ccs wrote: So you lot have spent the last few years arguing that GW is too lazy/stupid/bad at balancing things & haven't been happy with any combo of pts for the different weapon options.....
And GW literally confirmed it with their comments on the coming Legends of the Heresy.
But you still expect them to chase that Grail for another 3 years?
Why? What results do you think you'd get?
Well, I expected them to do better than this.
Why??? What would lead you to expect that?
Hecaton wrote: Satisfying the community is not impossible. Except, perhaps, for GW's design team, but that seems to be more a matter of incompetence than unwillingness.
So the same people you already think/know to be incompetent were supposed to somehow magically get it right this time....
Well, I suppose that could randomly occur. Maybe it'll happen in 11th ed?
Hecaton wrote: GW had, during 9th, refused to balance options appropriately with points. Now they've abdicated that responsibility entirely to the detriment of game balance. That's on them, not the community;
So the designers were both incompetent and unwilling up until several weeks ago, but have now shifted to being more incompetent but less unwilling?
Hecaton wrote: hold GW accountable like the big boys they are. They're not children.
Hecaton wrote: hold GW accountable like the big boys they are. They're not children.
How exactly do you propose I do that?
Step 1: write an email to the GW feedback line
Step 2: get angry on a thread online
Step 3: stop buying GW products and encourage your friends and store to do the same
Step 4: play other games & stop being invested in GW products
Step 5: never look back at a life no longer filled with anger and disappointment
Karol wrote: Which is good if you just made a new game or system, people don't have 30-20-10-5-etc year old collections and now you are telling that that in order to play that some need to rebuy their armies, because they made the choice of putting sponsos on their tanks (because of points) or they build one vexila (because he wasn't a unit upgrade, but rather a one per army used buff bot). And you totaly don't do that after you had pointed upgrades for 30+ years.
As painful as it may be for players with armies old enough to vote, today’s game should not be held hostage to yesterday’s models. They need to make a game that plays well with today’s models. Not that I am saying they are doing a good job of it, but they shouldn’t be beholden to days gone by.
Besides, how else are they supposed to sell those old grognard new models
actually you would need to stop playing and encourage others to do so
some people not buying but still playing does not change anything as new people walk buy, see those playing that game, it looks cool and they buy it
GW sees that sales numbers rise and see no need to change something
so best chance would be if tournaments would stop or switch to other rules so that GW gets the message and starts doing their job
but as long as people make good money with marketing GW as the best and only game, that won't happen
and as long as tournaments run, the game will be popular among beginners and this will keep the sales up
Karol wrote: Which is good if you just made a new game or system, people don't have 30-20-10-5-etc year old collections and now you are telling that that in order to play that some need to rebuy their armies, because they made the choice of putting sponsos on their tanks (because of points) or they build one vexila (because he wasn't a unit upgrade, but rather a one per army used buff bot). And you totaly don't do that after you had pointed upgrades for 30+ years.
As painful as it may be for players with armies old enough to vote, today’s game should not be held hostage to yesterday’s models. They need to make a game that plays well with today’s models. Not that I am saying they are doing a good job of it, but they shouldn’t be beholden to days gone by.
Besides, how else are they supposed to sell those old grognard new models
Depends why they're buying them, if it's meta chasing or simply enjoying the kits. How omg uber amazing rules super cost efficient is something that will run through a lot of players heads, but it shouldn't be the main reason something sells ideally. Although I'd wager it is the largest driver.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: actually you would need to stop playing and encourage others to do so
some people not buying but still playing does not change anything as new people walk buy, see those playing that game, it looks cool and they buy it
GW sees that sales numbers rise and see no need to change something
so best chance would be if tournaments would stop or switch to other rules so that GW gets the message and starts doing their job
but as long as people make good money with marketing GW as the best and only game, that won't happen
and as long as tournaments run, the game will be popular among beginners and this will keep the sales up
There's a risk associated with this in that if you playing and they don't change you've just given up a hobby you enjoy probably and possibly ostracised yourself from a player group for pushing the agenda, ymmv. There's enough people who are actively aggressive about this game in their dislike, hate GW and still play however.
alextroy wrote: As painful as it may be for players with armies old enough to vote, today’s game should not be held hostage to yesterday’s models. They need to make a game that plays well with today’s models. Not that I am saying they are doing a good job of it, but they shouldn’t be beholden to days gone by.
Besides, how else are they supposed to sell those old grognard new models
Even if their army is something like Votan or WE? Change for change sake is stupid. Someone with invalidated or bad army, is going to pull a me, in general. He is just going to quit. At best move to a different game, at worse decide that the whole table top thing is a waste of time and money. There were some GK players exited about the idea of using purgators, they were less exited after seeing GK point costs, after the "fix" they are not stuck with bad units. The 30y of tradition isn't just some dude with lemman rus bought in 1992. It is all the dudes that bought lemman russes over 30 days. It is as important as faction theme being expressed by rules. Although as DG show, GW knows how to mess those too, and again, a change made for changes sake.
Dudeface wrote: There's a risk associated with this in that if you playing and they don't change you've just given up a hobby you enjoy probably and possibly ostracised yourself from a player group for pushing the agenda, ymmv. There's enough people who are actively aggressive about this game in their dislike, hate GW and still play however.
well, someone who did not liked what happend to DnD 4th and switched to Pathfinder did not give up his hobby
and because people stopped playing that game there were changes made
yet people say if you stop playing the GW game you give up the hobby and rather play something you don't like than give up and just hope that GW will change something if you look grumpy enough during the game
the hobby is wargaming/miniature gaming and not GW and if you want GW to change, stop playing their games is the only way that it will happen
and GW is very fast to adjust if players break away or big tournaments switch systems, we have seen this with 6th and 7th Edition.
Yeah, not playing 40k isn't 'giving up the hobby' - hell, you can even keep playing other GW games (30k, Aeronautica Imperialis, Middle Earth SBG).
You can use your 40k minis for a huge amount of different sci-fi games, some of which (Grim Dark Future/OPR) are almost explicitly 40k.
40k is not The Hobby™ and if giving up on 40k feels like giving up on The Hobby™ then perhaps one's horizons must be expanded.
It's like saying people who don't drink hard liquor must not enjoy alcohol while they're standing their sipping a fine wine.
I mean imagine this:
"Buddy what's with all the facial scars?"
"My rifle just keeps blowing up in my face when I hunt!"
"Your rifle manufacturer should make better rifles, or you shouldn't use their rifle."
"I don't want to give up hunting though!"
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah, not playing 40k isn't 'giving up the hobby' - hell, you can even keep playing other GW games (30k, Aeronautica Imperialis, Middle Earth SBG).
You can use your 40k minis for a huge amount of different sci-fi games, some of which (Grim Dark Future/OPR) are almost explicitly 40k.
40k is not The Hobby™ and if giving up on 40k feels like giving up on The Hobby™ then perhaps one's horizons must be expanded.
It's like saying people who don't drink hard liquor must not enjoy alcohol while they're standing their sipping a fine wine.
I mean imagine this:
"Buddy what's with all the facial scars?"
"My rifle just keeps blowing up in my face when I hunt!"
"Your rifle manufacturer should make better rifles, or you shouldn't use their rifle."
"I don't want to give up hunting though!"
Yup. Miniatures wargaming is the hobby. There's a good amount of people locally who are switching to ASOIAF and Infinity, and interest in 40k tournaments is already on the floor compared to 9th.
I'm sure GW is making plenty of money with the Leviathan release, but the thermocline of trust is still a thing.
I'm sure ccs is having a conniption that I'm doing those things, though.
Unit1126PLL wrote:Yeah, not playing 40k isn't 'giving up the hobby' - hell, you can even keep playing other GW games (30k, Aeronautica Imperialis, Middle Earth SBG).
You can use your 40k minis for a huge amount of different sci-fi games, some of which (Grim Dark Future/OPR) are almost explicitly 40k.
40k is not The Hobby™ and if giving up on 40k feels like giving up on The Hobby™ then perhaps one's horizons must be expanded.
It's like saying people who don't drink hard liquor must not enjoy alcohol while they're standing their sipping a fine wine.
I mean imagine this:
"Buddy what's with all the facial scars?"
"My rifle just keeps blowing up in my face when I hunt!"
"Your rifle manufacturer should make better rifles, or you shouldn't use their rifle."
"I don't want to give up hunting though!"
kodos wrote:
Dudeface wrote: There's a risk associated with this in that if you playing and they don't change you've just given up a hobby you enjoy probably and possibly ostracised yourself from a player group for pushing the agenda, ymmv. There's enough people who are actively aggressive about this game in their dislike, hate GW and still play however.
well, someone who did not liked what happend to DnD 4th and switched to Pathfinder did not give up his hobby
and because people stopped playing that game there were changes made
yet people say if you stop playing the GW game you give up the hobby and rather play something you don't like than give up and just hope that GW will change something if you look grumpy enough during the game
the hobby is wargaming/miniature gaming and not GW and if you want GW to change, stop playing their games is the only way that it will happen
and GW is very fast to adjust if players break away or big tournaments switch systems, we have seen this with 6th and 7th Edition.
You both misinterpreted - I was saying if you don't want to support GW or play 40k, push that aggressively and the wider group go "lol no thanks" you might end up not have anything to play with anyone if they're all GW centric.
You both misinterpreted - I was saying if you don't want to support GW or play 40k, push that aggressively and the wider group go "lol no thanks" you might end up not have anything to play with anyone if they're all GW centric.
You both misinterpreted - I was saying if you don't want to support GW or play 40k, push that aggressively and the wider group go "lol no thanks" you might end up not have anything to play with anyone if they're all GW centric.
Unit1126PLL wrote:Yeah, not playing 40k isn't 'giving up the hobby' - hell, you can even keep playing other GW games (30k, Aeronautica Imperialis, Middle Earth SBG).
You can use your 40k minis for a huge amount of different sci-fi games, some of which (Grim Dark Future/OPR) are almost explicitly 40k.
40k is not The Hobby™ and if giving up on 40k feels like giving up on The Hobby™ then perhaps one's horizons must be expanded.
It's like saying people who don't drink hard liquor must not enjoy alcohol while they're standing their sipping a fine wine.
I mean imagine this:
"Buddy what's with all the facial scars?"
"My rifle just keeps blowing up in my face when I hunt!"
"Your rifle manufacturer should make better rifles, or you shouldn't use their rifle."
"I don't want to give up hunting though!"
kodos wrote:
Dudeface wrote: There's a risk associated with this in that if you playing and they don't change you've just given up a hobby you enjoy probably and possibly ostracised yourself from a player group for pushing the agenda, ymmv. There's enough people who are actively aggressive about this game in their dislike, hate GW and still play however.
well, someone who did not liked what happend to DnD 4th and switched to Pathfinder did not give up his hobby
and because people stopped playing that game there were changes made
yet people say if you stop playing the GW game you give up the hobby and rather play something you don't like than give up and just hope that GW will change something if you look grumpy enough during the game
the hobby is wargaming/miniature gaming and not GW and if you want GW to change, stop playing their games is the only way that it will happen
and GW is very fast to adjust if players break away or big tournaments switch systems, we have seen this with 6th and 7th Edition.
You both misinterpreted - I was saying if you don't want to support GW or play 40k, push that aggressively and the wider group go "lol no thanks" you might end up not have anything to play with anyone if they're all GW centric.
Which is why you have to push them too. It is extremely unlikely that "everyone in your group but you" is totally fine with the handling of early 10th, and putting on a brave face in a public or electronic space is different than openness to try something new.
Don't approach it as "GW is bad, play this or else I take my ball and bat and go home". Treat it as "hey, there's this rad game called Chain of Command, with a 28mm infantry focus and emphasis on tactical, on-table play and clear design goals. Let's try it out sometime."
You just don't have to exclusively play one game. You've got your 40k models and armies and if you want to play another game for a bit, they will still be there to go back to or you can even bounce around. I played Shatterpoint Monday and I'll be playing a round of 40k tonight unless someone asks to play Judgement instead. Next week I'm getting in some MCP. You don't need to quit one game to enjoy another.
Which is why you have to push them too. It is extremely unlikely that "everyone in your group but you" is totally fine with the handling of early 10th, and putting on a brave face in a public or electronic space is different than openness to try something new.
Don't approach it as "GW is bad, play this or else I take my ball and bat and go home". Treat it as "hey, there's this rad game called Chain of Command, with a 28mm infantry focus and emphasis on tactical, on-table play and clear design goals. Let's try it out sometime."
And if they say "nah we want to run a 40k crusade thanks, maybe another time" as a majority that doesn't send the message to GW, especially if you continue to partake. (Going by the standards on here at least)
alextroy wrote: As painful as it may be for players with armies old enough to vote, today’s game should not be held hostage to yesterday’s models. They need to make a game that plays well with today’s models. Not that I am saying they are doing a good job of it, but they shouldn’t be beholden to days gone by.
Besides, how else are they supposed to sell those old grognard new models
Even if their army is something like Votan or WE? Change for change sake is stupid. Someone with invalidated or bad army, is going to pull a me, in general. He is just going to quit. At best move to a different game, at worse decide that the whole table top thing is a waste of time and money. There were some GK players exited about the idea of using purgators, they were less exited after seeing GK point costs, after the "fix" they are not stuck with bad units. The 30y of tradition isn't just some dude with lemman rus bought in 1992. It is all the dudes that bought lemman russes over 30 days. It is as important as faction theme being expressed by rules. Although as DG show, GW knows how to mess those too, and again, a change made for changes sake.
I wouldn’t call LOV or WE armies of yore. They are very much modern armies with current models. They are the exemplars of what the designers should be keeping in mind for the new edition.
In contrast, whether or not someone put sponsons on their 15 year old Leman Russ and Predators is something they shouldn’t give more than a passing thought. I’d say just assume sponsons in basic wargear and let the players sort it out.
Which is why you have to push them too. It is extremely unlikely that "everyone in your group but you" is totally fine with the handling of early 10th, and putting on a brave face in a public or electronic space is different than openness to try something new.
Don't approach it as "GW is bad, play this or else I take my ball and bat and go home". Treat it as "hey, there's this rad game called Chain of Command, with a 28mm infantry focus and emphasis on tactical, on-table play and clear design goals. Let's try it out sometime."
And if they say "nah we want to run a 40k crusade thanks, maybe another time" as a majority that doesn't send the message to GW, especially if you continue to partake. (Going by the standards on here at least)
Then find the ones that aren't comfortable with 10th. It's not like they have to choose between the Crusade and doing a demo of another game. They can do both.
I mean really, I would be surprised if there are folks in an area who are 100% fine with how things are unfolding and don't see any issues at all. If there ARE then that's the sort of zealot who needs to see this thread.
You both misinterpreted - I was saying if you don't want to support GW or play 40k, push that aggressively and the wider group go "lol no thanks" you might end up not have anything to play with anyone if they're all GW centric.
And that's a bad thing.....why?
Because the hobby is fun.
40k isn't the hobby. So that's really the main way you're going to get people to try other games with functional rules.
You both misinterpreted - I was saying if you don't want to support GW or play 40k, push that aggressively and the wider group go "lol no thanks" you might end up not have anything to play with anyone if they're all GW centric.
And that's a bad thing.....why?
Because the hobby is fun.
40k isn't the hobby. So that's really the main way you're going to get people to try other games with functional rules.
Would you rather play a game you don't have a great time with, only a decent time, but with good folk; or not play at all?
Different people will have different tolerances for gameplay and people and all that. There's not a universal right answer to my question. For some people, even if they're not a huge fan of GW rules, they'll still have fun playing GW games with friends, especially if said friends are reticent to try other systems.
You both misinterpreted - I was saying if you don't want to support GW or play 40k, push that aggressively and the wider group go "lol no thanks" you might end up not have anything to play with anyone if they're all GW centric.
And that's a bad thing.....why?
Because the hobby is fun.
40k isn't the hobby. So that's really the main way you're going to get people to try other games with functional rules.
Would you rather play a game you don't have a great time with, only a decent time, but with good folk; or not play at all?
Not at all. It's called having standards for what you and your fellow players are doing. I even told one of my best friends to stay away from 40k right now and he about almost just bought a couple of Tau sets.
You both misinterpreted - I was saying if you don't want to support GW or play 40k, push that aggressively and the wider group go "lol no thanks" you might end up not have anything to play with anyone if they're all GW centric.
And that's a bad thing.....why?
Because the hobby is fun.
40k isn't the hobby. So that's really the main way you're going to get people to try other games with functional rules.
Would you rather play a game you don't have a great time with, only a decent time, but with good folk; or not play at all?
Not at all. It's called having standards for what you and your fellow players are doing. I even told one of my best friends to stay away from 40k right now and he about almost just bought a couple of Tau sets.
That's your answer.
Other people can answer differently. I won't lie and say I like 10th or the direction 40k is going in, but if a group of folks are genuinely having fun, I ain't gonna crap on their parade. Unit had a good point-it's basically never gonna work to say "Your game sucks, don't play it." But "Hey, want to try something else that's also fun?" is much better at actually changing things.
You both misinterpreted - I was saying if you don't want to support GW or play 40k, push that aggressively and the wider group go "lol no thanks" you might end up not have anything to play with anyone if they're all GW centric.
And that's a bad thing.....why?
Because the hobby is fun.
40k isn't the hobby. So that's really the main way you're going to get people to try other games with functional rules.
Would you rather play a game you don't have a great time with, only a decent time, but with good folk; or not play at all?
Not at all. It's called having standards for what you and your fellow players are doing. I even told one of my best friends to stay away from 40k right now and he about almost just bought a couple of Tau sets.
That's your answer.
Other people can answer differently. I won't lie and say I like 10th or the direction 40k is going in, but if a group of folks are genuinely having fun, I ain't gonna crap on their parade. Unit had a good point-it's basically never gonna work to say "Your game sucks, don't play it." But "Hey, want to try something else that's also fun?" is much better at actually changing things.
GW won't listen otherwise though. People enjoying anything and spending money on stuff that's objectively bad is a problem for everyone involved, and then we got people like Dudeface they say "nooooo don't boycott" as if sending several polite emails has done any good.
And yes, products can be objectively bad and don't try to pretend otherwise. Look at what's happening with GW recalling those cards. We'd expect ANY other company to do that as standard, yet when GW does it some people treat them as generous gods.
But GW is a generous God. Some gods ask that you fight for them or what you believe in. GW asks only that you kneel and spend all of your money on them.
Your allowed to kneel while you lick the dog gak from their boots on a weekly basis.
Why arent we all praising them harder? Shut up you fools and spend, I mean praise.
Hecaton wrote: hold GW accountable like the big boys they are. They're not children.
How exactly do you propose I do that?
Don't buy anything from them and encourage other people to do the same. That wasn't a difficult question.
LOL. That's as dumb an idea as someone expecting the designers they've already deemed incompetent to magically do better the next time around.
You seriously think that because YOU dont like rules xyz of one game, I should:
A) stop buying models I like, be they 40k, Sigmar, Bloodbowl, or whatever else because they're made by GW? For the record, this is where most of my GW related spending occurs. Buying models I like.
There's only really three things that'll stop me purchasing more GW models.
•they make something I'm not interested in/don't like.
•eventually the prices may rise to a point I find unacceptable.
•Death - either my own or GWs. (Mine will likely come 1st)
B) Join you in badmouthing a company that I don't really have much against? Engage in an action IRL that will make me unwelcome at all my local FLGS?
Yeah, I don't think so.
You know what I have done though?
I sent them an email detailing my concerns about the current edition last week.
I doubt that they act on it. He'll, it probably went straight to a spam filter.....
It almost certainly did not address anything that you're concerned with. It definitely didn't address the current point scheme - because I'm fine with the Sigmar/PL style.
That's it. That's all. Maybe I'll resend it this time next year. Especially if my las/plas Razorbacks still lack Legends entries.
Dudeface wrote: And if they say "nah we want to run a 40k crusade thanks, maybe another time" as a majority that doesn't send the message to GW, especially if you continue to partake. (Going by the standards on here at least)
than you wait until the campaign runs out of steam or people become unhappy during it
also the a campaign needs someone to push for it and organise it, if that person does not like were it is going, it will be the one to talk if the campaign should be using other rules to play
but for now in 10th, tournaments are those were people look at if 10th is going or not and as long as 100 people GTs happen and those are just complaining that 3 armies dominate casual players will see this as fine and that the game is worth spending money on it
because one set dominating a season is not something special in sports, specially if the top people are using the same equipment.
also banning something that is broken still does not let people think that something is wrong with the game itself, just that tournaments are having a problem with a specific part of it
advocating that there is something better than 40k and people will think GW will fix it and it will be better because otherwise tournaments would not keep using those rules but use the better option (specially if GW is not able to fix it)
Hecaton wrote: hold GW accountable like the big boys they are. They're not children.
How exactly do you propose I do that?
Don't buy anything from them and encourage other people to do the same. That wasn't a difficult question.
LOL. That's as dumb an idea as someone expecting the designers they've already deemed incompetent to magically do better the next time around.
It's a dumb idea for you, not for everyone. If you still like 40k when you get bonuses for having had a bypass surgery while playing Iron Hands and wearing glasses as Adeptus Mechanicus then you can continue paying for it, other people have had their fill now or sometime previously and think GW continues to release terrible rules products.
It's not magic that determines whether GW does a good job, a teacher doesn't expect everyone to deliver work worth a passing grade every time, but every time the hope is the teacher won't have to fail anyone, that doesn't change that the teacher has to give James a failing grade when his work isn't up to what makes for a passing grade in the subject. The teacher also hopes that along with the failing grade the explanation for the failed grade will help James not make the same mistake again. So this is what this thread is, this is what similar threads other places are, telling James why he failed or didn't get top marks.
GW has just good marketing combined with goodwill and faith
if Riot Games say their next game will be doing something specific people believe them because of their track record
if Blizzard say next version of Starcraft will be balanced people believe them because of their track record
and if GW says, the next time we really try to get it working, people believe them despite their track record and knowing that GW never tried but just hopes people buy it anyway
Bizzard announcing that because they did not get Starcraft RTS balance 100% right, the next Edition of Starcraft II will need some basic changes and will be round based instead of real time and weapons will function differently so that anti-tank is weaker against tanks because this is the only way to increase balance, people won't give them the credit for "at least they tried"
GW gets a pass for no good reason on the gaming side just because they reset the game once in a while saying "sorry but the next time will be better"
so people don't even think about being mad but just keep on "it will be fixed in 3 years with the next reset of the game" or even ask for GW to reset it earlier
It almost certainly did not address anything that you're concerned with. It definitely didn't address the current point scheme - because I'm fine with the Sigmar/PL style.
Well then, to be blunt, you like the game to be unbalanced. What do you do if one of your opponents has a sword-and-board wraithknight assembled? Just laugh at them? Jeer at them for being such a dumbass as to try to run the thing that gives you a massive unearned advantage? Or how about that thing pointed appropriately so the game is fair?
Fundamentally, the PL-style balancing cannot handle that. If your priority is something other than balance or fair play, however, I could see how that might be attractive.
Like someone upthread said, it's someone's baby and they refuse to admit the problems with it.
Hecaton wrote: hold GW accountable like the big boys they are. They're not children.
How exactly do you propose I do that?
Don't buy anything from them and encourage other people to do the same. That wasn't a difficult question.
LOL. That's as dumb an idea as someone expecting the designers they've already deemed incompetent to magically do better the next time around.
You seriously think that because YOU dont like rules xyz of one game, I should:
A) stop buying models I like, be they 40k, Sigmar, Bloodbowl, or whatever else because they're made by GW? For the record, this is where most of my GW related spending occurs. Buying models I like.
There's only really three things that'll stop me purchasing more GW models.
•they make something I'm not interested in/don't like.
•eventually the prices may rise to a point I find unacceptable.
•Death - either my own or GWs. (Mine will likely come 1st)
B) Join you in badmouthing a company that I don't really have much against? Engage in an action IRL that will make me unwelcome at all my local FLGS?
Yeah, I don't think so.
You know what I have done though?
I sent them an email detailing my concerns about the current edition last week.
I doubt that they act on it. He'll, it probably went straight to a spam filter.....
It almost certainly did not address anything that you're concerned with. It definitely didn't address the current point scheme - because I'm fine with the Sigmar/PL style.
That's it. That's all. Maybe I'll resend it this time next year. Especially if my las/plas Razorbacks still lack Legends entries.
You're the one that asked "how do you propose I do that", and I gave an answer. It's not my fault you're admitting you have zero standards for your game.
I can be bothered later I might set up a poll, for those who said no how many will actively stop buying and/or playing. Then whether they'll push the agenda actively to others.
I'm willing to wager most people here still play despite their words, I suspect they sometimes also buy new minis for said purpose.
The replies by hecaton and Evisceration are the problem with this discussion, if you disagree you are wrong and stupid, when in fact you just like different things. Makes the whole thing pointless.
Dudeface wrote: I can be bothered later I might set up a poll, for those who said no how many will actively stop buying and/or playing. Then whether they'll push the agenda actively to others.
I'm willing to wager most people here still play despite their words, I suspect they sometimes also buy new minis for said purpose.
Started with my homebrew in the mid of 9th and never looked back.
Currently sitting at 18 players and rising. Most of them attend frequently and don't play mainline 40k anymore, despite having a relatively big (albeit competitive oriented) scene in the very same local club.
Miniatures are mostly 1st party and get bought regularely.
Some people in this thread still seriously overestimate the numbers that GW is making from the gaming part of 40K and underestimate the numbers GW makes from the hobby part, despite all survey data available. They’re also completely oblivious to how the game is played by the vast majority of GW’s customers and oberestimate the importance of „whales” and hypercompetitive crowd.
As to boycott strategy - why would anyone focussed on the hobby part of the hobby switch games? Since forever, the main appeal of 40k is lore and models, not the game bolted on top. If anyone expects people will en masse shift from 40K to a II WW game with generic midels is seriously detached. The sole reason Grimdark Future is so popular is because it’s „nothammer” - a game tailored for all those awesome models people are into 40k for. Nobody cares for „lore” of GF and game mechanics only has to be accessible for newcomers and with minimal „upkeep” requirements. The quality of resulting game is secondary to the ability to push your models without studying tons of source material to even build an army. This is exactly why 10th is „simplified, not simple”, and why it will be a commercial success. This is also why „side games” like Kill Team, Warcry etc gravitate towards limited customisation and closed builds - so they are contained and can compete with board games for sunday evening games with friends.
That some old grognards, who openly state, that they had not spend a penny on GW since ages leave the game? WHY exactly should GW care about such not-customers? Especially, when they have wide and steady enough stream of new ones and a large enough pool of happy old ones? And no, „the game how I envisage it is obviously better for everyone, so GW would have all the customers in the world, old and new alike if they just listened” is not true and anyone who thinks that should do their homework on diversity. For example, by re-reading, with comprehension, all those innumerable threads on dakka, where this subject was raised.
nou wrote: Some people in this thread still seriously overestimate the numbers that GW is making from the gaming part of 40K and underestimate the numbers GW makes from the hobby part, despite all survey data available.
and some people still underestimate how important the gaming part is for marketing, word of mouth and "be seen" for GWs numbers
with Age of Sigmar, GW exactly that, ignore the gamers because they don't bring money and focus on the hobby/painting people because they make the cash
yet with no one playing, no big tournaments and people talking about how bad the game is, also the hobby people did not buy
GW needed to make it a working game, despite the gamers not being the people who are making the money, but they are they are the driving factor behind the game and the hobby goes along with them
if a game is not played by anyone, there is no money from the hobby either
Also, tbh I don't begrudge the hobby people their minis.
GW would still be forced to improve their rules if the rules themselves weren't selling, regardless of miniatures.
Worst case scenario they stop printing the rules altogether and change their name to Miniatures Workshop, but that's the least likely outcome (and opens the sphere to all sorts of other games to step into the space of a grim-dark-future sci-fi miniatures games with Space Marines of the Astarte Adepts, the Imperial Guard, the Elder Race, the Dark Elders, the Necrotyrants, the Zerganids, and the Orcs).
nou wrote: Some people in this thread still seriously overestimate the numbers that GW is making from the gaming part of 40K and underestimate the numbers GW makes from the hobby part, despite all survey data available.
and some people still underestimate how important the gaming part is for marketing, word of mouth and "be seen" for GWs numbers
Without actual data, both sides are just guesswork anyway. You can guess what the effect will be, but it's not really worth any more than someone else's guesswork.
I think we have access to a few figures from GW over the years, but not enough to work out how changes in the rules would affect sales at all.
My favorite thing about this thread is that people seem to think that if wargear did cost points they wouldn't be on here complaining about how the points for things aren't what they should be.
kodos wrote: and some people still underestimate how important the gaming part is for marketing, word of mouth and "be seen" for GWs numbers
with Age of Sigmar, GW exactly that, ignore the gamers because they don't bring money and focus on the hobby/painting people because they make the cash
yet with no one playing, no big tournaments and people talking about how bad the game is, also the hobby people did not buy
GW needed to make it a working game, despite the gamers not being the people who are making the money, but they are they are the driving factor behind the game and the hobby goes along with them
if a game is not played by anyone, there is no money from the hobby either
Very true, but you are making one silent assumption here - "working game" is just that. Working. Not great, just good enough so that there is publicity opportunity. And GW has that, despite few grognards or hypercompetitive people complaining about not-PowerLevels. Kirby was very right in his assessment, but very wrong about marketing needs of GW and was too blatant in expressing his assessment. And GW changed that optics of "not caring" to "we're listening" succesfully. But they listen to those, who are majority of their playerbase and those, who are their potential expansion. Not self-proclaimed experts on game design from some obscure corners of the web. There is a very clear reason behind simplifying army building, not-PLs and trimming customisation in 10th and old players are simply outnumbered in their needs here. Happened before, will happen again. That is the cost of stepping out of a niche and aiming at the mass audience. 8th ed was not simplified enough it seems and GW clearly thinks, it can expand even more, if they have a more accessible product. This was the main complain agains 9th - too bloated to entry, to unwieldy even for an invested part of the community. Also, in the months following major paradigm shift editions, a self-cleaning of community occures. I rage quit after 2nd-to-3rd ed shift, because 3rd was just not for me. But many people now claim it was the best edition ever. Guess what - those are mostly people, who started in 3rd. Same happened with 7th-to-8th. Some people quit, new come in their place. There will be a succesfull tournament circuit of 10th, as soon as people exhaust their initial shock and horror, and adjust to new reality. If there was one during unmaintained editions like 7th, there always will be. Hate towards GW will come back to typical, stable levels and the life will go on. GW will remain an unchallenged industry giant and a synonym of "the hobby" for players and passers by alike.
Some people in this thread are simply unable to deal with reality.
BTW, the whole boycott through the wallet concept is very U.S., and 40k is a worldwide phenomenon. GW is not a local product, like say Bud Light. Plenty enough people are pleased with 10th ed experience to vote with their wallets in an opposite direction, so GW won't even notice a slightest dent in their sales.
And lastly, a word about "PLs can't handle sword-and-board Wraithknights". Of course they can, and the same has been done under granular points for ages - simply split the datasheet to two. Done. Assault Marines were always separate from Tacticals, which were separate from Devastators, and there are multiple IK variants that only differ by loadout. It is fascinating, that such obvious solution is beyond game design knowledge of such experts as some people here claim to be.
[This post is not aimed at you specifically, too much has been going on in this thread to address everyone separately]
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunarSol wrote: My favorite thing about this thread is that people seem to think that if wargear did cost points they wouldn't be on here complaining about how the points for things aren't what they should be.
LunarSol wrote: My favorite thing about this thread is that people seem to think that if wargear did cost points they wouldn't be on here complaining about how the points for things aren't what they should be.
Points for things aren't what they should be, that's the point of getting rid of PL, so we can have points be what they should be, because they sure shouldn't be 0 for sponsons. Any price over 0 is better than what we have now, the exceptions being absurd stuff like the best option costing 15 and the second best option costing 20 or the options being wildly overcosted at 100 pts. Points can be a needle to be threaded, but PL is dropping the ball completely so hitting the broadside of a barn would be an improvement.
nou wrote: Very true, but you are making one silent assumption here - "working game" is just that. Working. Not great, just good enough so that there is publicity opportunity...There will be a succesfull tournament circuit of 10th, as soon as people exhaust their initial shock and horror, and adjust to new reality. If there was one during unmaintained editions like 7th, there always will be.
Bad publicity for a game is bad, energizing the community by delivering a set of points that 99% of people could agree on would have been much better. Not wanting to play PL isn't just a Dakkanaut neckbeard thing. 7th was often played with tournament patches to get it into a working state. The fact that sponsonless Predators are complete trash in 10th is irrelevant to the competitive community, because that's been true forever pretty much. Fair points are for casuals who want their games to be close. Competitive players are more concerned with entire factions having no viable builds and the top 1-3 army lists being far better than the next top 50 lists.
LunarSol wrote: My favorite thing about this thread is that people seem to think that if wargear did cost points they wouldn't be on here complaining about how the points for things aren't what they should be.
And that's a reason to throw the baby out with the bath water why?
LunarSol wrote: My favorite thing about this thread is that people seem to think that if wargear did cost points they wouldn't be on here complaining about how the points for things aren't what they should be.
You clearly haven't been following the conversation if that's your takeaway. If you don't want a balanced game just say so.
Andykp wrote: The replies by hecaton and Evisceration are the problem with this discussion, if you disagree you are wrong and stupid, when in fact you just like different things. Makes the whole thing pointless.
By the same token, simply saying 'I like [thing]' isn't an argument for the quality or benefits of [thing].
kodos wrote: and some people still underestimate how important the gaming part is for marketing, word of mouth and "be seen" for GWs numbers
with Age of Sigmar, GW exactly that, ignore the gamers because they don't bring money and focus on the hobby/painting people because they make the cash
yet with no one playing, no big tournaments and people talking about how bad the game is, also the hobby people did not buy
GW needed to make it a working game, despite the gamers not being the people who are making the money, but they are they are the driving factor behind the game and the hobby goes along with them
if a game is not played by anyone, there is no money from the hobby either
Very true, but you are making one silent assumption here - "working game" is just that. Working. Not great, just good enough so that there is publicity opportunity. And GW has that, despite few grognards or hypercompetitive people complaining about not-PowerLevels. Kirby was very right in his assessment, but very wrong about marketing needs of GW and was too blatant in expressing his assessment. And GW changed that optics of "not caring" to "we're listening" succesfully. But they listen to those, who are majority of their playerbase and those, who are their potential expansion. Not self-proclaimed experts on game design from some obscure corners of the web. There is a very clear reason behind simplifying army building, not-PLs and trimming customisation in 10th and old players are simply outnumbered in their needs here. Happened before, will happen again. That is the cost of stepping out of a niche and aiming at the mass audience. 8th ed was not simplified enough it seems and GW clearly thinks, it can expand even more, if they have a more accessible product. This was the main complain agains 9th - too bloated to entry, to unwieldy even for an invested part of the community. Also, in the months following major paradigm shift editions, a self-cleaning of community occures. I rage quit after 2nd-to-3rd ed shift, because 3rd was just not for me. But many people now claim it was the best edition ever. Guess what - those are mostly people, who started in 3rd. Same happened with 7th-to-8th. Some people quit, new come in their place. There will be a succesfull tournament circuit of 10th, as soon as people exhaust their initial shock and horror, and adjust to new reality. If there was one during unmaintained editions like 7th, there always will be. Hate towards GW will come back to typical, stable levels and the life will go on. GW will remain an unchallenged industry giant and a synonym of "the hobby" for players and passers by alike.
