One accounts for differences in relative power and utility, and the other does not. One is objectively superior and providing better comparisons and balance.
Upgrades certainly have never been useless, but they've been something pretty sparsely taken compared to the number of options available. Particularly notable are the stuff that only one model in the unit could take because in that capacity it doesn't really add to the unit's overall role. For every upgrade slot available in an army where you could take something, there's probably 3-4 where you left it empty to save points.
I just like how prominent this stuff is in the armies I've seen this edition. Units are more colorful in my opinion and where options aren't cutting it in the current system, I'd prefer they big fixed by trying to make them more interesting rather than make the interesting stuff prohibitively priced.
I'm not convinced that this was actually a systemic issue like you and others take for granted. Taking a single special weapon and a single heavy weapon in a squad of Tacticals was useful and there was a time when las/plas was the meta. Taking a vox was a godsend some editions, worthless in others. I remember Tyranid Warriors and Carnifexes having a whole suite of upgrades, and while not all equally useful, none of them were so worthless as to always be ignored.
But supposing that this was a problem and most upgrades weren't used, why not start with reviewing all the options and cutting prices in inverse proportion to how frequently they were chosen? If you've got an upgrade that's commonly used, then clearly it's worth whatever it costs. If it's rarely used, cutting its cost in half might make it see play. The worst you could do with this approach is go too far and make an upgrade so cheap it's a no-brainer... which would still be better than now, where all the upgrades are no-brainers and you get zero compensation for not taking them.
If the current model was a reaction to a perceived issue with the cost of upgrades, they jumped straight to the most extreme solution possible. And over time, as the meta is solved, I think you're going to find that the game becomes less colorful and less interesting when there's a cookie-cutter optimal loadout for each unit that at most differs in which special weapon is taken.
Upgrades certainly have never been useless, but they've been something pretty sparsely taken compared to the number of options available. Particularly notable are the stuff that only one model in the unit could take because in that capacity it doesn't really add to the unit's overall role. For every upgrade slot available in an army where you could take something, there's probably 3-4 where you left it empty to save points.
I just like how prominent this stuff is in the armies I've seen this edition. Units are more colorful in my opinion and where options aren't cutting it in the current system, I'd prefer they big fixed by trying to make them more interesting rather than make the interesting stuff prohibitively priced.
I'm not convinced that this was actually a systemic issue like you and others take for granted. Taking a single special weapon and a single heavy weapon in a squad of Tacticals was useful and there was a time when las/plas was the meta. Taking a vox was a godsend some editions, worthless in others. I remember Tyranid Warriors and Carnifexes having a whole suite of upgrades, and while not all equally useful, none of them were so worthless as to always be ignored.
Eh. There have always been some upgrades that were never-takes, even if only because they took up the same "slot" as another option. 8th(?) edition Shadow Specter exarchs come to mind. For some reason, you had to pay points to upgrade a specter to an exarch even though that wasn't the case for any other exarch in that edition. Doing so gave you a squad leader with an extra wound and some a few gun options. The problem is that all of the exarch-only guns were actually worse than the default gun, or at least were "better" in a very niche role that didn't fit the rest of the squad. So by paying points for an exarch, you were functionally making the unit as a whole less good for their points.
Or a simpler example: it was pretty rare to see anyone fielding kabalite warrior sybarites with melee weapons in 8th/9th because the loss of furious charge, the initiative stat, comparative WS, and bonus attacks on the charge meant that you couldn't really pull off the cheeky warrior charges you could in 5th-7th. And most editions I've played, there's been at least one eldar vehicle upgrade that basically never gets taken because there are always at least two options you'd rather take before it. And if you took *all the upgrades*, you end up putting too many points into one basket.
I do prefer points to power level, but one of the small upsides of power level is that you can do things like put power weapons on your devastator sergeants or swooping hawk exarchs without feeling like you're hurting your list overall.
But supposing that this was a problem and most upgrades weren't used, why not start with reviewing all the options and cutting prices in inverse proportion to how frequently they were chosen? If you've got an upgrade that's commonly used, then clearly it's worth whatever it costs. If it's rarely used, cutting its cost in half might make it see play. The worst you could do with this approach is go too far and make an upgrade so cheap it's a no-brainer... which would still be better than now, where all the upgrades are no-brainers and you get zero compensation for not taking them.
If the current model was a reaction to a perceived issue with the cost of upgrades, they jumped straight to the most extreme solution possible. And over time, as the meta is solved, I think you're going to find that the game becomes less colorful and less interesting when there's a cookie-cutter optimal loadout for each unit that at most differs in which special weapon is taken.
Wyldhunt wrote: Eh. There have always been some upgrades that were never-takes, even if only because they took up the same "slot" as another option. 8th(?) edition Shadow Specter exarchs come to mind. For some reason, you had to pay points to upgrade a specter to an exarch even though that wasn't the case for any other exarch in that edition. Doing so gave you a squad leader with an extra wound and some a few gun options. The problem is that all of the exarch-only guns were actually worse than the default gun, or at least were "better" in a very niche role that didn't fit the rest of the squad. So by paying points for an exarch, you were functionally making the unit as a whole less good for their points.
Or a simpler example: it was pretty rare to see anyone fielding kabalite warrior sybarites with melee weapons in 8th/9th because the loss of furious charge, the initiative stat, comparative WS, and bonus attacks on the charge meant that you couldn't really pull off the cheeky warrior charges you could in 5th-7th. And most editions I've played, there's been at least one eldar vehicle upgrade that basically never gets taken because there are always at least two options you'd rather take before it. And if you took *all the upgrades*, you end up putting too many points into one basket.
I do prefer points to power level, but one of the small upsides of power level is that you can do things like put power weapons on your devastator sergeants or swooping hawk exarchs without feeling like you're hurting your list overall.
Of course, there were some upgrades that were never taken because they conflicted with the role of the unit, didn't provide a useful capability, or took the same slot as a better choice. Those are all harder to balance, and ultimately may require redesign, because as you point out there were times when you could make an upgrade free and people still wouldn't take it because, hey, Way Better Thing is only 5pts.
But. The claim I was replying to was that upgrades were sparsely taken compared to the options available, that one-per-unit upgrades were rarely useful, and that some 80% of options were passed over to save points. None of that is true, and I think you can pretty easily demonstrate that by looking at 9th Ed competitive lists and seeing whether or not a majority of units with upgrades available took none of them.
Maybe more importantly, one of the issues you pointed out- upgrades that are never taken because there's a better thing in the same slot- is made worse by the approach of making all the upgrades free. Now instead of it being a no-brainer to pay 5pts for the Way Better Thing, it isn't a choice at all; they're all free so either you take the Way Better Thing or you're deliberately handicapping yourself.
As I've said before in this thread I like the idea of having some wargear be innate and I like sidegrades, both for thematic purposes as well as interesting choices rather than economical ones. What I do not understand is this revisionist history where GWhad to make all upgrades free to get anybody to use them. That's absolutely not true; it's more accurate to say that some upgrades were rarely or never taken, and GW's solution is a real throwing-out-the-baby-with-the-bathwater choice.
Realistically, that choice probably has everything to do with simplifying the game for approachability and nothing whatsoever to do with addressing legacy issues with certain options.
Tittliewinks22 wrote: in fact there's a ton of people that prefer PL system which is why they gravitated towards Age of Sigmar over 40k.
There's also many people who use to like points, but now prefer PL or (simpler point brackets) because the size of the game has grown exponentially since the early editions both in terms of standard points for play and amount of models fielded.
