Playtester Talks About 9th Edition Points

[BitsHammer]

https://patreon.com/posts/ep-49-1-we-talk-39363410
  

Ep. 49.1 We talk to a Playtester all about Points

Tony Kopach joins John DeMaris and Nick Nanavati to talk about play testing the points values for 9th edtion.

 
It's a competetive 40k Podcast, but it's interesting to hear high level players, as well as a playtester, talk about the way points shook out.

Edited July 21, 2020 by Fulkes

[Noserenda]

Any summary/written version? 

[BitsHammer]

Any summary/written version? 

I'm still listening to it, but from the very beginning they mention the points changes seem to be more for internal balance, not cross-codex balance.

[Wulf Vengis]

That... seems obvious in retrospect yet somehow horrifying in implied application.

[MegaVolt87]

 

Any summary/written version? 

I'm still listening to it, but from the very beginning they mention the points changes seem to be more for internal balance, not cross-codex balance.

 

 

Yeah I just finished it, this is probably the most important thing in regards to the points and the discussion topic. So they mentioned how cultists went up, more because its not thematic for CSM to use more cultists than CSM. If we didn't need any further proof GW points things according to theme/ fluff, this is it. Someone on here mentioned if points were balanced properly, it would make more sense for grot= 5pts, cultist= 6 points, guardsman= 7 points based on overall utility + combination of rules, achieves reduced model count objective also. So, they did the reset off internal codex balance, however its quite obvious CA points changes are done via measuring up to all codexes, overall external balance. Also, the advice for DE players and how they got screwed with the new points? Soup up with eldar, take the DE units least hit by the points increases basically. 

[BitsHammer]

I feel like the goal with this balance pass might have been to get armies "feeling right" amd future balance passes will be made to adjust further while maintaining this new inner codex balance.

 

But that's just a guess on what they're doing.

[chapter master 454]

pointed to fluff? yet rules aren't...

 

going to just leave that there...not mentally right to even make a proper paragraph in relation to that...

[BitsHammer]

Rules are based on fluff.

And it's not like GW didn't do that sort of inner balance but no external balance in the past.

Edited July 22, 2020 by Fulkes

[GrinNfool]

I love the advice for Dark eldar.... play something else.  Gave me a good laugh even though I play them lol.

Edited July 22, 2020 by GrinNfool

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Poor drukhari.

[jaxom]

It's been a known thing in the past (at least circa 2003-ish) that points were based on relevance to a codex and not between codexes. The value of a unit was relative to the codexes overall strengths and weaknesses, other available units, etc. Some examples given by codex writers during seminars were the value of Str 4 Sv 3+ units. For marines, it's normal, but for Eldar it's not; hence Striking Scorpions are more valuable because they bring something unusual to the Eldar tool box. Ditto for Imperial Guard; how much would power armor be worth for a unit of veterans? Paradoxically, this helps understand why chaos cultists are more valuable than guardsman; they bring a level of meat-shield and board control to what is supposed to otherwise be an elite, smaller body count army.

 

Points were examined from two perspectives: how many of troops should fit in an average army and how useful/powerful are units compared to the troops. In third addition, 1000 points of marines could easily start with 30 marines at 450 points and then have two to three other units from the force org chart in addition to an HQ. From that perspective, 400 points for 20 Primaris makes more sense.

[MegaVolt87]

It's been a known thing in the past (at least circa 2003-ish) that points were based on relevance to a codex and not between codexes. The value of a unit was relative to the codexes overall strengths and weaknesses, other available units, etc. Some examples given by codex writers during seminars were the value of Str 4 Sv 3+ units. For marines, it's normal, but for Eldar it's not; hence Striking Scorpions are more valuable because they bring something unusual to the Eldar tool box. Ditto for Imperial Guard; how much would power armor be worth for a unit of veterans? Paradoxically, this helps understand why chaos cultists are more valuable than guardsman; they bring a level of meat-shield and board control to what is supposed to otherwise be an elite, smaller body count army.