Some people in this thread are simply unable to deal with reality.
BTW, the whole boycott through the wallet concept is very U.S., and 40k is a worldwide phenomenon. GW is not a local product, like say Bud Light. Plenty enough people are pleased with 10th ed experience to vote with their wallets in an opposite direction, so GW won't even notice a slightest dent in their sales.
And lastly, a word about "PLs can't handle sword-and-board Wraithknights". Of course they can, and the same has been done under granular points for ages - simply split the datasheet to two. Done. Assault Marines were always separate from Tacticals, which were separate from Devastators, and there are multiple IK variants that only differ by loadout. It is fascinating, that such obvious solution is beyond game design knowledge of such experts as some people here claim to be.
[This post is not aimed at you specifically, too much has been going on in this thread to address everyone separately]
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunarSol wrote: My favorite thing about this thread is that people seem to think that if wargear did cost points they wouldn't be on here complaining about how the points for things aren't what they should be.
It is indeed hilarious
You're making the assumption that PL is better for the casual player. It's in fact worse. Suits are hung up on the idea that customers will be turned of by having to add numbers up to 2000 to make their army; that's ridiculous when they already have to assemble their minis, which is much more time consuming.
When you assemble your sword and board wraithknight and it's an objectively bad choice? That's bad for the casual player.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: The replies by hecaton and Evisceration are the problem with this discussion, if you disagree you are wrong and stupid, when in fact you just like different things. Makes the whole thing pointless.
No, you think that you're entitled to not being disagreed with. I've done all the things that the PL advocates claim PL is better for - Crusade, casual play, etc, and the evidence I have is that it's objectively worse for all forms of play. If someone brings up the "b-b-b-but Crusade" argument, I will very blatantly tell them they're wrong and why.
Andykp wrote: The replies by hecaton and Evisceration are the problem with this discussion, if you disagree you are wrong and stupid, when in fact you just like different things. Makes the whole thing pointless.
By the same token, simply saying 'I like [thing]' isn't an argument for the quality or benefits of [thing].
I don't think anyone has used the words "objectively" and "good" about the change, the other way round certainly and happened. Nobody is preaching to go to their gaming groups and get them to stop buying/playing, but the other certainly has. One half of the argument is aggressively militant, the other might be annoying to some others but is a lot less pushy.
The same happened with the original "should GW keep PL" threads, those who are unhappy typically take a stronger stance with harsher language. I think it stands out because this is a pastime, the intensity of some positions seems very strong for an activity you do for fun.
kodos wrote: and some people still underestimate how important the gaming part is for marketing, word of mouth and "be seen" for GWs numbers
with Age of Sigmar, GW exactly that, ignore the gamers because they don't bring money and focus on the hobby/painting people because they make the cash
yet with no one playing, no big tournaments and people talking about how bad the game is, also the hobby people did not buy
GW needed to make it a working game, despite the gamers not being the people who are making the money, but they are they are the driving factor behind the game and the hobby goes along with them
if a game is not played by anyone, there is no money from the hobby either
Very true, but you are making one silent assumption here - "working game" is just that. Working. Not great, just good enough so that there is publicity opportunity. And GW has that, despite few grognards or hypercompetitive people complaining about not-PowerLevels. Kirby was very right in his assessment, but very wrong about marketing needs of GW and was too blatant in expressing his assessment. And GW changed that optics of "not caring" to "we're listening" succesfully. But they listen to those, who are majority of their playerbase and those, who are their potential expansion. Not self-proclaimed experts on game design from some obscure corners of the web. There is a very clear reason behind simplifying army building, not-PLs and trimming customisation in 10th and old players are simply outnumbered in their needs here. Happened before, will happen again. That is the cost of stepping out of a niche and aiming at the mass audience. 8th ed was not simplified enough it seems and GW clearly thinks, it can expand even more, if they have a more accessible product. This was the main complain agains 9th - too bloated to entry, to unwieldy even for an invested part of the community. Also, in the months following major paradigm shift editions, a self-cleaning of community occures. I rage quit after 2nd-to-3rd ed shift, because 3rd was just not for me. But many people now claim it was the best edition ever. Guess what - those are mostly people, who started in 3rd. Same happened with 7th-to-8th. Some people quit, new come in their place. There will be a succesfull tournament circuit of 10th, as soon as people exhaust their initial shock and horror, and adjust to new reality. If there was one during unmaintained editions like 7th, there always will be. Hate towards GW will come back to typical, stable levels and the life will go on. GW will remain an unchallenged industry giant and a synonym of "the hobby" for players and passers by alike.
Some people in this thread are simply unable to deal with reality.
BTW, the whole boycott through the wallet concept is very U.S., and 40k is a worldwide phenomenon. GW is not a local product, like say Bud Light. Plenty enough people are pleased with 10th ed experience to vote with their wallets in an opposite direction, so GW won't even notice a slightest dent in their sales.
And lastly, a word about "PLs can't handle sword-and-board Wraithknights". Of course they can, and the same has been done under granular points for ages - simply split the datasheet to two. Done. Assault Marines were always separate from Tacticals, which were separate from Devastators, and there are multiple IK variants that only differ by loadout. It is fascinating, that such obvious solution is beyond game design knowledge of such experts as some people here claim to be.
[This post is not aimed at you specifically, too much has been going on in this thread to address everyone separately]
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunarSol wrote: My favorite thing about this thread is that people seem to think that if wargear did cost points they wouldn't be on here complaining about how the points for things aren't what they should be.
It is indeed hilarious
You're making the assumption that PL is better for the casual player. It's in fact worse. Suits are hung up on the idea that customers will be turned of by having to add numbers up to 2000 to make their army; that's ridiculous when they already have to assemble their minis, which is much more time consuming.
When you assemble your sword and board wraithknight and it's an objectively bad choice? That's bad for the casual player.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: The replies by hecaton and Evisceration are the problem with this discussion, if you disagree you are wrong and stupid, when in fact you just like different things. Makes the whole thing pointless.
No, you think that you're entitled to not being disagreed with. I've done all the things that the PL advocates claim PL is better for - Crusade, casual play, etc, and the evidence I have is that it's objectively worse for all forms of play. If someone brings up the "b-b-b-but Crusade" argument, I will very blatantly tell them they're wrong and why.
That some old grognards, who openly state, that they had not spend a penny on GW since ages leave the game?
Because I'm steering people to multiple other games instead of 40k.
You BELIEVE those people are wrong and you BELIEVE that you have some sort of arbitrary correct reasoning why their personal preference is WRONG for THEM, despite being informed, again and again, that it is you that is wrong in their particular cases. Seriously, you have something wrong with your theory of mind and vastly overinflated ego. For some strange reason you also act like game design in the social layer of gaming experience is exact science, and so formal proofs exist... News flash - it's not and they don't.
And no, your typical answer of "Nah, I'm rite..." does not make you right.
GW clearly has sufficient data to come to the conclusion, that PLs are good enough for large enough part of their playerbase, and than the cost of maintaining "balance" for tournament crowd is disproportional to gains. This discussion of "GW does everything wrong, is incompetent, it's only innertia keeping them afloat, etc..." happens at every possible occasion and guess what - GW profits are only ever increasing to the point, that even their recently increased production capabilities are lagging behind the demand. Clearly, they understand their customers better than you do and your "steering players away" is apparently not impactful enough to care about. Just as I wrote above - people like you overestimate player numbers vs collector numbers, and overestimate income from hardcore players over "reason to push minis" players. You won't steer any "reason to push minis" players away, because guess what - their way is not wrong or bad for them
The bottom line is, that mine, or anyone elses personal preference about PLs/points, cinematic vs streamlined, narrative vs competitive focus etc are unimportant in this context. Statistics matter, GW income structure matters, they will design their product (of which "the game" is only a part of) with the broad audience in mind. At this point this means "as far from 9th ed complexity and bloat as possible" to reach to boardgaming population and lower entry point.
You BELIEVE those people are wrong and you BELIEVE that you have some sort of arbitrary correct reasoning why their personal preference is WRONG for THEM, despite being informed, again and again, that it is you that is wrong in their particular cases.
Hate to break this to you, but ideas and products can be objectively bad. The whole "nah thats just your opinion" bs is what stops products and situations from improving.
nou wrote: Very true, but you are making one silent assumption here - "working game" is just that. Working. Not great, just good enough so that there is publicity opportunity. And GW has that, despite few grognards or hypercompetitive people complaining about not-PowerLevels. Kirby was very right in his assessment, but very wrong about marketing needs of GW and was too blatant in expressing his assessment. And GW changed that optics of "not caring" to "we're listening" succesfully. But they listen to those, who are majority of their playerbase and those, who are their potential expansion. Not self-proclaimed experts on game design from some obscure corners of the web. There is a very clear reason behind simplifying army building, not-PLs and trimming customisation in 10th and old players are simply outnumbered in their needs here. Happened before, will happen again.
first of all, I don't consider 40k a working game at the moment, it is on the edge, can be turned into one with the right Errata but also can go the opposite depending on what the Codex brings
and yes, GW has changed marketing to "we listen", but it is that, just marketing and nothing more.
if they would have listen, there would have been no reset
GW takes the cheapest and easiest way, and pretend that they have listen while people need to believe that they are the minority that did not wanted that but everyone else did
this worked with 8th, this worked with 9th, but you know the story about never telling the same lie twice
because they have no way to listen to the majority as there is no way to reach the majority of players.
they can reach different minority groups, like tournament players, narrative event players those who play in their store, but none of those is a majority
and yes, everything GW is doing was "technically the truth", end of 7th with all the formations, people asked for a less complicated game with lower entry barrier, we got 8th and in 9th people again asked with the same and now we have 10th
both times it was technically true and they could say that they listened, they just did not understand what people meant
and if someone ask for less complicated army building because units are shifted around several different books and the official list builder is useless, they did not ask for Power Levels that makes list building much more time consuming now because you don't have the options to shift some upgrades around if you are 10 points over or 50 points under the target, you need to change units
and the official app is already annoying for doing this, and it won't get better if GW ask to pay for it
so it really depends if GW gets away with the story a 3rd time or people start calling their bluff
GW clearly has sufficient data to come to the conclusion, that PLs are good enough for large enough part of their playerbase,
yeah, their cost calculation
PL was easier and cheaper to get out than 2 different systems were one is hard to balance if you don't play that game yourself
so PL it was, yet all the advantages that there are from such a system in general, are not there in 40k
so even if they have data to conclude that PL is better for the players in general, what they released does not have it and is just a mess that needs fixing very soon
the 2 options to fix is going back to the old points, or splitting up the units with too many options, and I don't think that people are going to be happy if there are 3 times the units in the game after the advertised "we listen to you and made it more simple"
You BELIEVE those people are wrong and you BELIEVE that you have some sort of arbitrary correct reasoning why their personal preference is WRONG for THEM, despite being informed, again and again, that it is you that is wrong in their particular cases.
Hate to break this to you, but ideas and products can be objectively bad. The whole "nah thats just your opinion" bs is what stops products and situations from improving.
What's the criteria for deciding something is objectively bad? Who decides it?
nou wrote: GW clearly has sufficient data to come to the conclusion, that PLs are good enough for large enough part of their playerbase, and than the cost of maintaining "balance" for tournament crowd is disproportional to gains.
Source? You're making a fallacy by invoking the actions of GW as professionals they must therefore be right. What changed between 9th and 10th that made PL good enough now but not then?
You BELIEVE those people are wrong and you BELIEVE that you have some sort of arbitrary correct reasoning why their personal preference is WRONG for THEM, despite being informed, again and again, that it is you that is wrong in their particular cases.
Hate to break this to you, but ideas and products can be objectively bad. The whole "nah thats just your opinion" bs is what stops products and situations from improving.
What's the criteria for deciding something is objectively bad? Who decides it?
Logic. If you don't like objective facts you can call it logical facts instead.
well, for PL it is easy, are the options from units upgrades or sidegrades
are all options from a unit worth the points
were all units from 9th split up according to their basic layout?
if on is no, it has flaws, if all 3 are no it is bad because it does nothing better than the previous system but made things worse
You BELIEVE those people are wrong and you BELIEVE that you have some sort of arbitrary correct reasoning why their personal preference is WRONG for THEM, despite being informed, again and again, that it is you that is wrong in their particular cases.
Hate to break this to you, but ideas and products can be objectively bad. The whole "nah thats just your opinion" bs is what stops products and situations from improving.
What's the criteria for deciding something is objectively bad? Who decides it?
You can have many standards or measures, some are objective and some aren't.
subjective ones - is it fun
- is it easy
- is it pretty
- is it exciting
- is it tiring
Etc.
These usually have to do with how the game feels and aren't what people are arguing about, as they're literally inarguable.
objective ones - does the gameplay match the lore
- does the game have rules loopholes
- do the game rules model interactions and behaviors well
- are the abstractions within the adjudication methodology defensible?
- does the design inhibit or help with future tweaks to try to improve balance (objective balance, not subjective - i.e. data-driven balance)
You BELIEVE those people are wrong and you BELIEVE that you have some sort of arbitrary correct reasoning why their personal preference is WRONG for THEM, despite being informed, again and again, that it is you that is wrong in their particular cases.
Hate to break this to you, but ideas and products can be objectively bad. The whole "nah thats just your opinion" bs is what stops products and situations from improving.
What's the criteria for deciding something is objectively bad? Who decides it?
"Does this accomplish the goal it is intended to accomplish" is a pretty good way to look at it:
The goal of a point system is to provide an open-ended force construction system by evaluating the strength of each option, assigning a numerical value to it, and allowing balanced forces for each side to be constructed by taking options up to an equal point total without strict constraints from historical force lists or similar scope reductions.
PL and pseudo-PL are objectively bad because they do a poor job of accomplishing that goal. They contain systemic and deliberate errors that guarantee incorrect evaluations of options even when the system is used by a hypothetical perfectly skilled and knowledgeable expert. PL tells you that a LRBT with melta sponsons, a heavy stubber, and a hunter-killer missile has the same value as a LRBT with none of those things. This is indisputably not true and given the fact that the error is ~25-40% of the total price of the unit it is also indisputably not such a small error that it has no impact on the game. And PL is, by deliberate design, incapable of assigning the correct point cost to both tanks at the same time. At least one must have an incorrect value.
And what does PL offer in return for this failure in accomplishing the basic goal of a point system? A very minor reduction in the amount of third grade level addition and subtraction required to write down a list, in an era when most players are using software tools that add up all the points for you. It is objectively a bad system.
You BELIEVE those people are wrong and you BELIEVE that you have some sort of arbitrary correct reasoning why their personal preference is WRONG for THEM, despite being informed, again and again, that it is you that is wrong in their particular cases. Seriously, you have something wrong with your theory of mind and vastly overinflated ego. For some strange reason you also act like game design in the social layer of gaming experience is exact science, and so formal proofs exist... News flash - it's not and they don't.
It's not all *feels.* Some things are objectively true in game design. Not everything, but PL being objectively worse than points is something that's been backed up repeatedly.
nou wrote: And no, your typical answer of "Nah, I'm rite..." does not make you right.
I've noticed that as soon as I start bringing evidence into it, the pro-PL types stop responding. They don't argue against it, they just stop responding, because they have *nothing*.
nou wrote: GW clearly has sufficient data to come to the conclusion, that PLs are good enough for large enough part of their playerbase, and than the cost of maintaining "balance" for tournament crowd is disproportional to gains. This discussion of "GW does everything wrong, is incompetent, it's only innertia keeping them afloat, etc..." happens at every possible occasion and guess what - GW profits are only ever increasing to the point, that even their recently increased production capabilities are lagging behind the demand. Clearly, they understand their customers better than you do and your "steering players away" is apparently not impactful enough to care about. Just as I wrote above - people like you overestimate player numbers vs collector numbers, and overestimate income from hardcore players over "reason to push minis" players. You won't steer any "reason to push minis" players away, because guess what - their way is not wrong or bad for them
Yes, because they totally understood their customers during 7th. This idea amounts to "they have more money than you, therefore your argument is invalid" which is wrong for a number of reasons.
Your point about their production capabilities lagging behind demand is interesting - it's actually a failure on GW's part, because they refuse to expand production even though they could save massive amounts of money by moving production to the US.
nou wrote: The bottom line is, that mine, or anyone elses personal preference about PLs/points, cinematic vs streamlined, narrative vs competitive focus etc are unimportant in this context. Statistics matter, GW income structure matters, they will design their product (of which "the game" is only a part of) with the broad audience in mind. At this point this means "as far from 9th ed complexity and bloat as possible" to reach to boardgaming population and lower entry point.
I'm not complaining about streamlining. But because PL produces such a gakky game experience compared to points, it's clear GW is making the wrong move. Again, what happens if somebody buys a wraithknight as their first big mini and puts it together with sword and board? The current setup is *not* friendly to that player.
Andykp wrote: The replies by hecaton and Evisceration are the problem with this discussion, if you disagree you are wrong and stupid, when in fact you just like different things. Makes the whole thing pointless.
By the same token, simply saying 'I like [thing]' isn't an argument for the quality or benefits of [thing].
I’ve had this argument many times over with pl, and have said why I like it better, but it’s entirely my opinion and the reasons make it better for me and not everyone else, I’m not going to go in to them again because as I have said they won’t convince anyone and they aren’t meant to. It’s subjective, and for the way I play it suits me better, but for others it doesn’t and is “worse”. I am ok with that.
Andykp wrote: The replies by hecaton and Evisceration are the problem with this discussion, if you disagree you are wrong and stupid, when in fact you just like different things. Makes the whole thing pointless.
By the same token, simply saying 'I like [thing]' isn't an argument for the quality or benefits of [thing].
I’ve had this argument many times over with pl, and have said why I like it better, but it’s entirely my opinion and the reasons make it better for me and not everyone else, I’m not going to go in to them again because as I have said they won’t convince anyone and they aren’t meant to. It’s subjective, and for the way I play it suits me better, but for others it doesn’t and is “worse”. I am ok with that.
What do you say when someone gives objective reasons for PL being worse? Just say "I understand PL is making my gameplay worse, but I gain an ineffable and unquantifiable benefit from using it, so I will persist in doing so"?
You BELIEVE those people are wrong and you BELIEVE that you have some sort of arbitrary correct reasoning why their personal preference is WRONG for THEM, despite being informed, again and again, that it is you that is wrong in their particular cases. Seriously, you have something wrong with your theory of mind and vastly overinflated ego. For some strange reason you also act like game design in the social layer of gaming experience is exact science, and so formal proofs exist... News flash - it's not and they don't.
It's not all *feels.* Some things are objectively true in game design. Not everything, but PL being objectively worse than points is something that's been backed up repeatedly.
nou wrote: And no, your typical answer of "Nah, I'm rite..." does not make you right.
I've noticed that as soon as I start bringing evidence into it, the pro-PL types stop responding. They don't argue against it, they just stop responding, because they have *nothing*.
nou wrote: GW clearly has sufficient data to come to the conclusion, that PLs are good enough for large enough part of their playerbase, and than the cost of maintaining "balance" for tournament crowd is disproportional to gains. This discussion of "GW does everything wrong, is incompetent, it's only innertia keeping them afloat, etc..." happens at every possible occasion and guess what - GW profits are only ever increasing to the point, that even their recently increased production capabilities are lagging behind the demand. Clearly, they understand their customers better than you do and your "steering players away" is apparently not impactful enough to care about. Just as I wrote above - people like you overestimate player numbers vs collector numbers, and overestimate income from hardcore players over "reason to push minis" players. You won't steer any "reason to push minis" players away, because guess what - their way is not wrong or bad for them
Yes, because they totally understood their customers during 7th. This idea amounts to "they have more money than you, therefore your argument is invalid" which is wrong for a number of reasons.
Your point about their production capabilities lagging behind demand is interesting - it's actually a failure on GW's part, because they refuse to expand production even though they could save massive amounts of money by moving production to the US.
nou wrote: The bottom line is, that mine, or anyone elses personal preference about PLs/points, cinematic vs streamlined, narrative vs competitive focus etc are unimportant in this context. Statistics matter, GW income structure matters, they will design their product (of which "the game" is only a part of) with the broad audience in mind. At this point this means "as far from 9th ed complexity and bloat as possible" to reach to boardgaming population and lower entry point.
I'm not complaining about streamlining. But because PL produces such a gakky game experience compared to points, it's clear GW is making the wrong move. Again, what happens if somebody buys a wraithknight as their first big mini and puts it together with sword and board? The current setup is *not* friendly to that player.
What's the criteria for deciding something is objectively bad? Who decides it?
People who actually understand game design. Which, at this point, clearly doesn't include the GW design team and their cheerleaders.
And this is my point made perfectly, some on here will just shout that you, you are wrong to enjoy something that they don’t, wrong wrong WRONG. Boring.
It’s an utter crock. I have enjoyed every game played without points as much or more so than those with points. Every single one! And guess what, I have played for long enough to remember when you had things that cost 1/2 a point, so have experienced both plenty. All the reasons you want points for every upgrade and thing are not important to me, they don’t matter to me.
They clearly matter to you a great deal, hence the anger and insults and vitriol. But because something matter so much to doesn’t mean it should matter to anyone else. Get over yourselves.
Andykp wrote: The replies by hecaton and Evisceration are the problem with this discussion, if you disagree you are wrong and stupid, when in fact you just like different things. Makes the whole thing pointless.
By the same token, simply saying 'I like [thing]' isn't an argument for the quality or benefits of [thing].
I’ve had this argument many times over with pl, and have said why I like it better, but it’s entirely my opinion and the reasons make it better for me and not everyone else, I’m not going to go in to them again because as I have said they won’t convince anyone and they aren’t meant to. It’s subjective, and for the way I play it suits me better, but for others it doesn’t and is “worse”. I am ok with that.
What do you say when someone gives objective reasons for PL being worse? Just say "I understand PL is making my gameplay worse, but I gain an ineffable and unquantifiable benefit from using it, so I will persist in doing so"?
It isn’t making it worse for me, I know you can’t grasp that, but it isn’t.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: Plus this is very close to saying, just because I am having fun, this makes the edition fun.
For me it is fun so far. FOR ME! I am not saying hecaton or any other person should have fun how I do. Fun is entirely subjective.
Andykp wrote: It isn’t making it worse for me, I know you can’t grasp that, but it isn’t.
How do you deal with something like the wraithknight loadouts or voidweavers being 5 PL through to the end of 9th? Just have a game where one side has a massive advantage?
For me it is fun so far. FOR ME! I am not saying hecaton or any other person should have fun how I do. Fun is entirely subjective.
Some people only have fun if their army is overpowered and they can stomp their opponent into the ground with no tactics and then taunt them. Those people *shouldn't* have fun. It's an extreme example but good game design is not just about fun. Some people don't enjoy objectively good games.
You BELIEVE those people are wrong and you BELIEVE that you have some sort of arbitrary correct reasoning why their personal preference is WRONG for THEM, despite being informed, again and again, that it is you that is wrong in their particular cases.
Hate to break this to you, but ideas and products can be objectively bad. The whole "nah thats just your opinion" bs is what stops products and situations from improving.
What's the criteria for deciding something is objectively bad? Who decides it?
You can have many standards or measures, some are objective and some aren't.
subjective ones - is it fun
- is it easy
- is it pretty
- is it exciting
- is it tiring
Etc.
These usually have to do with how the game feels and aren't what people are arguing about, as they're literally inarguable.
objective ones - does the gameplay match the lore
- does the game have rules loopholes
- do the game rules model interactions and behaviors well
- are the abstractions within the adjudication methodology defensible?
- does the design inhibit or help with future tweaks to try to improve balance (objective balance, not subjective - i.e. data-driven balance)
Even if the objective parts you list are truly objective, how much they matter is not. How much weight you give them as a consideration is subjective.
vict0988 wrote:Logic. If you don't like objective facts you can call it logical facts instead.
I feel that's a fair response, is it a fac trhe game is unpleasant? I'd say not, is it a fact the point system is worse for everyone? Again no. Is it harder to balance and has reduced scope to do so? Yes, that is objectively true. Is it impossible to salvage at this point? No, but I don't know if GW have the vision or will.
Unit1126PLL wrote:
objective ones - does the gameplay match the lore
- does the game have rules loopholes
- do the game rules model interactions and behaviors well
- are the abstractions within the adjudication methodology defensible?
- does the design inhibit or help with future tweaks to try to improve balance (objective balance, not subjective - i.e. data-driven balance)
Matching lore is often subjective (see bolter porn), clarity and consistency of rules issues is objective, regards the abstractions that strays into the opinion if it is defensible. Objective balance based on datasets is of course an objective indicator.
Not a bad list, the thing that hits me is the tolerance limit on how far those can be pushed to make a game "objectively bad" because a lot of those arenot clear cut yes/no.
ThePaintingOwl wrote:
"Does this accomplish the goal it is intended to accomplish" is a pretty good way to look at it
[Snip]
Largely covered above, the only issue I have e is that your goal might not be the same as GW's goal, which we don't have. I agree it's categorically worse for nuanced balance in the confines of existing options. Again, is it bad enough is an interesting point.
Hecaton wrote:
People who actually understand game design. Which, at this point, clearly doesn't include the GW design team and their cheerleaders.
And what's your criteria for deciding who does or does not understand game design? This is being reductive to indicate that you're deciding this for you. You're expressing a subjective opinion again.
And what's your criteria for deciding who does or does not understand game design? This is being reductive to indicate that you're deciding this for you. You're expressing a subjective opinion again.
Basically, are they able to effectively design to accomplish their goals. GW clearly can't, as indicated by their flailing and reactionary attempts at balancing. If they were competent they wouldn't do that.
Andykp wrote: It isn’t making it worse for me, I know you can’t grasp that, but it isn’t.
How do you deal with something like the wraithknight loadouts or voidweavers being 5 PL through to the end of 9th? Just have a game where one side has a massive advantage?
For me it is fun so far. FOR ME! I am not saying hecaton or any other person should have fun how I do. Fun is entirely subjective.
Some people only have fun if their army is overpowered and they can stomp their opponent into the ground with no tactics and then taunt them. Those people *shouldn't* have fun. It's an extreme example but good game design is not just about fun. Some people don't enjoy objectively good games.
The way to deal with people like that is simple, don’t play them. Not an issue, I wouldn’t want to play people like that at any game, no matter how balanced. They sound unpleasant.
As for the units you mentioned above, never were an issue for me and my group, we had eldar armies in there and it wasn’t a problem, probably because we were all like minded, communicated and had the same goal, a fun narrative game. So I would say we didn’t deal with them because they weren’t a problem. For us.
For me it is fun so far. FOR ME! I am not saying hecaton or any other person should have fun how I do. Fun is entirely subjective.
But that is not true. If someonething is unfun for 10 people and is fun for 1, then it is not fun. It is objectivly unfun. I would maybe get it if, in our example, 40% of people liked PL, 50% didn't and 10% weren't sure. But this is not the case, and the examples of PL having a negative impact on both unit choices, modeling or even simple things learning the game and unit loads outs, are numerous. I don't even get the part about how much simple it is suppose to be. How is 8+11, easier to "math" then 140+60. Regular points don't require people an indepth knowladge of factorials or higher math.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp 810334 11562660 wrote:
As for the units you mentioned above, never were an issue for me and my group, we had eldar armies in there and it wasn’t a problem, probably because we were all like minded, communicated and had the same goal, a fun narrative game. So I would say we didn’t deal with them because they weren’t a problem. For us.
|So another words you are not playing the game, you are inventing your own. What are you doing then in a thread about the game, its actual rules and how they impact people?
That some old grognards, who openly state, that they had not spend a penny on GW since ages leave the game? WHY exactly should GW care about such not-customers? Especially, when they have wide and steady enough stream of new ones and a large enough pool of happy old ones? And no, „the game how I envisage it is obviously better for everyone, so GW would have all the customers in the world, old and new alike if they just listened” is not true and anyone who thinks that should do their homework on diversity. For example, by re-reading, with comprehension, all those innumerable threads on dakka, where this subject was raised.
Oh I spent a lot of money on GW up until pretty recently. Late 8th gave me pause when they released a SECOND Marine codex in 2 years. 9th created more disappointments and my spending slowed considerably. Seeing how they're treating the game in late 9th and early 10th, I've stopped spending on GW completely. Not because I dislike the hobby, because I'm still painting the models I already own, and I'm playing alternative rulesets. I absolutely would give GW more money if they showed signs of improving. But I've lost faith in them.
They don't just lose me, they lose my enthusiasm for their ecosystem, which over the years has brought a number of people into the hobby. I also start to discourage others from investing into GW rules, and advocate instead for other systems.
I'm under no illusion that GW will be greatly affected by little ol' me, surely. But I'm definitely not the only one.
For me it is fun so far. FOR ME! I am not saying hecaton or any other person should have fun how I do. Fun is entirely subjective.
But that is not true. If someonething is unfun for 10 people and is fun for 1, then it is not fun. It is objectivly unfun. I would maybe get it if, in our example, 40% of people liked PL, 50% didn't and 10% weren't sure. But this is not the case, and the examples of PL having a negative impact on both unit choices, modeling or even simple things learning the game and unit loads outs, are numerous. I don't even get the part about how much simple it is suppose to be. How is 8+11, easier to "math" then 140+60. Regular points don't require people an indepth knowladge of factorials or higher math.
Yeah that’s not how having fun works, it’s personal. Yes a group dynamic can influence your enjoyment of something but you are not dependent on a consensus to enjoy something. If you can not understand that some people, maybe a minority, enjoy things you don’t then there is a lot more wrong here than how we add up our armies.
Yes, because the errors with PL/pseudo-PL are systemic errors. They are an inevitable and unchangeable result of deliberate design choices. They can not be fixed without abandoning the fundamental concept of PL and going back to the conventional point system.
Largely covered above, the only issue I have e is that your goal might not be the same as GW's goal, which we don't have. I agree it's categorically worse for nuanced balance in the confines of existing options. Again, is it bad enough is an interesting point.
But what rational goal could GW possibly have that would justify PL/pseudo-PL when it is objectively worse at doing the task a point system is intended to do, while offering no non-trivial benefit in return? The only thing I can thing of would be virtue signalling about something like Jervis Johnson's infamous "you're having fun the wrong way" rant, where PL/pseudo-PL is the "better" system because deliberately rejecting balance is a way of demonstrating a commitment to a morally superior way of playing the game.
For me it is fun so far. FOR ME! I am not saying hecaton or any other person should have fun how I do. Fun is entirely subjective.
But that is not true. If someonething is unfun for 10 people and is fun for 1, then it is not fun. It is objectivly unfun. I would maybe get it if, in our example, 40% of people liked PL, 50% didn't and 10% weren't sure. But this is not the case, and the examples of PL having a negative impact on both unit choices, modeling or even simple things learning the game and unit loads outs, are numerous. I don't even get the part about how much simple it is suppose to be. How is 8+11, easier to "math" then 140+60. Regular points don't require people an indepth knowladge of factorials or higher math.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp 810334 11562660 wrote:
As for the units you mentioned above, never were an issue for me and my group, we had eldar armies in there and it wasn’t a problem, probably because we were all like minded, communicated and had the same goal, a fun narrative game. So I would say we didn’t deal with them because they weren’t a problem. For us.
|So another words you are not playing the game, you are inventing your own. What are you doing then in a thread about the game, its actual rules and how they impact people?
The way to deal with people like that is simple, don’t play them. Not an issue, I wouldn’t want to play people like that at any game, no matter how balanced. They sound unpleasant.
As for the units you mentioned above, never were an issue for me and my group, we had eldar armies in there and it wasn’t a problem, probably because we were all like minded, communicated and had the same goal, a fun narrative game. So I would say we didn’t deal with them because they weren’t a problem. For us.
When you say they weren't a problem, what do you mean? Like you saw your opponent with some overpowered units and you and they came to a consensus they should play under the points limit to accommodate that?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ThePaintingOwl wrote: But what rational goal could GW possibly have that would justify PL/pseudo-PL when it is objectively worse at doing the task a point system is intended to do, while offering no non-trivial benefit in return? The only thing I can thing of would be virtue signalling about something like Jervis Johnson's infamous "you're having fun the wrong way" rant, where PL/pseudo-PL is the "better" system because deliberately rejecting balance is a way of demonstrating a commitment to a morally superior way of playing the game.
That has been a thing for people on this site before - by saying they hate balance/tournament balance they're saying they're a particular kind of player.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: Yeah that’s not how having fun works, it’s personal. Yes a group dynamic can influence your enjoyment of something but you are not dependent on a consensus to enjoy something. If you can not understand that some people, maybe a minority, enjoy things you don’t then there is a lot more wrong here than how we add up our armies.
Right but certain kinds of having fun (like the aforementioned bad sport who needs an unfair advantage to have fun) shouldn't be supported by gaming companies. As much as GW seems to support that kind of person right now.
Andykp wrote: If you can not understand that some people, maybe a minority, enjoy things you don’t then there is a lot more wrong here than how we add up our armies.
But why do you enjoy it? This is the frustrating thing that comes up with PL advocates all the time, they always fall back on "but I have fun with it" as if that should immediately end the discussion and put the need for PL beyond any dispute. There's never any convincing answer to whyPL is more fun, how anything the person enjoys about the game follows from the structure of the PL system. The closest I've ever seen is what seems to be some kind of vague belief that because PL is used in GW's narrative rules PL is the "casual" system and "casual" games are more fun therefore PL must be more fun.
(I suppose technically I've seen people defend PL because their particular army gets a power increase by being able to exploit PL's particular balance issues but that kind of WAAC attitude isn't really a defense of PL itself, all of them would happily use the conventional point system if that was the system that gave them the biggest advantage.)
Yes, because the errors with PL/pseudo-PL are systemic errors. They are an inevitable and unchangeable result of deliberate design choices. They can not be fixed without abandoning the fundamental concept of PL and going back to the conventional point system.
Largely covered above, the only issue I have e is that your goal might not be the same as GW's goal, which we don't have. I agree it's categorically worse for nuanced balance in the confines of existing options. Again, is it bad enough is an interesting point.