People need to understand that not every hobbyist has the same expectations. While you may value striving for perfect balance and granular points, that is a preference. Others may not value these factors when playing the game and actually prefer the simpler points scheme.
and some people need to understand that the problem is not the general system, but how GW used it for 40k if 40k would use the same system as for AoS, there would not be a problem but they did not
because in AoS, if a weapon is an upgrade instead of a sidegrade, the unit with this weapon become its own entry (datacard) with its own points
no matter if this is the same box or not
the problem is not a point system with fixed unit sizes and were the basic weapons are already part of the cost
but that upgrades are free and the point costs are adjusted for one specific loadout and ignoring the options the unit has
Kings of War uses such a system and no one has a problem with it because you pay extra for upgrades and you have fixed unit sizes anyway
AoS works because upgrades cost points in the form that the unit gets its own entry
40k, everything is based on the boxes the models come in and those boxes were never designed to be balanced for the game
so it does not work and is inferior to the systems used before
difference is you don't purchase singel models in AoS, like a unit has fixed points for 5 or 10 models
it is the right mix between, hence why it works
same as 40k worked in 3rd-7th
hence when someone saying that people like it in AoS and therefore must like it in 40k, yes if 40k ever gets the same system most people will like it, but it is not the same
but because change for the sake of change GW need to swing from one extreme (everything costs points) to another for 40k so that people really get that they must buy more
New system is fine... I'm a little spoiled in that I either have enough units of a type, was clairvoyant enough to magnetize most big options, or realize that for the few units I have that aren't... the point difference is so small that I don't really feel the hit.
but 40k needs to really really simplify. It's too bad people whined so much in the alpha-testing moments that eliminating S and T never happened. I've played GrimDark, it's pretty much that. Turns out it works just fine if you calm down and give it a chance.
When 40k has to compete against modern games and re-launches like Alpha-strike BattleTech, it just doesn't compare well
Don't worry, it will bloat up again all too soon... the small gap for someone new to learn the game with moderate ease will close... hopefully, some of them hang around
But set cards, set costs, and set unit sizes are just way better for the game. Did GW need to give the heavy bolter some more shots or whatever? Sure.
But its not set unit costs that's the problem here, it was timid improvements of some weaker weapons that needed a raise in the attack value to compete with heavy hitters
Simple enough concept to grasp if one has played other wargames or had to struggle teaching bloated 7th-9th edition and saw the missed opportunity in the indexes, or watched a new gamer learn modern games and then, in contrast, watched someone learn 40k, or played 11 editions of 40k
The SYSTEM we have now is a great idea.
Its implementation was flawed because the design team balked at yelling internet grognards wanting to keep Leading Edge Games and OGRE era stuff around way way past its expiration date. I remember those days. Glad we have better things now... happy the jam dice are gone... I'll be happier still when index cards and a couple pages of rules gets us past 80% of the need-to-know stuff in a game... almost there. Let it go. Let it happen
Lobokai wrote: But set cards, set costs, and set unit sizes are just way better for the game.
Why?
Supposed ease of balance.
Which.. yeah there's a point for a case to be made. But those are all in systems that are competetnly designed with a slew of core mechanics that are not in existence in GW40k since 8th onwards.-
Lobokai wrote: It's too bad people whined so much in the alpha-testing moments that eliminating S and T never happened.
And how exactly do you suggest representing the difference in defense between a grot and a titan without strength and toughness stats? Or the difference in offense between a laspistol and a volcano cannon? Eliminating S and T values would only work in a historical game where you only have human infantry, it's a game-destroying mistake in a game with the scope of 40k.
But its not set unit costs that's the problem here, it was timid improvements of some weaker weapons that needed a raise in the attack value to compete with heavy hitters
How exactly do you make having zero sponsons, zero hunter-killer missiles, and zero heavy stubbers compete with having all of those things? How do you make a laspistol compete with a plasma pistol without destroying the lore to do it?
Lobokai wrote: It's too bad people whined so much in the alpha-testing moments that eliminating S and T never happened.
And how exactly do you suggest representing the difference in defense between a grot and a titan without strength and toughness stats? Or the difference in offense between a laspistol and a volcano cannon? Eliminating S and T values would only work in a historical game where you only have human infantry, it's a game-destroying mistake in a game with the scope of 40k.
In those kind of games you usually just have "offensive" and "defensive" values. The titan might either roll more offensive dice and/or needs a lower value to succeed on those while it is the opposite for a grot.
a_typical_hero wrote: In those kind of games you usually just have "offensive" and "defensive" values. The titan might either roll more offensive dice and/or needs a lower value to succeed on those while it is the opposite for a grot.
"Offense and defense" is just strength and toughness by a different name. You could definitely use a different system for representing those things if you wanted to do a complete re-write of 40k but that's not at all the same as just removing S and T from the game as rumored before 10th. The rumor/proposal then was that weapons would just roll to hit on BS/WS as normal, automatically wound, and then the defender would roll to save.
Lobokai wrote: But set cards, set costs, and set unit sizes are just way better for the game.
Why?
Supposed ease of balance.
Which.. yeah there's a point for a case to be made. But those are all in systems that are competetnly designed with a slew of core mechanics that are not in existence in GW40k since 8th onwards.-
So no, the answer is once again no.
Well sure, balance is a good reason (ugh, can you imagine if 40k was balanced?! how annoying), but it's ease of entry and more time playing the game and less pouring over rules (at all levels). I've easily taught 300 people 40k over the years (I run an after-school club, not store, club, and am part of the Warhammer Alliance in North America... almost every big change in 10th was one I asked for... but almost all of them weren't done the whole way through). A big ask was shortened rules, trim of outliers, and streamline costs and wound mechanics... and please, unit info on cards. Most modern games are better at this, and consequently, teens and college students actually play them.
For every 10 people I've taught BattleTech, 9 have bought models for the game.
... for X-Wing, probably 5
... for CAV, 4
My friends who teach Legion and DropZone/Fleet, probably interests 4 in that game
GrimDarkFuture? Probably 3 out of every 10
40K? maybe 1 in 10.. and its by far my favorite game. But the rules bloat, the needless complexity of legacy mechanics (that do NOTHING) and the crawl of a shooting phase... ugh. Pretty much every game does similar things like this better. I can teach any game in 1 session and pretty much turn the player loose. 40K? not so much
GrimDark Future is such a similar experience, yet goes SO much faster and better. People get to play the game instead of reading a rulebook and arguing. I want this game to thrive, but incremental points below the 1% gradient and 20 books of rules per edition and roll to hit, to wound, to save, to not feel pain is killing a game that right up to the rules itself really does great pulling people towards it.
I love it when my models get used. In the heydays of 4th and when I finally gave in and used GrimDarkFuture Rules during 8th-9th and in rare moments in between, I'd have 6 battles/12 players using my stuff... 10th might be the first time in a while I've seen that be possible again with official rules.
Well sure, balance is a good reason (ugh, can you imagine if 40k was balanced?! how annoying), but it's ease of entry and more time playing the game and less pouring over rules (at all levels). I've easily taught 300 people 40k over the years (I run an after-school club, not store, club, and am part of the Warhammer Alliance in North America... almost every big change in 10th was one I asked for... but almost all of them weren't done the whole way through). A big ask was shortened rules, trim of outliers, and streamline costs and wound mechanics... and please, unit info on cards. Most modern games are better at this, and consequently, teens and college students actually play them.
For every 10 people I've taught BattleTech, 9 have bought models for the game.
... for X-Wing, probably 5
... for CAV, 4
My friends who teach Legion and DropZone/Fleet, probably interests 4 in that game
GrimDarkFuture? Probably 3 out of every 10
40K? maybe 1 in 10.. and its by far my favorite game. But the rules bloat, the needless complexity of legacy mechanics (that do NOTHING) and the crawl of a shooting phase... ugh. Pretty much every game does similar things like this better. I can teach any game in 1 session and pretty much turn the player loose. 40K? not so much
GrimDark Future is such a similar experience, yet goes SO much faster and better. People get to play the game instead of reading a rulebook and arguing. I want this game to thrive, but incremental points below the 1% gradient and 20 books of rules per edition and roll to hit, to wound, to save, to not feel pain is killing a game that right up to the rules itself really does great pulling people towards it.
Mhm, no, disagree, hard pass, if you can't deal with basic math don't play a wargame. I agree on the books, but that is because GW insists of using a DLC type recurring revenue guaranteeing nonsensical release schedule, that inevitably because of lack of designer skills doesn't work at all.
Also did it occure to you that the buy in into 40k is far higher than x-wing or battle tech? I'd put that down as far more relevant factor as to why people pick it up or not.
I love it when my models get used. In the heydays of 4th and when I finally gave in and used GrimDarkFuture Rules during 8th-9th and in rare moments in between, I'd have 6 battles/12 players using my stuff... 10th might be the first time in a while I've seen that be possible again with official rules.
Good for you. doesn't change the fact that the bloat has system. That specificially are not the issue sof the points cost but rather GW's designers incompetency and buissness model should be plenty clear by now.