 

Points were examined from two perspectives: how many of troops should fit in an average army and how useful/powerful are units compared to the troops. In third addition, 1000 points of marines could easily start with 30 marines at 450 points and then have two to three other units from the force org chart in addition to an HQ. From that perspective, 400 points for 20 Primaris makes more sense.

 

Its been a common known enough thing known for a long time sure I agree, and for that same length of time we have proven it just doesn't work to just focus on internal balance exclusively. I refuse to believe the modern annual CA points cuts are conducted solely from an internal army balance perspective and not also holistically by measuring against other armies/ similar units etc. If its 100% internal, why should the points change at all after a codex is released for the new edition it finds itself in? Why not go back to the old system of just letting the points sit the same for the entirety of an edition like before? GW needs to start designing in then out from the beginning, they are far behind the times for tabletop wargaming rules design these days and it really shows, its not the 90's anymore. 

[BitsHammer]

I think the answer to your question Mega is that they wanted to get things relative to each other as quickly as possible to fix how armies should feel, and from there dial in changes that make the armies feel more on point with how they should feel relative to other armies.

[MegaVolt87]

I think the answer to your question Mega is that they wanted to get things relative to each other as quickly as possible to fix how armies should feel, and from there dial in changes that make the armies feel more on point with how they should feel relative to other armies.

 

No, you are right. I guess its easier to go internal at the start line, even if its not really working get it out there anyway and let the community show how busted it is for expediency, fix it later. I just hope the fixes aren't bad-aid ones but meaningful ones. Time will tell.... 

[Panzer]

It's been a known thing in the past (at least circa 2003-ish) that points were based on relevance to a codex and not between codexes. The value of a unit was relative to the codexes overall strengths and weaknesses, other available units, etc. Some examples given by codex writers during seminars were the value of Str 4 Sv 3+ units. For marines, it's normal, but for Eldar it's not; hence Striking Scorpions are more valuable because they bring something unusual to the Eldar tool box. Ditto for Imperial Guard; how much would power armor be worth for a unit of veterans? Paradoxically, this helps understand why chaos cultists are more valuable than guardsman; they bring a level of meat-shield and board control to what is supposed to otherwise be an elite, smaller body count army.

 

Points were examined from two perspectives: how many of troops should fit in an average army and how useful/powerful are units compared to the troops. In third addition, 1000 points of marines could easily start with 30 marines at 450 points and then have two to three other units from the force org chart in addition to an HQ. From that perspective, 400 points for 20 Primaris makes more sense.

 

Even if true, I'd say they often do a terrible job even at that considering how wildly inbalanced many Codexes internally tend to be.

Even now (with the leaked 9e points and rules) there's no real reason to ever take Kroot over Firewarriors from a pure rules perspective for example.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

It's been a known thing in the past (at least circa 2003-ish) that points were based on relevance to a codex and not between codexes. The value of a unit was relative to the codexes overall strengths and weaknesses, other available units, etc. Some examples given by codex writers during seminars were the value of Str 4 Sv 3+ units. For marines, it's normal, but for Eldar it's not; hence Striking Scorpions are more valuable because they bring something unusual to the Eldar tool box. Ditto for Imperial Guard; how much would power armor be worth for a unit of veterans? Paradoxically, this helps understand why chaos cultists are more valuable than guardsman; they bring a level of meat-shield and board control to what is supposed to otherwise be an elite, smaller body count army.

 

Points were examined from two perspectives: how many of troops should fit in an average army and how useful/powerful are units compared to the troops. In third addition, 1000 points of marines could easily start with 30 marines at 450 points and then have two to three other units from the force org chart in addition to an HQ. From that perspective, 400 points for 20 Primaris makes more sense.

Even if true, I'd say they often do a terrible job even at that considering how wildly inbalanced many Codexes internally tend to be.

