40K Op-ed: Changing Point Costs Doesn’t Matter

Small tweaks to unit costs won’t fix the game.

In response to player demand Games Workshop is trying a number of different tactics to fix broken aspects of 40K. They are putting out quick FAQs after a book comes out, twice yearly large scale FAQs and a yearly Chapter Approved Book. Along with clarification and changes to rules, these publications can also add new rules to the game. They can also adjust the points of units in the game. It’s this last type of change that interests us today, lets dig in.

The Idea

The general idea here is that some units are under or over costed in their book/index. It is felt that by adjusting the point of the these units they can be brought back to an appropriate power level and desirability. In short they are broken and can be fixed. In some cases these changes are dramatic, doubling or more the cost of a unit for instance. Most of the changes are minor, a few points here or there. While these changes might help the game out overall, it does not appear that they fix units in most cases.

Big Changes Work

Hello 100% point cost increase.


There have been some extreme examples of point changes fixing broken units. Both the Ta’unar Supremacy Armour and Aetaos’rau’keres saw their points increase to 1500 in Chapter Approved 2017. Both these units had widely been considered to be broken before this. However the dramatic points increase, double or more,  made them basically untakeable in 2000 pts and killed their use in competitive play. However with these two exceptions, point changes haven’t really worked to fix units.

Small Changes Don’t Work

Though sometimes small changes are also big. 


Most point changes have been relatively small, in the 2-20 pts range. While these have certainly affected lists they haven’t really changed the meta or fixed broken units. Minor changes just don’t have that much of an effect on units. One main reason is that most “broken” units fall into one of two categories.

  1. Big Powerful units that are must takes. These are units like Guilliman and Celestine. These units are incredibly powerful and you can build an army about them. Players would take them almost regardless of the point cost. These units are so good that an increase of 20-25 simply does not matter when people are decided to take these units. Unless they see a major 100-300 pts increase players will take them at the same rate as before.
  2. The unit is so bad that there is no point in taking it. Some units are simply the worst. They are so bad and pointless that taking them at any cost just isn’t worth it. Think about a Whirlwind for instance. This is widely maligned unit. I’ve heard players say that even if they were 25 points they just wouldn’t take them. Now while this is a bit hyperbolic the fact is that a 15-20 point change in its cost won’t make people suddenly rush out to take them. This is particularly true of low qulity units that are also not the cheapest troop choice.

An Example Still looking for a reason to exist…

Intercessors, the line troops of the Primaris Marines, got a 2 pt drop in Chapter Approved 2017, taking them from 20 pts to 18 pts. However it’s not clear this 2pt drop has really changed anything. I don’t think it’s suddenly taken Intercessors from a run of the mill unit and made them great. We are not suddenly seeing hordes of Intercessors in competitive play.

It’s simply too small an impact to have on the game. Most armies that are Intercessor heavy are still only going to field 20-30 of the models. This means the change netted most armies between 40-60 additional points.  That enough for an extra upgrade here or there, but not for a whole unit, and it’s barely enough for 3 extra Intercessors. Armies that run say, 60 Intercessors would have seen a nice bump, but they are rare. So overall the point drop really just didnt do much.

An Example

One of the detachments that has seen a lot of use lately is a basic Astra Militarum Battalion. This detachment takes 2 Company Commanders and 3 Infantry Squads. It clocks in at a 180 pts and give you 3 Command Points and access to traits and relics to get more. Some people feel that this detachment is broken. One popular idea going around is that in part to fix this, the up coming big FAQ should increase the cost of a Guardsperson from 4 pts to 5pts. So what effect would this have? Well I don’t think it will have any effect on people taking this small detachment, going from 180 to 210 will still make it a good deal, and the cheapest way to get a Battalion. It will punish infantry (i.e. fluffy) Guard armies, but ultimately won’t fix the trend of taking cheap units as filler to get CPs.

Army Wide Changes Can Work

While adjusting the pints of specific units doesn’t seem to have much effect, army wide changes can. When the Eldar Codex came out the army saw an almost across the board 10-30% point drop. This was a dramatic change that greatly increased the number of models the army could take. While it didn’t really make any particular units better or worse it improved the army overall as it is now able to take more units. These changes can have a big effect.

Units Are Broken Due To Rules, Not Points

While not all units are costed correctly, in general units are broken due to their rules – not their points. It’s not the point cost, high or low, that makes Dark Reapers, Guilliman or a Deamon Prince good or bad. Ultimately the way to fix units is to change their rules or how they interact with things that will fix them. Intercessors are mediocre not because of their point cost but because mid-power-level jack-of-all-trade units don’t have much of a place in the game right now. Infantry Squads can be abused easily not because of their cost but becuase of the rules for detachments  and allies. Fixing these things, not points, should be the focus.