Twisting the one good core tenant / saving grace on the rules-balance front into a blunt instrument doesn't resolve the issue that GW consistently by design fails at maintaing even within an edition a design ethos.
Failing to put sponsons on your Baneblade is a loss of 5% of your 2000 point list.
As for introducing new players, you know what really hurts new player retention? Finding out they built their models wrong and a bunch of their stuff is going straight into the trash if they ever want to play real games and not feel like an idiot. A very slightly more complex point system makes a negligible difference in introducing people to 40k (since you're using demo forces made by the teacher) but it does great things for avoiding future ragequits.
Lobokai wrote: more time playing the game and less pouring over rules
Yes, this, absolutely. You are just sitting there, talking my life.
This was the big shake up/advance/revelation between WFB and AoS. Switch systems and the 'rules debates' disappeared overnight. Core rules were memorised by the time you got into your second game, leaving you with just the Warscrolls (and Battleplans, and Battalions, and Time of War sheets, I grant - but I know the design team recognised the bloat that was going on there early on) for reference during play. Limit the number of unit types in your early games, and you started to memorise those too.
What you were left with was a much more (arguably, subjectively) dynamic game that provided the spectacle and let you see cool things happen on the table.
Even when 40k adopted the AoS core rules, it was not quite 'there', but we do seem to be moving closer. I would opine that 8th and 9th took (some of) the wrong lessons from AoS (they also took some of the right ones), but 10th is beginning to lean closer.
Not Online!!! wrote: Ya, because AoS is such a good and liked game and has not fundamental issues at all and doesn't just turn into big thing spectacle...
I think Sigmar is good, I like it, the core system is solid, and it is a miniatures game... spectacle is kind of the thing.
I think removing Toughness is a decent idea, the problem is the lack of granularity, going from 1W to 2W is a pretty big thing, so units stuck in the wrong one of those will feel very wrong. Like Seraphon Saurus Warriors were changed from 1W to 2W, that's a huge change. Going from 1W T2 to 1W T3 is not a huge change. Same thing with getting a 6+ FNP, while it would be easier if Iron Hands just got an extra wound from their bionics and that would be fine on characters and a little worse on vehicles, but it would be absurdly strong on 1W models, suddenly Iron Hands is the Scout faction.
Lobokai wrote: more time playing the game and less pouring over rules
Yes, this, absolutely. You are just sitting there, talking my life.
This was the big shake up/advance/revelation between WFB and AoS. Switch systems and the 'rules debates' disappeared overnight. Core rules were memorised by the time you got into your second game, leaving you with just the Warscrolls (and Battleplans, and Battalions, and Time of War sheets, I grant - but I know the design team recognised the bloat that was going on there early on) for reference during play. Limit the number of unit types in your early games, and you started to memorise those too.
What you were left with was a much more (arguably, subjectively) dynamic game that provided the spectacle and let you see cool things happen on the table.
Even when 40k adopted the AoS core rules, it was not quite 'there', but we do seem to be moving closer. I would opine that 8th and 9th took (some of) the wrong lessons from AoS (they also took some of the right ones), but 10th is beginning to lean closer.
I remain optimistic.
Weapons not being standardized and units not having a predictable BS and WS value actually slows down the game, having unique abilities on every datasheet also slows the game down. AoS is actually designed pretty terribly for speed of play, I'm a noob and using the new Seraphon book was a pain in the butt because the attack profiles are random, where as in WHFB you had a spear, a two-handed weapon, a sword and then every army had one of those which made remembering the weapon rules super easy, but when you have clubs, cruel clubs and wicked clubs, not to mention large, barbed and huge clubs then it becomes hard to remember so you have to go check the first half-dozen times. Changing weapon stats to balance datasheet options is going to cause more of this, with pts it's completely okay if plasma guns are more powerful than grenade launchers, as long as both have fun and fluffy rules you're good. 7th and earlier 40k had shoddy writing, I think that caused more arguments than the fact the rules were long, because you can have short unclear rules as well.
Not Online!!! wrote: Ya, because AoS is such a good and liked game and has not fundamental issues at all and doesn't just turn into big thing spectacle...
I think Sigmar is good, I like it, the core system is solid, and it is a miniatures game... spectacle is kind of the thing.
Yeah truly a spectacle. Cough double turn nonsense, cough monsters monsters everywhere, cough armies that look not like armies at all but rather 2 diffrent tries of angry not even mythical monsters beating each other up.
No thank you, that is not spectacle, that's a bunch of big models duking it out on average and tactically not interesting at all. Give me HH or hell even 7th over whatever this. And the majority agrees. The broader audience that people hope to gain via "streamlining" does not exist. At ALL, even when the barrier to entry is lower, cue Dawn of war into DoW 2 into Dead on arrival 3.
cue Dawn of war into DoW 2 into Dead on arrival 3.
Oh, they lost me on DOW2, but I understand I am among the minority on that one.
But that is preciscly the issue, DoW 2 was a CoH 2 clone. it was trendfollowing. it departed from DoW 1 and classical structure of RTS into a more tactically advanced less base building formula and that already was a problem for many, understandably so and fwiwDoW 2 is less liked and played it has 3 times less than soulstorm, and still nearly tripple the ammount of players to DoW 3. Then when they wanted to create a bastardisation into the moba market because it was the biggest and easiest to get into for a player and still is the biggest potential market it died. This is the same situation.
You can streamline something to death, and that is what AoS is to many.
And it is funny, because you can check Age of empires series and see the same issue. IV was far less liked and can't even compete with II. And 3 beeing the stepchild often doesn't get enough attention.
Lobokai wrote: But set cards, set costs, and set unit sizes are just way better for the game.
Oh, I found Hitchen's Razor once again...
Strange how it keeps popping up.
Again it can be, see f.e. historicals often operating with unit formations as a given.
but then again historicals on average are also far better designed mechanically...
Failing to put sponsons on your Baneblade is a loss of 5% of your 2000 point list.
As for introducing new players, you know what really hurts new player retention? Finding out they built their models wrong and a bunch of their stuff is going straight into the trash if they ever want to play real games and not feel like an idiot. A very slightly more complex point system makes a negligible difference in introducing people to 40k (since you're using demo forces made by the teacher) but it does great things for avoiding future ragequits.
Baneblade sponsons (both sets) are a higher firepower on a higher durability platform than an IG squad, so I guess you would be okay if I brought 3-4 additional IG squads for free every 1k points.
After all, each one is less than 5% of a list.
And I feel like I built my models wrong by not putting sponsons on them, so idfk why you think the current system fixes that sensation. Heck, I feel like I bought the wrong models in the first place since the FW Baneblade can only have one set of sponsons.
You can streamline something to death, and that is what AoS is to many.
And what of the people for whom that is not the case? This was being discussed a little earlier in this thread - these games are not one thing to all people. There are so many ways of approaching them. Indeed, that is their strength.
but then again historicals on average are also far better designed mechanically...
Citation needed.
This is not targeted at you personally, but there seems to be an almost manic desire in this thread to deal in absolutes. These games are way too broad in their function for that to be an easy fit.
You can streamline something to death, and that is what AoS is to many.
And what of the people for whom that is not the case? This was being discussed a little earlier in this thread - these games are not one thing to all people. There are so many ways of approaching them. Indeed, that is their strength.
then they shall make a diffrent game and not turn 40k into aos but space. because this is how you get a dow 3 situation, because if i would want AoS i go play AoS.
but then again historicals on average are also far better designed mechanically...
Citation needed.
This is not targeted at you personally, but there seems to be an almost manic desire in this thread to deal in absolutes. These games are way too broad in their function for that to be an easy fit.
Oh look, we are talking about wargames, so let's see what is the core of a wargame, it is the tactical shool of battle, and concerned with the representation of such. Therefore the core mechanics should be discernable from that. But what is this, we lack core mechanics to interact with an opponents forces:
- Fog of war mechanics.
- Suppression mechanics
- Terraintypes.
- Fortifications
- Options for units that aren't just attacking something like: Digging in, Tankriding, skirmishing, providing suppression fire.
- Offmap support mechanics, like reinforcement manouvres, offmap artillery, etc.
- actual morale mechanics. Yay we got battleshock... huray..
- Denial mechanics like gas, fire, barricades.