Even now (with the leaked 9e points and rules) there's no real reason to ever take Kroot over Firewarriors from a pure rules perspective for example.

I agree about them not always doing a great job but isn’t the kroot example in line with the theme? Isn’t it thematic to have more fire warriors than kroot? By the way these aren’t rhetorical questions, I don’t have loads of experience with tau so I’m genuinely asking.

 

On a more general note, they do seem to be making steps to push the theme in some places this edition, or at least tackle those instances where the usual method of play went against the theme. The cultists are one example, sure Abbadon is great for cultists but is that really how the master of the Black Legion takes to war? Surrounded by cultists instead of an elite terminator bodyguard?

 

They’ve also taken a similar approach with the detachments. If you want to take Guilliman or Magnus etc then you can and the cost of their additional detachment is refunded if they are your warlord. Makes much more thematic sense to have one of them as your warlord rather than some captain or sorceror who can have a better warlord trait. GW are clearly trying to encourage you to make them the warlord.

 

It’ll be interesting to see how the points updates shake out, whether they try and keep this adherence to theme or whether they’re forced to relax it to make an army more competitive against others.

[Fajita Fan]

I feel like the goal with this balance pass might have been to get armies "feeling right" amd future balance passes will be made to adjust further while maintaining this new inner codex balance.

 

But that's just a guess on what they're doing.

I feel like this has been the expected mantra since I joined this hobby in 3rd edition, I've been waiting for them to get it right.

[BitsHammer]

 

I feel like the goal with this balance pass might have been to get armies "feeling right" amd future balance passes will be made to adjust further while maintaining this new inner codex balance.

 

But that's just a guess on what they're doing.

I feel like this has been the expected mantra since I joined this hobby in 3rd edition, I've been waiting for them to get it right.

 

I feel they've gotten better about the external balance passes, but they were screwing up the internal balance. I can't say they completely fixed it, but they're definitely trying to straighten things out.

[kombatwombat]

It’s an interesting perspective that definitely changes how you look at external balance and comparing units.

 

That said, if that is the case, I think they got Eldar badly wrong. The implication seems to be ‘Eldar take grav-tanks. End of story.’ I feel the Fast Attack options needed to be cheaper, and the Elites (notably Aspect Warriors) need an aggressive points cut - or perhaps a huge rules buff might work better thematically for them.

[BitsHammer]

It’s an interesting perspective that definitely changes how you look at external balance and comparing units.

 

That said, if that is the case, I think they got Eldar badly wrong. The implication seems to be ‘Eldar take grav-tanks. End of story.’ I feel the Fast Attack options needed to be cheaper, and the Elites (notably Aspect Warriors) need an aggressive points cut - or perhaps a huge rules buff might work better thematically for them.

Rules buffs over points cuts would be preferred in my book. Just slashing points like we're having a clearance sale on Aspects wouldn't fix the book.

[chapter master 454]

Rules are based on fluff.

 

And it's not like GW didn't do that sort of inner balance but no external balance in the past.

 

The Tau Empire would like a word with you. Vindicares would like to know how they can't ignore LoS or do damaging effects to tanks or monsters. Terminator armour would LOVE to hear how armour that is supposed to be able to take a warhound stomp is outperformed by a simple shield. How come normal space marine bikers don't have the new rule that outriders got? How come primaris aren't super marines but really just what marines should of been lore wise?

 

And if you are curious about the Tau Empire:

Firesight Marksmen have Ballistic Skill 3+, despite in lore being only a Shas'La (a basic guardsmen effectively) despite the fact that all other Shas'La are Ballistic Skill 4+

Crisis Suits are Ballistic Skill 4+ and Weapon Skill 5+ despite being Shas'Vre and Shas'Ui (Veteran Sergeant and Sergeant effectively) who have not only proven themselves in combat regularly but also have to undergo an intense trial to be allowed to use Crisis Suits. Those things are called "Mantle of Heroes" by the tau. Yet I will point out Imperial Guard Veterans get Ballistic Skill 3+ and their lore is "they survived battles". Not Proven themselves, just survived...