But what rational goal could GW possibly have that would justify PL/pseudo-PL when it is objectively worse at doing the task a point system is intended to do, while offering no non-trivial benefit in return? The only thing I can thing of would be virtue signalling about something like Jervis Johnson's infamous "you're having fun the wrong way" rant, where PL/pseudo-PL is the "better" system because deliberately rejecting balance is a way of demonstrating a commitment to a morally superior way of playing the game.
To salvage it they would need to reduce and rebalance options for parity or an absence of choice to fit with the fixed points.
In terms of their goal, if it was "create an army building system that is simpler for us to build an app for, constrains units to box sizes and makes it easier for people to assemble the models however they please without having to juggle points", they were a lot closer.
Andykp wrote: For me it is fun so far. FOR ME! I am not saying hecaton or any other person should have fun how I do. Fun is entirely subjective.
Do you agree that the current implementation of PL does not take into account the differences in loadouts for units?
Do you agree that some loadouts (f.e. Leman Russ without sponsons vs. Leman Russ with sponsons, Hunter-killer missile and stuff) are worse than others?
Do you agree that the difference between the loadouts is not just "a little bit" but borders on "extreme" in some cases? (f.e. all boltgun Devastators vs. Devastators with 4 heavy weapons?)
Objectively you would have to say "YES" to every single question here. And if you do and still say that it does not bother you, then a balanced game is not in your interest. I would say that your opinion in a discussion about one of the quintessential levers for balance in the game is therefore not quite helpful, as it basically boils down to "I don't care enough to not like it".
Yes, because the errors with PL/pseudo-PL are systemic errors. They are an inevitable and unchangeable result of deliberate design choices. They can not be fixed without abandoning the fundamental concept of PL and going back to the conventional point system.
Largely covered above, the only issue I have e is that your goal might not be the same as GW's goal, which we don't have. I agree it's categorically worse for nuanced balance in the confines of existing options. Again, is it bad enough is an interesting point.
But what rational goal could GW possibly have that would justify PL/pseudo-PL when it is objectively worse at doing the task a point system is intended to do, while offering no non-trivial benefit in return? The only thing I can thing of would be virtue signalling about something like Jervis Johnson's infamous "you're having fun the wrong way" rant, where PL/pseudo-PL is the "better" system because deliberately rejecting balance is a way of demonstrating a commitment to a morally superior way of playing the game.
This is where the difference arises, your second point. “PL/pseudo-PL when it is objectively worse at doing the task a point system is intended to do”
What you want a point system to do, and what I want it to do are different. I want it give me a rough idea of force that is roughly comparable to another. I don’t want it it to break down the cost of every little thing regardless of how insignificant. I just want to know that the army I have is roughly equivalent to another. I don’t want balance or any that bs, because these armies are going on a game board we have decided looks cool and fun, but may favour one side more than the other, the armies will consist of units chosen because they suit the battle we want to have not to maximise their effectiveness against my opponents. Points don’t need to be precise and balanced and granular for me.
If you entering a tournament and have prize money etc at stake, then yes, you want points to do something very different. So even what pi) to are intended to do is subjective.
It isn’t making it worse for me, I know you can’t grasp that, but it isn’t.
Well, maybe it isn't worse for you, but it absolutely CAN make it worse for you.
When GW screws up, it can have big effects locally. Imbalances make for homogenous armies showing up to game nights. People might not be having as much fun and don't show up as much to events. And at worst it can destroy local communities. It's very rare that I see games being played at my FLGS anymore, when there used to be 4-6 tables going every 40K night during better times. Right now, locally it's the lowest turnout for games I've ever seen. During 8th we had a boom. 7th was played but not nearly as much as 5th-6th.
To salvage it they would need to reduce and rebalance options for parity or an absence of choice to fit with the fixed points.
In terms of their goal, if it was "create an army building system that is simpler for us to build an app for, constrains units to box sizes and makes it easier for people to assemble the models however they please without having to juggle points", they were a lot closer.
I would agree with the first two parts there. I don't know anything about app development but I'll admit it's possible. I think making the game revolve around box unit sizes is a good thing, though you can make allowances for tweaking that. What it *doesn't* allow for is people assembling the models however they please - we've got the wraithknight loadouts, as well as the situation I've got with my ork vehicles where not having wrecking balls on everything is hosing myself. And I'm a relatively experienced player. Noobs would get fethed over by this. That's a big problem.
That some old grognards, who openly state, that they had not spend a penny on GW since ages leave the game? WHY exactly should GW care about such not-customers? Especially, when they have wide and steady enough stream of new ones and a large enough pool of happy old ones? And no, „the game how I envisage it is obviously better for everyone, so GW would have all the customers in the world, old and new alike if they just listened” is not true and anyone who thinks that should do their homework on diversity. For example, by re-reading, with comprehension, all those innumerable threads on dakka, where this subject was raised.
Oh I spent a lot of money on GW up until pretty recently. Late 8th gave me pause when they released a SECOND Marine codex in 2 years. 9th created more disappointments and my spending slowed considerably. Seeing how they're treating the game in late 9th and early 10th, I've stopped spending on GW completely. Not because I dislike the hobby, because I'm still painting the models I already own, and I'm playing alternative rulesets. I absolutely would give GW more money if they showed signs of improving. But I've lost faith in them.
They don't just lose me, they lose my enthusiasm for their ecosystem, which over the years has brought a number of people into the hobby. I also start to discourage others from investing into GW rules, and advocate instead for other systems.
I'm under no illusion that GW will be greatly affected by little ol' me, surely. But I'm definitely not the only one.
See, I’m in a somewhat similar but at the same time opposite boat. I don’t play official rules since late 7th, and currently the rules I play with no longer even resemble what people consider 40K. But at the same time I have spent more money on models, than during the time I played with official rules. And I have drawn multiple people into the hobby, by helping them realise, that models, lore and rules are separate aspects of the hobby. And GW will get my money, and my group’s money as long as they make models we like. Because „the game” is just a part of the experience.
@Hecaton: you thinking about yourself, that you understand game design never ceases to amuse me
The way to deal with people like that is simple, don’t play them. Not an issue, I wouldn’t want to play people like that at any game, no matter how balanced. They sound unpleasant.
As for the units you mentioned above, never were an issue for me and my group, we had eldar armies in there and it wasn’t a problem, probably because we were all like minded, communicated and had the same goal, a fun narrative game. So I would say we didn’t deal with them because they weren’t a problem. For us.
When you say they weren't a problem, what do you mean? Like you saw your opponent with some overpowered units and you and they came to a consensus they should play under the points limit to accommodate that?
@Hecaton: you thinking about yourself, that you understand game design never ceases to amuse me
I mean Chad Jensen broke that gak down to me when I was 13 and I've been learning ever since. The fact that some random dude on a forum like you thinks they understand game design better than me is insulting to me.
To salvage it they would need to reduce and rebalance options for parity or an absence of choice to fit with the fixed points.
In terms of their goal, if it was "create an army building system that is simpler for us to build an app for, constrains units to box sizes and makes it easier for people to assemble the models however they please without having to juggle points", they were a lot closer.
I would agree with the first two parts there. I don't know anything about app development but I'll admit it's possible. I think making the game revolve around box unit sizes is a good thing, though you can make allowances for tweaking that. What it *doesn't* allow for is people assembling the models however they please - we've got the wraithknight loadouts, as well as the situation I've got with my ork vehicles where not having wrecking balls on everything is hosing myself. And I'm a relatively experienced player. Noobs would get fethed over by this. That's a big problem.
No, it does objectively allow you to build that ork vehicle however you like, what it doesn't do (currently) is assure you the options are of parity looping back into the first point.
I kept out of this discussion for nearly 40 pages because joining it is pointless (see what I did there!).
The people who want more granular points systems are entitled to that want. But they also seem incapable of seeing things any other way. Wanting PL and that style seems so alien to them they cannot begin to understand it. There is no point in me trying to explain my position to them. Perhaps the biggest difference is I don’t play war games to win, I dont care who wins or loses. When you can grasp that basic principle, that the game is about the story not a victory, then how much a las pistol costs over a bolt pistol becomes less important.
Hecaton, when I say they weren’t a problem, I mean I dint remember either of those things benign an issue at all, let alone one we had to do anything about. I remember at one point I had a knight (the one with the plasma cannon and volcano cannon thing) that each time I brought it it dominated games, so I stopped bringing it. I was fine with this by the way. Didn’t mind at all.
This is where the difference arises, your second point. “PL/pseudo-PL when it is objectively worse at doing the task a point system is intended to do”
What you want a point system to do, and what I want it to do are different. I want it give me a rough idea of force that is roughly comparable to another. I don’t want it it to break down the cost of every little thing regardless of how insignificant. I just want to know that the army I have is roughly equivalent to another. I don’t want balance or any that bs, because these armies are going on a game board we have decided looks cool and fun, but may favour one side more than the other, the armies will consist of units chosen because they suit the battle we want to have not to maximise their effectiveness against my opponents. Points don’t need to be precise and balanced and granular for me.
If you entering a tournament and have prize money etc at stake, then yes, you want points to do something very different. So even what pi) to are intended to do is subjective.
The problem is that in order to have a fair game, the points system *does* need to be that granular.
Back in 8th or whatever when Iron Hands were amazing there was this local kid who had Iron Hands because he thought cyborgs were cool. He had them when they were bad and he had been collecting them since he was 13. All of a sudden they became overpowered and nobody wanted to play against him. That's a failure of balance, and a failure that fuzzy pointing mechanisms like you're advocating for can't fix. Teenagers are not going to want to re-balance the game on the fly, even if they have the know-how, they'll just go play video games instead. So it's *bad* for new players to have gak and unbalanced pointing mechanisms.
Dudeface wrote: To salvage it they would need to reduce and rebalance options for parity or an absence of choice to fit with the fixed points.
I suppose that's true, if GW did a further culling of options and removed things like the ability to take a LRBT without sponsons it would remove the biggest issues with PL. Building the range of possible options based on the point system vs. building the point system to handle the range of options is a completely backwards way of doing things but it would technically result in a system without those balance issues.
In terms of their goal, if it was "create an army building system that is simpler for us to build an app for, constrains units to box sizes and makes it easier for people to assemble the models however they please without having to juggle points", they were a lot closer.
None of those three things are reasonable goals.
Making it easier to build the app is simply absurd. Speaking as a software engineer it's absolutely hilarious how GW's supposed professional developers are incapable of making something as basic as a list building app. It's the software equivalent of deciding that because your local sandwich shop's employees can't correctly count the number of meat slices to put on each sandwich you're going to remove everything but bread and lettuce from the menu. The real solution here is better developers, not warping the game around the incompetence of the existing clowns.
Constraining units to box sizes has no value. Why is it bad if someone brings a 9-man tactical squad and doesn't use one of the models in the box? And even if it is bad why have this awkward middle ground where the 9-man squad is legal and sometimes desirable (such as for transport capacity reasons) but has a deliberately incorrect point cost?
Making it easier to assemble models how you like is a goal that is hurt by PL. With the conventional point system I can build my LRBT based on what looks cool and it's fine. If I don't like how sponsons look I don't pay for them. If I want melta sponsons instead of heavy bolters I pay more for them because they're more effective. GW may not always get the cost right but at least in theory the system makes every choice balanced and whatever I pick is valid. But with PL it's very easy to screw up your models. If I build that LRBT without sponsons I'm simply wrong and I have a clearly sub-optimal unit because I didn't do the research up front and identify that not taking sponsons is a fake option that PL deliberately punishes.
No, it does objectively allow you to build that ork vehicle however you like, what it doesn't do (currently) is assure you the options are of parity looping back into the first point.
I could build it however I liked under points to. Nothing in PL lets me do things I couldn't in points, and there are things in PL I can't do without screwing myself in gameplay.
Andykp wrote: What you want a point system to do, and what I want it to do are different. I want it give me a rough idea of force that is roughly comparable to another. I don’t want it it to break down the cost of every little thing regardless of how insignificant. I just want to know that the army I have is roughly equivalent to another. I don’t want balance or any that bs, because these armies are going on a game board we have decided looks cool and fun, but may favour one side more than the other, the armies will consist of units chosen because they suit the battle we want to have not to maximise their effectiveness against my opponents. Points don’t need to be precise and balanced and granular for me.
This is exactly what I mean. You say "PL makes my game more fun" but what you really mean is "PL doesn't make my game worse". At no point in this process does PL improve your game or do anything the conventional point system can't do. If PL didn't exist at all you'd play your games exactly the same way and have just as much fun.
Andykp wrote: I kept out of this discussion for nearly 40 pages because joining it is pointless (see what I did there!).
The people who want more granular points systems are entitled to that want. But they also seem incapable of seeing things any other way. Wanting PL and that style seems so alien to them they cannot begin to understand it. There is no point in me trying to explain my position to them. Perhaps the biggest difference is I don’t play war games to win, I dont care who wins or loses. When you can grasp that basic principle, that the game is about the story not a victory, then how much a las pistol costs over a bolt pistol becomes less important.
What story is told by the player with 3 crisis suits each with a single burst cannon being mowed down the player with 3 crisis suits each having 3 burst cannons?
In power level, and in the idiotic points that is 10th edition, both of those units cost the exact same, despite one having literally 3 times the firepower.
This is where the difference arises, your second point. “PL/pseudo-PL when it is objectively worse at doing the task a point system is intended to do”
What you want a point system to do, and what I want it to do are different. I want it give me a rough idea of force that is roughly comparable to another. I don’t want it it to break down the cost of every little thing regardless of how insignificant. I just want to know that the army I have is roughly equivalent to another. I don’t want balance or any that bs, because these armies are going on a game board we have decided looks cool and fun, but may favour one side more than the other, the armies will consist of units chosen because they suit the battle we want to have not to maximise their effectiveness against my opponents. Points don’t need to be precise and balanced and granular for me.
If you entering a tournament and have prize money etc at stake, then yes, you want points to do something very different. So even what pi) to are intended to do is subjective.
The problem is that in order to have a fair game, the points system *does* need to be that granular.
Back in 8th or whatever when Iron Hands were amazing there was this local kid who had Iron Hands because he thought cyborgs were cool. He had them when they were bad and he had been collecting them since he was 13. All of a sudden they became overpowered and nobody wanted to play against him. That's a failure of balance, and a failure that fuzzy pointing mechanisms like you're advocating for can't fix. Teenagers are not going to want to re-balance the game on the fly, even if they have the know-how, they'll just go play video games instead. So it's *bad* for new players to have gak and unbalanced pointing mechanisms.
Disagree, I have had many a fair game without the points being that granular, there are many ways to make a fair game, points being one. Can’t comment on iron hands in particular, never played them but I am sure someone could have made an iron hands Army that wasn’t all conquering. If I remember right there were certain builds of these powerful armies that were the problem.
Andykp wrote: I kept out of this discussion for nearly 40 pages because joining it is pointless (see what I did there!).
The people who want more granular points systems are entitled to that want. But they also seem incapable of seeing things any other way. Wanting PL and that style seems so alien to them they cannot begin to understand it. There is no point in me trying to explain my position to them. Perhaps the biggest difference is I don’t play war games to win, I dont care who wins or loses. When you can grasp that basic principle, that the game is about the story not a victory, then how much a las pistol costs over a bolt pistol becomes less important.
Hecaton, when I say they weren’t a problem, I mean I dint remember either of those things benign an issue at all, let alone one we had to do anything about. I remember at one point I had a knight (the one with the plasma cannon and volcano cannon thing) that each time I brought it it dominated games, so I stopped bringing it. I was fine with this by the way. Didn’t mind at all.
Oh no, we see it and understand it.
It's just really dumb if you're at all concerned about balance.
Also, at least during 8th and 9th, one had a choice. Now it's just forced on the rest of us.
Dudeface wrote: To salvage it they would need to reduce and rebalance options for parity or an absence of choice to fit with the fixed points.
I suppose that's true, if GW did a further culling of options and removed things like the ability to take a LRBT without sponsons it would remove the biggest issues with PL. Building the range of possible options based on the point system vs. building the point system to handle the range of options is a completely backwards way of doing things but it would technically result in a system without those balance issues.
In terms of their goal, if it was "create an army building system that is simpler for us to build an app for, constrains units to box sizes and makes it easier for people to assemble the models however they please without having to juggle points", they were a lot closer.
None of those three things are reasonable goals.
Making it easier to build the app is simply absurd. Speaking as a software engineer it's absolutely hilarious how GW's supposed professional developers are incapable of making something as basic as a list building app. It's the software equivalent of deciding that because your local sandwich shop's employees can't correctly count the number of meat slices to put on each sandwich you're going to remove everything but bread and lettuce from the menu. The real solution here is better developers, not warping the game around the incompetence of the existing clowns.
Constraining units to box sizes has no value. Why is it bad if someone brings a 9-man tactical squad and doesn't use one of the models in the box? And even if it is bad why have this awkward middle ground where the 9-man squad is legal and sometimes desirable (such as for transport capacity reasons) but has a deliberately incorrect point cost?
Making it easier to assemble models how you like is a goal that is hurt by PL. With the conventional point system I can build my LRBT based on what looks cool and it's fine. If I don't like how sponsons look I don't pay for them. If I want melta sponsons instead of heavy bolters I pay more for them because they're more effective. GW may not always get the cost right but at least in theory the system makes every choice balanced and whatever I pick is valid. But with PL it's very easy to screw up your models. If I build that LRBT without sponsons I'm simply wrong and I have a clearly sub-optimal unit because I didn't do the research up front and identify that not taking sponsons is a fake option that PL deliberately punishes.
Yup as above, unless number of options goes away or is controlled to fit the points, sponson gate will continue.
I agree it's unlikely the driver for the points was the app but it wouldn't surprise me that they churned it out double time and in order to support the release a choice was made to sacrifice something. I've had the luxury of working with many devs who claims to be able to do something in a sprint and yet 4 sprints later they're needing help from external teams to understand something. Agree good devs make a difference but we know they don't pay top dollar.
The unit size thing I don't mind personally, I get it's easier to price a Lieutenant if you know they're only ever going to be buffing units of 5 or 10 etc rather than worrying about weird breakpoints in between, it also stops 9/19 model units being the defacto norm due to blast.
Still, either they need to sort their gak out the ass backwards way and strip the options, or point them imo, but that's subjective and I'm still unconvinced the new system is objectively bad so much as objectively worse.
Andykp wrote: But they also seem incapable of seeing things any other way.
Because Power Level is always more imbalanced. Because PL offers no advantages over a points system. Because PL is always inferior to a game where more granular choices and representing things with points. It is an objectively inferior system, and the points changes that we got this week prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Andykp wrote: What you want a point system to do, and what I want it to do are different. I want it give me a rough idea of force that is roughly comparable to another. I don’t want it it to break down the cost of every little thing regardless of how insignificant. I just want to know that the army I have is roughly equivalent to another. I don’t want balance or any that bs, because these armies are going on a game board we have decided looks cool and fun, but may favour one side more than the other, the armies will consist of units chosen because they suit the battle we want to have not to maximise their effectiveness against my opponents. Points don’t need to be precise and balanced and granular for me.
This is exactly what I mean. You say "PL makes my game more fun" but what you really mean is "PL doesn't make my game worse". At no point in this process does PL improve your game or do anything the conventional point system can't do. If PL didn't exist at all you'd play your games exactly the same way and have just as much fun.
Ok, points as done in 8th and 9th edition made the game less fun for me. And that what’s I liked about pl, you had the choice. Pick which worked best for you.
The new system I don’t mind the lack of upgrade costs at all, I don’t like that the points will change every 3 months. I would rather have power levels back and points more granular for those that want that.
Andykp wrote: But they also seem incapable of seeing things any other way.
Because Power Level is always more imbalanced. Because PL offers no advantages. Because PL is always inferior to a game where more granular choices and representing things with points. It is an objectively inferior system, and the points changes that we got this week prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
You liking it better is largely irrelevant.
No, me liking it is all that matters to me. Pl was an option, a choice. My group using it was because we liked it better. We didn’t care what you liked because we don’t know you or play or have anything to do with you.
Everyone can say it objective as angrily as you all like, it just isn’t.
Andykp wrote: I kept out of this discussion for nearly 40 pages because joining it is pointless (see what I did there!).
The people who want more granular points systems are entitled to that want. But they also seem incapable of seeing things any other way. Wanting PL and that style seems so alien to them they cannot begin to understand it. There is no point in me trying to explain my position to them. Perhaps the biggest difference is I don’t play war games to win, I dont care who wins or loses. When you can grasp that basic principle, that the game is about the story not a victory, then how much a las pistol costs over a bolt pistol becomes less important.
The issue is that the PL-advocates like yourself don't have anything to back up why they find the system fun. If you say "you don't care who wins or loses" would you be ok with playing someone who gamed the PL system to take advantage of free upgrades and beat you every time? I don't think you would. There's a threshold for fairness you want, and points would deliver it better than PL, but you have some kind of attachment to PL that goes beyond its utility, it seems.
Andykp wrote: Hecaton, when I say they weren’t a problem, I mean I dint remember either of those things benign an issue at all, let alone one we had to do anything about. I remember at one point I had a knight (the one with the plasma cannon and volcano cannon thing) that each time I brought it it dominated games, so I stopped bringing it. I was fine with this by the way. Didn’t mind at all.
Ok, so what about people who don't have a large enough collection to just leave a $200 model at home? Wouldn't they be better served by a system where that knight wasn't dominating games?
Regardless, it seems like your group doesn't run into those problems - given that points would serve you just as well as PL, and points would serve people in other groups better, which system is objectively better is clear.
Andykp wrote: Ok, points as done in 8th and 9th edition made the game less fun for me.
But why? Why is it less fun for you that the value of your units is more accurately represented by their point costs? I presume you aren't some kind of WAACTFG that can only have fun if your stuff is overpowered and you win 100-0 every game so what exactly is it that makes those errors fun?
This is what it always comes down to with PL advocates: "it's more fun, I can't/won't tell you why, and that should be all you need to justify the existence of PL".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hecaton wrote: Ok, so what about people who don't have a large enough collection to just leave a $200 model at home? Wouldn't they be better served by a system where that knight wasn't dominating games?
Yeah, I really don't see how "leave the cool model you bought and painted at home because it's too overpowered" is a better solution than "have the appropriate point cost for the unit".
Andykp wrote: Disagree, I have had many a fair game without the points being that granular, there are many ways to make a fair game, points being one. Can’t comment on iron hands in particular, never played them but I am sure someone could have made an iron hands Army that wasn’t all conquering. If I remember right there were certain builds of these powerful armies that were the problem.
Sure but a teenager can't just pivot into an alternate collection when they're supporting this hobby with the spare money from their job at (in this case) an ice cream shop.
And sure, you *can* have fair games with a less granular points system, but you are much less likely to have an unfair game with a more granular points system. And that's better for the game.
The other methods you mention all seem to involve having surpluses of both money and time, where you have a large enough collection to just be able to swap in whatever, and play enough games to where you can identify overperforming units and re-balance the game by banning them. Not everyone has that level of time and investment, so you're advocating for something that is *worse* for new players.
Andykp wrote: Everyone can say it objective as angrily as you all like, it just isn’t.
No. It is. Conclusively. Demonstratively. Points systems, where upgrades and items are paid for with points rather than everything being free and treated the same is 100% a better system than Power Level ever was or could be, because they allow the relative power/utility of units to be shown numerically and comparatively in a system that creates better balance* and more player choice.
Power Level does nothing that Points don't do in a superior manner.
*That doesn't make points systems perfectly balanced, before anyone tries that one again...
Andykp wrote: My group using it was because we liked it better.
But why?
I have used PL for reasons that amount to ease of use. Easier to throw armies, easier to swap out units, easier to get to a rough starting point so then my buddies and I can heuristically adjust to produce the desired scenario.
I wouldn't argue that it's better for balance, let alone pull the 'you just don't get it!' card on people who rightfully point out its limitations.
Andykp wrote: Ok, points as done in 8th and 9th edition made the game less fun for me. And that what’s I liked about pl, you had the choice. Pick which worked best for you.
But points in 8th and 9th were always *more* balanced than PL... the only thing I can take away from this is that you dislike balance, honestly. Which means you're likely lacking in sportsmanship. You want the outcome of games to be decided by social contract rather than gameplay or tactics.
Andykp wrote: The new system I don’t mind the lack of upgrade costs at all, I don’t like that the points will change every 3 months. I would rather have power levels back and points more granular for those that want that.
Were you willing to play against the 9e Tyranids codex at release, or release Votann, once a week for a year because fast change is bad, m'kay? I think not. This is a red herring.
Andykp wrote: No, me liking it is all that matters to me.
If you like it for bad reasons then it shouldn't matter to anyone else.
Andykp wrote: Everyone can say it objective as angrily as you all like, it just isn’t.
No. It is. Conclusively. Demonstratively. Points systems, where upgrades and items are paid for with points rather than everything being free and treated the same is 100% a better system than Power Level ever was or could be, because they allow the relative power/utility of units to be shown numerically and comparatively in a system that creates better balance* and more player choice.
Power Level does nothing that Points don't do in a superior manner.
*That doesn't make points systems perfectly balanced, before anyone tries that one again...
Which comes back to: GW points are objectively worse at present and subjectively bad for the reasons shown.
So to complete the circle, we cannot say that 40k is an objectively bad game at present. It's too broad of a statement and too extreme in the choice of wording.
It's in a worse place in some ways, better in others. (Subjectively)
Andykp wrote: Ok, points as done in 8th and 9th edition made the game less fun for me.
But why? Why is it less fun for you that the value of your units is more accurately represented by their point costs? I presume you aren't some kind of WAACTFG that can only have fun if your stuff is overpowered and you win 100-0 every game so what exactly is it that makes those errors fun?
This is what it always comes down to with PL advocates: "it's more fun, I can't/won't tell you why, and that should be all you need to justify the existence of PL".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hecaton wrote: Ok, so what about people who don't have a large enough collection to just leave a $200 model at home? Wouldn't they be better served by a system where that knight wasn't dominating games?
Yeah, I really don't see how "leave the cool model you bought and painted at home because it's too overpowered" is a better solution than "have the appropriate point cost for the unit".
The fact that you are asking this question makes my point perfectly. If you cannot get your head around the basic principle of a group of like minded people being able to get together and play each other at a wargame and none of them care about the winning/losing and all want the same thing from the game then you will not ever understand why points as granular as you want them don’t matter to that group of people. It doesn’t matter what I tell you, it won’t make sense because you seem incapable of appreciating another way of doing things.
Andykp wrote: Ok, points as done in 8th and 9th edition made the game less fun for me.
But points in 8th and 9th were always *more* balanced than PL...
Moreover, points in 8th and 9th were the same way points were done in 7th. And 6th. And 5th. And every edition of the game thus far except 10th.
Dudeface wrote: So to complete the circle, we cannot say that 40k is an objectively bad game at present. It's too broad of a statement and too extreme in the choice of wording.
I don't know if 40k is currently a bad game - I unfortunately have not had the chance to play 10th Ed yet (and not for lack of trying... believe me! ) - but the "points" system in 10th, which is just Power Level by a different name? That is awful and it is objectively worse than an actual points system, like the game has had for 9 of its 10 editions so far.
Granular points didn't stop Riptides, Wraithknights, and Ynarri from ruining my fun of 6th and 7th.
Comparatively, I had more fun playing power games in 8th and these first games of 10th have been quite enjoyable (if frustrating against the ever-resurrecting Necrons).
Game balance doesn't come from points, it comes from army rules. A broken army will be broken regardless of whether it's a flat cost or granular cost.
Game balance does come from points, because it's a measure or a lever of control. What it doesn't do is just come from points. There are multiple factors. Points allow for more immediate non-rules based fixes, and whilst they cannot do the whole job, they can often do a good job.
Points are not the great leveller, but the Riptides, Wraithknights, and Ynarri you were worried about would have been more unbalanced under Power Level, that much is assured.
And yet in the past, that granularity hasn't stopped the most broken lists or helped struggling armies. Holding it up as some holy grail of balance is just wrong.
Gert wrote: And yet in the past, that granularity hasn't stopped the most broken lists or helped struggling armies.
And it is still completely superior in every aspect to Power Level, a system of army construction that has no granularity whatsoever and would allow for even further abuses (as we can see with 10th and how strong things cost the same amount of points as weak things).
Gert wrote: Holding it up as some holy grail of balance is just wrong.
And when someone here does that, you can call 'em on it.
Andykp wrote: The fact that you are asking this question makes my point perfectly. If you cannot get your head around the basic principle of a group of like minded people being able to get together and play each other at a wargame and none of them care about the winning/losing and all want the same thing from the game then you will not ever understand why points as granular as you want them don’t matter to that group of people. It doesn’t matter what I tell you, it won’t make sense because you seem incapable of appreciating another way of doing things.
When I play casually with my buddies we're not super concerned about winning or losing, but 'leave your cool centerpiece model at home because it breaks the game' is still a gakky solution to balance problems.
You can get together with like minded people to play a wargame without caring about winning/losing and still use points. I really don't understand why you keep insisting everyone else just doesn't understand casual play, as if cutthroat competitive play is the only reason to value a Leman Russ with sponsons differently from one without.
Gert wrote: And yet in the past, that granularity hasn't stopped the most broken lists or helped struggling armies. Holding it up as some holy grail of balance is just wrong.
I see the conversation has once again returned to this idea that if points weren't perfect, they must have been worthless.
I can think of a number of times that a specific model, unit, or upgrade got a price adjustment that nerfed broken builds or helped struggling armies. Can't you? Nobody's treating it like a 'holy grail'.
For those who insist on asking why, these are my reasons for not wanting to bother with points for every upgrade and model etc,
Most of the time, the point or two paid for an upgrade don’t matter, makes no difference, so why bother.
As all my gaming group are like minded and playing with the same objective, a fun narrative game, winning or losing doesn’t matter. So optimising units and armies to eke out every point doesn’t matter. It’s a waste of time.
We don’t care if he forces are perfectly balanced points wise, chances are we have discussed the game and what units we want to bring before hand so the points were only ever a rough guide anyway. Terrain, the mission and the conversation were the keys to balancing the game as we saw fit (it’s not always balanced evenly).
Keeping track of constant changing and tweaking of points became tiresome and complicated, what were the most up to date, etc.
Main reason we used power levels, it came along as a system and did all we wanted it to, without ever having to download an update or worry about the meta or any of that bollocks. So we used it. And we kept using it because it worked, we still had our battles and still enjoyed them but did not have to worry about how much single gretchin cost or if you could squeeze in one more guardian.
Because we are all nice people who want the same thing from a game 5e issues around people gaming the deficiencies or power levels did not arise. I dint have sponsons on my leman Russ tanks. They still don’t two editions of power levels later. Because I like them without and I’m not dick.
It meant adding up an army was easy, not as in the maths was easier, but finding the points was easier, you don’t have to work out the cost of a unit, it was right there in the datasheet. Say what you want about the maths, but 5 is a lot more simple than 14x6+9+3+6+1. Say you have 20 units, that’s 20 less bits of adding up to do. Simple.
Now we don’t have power level or choice, we just have points as 10e has them, but we are used to building armies in blocks of troops like 5 or ten man chunks, and not lying for upgrades is normal for us. To keep track of points I might have to start using an app. I would prefer the choice again of power levels or points.
I can see that in pick up games there would be people that would take advantage of power levels to gain an advantage. I don’t play pick up games.
In tournaments it would mean there was only ever one or two optimum build for units and anything else would be “worse”. But I don’t play in tournaments.
So. FOR ME. They work better than points.
PS.
I played with points since first edition. It was fine. But power level worked better when it came along. And this isn’t for all casual players. It is literally what worked FOR ME.
Andykp wrote: Ok, points as done in 8th and 9th edition made the game less fun for me.
But points in 8th and 9th were always *more* balanced than PL...
Moreover, points in 8th and 9th were the same way points were done in 7th. And 6th. And 5th. And every edition of the game thus far except 10th.
Dudeface wrote: So to complete the circle, we cannot say that 40k is an objectively bad game at present. It's too broad of a statement and too extreme in the choice of wording.
I don't know if 40k is currently a bad game - I unfortunately have not had the chance to play 10th Ed yet (and not for lack of trying... believe me! ) - but the "points" system in 10th, which is just Power Level by a different name? That is awful and it is objectively worse than an actual points system, like the game has had for 9 of its 10 editions so far.
No they weren’t. In first and second edition, the points weren’t updated every 3 months.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Game balance does come from points, because it's a measure or a lever of control. What it doesn't do is just stem from points. There are multiple factors. Points are not the great leveller, but the Riptides, Wraithknights, and Ynarri you were worried about would have been more unbalanced under Power Level, that much is assured.
This is where we see the same thing, but our views differ. You have faith in points as a balance mechanism while I don't; at least not as something that can be improved by introducing greater granularity. Points to me are more of a stat on the card just like any other, but one who's primary function is to define the structure of lists. Part of the reason I don't like granularity is because it messes with composition, particularly when they're increased. It suddenly becomes a Lego set where some of the pieces are a millimeter longer than they should be.
I have rarely seen a scenario where changing points improves balance. I've seen it change balance, sure, but only in the sense that something taken is no longer taken. Often times its specifically because there's not a way to take something out to make up the additional cost. In my experience, changing the rules has almost always provided a better change for players as long as the game has an easy way to distribute those rule changes. That's what's so egregiously bad about the Towering change. They identified a rule problem and made a points change and the results make absolutely no sense.
I think the Wraithknight is interesting, but its the obvious problem child and the current hill to die on. The neat thing about it in my mind is its a perfect exercise for the new system. Okay, so Towering makes the shooting WK better than expected and needs to cost more. The goal of all of this is the make Wargear options equal, so.... how much do you need to buff the sword and board version to make it as good as a towering gun platform? Personally, I think that's a way cooler question that has far more exciting answers than trying to figure out how much less it should cost. To me, that's what I find really appealing about the new system, but also why seeing their go to fix be points again has me so disappointing with the change.
It's too much like shopping at a grocery store that only accepts $10 bills and can't give out change. You only want to buy $13.58 worth of goods but you'll have to use two 10 dollar bills to cover the cost. Or add to your cart.
It's a simpler transaction - no change, no fuss & easier to pay and go. Checkout lanes are really fast too!
Andykp wrote: But they also seem incapable of seeing things any other way.
Because Power Level is always more imbalanced. Because PL offers no advantages over a points system. Because PL is always inferior to a game where more granular choices and representing things with points. It is an objectively inferior system, and the points changes that we got this week prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
You liking it better is largely irrelevant.
I brought up in the now closed news thread why this is not a workable situation.