- Hazard mechanics, fighting on a deathworld is clearly the same as fighting in a hive
- tactical mission design is lackluster.
- side objective ammount to nonsensical stipulations.
No thank you, that is not spectacle, that's a bunch of big models duking it out on average and tactically not interesting at all.
Just because you prefer the sci-fi setting doesn't automatically make fantasy not a spectacle...
A Gothizzar harvester fighting a Cygor is as much a spectacle as a Dreadnought charging a land raider....
Oh, and i don't know why you think every army spams big monsters, thats not the case at all lol, clearly you're talking about a game you don't know, which is understandable since you dislike the fantasy setting
Giants = Knights, that style of army exists in 40k too.
Beasts of chaos has multiple different approaches you can take, its not only Bullgors and Ungors at all. Yes, bullgors are one of the heaviest hitters in the army, but the same is true with 40k, you get one heavy hitter that people spam in every list, then units that work well with it.
AoS isn't the same kind of IGOUGO than 40k, combat always alternates, and you get to use redeploy to possibly prevent charges. Oh and if you play well against your opponent's double turn, they open themselves up to your double turn, with their heavy hitters probably exposed.
Yes AoS has a smaller community, for the same reason that any game that isnt 40k has a smaller community. 40k has been there forever and is the most accessible game.
Agreed about historicals having better mechanics to truly represent a wargame tho
And my oppinion about knights is well known. If i had my way they'd be in their current state not an fieldable army. They'd be reworked to have household guards, smaller bots even an actual unit selection. But then again i'd also curb harlequins back to where they belong.
My second GW army was Ogres and third Chaos warriors. I don't prefer Sci-Fi over Fantasy i like both things. My problem is that AoS looks like a monster spam circus, compared to the actual somewhat army like looking armies of the past.
The spam is a parade exemple of everything wrong with GW rulesdesign in 40k and AoS. the AoS no holds bared no FOC limits approach is to blame.
Double turn and switching initiative still doesn't break up the igougo problem in a turn and i am sick of people pretending it does so in aos.
AoS has locally a smaller community than even WHFB which has been dead since when? 2010`? 13 fething years and AoS couldn't catch up in the player base. Is that enough of a proof .
Changing the pts system to the AoS system is not an improvement period.
Not Online!!! wrote: Double turn and switching initiative still doesn't break up the igougo problem in a turn and i am sick of people pretending it does so in aos.
the problem here is a simple one because people mix different things into one term and than it causes confusion
GW once called their system IGoUGo and people take it as "alternating player turns" and nothing else, while the opposite would be "random player turns"
your problem with AoS is that there are full turns until the other player can do something and not that this turn sequence is random or alternating
AoS breaks IGoUGo, because the "Go" is random and not strictly alternating, but of course this does not solve the full turn problem
you want unit activation or "per phase" instead of "per turn", yet if the phases or activations are IGoUGo or random does not matter
LunarSol wrote: I just like how prominent this stuff is in the armies I've seen this edition. Units are more colorful in my opinion and where options aren't cutting it in the current system, I'd prefer they big fixed by trying to make them more interesting rather than make the interesting stuff prohibitively priced.
And now we're right back to acknowledging that a balance error exists but excusing it because the overpowered thing is the thing you personally prefer to see and the underpowered thing is the style of unit/army you don't like. That is an incredibly self-centered point of view and not even remotely a defense of PL/pseudo-PL.
Are you saying that points balanced the game? They didn't. They never have. Points determine the efficiency of options as much as any other stat. Being undercosted is just as overpowering as being a D weapon. The current system isn't without the same considerations. Each option has an opportunity cost outside of the stupid ones where they put in legacy support for nothing that has no business being there. I think there are a lot of units where these choices are more interesting than they would be with points. I also think GW is GW and there are plenty of uninteresting or outright non-choices. I just find the current opportunity cost based system more compelling than one based on aggregated points. It's one in which GW needs to make its options compelling rather than one in which they need to make them prohibitive and one that can be just as balanced or imbalanced as point based wargear.
LunarSol wrote: I just like how prominent this stuff is in the armies I've seen this edition. Units are more colorful in my opinion and where options aren't cutting it in the current system, I'd prefer they big fixed by trying to make them more interesting rather than make the interesting stuff prohibitively priced.
And now we're right back to acknowledging that a balance error exists but excusing it because the overpowered thing is the thing you personally prefer to see and the underpowered thing is the style of unit/army you don't like. That is an incredibly self-centered point of view and not even remotely a defense of PL/pseudo-PL.
Are you saying that points balanced the game? They didn't. They never have.
Is a Plasma Pistol better than a Bolt Pistol or Laspistol, yes or no?
Upgrades certainly have never been useless, but they've been something pretty sparsely taken compared to the number of options available. Particularly notable are the stuff that only one model in the unit could take because in that capacity it doesn't really add to the unit's overall role. For every upgrade slot available in an army where you could take something, there's probably 3-4 where you left it empty to save points.
I just like how prominent this stuff is in the armies I've seen this edition. Units are more colorful in my opinion and where options aren't cutting it in the current system, I'd prefer they big fixed by trying to make them more interesting rather than make the interesting stuff prohibitively priced.
I'm not convinced that this was actually a systemic issue like you and others take for granted. Taking a single special weapon and a single heavy weapon in a squad of Tacticals was useful and there was a time when las/plas was the meta. Taking a vox was a godsend some editions, worthless in others. I remember Tyranid Warriors and Carnifexes having a whole suite of upgrades, and while not all equally useful, none of them were so worthless as to always be ignored.
But supposing that this was a problem and most upgrades weren't used, why not start with reviewing all the options and cutting prices in inverse proportion to how frequently they were chosen? If you've got an upgrade that's commonly used, then clearly it's worth whatever it costs. If it's rarely used, cutting its cost in half might make it see play. The worst you could do with this approach is go too far and make an upgrade so cheap it's a no-brainer... which would still be better than now, where all the upgrades are no-brainers and you get zero compensation for not taking them.
If the current model was a reaction to a perceived issue with the cost of upgrades, they jumped straight to the most extreme solution possible. And over time, as the meta is solved, I think you're going to find that the game becomes less colorful and less interesting when there's a cookie-cutter optimal loadout for each unit that at most differs in which special weapon is taken.
I wouldn't say they jumped to this option. They've been trying extreme granularity for decades and have been steadily moving away from it. I've paid a point for a chainsword before and I can't say I felt like it made for an interesting choice. I guess I'm just not as attached to the nothing option as a lot of people. I think that attachment is a sign that people are used to being rewarded for taking it.
I'm under no impression that the current system won't have its cookie cutter options. I just don't think points really fixes that either. I think its way more interesting to look at the options not taken and ask what they need to do to be interesting. Like how many attacks does a melee Wraithknight need to make to be worth taking without Towering? What does it take to make Missiles and Las and Assault Cannons and Heavy Flamers serve interesting and diverse roles. In some ways I think GW created some really successful options in this system. In others, they definitely made some GW choices.
LunarSol wrote: I just like how prominent this stuff is in the armies I've seen this edition. Units are more colorful in my opinion and where options aren't cutting it in the current system, I'd prefer they big fixed by trying to make them more interesting rather than make the interesting stuff prohibitively priced.
And now we're right back to acknowledging that a balance error exists but excusing it because the overpowered thing is the thing you personally prefer to see and the underpowered thing is the style of unit/army you don't like. That is an incredibly self-centered point of view and not even remotely a defense of PL/pseudo-PL.
Are you saying that points balanced the game? They didn't. They never have.
Is a Plasma Pistol better than a Bolt Pistol or Laspistol, yes or no?
It's for sure better, but it's never been worth a single point more. There's not a cost that makes it a compelling choice, IMO.
It's not like it means weaker pistols don't have a role in the game. The grunts are loaded up with them. The Sgt/Leader having a special pistol isn't something that bothers me, but if I really wanted to make it an interesting choice, I think having them always be Hazardous would make for an interesting option.
LunarSol wrote: I just like how prominent this stuff is in the armies I've seen this edition. Units are more colorful in my opinion and where options aren't cutting it in the current system, I'd prefer they big fixed by trying to make them more interesting rather than make the interesting stuff prohibitively priced.