So what do you think, can small points changes really fix units? Let us know down in the comments! 

  • King Renegado

    The trick with rules/point adjustments is finding the sweet spot.
    If you don’t adjust enough, the problem persists.
    Adjust too much, and you neuter the unit entirely (conscripts and commissars were victim of this.)

    But in regards to fixing detachment/ CP abuse…

    Detachments can be fixed very easily:
    Either limit the max number of detachments a player can take (our local shop only allows 3 at tournies)
    Introduce a minimal point cost per detachment.
    Want to take a battalion detachment for those sweet, sweet CP?
    Okay, but you must spend at least X points for Y detachment.

    • Alex Peña Sevillano

      This. I always though that detachment number reccomendations were off by one in the BRB. Playing at less than 2k points should allow for only 2 detachments.

      • Karru

        In my mind, it should be 1 Detachment per 1k points.

        • ZeeLobby

          I could do that.

    • Sam Shand

      or in regards to CP.

      Only give the starting 3CP to Armies that all detachments have the same sub faction.

      That would penalise people taking Guard just to gain command points, and limit some of the Soup armies

      • Callum Rae

        I like this idea, soup armies should suffer in some way.

    • Fredddy

      Sadly GW refuses to treat this problem because they see soup armies as a lowering of the entry cost into the game (“you can use all of your models together, yay”). But we are at the point where every other workaround is worse than detachment restrictions, if you want to nerf the elements one-by-one, every nerf bat strike falls twice as heavily on monocodex/fluffy armies.

      • Karru


        The one I suggested helps a lot with Monocodex and Fluffy armies since the change to how CP is gained actually allows you to build whatever style army you want and still be able to gain CP if you know how to play, so now automatic advantage to the other guy running around with his 4 Battalions in a 2k game filled with minimal units while you went with a fluffy army.

        • Fredddy

          Your idea is good, but CP was intended to reward fluffy armies, not to be something gained during gameplay. Gaining CPs from objectives would be a nice mission rule, even for standard missions though.

          • Karru

            Here’s the problem. Anything that involves spamming is not going to reward fluffy choices.

            There is no real way to give CP from list building that rewards fluffy and punished spamming. The only way I can see it work is giving it via gameplay, as that way, it doesn’t matter if you play a fluffy army or a normal one, in both cases your skill to move around the table is the key to gaining CP.

          • Fredddy

            Spamming can be really fluffy as long as you spam Troops or units the bulk of the army is built from in the fluff. Spamming termagants, IG infantry or Ork Boyz is the fluffiest thing you can do with these armies. When there are 5 of stg in the galaxy, and 4 of those in your army- thats where spamming gets ugly. The old army restrictions were meant to keep this at bay, but these are now gone for short term financial considerations, and thats the problem, for the long term you simply need this kind of structure.

          • Karru

            I am aware, but as I was saying, if you require spamming in order to gain something, the last people that is going to reward is fluffy players, it is actually the opposite.

            If you play a fluffly army, you are going to be limited in CP right now.

            I honestly can’t see a system outside mine where you can reward fluffy armies via list building that aren’t going to be just Formations reborn.

          • Fergie0044

            One mans fluff is another mans spam.

            So my chaos army has got 200 cultists and barely any marines? For an alpha legion or word bearers army that’s a-ok but no so much for a black legion or night lords.

            Sadly there is no easy way to reward fluffy armies with detachments as what counts as fluffy differs so much between factions. The only solution I can see is a fixed list i.e. you take exactly this many scouts, this many tactical squads etc. Do one or two of these for each faction with a built in bonus. Hey, I think I just invented 7th edition formations…

          • James Regan

            even for black legion, a single ship will be several thousand cultists per marine, as cultists are much easier to find, so outside of a major attack, the 200 cultists not many marines is what you’ll see. I think some of the issue is fluff doesn’t really align with what people traditionally see as an army (all marine forces at 2000 pts are basically approaching company level strength, something that is a rare event, fluff wise). Lots of guard infantry with a small strike force of marines is fluffy, it’s just not what we’re used to seeing on the tabletop, so seems less so

          • Fergie0044

            RE: cultists – that’s true, but masses of cultists are only really associated with 2 of the legions. Even thought the fluff would have them all having loads.
            Say for example the night lords trilogy. They had loads of cultists on their ship but were mostly there for support/pilots etc. The actual raids were just marines.
            Of course everyone will visualise their army differently and the fluff is flexible to accommodate multiple interpretations of what a chaos marine army looks like.

