doing exceptionally well and for the 2nd weekend in a row since AoC became a thing, Grey Knights are doing amazing. Marines in general have dramatically improved, while Orkz and Ad-Mech have fallen off a cliff.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Ok, although good luck selling taking away ATSKNF from Space Marines players, Mob rule from Orks and commissars from IG.

Mob rule has already been taken away from orks.

Quoted for truth.

AoC is a good rule for marines in general, and it has no impact on the good melee units they were already running like V.Veterans or Bladeguard. But for stuff like GK interceptors the change was huge.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


I wonder how long you can continue to be in full denial over the fact that flier spam is a general problem for the game, just like indirect fire was.

It's only a problem for overperforming flyers.

Which like ooLOS weapons are easy to create, because they circumvent terrain.

SemperMortis wrote:

So yeah...new codex is dominating, Harlequins and Tau the next newest are still doing exceptionally well and for the 2nd weekend in a row since AoC became a thing, Grey Knights are doing amazing. Marines in general have dramatically improved, while Orkz and Ad-Mech have fallen off a cliff.

GK: 2 first places and 1 2nd place and 4 times top 8 in total for 6 tournaments

I have the feeling that all people here in the thread that claimed that GK are now nerfed to the ground missed something

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
How is a vehicle having weak rear armour not tactical? That encourages the player to flank around and try to get a rear strike and the vehicle's owner to keep his flanks secure.
That's like tactics 101, that is hardly "gamey."

I think the concept works better at a smaller scale. Even at 4x6 the table was too small to effect a meaningful difference.

Daedelus you're off in the deep end again. Weaker rear armor worked for friggin Epic where entire tank companies were roving around.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
How is a vehicle having weak rear armour not tactical? That encourages the player to flank around and try to get a rear strike and the vehicle's owner to keep his flanks secure.
That's like tactics 101, that is hardly "gamey."

I think the concept works better at a smaller scale. Even at 4x6 the table was too small to effect a meaningful difference.

Daedelus you're off in the deep end again. Weaker rear armor worked for friggin Epic where entire tank companies were roving around.

That reinforces speaking to my point. It works at a smaller scale where the models don't occupy so much space.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
How is a vehicle having weak rear armour not tactical? That encourages the player to flank around and try to get a rear strike and the vehicle's owner to keep his flanks secure.
That's like tactics 101, that is hardly "gamey."

I think the concept works better at a smaller scale. Even at 4x6 the table was too small to effect a meaningful difference.

Daedelus you're off in the deep end again. Weaker rear armor worked for friggin Epic where entire tank companies were roving around.

That reinforces speaking to my point. It works at a smaller scale where the models don't occupy so much space.

I thought you meant smaller scale in the other direction.

But then you're still off the deep end, because now you're advocating for a reduction of granularity as the game simulates fewer models.