And now we're right back to acknowledging that a balance error exists but excusing it because the overpowered thing is the thing you personally prefer to see and the underpowered thing is the style of unit/army you don't like. That is an incredibly self-centered point of view and not even remotely a defense of PL/pseudo-PL.
Are you saying that points balanced the game? They didn't. They never have. Points determine the efficiency of options as much as any other stat.
The difference between points efficiency for different options determines whether the game is balanced or not. So if a Leman Russ without sponsons has an efficiency of X and a Leman Russ with sponsons has an efficiency of 1,3X then you've got a big difference and the game isn't balanced at all, but if the difference is X and 1,05X or X and 0,95X then the difference is not so large and both can be better or worse in different scenarios.
Upgrades certainly have never been useless, but they've been something pretty sparsely taken compared to the number of options available. Particularly notable are the stuff that only one model in the unit could take because in that capacity it doesn't really add to the unit's overall role. For every upgrade slot available in an army where you could take something, there's probably 3-4 where you left it empty to save points.
I just like how prominent this stuff is in the armies I've seen this edition. Units are more colorful in my opinion and where options aren't cutting it in the current system, I'd prefer they big fixed by trying to make them more interesting rather than make the interesting stuff prohibitively priced.
I'm not convinced that this was actually a systemic issue like you and others take for granted. Taking a single special weapon and a single heavy weapon in a squad of Tacticals was useful and there was a time when las/plas was the meta. Taking a vox was a godsend some editions, worthless in others. I remember Tyranid Warriors and Carnifexes having a whole suite of upgrades, and while not all equally useful, none of them were so worthless as to always be ignored.
But supposing that this was a problem and most upgrades weren't used, why not start with reviewing all the options and cutting prices in inverse proportion to how frequently they were chosen? If you've got an upgrade that's commonly used, then clearly it's worth whatever it costs. If it's rarely used, cutting its cost in half might make it see play. The worst you could do with this approach is go too far and make an upgrade so cheap it's a no-brainer... which would still be better than now, where all the upgrades are no-brainers and you get zero compensation for not taking them.
If the current model was a reaction to a perceived issue with the cost of upgrades, they jumped straight to the most extreme solution possible. And over time, as the meta is solved, I think you're going to find that the game becomes less colorful and less interesting when there's a cookie-cutter optimal loadout for each unit that at most differs in which special weapon is taken.
I wouldn't say they jumped to this option. They've been trying extreme granularity for decades and have been steadily moving away from it. I've paid a point for a chainsword before and I can't say I felt like it made for an interesting choice. I guess I'm just not as attached to the nothing option as a lot of people. I think that attachment is a sign that people are used to being rewarded for taking it.
I'm under no impression that the current system won't have its cookie cutter options. I just don't think points really fixes that either. I think its way more interesting to look at the options not taken and ask what they need to do to be interesting. Like how many attacks does a melee Wraithknight need to make to be worth taking without Towering? What does it take to make Missiles and Las and Assault Cannons and Heavy Flamers serve interesting and diverse roles. In some ways I think GW created some really successful options in this system. In others, they definitely made some GW choices.
They tried less granularity in 8th and 9th, a minority of players liked it. Of course we're used to being rewarded for the naked option, it's been in the game since we started, just like we are used to being rewarded for taking the premium option with premium rules. You don't have to care about interesting choices, just take whatever you feel like taking and pay the points for it, you don't need to mathhammer every option if you don't want to. If the designers find two weapons like gauss blasters and tesla carbines for Necron Immortals and try to get their rules to be equally valuable that's great, it makes things easier and cleaner and there really isn't any reason to try to make one the premium option, but if GW accidentally overcooks one of the options? Far far far far easier to give it a little nerf with a point or two instead of changing rules because when you change rules you're changing the game instead of just list building.
What happens now is that you are punished for not taking any option you can as you are already paying for it.
Okay... I can see that...
Leaving aside painted units that have been built to the old lists, where would be the issue with this? You want most efficient, you just don't go with the no-option choices. Or are existing armies the sticking point?
What happens now is that you are punished for not taking any option you can as you are already paying for it.
Okay... I can see that...
Leaving aside painted units that have been built to the old lists, where would be the issue with this? You want most efficient, you just don't go with the no-option choices. Or are existing armies the sticking point?
What happens now is that you are punished for not taking any option you can as you are already paying for it.
Okay... I can see that...
Leaving aside painted units that have been built to the old lists, where would be the issue with this? You want most efficient, you just don't go with the no-option choices. Or are existing armies the sticking point?
What if Timmy comes into the store tomorrow and asks whether it's a good idea to build naked Assault Intercessors for his Flesh Tearers? He's told that thunder hammers are the only real option, so sadly no tearing of flesh for Timmy, only clubbing tanks.
What happens now is that you are punished for not taking any option you can as you are already paying for it.
Okay... I can see that...
Leaving aside painted units that have been built to the old lists, where would be the issue with this? You want most efficient, you just don't go with the no-option choices. Or are existing armies the sticking point?
What if Timmy comes into the store tomorrow and asks whether it's a good idea to build naked Assault Intercessors for his Flesh Tearers? He's told that thunder hammers are the only real option, so sadly no tearing of flesh for Timmy, only clubbing tanks.
If someone is gone far enough off the main road to be running Flesh Tearers they should absolutely be up for using Eviscerators as their Power Weapons.
Unit1126PLL wrote: "there is no problem for new players" is pretty much the epitome of "feth you, veteran players with extensive painted collections"
Even if the decision is reasonable from a "feth veteran players" lense, it's probably right and just for the veteran players to not like being fethed.
The fact that the actual rules mean the game will collapse when the veterans stop giving free advertising by playing is just the way of things.
I mean it's the defense those people are using for the datasheet model of "build what's only in the box". Screw my Skitarii Rangers with 3 Arqs in the squad, that's not new player friendly and I'm a WAAC scumbag because I don't want to roll 5 different weapons for a single unit.
What if Timmy comes into the store tomorrow and asks whether it's a good idea to build naked Assault Intercessors for his Flesh Tearers? He's told that thunder hammers are the only real option, so sadly no tearing of flesh for Timmy, only clubbing tanks.
I think when Timmy sees what a Thunder Hammer can do, he is going to be just fine with that.
If someone is gone far enough off the main road to be running Flesh Tearers they should absolutely be up for using Eviscerators as their Power Weapons.
Sensible policies for a noble, if misunderstood, chapter.
Even if the decision is reasonable from a "feth veteran players" lense, it's probably right and just for the veteran players to not like being fethed.
This is a good point - just because every edition more or less does this to some degree, does not mean it is desirable. It might be fairly inevitable, with only the degree and amount of units/armies affected being the factor.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The fact that the actual rules mean the game will collapse when the veterans stop giving free advertising by playing is just the way of things.
Now here you lose me I am really not certain that, outside of YouTube and similar circles, we veterans have all that much effect in comparison. Not saying it is nothing, just there are far more effective ways of GW getting the message across than the traditional veteran hobbiests bringing the new blood in.
I would agree that this is different for smaller gaming companies.
What happens now is that you are punished for not taking any option you can as you are already paying for it.
Okay... I can see that...
Leaving aside painted units that have been built to the old lists, where would be the issue with this? You want most efficient, you just don't go with the no-option choices. Or are existing armies the sticking point?
You don't see an issue with a game punishing you for using the options it gives you (in this case, the option to not take anything)? Not paying for something you don't take isn't a reward, it is the baseline.
EviscerationPlague wrote: I just want to point out your defense of "but what if management wants them to suck" is absolutely hilarious. That definitely falls into the camp of the writers being incompetent, because I sincerely doubt you wrote that post seriously.
Nah I wrote it seriously. It's really not hard to understand or believe, it happens a lot within all industries. I'm starting to question your age and work experience at this point, making sacrifices to scope or quality of products to meet quotas/deadlines/budgets is really common and at no point does it mean the staff making those things are incompetent.
I'm in my 30s, I'm not a NEET thank you very much. I've also never had any trouble telling employers if they were doing something poorly and leaving a job if it required me to create shoddy output. I have a spine unlike the supposed "they're totally intelligent trust me" GW "rules writers" if they're not incompetent.
Well good for you! Let's all hope that over the next 30 years or so of your working life you and your spine never have to compromise your standards.