          • James Regan

            I always thought they showed the black legion using cultists in the night lords trilogy, and storm of iron definitely had slaves used in combat (not exactly actual cultists, maybe, but basically the same thing rules wise, you’d just have to model them slightly differently)

          • Fergie0044

            I could be wrong then, its been a while since I read the trilogy.

          • AEZ

            I think daemon armies aren’t that much of a thing in the lore at all are they? It’s always mostly cultist and marines and only a few daemons?

          • Tushan

            Limiting CPs to points then?

            Simple solution to cheap armies spamming CPs. You can only get max say 3 CPs per 1000 points.

          • LankTank

            It should just be a maximum of 2 of any unit that does not have the troop or transport trait.

          • AEZ

            Spamming guard would be fluffy. Spamming orcs or gaunts would be fluffy. I think having 1 tank per 30 guardsmen is not exactly as the lore describes most battles.
            Ow Fred said the same thing 😀

          • Sam Shand

            in the preview to 8th edition they made a big deal about rewarding fluffy armies, pure detachments and their CPs do this to some degree, but then they opened the flood gates by letting people take multiple detachments. There needs to be a reward for taking an army that all detachments are the same sub faction.

            Stop stupid abuse where people mix sub factions for benefits. My main army takes this one because it’s minus 1 to hit, but this little detachment here takes this one to re-roll charges.

          • alberto alderighi

            i agree on this you can only take 1 detachment and base your points upon it,
            Wanna go fluff? gw jsut have to create fluff detachment x every army as it suppose to be (in old time IG hade 6 heavy slot instead 3 etc).
            create general detachment and specific flffy detchment; hwo many shoudl they be ? 10/20 x codex? they do 2 faq per year they can handle it camon… the broken things will be out in 2 month max. You just need a good eye.

      • David

        Soup armies are a good and interesting part of the game that aid list diversity and have been for a few editions. Give it a rest.

        If you want to stop people useing guard to get cp make it worthwhile to use another faction. 2pts off tacs 1 pt off scouts 1 pt off vanguard and rangers

    • David

      I am always a fan of the no repeated detatchment rule so you can have 3 but they all have to be different.

      • Karru

        So one with 2 Commanders and 3 Infantry Squads, one with 3 Commanders and 3 Infantry Squads and one with 2 Commanders, 3 Infantry Squads and a Platoon Commander. Gotcha.

        • David

          No as in 1 batalion and one spearhead and 1 brigade would be ok

          3 battalions as above would not

          • alberto alderighi

            that’s also a good way to make it, maybe after x point they ebcame 2x of the same kind etc .(ex after 2000 pt go 2x, after 10000 is free cuz is apocalypse)

      • LankTank

        That is actually simple and brilliant!
        I always run 3, a Battalion, then 2 of either spearhead/vanguard/outrider.

    • J Mad

      Comp scores, been saying it from the beginning

    • orionburn III

      I like that idea as well. CPs need to tied into points cost in some way. Wouldn’t want to make it too difficult, but maybe base the number of CPs off of a points level: under 500 you only get 1 CP, 500-999pts you get 2 CP, 1000+ you get all 3.

      While I enjoy the concept of CPs the game quickly turned into a race of how many can I get. We’re basically having the same arguments that we did with formations in 7th.

      • HeadHunter

        All that would do is to remove any incentive to structure your army in a particular way. the idea of Command Points is to represent a command *structure*.
        Basing it solely on points costs removes that representation and homogenizes the whole concept. might as well do away with them entirely at that point and let each side play one Stratagem per turn or something.

      • AEZ

        If CP are OP then they need to cost points 😀

    • marxlives

      This is something that I appreciate with the PP CID process. They don’t just adjust for points and they have a target playtest “We want this unit to do this job or what job do you feel this unit should do” and then they tweak everything around it. Abilities, points cost, whatever to keep the meta as balanced as possible. So when you take a unit you know what job it is going to do but you also know it can do the job. Need magical weapon take 1 merc unit into your theme that will give your model/unit magical weapon. So mercs in non-mercenary lists do what they need to do, shore up weakness without dominating the feel of the army. At the same stuff there are other things within theme that have clear jobs. I take the Winterguard theme to handle attrition armies, going against an armor skew well I have second list for that too.

      Then again that means that all unit profiles need to be free and digitally updated to make that viable when they are updated. Ahem.

  • Karru

    Points weigh very little in comparison to the plethora of problems that is 8th edition.

    The core of the issue I tend to find is purely the way Detachments, CP and Traits/Stratagems work. A simple fix can be implemented here that will get rid of a good amount of the problems in 8th edition in terms of balance.