Basically for a PL type system you'd need the core rules facilitating enough mechanics and classes that there is a debate between a flamer, nade launcher, sniper rifle , melta and plasma gun. A debate between what you require in your list and what job that unit fills in that list. That an upgrade turns into an actual side grade.
Since GW' doesn't have currently the necessary mechanics in the game. (Armor values, functioning T S table, decent cover mechanics and weapon classes that migitate that, and not least of all surpression) it is failed from the get go.
and i don't trust the rules designer GW has to actually be capable of writing such a core game, they couldn't do so with granular points which would allow to tax overperforming and underperforming weaponry, they certainly won't with opportunity costs through core mechanics alone now. Because that would require a far more stringent and fundamentally better designed game, one which would mechanically punish skew armies like knights to unplayability due to a lack of infantry f.e. The lack of a propper FoC also doesn't help this endeavour at all.
amanita wrote: It's too much like shopping at a grocery store that only accepts $10 bills and can't give out change. You only want to buy $13.58 worth of goods but you'll have to use two 10 dollar bills to cover the cost. Or add to your cart.
It's a simpler transaction - no change, no fuss & easier to pay and go. Checkout lanes are really fast too!
Sadly, there IS a downside...
Except you don’t actually lose anything, because it’s a game we play for fun, not money and goods. So similar, but also nothing like that at all. Because this has no real world consequences.
Andykp wrote: The fact that you are asking this question makes my point perfectly. If you cannot get your head around the basic principle of a group of like minded people being able to get together and play each other at a wargame and none of them care about the winning/losing and all want the same thing from the game then you will not ever understand why points as granular as you want them don’t matter to that group of people. It doesn’t matter what I tell you, it won’t make sense because you seem incapable of appreciating another way of doing things.
Again, you keep saying "PL is better for me" but all of the things you say in defense of that statement are really arguing "PL is not worse for me". The two are not the same.
Andykp wrote: The fact that you are asking this question makes my point perfectly. If you cannot get your head around the basic principle of a group of like minded people being able to get together and play each other at a wargame and none of them care about the winning/losing and all want the same thing from the game then you will not ever understand why points as granular as you want them don’t matter to that group of people. It doesn’t matter what I tell you, it won’t make sense because you seem incapable of appreciating another way of doing things.
Again, you keep saying "PL is better for me" but all of the things you say in defense of that statement are really arguing "PL is not worse for me". The two are not the same.
There are two options, a and b. A is points, a is ok but has always been a pain in the ass, b is PL. b comes along and does all I need it do but is less of a pain in the ass. A is worse than, b. Therefore b is better than a.
Trust me I know what I mean. PL is better for me. It’s simpler, does not change as often and was right there on the data sheet, not hidden away in numerous downloads of in a book you had to buy. All points that made it better. And not worse. But definitely better. But thanks for trying to explain how feel about things.
Andykp wrote: There are two options, a and b. A is points, a is ok but has always been a pain in the ass, b is PL. b comes along and does all I need it do but is less of a pain in the ass. A is worse than, b. Therefore b is better than a.
Trust me I know what I mean. PL is better for me. It’s simpler, does not change as often and was right there on the data sheet, not hidden away in numerous downloads of in a book you had to buy. All points that made it better. And not worse. But definitely better. But thanks for trying to explain how feel about things.
I'm not explaining how you feel about things, I'm explaining what your words are saying. When you say "points as granular as you want them don’t matter to that group of people" that is not a statement that PL is better, it is a statement that PL is not worse. And those are two very different things.
And some of what you are saying is factually wrong. PL not changing as often is not an advantage for PL. Even if you reject the idea that changes are desirable to deal with problems ASAP you still gain no advantage from a reduced update cycle. If points update four times per year you as a player group can always agree to only use the first update of the year and keep using it all year. You gain nothing from the other three updates not existing. OTOH the opposite is not true. PL updating less frequently can be a disadvantage for the people who want faster resolution to problems. So once again we have an example of points doing everything PL does and also doing more things, making PL entirely redundant.
As for the supposed advantage of PL being on the datasheet I'm pretty skeptical of that. Are you really building a list faster by flipping through multiple pages of datasheets to find each point value vs. looking at a single 1-2 page points document for your faction? I doubt it. One of the best things GW did for PL was that when they finally updated the point values in 9th they published a single points document in the same style as the conventional points document, where you could see all of your faction's point costs at a glance and build a list without having to go searching through the book.
Andykp wrote: There are two options, a and b. A is points, a is ok but has always been a pain in the ass, b is PL. b comes along and does all I need it do but is less of a pain in the ass. A is worse than, b. Therefore b is better than a.
Trust me I know what I mean. PL is better for me. It’s simpler, does not change as often and was right there on the data sheet, not hidden away in numerous downloads of in a book you had to buy. All points that made it better. And not worse. But definitely better. But thanks for trying to explain how feel about things.
I'm not explaining how you feel about things, I'm explaining what your words are saying. When you say "points as granular as you want them don’t matter to that group of people" that is not a statement that PL is better, it is a statement that PL is not worse. And those are two very different things.
And some of what you are saying is factually wrong. PL not changing as often is not an advantage for PL. Even if you reject the idea that changes are desirable to deal with problems ASAP you still gain no advantage from a reduced update cycle. If points update four times per year you as a player group can always agree to only use the first update of the year and keep using it all year. You gain nothing from the other three updates not existing. OTOH the opposite is not true. PL updating less frequently can be a disadvantage for the people who want faster resolution to problems. So once again we have an example of points doing everything PL does and also doing more things, making PL entirely redundant.
As for the supposed advantage of PL being on the datasheet I'm pretty skeptical of that. Are you really building a list faster by flipping through multiple pages of datasheets to find each point value vs. looking at a single 1-2 page points document for your faction? I doubt it. One of the best things GW did was that when they finally updated PL in 9th they published a single points document in the same style as the conventional points document, where you could see all of your faction's point costs at a glance and build a list without having to go searching through the book.
Again thanks for explaining my feelings and thoughts to me, and pointing out I am not enjoying things right and enjoying some things wrong.
I was really happy to not have PL change at all, all edition. Never felt the need for it to change. None of us in our group wanted to “resolve” issue that didn’t matter to us quickly, we also didn’t want to have to check we were all using the right era of points, which of 7 or 8 versions of points we could have used.
As for designing armies from a list of points downloaded from the internet of bought at extra cost, no thanks. I actually enjoy flicking through the book, looking at the datasheets, reminding myself of the models, rules and options….and the not having to find the points somewhere else. Honestly, I like that and still do it. It’s fun.
Ways PL was better for us, as simply as I can as you seem to be struggling.
1. On the datasheet (definitely better for me).
2. Didn’t change often (factually better for me, still a bug bear with points now, I’m old and can’t be arsed with changes all the time).
3. Simpler maths. (Note the “s”). As pointed out before. Having to calculate a cost of a unit and then add those up, definitely easier to just add up the power level.
In a purely subjective way, these made PL better.
That said, some of this is missing now that PL has gone. Not 3, 3 is still there but 1 and 2 sadly gone, so new points worse than power levels (or, power levels better than new pints, and old points).
Nobody's invalidating your subjective experience, they're pointing out that (1) putting costs on the datasheet isn't an advantage for PL since you can do that for points too, and (2) not updating is, again, not specific to PL, and you are free to ignore updates to points or PL as you see fit.
(3) Simpler math is legitimate, if you find double-digit arithmetic taxing and are unwilling to use a calculator or listbuilding app to assist. That's the only actual advantage to PL; it's coarser and simpler and easier to add up in an era where adding up numbers has never been easier. The other two are basically just coincidence that GW chose to implement PL that way, and not intrinsic to PL as a system.
Couching your preference for PL as subjective opinion doesn't make your reasoning immune to criticism. Most of us here are not hardcore tournament players. We're casual players who like having decent odds in pick-up games or being able to set up narrative scenarios without having to put on our game designer hats to balance it out. We can imagine casual play just fine; it's the tradeoff of saving a few seconds of brainpower in exchange for a worse play experience that isn't all that appealing.
catbarf wrote: Nobody's invalidating your subjective experience, they're pointing out that (1) putting costs on the datasheet isn't an advantage for PL since you can do that for points too, and (2) not updating is, again, not specific to PL, and you are free to ignore updates to points or PL as you see fit.
(3) Simpler math is legitimate, if you find double-digit arithmetic taxing and are unwilling to use a calculator or listbuilding app to assist. That's the only actual advantage to PL; it's coarser and simpler and easier to add up in an era where adding up numbers has never been easier. The other two are basically just coincidence that GW chose to implement PL that way, and not intrinsic to PL as a system.
Couching your preference for PL as subjective opinion doesn't make your reasoning immune to criticism. Most of us here are not hardcore tournament players. We're casual players who like having decent odds in pick-up games or being able to set up narrative scenarios without having to put on our game designer hats to balance it out. We can imagine casual play just fine; it's the tradeoff of saving a few seconds of brainpower in exchange for a worse play experience that isn't all that appealing.
It’s not about casual vs tournament pay, it’s about the we my group play. That’s all. I’m not saying PL was the perfect system. In a counter to your points,
1. It is an advantage for power level because they used to do it for points but stopped. So at that time the only points on the datasheet were power level. They could have done a lot of things, but didn’t. A possibility doesn’t trump what actually happened.
2.I addressed this before. Having updates of points every few months just creates confusion if you don’t keep up with it. You could ignore it and use the points at the back of the codex and I would probably would have if it wasn’t for power levels right there on the datasheet. Handy and constant. Ignoring updated points is what I did before power levels.
3. Maths isn’t taxing, I am reasonably proficient at the basics, but less is better, it’s not something I do for fun. As for the 1 and 2 being a coincidence, I didn’t sit dreaming of power level or ask Gw to create it, I just used them and liked them. Now they are gone and I won’t use them anymore, I will use the new system, probably on an app.
I am not stating power was done perfectly, or should have replaced points. Just how we reacted to what was actually happening. GW could have done a lot of things and used to have all the points for all the stuff upgrades and all on the datasheet, sometimes it was on separate tables. Lots of options, some better than others.
I’m not arguing for all casual players, not saying they should all use PL, everyone should do what works for them. I imagine if I had to play pick up games at a club or store I wouldn’t like or use power levels at all, but I would pine for the days of points being on the datasheets.
So if you want to criticise my opinion do so by all means, but don’t tell me my experiences were wrong (what ever that means) or that I am wrong for enjoying something, or as Karol said that I could not have enjoyed it because so many others didn’t??? Accept them for what they are, opinions. And to your last point, the one that turns your post from a reasonable response into just telling me I’m wrong.
I did not have a worse gaming experience for using power levels, in fact I enjoyed 40K more than I had in some time. So FOR ME the trade off of simpler maths and easier book keeping included a better gaming experience, so win/win.
I will wait for people to tell me I am wrong and I didn’t actually enjoy myself at all….
Andykp wrote: The fact that you are asking this question makes my point perfectly. If you cannot get your head around the basic principle of a group of like minded people being able to get together and play each other at a wargame and none of them care about the winning/losing and all want the same thing from the game then you will not ever understand why points as granular as you want them don’t matter to that group of people. It doesn’t matter what I tell you, it won’t make sense because you seem incapable of appreciating another way of doing things.
Again, you keep saying "PL is better for me" but all of the things you say in defense of that statement are really arguing "PL is not worse for me". The two are not the same.
Okay... Let me explain my interpretation of Andy's point in different words:
My buddies and I agree on a 1k game. I pick units that I like that add up to 1k. And that's all I do, because regardless of what equipment I put on them, the list is going to work. Like Andy's crew, my circle don't optimize- some are rule of coolers, some make odd choices for story reasons, and some build on a budget and can't afford to buy an extra box.
But with a PL, regardless of what load-out you bring, or why you choose to bring that load out, once you've picked your units, you're done worrying about achieving the desired point threshold.
With costed equipment, once I've chosen the units I want to use, I'm not yet done with list building- I now have to figure out whether or not the load out I want for one unit interferes with whether or not I can get the ideal load out for the next unit and the next, and the wrong choice could mean I have to drop a unit in order to get the loadout I want on another unit.
I get where Andy's coming from, because I loved PL in 9th ed escalation Crusade play.
However, I still think that the two-system solution is the best option, and I think it was a HUGE mistake to try to make EVERYONE swallow PL-style-points or rage quit. The little time it took GW to derive a PL number from points was well worth the effort to keep the greatest number of people reasonably happy.
If the best of both worlds solution wasn't on the table and I had to pick one or the other though?
I'd pick points... Because even though I see where Andy's coming from, and I lived there for all of 9th, I don't believe that this PL-style-point system is good for the health of the game. Even if you just assign costs for vehicle load-outs that would be something... It would solve the melee Wraith Knight and the sponson problem, which are the most egregious issues. And if GW decided to take it all the way back to costed upgrades for infantry? Well, that's certainly better than doing nothing.
However, I still think that the two-system solution is the best option, and I think it was a HUGE mistake to try to make EVERYONE swallow PL-style-points or rage quit. The little time it took GW to derive a PL number from points was well worth the effort to keep the greatest number of people reasonably happy.
I think they tried to nudge us to PL, and we weren't willing to go. I think they tried a couple different ways, then decided they were going to tell us to go. I think that was a mistake.
If the best of both worlds solution wasn't on the table and I had to pick one or the other though?
I'd pick points... Because even though I see where Andy's coming from, and I lived there for all of 9th, I don't believe that this PL-style-point system is good for the health of the game. Even if you just assign costs for vehicle load-outs that would be something... It would solve the melee Wraith Knight and the sponson problem, which are the most egregious issues. And if GW decided to take it all the way back to costed upgrades for infantry? Well, that's certainly better than doing nothing.
I think if they actually stick with these points disguised as PL long enough, then it is better for the health of the game. Its getting them to do a deeper more thorough balancing at the unit vs unit and wargear vs wargear level. When Boltstorm Aggressors vs Flamestorm Aggressors (and so on) are a thematic choice not a mathematic one we're better off.
IMHO it is harder to make sidegrades balanced than it is to balance points costs.
If GW cannot do the latter, why would they do the former?
As for list optimization, more granular points don't force you to optimize.
Taking 0 upgrades means you can just add the units cost to your list, no further addition or worry required. Just add unupgraded units to your lists and you'll be gravy, just like now. Not really sure why it is such a problem if no one cares about balance.
Unit1126PLL wrote: IMHO it is harder to make sidegrades balanced than it is to balance points costs.
If GW cannot do the latter, why would they do the former?
Don't know, but they're working on it and I like seeing significantly different lists more than the same list only with a Techmarine instead of a Libby, or 3 Min Size Scout squads for the Troop Tax etc.
As for list optimization, more granular points don't force you to optimize.
Taking 0 upgrades means you can just add the units cost to your list, no further addition or worry required. Just add unupgraded units to your lists and you'll be gravy, just like now. Not really sure why it is such a problem if no one cares about balance.
Interesting to note though that this is the first time they've ever tried it this way, whereas conventional costed equipment has been tried nine times.
I don't know- I started building my plastic sisters tonight because I'm putting together a plastic sisters force to try out the new rules.
Just a little 525 point force- Canoness + BSS and Palatine + Doms + Immolator.
Didn't want to play another edition with classic metal when I have a huge army of Sisters still on sprues.
PenitentJake wrote: Interesting to note though that this is the first time they've ever tried it this way, whereas conventional costed equipment has been tried nine times.
If you've tried nine times to do the easier thing trying hard mode instead is unlikely to get better results. Conventional point costs require correct evaluation of the strengths of each option, PL with sidegrades requires that exact same evaluation except now with the added constraint of requiring that all of the options be equal in strength. If GW can succeed with PL/sidegrades then they could have done even better with the conventional system.
And that's on top of the issue that a sidegrades-only system requires aggressively culling options that don't fit the concept. In a normal points system you can have hunter-killer missiles as an optional upgrade for +X points. In a sidegrade system the missile is mandatory and the option to omit one is effectively removed from the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote: With costed equipment, once I've chosen the units I want to use, I'm not yet done with list building- I now have to figure out whether or not the load out I want for one unit interferes with whether or not I can get the ideal load out for the next unit and the next, and the wrong choice could mean I have to drop a unit in order to get the loadout I want on another unit.
But an even worse thing happens with PL/pseudo-PL. If you're at 1980 points out of 2000 in 10th and your cheapest unit is 50 points you either play below the point limit or you have to go through your list and try to find a combination of fixed-price units that line up correctly to get to 2000 points. In the conventional point system you end up at 1980/2000, you add a power fist to a sergeant and upgrade a flamer to a plasma gun and you go play the game.
And in practice what you do with the conventional point system is build a partial list starting with certain core units you know you're going to take, including their upgrades, and then you only start fiddling with the details when you get to the last 10-25% of your points. So it's rare that you end up having to sacrifice upgrades on a unit you care about.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: the added constraint of requiring that all of the options be equal in strength.
No they have to be equivalent in value. Something really good at TEQ can be equivalent to something really good at Anti-Tank without being equal in strength. That was somewhat the point of expanding the S/T bands.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: the added constraint of requiring that all of the options be equal in strength.
No they have to be equivalent in value. Something really good at TEQ can be equivalent to something really good at Anti-Tank without being equal in strength. That was somewhat the point of expanding the S/T bands.
By strength I mean "how much value does this add to your list", not the strength attribute.
I think part of the reason for these PL Points is that GW is actively discouraging optimizing your list. You can no longer manipulate your unit's value by minimizing upgrades and carefully calibrating the number of models in your unit. You generally get 1-3 choices on how much your unit cost and that is it. Upgrades are free, which is both a blessing and a curse depending on how you chose to approach the game.
So GW has radically changed how you have to approach army constructions via points. It does mean it is much harder to get to exactly your points limit. But let's be honest, is being at 1980 points rather than 2000 really going to decide if you win or lose the game? Or is it just your OCD kicking in that you have to use every available point?
Yeah, instead of choosing wether an upgrade is worth it to your list or not is not a decision anymore. It changed to "do I have the model for the optimal loadout?"
stonehorse wrote: The game is meant to be a casual tea and crumpets sort of game.
Sure isn't sold or advertised that way.
Funny, as 9th was quite clearly "40k- tournament edition" as the rot had set in fully from GW bowing down to the tournament "celebrities" and the utter cancer they bring to this game. People were still in denial when Chapter Approved was called the "Grand Tournament Pack". The 10th points are just more examples of this and cookie cutter 40k brought on by inattentive Gen Z players with zero attention spans who worship at the feet of these tournament players is the end result.
Pack it up lads, we're in the last days of Rome...
Literally nobody in the comp scene likes the new points system and 10th was apparently not externally playtested at all.
You wanna know who to blame for the mess that is 10th?
Facebook dads loudly complaining how complicated the game is, how they struggle to do basic mathematics and how they couldn't get their 8 year old into 40k because there was too much complexity. That's who GW has catered the game to. Or tried to.
stonehorse wrote: The game is meant to be a casual tea and crumpets sort of game.
Sure isn't sold or advertised that way.
Funny, as 9th was quite clearly "40k- tournament edition" as the rot had set in fully from GW bowing down to the tournament "celebrities" and the utter cancer they bring to this game. People were still in denial when Chapter Approved was called the "Grand Tournament Pack". The 10th points are just more examples of this and cookie cutter 40k brought on by inattentive Gen Z players with zero attention spans who worship at the feet of these tournament players is the end result.
Pack it up lads, we're in the last days of Rome...
Literally nobody in the comp scene likes the new points system and 10th was apparently not externally playtested at all.
You wanna know who to blame for the mess that is 10th?
Facebook dads loudly complaining how complicated the game is, how they struggle to do basic mathematics and how they couldn't get their 8 year old into 40k because there was too much complexity. That's who GW has catered the game to. Or tried to.
There was very obviously plenty of comments on Dakka (unless you consider here to be full of Facebook dads) who felt the game was too complex, bloated and hard to keep track of.
I have a feeling people were talking about pages upon pages of stratagems, sub-factions and datasheets instead of elementary school maths during list creation (which could be assisted with tools like Battlescribe, anyway).
a_typical_hero wrote: I have a feeling people were talking about pages upon pages of stratagems, sub-factions and datasheets instead of elementary school maths during list creation (which could be assisted with tools like Battlescribe, anyway).
Yes, but I don't ever remember seeing anyone talk about the game being too complicated due to adding points bar a couple of niche cases. The complaints direct to GW were always about rules bloat and layered complexity.
Dudeface wrote: There was very obviously plenty of comments on Dakka (unless you consider here to be full of Facebook dads) who felt the game was too complex, bloated and hard to keep track of.
And GW learned the wrong lessons, taking "remove bloat" to mean "remove different combi-weapons" or "do we need a whole psychic phase" to mean "let's gut psychic powers so they're set per model!", and "there should be USRs" to mean "let's add a few USRs, but put in hundreds if not over a thousand** unit-specific bespoke rules into the game!".
If there was more iteration on their rules writing processes, this sort of pendulum swinging nonsense could be avoided, or at least lessened.
*No seriously, I'm going through them right now and I'm at 200 bespoke rules and I'm not even through the Marine indices yet!!!
Dudeface wrote: There was very obviously plenty of comments on Dakka (unless you consider here to be full of Facebook dads) who felt the game was too complex, bloated and hard to keep track of.
And GW learned the wrong lessons, taking "remove bloat" to mean "remove different combi-weapons" or "do we need a whole psychic phase" to mean "let's gut psychic powers so they're set per model!", and "there should be USRs" to mean "let's add a few USRs, but put in hundreds if not over a thousand** unit-specific bespoke rules into the game!".
If there was more iteration on their rules writing processes, this sort of pendulum swinging nonsense could be avoided, or at least lessened.
*No seriously, I'm going through them right now and I'm at 200 bespoke rules and I'm not even through the Marine indices yet!!!
Which is a fair observation, but to claim this happened because of "Facebook dads who can't do maths" is just pants on head.
Andykp wrote: The fact that you are asking this question makes my point perfectly. If you cannot get your head around the basic principle of a group of like minded people being able to get together and play each other at a wargame and none of them care about the winning/losing and all want the same thing from the game then you will not ever understand why points as granular as you want them don’t matter to that group of people. It doesn’t matter what I tell you, it won’t make sense because you seem incapable of appreciating another way of doing things.
Again, you keep saying "PL is better for me" but all of the things you say in defense of that statement are really arguing "PL is not worse for me". The two are not the same.
Okay... Let me explain my interpretation of Andy's point in different words:
My buddies and I agree on a 1k game. I pick units that I like that add up to 1k. And that's all I do, because regardless of what equipment I put on them, the list is going to work. Like Andy's crew, my circle don't optimize- some are rule of coolers, some make odd choices for story reasons, and some build on a budget and can't afford to buy an extra box.
But with a PL, regardless of what load-out you bring, or why you choose to bring that load out, once you've picked your units, you're done worrying about achieving the desired point threshold.
With costed equipment, once I've chosen the units I want to use, I'm not yet done with list building- I now have to figure out whether or not the load out I want for one unit interferes with whether or not I can get the ideal load out for the next unit and the next, and the wrong choice could mean I have to drop a unit in order to get the loadout I want on another unit.
I get where Andy's coming from, because I loved PL in 9th ed escalation Crusade play.
However, I still think that the two-system solution is the best option, and I think it was a HUGE mistake to try to make EVERYONE swallow PL-style-points or rage quit. The little time it took GW to derive a PL number from points was well worth the effort to keep the greatest number of people reasonably happy.
If the best of both worlds solution wasn't on the table and I had to pick one or the other though?
I'd pick points... Because even though I see where Andy's coming from, and I lived there for all of 9th, I don't believe that this PL-style-point system is good for the health of the game. Even if you just assign costs for vehicle load-outs that would be something... It would solve the melee Wraith Knight and the sponson problem, which are the most egregious issues. And if GW decided to take it all the way back to costed upgrades for infantry? Well, that's certainly better than doing nothing.
I agree whole heartedly that two system way was best, because like I said many times, PL didn’t work for everyone and would be a nightmare for some, but it was only ever an option.
What we have now is the worst of both worlds really, it’s not bad enough to be a major problem for me, I can adapt to it easy enough.
The bloat definitely needed to go, it had got so stupid, and I am a dad who has Facebook. But points weren’t the issue, it was stratagems etc.
Dudeface wrote: There was very obviously plenty of comments on Dakka (unless you consider here to be full of Facebook dads) who felt the game was too complex, bloated and hard to keep track of.
And GW learned the wrong lessons, taking "remove bloat" to mean "remove different combi-weapons" or "do we need a whole psychic phase" to mean "let's gut psychic powers so they're set per model!", and "there should be USRs" to mean "let's add a few USRs, but put in hundreds if not over a thousand** unit-specific bespoke rules into the game!".
If there was more iteration on their rules writing processes, this sort of pendulum swinging nonsense could be avoided, or at least lessened.
*No seriously, I'm going through them right now and I'm at 200 bespoke rules and I'm not even through the Marine indices yet!!!
Isn't it ironic then that HH which frontloads the core rules doesn't suffer from this, despite being an iteration of an iteration of the single worst edition to date? And comparativly plays quickly with AA elements incorporated?
That is the level of questionable that we have reached on the 40k rulesdesign
I will wait for people to tell me I am wrong and I didn’t actually enjoy myself at all….
People enjoy themselves with garbage all the time, but at least those people usually understand it's trash.
Oooh, edgy.
Is he wrong though. F.e. I like WHTW 3. But i know that from a mechanical point of view both the campaign map is seriously lackluster (no population, no actual economy simulation, no fortification, no nothing) and on the field of battle the Engine introduced with Empire total war does a massive disservice to all melee centric TW's afterwards?
Dudeface wrote: There was very obviously plenty of comments on Dakka (unless you consider here to be full of Facebook dads) who felt the game was too complex, bloated and hard to keep track of.
And GW learned the wrong lessons, taking "remove bloat" to mean "remove different combi-weapons" or "do we need a whole psychic phase" to mean "let's gut psychic powers so they're set per model!", and "there should be USRs" to mean "let's add a few USRs, but put in hundreds if not over a thousand** unit-specific bespoke rules into the game!".
If there was more iteration on their rules writing processes, this sort of pendulum swinging nonsense could be avoided, or at least lessened.
*No seriously, I'm going through them right now and I'm at 200 bespoke rules and I'm not even through the Marine indices yet!!!
Isn't it ironic then that HH which frontloads the core rules doesn't suffer from this, despite being an iteration of an iteration of the single worst edition to date? And comparativly plays quickly with AA elements incorporated?
That is the level of questionable that we have reached on the 40k rulesdesign
because the core rules were never the problem, but always the solution, which basically shows the main problem of GW rules design
their new core rules are fixing problems from the last Edition Codizes, but the new Codizes don't follow the new core design but have the freedom to do whatever they want and instead of keeping them in line, the core rules are adjusted to fit that rules
so to play a GW game, you need the faction rules of the previous edition with the core rules of the next one to understand what they wanted to do
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bosskelot wrote: Facebook dads loudly complaining how complicated the game is, how they struggle to do basic mathematics and how they couldn't get their 8 year old into 40k because there was too much complexity. That's who GW has catered the game to. Or tried to.
and there is the problem
what people meant by complex was a too complicated gameplay that needs to learn a lot of text that adds nothing to the game
what GW understood was that there is too much math, because kids don't like math, and that they need to replace the math with more text that adds nothing to the game because kids like when every of their units is unique and because kids don't like to learn text, they wrote that on the cards instead of the rulebook
started to play wargames with my 12 year old, just having the difference in how to teach a game of Kings of War and Deadzone or 40k is a universe away, were we have the basic rules and the necessary USR remembered after a single turn and for 40k you still need to look up some basic interactions 3 games later because it is still not clear (specially if you don't play on a weekly bases)
He is insisting that his opinion is fact, as per. I am well aware of power levels limitations and have never claimed anyone else should use it. It was an adequate army design mechanism for my needs. So yeah, he is wrong in implying I can’t see the down sides to PL and wrong in implying there are downsides that affect everyone equally or at all.
Dudeface wrote: There was very obviously plenty of comments on Dakka (unless you consider here to be full of Facebook dads) who felt the game was too complex, bloated and hard to keep track of.
And GW learned the wrong lessons, taking "remove bloat" to mean "remove different combi-weapons" or "do we need a whole psychic phase" to mean "let's gut psychic powers so they're set per model!", and "there should be USRs" to mean "let's add a few USRs, but put in hundreds if not over a thousand** unit-specific bespoke rules into the game!".
If there was more iteration on their rules writing processes, this sort of pendulum swinging nonsense could be avoided, or at least lessened.
*No seriously, I'm going through them right now and I'm at 200 bespoke rules and I'm not even through the Marine indices yet!!!
Isn't it ironic then that HH which frontloads the core rules doesn't suffer from this, despite being an iteration of an iteration of the single worst edition to date? And comparativly plays quickly with AA elements incorporated?
That is the level of questionable that we have reached on the 40k rulesdesign
because the core rules were never the problem, but always the solution, which basically shows the main problem of GW rules design
their new core rules are fixing problems from the last Edition Codizes, but the new Codizes don't follow the new core design but have the freedom to do whatever they want and instead of keeping them in line, the core rules are adjusted to fit that rules
so to play a GW game, you need the faction rules of the previous edition with the core rules of the next one to understand what they wanted to do
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bosskelot wrote: Facebook dads loudly complaining how complicated the game is, how they struggle to do basic mathematics and how they couldn't get their 8 year old into 40k because there was too much complexity. That's who GW has catered the game to. Or tried to.
and there is the problem
what people meant by complex was a too complicated gameplay that needs to learn a lot of text that adds nothing to the game
what GW understood was that there is too much math, because kids don't like math, and that they need to replace the math with more text that adds nothing to the game because kids like when every of their units is unique and because kids don't like to learn text, they wrote that on the cards instead of the rulebook
started to play wargames with my 12 year old, just having the difference in how to teach a game of Kings of War and Deadzone or 40k is a universe away, were we have the basic rules and the necessary USR remembered after a single turn and for 40k you still need to look up some basic interactions 3 games later because it is still not clear (specially if you don't play on a weekly bases)
Which is bloody absurd because HH2.0 works fine with the HH2.0 army rules. There are some issues but not wraithknight level nonsense requireing an insta patch even before the codices got out.
Why can't GW atleast reach that level of quality on the 40k side of things? Even whilest it crippled customizability as "unnecessary bloat" and legended CSM and Admech units of all things out of the 40k comp scene because SM had too many options..
Which is bloody absurd because HH2.0 works fine with the HH2.0 army rules. There are some issues but not wraithknight level nonsense requireing an insta patch even before the codices got out.
Why can't GW atleast reach that level of quality on the 40k side of things? Even whilest it crippled customizability as "unnecessary bloat" and legended CSM and Admech units of all things out of the 40k comp scene because SM had too many options..
my personal thought why:
because there are less people doing the HH stuff and the designers play their own game
you really get that from written rules if those writing it play with what they wrote or not
in addition, the different designers in 40k are not allowed to talk to each other about what they are doing to prevent leaks and keep everything secret
so we get the different level of how to follow the design guidelines
in HH there being 1 doing all the work, they know what they have written for one faction and what level the others need to be
and I have seen this in another game development, when you have a design guideline and a group working on each faction following that guide but not talking to the other group until the final product is out, with the difference that this game marked it as "alpha test" (and problem were simply going down to the guide saying factions X has a weakness in fast units and faction Y a weakness in though units, and the one design team so it as "there are no fast units allowed at all" while the other one "no though units as core units/battleline")
and looking at the indices, it most likely was that, a guideline and everyone followed it as they thought it would be best, and those that did not managed the deadline just rushed it without thinking much about it because will be replaced with the Codex anyway
and a 3 year lifetime of a game also means that you cannot put more time into making that as it will be supported
if the game would actually stay, and just being updated, they could work differently because it would be worth investing a year into something that is around for another 6 or 12 years but with already knowing that it will be gone in 3 years, why bother (and people buy it anyway)
10th is full of concepts and ideas that are good, great even, until they hit actual game mechanics.
Playing just a handful of games with said mechanics would immediately showcase the issues inherent with them. The core rules and a lot of the indexes feel exceptionally rushed, with a lot of "good ideas" and first drafts just put down and sent to the printers.
Even in situations where stuff has been playtested, GW designers themselves are playing in a very different environment to the majority of players. Giving dozens of units reactive rules sounds like a really good idea on paper, until the reality of how it actually just slows the game down to a crawl hits you in a normal game situation. For a designer playtesting the game at the Nottingham HQ during their 9-5 work day this doesn't really come off as a huge problem in of itself; Wednesday was the day they marked down as a playtest day so they can spend all day just playing a 2k game and seeing how they enjoy it. But for a normal player who only gets one chance to play a game of 40k a week and who has to travel to their LGS to do so, and will likely only have 7:00PM-10:30PM as an actual timeframe to get their game done, those kinds of rules implemented in a bad way is terrible. Not to mention tournament games which are on much stricter timeframes.
Andykp wrote: He is insisting that his opinion is fact, as per. I am well aware of power levels limitations and have never claimed anyone else should use it. It was an adequate army design mechanism for my needs. So yeah, he is wrong in implying I can’t see the down sides to PL and wrong in implying there are downsides that affect everyone equally or at all.
Well to be fair, none of the reasons you provided for liking PL actually require PL as a system. You also seem to misinterpret any arguments against PL as a system as "they're telling me I'm having fun wrong!" and it took multiple genuine prompts of "but why do you like pl?" for you to even provide any reasons for liking PL in the first place. That's where the confusion comes from.
You liked dodging gw's frequent balance patches (and I can totally understand that) and liked the datasheet formatting (also totally valid). None of this requires PL though. You could simply say "I dislike frequent rules updates and value well-formatted datasheets. PL provided that for me due to basically being ignored for years, so I had fun with it.".
This may have been just me, but the 9e method of pricing Reserves based on PL seemed a decent idea - that sort of quick'n'dirty assessment of a unit's average strength seems like it would have been a better fit than regular points for determining how many Command Points it would cost to have said units in position to Outflank/reinforce (and, funnily enough, that felt like a much more meaningful use of Command Points as an alleged abstraction of C&C overhead than, say, smoke launchers).
waefre_1 wrote: This may have been just me, but the 9e method of pricing Reserves based on PL seemed a decent idea - that sort of quick'n'dirty assessment of a unit's average strength seems like it would have been a better fit than regular points for determining how many Command Points it would cost to have said units in position to Outflank/reinforce (and, funnily enough, that felt like a much more meaningful use of Command Points as an alleged abstraction of C&C overhead than, say, smoke launchers).
No, PL should not have any impact on games unless otherwise agreed to. You could just count wounds for these things. If the target of the Stratagem has 1-14 wounds? 1CP. 15+? 2CP.
waefre_1 wrote: This may have been just me, but the 9e method of pricing Reserves based on PL seemed a decent idea - that sort of quick'n'dirty assessment of a unit's average strength seems like it would have been a better fit than regular points for determining how many Command Points it would cost to have said units in position to Outflank/reinforce (and, funnily enough, that felt like a much more meaningful use of Command Points as an alleged abstraction of C&C overhead than, say, smoke launchers).