Good luck.
Any work place that asks you to compromise morals or standards or ethics or quality isn't a place to work in. So yeah, I won't ever have that problem.
It's for sure better, but it's never been worth a single point more. There's not a cost that makes it a compelling choice, IMO.
It's not like it means weaker pistols don't have a role in the game. The grunts are loaded up with them. The Sgt/Leader having a special pistol isn't something that bothers me, but if I really wanted to make it an interesting choice, I think having them always be Hazardous would make for an interesting option.
Okey. Then should a squad of terminators with a heavy weapons and 5 members cost the same as a squad of heavy weapon 5 members, out of which one is an apothecary that resurects a model per turn and a banner guy giving +1OC to each model in the squad?
You don't see an issue with a game punishing you for using the options it gives you (in this case, the option to not take anything)? Not paying for something you don't take isn't a reward, it is the baseline.
What if it was/is not the case. You build you army within an existing rule set. The rules have apothecaries and banner ancients as characters. You maybe have 2 of each, and that is a big maybe in case of the banner ancients. New edition comes and suddenly you need 5 apothecaries and 5 ancients. One of each for each squad. A need that never existed before. The squad without the options isn't cheaper, and the rules are writen/points are costed as if they are in use. And GW doesn't give an option of buying 5 termintors apothecaries and 5 banner terminators. So you practicaly have to rebuy your army, if you want to have the units the way GW wants you to run them. And even if you were crazy enough, to buy 5 boxes of termintors to get 10 models, your army is still bad. That is mind blowing level of punishing players.
What if it was/is not the case. You build you army within an existing rule set. The rules have apothecaries and banner ancients as characters. You maybe have 2 of each, and that is a big maybe in case of the banner ancients. New edition comes and suddenly you need 5 apothecaries and 5 ancients. One of each for each squad. A need that never existed before. The squad without the options isn't cheaper, and the rules are writen/points are costed as if they are in use. And GW doesn't give an option of buying 5 termintors apothecaries and 5 banner terminators. So you practicaly have to rebuy your army, if you want to have the units the way GW wants you to run them. And even if you were crazy enough, to buy 5 boxes of termintors to get 10 models, your army is still bad. That is mind blowing level of punishing players.
Then buy the army or don't. GW is in the business of moving models, they do not owe the players of one edition the guarantee that their roster is 100% transferable to the next edition. Hell, they even wasted resources providing "legacy rules" for units they otherwise planned to cull since they don't sell the models anymore. The game has moved on from the design philosophies of 3rd edition, and I'm willing to wager there are more people actively playing the game today that have less than 2 years of playtime than there are people who have been around for many editions. The company shifts to cater to the crowd giving them money. The new players coming in buy new stuff. The old guard complain that their character who hasn't had a model ever and lost rules post 5th edition still isn't supported (rip wazdakka).
If chasing the 'meta' is your thing, then you are going to buy the new models regardless. If you're casual gamer and don't care, then I'm sure your play group also wouldn't mind proxy loadouts in-lieu of wysiwyg.
LunarSol wrote:
I'm under no impression that the current system won't have its cookie cutter options. I just don't think points really fixes that either. I think its way more interesting to look at the options not taken and ask what they need to do to be interesting. Like how many attacks does a melee Wraithknight need to make to be worth taking without Towering? What does it take to make Missiles and Las and Assault Cannons and Heavy Flamers serve interesting and diverse roles. In some ways I think GW created some really successful options in this system. In others, they definitely made some GW choices.
The problem here is that one possible answer to the question "how do you balance lascannons, heavy flamers, plasma cannons et al against one another" is "you can't". In a system designed around sidegrades from the ground up you'd start by only having options that filled specific niches and were clearly designed to be used in those roles. So you'd have an anti-tank option, and an anti-chaff option and probably something designed to take out heavy infantry. But you wouldn't then design another anti-tank option, then add some hybrid anti-heavy infantry/anti-tank option as well, because fitting those options into the defined roles becomes more difficult the more options you have. Unfortunately, 40k comes with a whole lot of historical baggage. SM have 6 heavy weapon options, for example. Crisis suits have a similar number of weapon options. There's just no way to sufficiently balance that array of options using a system of sidegrades without ending up with obviously superior choices. Since GW aren't about to invalidate dozens of weapons across hundreds of units, it's pretty clear their chosen system is the wrong one.
Somebody asked earlier how you would need to buff the melee Wraithknight to make it worth the same as the D-Cannon one. That's the perfect example of trying to solve the problem in exactly the wrong way. Sure, you can try to mess about with the weapon options and other rules and contort yourself into all sorts of weird positions trying to reach parity. Or, you can accept one is a better option thant he other and just cost the options differently.
LunarSol wrote:
Are you saying that points balanced the game? They didn't. They never have. Points determine the efficiency of options as much as any other stat. Being undercosted is just as overpowering as being a D weapon. The current system isn't without the same considerations. Each option has an opportunity cost outside of the stupid ones where they put in legacy support for nothing that has no business being there. I think there are a lot of units where these choices are more interesting than they would be with points. I also think GW is GW and there are plenty of uninteresting or outright non-choices. I just find the current opportunity cost based system more compelling than one based on aggregated points. It's one in which GW needs to make its options compelling rather than one in which they need to make them prohibitive and one that can be just as balanced or imbalanced as point based wargear.
There was a post a page or so back asking why this thread is still going on. I think this kind of post explains it. This is just yet another rephrasing of the fallacy that points weren't perfect so we shouldn't use them, which has been debunked over and over again but keeps coming up. The problem is that PLis points. The only difference is the lack of granularity. So any problems that points have, PL also has. The only difference is PL includes an additional restriction that makes it strictly worse than points because you can't adjust for imbalances in individual options. We're back tot he systemic versus user errors again.
See above for why GW have given themselves an impossible task in trying to make all the options compelling.
Then buy the army or don't. GW is in the business of moving models, they do not owe the players of one edition the guarantee that their roster is 100% transferable to the next edition.
well, than they should not call it a new edition but be honest and call it a new game every 3 year, so that there is no misunderstanding that the old 40k is not compatible with the new 40k and planned obsolescence is good thing now because GW is doing it?
MongooseMatt wrote: Switch systems and the 'rules debates' disappeared overnight.
To be fair, it's hard to have a rule debate when nobody is playing the game. AoS was a dead game on launch and a very serious threat to end GW as a company, with the lack of a proper point system being one of the major reasons why it failed. It wasn't until GW admitted their error, added a point system, and cleaned up some of the rule issues that AoS became a game instead of a tragicomic demonstration of the idiocy of Jervis-style design.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunarSol wrote: Are you saying that points balanced the game?
Not perfectly, but they did a better job than the current system. The current system has all of the user errors (picking the wrong point cost for something) that the traditional system had but it also has additional systemic errors (forcing options of obvious unequal value to have the same point cost) that do not exist in the traditional system. PL is objectively worse for balancing a game.
I think there are a lot of units where these choices are more interesting than they would be with points.
How? The traditional point system is perfectly capable of assigning two options the same cost and making them sidegrades, what you're describing is not a result of using PL/pseudo-PL. It's only "more interesting" if you define that by making certain upgrades (plasma pistols, thunder hammers, etc) mandatory and de facto removing others (laspistols, chainswords, etc) from the game because the ones with bigger numbers are "more interesting" or "more fun".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunarSol wrote: I guess I'm just not as attached to the nothing option as a lot of people. I think that attachment is a sign that people are used to being rewarded for taking it.
Or people care about lore. Why should a devastator squad sergeant have a priceless relic thunder hammer while an assault marine who is far more likely to be in melee range and use a thunder hammer only gets to have a chainsword?
Like how many attacks does a melee Wraithknight need to make to be worth taking without Towering? What does it take to make Missiles and Las and Assault Cannons and Heavy Flamers serve interesting and diverse roles.
How do you make a laspistol equivalent to a plasma pistol without breaking the lore?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MongooseMatt wrote: Leaving aside painted units that have been built to the old lists, where would be the issue with this? You want most efficient, you just don't go with the no-option choices. Or are existing armies the sticking point?