    No army can be affected by the traits/stratagems from another army, period. So for example, a Chaos Space Marine army is never allowed to use Death Guard Stratagems or traits, nor can they interact with Daemons and so on. This already makes Imperial Soup lists way less powerful.

    Next thing is to make Detachments stop giving CP. This is the huge change that my group noticed gave the game much needed tactical depth and helped bridge the gap between going first by accident actually. You get your standard 3CP if you take a Battleforged, but that’s it. The only thing the Detachments do for you is give you additional slots to use, but nothing more. We usually limit detachments to 1 per 1000pts in this system, since everyone should be more than able to have enough slots to fill out their army with 2 Detachments in 2000pts game.

    So how is CP gained then? Simple, during the game. You place down 6 Objective markers in this order. First 2 Objectives are placed in each player’s Deployment zone, then the remaining 4 are placed within the No Man’s Land, following the standard rules for Objectives through all of this. These markers are placed down even when Objectives are not in use, or there is a specific Objective Marker you need to place, for example, the Relic mission. You gain 1CP per Objective held.

    So how did this accidentally help bridge the gap you ask? Well, these are scored at the end of your opponent’s turn, that’s how. The Second Player actually starts the game with a CP advantage over his opponent, which can be quite useful considering the amount of CP most people use at the start of the game usually.

    That’s just a few major core changes that can be done to fix the game. This has worked amazingly well for my group and the enjoyment soared through the roof after we implemented the system. The list became way more interesting and fun.

    • Tushan


      If multiple detachments taken from different codexes are used then one must be appointed the main detachment and only this will bring CPs to the table and cross codex strategems/relics may not work.

      Thus no CP pump using detachment cheese or crazy relics shenanigans across different codexes.

      Might this alleviate some of the soup cheese?

      • Karru

        Here’s the problem with this. It won’t protect from armies that have access to cheap troops doing it. DG need CP? Spam Poxwalkers. Daemons need CP? Nurglings. Custodes need CP?

        Oh yeah.

        Meanwhile, if you limit the amount of detachments while at the same time still letting them give CP, you will quickly notice Guard players just steamroll in CP since they can easily fit a usable Brigade in smaller point games while most elite armies are restricted to one Battalion + one support, or 2 limited Battalions.

        • David

          Maybe a 6 cp detatchment half way between brigade and batalion

          • Karru

            I still think that causes unbalance with CP and would make it even easier for horde armies to stack on CP.

          • David

            Hoard armys can already brigade and can already get enough CP that it doesnt matter ( my ITC list has 16CP) uping that to 19 wouldn’t make much difference.
            Something like
            2HQ 4T 2E 1FA 1HS for 6 CP
            Would enable more elite armies to get a few more CP

            The barrier at the moment is you go from 5 mandatory units to 18 which is kind of a big leap

        • Callum Rae

          Orrrr how about CP aren’t earned the same way, everyone gets 3 CP for every 1k points being played, if all your detachments are the same faction you get +3 CP.

          • Karru

            I wouldn’t mind that either, but at the same time, the system you suggest does cause some issues with the first turn advantage since the first player can basically do everything he needs to combo doom drop.

            One of the main reasons why I these days prefer the system I use is because it gives both players an advantage. First player gets his shot at Alpha Strike, but the Second Player gets the advantage in CP.

            Then again, a modified system where your additional CP only kicks in after the end of your opponent’s turn is done could work as an balancing act.

            You get 3CP by default to start out with. The player who goes first gets just that, nothing else. Then, when his turn ends, Second Player gets all of his CP to use immediately and once he is done, the Player that went first gets the rest of his CP.

            This could help lessen the first turn advantage by a lot and would actually make going second actually something you once again should consider.

    • Fredddy

      CP is the typical GW problem: something intended to reward fluffy armies turned to be a tool to make patchwork nonsense armies more OP. I’d keep the current structure, but with the restriction you can take CP-s and stratagems from one source.

      • Karru

        Would again favour Horde Armies/Armies with access to stupid cheap Troops which would greatly unbalance the game.

        • Fredddy

          Its not only the troop heavy detachments which give you CPs. And anything pulling off the meta from the reign of carefully cherrypicked elite units+nonsense abusive combos is a good move in my book.

    • KurtAngle2

      Terrible change, I wouldn’t touch this house rule even with another Commissar’ chainsword

      • Karru

        Glad to hear that you enjoy the game in its current state. Not many can say that.

    • AEZ

      Not sure about everything you say..but just giving the player going 2nd an extra CP (or 2) might help against alpha strikes a bit?

      • Karru

        It won’t really.