No, PL should not have any impact on games unless otherwise agreed to. You could just count wounds for these things. If the target of the Stratagem has 1-14 wounds? 1CP. 15+? 2CP.
10 intercessors + character =/= a knight despoiler.
waefre_1 wrote: This may have been just me, but the 9e method of pricing Reserves based on PL seemed a decent idea - that sort of quick'n'dirty assessment of a unit's average strength seems like it would have been a better fit than regular points for determining how many Command Points it would cost to have said units in position to Outflank/reinforce (and, funnily enough, that felt like a much more meaningful use of Command Points as an alleged abstraction of C&C overhead than, say, smoke launchers).
No, PL should not have any impact on games unless otherwise agreed to. You could just count wounds for these things. If the target of the Stratagem has 1-14 wounds? 1CP. 15+? 2CP.
10 intercessors + character =/= a knight despoiler.
Knight Despoilers aren't Space Marines, so the only Stratagems they share are the universal ones and they all cost the same currently if I recall correctly. Stratagems hit different for some units, that's okay, it can be included in the points cost of the unit. A glasscannon is going to get more out of a damage steroid than a tanky unit is and a glasscannon unit is likely to die even with a tank steroid, the only downside of using a steroid on a unit that is already good at something is overkill, a unit becoming so killy or so tanky that it is in excess of what is necessary.
PenitentJake wrote: Interesting to note though that this is the first time they've ever tried it this way, whereas conventional costed equipment has been tried nine times.
I don't know- I started building my plastic sisters tonight because I'm putting together a plastic sisters force to try out the new rules.
Just a little 525 point force- Canoness + BSS and Palatine + Doms + Immolator.
Didn't want to play another edition with classic metal when I have a huge army of Sisters still on sprues.
I just want to point out that this is a perfect and unintentional dunk on pseudo-PL. Jake is building a new force to try out his sisters. He's got some models, it's a pretty reasonable grouping for skirmish level games. How many points is it? *525*. A 525 point force. Sorry dude, but that's not a thing. Maybe you get lucky and you have a group that lets you go 25 points over (which, BTW, is 5% - that's a pretty significant handicap). Or maybe the people you play with also optimize to 525. Again, that's lucky. In the vast majority of cases, people will play 500 points or 600 or 750 points. So what do you do? Basically, you have to drop the palatine or the canoness. Which SUCKS. In a more granular system, you'd have bunches of easy ways to fix this issue.
Anyway, what are you going to do, Jake? I know you're a fan of PL and you seem to be a fan of pseudo-PL as well.
waefre_1 wrote: This may have been just me, but the 9e method of pricing Reserves based on PL seemed a decent idea - that sort of quick'n'dirty assessment of a unit's average strength seems like it would have been a better fit than regular points for determining how many Command Points it would cost to have said units in position to Outflank/reinforce (and, funnily enough, that felt like a much more meaningful use of Command Points as an alleged abstraction of C&C overhead than, say, smoke launchers).
How is it any better than points? It's not like you're changing equipment and point costs during the game and your army list contains a final point cost for each unit. Adding up those costs with PL isn't any meaningfully faster than adding up any other points, at most you're saving a few seconds out of a 2-4 hour game because you have fewer digits to type into a calculator.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: It was an adequate army design mechanism for my needs.
And that right there sums up the pro-PL argument: it was an adequate point system as long as you didn't care about its flaws. It wasn't a better system because it didn't do anything that couldn't be done just as well with the conventional point system. It was completely redundant and should have been dropped but GW's ego wouldn't let them admit their error and move on from it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alextroy wrote: I think part of the reason for these PL Points is that GW is actively discouraging optimizing your list. You can no longer manipulate your unit's value by minimizing upgrades and carefully calibrating the number of models in your unit. You generally get 1-3 choices on how much your unit cost and that is it. Upgrades are free, which is both a blessing and a curse depending on how you chose to approach the game.
That may be what they're trying to do but their actions have the exact opposite effect. In the conventional point system list optimization is less important because in theory every choice comes with an appropriate point cost. You can't gain value by putting sponsons on your LRBT or taking a 7-man squad unless GW makes an error in assigning point costs to those things. But with PL you have all of the same errors in assignment creating balance issues to exploit but then you also have the inherent errors where by design some options are more powerful than others. Suddenly you can add value to your list by taking the correct option. Putting sponsons on your LRBT adds considerable value in the list building phase, taking a 7-man squad subtracts considerable value. List optimization is vital because if you don't identify and take the most powerful choices you're putting yourself at a significant disadvantage.
waefre_1 wrote: This may have been just me, but the 9e method of pricing Reserves based on PL seemed a decent idea - that sort of quick'n'dirty assessment of a unit's average strength seems like it would have been a better fit than regular points for determining how many Command Points it would cost to have said units in position to Outflank/reinforce (and, funnily enough, that felt like a much more meaningful use of Command Points as an alleged abstraction of C&C overhead than, say, smoke launchers).
How is it any better than points? It's not like you're changing equipment and point costs during the game and your army list contains a final point cost for each unit. Adding up those costs with PL isn't any meaningfully faster than adding up any other points, at most you're saving a few seconds out of a 2-4 hour game because you have fewer digits to type into a calculator.
Why would we need the granularity of points for determining the cost of placing something in Reserves? Joe McSergeant having a plasma pistol matters on the level of determining the overall value of the force, but I'm not convinced it matters when determining whether he gets to join the flanking force or not.
to be honest the best way of deciding "what goes into reserve" is to make it a meaningful tactical choice, not an arbitrary limit
e.g. put 25% in reserve, put 50% in reserve, heck put 75% in reserve if you want - but there has to be a cost of doing so
to be honest anything with progressive scoring throughout the game does it nicely, too much in reserve and while yes it may come in on the flanks etc could cripple you early on, especially if you have some area denial mechanic (say, oh "no arriving with 9" of an enemy unit")
at that point you don't really need points or power level, or unit count or whatever - its a tactical choice
waefre_1 wrote: Why would we need the granularity of points for determining the cost of placing something in Reserves? Joe McSergeant having a plasma pistol matters on the level of determining the overall value of the force, but I'm not convinced it matters when determining whether he gets to join the flanking force or not.
Why not use that granularity? You already have a list where it says the squad costs 125 points, including the plasma pistol, so how is adding +125 points any worse than adding +6 points? It's still just adding one number to your reserves total, PL doesn't make things any simpler.
PenitentJake wrote: Interesting to note though that this is the first time they've ever tried it this way, whereas conventional costed equipment has been tried nine times.
I don't know- I started building my plastic sisters tonight because I'm putting together a plastic sisters force to try out the new rules.
Just a little 525 point force- Canoness + BSS and Palatine + Doms + Immolator.
Didn't want to play another edition with classic metal when I have a huge army of Sisters still on sprues.
I just want to point out that this is a perfect and unintentional dunk on pseudo-PL. Jake is building a new force to try out his sisters. He's got some models, it's a pretty reasonable grouping for skirmish level games. How many points is it? *525*. A 525 point force. Sorry dude, but that's not a thing. Maybe you get lucky and you have a group that lets you go 25 points over (which, BTW, is 5% - that's a pretty significant handicap). Or maybe the people you play with also optimize to 525. Again, that's lucky. In the vast majority of cases, people will play 500 points or 600 or 750 points. So what do you do? Basically, you have to drop the palatine or the canoness. Which SUCKS. In a more granular system, you'd have bunches of easy ways to fix this issue.
Anyway, what are you going to do, Jake? I know you're a fan of PL and you seem to be a fan of pseudo-PL as well.
Sort of. Here's the full story:
When I first built the army, models came to 485. At that point, I could have dropped in the Blade of Ellynor to make the extra 15 points. But I didn't... Because I'm a Crusader... A storyteller... And if she wants a Blade of Ellynor, she's going to have to earn it. And it might not turn out to be the Blade of Ellynor- certainly those are the rules it will have, but on the planet of Orison's Wake, a sparsely populated Agriworld, it's more likely to take the form of a power farming scythe which would be known as the Grain Maiden's Reaper. It's an artifact that's coveted by one of Orison's Wake's Death Cults, and if she finds it in battle, they will become part the army's fledgling battle conclave.
But then I had to build the DE army they're fighting against. I wanted an Alliance of Agony, so that's what I added to the list: Archon + 10 Kabalites, Succubus + 10 Wyches, Haemonculus + 5 Wracks = 525. And you can't take anything out- that's the bare minimum for AoA.
At that point though, it became an easy matter to add a 40 point Imagifier to the Sisters list, so everybody wins.
I was totally prepared to play 485 vs. 500 though; the Grain Maiden subplot would have been worth the wait... I even have the models on deck- there's an annual harvest festival where one of the Noblewomen of the Thresher Houses is chosen as a vessel for the spirit of the Grain Maiden; I'll be using one of the Escher Death Maiden models. The festival predates the Age of Apostasy, but when the planet came under the rule of the Ministorum during the Thorian Crusade, rather than execute the Thresher Houses as Heretics, the Order of the Fiery Heart embraced the Grain Maiden and declared her a saint. One of the settlements has a Chapel devoted to the Grain Maiden that was built and continues to be funded by one of the six Thresher Houses (Jendaro).
I still found list construction to be less stressful without costed gear, but I have the benefit of a circle of players who are pretty casual about such things, and I know that not everyone is so lucky- which is why, as I said before, if GW is going to insist on a single system for army building, I think some form of costed equipment- even if vehicles only- is better for the game as a whole despite my personal preference.
PenitentJake wrote: I still found list construction to be less stressful without costed gear
How? You literally just described a scenario where you had to change the game size and re-design your list because of pseudo-PL. The only reason your DE list concept had a minimum of 525 points is because of pseudo-PL. In the conventional point system the units would have had a cheaper base cost (since their expensive equipment costs extra) and you could have built a 500 point list.
waefre_1 wrote: Why would we need the granularity of points for determining the cost of placing something in Reserves? Joe McSergeant having a plasma pistol matters on the level of determining the overall value of the force, but I'm not convinced it matters when determining whether he gets to join the flanking force or not.
Why not use that granularity? You already have a list where it says the squad costs 125 points, including the plasma pistol, so how is adding +125 points any worse than adding +6 points? It's still just adding one number to your reserves total, PL doesn't make things any simpler.
note this is the same logic that saw Battlefront wreak Flames of Wars points system where 1,500 - 2,000 was a normal game, to a system where "100 nupoints" was a game with all the granularity gone
PenitentJake wrote: I still found list construction to be less stressful without costed gear
How? You literally just described a scenario where you had to change the game size and re-design your list because of pseudo-PL. The only reason your DE list concept had a minimum of 525 points is because of pseudo-PL. In the conventional point system the units would have had a cheaper base cost (since their expensive equipment costs extra) and you could have built a 500 point list.
The whole process took less than five minutes. The DE list was literally built by adding the 6 units I needed to field AoA- it required no thought at all. And as I said, I would have been fine with 485 vs 500, but the minimum value for AoA pleasantly allowed me exactly what I needed to field the Imagifier.
The lack of stress from a PL style system came when I was equipping my Doms. Originally, I had wanted 4 meltas, the Simulacrum and the Palatine riding in the Immo for potential Scout/ Alphastrike/ Giant Killer shenanigans. But then I had to think about what to do with the other 5 Doms, and leaving the leader with 4 bolter women didn't sit right with me storywise. So I played around with all the equipment permutations to find the battlefield role for the extra five, and low and behold, the story hook revealed itself to me:
The reason this Superior stands alone is that she is the Mission's Liaison officer to the Ordo Hereticus- making the Condemnor Boltgun a fitting upgrade. Guess how much thought I gave to whether or not I could afford it? That's right... ZERO. Free to tell a story about a character in the making because of the free upgrade that would represent that narrative choice on the field.
I also decided that two Storm Bolters were the best fit to accompany her- the five woman sub-unit of Doms are all essentially Agents of the Inquisition. Guess how much I worried about what to do with the points I got from trading Meltaguns for Storm Bolters? ZERO. Free upgrades don't give you back points when the story demands a sub-optimal load-out
This was easily the longest part of the list building process (other than naming the characters and writing up the army history). But it boggles my mind to think about how much harder it would have been to play around with these story-based choices if equipment costs had been part of the process.
Your point about the base cost of the Alliance of Agony being lower is a good point though- I hadn't previously considered that, and it would have been my preference to stay at 500, or as close as possible. As I said, I continue to believe that costed equipment (at least for vehicles) is better for the game despite my personal preference. Expecting other people to have the same set of priorities when they build their armies as I have when I build mine would be pretty closed minded, wouldn't it?
PenitentJake wrote: The whole process took less than five minutes. The DE list was literally built by adding the 6 units I needed to field AoA- it required no thought at all. And as I said, I would have been fine with 485 vs 500, but the minimum value for AoA pleasantly allowed me exactly what I needed to field the Imagifier.
I didn't say it was a huge problem, it's just amusing that the sole inconvenience in your story explaining the value of PL was caused by PL. Obviously the solution was quick and easy but the solution with conventional points is usually also quick and easy, you're usually only adjusting a small number of upgrades. Compared to the total time to create a list, including figuring out what units you want, coming up with lore for them, etc, the last bit of fine-tuning is pretty trivial.
As for the SoB list, if you're so unconcerned about balance that you're fine with paying for all melta but taking only storm bolters why use PL/pseudo-PL at all? Why not just count units and be done with it? The DE force has three units and three characters, give the SoB three units and three characters and play the game. It seems like that would be an even easier system to use, taking every supposed advantage PL offers and doing it better.
Andykp wrote: He is insisting that his opinion is fact, as per. I am well aware of power levels limitations and have never claimed anyone else should use it. It was an adequate army design mechanism for my needs. So yeah, he is wrong in implying I can’t see the down sides to PL and wrong in implying there are downsides that affect everyone equally or at all.
Well to be fair, none of the reasons you provided for liking PL actually require PL as a system. You also seem to misinterpret any arguments against PL as a system as "they're telling me I'm having fun wrong!" and it took multiple genuine prompts of "but why do you like pl?" for you to even provide any reasons for liking PL in the first place. That's where the confusion comes from.
You liked dodging gw's frequent balance patches (and I can totally understand that) and liked the datasheet formatting (also totally valid). None of this requires PL though. You could simply say "I dislike frequent rules updates and value well-formatted datasheets. PL provided that for me due to basically being ignored for years, so I had fun with it.".
I only ever used power level because it was there and the things I liked. They could have called it what they wanted and done differently as long as it solved the issues I had I would have liked it. What you say at the end of your post is exactly my position put very succinctly. Thank you.
The reason I was reluctant to rehash why I like power levels was the response I knew it would get, because this isn’t my first rodeo here. I have had this discussion many many times on here. And it did get it and power level isn’t even a thing anymore. In the past anyone likening power levels was genuinely accused of ruining the game for everyone else by sucking design time and taking up valuable space on the datasheet with things people didn’t like. We were even accused of lying and making things up, so it’s safe to say I was a bit defensive.
The new points system isn’t power levels, it handles upgrades in the same way and I am fine with that, but it is getting updated all too often for my liking and the way the points are presented it will be tricky to ignore that. So I would say this new system is worse than the old because at least with the last two editions you had a choice of how to cost your armies.
PL was already presented the same way as the conventional point system: a free pdf download with a table of point values for all of your faction's units. The old system of PL on unit datasheets was removed well before the end of 9th.
Hmmm....the biggest takeaway that I'm getting from the thread is that the majority of respondents (not everyone, but the majority), even those that prefer PL, seem to prefer the previous iteration where you had the option to choose your preferred system. Now, there is no option. It's PL whether you like it or not. Definitely a step back IMHO.
As for the SoB list, if you're so unconcerned about balance that you're fine with paying for all melta but taking only storm bolters why use PL/pseudo-PL at all? Why not just count units and be done with it? The DE force has three units and three characters, give the SoB three units and three characters and play the game. It seems like that would be an even easier system to use, taking every supposed advantage PL offers and doing it better.
I have always viewed both points and PL as guidelines, but they are important as the game scales up. In a 525 army, it's easy to just pick units because none of the high cost units are actually viable in such a small game.
It's harder to go unit for unit in a 1k force once tanks, walkers, jetbikes and mass transports become possibilities. That's when the balance guideline, whether points or PL, becomes important. That said, composition does sometimes follow the whims of the story, just like equipment. Asymmetrical missions are common enough.
It's going to be a while before we play- I've got a lot of painting to do, and my track record isn't great- I used all classic metal Sisters throughout 8th and 9th, and I don't want to do it for 10th. I didn't get as many DE painted in 9th as I had planned. So I have to start sisters from scratch, and I'm still trying to finish off DE too.
PenitentJake wrote: It's harder to go unit for unit in a 1k force once tanks, walkers, jetbikes and mass transports become possibilities.
I don't think it's harder at all. Sure, there's clearly a difference between a 150 point marine squad and a 200 point LRBT and counting them both as "one unit" ignores that 33% difference in power but that's no worse than counting a 150 point LRBT with no upgrades and a 200 point LRBT with sponsons/stubber/missile as "200 points". And in the rare cases where you have something beyond that level of imbalance it's very obvious and easy to say "that Baneblade counts as three units". Over an entire army list chosen for narrative reasons, not to exploit the greatest power possible for "one unit", some units will be below "one unit" in strength and some will be above it with the total balance error being no worse than the net imbalance in a PL/pseudo-PL list.
And yeah, you can argue that PL can add separate pricing for vehicles so you fix the LRBT problem but once you've added separate upgrade costs for LRBTs, crisis suits, squads with mass heavy weapons, etc, you've thrown out the simplicity of PL and you might as well play with the conventional point system.
Andykp wrote: He is insisting that his opinion is fact, as per. I am well aware of power levels limitations and have never claimed anyone else should use it. It was an adequate army design mechanism for my needs. So yeah, he is wrong in implying I can’t see the down sides to PL and wrong in implying there are downsides that affect everyone equally or at all.
Well to be fair, none of the reasons you provided for liking PL actually require PL as a system. You also seem to misinterpret any arguments against PL as a system as "they're telling me I'm having fun wrong!" and it took multiple genuine prompts of "but why do you like pl?" for you to even provide any reasons for liking PL in the first place. That's where the confusion comes from.
You liked dodging gw's frequent balance patches (and I can totally understand that) and liked the datasheet formatting (also totally valid). None of this requires PL though. You could simply say "I dislike frequent rules updates and value well-formatted datasheets. PL provided that for me due to basically being ignored for years, so I had fun with it.".
I only ever used power level because it was there and the things I liked. They could have called it what they wanted and done differently as long as it solved the issues I had I would have liked it. What you say at the end of your post is exactly my position put very succinctly. Thank you.
The reason I was reluctant to rehash why I like power levels was the response I knew it would get, because this isn’t my first rodeo here. I have had this discussion many many times on here. And it did get it and power level isn’t even a thing anymore. In the past anyone likening power levels was genuinely accused of ruining the game for everyone else by sucking design time and taking up valuable space on the datasheet with things people didn’t like. We were even accused of lying and making things up, so it’s safe to say I was a bit defensive.
The new points system isn’t power levels, it handles upgrades in the same way and I am fine with that, but it is getting updated all too often for my liking and the way the points are presented it will be tricky to ignore that. So I would say this new system is worse than the old because at least with the last two editions you had a choice of how to cost your armies.
Ah, true, you're getting the frequent updates too now. I didn't even think of that, sorry to hear it.
Thanks for replying, and I can understand being hesitant to get into the PL discussion. These subjects can get pretty heated here :p
NinthMusketeer wrote: As an AoS player who had ton come to terms with this starting 7 years ago... I don't like the changes, but I can tolerate them.
Agree. We Sigmar players see this pts system & go "Eh, ok."
People complaining about the pts system should be gratefull damage isn't done Sigmar style.
well, if the system would be the same as with AoS, I would not see a big problem here
as in AoS for Example there are 5 different units of Dracothian Guard, costing 120/210/20/220/240 points, if this would be the 40k System, there would be just one and the single Fulminator would cost the same 240 points as the unit of 2, same as the Desolators would cost 240 points
and people would say that there is no problem as you can still play that single Fulminator you just pay the 240 points, no problem there, same as you still can play Desolators for 30 points more
the system works much better than having granular points for different weapons and and such a minor differente of 30 points on a unit does not have an impact to the game at all
So no, AoS does not have the same point system as 40k, they might wanted 40k to have the same, but did not made it that way
and this alone is the problem, not the idea behind the point system, but the execution
PS: but this is something general the "defenders" don't get about the complains, same as the local TO praises 10th because the core rules have so many good ideas and when people complain that the execution of those ideas does not work, he just says "wait for the Codex, you cannot judge the ideas on the index"
don't care if the idea is good or not, but only of the execution is or not
Andykp wrote: He is insisting that his opinion is fact, as per. I am well aware of power levels limitations and have never claimed anyone else should use it. It was an adequate army design mechanism for my needs. So yeah, he is wrong in implying I can’t see the down sides to PL and wrong in implying there are downsides that affect everyone equally or at all.
Well to be fair, none of the reasons you provided for liking PL actually require PL as a system. You also seem to misinterpret any arguments against PL as a system as "they're telling me I'm having fun wrong!" and it took multiple genuine prompts of "but why do you like pl?" for you to even provide any reasons for liking PL in the first place. That's where the confusion comes from.
You liked dodging gw's frequent balance patches (and I can totally understand that) and liked the datasheet formatting (also totally valid). None of this requires PL though. You could simply say "I dislike frequent rules updates and value well-formatted datasheets. PL provided that for me due to basically being ignored for years, so I had fun with it.".
I only ever used power level because it was there and the things I liked. They could have called it what they wanted and done differently as long as it solved the issues I had I would have liked it. What you say at the end of your post is exactly my position put very succinctly. Thank you.
The reason I was reluctant to rehash why I like power levels was the response I knew it would get, because this isn’t my first rodeo here. I have had this discussion many many times on here. And it did get it and power level isn’t even a thing anymore. In the past anyone likening power levels was genuinely accused of ruining the game for everyone else by sucking design time and taking up valuable space on the datasheet with things people didn’t like. We were even accused of lying and making things up, so it’s safe to say I was a bit defensive.
The new points system isn’t power levels, it handles upgrades in the same way and I am fine with that, but it is getting updated all too often for my liking and the way the points are presented it will be tricky to ignore that. So I would say this new system is worse than the old because at least with the last two editions you had a choice of how to cost your armies.
Ah, true, you're getting the frequent updates too now. I didn't even think of that, sorry to hear it.
Thanks for replying, and I can understand being hesitant to get into the PL discussion. These subjects can get pretty heated here :p
This is something that the very vocal anti PL tribe don’t get as well, I am not married to power levels, it wasn’t a make or break thing, it was a convenient option at the time. Before them I used points for all 7 editions, with the new points it’s seems time to bite the bullet and use an app, the GW one seems ok but, but it’s free now so we will see what happens after it’s not.
Everything has to be a fight at all times with this. You can't just say "I liked power/like the new points because it's less effort on my part" and have that be that.
You have to justify yourself in a million ways and have insults chucked at you as if you've personally ruined 40k because people can't accept that alone is a valid position.
I used power for 8th/9th because it was way easier than going through a huge list of points and a pile of models figuring out exactly how much every cost. I could just put my stuff on a table and play a game.
I don't think it's perfect or the bee's knees and I more often play HH which has a granular points system. But when I've been at work from 9-5 with an hour of travel time each way, picking up a box of models and using a really simple points system that takes a few minutes of adding is better than sitting and crafting a list where everything has to be picked individually. When I've got more time it's not an issue but 40k is my go-to for a quick bit of fun after work and the new points system works absolutely fine for that purpose.
no none is saying that power level cannot work if done right
just that GW failed to do it right and therefore we are having no improvement from the great reset and if GW does not want to do it properly, points are the better option
NinthMusketeer wrote: As an AoS player who had ton come to terms with this starting 7 years ago... I don't like the changes, but I can tolerate them.
Agree. We Sigmar players see this pts system & go "Eh, ok."
People complaining about the pts system should be gratefull damage isn't done Sigmar style.
well, if the system would be the same as with AoS, I would not see a big problem here
as in AoS for Example there are 5 different units of Dracothian Guard, costing 120/210/20/220/240 points, if this would be the 40k System, there would be just one and the single Fulminator would cost the same 240 points as the unit of 2, same as the Desolators would cost 240 points
and people would say that there is no problem as you can still play that single Fulminator you just pay the 240 points, no problem there, same as you still can play Desolators for 30 points more
the system works much better than having granular points for different weapons and and such a minor differente of 30 points on a unit does not have an impact to the game at all
So no, AoS does not have the same point system as 40k, they might wanted 40k to have the same, but did not made it that way
and this alone is the problem, not the idea behind the point system, but the execution
How you buy character enhancements not qithstanding, the pts system is exactly like AoS.
Buy units in blocks of x models for a set total of y pts.
Those Dracolinth units you claim would all become 1 unit? Maybe, maybe not.
Afterall, SM have multiple listings for variations made out of the same box - Predators & Storm Speeders to name 2 examples.
And my Necrons? I can buy units of Lokust Destroyers in #s of 1, 2, 3, OR 6.
in AoS there are not upgrades for free, units have sometimes sidegrades but if the weapons are too different to be same point costs, those became new units
claiming that it is the same in 40k you have you either not looked into AoS or 40k because those are not the same
and just because both having a similar name does not make them the same
so until we get our 21 Leman Russ Datacards, it is not the same as Age of Sigmar
The argument isn't 'do you subjectively like PL or points more?' it's ' which of PL or points is objectively the better system?'
kodos wrote: no none is saying that power level cannot work if done right
just that GW failed to do it right and therefore we are having no improvement from the great reset and if GW does not want to do it properly, points are the better option
Multiple instances in this thread have shown you both to be incorrect but I'm not going to go back and pick out quotes from this thread because IMO that solves nothing and just ups the aggro.
That being said it is very much a trend that when people say "I like power/less granular points because it's simpler", the other side claims those people have helped ruin 40k and blame everyone else for making GW change from a granular points system for 40k to the fixed system. "It's the fault of Facebook dads" is my favorite one because it's so ludicrously nonsensical.
People aren't allowed to like power and if they do their reasons aren't considered valid or are picked apart line by line while the majority of their point is ignored, including parts where those who do like power agree that a granular system can work better. The pro-granular side also claims they are "objectively" right all the time.
Hardly what I'd call "not taking issue".
I have said it since the very beginning in this topic that the problem is that GW did not split up the units into different loadouts and therefore the system does not work
also giving examples, like Landspeeders, that GW did this for Marines but failed to do it for others
and in a world were a 5 point difference between an Assault Cannon and a Rocket Launcher in a Landspeeder is important enough to make them 2 different units, the argument not doing granular points fails, is GW is using them very granular
if we are talking about points or PL it is always about those used for the current rules in 40k, and not something "in general" and all the problems are with the current version of 40k, and not in general
because all those things work fine in other games, just not in 40k because somehow GW forgot to split up the units and thought people either won't notice or there will be enough white knights out there defending them as the perfect system because GW never makes mistakes
a 5 point difference for a Landspeeder is important enough to have its own datacard, but a 60 point difference for a Wraithknight is not, the system is objectively bad
or is this a subjective optionen why there cannot be a melee Wraithknight that is cheaper than the double gun Wraithknight while a Landspeeder must have its own unit because 5 points make a difference
if this is the perfect and much more simple system, than fething merge all those fething Marine Captains into a single unit
because there is no reason those are all on its own with their own rules and points if that system is supposed to be simpler
kodos wrote: if this is the perfect and much more simple system
You've literally just proved my point because nobody at any point has said the current or even power system was perfect.
Everything is always absolutes and collectively the anti-fixed number side of the discussion seems incapable of seeing it any other way.
kodos wrote: if this is the perfect and much more simple system
You've literally just proved my point because nobody at any point has said the current or even power system was perfect.
Everything is always absolutes and collectively the anti-fixed number side of the discussion seems incapable of seeing it any other way.
Be fair, I've been accused of straddling the fence because I'm not a "true believer", or some such comments.
so your point is that the current system is flawed
good, so we are all agreeing now that
question is now how to solve that until GW comes with a solution in 11th (as fixes will come with the Codex and not for the Index)
either by splitting units up, which is difficult if not done by GW or having those units with upgrades points, and a community point system can be done
kodos wrote: so your point is that the current system is flawed
No, my point is currently that if you prefer the new system or power in 8th/9th you get vilified for it and told you are ruining the game/playing the game wrong. You placed the idea that the system is perfect onto my side of the discussion, an idea that nobody on this side of the discussion has actually supported or claimed is true. You're misrepresenting what has been said and using it to claim that your position is the correct one.
kodos wrote: so your point is that the current system is flawed
No, my point is currently that if you prefer the new system or power in 8th/9th you get vilified for it and told you are ruining the game/playing the game wrong. You placed the idea that the system is perfect onto my side of the discussion, an idea that nobody on this side of the discussion has actually supported or claimed is true. You're misrepresenting what has been said and using it to claim that your position is the correct one.
Why is the opinion that the current system is flawed and needs to be fixed controversial, then?
I think the folks who are being told they are ruining the game are the ones who say it doesn't need fixing, not the ones who say it does.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Why is the opinion that the current system is flawed and needs to be fixed controversial, then?
It might be your opinion and it might be the opinions of many on Dakka but it isn't my opinion.
I think the folks who are being told they are ruining the game are the ones who say it doesn't need fixing, not the ones who say it does.
Cool, that's me. Please explain how I and my small group have ruined 40k by not playing it in any significant capacity since 8th launched with only two of us playing bits of 8th and the start of 9th before almost exclusively playing Horus Heresy? Really I want to know how our liking the way the points are done for 10th has utterly destroyed the game while having absolutely no input on how the game is designed.
This is rhetorical BTW, I really don't want any sort of reply to this question because it's just going to make me more disappointed.
The new system works for me because, unlike previous years, I am now working in a job with much greater time constraints. My two days off are now very specific and my hours are also unchanging, unlike before where I rarely if ever worked the same shift patterns which gave me a far more flexible schedule to work with. The system for 40k allows me to get more than a game in a month because I can just pick up whatever stuff is in a given box/case and go play without spending ages writing a list making sure everything is WYSIWYG.
In terms of balance, I've yet to play an edition of 40k or even HH where points have significantly changed the balance of a unit or army build. Unit, army, or game rules changes fix that better than any points changes ever will. Riptides dominated because the rules were good not because they were dirt cheap. Scatterbikes were broken because the rules were good not because they were of good points value
Instead of having to look at every single wargear option and balance all the points, it would be my hope that the 40k rules team can focus on making real changes to problems like Fate Dice or Deathguard/Admech.
Gert wrote: The system for 40k allows me to get more than a game in a month because I can just pick up whatever stuff is in a given box/case and go play without spending ages writing a list making sure everything is WYSIWYG.
In terms of balance, I've yet to play an edition of 40k or even HH where points have significantly changed the balance of a unit or army build. Unit, army, or game rules changes fix that better than any points changes ever will. Riptides dominated because the rules were good not because they were dirt cheap. Scatterbikes were broken because the rules were good not because they were of good points value.
Figure of speech, I know, but... it really does not take that much longer wether you use points or PL to create an army list. You still have to note down every upgrade each unit has, especially if you don't go with WYSIWYG. Which itself is not connected to PL or points and adhering or ignoring it works just the same way in both systems.
If you are unbothered by the perceived value differences from units under PL, I don't believe you would have a problem playing a 1900pts vs 2200pts game under points. As in "my buddy an I just drew together some quick lists without calculating every single unit to the last point" type of game. After all, unless both players bring the absolute maximum of upgrades for every unit AND picking the most expensive ones, that is what it actually boils down to behind the curtain. And then... I don't understand the advantage of quicker list writing either.
Saying that points don't help to balance things is not based in reality. If a scatterbike with an upgraded gun would have costed 200 points each, nobody would have bothered. 200 is the extreme to drive home the point. There exists a value where a unit is neither auto include nor auto exclude.
The new system works for me because, unlike previous years, I am now working in a job with much greater time constraints.
Quite frankly if you can't add together a list without PL in half an hour, maybe 40k isn't the game for you, or maybe you can do that gak GW is pushing with their combat patrols and everything having a fixed loadout LOL
The first reply makes up extreme hypotheticals to make my position seem unreasonable and the second is just flat-out an attack on my person.
Man, I couldn't pick better examples of my point being right if I tried.
Gert wrote: The first reply makes up extreme hypotheticals to make my position seem unreasonable and the second is just flat-out an attack on my person.
Man, I couldn't pick better examples of my point being right if I tried.
It's not an attack on your person, it's just saying 40k isn't the game for you. Just because some of you don't want to do a little more math doesn't mean we should have a gak system in place.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also your Riptide example is flat out wrong and not based in reality. Was the Ion Accelerator better than the other guns for an obnoxious 5 points in 7th, yes or no?
The new system works for me because, unlike previous years, I am now working in a job with much greater time constraints.
Quite frankly if you can't add together a list without PL in half an hour, maybe 40k isn't the game for you, or maybe you can do that gak GW is pushing with their combat patrols and everything having a fixed loadout LOL
Combat patrol so far has been a decent enough time from the games I've had. Easily get in a couple of quick fire games and it's actually fairly balanced seemingly (although not seen that many armies yet). Or am I reading too much into it by suggesting you disapprove of it as a game mode?
It really isn't very hard to figure out how praising PL and hating on pts online could have an effect on GW's developers. You could have always just paid for the most expensive options and picked up whatever was at hand without spending the points leftover after downgrading. Now we are all forced to not get any rebates after downgrading, to most that's a gak deal.
In terms of balance, I've yet to play an edition of 40k or even HH where points have significantly changed the balance of a unit or army build.
Stop saying things you know to be untrue. Armies that became 10% more expensive fell off. When Fire Raptors in 8th got a major drop they became amazing, when they added back all the pts that were removed they became bad again. Why are you being such a tricksy devil?
Gert wrote: The first reply makes up extreme hypotheticals to make my position seem unreasonable...
1. Please sit down and make two lists. One with PL and one with points. I'm really curious how much longer it takes. Since time is a factor for you, I would like to see a number to know what we are talking about here. 2. 50 PL vs 50 PL does not equal the value of 2000pts vs 2000pts. Depending on the upgrades taken or not taken, it might very well skew in both directions where one player actually plays below 2000 und another one above it. If the fluctuation under PL is not a problem, why do you feel the need to spend significantly(?) more time to create a list with points? Why is "roughly 2000 points" less viable than 50 PL?