Hammerhead Crews have Ballistic Skill 3+ however Stormsurges only have Ballistic Skill 4+ despite the fact the lore states that those that are chosen to pilot Stormsurges are elite hammerhead crews carefully vetted and then put through a special academy to be trained how to use it.

Similar things with Ghostkeels and Riptides. Ghostkeels are supposed to be Shas'Vre who have proven themselves to be capable of going behind enemy lines and functioning with little in the way of orders while Riptides are notably piloted by anything between Shas'Vre to Shas'El (El being second to O, Commander.) yet both these units have Ballistic Skill 4+ and Weapon Skill 5+.

 

And reminder, look at the top statement: A random Shas'La given a markerlight to babysit some sniper drones have better marksmanship than veterans of many battlefields and campaigns along with the fact hose veterans are using suits that are, BY LORE, filled to the brim with tech to help their aim, select targets and maintain steadiness.

 

Do NOT even try and tell me rules are based on lore because it isn't. There are two teams, lore team and rule team. They are kept away from each other, behind ceramite walls patrolled by custodes and only occasional screams allow them any communication in the slightest. If rules were influenced by lore or vice versa I would wager that many other factions may be more viable than they are now.

[BitsHammer]

There is a lore team and a rules team but they work cooperatively, not in isolation.

 

And I said "based on" not "beholden to". Exceptions exist to prove the rule.

[jaxom]

It’s an interesting perspective that definitely changes how you look at external balance and comparing units.

 

That said, if that is the case, I think they got Eldar badly wrong. The implication seems to be ‘Eldar take grav-tanks. End of story.’ I feel the Fast Attack options needed to be cheaper, and the Elites (notably Aspect Warriors) need an aggressive points cut - or perhaps a huge rules buff might work better thematically for them.

It's a fine line between giving certain factions the overhaul they needs and aggravating players who don't like change.

 

There is a lore team and a rules team but they work cooperatively, not in isolation.

 

And I said "based on" not "beholden to". Exceptions exist to prove the rule.

Exactly and the design team has to deal with the reality of the game being played.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Mebbe when Tau’va get a new codex some units can get better stats at the expense of universal over watch - I’d be down with that for sure . :D

[Wulf Vengis]

The core rules shouldn't be as hard to make permanent as they've been over the years. A simplified system of alternating YGIG or alternating activations would be perfect with the simple SvT=W damage system. Sure the psychic phase can be a wild card but it's form and function are fine. Even now the problem isn't currently the core rules, it's inter-play caused by the interactions between Codecies.

GW just needs to get a faction where THEY want it rules-wise. Then when the following edition drop occurs DON'T change that faction, just leave it as is and bring one or more other factions to an equal level. This would mean that edition drops would be nothing more than faction releases.

The playtesters can use that first "finalized" faction as a base to battle the other factions against. This would allow them to ensure equality between the first faction and and all opponents.

Then as factions become balanced against the first they get to start playing against the other unfinished factions in order to find a balanced play-level across all factions.

This would essentially mean the core rule book would stay the same (maybe just be reprinted) every edition. But the Codecies would continue to change for at least a few years. Then the only time new books need to be printed is to include new units or factions, maybe the OCCASIONAL errata or rules change. But the game would be stable and could feel like a safe investment for players.

This would also allow a factions Codex to be split into two books you pay your 50$ (or whatever) to get the factions fluff in one book and the rules in a second (packaged together of course) and of course you would still get your digital code for the rules. Optionally you could buy just the factions fluff book for about 30$ or the rules separately for say 30$ (plus the digital code). Of course there would still be a limited edition run of the combined fluff/rules in one hardcover fancy package. Likewise the core rule book could be split into two books; a setting book and a core rules book.