        The problem with Alpha Striking in 8th is that it isn’t just about stuff like getting shot off the table for example. It is about getting shot AND charged on the same turn, with the help of massed CP.

        The system I proposed makes it so that you only have 3CP to use. This is enough for you to do one of two things. You can either go with the additional Relics or use another Stratagem that you need to pull of something. For example, Alpha Legion can use their Forward Operatives, but if they do, they can’t combo it with Fury of Khorne that would allow their 20 ‘zerkers to fight for the 3rd time that round, but if they go with something like Warp Talons with Fury of Khorne + Warp Time + DS, they can pull something similar off, but it won’t be 3 times that they fight, nor is it only a single unit, but minimum of 2 and a Psychic Power in order to be pulled off.

        Meanwhile, the player that goes Second has access to all this right out the gate when his turn begins. The Player who went first has the opportunity to attempt to deny the enemy chances to use similar powerful moves, but can’t pull them himself, but still has the advantage of shooting first.

        We have tested this out and it works.

        • Sam Shand

          Sounds great to me. It adds a tactical decison to go first or not, at the moment there no reason to go second. I could see a lot of people wanting to go 2nd, move half army up to gain cp before dropping in combo bombs.

  • Pablo Jimeno

    Razorwing flocks?

    • J Mad

      All swarms were 11-13pts, them being 7pts was for sure a typo, especially since Cronos, Beastmaster, Yncarne all gives them good buffs and has Fly.

      They are a Great example as anything is viable if the points are low enough, but this is also common knowledge, everyone knows if a WW is 25pts you will see 50 of them on the table.

  • Tushan

    Look at the gk codex, a few point adjustments will not fix the utter garbage it is.

    ” the cost of a Guardsperson”
    wtf is a guardperson? It´s called a guardsman!

    Whats next, some soyboy Trudeou-wannabee article writer calling mankind for “peoplekind”?

    ffs.. LOL

    • Alex Temple

      Stay calm, snowflake. It’s not going to hurt you.

    • Pete Croucher

      Wow. You sound so edgy and cool.

      • Tushan

        I know. Thanks 😛

    • Solvagon

      Oh my special Snowflake, did he hurt you with the words?

      • ZeeLobby

        If this whole era of discourse has taught us anything it’s that both sides have snowflakes hurt by words. Lol.

        • HeadHunter

          Tushan can’t abide the term “person” because then he has to treat women like people – and he probably still doesn’t know how to talk to one.

          • ZeeLobby

            Haha. I just don’t get it. How do people have the time or energy to fight these word wars. Both sides have gotten pretty ridiculous.

          • Tushan

            headhunter cant use arguments since his safe space starts crying if he realizes some people use common sense and logic so every one not agreeing must be a wife beater.

            Tragic but hey, maybe asking his mom to wash his face mask before tipping a statue while crawling on all fours in front of a woman can make him attract a girl 😛

      • Tushan

        Of course. If you use manpower or mankind your little safe space simply runs away to its own safespace to cry a little.

        • Solvagon

          Well, I am not the one who sits in front of his Computer screen freaking out about the bad words that this guy writing about a plastic soldier game said.

    • Apocryphus

      Just gotta find something to be mad about, huh? Must be a difficult life getting tilted by every little thing.

      • Tushan

        True, finding words like mankind and guardsman to freak out about for gender-rage reasons is I guess ok if one doesnt have a spine and common sense.

        Remember, its not mankind, its peoplekind or else some fragile little afa statue tipper might get a stroke from the horrible offense.

        • Erik Sjögren

          So, you’re getting upset about words and taunt others for being upset by words? Sounds legit.

          • Tushan

            Or maybe I just troll some fragile little manginas who thing word revisionism is awesome because they are offended by pretty much everything?

            Besides, nice to see you react to the cheap shaming tactics displayed towards me a little above. The word “hypocrite”..look it up!

        • Apocryphus

          How about humanity? Because in the end, we should act like humans to each other. Gender is irrelevant and making a big deal over it in either the case of “mankind” or “peoplekind” is equally as outrageous. I would decry someone for getting offended over someone saying “guardsman” too. It isn’t harmful either way it’s written, so there’s no reason to create a problem where one doesn’t exist.

    • Bigalmoney666


      • Tushan

        Nope. Just trolling spineless leftists because they are perpetually triggered that others dont agree with their insanity but dont be sad, you get points for at least attempting 😛

  • Sir Postalot

    Nonsense small changes do matter a lot. A large portion of this game is about point efficiency changing the points changes these ratio’s. Some things might just be really off those need large changes those could also be rule changes but this doesn’t invalidate the usefulness of small changes.

    • markdawg

      I think if your honest you’d admit that you’re both right its point changes and rule changes on a case by case basis.