Gert wrote: Please explain how I and my small group have ruined 40k by not playing it in any significant capacity since 8th launched with only two of us playing bits of 8th and the start of 9th before almost exclusively playing Horus Heresy?
Your private games/non-games haven't ruined anything but silently liking PL isn't all you are doing. You, and many other people, defend PL in disputes like this and give GW ammunition for their confirmation bias in believing that PL is working fine, opposition to PL is just a vocal minority of TFGs, and the silent majority agrees with them in wanting PL to be the only system.
The new system works for me because, unlike previous years, I am now working in a job with much greater time constraints. My two days off are now very specific and my hours are also unchanging, unlike before where I rarely if ever worked the same shift patterns which gave me a far more flexible schedule to work with. The system for 40k allows me to get more than a game in a month because I can just pick up whatever stuff is in a given box/case and go play without spending ages writing a list making sure everything is WYSIWYG.
This is a perfect example of what we find so frustrating with PL advocates. You've made up a scenario to justify PL but it doesn't actually support PL. The vast majority of time involved in list building, regardless of which system you use, is figuring out what units you want for your strategy and what you want them equipped with. Adding up the points for everything is a very small minority of the time required, especially if like most people you're using Battlescribe or the official app and the list builder does all the math for you. I've even timed it just to make sure I'm not missing something and the total time savings by using PL to write a 2000 point/50 point list (by hand, no list builder used) was IIRC under a minute, maybe two minutes at most. It's a negligible time savings on a 2-4 hour 40k game.
And PL doesn't allow you to just pick up whatever random stuff is in a box because there's no guarantee that a random box of models will form a 50 point list, or even form legal units for a list. You still have to write your list, find and pack up appropriate models, etc. It's only "grab a box and go" if you do the planning work up front so on game day you have your standard 50 point army loaded in the right boxes every time. And if you're doing that you can do the same thing with your standard 2000 point army.
In terms of balance, I've yet to play an edition of 40k or even HH where points have significantly changed the balance of a unit or army build.
Only because, as you say, you have played very little of the editions where GW makes point changes. Obviously point changes didn't make a difference in 7th because once you got a codex those points never changed. But since GW has started making changes there have been lots of balance changes as a result of point changes. Just to give one of the more dramatic examples the day one errata for squats changed the army from "oh god nothing can beat this WTF was GW thinking" to "probably the best army in the game" using point adjustments across most of the codex.
Gert wrote: Please explain how I and my small group have ruined 40k by not playing it in any significant capacity since 8th launched with only two of us playing bits of 8th and the start of 9th before almost exclusively playing Horus Heresy?
Your private games/non-games haven't ruined anything but silently liking PL isn't all you are doing. You, and many other people, defend PL in disputes like this and give GW ammunition for their confirmation bias in believing that PL is working fine, opposition to PL is just a vocal minority of TFGs, and the silent majority agrees with them in wanting PL to be the only system.
In fairness Dakka and Reddit aren't the majority of GW consumers, we have no idea what the silent majority thinks.
While I believe that upgrade points and points in general is better for a balanced game (especially if one of the players has a limited collection which includes a lot of suboptimal builds), but I do like how quick it is to build a list with the new system. It’s totally fine for casual games where you really don’t care if your 15 or so points short.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: Your private games/non-games haven't ruined anything but silently liking PL isn't all you are doing. You, and many other people, defend PL in disputes like this and give GW ammunition for their confirmation bias in believing that PL is working fine, opposition to PL is just a vocal minority of TFGs, and the silent majority agrees with them in wanting PL to be the only system.
This is the last thing I'm going to say here. The GW rules writers do not care a tinkers fig about the opinions found on Dakka, Reddit, Bolter and Chainsword, or any other forum/discussion website. At best someone on the rules team might skim Reddit looking for memes but they know better than anyone that the opinions found online are not only often a minority but also heavily weighted to the extremes.
The rules team takes notice if loads of emails get sent to whatever inbox there is at GW headquarters. That's it. If you want someone to fight and have a go at, take it to the GW email system.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: Your private games/non-games haven't ruined anything but silently liking PL isn't all you are doing. You, and many other people, defend PL in disputes like this and give GW ammunition for their confirmation bias in believing that PL is working fine, opposition to PL is just a vocal minority of TFGs, and the silent majority agrees with them in wanting PL to be the only system.
This is the last thing I'm going to say here. The GW rules writers do not care a tinkers fig about the opinions found on Dakka, Reddit, Bolter and Chainsword, or any other forum/discussion website.
That's a big claim. Any proof?
Or is this a "Screw you guys, your opinions don't matter anyways?"
ThePaintingOwl wrote: Your private games/non-games haven't ruined anything but silently liking PL isn't all you are doing. You, and many other people, defend PL in disputes like this and give GW ammunition for their confirmation bias in believing that PL is working fine, opposition to PL is just a vocal minority of TFGs, and the silent majority agrees with them in wanting PL to be the only system.
This is the last thing I'm going to say here. The GW rules writers do not care a tinkers fig about the opinions found on Dakka, Reddit, Bolter and Chainsword, or any other forum/discussion website.
That's a big claim. Any proof?
Considering that the majority of voices here fell into one of two camps, the first being "Feth PL!" and the other being "I don't use PL, but I don't care if it exists," if they were listening to Dakka, they wouldn't've done what they did.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: Your private games/non-games haven't ruined anything but silently liking PL isn't all you are doing. You, and many other people, defend PL in disputes like this and give GW ammunition for their confirmation bias in believing that PL is working fine, opposition to PL is just a vocal minority of TFGs, and the silent majority agrees with them in wanting PL to be the only system.
This is the last thing I'm going to say here. The GW rules writers do not care a tinkers fig about the opinions found on Dakka, Reddit, Bolter and Chainsword, or any other forum/discussion website.
That's a big claim. Any proof?
Or is this a "Screw you guys, your opinions don't matter anyways?"
Dakka spent the last 6 years claiming PL was a waste of space, the writers should be embarrassed and ashamed of themselves for having written it etc. Etc. Just as nearly every topic ends up being some form of "GW stupid, do XYZ instead", ranging from constructive to pure cess pit toxicity. They haven't magically started adopting things off here and often do the contrary to what the vocal minority of dakka wish.
I can't comment for other places but I'd wager they're more receptive to some sources than others. B&C is better moderated so might appeal to them, likewise the main subs on reddit often hold good analytical talk and content. So maybe those get a look in, but they also contain members of various pro groups and GW partners like goonhammer, so they have a finger in those pies anyway.
Gert wrote: This is the last thing I'm going to say here. The GW rules writers do not care a tinkers fig about the opinions found on Dakka, Reddit, Bolter and Chainsword, or any other forum/discussion website. At best someone on the rules team might skim Reddit looking for memes but they know better than anyone that the opinions found online are not only often a minority but also heavily weighted to the extremes.
The rules team takes notice if loads of emails get sent to whatever inbox there is at GW headquarters. That's it. If you want someone to fight and have a go at, take it to the GW email system.
So you say.
And it doesn't matter if they know online opinions are skewed because I doubt they're looking for honest feedback. The guy who wrote a whole WD article about how points based armies straight from a codex are bad and STOP HAVING FUN THE WRONG WAY isn't honestly evaluating the merits of different point systems, he's looking for confirmation of his existing biases. It's very obvious that from day one PL was supposed to be the only system, with the conventional point system being marginalized and then removed as soon as they could justify it.
Also, remember this post you made very recently?
Gert wrote: People aren't allowed to like power and if they do their reasons aren't considered valid or are picked apart line by line while the majority of their point is ignored, including parts where those who do like power agree that a granular system can work better. The pro-granular side also claims they are "objectively" right all the time.
It's pretty disappointing that you complain about opponents of PL ignoring the majority of a point but then focus on one minor part of my post, ignore the most important parts about how PL does not offer any meaningful time savings, and then declare that you're done with the discussion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Considering that the majority of voices here fell into one of two camps, the first being "Feth PL!" and the other being "I don't use PL, but I don't care if it exists," if they were listening to Dakka, they wouldn't've done what they did.
Assuming they were reading in good faith. I think it's more likely, given their previous statements about points and competitive play, that they were not reading in good faith. "I hate PL" was dismissed as an angry minority of TFGs, "PL is great" was taken as a sign they're doing the right thing and supporting the True 40k Players against the competitive WAACTFGs.
bullyboy wrote: While I believe that upgrade points and points in general is better for a balanced game (especially if one of the players has a limited collection which includes a lot of suboptimal builds), but I do like how quick it is to build a list with the new system. It’s totally fine for casual games where you really don’t care if your 15 or so points short.
Except that sometimes you're not 15 points short. Sometimes you're 45 points short, or 55 points short, or 60, and have nothing to spend it on.
Building lists in this new system isn't quick, it's tedious, because it's a jigsaw puzzle with parts that don't fit right, and all the edges are sharp.
Assuming they were reading in good faith. I think it's more likely, given their previous statements about points and competitive play, that they were not reading in good faith. "I hate PL" was dismissed as an angry minority of TFGs, "PL is great" was taken as a sign they're doing the right thing and supporting the True 40k Players against the competitive WAACTFGs.
You mean during the "totally not ITC tournament esports edition"?
ThePaintingOwl wrote: Your private games/non-games haven't ruined anything but silently liking PL isn't all you are doing. You, and many other people, defend PL in disputes like this and give GW ammunition for their confirmation bias in believing that PL is working fine, opposition to PL is just a vocal minority of TFGs, and the silent majority agrees with them in wanting PL to be the only system.
This is the last thing I'm going to say here. The GW rules writers do not care a tinkers fig about the opinions found on Dakka, Reddit, Bolter and Chainsword, or any other forum/discussion website.
That's a big claim. Any proof?
Or is this a "Screw you guys, your opinions don't matter anyways?"
Dakka spent the last 6 years claiming PL was a waste of space, the writers should be embarrassed and ashamed of themselves for having written it
And they should've, but Cruddace gonna Cruddace and he should've been fired YEARS ago
Dudeface wrote: You mean during the "totally not ITC tournament esports edition"?
Modern 40k is not anywhere near what an e-sport needs or wants. Doing bare-minimum balance updates only feels like pandering to the e-sport crowd because GW used to fall short of even what a decent casual/narrative game needs and the mechanics are still shallow and bloated. The streamlining seems driven more by the marketing department replacing "sand box" design with "theme park" design tied strictly to box sales, PL is Jervis Johnson's ideal point system, and 10th's pseudo-PL is a blatant table flip over the community not embracing PL.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: Your private games/non-games haven't ruined anything but silently liking PL isn't all you are doing. You, and many other people, defend PL in disputes like this and give GW ammunition for their confirmation bias in believing that PL is working fine, opposition to PL is just a vocal minority of TFGs, and the silent majority agrees with them in wanting PL to be the only system.
This is the last thing I'm going to say here. The GW rules writers do not care a tinkers fig about the opinions found on Dakka, Reddit, Bolter and Chainsword, or any other forum/discussion website.
That's a big claim. Any proof?
Or is this a "Screw you guys, your opinions don't matter anyways?"
Dakka spent the last 6 years claiming PL was a waste of space, the writers should be embarrassed and ashamed of themselves for having written it etc. Etc. Just as nearly every topic ends up being some form of "GW stupid, do XYZ instead", ranging from constructive to pure cess pit toxicity. They haven't magically started adopting things off here and often do the contrary to what the vocal minority of dakka wish.
I can't comment for other places but I'd wager they're more receptive to some sources than others. B&C is better moderated so might appeal to them, likewise the main subs on reddit often hold good analytical talk and content. So maybe those get a look in, but they also contain members of various pro groups and GW partners like goonhammer, so they have a finger in those pies anyway.
As you say, dakka is only a small piece of of online discussion. It would be ridiculous to suggest that GW only listens to dakka. But to claim that GW "doesn't care a fig" about the greater collection of online discussion spaces . . . Well that's a pretty big (and baseless) claim.
Of course they care. They of course won't take action on every little thing, and of course they'll read in with their own biases, etc. They may often act as if they don't care. But if they're any business worth their salt they'll care at leads some. And since we've seen GW occasionally react (and overreact) to community uproar, we know they're paying at least some attention.
the biggest sign that GW do listen is that when the blew up warhammer for the pointless AoS and it got a not exactly amazing reaction until they put a point system in was that 40k didn't get the same treatment in 8th, which apparently was the initial plan and that its taken them until now to even try it
Also, GW not caring about what people online think is not a defence of either GW or their approach to game design, but rather a condemnation of it.
And it wasn't always that way, nor does it have to be. I have a print out of the official gw errata/faq for the 6th edition Dark Elf army book, written by Gav Thorpe, which thanks the community at Druchii.net for their input.
All this debating about PL and Granular Points is nice, but I think we have a pretty good roadmap on what to expect for the next 9-12 months:
warhammer-40000-metawatch-storming-into-10th-edition wrote:These are updates made for balance purposes – to keep the game fun for all – and we plan to revisit rules in this way with quarterly points updates, and rules updates every six months.
We’re also expecting a wider errata for all the new game content later in July. With 1,000 or more units and hundreds of pages of brand-new rules across 24 factions now in the wild, and thousands of games already played globally, a few more odd typos and niche interactions have been spotted, and we’d like to get them cleared up.
So I expect the following:
July: Datasheet Errata with possible MFM updates to address only points for units with errata. There will be no wargear points.
Autumn: New MFM with no wargear points.
Winter: Balance Dataslate that attempts to address the big issues, like a second stab at Towering and Indirect Fire. Possible new datasheets for some units to divide the problematic wargear from the other wargear (Wraithknight with Heavy Wraithcannon) along with New MFM with no wargear points .
Spring: Yet another new MFM with no wargear points, because GW isn't giving up on it that fast.
Summer: Balance Dataslate. In this MFM GW may finally give up the fight and provide wargear points... for the broken options only. No per model points nor will most wargear or even units have wargear points.
bullyboy wrote: While I believe that upgrade points and points in general is better for a balanced game (especially if one of the players has a limited collection which includes a lot of suboptimal builds), but I do like how quick it is to build a list with the new system. It’s totally fine for casual games where you really don’t care if your 15 or so points short.
Except that sometimes you're not 15 points short. Sometimes you're 45 points short, or 55 points short, or 60, and have nothing to spend it on.
Building lists in this new system isn't quick, it's tedious, because it's a jigsaw puzzle with parts that don't fit right, and all the edges are sharp.
I think that depends on your collection. I have yet to be more than 10pts off as I can usually add enhancements if I’ve already taken the units I want. I can imagine it harder for a player with limited model choice, however.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: Your private games/non-games haven't ruined anything but silently liking PL isn't all you are doing. You, and many other people, defend PL in disputes like this and give GW ammunition for their confirmation bias in believing that PL is working fine, opposition to PL is just a vocal minority of TFGs, and the silent majority agrees with them in wanting PL to be the only system.
This is the last thing I'm going to say here. The GW rules writers do not care a tinkers fig about the opinions found on Dakka, Reddit, Bolter and Chainsword, or any other forum/discussion website.
That's a big claim. Any proof?
Considering that the majority of voices here fell into one of two camps, the first being "Feth PL!" and the other being "I don't use PL, but I don't care if it exists," if they were listening to Dakka, they wouldn't've done what they did.
I'd guess they care about SOME of the opinions on Dakka - but not many. Usually when the opinions here are about a glaring objective flaw like the Deathwatch-Mortal Wound interaction but not a subjective design choice.
JNAProductions wrote: Flawed means broken.
Flawless means perfect.
There’s a mid ground between the two-not perfect, but not broken. Acceptable.
Correct, but surely someone who says "it's acceptable" won't resist someone who says "it could be improved" unless they believe it is literally impossible to improve it without ruining it...
(And believing something can't be further improved is believing it is perfect, no?)
I mean he is basically saying "*I and others enjoy it how it is, ergo, it is fine*" and then when other people point out that it could be improved by returning to points, he dodges with "I didn't say it was perfect!" which... yeah technically "it's fine" isn't the same as "it's literally perfect" but the argument is disingenuous.
JNAProductions wrote: Flawed means broken.
Flawless means perfect.
There’s a mid ground between the two-not perfect, but not broken. Acceptable.
Correct, but surely someone who says "it's acceptable" won't resist someone who says "it could be improved" unless they believe it is literally impossible to improve it without ruining it...
(And believing something can't be further improved is believing it is perfect, no?)
I mean he is basically saying "*I and others enjoy it how it is, ergo, it is fine*" and then when other people point out that it could be improved by returning to points, he dodges with "I didn't say it was perfect!" which... yeah technically "it's fine" isn't the same as "it's literally perfect" but the argument is disingenuous.
Rather than spin some weird analogy, surely "I accept it's not perfect but I prefer this way and you suggestion makes it worse for me" isn't that hard to understand?
JNAProductions wrote: Flawed means broken.
Flawless means perfect.
There’s a mid ground between the two-not perfect, but not broken. Acceptable.
Correct, but surely someone who says "it's acceptable" won't resist someone who says "it could be improved" unless they believe it is literally impossible to improve it without ruining it...
(And believing something can't be further improved is believing it is perfect, no?)
I mean he is basically saying "*I and others enjoy it how it is, ergo, it is fine*" and then when other people point out that it could be improved by returning to points, he dodges with "I didn't say it was perfect!" which... yeah technically "it's fine" isn't the same as "it's literally perfect" but the argument is disingenuous.
JNAProductions wrote: Flawed means broken.
Flawless means perfect.
There’s a mid ground between the two-not perfect, but not broken. Acceptable.
Correct, but surely someone who says "it's acceptable" won't resist someone who says "it could be improved" unless they believe it is literally impossible to improve it without ruining it...
(And believing something can't be further improved is believing it is perfect, no?)
I mean he is basically saying "*I and others enjoy it how it is, ergo, it is fine*" and then when other people point out that it could be improved by returning to points, he dodges with "I didn't say it was perfect!" which... yeah technically "it's fine" isn't the same as "it's literally perfect" but the argument is disingenuous.
Rather than spin some weird analogy, surely "I accept it's not perfect but I prefer this way and you suggestion makes it worse for me" isn't that hard to understand?
I think there is a reasonable-to-hold position basically saying 'It's not perfect, it could be improved, but under real conditions messing with it any further would probabyl create at least as many problems as it would fix, so better leave it as it is at the moment and gather some more data before we procede' - not quite the adage 'never touch a running system', but close to it. Changing stuff all the time has a negative impact on its own, and sometimes letting something improvable, but not glaringly broken be for the time can be the right move. You only need to look at how they messed up the Wraithknight or Imperial Guard Field Batteries for unintended consequences of a 'hotfix'. We know they have errata in the pipeline, and some problems could only be fixed with a sweeping redesign of e.g. the wargear system, so maybe waiting a bit is not the worst one could do.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: Your private games/non-games haven't ruined anything but silently liking PL isn't all you are doing. You, and many other people, defend PL in disputes like this and give GW ammunition for their confirmation bias in believing that PL is working fine, opposition to PL is just a vocal minority of TFGs, and the silent majority agrees with them in wanting PL to be the only system.
This is the last thing I'm going to say here. The GW rules writers do not care a tinkers fig about the opinions found on Dakka, Reddit, Bolter and Chainsword, or any other forum/discussion website.
That's a big claim. Any proof?
Or is this a "Screw you guys, your opinions don't matter anyways?"
I might have posted this link before ITT, but that above is the only datapoint we have that shows the size of the online community and it is a decade old. TL;DR, everyone saying the online community is a mere blip is talking out their backsides, and that spurious claim only gets less and less with each passing year.
JNAProductions wrote: Flawed means broken.
Flawless means perfect.
There’s a mid ground between the two-not perfect, but not broken. Acceptable.
Correct, but surely someone who says "it's acceptable" won't resist someone who says "it could be improved" unless they believe it is literally impossible to improve it without ruining it...
(And believing something can't be further improved is believing it is perfect, no?)
I mean he is basically saying "*I and others enjoy it how it is, ergo, it is fine*" and then when other people point out that it could be improved by returning to points, he dodges with "I didn't say it was perfect!" which... yeah technically "it's fine" isn't the same as "it's literally perfect" but the argument is disingenuous.
Rather than spin some weird analogy, surely "I accept it's not perfect but I prefer this way and you suggestion makes it worse for me" isn't that hard to understand?
and at that point one could point to the 3:1 ratio and accept that one has a firmly established minority position and realise that the majority has not to live by the rules of the minority.
JNAProductions wrote: Flawed means broken.
Flawless means perfect.
There’s a mid ground between the two-not perfect, but not broken. Acceptable.
And PL/the current system is completely flawed. It doesn't FALL in that middle.
It's more flawed than not but it does fall in there. Things do have a form of points value, there is some measure of attempted balance going on.
There are also numerous ways of getting away from their current corner and not all of them require direct wagear costs. As such one solution (adding granular item costs) back in, might not please someone who likes the idea of parity in choices enabling them to be free, or someone else who prefer less options to restrict variables.
The two ends of the spectrum are a totally balanced game where no matter what you bring it gives good odds of a fair competition, which as you'll note doesn't mention points anywhere. The other end of the spectrum is Sigmar on launch of "bring some minis, yell some stupid gak and roll dice because who cares".
The current option is definitely somewhere in between.
and at that point one could point to the 3:1 ratio and accept that one has a firmly established minority position and realise that the majority has not to live by the rules of the minority.
Majority of dakka, which may or may not be representative.
But in a true democracy, yes options for both are wise at the very least.
Dudeface wrote: But in a true democracy, yes options for both are wise at the very least.
Then where do you draw the line? How many different point systems should the game have? We could have classic PL, the current pseudo-PL, the traditional point system, each unit's point cost being its total wounds value, list building by "take 15 units each", etc. We could even break it down even further, with each system having a static version and one that is updated every quarter. Total chaos but every opinion is valued and included!
Or we could acknowledge that PL is a badly designed system with inherent systemic errors that offers negligible value in return for its flaws, dump the redundant system entirely, and unify the game around the traditional point system.
and at that point one could point to the 3:1 ratio and accept that one has a firmly established minority position and realise that the majority has not to live by the rules of the minority.
Majority of dakka, which may or may not be representative.
But in a true democracy, yes options for both are wise at the very least.
No, i don't know any person outside even of dakka that looks at this in the context of GW and think it is a smart move for them to do (the pl-ification of points.) because they A believe it can't work for a multitude of reasons, or B if they know such a system from certain historicals clearly state that GW rulesdesigners have not the necessary required skill and cohesive design vision to manage to create such a system.
It's also a question of time for rulesdesign, which is lackluster without even getting spread appart, so it's also a ressource question to a degree. But fundamentally if GW would have more and better rulesdesigners an argument could be made for a dual rule system or indeed a switch over. Again pointing to other historicals with such a system working extremely well compared to anything gw does... FFS HH works better than what 40k does and a multitude of smaller games within gw do so either, it0s just the 40k rulesteam once again getting arrogant and unwilling to learn.
But i do agree the current system does, let's be honest , not satisfy any side realistically if it is interested in a decent degree of balance at all. It merely has pushed the opportunity cost addition around that is going on in everyones head when designing a list, not facilitated a system that enforces "healthy" force building and by extention also has whole factions (Knights, and custodes as sole factions and so too arguably the recently split out legions considering WE wouldn't in an actually deep wargame be a functioning army for the lack of a decent shooting and maneouvre component) that shouldn't be considered in the state that they are to have a place within the game. But since cat out of bag we have to deal with it and that is the issue we are facing right now.
Dudeface wrote: But in a true democracy, yes options for both are wise at the very least.
Then where do you draw the line? How many different point systems should the game have? We could have classic PL, the current pseudo-PL, the traditional point system, each unit's point cost being its total wounds value, list building by "take 15 units each", etc. We could even break it down even further, with each system having a static version and one that is updated every quarter. Total chaos but every opinion is valued and included!
Or we could acknowledge that PL is a badly designed system with inherent systemic errors that offers negligible value in return for its flaws, dump the redundant system entirely, and unify the game around the traditional point system.
Cut the pseudo PL points and call it a day, no seriously, then look at PL once / year and points 1/ quarter, use the only site that you have, make both points and rules changes freely available.
It's not rocket science and other companies have long since abandoned the rulessales system and opted for free rules, since GW is a model company according to their own words it would be nice if they'd put their money where their mouth is.
But we all know that GW won't accept the loss of a reccuring monetisation system and spread out release system to flatten their quartal numbers into a more linear system.
Even though everyone and especially GW's shareholders should understand that the covid boom was just that and accept that there will be a phase now in which there will be less sold, instead of just throwing out everything all at once in an effort to keep numbers high.
JNAProductions wrote: Flawed means broken.
Flawless means perfect.
There’s a mid ground between the two-not perfect, but not broken. Acceptable.
And PL/the current system is completely flawed. It doesn't FALL in that middle.
It's more flawed than not but it does fall in there. Things do have a form of points value, there is some measure of attempted balance going on.
There are also numerous ways of getting away from their current corner and not all of them require direct wagear costs. As such one solution (adding granular item costs) back in, might not please someone who likes the idea of parity in choices enabling them to be free, or someone else who prefer less options to restrict variables.
The two ends of the spectrum are a totally balanced game where no matter what you bring it gives good odds of a fair competition, which as you'll note doesn't mention points anywhere. The other end of the spectrum is Sigmar on launch of "bring some minis, yell some stupid gak and roll dice because who cares".
The current option is definitely somewhere in between.
The opposite of perfect balance is perfect imbalance, where one player never has a chance of winning, so AoS 0,0 was actually quite good since you sometimes on accident had balanced games /sarcasm. To fall in the middle you have to at least try to make everything balanced, PL does not try to make everything balanced, so it doesn't fall in the middle. Nobody thinks perfect balance is possible or desired with the current rules using pts, we want perfect imbalance. Lascannons should be bad against Boys, good against Trukks, not equally good against both and points can deliver that result, PL cannot.
JNAProductions wrote: Flawed means broken.
Flawless means perfect.
There’s a mid ground between the two-not perfect, but not broken. Acceptable.
And PL/the current system is completely flawed. It doesn't FALL in that middle.
It's more flawed than not but it does fall in there. Things do have a form of points value, there is some measure of attempted balance going on.
There are also numerous ways of getting away from their current corner and not all of them require direct wagear costs. As such one solution (adding granular item costs) back in, might not please someone who likes the idea of parity in choices enabling them to be free, or someone else who prefer less options to restrict variables.
The two ends of the spectrum are a totally balanced game where no matter what you bring it gives good odds of a fair competition, which as you'll note doesn't mention points anywhere. The other end of the spectrum is Sigmar on launch of "bring some minis, yell some stupid gak and roll dice because who cares".
The current option is definitely somewhere in between.
The opposite of perfect balance is perfect imbalance, where one player never has a chance of winning, so AoS 0,0 was actually quite good since you sometimes on accident had balanced games /sarcasm. To fall in the middle you have to at least try to make everything balanced, PL does not try to make everything balanced, so it doesn't fall in the middle. Nobody thinks perfect balance is possible or desired with the current rules using pts, we want perfect imbalance. Lascannons should be bad against Boys, good against Trukks, not equally good against both and points can deliver that result, PL cannot.
Neither points nor PL alone deliver that, arguably even with they don't deliver that. That's total game design scope and weapon profiles which make that constraint.
Andy Hoare told me a number of years back that the studio knew who I was. I was referred to as a "very naughty boy".
surely that has got to be better than "who are you?" though
I to this day still find it funny that they dubbed the chaos amiriger Wardog. When i called my kitbash for daemonengine stand ins that before wardogs were a thing Yes you can check out the dates of my wardogs in the blog. Which i created in 18, and in may 19 i started calling them Wardogs may 22 then the War Dog Carnivores and stalkers show up
JNAProductions wrote: Flawed means broken.
Flawless means perfect.
There’s a mid ground between the two-not perfect, but not broken. Acceptable.
And PL/the current system is completely flawed. It doesn't FALL in that middle.
It's more flawed than not but it does fall in there. Things do have a form of points value, there is some measure of attempted balance going on.
There are also numerous ways of getting away from their current corner and not all of them require direct wagear costs. As such one solution (adding granular item costs) back in, might not please someone who likes the idea of parity in choices enabling them to be free, or someone else who prefer less options to restrict variables.
The two ends of the spectrum are a totally balanced game where no matter what you bring it gives good odds of a fair competition, which as you'll note doesn't mention points anywhere. The other end of the spectrum is Sigmar on launch of "bring some minis, yell some stupid gak and roll dice because who cares".
The current option is definitely somewhere in between.
The opposite of perfect balance is perfect imbalance, where one player never has a chance of winning, so AoS 0,0 was actually quite good since you sometimes on accident had balanced games /sarcasm. To fall in the middle you have to at least try to make everything balanced, PL does not try to make everything balanced, so it doesn't fall in the middle. Nobody thinks perfect balance is possible or desired with the current rules using pts, we want perfect imbalance. Lascannons should be bad against Boys, good against Trukks, not equally good against both and points can deliver that result, PL cannot.
Neither points nor PL alone deliver that, arguably even with they don't deliver that.
JNAProductions wrote: Flawed means broken.
Flawless means perfect.
There’s a mid ground between the two-not perfect, but not broken. Acceptable.
And PL/the current system is completely flawed. It doesn't FALL in that middle.
It's more flawed than not but it does fall in there. Things do have a form of points value, there is some measure of attempted balance going on.
There are also numerous ways of getting away from their current corner and not all of them require direct wagear costs. As such one solution (adding granular item costs) back in, might not please someone who likes the idea of parity in choices enabling them to be free, or someone else who prefer less options to restrict variables.
The two ends of the spectrum are a totally balanced game where no matter what you bring it gives good odds of a fair competition, which as you'll note doesn't mention points anywhere. The other end of the spectrum is Sigmar on launch of "bring some minis, yell some stupid gak and roll dice because who cares".
The current option is definitely somewhere in between.
The opposite of perfect balance is perfect imbalance, where one player never has a chance of winning, so AoS 0,0 was actually quite good since you sometimes on accident had balanced games /sarcasm. To fall in the middle you have to at least try to make everything balanced, PL does not try to make everything balanced, so it doesn't fall in the middle. Nobody thinks perfect balance is possible or desired with the current rules using pts, we want perfect imbalance. Lascannons should be bad against Boys, good against Trukks, not equally good against both and points can deliver that result, PL cannot.
Neither points nor PL alone deliver that, arguably even with they don't deliver that.
Why don't points deliver perfect imbalance?
To use your example, a 1 shot lascannon with high strength, ap and damage is obviously going to be better into a trukk than a Guardsman. The multi shot heavy bolter with a better rate of fire, adequate strength, ap and damage for infantry will be better into the boyz inside. None of those statements involve points, the design scope for the weapons gives that balance for you.
Dudeface 810334 11563730/null wrote:
To use your example, a 1 shot lascannon with high strength, ap and damage is obviously going to be better into a trukk than a Guardsman. The multi shot heavy bolter with a better rate of fire, adequate strength, ap and damage for infantry will be better into the boyz inside. None of those statements involve points, the design scope for the weapons gives that balance for you.
Make the lascannon (including wielder) 10pts and the heavy bolter 40pts, watch me zap all the hordes :p
In all seriousness though, point cost is simply an attribute of a weapon, a lever that allows you to balance a weapon against other weapons without altering how it performs on the battlefield. Points make it possible to have stuff that isn't balanced in stats. Say laspistol vs plasma pistol, but also bolters on devastators.
Points make adding new stuff easier too. Want to add a gun for devastators as it's described in a new BL novel, say some archaeotech blaster with 36" S20 AP -4 D6 and 5 shots (imagine some other less ridiculous stat line if you like, it's just a placeholder for the argument):
- making it 1 per squad max doesn't fix the fact that it outperforms the other options, it just makes each dev squad take 1 of these + whatever other stuff they actually wanted to take.
- making it weaker but equal to existing weapons doesn't work with the fluff, why is the mighty dark age archaeotech blaster outperformed by a lascannon?
- making the other weapon options stronger inevitably causes a game-wide power creep cascade as xenos start complaining about their suddenly anemic guns.
- don't introduce a new weapon type after all? I mean, yeah, but this is gw. Their sales dept overlords would dreadsock you for even whispering it.
- ? Did I miss something?
Or, you keep the blaster as is but slap a matching* point cost on it.
* gw historically failing to apply points doesn't mean points are bad, just that they are bad at points. In fact they're bad at balance in general, whether using points or not.
* gw historically failing to apply points doesn't mean points are bad, just that they are bad at points. In fact they're bad at balance in general, whether using points or not.
Realistically this is the underlying issue and why I think a lore more people are going with "don't like it but meh - whatever".
But yes you're exactly right, points are a component of making something behave the way it should, but as you say it is possible to exist without needing to assign it a cost if appropriate.
* gw historically failing to apply points doesn't mean points are bad, just that they are bad at points. In fact they're bad at balance in general, whether using points or not.
Realistically this is the underlying issue and why I think a lore more people are going with "don't like it but meh - whatever".
But yes you're exactly right, points are a component of making something behave the way it should, but as you say it is possible to exist without needing to assign it a cost if appropriate.
But for that, once again, beeing the case, we would require weaponry to interact with the core mechanics in specific ways, as some historicals that have been brought up do f.e.
Core mechanics that GW has cut out of their games and or never implemented corectly in the first place in 40k. With points for upgrades atleast there is a tool for GW to theorethically fix some issues by increasing associated cost. Without points we are at the stage were GW in full panic mode had to hike the price of all wriathknights by what was it 100 pts? Ignoring of course that the melee variant also completly and utterly got through that nerfed into oblivion.
that is also why their hiring of a matched play rules dude is laughable, because that won't solve the issue of unifiying design visions for the core rules and for the mechanics and later on forces interacting with them. NVM the questionable supposed pay.
Dudeface wrote: To use your example, a 1 shot lascannon with high strength, ap and damage is obviously going to be better into a trukk than a Guardsman. The multi shot heavy bolter with a better rate of fire, adequate strength, ap and damage for infantry will be better into the boyz inside. None of those statements involve points, the design scope for the weapons gives that balance for you.
Lascannons are betters vs Boys than lasguns. That is true until the moment you have points that make lascannons more expensive such that the lascannon becomes less efficient against everything and inefficient enough against Boys that it becomes a downgrade against Boys.
Dudeface wrote: To use your example, a 1 shot lascannon with high strength, ap and damage is obviously going to be better into a trukk than a Guardsman. The multi shot heavy bolter with a better rate of fire, adequate strength, ap and damage for infantry will be better into the boyz inside. None of those statements involve points, the design scope for the weapons gives that balance for you.
Lascannons are betters vs Boys than lasguns. That is true until the moment you have points that make lascannons more expensive such that the lascannon becomes less efficient against everything and inefficient enough against Boys that it becomes a downgrade against Boys.