Existing armies are a major issue but there's also lore and aesthetic considerations. Some people think LRBT sponsons and quad-sponson Baneblades look ugly. Some people think having every cannon fodder guard sergeant have a plasma pistol and power weapon is stupid from a lore point of view. PL/pseudo-PL only works in a strict competitive context where the only thing that matters is optimizing your list for winning and you're happy to take whatever option is best at that.
Slipspace wrote: Unfortunately, 40k comes with a whole lot of historical baggage. SM have 6 heavy weapon options, for example. Crisis suits have a similar number of weapon options. There's just no way to sufficiently balance that array of options using a system of sidegrades without ending up with obviously superior choices.
Oh, you have hit a big nail on the head here - I did a post about exactly this way back in 2015:
To be fair, it's hard to have a rule debate when nobody is playing the game. AoS was a dead game on launch and a very serious threat to end GW as a company,
Can I ask where you got that from? Because the information I had at the time on AoS sales vs. 40k was very different.
MongooseMatt wrote: Can I ask where you got that from? Because the information I had at the time on AoS sales vs. 40k was very different.
I don't have sources anymore because that era is long past but stores weren't selling it, online communities were dead, and I'm pretty sure even GW's own financial reports showed a decline. The only traffic the game was getting was people mocking its cringe-worthy "comedy" rules, complete lack of a point system or any attempts at balance, and easily exploitable rules like being able to build models so they couldn't ever be charged or having armies that would literally automatically win the game as soon as you put them on the table. And it's backed up by how quickly GW rushed out a second edition of the game with a point system and more serious rules.
Let’s not pretend that all Leman Russ builds have been equally viable in any edition. This is an old problem. Though I don’t anymore, I used to rebuild, repaint, magnetize stuff with every new edition. Some of my units have been noticeably altered 5 times across the 6 ish editions they’ve been part of my collection.
The fundamental issue seems to be that people are making errant assumptions on new players on this website that by structure and creed tends to draw veterans.
For those assuming I am guessing why 90% of players I teach pass on 40K, I am not. In my club kids are fully aware of the game cost and I ask them if they’re still interested. I have every army in my signature and they are all (except the 2 HH companies) available to all players. My club keeps 10-20 active members and there’s an exit and entry of about 25% annually (kids graduate, freshmen enter… though some graduates stay local).
I have about 6 other well stocked games and the cost is $0 to the players. By far the hardest game to teach and the hardest to retain players in once they’ve played it is 40K. The cost is irrelevant to them. They’re not paying. I ask them why they’re not interested: almost universally it’s overly complicated army construction at a minute level and so much time just locating needed information (both in construction and during a game). For the few that make it over that hump, the seemingly pointless extra steps to discern damage done from an attack is often the final straw.
I’ve talked to many other Warhammer Alliance sponsors through the last 2 years. I cannot recall any that were not experiencing the same issues.
Warhammer Alliance feedback was a big part of the 10th edition process (as per GW) because we’re routinely teaching the game and getting a broad and deep rotating sample set of the new player experience. Players get 8 models, quick start rules, terrain, brushes, and several paints, each year. All on GW. In return we give fairly detailed feedback.
I’m not guessing what was turning away new players. I know (at least in my 4 county area) what the hurdles are. Cost is a factor. For sure. But GW isn’t going to change that.
The play test 10th rules… at least some variants… made many of these bold improvements (well only bold to the 40K crowd, pretty minor outside this subset). What we ended up with was hesitant. But I am certain it’s a move in the right direction. GW designers just seem to not understand, in their final version that
A) doing something halfway is harmful not 50% better than not making the change
B) all options needed to have (something near) equal value, otherwise set costs is silly.
I like the system and the idea. I’m disappointed with the implementation. It’s not very hard to see how not having sponsons or having empirically weaker weapons could have been made a positive. Give tanks w/o sponsons +1 T or better leadership or something else that gives a benefit/cost comparable to plasma sponsons. Give heavy bolters more shots. If taking a weak pistol, add +1 a to melee attacks.
I don’t mean any of these in specific, just the concept in general. I’d love to say I’m optimistic that GW will stay the course, look to the sustainability of their game, and frankly ignore rule luddites. They need to edit profiles and make all choices at least have viable benefits. They should go further down the set cost path. We pretty universally suggested this. This would give all existing models stronger utility and keep the game accessible.
They won’t. I’m certain we’ll get
1) a lean back to what we had before
2) further imbalance to push new kits
3) or maybe, nemesis weapon treatment where all Leman Russ tanks have 1 profile (but I hope not)
And regardless: rules bloat.
I will fully acknowledge that the Leman Russ is extremely problematic with this approach and due to its crazy variability, it’s gonna suffer. It’ll probably have a whole 1 card by 11th edition. That stinks. But it’ll have company w Grey Knights and First born as being robbed of its options and flexibility. If that’s the trade for the game surviving, then I’m good w it.
Lobokai wrote: Let’s not pretend that all Leman Russ builds have been equally viable in any edition. This is an old problem.
No, it's a new problem and you are another person who doesn't understand the concept of systemic errors. LRBTs had inaccurate point costs sometimes in the past because GW used the system poorly, LRBTs in 10th have the exact same problem (hello vanquisher) of user error but ALSO have systemic errors where the system itself by deliberate design forces an error to happen.
I ask them why they’re not interested: almost universally it’s overly complicated army construction at a minute level
Why are you teaching them how army construction works? You should be using fixed (and very basic) army lists you create for them, not throwing them into the deep end and getting them bogged down in irrelevant issues. They shouldn't know anything about how army construction works until they've mastered the on-table game, at which point a few extra seconds in adding up point costs is a non-issue.
It sounds like the issue here is you're doing a bad job of teaching 40k (and maybe a better job of teaching other games). Maybe you should look at how you got a 5x better retention rate with X-Wing, a game that had the exact same point system as traditional 40k, and see how you could improve your 40k methods?
Give tanks w/o sponsons +1 T or better leadership or something else that gives a benefit/cost comparable to plasma sponsons.
And here's an excellent example of the poor design PL forces you into. Why would having fewer guns on a tank improve its leadership? It may be balanced well in some abstract sense that matters to list optimization for tournament play but it's horrible for everything else, especially new players. "You pay additional points to add additional guns to your tank" is intuitive and straightforward. "You get better leadership if you don't add those guns" is counter-intuitive and confusing and when it happens too often people give up on trying to understand the game and play something else.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: No, it's a new problem and you are another person who doesn't understand the concept of systemic errors.
Then you proceed to explain how it’s an old problem… brilliant. Ironically I explained to you how the new concept is solid but it has systemic errors and it went over your head. The very thing you’re frustrated people aren’t getting is also what you’re failing to understand.
Why are you teaching them how army construction works?
Funny. I never said I did. Let me step over this massive strawman for you. I start everyone in every game with prebuilt and straightforward forces. In every other game after game 1 they get the rules. I have them flip sides or rotate to a new table for game 2. By game three they’re excited. Know what they need to know, are building, lances, fleets, squadrons, armies… etc. But they’re frustrated and disenchanted with 40K at how hard it is to feel like they know what’s going on when they look at other forces and that being ready to build a force is so far away. Also the internet exists. I can try, but trying to gatekeep a rule system is silly. Especially when GrimDarkFuture which is essentially 40K+ common sense is another game they play. It has pretty much the same experience as 40K, but moves much faster. I’m sure you know this but GW has liberal stole from this system in the past… removing vehicles as a separate stat system, no templates, all were put in the 1page40k and worked before GW stumbling put them in.
Young war gamers want to make THEIR force ASAP. This is how they are. But thank you for the pointless lecture. If you think 9th edition was an approachable game to teach, then you need to play more games. XWing is light years away from 40K in list building. Seriously?!
And here's an excellent example of the poor design PL forces you into. Why would having fewer guns on a tank improve its leadership?
You know I was tossing this out as a flippant example. And something like +1 T for no sponsons makes good sense. It was an concept example. And we all know the Leman Russ is a worst case example that will soon be a legend.
You can’t have it both ways: advocating that our unapproachable legacy points system is good, but not been used well while refusing to see that the set cost system is good too just isn’t being implemented well. Either systems are judged by their possibilities or by their current form. Pick one and stick to it. When you do, 9th ed drove people away. It needed to change. I’m not sure 10th ed is that right change, but at least is moving away from an outdated, dying, and unbalanced ruleset that increasingly people are setting aside for 3rd party options.