  • Fredddy

    Conscripts changed only 1 point, and this completely neutered them. Its the proportion. In this article you are basically crying about that neither a needle nor an atomic bomb can drive in a nail- missing the natural conclusion about trying something in between 😛

    • euansmith

      An Atomic Needle?

  • Go play any edition that doesn’t have allies. problem solved.

    • Munn

      Tell that to 7th editioin Craftworld Eldar, especially on launch

  • E65

    What you say in the article may be taken on board for the next edition. It would be a great way to update a current Codex without resorting to scrapping books as in the past, and peeing everyone off.

    Having said that I’d much rather have this editions speedy FAQ adjustments to points and occasional rewording of rules than nothing, waiting effing years for broken crap to be “fixed” in a new edition.

  • David

    The problem is the way GW balance pts is based on too much use and then overreaction.

    Take conscripts they get several rules nerfs becoming balanced.
    Then they are given a pts increase – it should have been obvious that when there is another unit in the same army with the same pts but better stats it was going to kill conscripts.

    Gradual proportionate pts increase is very important and many of the huge increases frankly make units unplayable.

    Its also probably more important to look at the unplayable units and ask why? Because many armies have units that are just not viable take tactical marines its obvious that they are way too expensive and scouts slightly too expensive (just the best of whats available in sm)

    The intercesors pts change was actually a good one -unplayable unit knock 10% off measure the impact if still unplayable next chapter approved knock another couple of pts off them.

  • Grumpy Scot

    Small points changes can make a huge difference.

  • Munn

    but people do use intercessors now. And Aggressors and inceptors went from being a sick joke to being just pretty darn good.

    • Tushan

      They use intercessors because they MUST include the crap as troop choices if they want to play pure primaris.

      The damage output to points and inflexibility of them is beyond laughable.

  • ZeeLobby

    List building is at least 80% of this game. Of course points matter.

    • euansmith

      If list building is 80% of the game (that might be a slight round error), then every force has one or two optimum builds; the Net Lists.

      I know that some folk like to think that they have got the mad skills to spot the killer list every one else has over looked.

      I kind of feel that, for most power gamers chasing the sweetest cheese, they will end up with more or less the same list; either by working out the optimum for themselves, or copying someone else’s work.

      Really GW could simply come out with some set lists that are tweaked to good on the tabletop and leave it at that.

      • ZeeLobby

        Yeah, my point was more that tweaking a unit to no longer make it the netlist autotake is basically list-building in 40k, lol.

  • Spacefrisian

    Change ideas beside point cost.
    -soup cost a 1cp per different army from another codex than your warlord (excluding certain index entries to certain codex, eg herald of slaanesh to daemons).

    -charge only units you can see

    -auras only affect models, not unit (sorry but daisy gets kicked out)

    – vehicle facing

  • Stefanos Kapetanakis

    Or perhaps 40k suffers since the beginning of 6th edition, when the classic FOC chart was replaced with spam-permitting tricks, formations etc. Right now, a ” Matched play only” limitation of 0-3 would have a dramatic effect on how balanced the game is.
    Points Cost is one of the most important characteristics of a unit, and in these days of 8th edition, GW is manipulating costs to create a type of ” banlist” for their playerbase.
    The first example of IG is not representative of the problem, IG armies have already taken massive hits, rendering a marvellous codex to the point where Leman russ commander spam is the only viable option ( tragic). Should they nerf guardsmen even more, then some other similar option will surface. Perhaps an DA battalion with scouts and cheap HQ to perform similarly.
    8th edition, although certainly a massive improvement from 7th, is still ways off of becoming a viable platform. We are already 8 months in, and the amount of FAQing necessary to make our BRB stand is mindblowing. And it will only get worse when they start releasing additional stratagems via White dwarf and expansion books. It will become the same nightmare 7th was.

    • Karru

      It already is similar nightmare that 7th was. You need to own at the very least 3 books to play Matched Play AKA the main game.

      You need the Rulebook, your Codex or Index and finally, the Chapter Approved for the point changes. Then of course you need page after page of FAQs to boot.

      Once they start pulling the minifaction fest which is inevitable, you are quickly starting to see even larger amount of books needed to play the game.

      • The rules not being in the codex was something that surprised me after playing AoS. I had expected that GW would have gone that rout.
        And I get what your saying but aside from buying the books it’s a problem that can be fixed. I get a lot of stuff second hand or in trade. So I’ve been thinking about having the bindings cut off and spiral bound all the relevant information. rules, codes, points, chapter approved. I’m going to put it all into one book. The only question is do I spiral it together into a book or keep it in a binder so I can trade out my Ork stuff for a different armies rules. Our just trade for another rule book later and bind it all again.
        Hell if I get it on PDF I could just have what I want printed all in one go and bound at staples.