Yes, you've picked an extreme example there because literally the only redeeming trait of a lasgun is the cheapness of the thing holding it.
The point is a weapons ideal target isn't decided by how many points the gun costs.
Dudeface wrote: To use your example, a 1 shot lascannon with high strength, ap and damage is obviously going to be better into a trukk than a Guardsman. The multi shot heavy bolter with a better rate of fire, adequate strength, ap and damage for infantry will be better into the boyz inside. None of those statements involve points, the design scope for the weapons gives that balance for you.
Lascannons are betters vs Boys than lasguns. That is true until the moment you have points that make lascannons more expensive such that the lascannon becomes less efficient against everything and inefficient enough against Boys that it becomes a downgrade against Boys.
Yes, you've picked an extreme example there because literally the only redeeming trait of a lasgun is the cheapness of the thing holding it.
The point is a weapons ideal target isn't decided by how many points the gun costs.
I get where you are coming from, what with the ideal target being mostly determined by the profile of the weapon and availability of it in a squad /army.
However, even in militia if i'd price the HB instead of +5 pts for a hwt at say 15 like a lascannon for that squad it would become rather fast obvious that the normal stubber the hwt's come standard with is just far more efficent at the same job. And that is with a squad ignoring saturation due to all members being equipable with it.
The opportunity cost on squads with less options for a heavy / special weapons would with those points become a misnomer.
To me, micromanaging points just made it a game of getting the points right rather than a game of playing models. One of my favorite results of the change is that I have tested out multiple configurations of my army so far without actually changing my list. In the past if I wanted to test out Frag Cannons vs IHBs, I basically had to rebuild the list from scratch, as the difference in cost resulted in huge shifts in what could fit in the list elsewhere (realistically you took neither and found something more boring/efficient). Often times it would lead to nebulous answers like "yeah, I think that's better, but its not worth downgrading the Watch Master to a Captain" or something. In the new system I play a game, see faults in my list and answer it by adjusting loadouts without needed to throw out the whole thing and start from scratch.
Dudeface wrote: To use your example, a 1 shot lascannon with high strength, ap and damage is obviously going to be better into a trukk than a Guardsman. The multi shot heavy bolter with a better rate of fire, adequate strength, ap and damage for infantry will be better into the boyz inside. None of those statements involve points, the design scope for the weapons gives that balance for you.
Lascannons are betters vs Boys than lasguns. That is true until the moment you have points that make lascannons more expensive such that the lascannon becomes less efficient against everything and inefficient enough against Boys that it becomes a downgrade against Boys.
Yes, you've picked an extreme example there because literally the only redeeming trait of a lasgun is the cheapness of the thing holding it.
The point is a weapons ideal target isn't decided by how many points the gun costs.
Whether something is a counter is determined by return on investment (ROI), because every weapon can kill every target in 40k and weapons with bigger numbers kill things quicker. Without taking ROI into account you're left saying lascannons are good at killing Boys, not as good as heavy bolters, but then why get a heavy bolter if you can take a punisher cannon? Why take a punisher when you can take a twin punisher? Because lasguns are meant to be cheap and that cheapness ought to lend them a good ROI against Boys, better than lascannons, not as good as heavy bolters.
To me, micromanaging points just made it a game of getting the points right rather than a game of playing models. One of my favorite results of the change is that I have tested out multiple configurations of my army so far without actually changing my list. In the past if I wanted to test out Frag Cannons vs IHBs, I basically had to rebuild the list from scratch, as the difference in cost resulted in huge shifts in what could fit in the list elsewhere (realistically you took neither and found something more boring/efficient).
You could have paid for the more expensive option and downgraded without including more things in your list. Sidegrades have nothing to do with PL.
To me, micromanaging points just made it a game of getting the points right rather than a game of playing models. One of my favorite results of the change is that I have tested out multiple configurations of my army so far without actually changing my list. In the past if I wanted to test out Frag Cannons vs IHBs, I basically had to rebuild the list from scratch, as the difference in cost resulted in huge shifts in what could fit in the list elsewhere (realistically you took neither and found something more boring/efficient).
You could have paid for the more expensive option and downgraded without including more things in your list. Sidegrades have nothing to do with PL.
So your argument for dismissing mine is there's no value in weapons having a different point cost and its fine to pay extra points for the one that is less effective, but cheaper?
Dudeface wrote: To use your example, a 1 shot lascannon with high strength, ap and damage is obviously going to be better into a trukk than a Guardsman. The multi shot heavy bolter with a better rate of fire, adequate strength, ap and damage for infantry will be better into the boyz inside. None of those statements involve points, the design scope for the weapons gives that balance for you.
Lascannons are betters vs Boys than lasguns. That is true until the moment you have points that make lascannons more expensive such that the lascannon becomes less efficient against everything and inefficient enough against Boys that it becomes a downgrade against Boys.
Yes, you've picked an extreme example there because literally the only redeeming trait of a lasgun is the cheapness of the thing holding it.
The point is a weapons ideal target isn't decided by how many points the gun costs.
I get where you are coming from, what with the ideal target being mostly determined by the profile of the weapon and availability of it in a squad /army.
However, even in militia if i'd price the HB instead of +5 pts for a hwt at say 15 like a lascannon for that squad it would become rather fast obvious that the normal stubber the hwt's come standard with is just far more efficent at the same job. And that is with a squad ignoring saturation due to all members being equipable with it.
The opportunity cost on squads with less options for a heavy / special weapons would with those points become a misnomer.
There is definitely a place for an opportunity cost with some of these things. Ironically the fact that heavy bolters were a waste of space suggests that pointing multiple weapons that all fill the same role is a bit of a waste of time.
One thing I see often brought up is "anti-infantry specials/heavies aren't worth as much because of the small arms in the army", well we exist in a game now where there is no reason to ever take small arms generally, so I wonder if that perception will shift.
When every model can take a heavy bolter or a lascannon I wonder what the end ratio would look like. Return on investment is another valid point of course, but that's a fair but harder to place properly.
Whether something is a counter is determined by return on investment (ROI), because every weapon can kill every target in 40k and weapons with bigger numbers kill things quicker. Without taking ROI into account you're left saying lascannons are good at killing Boys, not as good as heavy bolters, but then why get a heavy bolter if you can take a punisher cannon? Why take a punisher when you can take a twin punisher? Because lasguns are meant to be cheap and that cheapness ought to lend them a good ROI against Boys, better than lascannons, not as good as heavy bolters.
You have a point to a degree, where you fall over with this argument is you're expanding the scope outside of the weapon. Why ever take a lasgun when you can have a punisher cannon for example. You never need to take a lasgun ever again now, so what is it that's objectively worse about the punisher cannon for mowing down mooks? I imagine you'll say points, but the fact is the punisher cannon is on a different model with an utterly different profile, so you've expanded the scope of "points differentiate weapons purpose" to "points represent the relative toughness, capabilities and rarity of the weapon they're carrying to handle a weapons purpose". I.e. not all about points directly.
LunarSol wrote: To me, micromanaging points just made it a game of getting the points right rather than a game of playing models. One of my favorite results of the change is that I have tested out multiple configurations of my army so far without actually changing my list. In the past if I wanted to test out Frag Cannons vs IHBs, I basically had to rebuild the list from scratch, as the difference in cost resulted in huge shifts in what could fit in the list elsewhere (realistically you took neither and found something more boring/efficient). Often times it would lead to nebulous answers like "yeah, I think that's better, but its not worth downgrading the Watch Master to a Captain" or something. In the new system I play a game, see faults in my list and answer it by adjusting loadouts without needed to throw out the whole thing and start from scratch.
My experience with 10th so far is that that points-wrangling has just been shifted to units, because the fixed costs mean that replacing a unit with a marginally more expensive one involves rearranging half my list. I can swap the guns around on my Warriors with ranged weapons, but there's basically just one valid loadout so I don't, and if I want to switch to melee Warriors then I need to free up points elsewhere somehow.
Besides, if those frag cannons and IHBs are actually equivalent in value, then under a points system they'd have the same cost and you could swap them around as you like. There's nothing wrong with balancing out sidegrades to have the same cost in that manner. The question is whether taking a lascannon instead of a bolter should have an associated cost- and since it currently doesn't, there's no real choice or room for experimentation; you just take the lascannon because it's objectively the right choice.
There is definitely a place for an opportunity cost with some of these things. Ironically the fact that heavy bolters were a waste of space suggests that pointing multiple weapons that all fill the same role is a bit of a waste of time.
One thing I see often brought up is "anti-infantry specials/heavies aren't worth as much because of the small arms in the army", well we exist in a game now where there is no reason to ever take small arms generally, so I wonder if that perception will shift.
When every model can take a heavy bolter or a lascannon I wonder what the end ratio would look like. Return on investment is another valid point of course, but that's a fair but harder to place properly.
No, opportunity cost alone hardly adequatly can cover the difference in ability for HWT f.e. in a militia list for the anti infantry weapon. F.e. I consider the following options as that, Stubber, Heavy bolter, and mortar. Both the mortar and the heavy bolter cost more than the stubber. Understandably so, one is a 3 shot weapon with S4 and Ap 6. The Mortar has indirect fire and pinning for +5 pts from the stubber as baseline. The Heavy bolter in HH is S5, Ap4, 4 shots at 10 pts more. It is arguable if the HB should cost the same as the AC in HH.
But now assume a system in which there are no points instead you pay a flat 30 pts / HWT in a HWT squad. Neither the mortar nor stubber would ever see the light of day. AC and ML could arguably see play because that is wha the squads profile + an upgrade to these weapons would incidentally cost. Except that they then all compete directly on a profile basis with the lascannon. And here we get to the core problem. When i am anyways paying 30pts / HWT so flat 90 instead of the current 60 for a min squad of HWT's , why would i ever consider the Missile launcher ? I wouldn't. And it's not just the now far too cheap lascanon that pressures those weapons out of the game, because even when you want an anti infantry gun, the AC is still priced fine and offers high quality slightly lower RoF with medium antitank capabilities. For a task that any core infantry unit of grunts in your army can do and that remains true.
hence why the perception wont actually shift, but instead people will start loading up on the now potentially discounted antitank weaponry, and if the squad is priced as if it would field antitank weapons anyways, like legionairs in 40k. Why'd you ever consider a HB or an AC or ML in the first place? You won't , you'll see lascannons because the squad is priced as if it had lascannons. You'll see greater melee weapons or whatevs they are called, instead of chainswords. Because you anyways pay for it.
LunarSol wrote: To me, micromanaging points just made it a game of getting the points right rather than a game of playing models. One of my favorite results of the change is that I have tested out multiple configurations of my army so far without actually changing my list. In the past if I wanted to test out Frag Cannons vs IHBs, I basically had to rebuild the list from scratch, as the difference in cost resulted in huge shifts in what could fit in the list elsewhere (realistically you took neither and found something more boring/efficient). Often times it would lead to nebulous answers like "yeah, I think that's better, but its not worth downgrading the Watch Master to a Captain" or something. In the new system I play a game, see faults in my list and answer it by adjusting loadouts without needed to throw out the whole thing and start from scratch.
My experience with 10th so far is that that points-wrangling has just been shifted to units, because the fixed costs mean that replacing a unit with a marginally more expensive one involves rearranging half my list. I can swap the guns around on my Warriors with ranged weapons, but there's basically just one valid loadout so I don't, and if I want to switch to melee Warriors then I need to free up points elsewhere somehow.
Besides, if those frag cannons and IHBs are actually equivalent in value, then under a points system they'd have the same cost and you could swap them around as you like. There's nothing wrong with balancing out sidegrades to have the same cost in that manner. The question is whether taking a lascannon instead of a bolter should have an associated cost- and since it currently doesn't, there's no real choice or room for experimentation; you just take the lascannon because it's objectively the right choice.
That's fair certainly. I think there's definitely armies that have less interesting Wargear where GW has leaned on a Grunts/Grunts+ model differentiated by points. Those armies running into the problems I mentioned are why I think its more interesting when you simplify the points and instead focus on making units serve distinct roles. I've been impressed how often I've seen players swap in a unit of Incursors over their second Infiltrator slot as they find the value in their unique roles which is only possible because they cost the same but have important differences in what they do. GW being forced to rework its wargear in a similar way
The thing about points is that its always perfect hypothetically and I think a lot of faith in points comes from the idea that they can be perfected. I'm personally of the belief that changing points doesn't lead to meaningful decisions. If two things fill a similar role one is always going to supplant the other and you can flip the points back and forth to decide which one you want, but you're never going to make the choice of which one to take interesting. When you make things the same cost, you have to focus on making things serve different roles and makes choosing between them more interesting. I don't feel that points makes this more interesting.
That's not to say that I don't see a purpose to points. They're very useful for giving a list framework and general "this tank is worth X units" kind of big picture structure. Deciding what shares a cost is how you narrow down what needs to be a parallel choice. It's the obsession with whether a power sword should cost 3 points or 5 where I feel like points get in the way of creating interesting list building decisions rather than making those choices more compelling to try.
No, opportunity cost alone hardly adequatly can cover the difference in ability for HWT f.e. in a militia list for the anti infantry weapon. F.e. I consider the following options as that, Stubber, Heavy bolter, and mortar. Both the mortar and the heavy bolter cost more than the stubber. Understandably so, one is a 3 shot weapon with S4 and Ap 6. The Mortar has indirect fire and pinning for +5 pts from the stubber as baseline. The Heavy bolter in HH is S5, Ap4, 4 shots at 10 pts more. It is arguable if the HB should cost the same as the AC in HH.
But now assume a system in which there are no points instead you pay a flat 30 pts / HWT in a HWT squad. Neither the mortar nor stubber would ever see the light of day. AC and ML could arguably see play because that is wha the squads profile + an upgrade to these weapons would incidentally cost. Except that they then all compete directly on a profile basis with the lascannon. And here we get to the core problem. When i am anyways paying 30pts / HWT so flat 90 instead of the current 60 for a min squad of HWT's , why would i ever consider the Missile launcher ? I wouldn't. And it's not just the now far too cheap lascanon that pressures those weapons out of the game, because even when you want an anti infantry gun, the AC is still priced fine and offers high quality slightly lower RoF with medium antitank capabilities. For a task that any core infantry unit of grunts in your army can do and that remains true.
hence why the perception wont actually shift, but instead people will start loading up on the now potentially discounted antitank weaponry, and if the squad is priced as if it would field antitank weapons anyways, like legionairs in 40k. Why'd you ever consider a HB or an AC or ML in the first place? You won't , you'll see lascannons because the squad is priced as if it had lascannons. You'll see greater melee weapons or whatevs they are called, instead of chainswords. Because you anyways pay for it.
Yet here we are where the first "patch" to the game is a nerf for indirect fire as it has been deemed too good, suggesting people still want those mortars.
It's not impossible to see a world where the majority of those weapons on the hwt all viable in different ways and do not require massively different point values, if at all. The game and the weapon profiles simply don't support it at this time though.
Weren't HWT mortars just caught in the crossfire? I thought it was Guard artillery vehicles that were partially overperforming (compared to the rest of the army...).
as much as i find the current point system dumb, i think people overfocus on hitting exactly 2000pts in their lists, being down ~40-50pts isn't that big a deal tbh
VladimirHerzog wrote: as much as i find the current point system dumb, i think people overfocus on hitting exactly 2000pts in their lists, being down ~40-50pts isn't that big a deal tbh
The thing about points is that its always perfect hypothetically and I think a lot of faith in points comes from the idea that they can be perfected. I'm personally of the belief that changing points doesn't lead to meaningful decisions. If two things fill a similar role one is always going to supplant the other and you can flip the points back and forth to decide which one you want, but you're never going to make the choice of which one to take interesting. When you make things the same cost, you have to focus on making things serve different roles and makes choosing between them more interesting. I don't feel that points makes this more interesting.
I think you are kind of misunderstanding the point of points. It's really about value versus cost.
Imagine a boiler with two lines going in. Each line has a valve on on it; one valve is marked cost, the other value. The boiler has a gauge on it with a green section on the middle and red sections on each other side. Changing the valves moves the needle in the gauge, and you're trying to keep the needle in the green balanced section. The value valve is kind of wonky. It doesn't move smoothly and makes the needle jump around. The cost valve moves very smoothly, and the needle gives clean and immediate feedback to the change. The two valves work pretty well together. Dial in a value, fine tune with the cost.
Now some guy came in on the night shift and busted off the cost handle, He then jury rigged it by welding on a wrench. Now the cost valve doesn't move as smoothly. It seems to only move in big jumps like the value one now. It makes it really hard to put the needle in the gauge exactly where you want. Not impossible. Just harder and requires a lot more work. But the night shift guy thinks it's more interesting this way, so ::shrug::
VladimirHerzog wrote: as much as i find the current point system dumb, i think people overfocus on hitting exactly 2000pts in their lists, being down ~40-50pts isn't that big a deal tbh
There is no reason for a game with two balanced armies to have one side have more or less points than the other. Especially because the solution to "I have some points left now" is just purchasable upgrades or the ability to add a single model here or there to every squad. Things that already were in the game and were removed to make place for... this exact problem, among others.
VladimirHerzog wrote: as much as i find the current point system dumb, i think people overfocus on hitting exactly 2000pts in their lists, being down ~40-50pts isn't that big a deal tbh
In previous editions 50 points could be 5 HK missiles. Or upgrading a good number of LRBTHB Sponsons to Plasma Cannons. There's all sorts of valuable things one could do with 50 points.
Since they've essentially used PL for list building since the system has had points, there has been benefits or alternate point-sinks available to all armies.
If you're shy 50pts of reaching whatever limit was set, you could Buy an extra command point, in 2nd Edition rules.
Other options if you were in the awkward range of 80 or less points left was purchasing Endless Spells for niche use, if it wasn't part if your game plan. Or, eating the fact that you were down on points, and receiving a Triumph. If you have less points than your opponent when the game begins, you receive a Triumph. A once-per-game ability you can use, when the ability is relevant. They've ranged from +1 to Wound rolls for a unit for a phase, auto-passing a Battleshock test, rerolling a charge, etc.
Returning to point-costed wargear would be the ideal for 40k, however.
The thing about points is that its always perfect hypothetically and I think a lot of faith in points comes from the idea that they can be perfected. I'm personally of the belief that changing points doesn't lead to meaningful decisions. If two things fill a similar role one is always going to supplant the other and you can flip the points back and forth to decide which one you want, but you're never going to make the choice of which one to take interesting. When you make things the same cost, you have to focus on making things serve different roles and makes choosing between them more interesting. I don't feel that points makes this more interesting.
I think you are kind of misunderstanding the point of points. It's really about value versus cost.
Imagine a boiler with two lines going in. Each line has a valve on on it; one valve is marked cost, the other value. The boiler has a gauge on it with a green section on the middle and red sections on each other side. Changing the valves moves the needle in the gauge, and you're trying to keep the needle in the green balanced section. The value valve is kind of wonky. It doesn't move smoothly and makes the needle jump around. The cost valve moves very smoothly, and the needle gives clean and immediate feedback to the change. The two valves work pretty well together. Dial in a value, fine tune with the cost.
Now some guy came in on the night shift and busted off the cost handle, He then jury rigged it by welding on a wrench. Now the cost valve doesn't move as smoothly. It seems to only move in big jumps like the value one now. It makes it really hard to put the needle in the gauge exactly where you want. Not impossible. Just harder and requires a lot more work. But the night shift guy thinks it's more interesting this way, so ::shrug::
I fully understand the point of points; I just don't think they work all that well because they're interconnected with everything else in a list. You might be able to dial the value of a specific unit effectively, but that doesn't mean it works in the context of the army anymore. In my experience, it almost never creates more interesting choices in list building, it just removes the current optimal choice for another.
The idea that a 100 point unit is equal to a 90 point unit are equal doesn't make them meaningful choices. If they're the same value, one is the one that fits in the list and one either costs too much to fit or costs too little and isn't worth paying 10 points more than its worth. The same thing happens every time you try to fix things with points. Something just no longer fits; its not really an interesting choice.
I get the faith in points, I just don't share it. They have their purpose for sure, but trying to assign everything the perfect cost in an every changing market doesn't ever fix anything; it just changes what the problem looks like.
To me, micromanaging points just made it a game of getting the points right rather than a game of playing models. One of my favorite results of the change is that I have tested out multiple configurations of my army so far without actually changing my list. In the past if I wanted to test out Frag Cannons vs IHBs, I basically had to rebuild the list from scratch, as the difference in cost resulted in huge shifts in what could fit in the list elsewhere (realistically you took neither and found something more boring/efficient).
That's grotgak, you could have paid for the more expensive option and downgraded without including more things in your list. Sidegrades have nothing to do with PL.
So your argument for dismissing mine is there's no value in weapons having a different point cost and its fine to pay extra points for the one that is less effective, but cheaper?
No. You are the one who doesn't care about paying extra points for the one that is less effective, I am telling you that you were always free to do so.
The thing about points is that its always perfect hypothetically and I think a lot of faith in points comes from the idea that they can be perfected. I'm personally of the belief that changing points doesn't lead to meaningful decisions. If two things fill a similar role one is always going to supplant the other and you can flip the points back and forth to decide which one you want, but you're never going to make the choice of which one to take interesting. When you make things the same cost, you have to focus on making things serve different roles and makes choosing between them more interesting. I don't feel that points makes this more interesting.
I think you are kind of misunderstanding the point of points. It's really about value versus cost.
Imagine a boiler with two lines going in. Each line has a valve on on it; one valve is marked cost, the other value. The boiler has a gauge on it with a green section on the middle and red sections on each other side. Changing the valves moves the needle in the gauge, and you're trying to keep the needle in the green balanced section. The value valve is kind of wonky. It doesn't move smoothly and makes the needle jump around. The cost valve moves very smoothly, and the needle gives clean and immediate feedback to the change. The two valves work pretty well together. Dial in a value, fine tune with the cost.
Now some guy came in on the night shift and busted off the cost handle, He then jury rigged it by welding on a wrench. Now the cost valve doesn't move as smoothly. It seems to only move in big jumps like the value one now. It makes it really hard to put the needle in the gauge exactly where you want. Not impossible. Just harder and requires a lot more work. But the night shift guy thinks it's more interesting this way, so ::shrug::
I fully understand the point of points; I just don't think they work all that well because they're interconnected with everything else in a list. You might be able to dial the value of a specific unit effectively, but that doesn't mean it works in the context of the army anymore. In my experience, it almost never creates more interesting choices in list building, it just removes the current optimal choice for another.
Points aren't meant to be an interesting puzzle for you to solve, it's just a way to balance an adversarial game.
VladimirHerzog wrote: as much as i find the current point system dumb, i think people overfocus on hitting exactly 2000pts in their lists, being down ~40-50pts isn't that big a deal tbh
What number would be worth focusing on? What does overfocusing mean?
Whether something is a counter is determined by return on investment (ROI), because every weapon can kill every target in 40k and weapons with bigger numbers kill things quicker. Without taking ROI into account you're left saying lascannons are good at killing Boys, not as good as heavy bolters, but then why get a heavy bolter if you can take a punisher cannon? Why take a punisher when you can take a twin punisher? Because lasguns are meant to be cheap and that cheapness ought to lend them a good ROI against Boys, better than lascannons, not as good as heavy bolters.
You have a point to a degree, where you fall over with this argument is you're expanding the scope outside of the weapon. Why ever take a lasgun when you can have a punisher cannon for example. You never need to take a lasgun ever again now, so what is it that's objectively worse about the punisher cannon for mowing down mooks? I imagine you'll say points, but the fact is the punisher cannon is on a different model with an utterly different profile, so you've expanded the scope of "points differentiate weapons purpose" to "points represent the relative toughness, capabilities and rarity of the weapon they're carrying to handle a weapons purpose". I.e. not all about points directly.
If I am choosing between 50 lasguns and 50 punishers cannons then I choose the latter every time. If every Astra Militarum player brings 50 punisher cannons for anti-horde and 30 deathstrike missiles for anti-tank then the game is going to be stale.
The thing about points is that its always perfect hypothetically and I think a lot of faith in points comes from the idea that they can be perfected. I'm personally of the belief that changing points doesn't lead to meaningful decisions. If two things fill a similar role one is always going to supplant the other and you can flip the points back and forth to decide which one you want, but you're never going to make the choice of which one to take interesting. When you make things the same cost, you have to focus on making things serve different roles and makes choosing between them more interesting. I don't feel that points makes this more interesting.
I think you are kind of misunderstanding the point of points. It's really about value versus cost.
Imagine a boiler with two lines going in. Each line has a valve on on it; one valve is marked cost, the other value. The boiler has a gauge on it with a green section on the middle and red sections on each other side. Changing the valves moves the needle in the gauge, and you're trying to keep the needle in the green balanced section. The value valve is kind of wonky. It doesn't move smoothly and makes the needle jump around. The cost valve moves very smoothly, and the needle gives clean and immediate feedback to the change. The two valves work pretty well together. Dial in a value, fine tune with the cost.
Now some guy came in on the night shift and busted off the cost handle, He then jury rigged it by welding on a wrench. Now the cost valve doesn't move as smoothly. It seems to only move in big jumps like the value one now. It makes it really hard to put the needle in the gauge exactly where you want. Not impossible. Just harder and requires a lot more work. But the night shift guy thinks it's more interesting this way, so ::shrug::
I fully understand the point of points; I just don't think they work all that well because they're interconnected with everything else in a list. You might be able to dial the value of a specific unit effectively, but that doesn't mean it works in the context of the army anymore. In my experience, it almost never creates more interesting choices in list building, it just removes the current optimal choice for another.
The idea that a 100 point unit is equal to a 90 point unit are equal doesn't make them meaningful choices. If they're the same value, one is the one that fits in the list and one either costs too much to fit or costs too little and isn't worth paying 10 points more than its worth. The same thing happens every time you try to fix things with points. Something just no longer fits; its not really an interesting choice.
I get the faith in points, I just don't share it. They have their purpose for sure, but trying to assign everything the perfect cost in an every changing market doesn't ever fix anything; it just changes what the problem looks like.
This appears to be the " They can't be perfect, therefore they're not worth doing" argument again.
I see that more of an argument that there's a practical limit to the level of granularity for points. But it ain't a good argument against them altogether.
I see that more of an argument that there's a practical limit to the level of granularity for points. But it ain't a good argument against them altogether.
I'd wager this was the sticking point back at HQ, I suspect they knew they weren't able to get the granularity in and went this way rather than blow the system up by making a marine 110 points each for 10k matches, or whatever.
I see that more of an argument that there's a practical limit to the level of granularity for points. But it ain't a good argument against them altogether.
I'd wager this was the sticking point back at HQ, I suspect they knew they weren't able to get the granularity in and went this way rather than blow the system up by making a marine 110 points each for 10k matches, or whatever.
Or they couldn't get unit upgrades working correctly in the app, so they decided to get rid of them and hope no one noticed.
The thing about points is that its always perfect hypothetically and I think a lot of faith in points comes from the idea that they can be perfected. I'm personally of the belief that changing points doesn't lead to meaningful decisions. If two things fill a similar role one is always going to supplant the other and you can flip the points back and forth to decide which one you want, but you're never going to make the choice of which one to take interesting. When you make things the same cost, you have to focus on making things serve different roles and makes choosing between them more interesting. I don't feel that points makes this more interesting.
I think you are kind of misunderstanding the point of points. It's really about value versus cost.
Imagine a boiler with two lines going in. Each line has a valve on on it; one valve is marked cost, the other value. The boiler has a gauge on it with a green section on the middle and red sections on each other side. Changing the valves moves the needle in the gauge, and you're trying to keep the needle in the green balanced section. The value valve is kind of wonky. It doesn't move smoothly and makes the needle jump around. The cost valve moves very smoothly, and the needle gives clean and immediate feedback to the change. The two valves work pretty well together. Dial in a value, fine tune with the cost.
Now some guy came in on the night shift and busted off the cost handle, He then jury rigged it by welding on a wrench. Now the cost valve doesn't move as smoothly. It seems to only move in big jumps like the value one now. It makes it really hard to put the needle in the gauge exactly where you want. Not impossible. Just harder and requires a lot more work. But the night shift guy thinks it's more interesting this way, so ::shrug::
I fully understand the point of points; I just don't think they work all that well because they're interconnected with everything else in a list. You might be able to dial the value of a specific unit effectively, but that doesn't mean it works in the context of the army anymore. In my experience, it almost never creates more interesting choices in list building, it just removes the current optimal choice for another.
The idea that a 100 point unit is equal to a 90 point unit are equal doesn't make them meaningful choices. If they're the same value, one is the one that fits in the list and one either costs too much to fit or costs too little and isn't worth paying 10 points more than its worth. The same thing happens every time you try to fix things with points. Something just no longer fits; its not really an interesting choice.
I get the faith in points, I just don't share it. They have their purpose for sure, but trying to assign everything the perfect cost in an every changing market doesn't ever fix anything; it just changes what the problem looks like.
This appears to be the " They can't be perfect, therefore they're not worth doing" argument again.
I see that more of an argument that there's a practical limit to the level of granularity for points. But it ain't a good argument against them altogether.
I'm not opposed to them altogether. As I've said many times, they're important for creating categories of units and determining what units fight for the same design space and therefore need to serve different roles. I just find it more interesting to make side grade choice for wargear over trying to find the right cost for it. All pointing wargear has ever accomplished is stopping people from taking it. I get that it removes the prior choice of taking "nothing" but I think the game is way more interesting when sgts are equipped for close combat and units are packing those special weapons that are so iconic to the franchise over more boltgun equivalents.
I see that more of an argument that there's a practical limit to the level of granularity for points. But it ain't a good argument against them altogether.
I'd wager this was the sticking point back at HQ, I suspect they knew they weren't able to get the granularity in and went this way rather than blow the system up by making a marine 110 points each for 10k matches, or whatever.
Or it's just that Cruddace and Jervis are bad at what they do
I'm not opposed to them altogether. As I've said many times, they're important for creating categories of units and determining what units fight for the same design space and therefore need to serve different roles. I just find it more interesting to make side grade choice for wargear over trying to find the right cost for it. All pointing wargear has ever accomplished is stopping people from taking it. I get that it removes the prior choice of taking "nothing" but I think the game is way more interesting when sgts are equipped for close combat and units are packing those special weapons that are so iconic to the franchise over more boltgun equivalents.
You're stuck on value. A unit's role and design space is part of it's value. You want units with interesting and diverse values. That's good. I'd like that too. But this is a discussion of cost. How to accurately cost that value. You can loose some granularity in cost and the game would probably be ok. 10th edition lost too much granularity on cost. So now, options of widely different value have the same cost. In which if you don't pick the better value for the cost, you are bad at playing games. Or play games for entirely different reasons than I do.
You're stuck on value. A unit's role and design space is part of it's value. You want units with interesting and diverse values. That's good. I'd like that too. But this is a discussion of cost. How to accurately cost that value. You can loose some granularity in cost and the game would probably be ok. 10th edition lost too much granularity on cost. So now, options of widely different value have the same cost. In which if you don't pick the better value for the cost, you are bad at playing games. Or play games for entirely different reasons than I do.
That's literally always been how points in 40k work. The loss in granularity hasn't changed that one bit unless you insist on not taking the "optional" wargear because you technically do not have to. Personally I feel like 10th's choices in unit options are more compelling because they are more driven by the purpose they serve than the cost they've been assigned. I feel like I have more interesting choices now than I have under any prior points system.
Note that I did not feel this way about Power Level because Power Level unit configuration was still built on loadouts that were meant to be limited by points. Weapons did not have any sort of parity to avoid one clearly being the best choice. That certainly still exists in the new system, but more than ever before I feel like wargear options are interesting and not just fat to be trimmed.
The thing about points is that its always perfect hypothetically and I think a lot of faith in points comes from the idea that they can be perfected. I'm personally of the belief that changing points doesn't lead to meaningful decisions. If two things fill a similar role one is always going to supplant the other and you can flip the points back and forth to decide which one you want, but you're never going to make the choice of which one to take interesting. When you make things the same cost, you have to focus on making things serve different roles and makes choosing between them more interesting. I don't feel that points makes this more interesting.
I think you are kind of misunderstanding the point of points. It's really about value versus cost.
Imagine a boiler with two lines going in. Each line has a valve on on it; one valve is marked cost, the other value. The boiler has a gauge on it with a green section on the middle and red sections on each other side. Changing the valves moves the needle in the gauge, and you're trying to keep the needle in the green balanced section. The value valve is kind of wonky. It doesn't move smoothly and makes the needle jump around. The cost valve moves very smoothly, and the needle gives clean and immediate feedback to the change. The two valves work pretty well together. Dial in a value, fine tune with the cost.
Now some guy came in on the night shift and busted off the cost handle, He then jury rigged it by welding on a wrench. Now the cost valve doesn't move as smoothly. It seems to only move in big jumps like the value one now. It makes it really hard to put the needle in the gauge exactly where you want. Not impossible. Just harder and requires a lot more work. But the night shift guy thinks it's more interesting this way, so ::shrug::
I fully understand the point of points; I just don't think they work all that well because they're interconnected with everything else in a list. You might be able to dial the value of a specific unit effectively, but that doesn't mean it works in the context of the army anymore. In my experience, it almost never creates more interesting choices in list building, it just removes the current optimal choice for another.
The idea that a 100 point unit is equal to a 90 point unit are equal doesn't make them meaningful choices. If they're the same value, one is the one that fits in the list and one either costs too much to fit or costs too little and isn't worth paying 10 points more than its worth. The same thing happens every time you try to fix things with points. Something just no longer fits; its not really an interesting choice.
I get the faith in points, I just don't share it. They have their purpose for sure, but trying to assign everything the perfect cost in an every changing market doesn't ever fix anything; it just changes what the problem looks like.
This appears to be the " They can't be perfect, therefore they're not worth doing" argument again.
I see that more of an argument that there's a practical limit to the level of granularity for points. But it ain't a good argument against them altogether.
I'm not opposed to them altogether. As I've said many times, they're important for creating categories of units and determining what units fight for the same design space and therefore need to serve different roles. I just find it more interesting to make side grade choice for wargear over trying to find the right cost for it. All pointing wargear has ever accomplished is stopping people from taking it. I get that it removes the prior choice of taking "nothing" but I think the game is way more interesting when sgts are equipped for close combat and units are packing those special weapons that are so iconic to the franchise over more boltgun equivalents.
I prefer armies that look "realistic", which means they are functioning on limited resources.
If my Tank Company chooses not to use sponsons because of points limitations, then the narrative is that the company prioritizes it's resources differently (i.e. focuses on fuel or battlecannon ammunition rather than tripling the ammunition requirement for heavy bolters, or prefers the ease of maintenance in the absence of the awkward sponsons so the energy can be put into maintaining the powerful Vanquisher cannons that I spent my points on instead).