    • HeadHunter

      The problem with that was, the workaround for the old FOC was simply to take an allied army as well – and that was even more broken and abusive.
      If the old way worked, we’d still be using it.

      • It used to bother me reading about 1999+1 points as what was allowed to stop players from having double FOC lists. I would have loved a Double as I never had anything I was interested in for allies with my Orks. Kinda wish they had allowed mono’s to just have the extra slots for their armies.

  • I_am_Alpharius

    Haha! What a load of waffle for waffles sake. Of course point changes matter; from the smallest tweak to the biggest jump. There would be no need to alter points if they did not matter. Are point alterations the fix-all solution to issues or disparities in the a game? No, of course not. Are changes part of the solution? Yes, yes they are.

    Perhaps stating the obvious, but as ever (with so many things in general) it is a combination of actions that can be employed to get 40K to the “balanced as possible” state that the Designers are striving for; which is, for one reason or another, an ever moving target, making “balance” elusive to reach in game as varied as 40K.

    People should quit with so much of the gripping and moaning. Consider, prior to the last couple of years, GW in the past have rarely considered making changes to the game like we have been getting. Does this make GW perfect – no. Is it a welcome stance for them to take – yes, and to certain extent gamers should embrace that. Feel there is a problem with something in the rules, or how a unit works or a point costing? Then don’t moan. Utilise the “Queries and Feedback” email address and let them know; actually offer a possible solution rather than complain. The more response about the same issue they get the more likely it will be something the Designers look into.

    • HeadHunter

      When I agree with Alpharius, you know he must be correct. 😉

  • CRL1981

    The problem with Command Points is that some armies they come very easily and aren’t really needed whileothers they don’t come easily and are almost required. Then there is the issue of stupidly overpowered Strategems that in a vacuum can be ok, but when used in conjunction with everything else in an army become broken. I do think that you should get a bonus for filling an entire detachment, but again that rewards armies that find it easy to fill detachments even moreso.

    For Points, there is a balancing act. The points changes to Inceptors made them playable and amazing. The points changes to Intercessors was only really done to bring them in line with other Primaris units.

  • HeadHunter

    Reductio ad Absurdiam in 3, 2, 1…
    If points don’t matter, big changes don’t work, and small changes don’t work, why not make everything cost 1 point? Or remove point costs altogether?
    Oh, yeah, that’s called Open Play. Your whole argument hinges on the (flawed) premise that point costs are a flawed and unimportant representation of unit power, and so you’re able to draw whatever conclusions you like based on that flawed premise. It’s a tautology, but an incorrect one.
    Yes, there are other things that could be implemented to prevent abuse of the system, but that doesn’t mean points are unimportant.

  • Doug Olson

    The CP issue is not the points issue. Cheap guardsmen are fluffy. Imperial soup can be fluffy. Gaining massive command options because you have varied units is not fluffy. Combined arms operations are more difficult to control.

    My solution is diminishing returns…similar to the smite issue. So for each additional detachment is less command points gained. Second detachment gives 2cp unless it has 3 or more keywords in common, 3rd 1cp same condition, 4th and on 0.

    And then for each use of a strategem there is a roll to see if it works. 17-# of detachments. So 1 detachment 6 or less, auto succeed. 2 detachments 5 or less. Slight chance of failure. Etc.

    No points restriction will fix the cp issue, and I feel this could be a fast mechanic to reduce spam for spams sake.

  • Make cp a fixed figure! 2 cp per 500 points that way people won’t feel they must take an unfluffy extra detachment just to get those 3 extra cp it will also even the field as cheap pointed armies can farm more than 12 cp while many elite armies will struggle to get more than 6

  • AEZ

    Well I think this article is BS. Maybe the named units need another small points decrease or increase and they’d be better balanced.

    Detachments which give bonusses (like CP) should just cost an appropriate amount of points like in AoS. The limit mentioned below(or above) would be another idea.. just assuming everyone uses it.. buy since some might still be better than others I think points are preferable.

  • Frank O’Donnell

    This is not a new problem with 40K its a problem that always has & always will be in the game, is it just bad rules or is it just a price that has to be paid for having so many different armies with so many different units ?

    As GW add move new armies with more new units to the game the hope of getting it where everything is usable just gets harder & harder, for painters & fluff players the game been unbalanced is not really that big an issue, but for tournament players it is & as GW fix one thing some else will rise it’s head, meaning top tournament players will just have to keep changing the lists.
    That will help keep the meta fresh but GW will never fix the problem.

  • Souba

    remember the malefic lord? i do

  • Nyyppä

    I find this amusing. Points changes that make things in tournament possible or impossible. Like that would matter at all.
    Tournaments are a binary. If something is broken alone orwith something else it may be taken. If it’s not then it will not be taken. It’s that simple. If the Taunar was good enough to win alone it would be taken regardless of the cost as long as it could be taken. It costing 1500p is not prohibitive because it’s expensive but rather because now it’s not game breaking anymore. The same logic applies to everything in tournament lists.

    No, tournaments are not the optimal design starting point, balanced casual play is.

  • Fraser1191

    Please stop asking for a point increase for Gulliman.
    When he’s not in my list I lose everytime and having him I dont win everytime either

  • Henry Nixon

    to the discussion about cp. Why don`t they just return formation to fix this issue. i kno that formation in 7th ed were broken (or at least some) But most of them werent broken because of theire units but because of theire rules. So just make (fluffy) formaton with “only” one reward, named cp. That would be a good way to boost fluffy armies, and stop spam from taking cp.

  • Erik Sjögren

    If one wants other than top tier lists, having TOs ban the worst units is one way to go.

    • Tushan

      The wrong way since it is the easiest that wont really solve anything.

      Why ad speed limits to the highway when you can locally ban fast cars instead..

      • While it isn’t a long-term fix, it is something tournament organizers should be prepared to put a bandaid on until a long-term fix is either made by GW or a common consensus is reached.

  • Jose Luis Camarasa

    About CP: what if you begin with a fixed ammount of CP (say 10) and you loose one point for each “unfluffy choice” you make?. This way people are not racing for CP and more trying to ponder how much points they can afford to loose in exchange of accesing to choices away from their codex or abussing units

  • Manouel Tiger

    your explanations about drop point costs are rights.

    seriously, are you mad or you only play with 10% of your codex !!!
    A lot of SM play whirlwind and it’s fun !!
    primais units are very good too !

    What’s the hell with you !

    • HeadHunter

      Competitive games are the only place where points absolutely matter. Everything else, whether it’s Open Play or Matched, is subject to house rules and mutual agreements.
      In the meantime, try decaf.

  • Chris Stevens

    1 problem I see, is, with all of the -3 or bigger armor modifiers, power armor is pointless. making Spacemarines/CSM/Primaris to costly for what they do. so you take cultists, scouts etc… orks have no issues with negative armor mods, they have very little of it to worry about.
    a second thing, Whirlwinds, if people dont like them, they aren’t using them right. they can wreck armies. by all means, make them cheaper! i will use more of them.

  • Ninety

    Who the hell considered the Ta’unar broken, much less to the extent of Alphabet Chicken? It never saw the light of tournaments even before getting its cost doubled.

  • Viper666.Qc

    In regards of CP abuse, how about:

    When a single detachment is maxed out in every Battlefield role (apart from the Dedicated Transport role), double its Command Benefits (excluding the Auxiliary Support Detachment). A maxed Out Patrol Detachment is worth 3 Command Points instead.

    If a battle-forged army contains more than 1 Detachment, each non-maxed out detachment receives half their Command Benefits,
    rounded down (don’t count any “Auxiliary” Detachments & Fortification Network Detachments).

  • Sam Shand

    At the moment to gain army special rules, stratagems etc all units in the detachment must have the same faction keyword. What if they applied this to army. So if you want to play soup to CP farm you won’t have any cool stratagems to use.

  • Dmitrij Pozdniakov

    just another BS op-ed.
    Moving on.

  • Warrior24_7

    Ta’unar Supremacy Armor; Example of wild over corrections and exaggerated point costs due to bitchin. Now the model is not worth putting on the table. At least you can waste your money on it, paint it, and stare at it.

  • lessthanjeff

    I disagree with saying point adjustments aren’t changing the meta. Point increases ended razorwing flocks and malefic lords from games I played. Point drops have led to an increased presence of fire raptors and dark reapers.

  • lessthanjeff

    I disagree with saying point adjustments aren’t changing the meta. Point increases ended razorwing flocks and malefic lords from games I played. Point drops have led to an increased presence of fire raptors and dark reapers.

  • Inian

    Tweaking points isn’t a fix that will change things over night, unless it’s the massive points change like the one that hit the Ta’unar Supremacy Armour. But those 1-2 point changes per model will eventually start hitting the sweet spot where that unit becomes equally interesting compared to another similar unit. The goal is not to have everyone play e.g. Primaris Intercessors, but to reach a point where some people play them and other people choose other units for that role. Given time and incremental tweaks/changes we should reach that point.