A specialized tank hunter team equipped with lascannons has no business giving the sergeant a thunder hammer. If I was a real commander, I would take that thunder hammer away from him and give it to an Assault Squad, so the hammer is more likely to get used. If another hammer teleported into the hands of the Devastator sergeant, I would take that one too and issue it to the other Assault squad members.
Eventually, I would make sure essentially EVERYONE except Devastator squads and tank crews in my Company has a thunder hammer before a Devastator was even allowed to ask nicely for one, sergeant or not.
Currently, my commander just seems like a fething idiot, because the Assault Squad of ten men is going in with one hammer and nine chainswords, while the Devastator sergeant is standing miles away with his own hammer, wondering if there could have been any way to help the assault squad be better at assaulting...
playing at 1950 pts is a 3% handicap. Pretty negligible outside the most competitive games.
Should it stay the same? Absolutely not, give us back priced wargear and variable unit sizes 100%. It's not rocket science and GW has shown that even with their "easier to balance system" they can't achieve balance anyway.
Plus, considering they released an armybuilder app, nobody should be doing "weird arithmetic" like they stated people were doing.
Or it's just that Cruddace and Jervis are bad at what they do
Their insane ramblings about game/rules design in White Dwarf are extremely illuminating.
JJ has been exclusively fantasy since the mid 90s hasn't he?
Still think managements "make it accessible for everyone" demands are probably more influential than any individual designers but who knows. I understand it but modern GW products are just something I am not really interested in, i give them a go but hasnt been a core ruleset i have been that interested in since 7th editions of both main games.
The thing about points is that its always perfect hypothetically and I think a lot of faith in points comes from the idea that they can be perfected. I'm personally of the belief that changing points doesn't lead to meaningful decisions. If two things fill a similar role one is always going to supplant the other and you can flip the points back and forth to decide which one you want, but you're never going to make the choice of which one to take interesting. When you make things the same cost, you have to focus on making things serve different roles and makes choosing between them more interesting. I don't feel that points makes this more interesting.
I think you are kind of misunderstanding the point of points. It's really about value versus cost.
Imagine a boiler with two lines going in. Each line has a valve on on it; one valve is marked cost, the other value. The boiler has a gauge on it with a green section on the middle and red sections on each other side. Changing the valves moves the needle in the gauge, and you're trying to keep the needle in the green balanced section. The value valve is kind of wonky. It doesn't move smoothly and makes the needle jump around. The cost valve moves very smoothly, and the needle gives clean and immediate feedback to the change. The two valves work pretty well together. Dial in a value, fine tune with the cost.
Now some guy came in on the night shift and busted off the cost handle, He then jury rigged it by welding on a wrench. Now the cost valve doesn't move as smoothly. It seems to only move in big jumps like the value one now. It makes it really hard to put the needle in the gauge exactly where you want. Not impossible. Just harder and requires a lot more work. But the night shift guy thinks it's more interesting this way, so ::shrug::
I fully understand the point of points; I just don't think they work all that well because they're interconnected with everything else in a list. You might be able to dial the value of a specific unit effectively, but that doesn't mean it works in the context of the army anymore. In my experience, it almost never creates more interesting choices in list building, it just removes the current optimal choice for another.
The idea that a 100 point unit is equal to a 90 point unit are equal doesn't make them meaningful choices. If they're the same value, one is the one that fits in the list and one either costs too much to fit or costs too little and isn't worth paying 10 points more than its worth. The same thing happens every time you try to fix things with points. Something just no longer fits; its not really an interesting choice.
I get the faith in points, I just don't share it. They have their purpose for sure, but trying to assign everything the perfect cost in an every changing market doesn't ever fix anything; it just changes what the problem looks like.
This appears to be the " They can't be perfect, therefore they're not worth doing" argument again.
I see that more of an argument that there's a practical limit to the level of granularity for points. But it ain't a good argument against them altogether.
I'm not opposed to them altogether. As I've said many times, they're important for creating categories of units and determining what units fight for the same design space and therefore need to serve different roles. I just find it more interesting to make side grade choice for wargear over trying to find the right cost for it. All pointing wargear has ever accomplished is stopping people from taking it. I get that it removes the prior choice of taking "nothing" but I think the game is way more interesting when sgts are equipped for close combat and units are packing those special weapons that are so iconic to the franchise over more boltgun equivalents.
I prefer armies that look "realistic", which means they are functioning on limited resources.
If my Tank Company chooses not to use sponsons because of points limitations, then the narrative is that the company prioritizes it's resources differently (i.e. focuses on fuel or battlecannon ammunition rather than tripling the ammunition requirement for heavy bolters, or prefers the ease of maintenance in the absence of the awkward sponsons so the energy can be put into maintaining the powerful Vanquisher cannons that I spent my points on instead).
A specialized tank hunter team equipped with lascannons has no business giving the sergeant a thunder hammer. If I was a real commander, I would take that thunder hammer away from him and give it to an Assault Squad, so the hammer is more likely to get used. If another hammer teleported into the hands of the Devastator sergeant, I would take that one too and issue it to the other Assault squad members.
Eventually, I would make sure essentially EVERYONE except Devastator squads and tank crews in my Company has a thunder hammer before a Devastator was even allowed to ask nicely for one, sergeant or not.
Currently, my commander just seems like a fething idiot, because the Assault Squad of ten men is going in with one hammer and nine chainswords, while the Devastator sergeant is standing miles away with his own hammer, wondering if there could have been any way to help the assault squad be better at assaulting...
So type yourself up some fluff as to why your assault squad only has that 1 hammer.
If you can make up stories about your models - that no-one else will ever know or care about - to reflect pts spent/no spent, surely you can still make stuff up in the absence of pts.
a_typical_hero wrote: Weren't HWT mortars just caught in the crossfire? I thought it was Guard artillery vehicles that were partially overperforming (compared to the rest of the army...).
No, opportunity cost alone hardly adequatly can cover the difference in ability for HWT f.e. in a militia list for the anti infantry weapon. F.e. I consider the following options as that, Stubber, Heavy bolter, and mortar. Both the mortar and the heavy bolter cost more than the stubber. Understandably so, one is a 3 shot weapon with S4 and Ap 6. The Mortar has indirect fire and pinning for +5 pts from the stubber as baseline. The Heavy bolter in HH is S5, Ap4, 4 shots at 10 pts more. It is arguable if the HB should cost the same as the AC in HH.
But now assume a system in which there are no points instead you pay a flat 30 pts / HWT in a HWT squad. Neither the mortar nor stubber would ever see the light of day. AC and ML could arguably see play because that is wha the squads profile + an upgrade to these weapons would incidentally cost. Except that they then all compete directly on a profile basis with the lascannon. And here we get to the core problem. When i am anyways paying 30pts / HWT so flat 90 instead of the current 60 for a min squad of HWT's , why would i ever consider the Missile launcher ? I wouldn't. And it's not just the now far too cheap lascanon that pressures those weapons out of the game, because even when you want an anti infantry gun, the AC is still priced fine and offers high quality slightly lower RoF with medium antitank capabilities. For a task that any core infantry unit of grunts in your army can do and that remains true.
hence why the perception wont actually shift, but instead people will start loading up on the now potentially discounted antitank weaponry, and if the squad is priced as if it would field antitank weapons anyways, like legionairs in 40k. Why'd you ever consider a HB or an AC or ML in the first place? You won't , you'll see lascannons because the squad is priced as if it had lascannons. You'll see greater melee weapons or whatevs they are called, instead of chainswords. Because you anyways pay for it.
Yet here we are where the first "patch" to the game is a nerf for indirect fire as it has been deemed too good, suggesting people still want those mortars.
It's not impossible to see a world where the majority of those weapons on the hwt all viable in different ways and do not require massively different point values, if at all. The game and the weapon profiles simply don't support it at this time though.
That world however is not 40k with the current lack of mechanics and completely moronical wound table
So type yourself up some fluff as to why your assault squad only has that 1 hammer.
If you can make up stories about your models - that no-one else will ever know or care about - to reflect pts spent/no spent, surely you can still make stuff up in the absence of pts.
It's very easy to say "because of resource limitations, the assault squads were issued as many hammers as possible".
It's very hard to say "because he's an donkey-cave, the Devastator sergeant kept his hammer despite receiving a direct order to hand it over to the Assault Squad"
LunarSol wrote: That's fair certainly. I think there's definitely armies that have less interesting Wargear where GW has leaned on a Grunts/Grunts+ model differentiated by points. Those armies running into the problems I mentioned are why I think its more interesting when you simplify the points and instead focus on making units serve distinct roles. I've been impressed how often I've seen players swap in a unit of Incursors over their second Infiltrator slot as they find the value in their unique roles which is only possible because they cost the same but have important differences in what they do. GW being forced to rework its wargear in a similar way
The thing about points is that its always perfect hypothetically and I think a lot of faith in points comes from the idea that they can be perfected. I'm personally of the belief that changing points doesn't lead to meaningful decisions. If two things fill a similar role one is always going to supplant the other and you can flip the points back and forth to decide which one you want, but you're never going to make the choice of which one to take interesting. When you make things the same cost, you have to focus on making things serve different roles and makes choosing between them more interesting. I don't feel that points makes this more interesting.
That's not to say that I don't see a purpose to points. They're very useful for giving a list framework and general "this tank is worth X units" kind of big picture structure. Deciding what shares a cost is how you narrow down what needs to be a parallel choice. It's the obsession with whether a power sword should cost 3 points or 5 where I feel like points get in the way of creating interesting list building decisions rather than making those choices more compelling to try.
Yeah, as I've said before I like sidegrades. 'What do I want this squad to do' is a much more interesting question than 'Can I afford a plasma gun'. And I don't mind squads having some level of innate wargear because I can't see an Ultramarines sergeant imploring his brothers to leave their special weapons at home so that they can, I dunno, get better gas mileage in the Rhino or whatever.
I just have two issues: #1, that the fixed unit sizes and lack of pointed upgrades make it a pain in the ass to build lists, and I find that while the math is simpler it's been replaced by a more annoying puzzle of figuring out what I can fit in the army.
And #2, that there are so, so many upgrades that were never intended to be sidegrades and still aren't and can't be made sidegrades without significant game-wide redesign. 'Do I spend 3pts on a power sword' was never a particularly interesting choice, but it still beats the non-option of just defaulting to a power sword because there's no reason not to take it, and at least provides compensation for people who haven't built all their sergeants with power swords. And it's doubly frustrating because the game does still have minor points differences between otherwise very similar datasheets, but within a datasheet the power of a unit could vary wildly with no effect on cost.
FWIW Age of Sigmar addresses #1 by letting you buy command points with whatever leftovers you have. There's still some annoying shuffling if you want to replace a unit with a slightly more expensive one, but there's some compensation for not bringing the full allotment. And it's a system that has been designed around sidegrades from the start, with one-off models like command models just being innate to the unit, so it doesn't have #2 to begin with.
I don't need points to be perfected, I don't need every decision to be interesting, I don't need meaningful choices at every step of listbuilding. I just don't want non-options masquerading as options, and I'd like some compensation for legacy models that aren't kitted out with every bell and whistle on the datasheet.
I don't really think it's a big ask or any kind of radical paradigm shift, just walk back the dogmatic principle that only differences between datasheets are worth accounting for. Not everything needs to have a points cost, but some things really should.
You're stuck on value. A unit's role and design space is part of it's value. You want units with interesting and diverse values. That's good. I'd like that too. But this is a discussion of cost. How to accurately cost that value. You can loose some granularity in cost and the game would probably be ok. 10th edition lost too much granularity on cost. So now, options of widely different value have the same cost. In which if you don't pick the better value for the cost, you are bad at playing games. Or play games for entirely different reasons than I do.
That's literally always been how points in 40k work. The loss in granularity hasn't changed that one bit unless you insist on not taking the "optional" wargear because you technically do not have to. Personally I feel like 10th's choices in unit options are more compelling because they are more driven by the purpose they serve than the cost they've been assigned. I feel like I have more interesting choices now than I have under any prior points system.
Note that I did not feel this way about Power Level because Power Level unit configuration was still built on loadouts that were meant to be limited by points. Weapons did not have any sort of parity to avoid one clearly being the best choice. That certainly still exists in the new system, but more than ever before I feel like wargear options are interesting and not just fat to be trimmed.
You do know that a lot of armies in this game have limited options in a lot of roles right? Like if you want to kill tanks in this edition, there's like 2 or maybe 3 options for some armies. You have to build around them and army construction is Tetris now. So instead of reducing the size of a unit by model, or taking a less optimal weapon set, you are forced to re-organize several units in the army to make it fit. This creates situations where to get Option A and B in the list, you cannot ever fit option C. This is not more interesting choice, this is less choice.
Sometimes working around constraints if fun and interesting, until the Eldar army that took all the free "optional" upgrades tables you on turn 2.
Yeah, as I've said before I like sidegrades. 'What do I want this squad to do' is a much more interesting question than 'Can I afford a plasma gun'. And I don't mind squads having some level of innate wargear because I can't see an Ultramarines sergeant imploring his brothers to leave their special weapons at home so that they can, I dunno, get better gas mileage in the Rhino or whatever.
I just have two issues: #1, that the fixed unit sizes and lack of pointed upgrades make it a pain in the ass to build lists, and I find that while the math is simpler it's been replaced by a more annoying puzzle of figuring out what I can fit in the army.
And #2, that there are so, so many upgrades that were never intended to be sidegrades and still aren't and can't be made sidegrades without significant game-wide redesign. 'Do I spend 3pts on a power sword' was never a particularly interesting choice, but it still beats the non-option of just defaulting to a power sword because there's no reason not to take it, and at least provides compensation for people who haven't built all their sergeants with power swords. And it's doubly frustrating because the game does still have minor points differences between otherwise very similar datasheets, but within a datasheet the power of a unit could vary wildly with no effect on cost.
FWIW Age of Sigmar addresses #1 by letting you buy command points with whatever leftovers you have. There's still some annoying shuffling if you want to replace a unit with a slightly more expensive one, but there's some compensation for not bringing the full allotment. And it's a system that has been designed around sidegrades from the start, with one-off models like command models just being innate to the unit, so it doesn't have #2 to begin with.
I don't need points to be perfected, I don't need every decision to be interesting, I don't need meaningful choices at every step of listbuilding. I just don't want non-options masquerading as options, and I'd like some compensation for legacy models that aren't kitted out with every bell and whistle on the datasheet.
I don't really think it's a big ask or any kind of radical paradigm shift, just walk back the dogmatic principle that only differences between datasheets are worth accounting for. Not everything needs to have a points cost, but some things really should.
I guess I'm just not overly concerned about it. I've had more Hunter Killer Missiles fired at me from Rhinos this edition than ever, but it doesn't really bother me that they're not actually modeled. Most units, even without a modeled power sword, have a guy that stands out as the Sgt and I'm fine with it just not being prominantly featured. I'm not going to notice how many sponsons are actually modeled on a Russ, particularly in a game where every Russ has the same number of sponsons. Going forward it just creates more fun models. All my cool bits are in the box. I'm way more excited to see them on the models.
Or it's just that Cruddace and Jervis are bad at what they do
Their insane ramblings about game/rules design in White Dwarf are extremely illuminating.
JJ has been exclusively fantasy since the mid 90s hasn't he?
Still think managements "make it accessible for everyone" demands are probably more influential than any individual designers but who knows. I understand it but modern GW products are just something I am not really interested in, i give them a go but hasnt been a core ruleset i have been that interested in since 7th editions of both main games.
Have you read their interviews? If their logic were applied anywhere else they'd be fired for incompetence, but they get a pass thanks to GW not being held accountable.
LunarSol wrote: I've had more Hunter Killer Missiles fired at me from Rhinos this edition than ever, but it doesn't really bother me that they're not actually modeled. Most units, even without a modeled power sword, have a guy that stands out as the Sgt and I'm fine with it just not being prominantly featured.
But what about special and heavy weapons troopers? Or banner bearers, medics, and vox operators for command squads?
I mean, even if you don't enforce WYSIWYG it's still a pain in the ass to track who has which free upgrade, and if you don't allow those non-modeled upgrades then across an entire army that can have a substantial impact.
Plus there are squads where I don't feel it's thematically appropriate to take every upgrade. Eg for Tyranid Warriors, right now the objectively correct choice is for each squad to be 1/3 Venom Cannons, 1/3 Barbed Stranglers, and 1/3 some other weapon. Having 2/3 of the squad carrying heavy weapons is weird, and doesn't track with the art, the studio armies, or how the army has worked in the past.
A: The current system has problems
B: No it's fine. Everything is fine, it's all just side grades
A: (shows several specific examples of how it's not)
B: LOL, just say your Leman Russ has sponsons, no one cares.
I do kind of care if a Leman Russ has sponsons. If I didn't care what things were modeled like, I cut out a cardboard rectangle and write "Leman Russ with 1 million lascanon sponsons" on it in sharpie.
You do know that a lot of armies in this game have limited options in a lot of roles right? Like if you want to kill tanks in this edition, there's like 2 or maybe 3 options for some armies. You have to build around them and army construction is Tetris now. So instead of reducing the size of a unit by model, or taking a less optimal weapon set, you are forced to re-organize several units in the army to make it fit. This creates situations where to get Option A and B in the list, you cannot ever fit option C. This is not more interesting choice, this is less choice.
Sometimes working around constraints if fun and interesting, until the Eldar army that took all the free "optional" upgrades tables you on turn 2.
I do and I think there's a lot of armies that would be better served by normalizing unit costs and giving their units more diverse rolls to alleviate that. I also don't think its that different than before, simply because filling points with Wargear was almost always a trap and rarely actually worth taking unless it was good enough that it was a mistake not to take. Unit sizes are probably the more contentious issue, but I also get that they're providing a lot of value to the Blast keyword by avoiding the ability to build around it.
Honestly, I'm not sure if there's a great solution to leftover points in general. I have yet to run across a "filler" upgrade system that really works, simply because like the models themselves, they're either worth taking and therefore must be taken or not and its better to rework the rest of the list to use the leftover points more efficiently. Even if you buy some kind of resource like AOS's command point buy, you often need to do so with purpose for the same reason.
There's definitely armies with badly design point layouts. Tetris is fine and all, but some of them are Tetris 2 with the offset blocks that don't fit correctly. This is why I don't like granular points as I'd just rather have simple shapes that fit together well and units built to fill those roles.
LunarSol wrote: I've had more Hunter Killer Missiles fired at me from Rhinos this edition than ever, but it doesn't really bother me that they're not actually modeled. Most units, even without a modeled power sword, have a guy that stands out as the Sgt and I'm fine with it just not being prominantly featured.
But what about special and heavy weapons troopers? Or banner bearers, medics, and vox operators for command squads?
I mean, even if you don't enforce WYSIWYG it's still a pain in the ass to track who has which free upgrade, and if you don't allow those non-modeled upgrades then across an entire army that can have a substantial impact.
Plus there are squads where I don't feel it's thematically appropriate to take every upgrade. Eg for Tyranid Warriors, right now the objectively correct choice is for each squad to be 1/3 Venom Cannons, 1/3 Barbed Stranglers, and 1/3 some other weapon. Having 2/3 of the squad carrying heavy weapons is weird, and doesn't track with the art, the studio armies, or how the army has worked in the past.
Some of that just requires new models. I have yet to see an edition change that didn't create some form of this problem. Usually its in the form of "all my missiles need to be replaced with plasma now" or whatever is now the cost effective option.is. I don't really consider it a new issue at all. Theoretically if you've thrown out all your bits its an issue, but that's an issue GW was going to nail you with in one form or another. If you've got bits its pretty easy to either hack up old models or worst case, buy a unit and just make them all heavy weapon options to swap into the rest of your army.
A: The current system has problems
B: No it's fine. Everything is fine, it's all just side grades
A: (shows several specific examples of how it's not)
B: LOL, just say your Leman Russ has sponsons, no one cares.
I do kind of care if a Leman Russ has sponsons. If I didn't care what things were modeled like, I cut out a cardboard rectangle and write "Leman Russ with 1 million lascanon sponsons" on it in sharpie.
There's some abstractions that are required, I agree sponsons are maybe too far but "ignore wysiwyg" is an easy work around in the current environment. Did your modelling choices inform your army list or did the rules inform your modelling previously out of interest?
A: The current system has problems
B: No it's fine. Everything is fine, it's all just side grades
A: (shows several specific examples of how it's not)
B: LOL, just say your Leman Russ has sponsons, no one cares.
I do kind of care if a Leman Russ has sponsons. If I didn't care what things were modeled like, I cut out a cardboard rectangle and write "Leman Russ with 1 million lascanon sponsons" on it in sharpie.
There's some abstractions that are required, I agree sponsons are maybe too far but "ignore wysiwyg" is an easy work around in the current environment. Did your modelling choices inform your army list or did the rules inform your modelling previously out of interest?
I was being hyperbolic. I like to make my best effort to play an army that is accurately modeled. I will re-build or buy units to get there over time. I do this because I think it's a major part of the hobby. If I didn't care about modeling and painting, there are many other very good games I could be playing with my free time. And I would just build gundam models for my own edification. I like 40k because it a nice convergence of modeling and gaming. Two things I like.
Look, even if my armies where 100% magnetized and swappable I'd still have an issue here because of the obvious gameplay problems it creates
A: The current system has problems
B: No it's fine. Everything is fine, it's all just side grades
A: (shows several specific examples of how it's not)
B: LOL, just say your Leman Russ has sponsons, no one cares.
I do kind of care if a Leman Russ has sponsons. If I didn't care what things were modeled like, I cut out a cardboard rectangle and write "Leman Russ with 1 million lascanon sponsons" on it in sharpie.
At no point have I said the new system doesn't have problems, I just prefer these new problems to the old ones.
Also, I absolutely care how my stuff is modeled, I just don't care how anyone else models theirs. I care, and I take the time to swap things around as best I can, but I'm not going to hold it against anyone who doesn't do the same. I've never once checked to see if a marine has the grenades they throw modeled on, but I think they're cool to include. If you want to take the time to bolt sponsons on, I admire the effort, but I'm not going to demand your performance suffer needlessly if you don't want to change things, especially since nothing in the game stays the way it is for long.
Or it's just that Cruddace and Jervis are bad at what they do
Their insane ramblings about game/rules design in White Dwarf are extremely illuminating.
JJ has been exclusively fantasy since the mid 90s hasn't he?
Still think managements "make it accessible for everyone" demands are probably more influential than any individual designers but who knows. I understand it but modern GW products are just something I am not really interested in, i give them a go but hasnt been a core ruleset i have been that interested in since 7th editions of both main games.
Tell that to 4th ed Dark Angels players...
Authored by Jervis "I've gutted this codex as my son cannot seem to understand how to add up wargear costs, so apparently no-one can" Johnson.
A: The current system has problems
B: No it's fine. Everything is fine, it's all just side grades
A: (shows several specific examples of how it's not)
B: LOL, just say your Leman Russ has sponsons, no one cares.
I do kind of care if a Leman Russ has sponsons. If I didn't care what things were modeled like, I cut out a cardboard rectangle and write "Leman Russ with 1 million lascanon sponsons" on it in sharpie.
At no point have I said the new system doesn't have problems, I just prefer these new problems to the old ones.
Also, I absolutely care how my stuff is modeled, I just don't care how anyone else models theirs. I care, and I take the time to swap things around as best I can, but I'm not going to hold it against anyone who doesn't do the same. I've never once checked to see if a marine has the grenades they throw modeled on, but I think they're cool to include. If you want to take the time to bolt sponsons on, I admire the effort, but I'm not going to demand your performance suffer needlessly if you don't want to change things, especially since nothing in the game stays the way it is for long.
All of the new problems, are just the old problems magnified by a factor of 10!
LunarSol wrote: Some of that just requires new models. I have yet to see an edition change that didn't create some form of this problem. Usually its in the form of "all my missiles need to be replaced with plasma now" or whatever is now the cost effective option.is. I don't really consider it a new issue at all. Theoretically if you've thrown out all your bits its an issue, but that's an issue GW was going to nail you with in one form or another. If you've got bits its pretty easy to either hack up old models or worst case, buy a unit and just make them all heavy weapon options to swap into the rest of your army.
This isn't my first rodeo. I've seen other options be added to a codex only to be taken away in the next, I don't have any confidence that GW is going to stick with this everything-for-free model in perpetuity, and just last year we watched GW release the 9th Ed Tyranids codex with no wargear costs, say 'oops', and then add points costs to the heavy weapons to balance them.
At least when the issue was 'missile launchers suck now, take plasma' there was the potential that the costs would be adjusted and missile launchers would be viable again, particularly in an era of quarterly updates. Now? I don't know where this is going, I don't know if GW even recognizes there's a problem, and I'm not about to spend a bunch of time and money to rebuild my armies with that uncertainty.
This isn't my first rodeo. I've seen other options be added to a codex only to be taken away in the next, I don't have any confidence that GW is going to stick with this everything-for-free model in perpetuity, and just last year we watched GW release the 9th Ed Tyranids codex with no wargear costs, say 'oops', and then add points costs to the heavy weapons to balance them.
At least when the issue was 'missile launchers suck now, take plasma' there was the potential that the costs would be adjusted and missile launchers would be viable again, particularly in an era of quarterly updates. Now? I don't know where this is going, I don't know if GW even recognizes there's a problem, and I'm not about to spend a bunch of time and money to rebuild my armies with that uncertainty.
I just don't have the same faith in that potential. It shuffles the problem around, but doesn't solve it the same way you would if you focused on providing each option more distinct roles to fill. There are times where points are the right dial to turn, but in my experience that's when something is significantly in the wrong bracket more than something that can even things out with a small tweak.
LunarSol wrote: Some of that just requires new models. I have yet to see an edition change that didn't create some form of this problem. Usually its in the form of "all my missiles need to be replaced with plasma now" or whatever is now the cost effective option.is. I don't really consider it a new issue at all. Theoretically if you've thrown out all your bits its an issue, but that's an issue GW was going to nail you with in one form or another. If you've got bits its pretty easy to either hack up old models or worst case, buy a unit and just make them all heavy weapon options to swap into the rest of your army.
This isn't my first rodeo. I've seen other options be added to a codex only to be taken away in the next, I don't have any confidence that GW is going to stick with this everything-for-free model in perpetuity, and just last year we watched GW release the 9th Ed Tyranids codex with no wargear costs, say 'oops', and then add points costs to the heavy weapons to balance them.
At least when the issue was 'missile launchers suck now, take plasma' there was the potential that the costs would be adjusted and missile launchers would be viable again, particularly in an era of quarterly updates. Now? I don't know where this is going, I don't know if GW even recognizes there's a problem, and I'm not about to spend a bunch of time and money to rebuild my armies with that uncertainty.
Missile Launchers are interesting in that for nearly the entire history of the game it was a safe option when compared to the standard list of imperial heavy weapons. Melta and Plasma waxed and waned based on meta and edition cycle. Heavy Bolters were cheap but limiting and Lascanons often where expensive and redundant. But the good old missile launcher was usually well costed, tactically flexible, and reasonably useful. Now it's just a mid tier heavy that is going to lose out to the Lascannon nearly every time because they pressed 'Del' on the one thing that prevented everyone from just putting lascannons on everything
Or it's just that Cruddace and Jervis are bad at what they do
Their insane ramblings about game/rules design in White Dwarf are extremely illuminating.
JJ has been exclusively fantasy since the mid 90s hasn't he?
Still think managements "make it accessible for everyone" demands are probably more influential than any individual designers but who knows. I understand it but modern GW products are just something I am not really interested in, i give them a go but hasnt been a core ruleset i have been that interested in since 7th editions of both main games.
Have you read their interviews? If their logic were applied anywhere else they'd be fired for incompetence, but they get a pass thanks to GW not being held accountable.
Ive read one of Johnsons from some years back and yeah I agree he views wargaming in a very old fashioned way that doesn't really natch with modern gamers. He also loves a feth ton of rules, random charts and a more simulation style of game than modern Warhammer though so not sure. Either way, I do agree with you that Games Workshop for whatever reason make some incredibly odd decisions. They always have but i at least used to be able to understand why or what they were going for.
A: The current system has problems
B: No it's fine. Everything is fine, it's all just side grades
A: (shows several specific examples of how it's not)
B: LOL, just say your Leman Russ has sponsons, no one cares.
A: but....
B: that game was never balanced, just don't be TFGWAAC player and losing a fun game is much better than winning
Andykp wrote: So Gert comes in and says he likes the current system (or at least finds it tolerable) and gets harangued out of the conversation with bs comments and attacks. This place really is a vile cesspit.
Why can’t any of you see that something imperfect might work for someone else, or perhaps be better for someone else. Stop being such narrow minded little children.
And if gameworkshop listened to any of your amazing advice on making the game then how come it is in such a state as to make you all so angry?? Get over yourselves and maybe try and be a bit more accepting of other peoples opinions, whether you think they are right or wrong.
Take your own advise and relise while this may work for a tiny minority it dosent work for most of us.
Changing the subject. Would this system work better if games workshop actively promoted doing away with WYSIWYG?
I mean if WYSIWYG were gone than your dudes are always equipped with the best option and you can model them in whatever way looks good to you. The only worry would be if GW then goes back to an older style system with WYSIWYG being important again.
I mean if WYSIWYG were gone than your dudes are always equipped with the best option and you can model them in whatever way looks good to you. The only worry would be if GW then goes back to an older style system with WYSIWYG being important again.
I think there's value in WYSIWYG but I really love the places where GW has reduced things down to things like "Power Weapon" that covers a wide range of options.
Andykp wrote: So Gert comes in and says he likes the current system (or at least finds it tolerable) and gets harangued out of the conversation with bs comments and attacks. This place really is a vile cesspit.
Could you quote exactly what these "vile" comments are? Because I haven't seen anything nearly that bad. I've seen people, myself included, questioning his claims but not allowing "I have fun and that's all that matters" to be a conversation-ending trump card does not make a place a vile cesspit.
And if gameworkshop listened to any of your amazing advice on making the game then how come it is in such a state as to make you all so angry??
They didn't listen to our advice, that was the whole point. They went looking for feedback in bad faith and singled out the comments praising Jervis-style STOP HAVING FUN THE WRONG WAY attitudes and took them as proof that PL was the correct decision.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Boosykes wrote: Would this system work better if games workshop actively promoted doing away with WYSIWYG?
Less badly I suppose, but not by much. You'd at least avoid punishing people for building their models the wrong way but it still wouldn't fix the problem that a lot of choices are objectively incorrect and only a relatively narrow subset of options will ever see the table. It's great that all my LRBTs can have sponsons even if I didn't build the model that way, it's not great that they all have to have sponsons even if lore-wise they shouldn't.
alextroy wrote: If by how little you mean Zero Effort because he isn't on the 40K Rules team, then you are right!
Maybe not technically but he's still an arrogant ass with a very poor understanding of game design and his narcissistic beliefs about "the right way to play" have been a huge influence on GW's culture. It doesn't mean much if he personally isn't there in any official capacity if the 40k team is still the people he hired because they agreed with his opinions.
Jervis left the company a while ago but his attitude of "I don't have to make an effort to write good rules just because I'm paid to do it, the marks will be happy anyway."clearly has had an effect in the way the 40k team works and keeps having an effect downstream in later editions. I attribute his behavior and that of Crudacce to simply laziness, and I think that overall they have made 40k worse. Their professed views about game design sound just like excuses to do whatever they wanted to, or from another angle the typical pathological lying common in White Dwarf to avoid recognizing any flaw in their products. I enjoy reading old, or not that old, White dwarfs but the lying gets in my nerves.
The idea that competence is more important for professional success than luck or being skilled in office politics is contrary to my experience as a customer and student in many places.
It's not just incompetence by Jervis, it's narcissism. See the article I posted earlier by Jervis, an extended rant about how anyone who enjoys points-based games with stock codex-legal armies and standard missions/terrain is having fun the wrong way and needs True Wargamers like him to enlighten the poor lost souls and allow them to see the One True Way To Play 40k. Making PL the only system is exactly what he would want to do, purely to tell the competitive players that they are not welcome in the community.
Excerpt:
"Something clearly needs to be done to teach players that tournament style play has its place, but it is a place well down in the pecking order of what constitutes a really good game."
Well, I said laziness because I think he didn't care, and i have the same view of others with similar arguments, it may be that he was sincere when he wrote that but I think it's just an excuse, because saying "I refuse to make the effort to write good rules" would never fly, no matter how much of a fanboy of GW someone is. This narrative of casual gaming being superior and not needing any balance sounds much better that saying "I don't give a frack". But he may have been sincere, and deluded. I just think that when someone says something absurd that coincidentally gives them a reason to do something that is good for them they probably are lying, and making your job easier is good for you. I really think that most of the reasons that GW has given to explain why they have done something is just spin. I may be too cynical but cui bono works most of the time.
alextroy wrote: If by how little you mean Zero Effort because he isn't on the 40K Rules team, then you are right!
He can still exert zero effort elsewhere? That doesn't change my statement on him or Cruddace.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ThePaintingOwl wrote: It's not just incompetence by Jervis, it's narcissism. See the article I posted earlier by Jervis, an extended rant about how anyone who enjoys points-based games with stock codex-legal armies and standard missions/terrain is having fun the wrong way and needs True Wargamers like him to enlighten the poor lost souls and allow them to see the One True Way To Play 40k. Making PL the only system is exactly what he would want to do, purely to tell the competitive players that they are not welcome in the community.
Excerpt:
"Something clearly needs to be done to teach players that tournament style play has its place, but it is a place well down in the pecking order of what constitutes a really good game."
And of course he's the kinda guy that thinks 4 different weapons in a Devastator/Havoc squad is brilliant.
Nothing about the Jervis-era of 40k (this was around 4th Edition) amuses me more than the paradigm shift that saw the introduction of the "wargear" section, a place all the weapons/equipment would be kept along with pictures because his young son didn't know what was what. Now you're probably thinking "What's wrong with that, exactly?", but as always with GW, it's not the concept, it's the execution!
A centralised location that contains all the weapons/wargear for an army is a good idea... and one that many Codices prior to this change had, but whatever (re-inventing the wheel is GW's style afterall)... but the actual result was a wargear section that often contained page references to other parts of the book, as the unit entry sections would often contain something that should have been in wargear. In some cases you had units with their rules spread across three different pages (one in the Marine 'Dex might've even been across 4 pages), which added to the flipping back and forth. The absolute nadir of this concept was the 4th Edition Guard Codex, where the vehicle upgrade section contained more page references to other parts of the book than actual rules entries, and one of those page references was a reference to a different book altogether (the core rulebook).
) - but the "points" system in 10th, which is just Power Level by a different name? That is awful and it is objectively worse than an actual points system, like the game has had for 9 of its 10 editions so far.