LunarSol wrote:I guess I'm just not as attached to the nothing option as a lot of people. I think that attachment is a sign that people are used to being rewarded for taking it.
I'm 'attached to the nothing option' in the same way that I'm emotionally invested in my restaurant bill charging me for all the things I ordered and none of the things I didn't.
This isn't a matter of 'being rewarded' or a particularly deep philosophical question. I built my Leman Russes without sponsons because I prefer the way they look, because it's a valid option in the kit, because it's how FW has them on their website, because it's always been a viable setup in the rules, and I shouldn't have to pay for sponsons I'm not using.
I don't mind if the solution is to give the sponson-less Russes some other advantage, but I still have no idea how they can possibly make a laspistol equal to a plasma pistol, or a chainsword equal to a power fist, and until they do gak's broke.
Little Timmy goes and builds all his Sergeants with chainswords, because chainsaw swords are cool.
Little Timmy has just gotten screwed by a ruleset that punishes him for just building the kit as instructed, and rewards powergamers for scrutinizing the datasheet and picking the best option instead. It's not just a less competitively efficient loadout, it's strictly worse with no upsides, and once he starts getting games in he's probably going to consider tearing the arms off his models to build them 'correctly'.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: No, it's a new problem and you are another person who doesn't understand the concept of systemic errors.
Then you proceed to explain how it’s an old problem… brilliant. Ironically I explained to you how the new concept is solid but it has systemic errors and it went over your head. The very thing you’re frustrated people aren’t getting is also what you’re failing to understand.
Leman Russ Battle Tank with sponsons in 9th: A tier
Leman Russ Battle Tank without sponsons in 9th: A tier
Leman Russ Vanquisher with sponsons in 9th: D tier
Leman Russ Vanquisher without sponsons in 9th: D tier
Wow, 9th was so broken points don't balance the game hahaha.
Leman Russ Battle Tank with sponsons in 10th: A tier
Leman Russ Battle Tank without sponsons in 10th: C tier
Leman Russ Vanquisher with sponsons in 10th: D tier
Leman Russ Vanquisher without sponsons in 10th: F tier
What?! 10th has all the problems of 9th and additional problems like people have been trying to explain 100 times?
Lobokai wrote: Then you proceed to explain how it’s an old problem… brilliant. Ironically I explained to you how the new concept is solid but it has systemic errors and it went over your head. The very thing you’re frustrated people aren’t getting is also what you’re failing to understand.
No, you just didn't bother to read what I wrote and see that I very clearly talked about 10th adding additional errors.
And "the system is solid but it has systemic errors" is a contradiction! It's like talking about how water is dry even though it is wet. Systemic errors are by definition flaws in the system, a system with systemic errors is not a solid system.
XWing is light years away from 40K in list building. Seriously?!
Yes, seriously. Prior to AMG's complete destruction of the game X-Wing used the exact same point system as 40k. Units have a point cost, and if you want upgrades for those units you pay additional points to buy them.
If you had a 50% retention rate with X-Wing and a 10% retention rate with 40k the problem was not 40k's point system.
And we all know the Leman Russ is a worst case example that will soon be a legend.
"PL is fine, GW will just turn a de facto ban on bad options into actually removing them from the rules" is not the defense of PL you think it is.
You can’t have it both ways: advocating that our unapproachable legacy points system is good, but not been used well while refusing to see that the set cost system is good too just isn’t being implemented well.
PL isn't just bad because it isn't implemented well, it's bad because it contains systemic errors which will exist no matter how well you implement the system. Making a LRBT cost 150 points when it should cost 170 points is an implementation error and can be fixed by better implementation. Making adding a hunter-killer missile to a unit cost zero points (and de facto removing the ability to not take one) is a systemic error that can not be fixed without changing the system to no longer be PL.
When you do, 9th ed drove people away.
People were not driven away by 9th continuing to use the same point system that existed in 8th edition, 7th edition, 6th edition, 5th edition, 4th edition, 3rd edition, 2nd edition, and Rogue Trader. They were driven away by 9th edition's obscene rules bloat, power creep, and complete lack of balance.
Lobokai wrote: Imagine the game exists not only for guard players and not only for veterans
PL has flaws in armies other than guard, the LRBT sponson issue is just a convenient one where even the most fanatical PL defender can't argue that the two options are equivalent or that the difference is too small to matter.
As for veterans, PL is worse for newbies than veterans. Veterans, especially competitive players, just take the obvious most powerful stuff and often have enough spare models to swap in the required options with minimal effort. Long-time guard players who magnetized their Baneblades don't care about the sponson issue nearly as much as the newbie who assembled a cool tank with the armor plates covering the sponson mounts and is now stuck paying an extra 100 points for the missing guns. And newbies are far more likely to fail to understand that many of the "options" in PL are a trap, meaning their bolt pistol + chainsword sergeants contribute to them losing against the veteran players who immediately understand that plasma pistol + thunder hammer is the mandatory configuration.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague wrote: We had one person here say they'd love to get insight into game design from Jervis. That should tell you everything right there.
To be fair, I'd love to get insight from Jervis. I think it would be a very efficient way to compile a "things to avoid in designing your game" list and produce a lot of unintentional comedy.
Lobokai wrote: Imagine the game exists not only for guard players and not only for veterans
Like certain others in this thread, you've gotten lost in the woods looking for trees.
Leman Russ sponsons are not the issue. They're an example of the issue, just one of many that completely and conclusively proves the objective superiority of granular points systems over generalised power level systems.
For my part, I own 1 Stormblade, 1 Hellhammer, 2 Shadowswords and 3 Baneblades, and not one of them has double sponsons. I don't like that I'm paying for something that isn't there. I shouldn't have to pay extra for something I never wanted to model. If someone wants to take double sponsons, they should have to pay for the privilege.
Just from Marines, off the top of my head:
1. Death Company pistol and melee options
2. Predator sponsons
3. Literally any Manlet Marine vehicle in regards to HK Missiles
4. Firestrikes on the Lastalon vs Autocannon
5. Manlet Marines that can take a Grav Cannon vs a Heavy Bolter or Grav Gun
6. Vanguard Vets with any Pistol options
And that's definitely just scratching the surface.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Just from Marines, off the top of my head:
1. Death Company pistol and melee options
2. Predator sponsons
3. Literally any Manlet Marine vehicle in regards to HK Missiles
4. Firestrikes on the Lastalon vs Autocannon
5. Manlet Marines that can take a Grav Cannon vs a Heavy Bolter or Grav Gun
6. Vanguard Vets with any Pistol options
And that's definitely just scratching the surface.
Basically the entirety of Deathwatch before they decided "feth it, we can't balance it, put them all together, get rid of what we can't justify"
Bosskelot wrote: I just find it astounding that this thread is still going on and people are arguing that 10th's approach is better.
Truly unhinged behaviour.
by now it is not only that it is better, but it is also the only way GW can make profit
I know someone who started in 9th and also began an Aeldari army towards the latter half of the edition. Not a comp player and someone who only played tempest and wanted to build a jetbike-focused army because he likes Saim-Hann.
He glued scatter lasers onto his Vypers and Shuriken Catapults onto his Windriders.
Now he's been left looking at those units and their costs and been dissuaded from using them because they're not being priced according to what they're physically armed with, but what the ideal and optimal loadout is. He absolutely hates it.*
*not to mention he also wanted to start an Aeldari army because he liked the idea of running a psychic army as his first army was Sisters so it was a nice change of pace. That's also now been taken away.
Bosskelot wrote: I just find it astounding that this thread is still going on and people are arguing that 10th's approach is better.
Truly unhinged behaviour.
Every 10-15 pages a new poster barges in, doesn't bother to read any previous posts and starts spouting pro-current-system arguments that have already been thoroughly answered earlier in the thread. It's like watching groundhog day.
Bosskelot wrote: I just find it astounding that this thread is still going on and people are arguing that 10th's approach is better.
Truly unhinged behaviour.
Every 10-15 pages a new poster barges in, doesn't bother to read any previous posts and starts spouting pro-current-system arguments that have already been thoroughly answered earlier in the thread. It's like watching groundhog day.
Then the circular arguments need to stop. If someone comes in with an opinion they like something and the evidence to the contrary is already presented, people need to not waste another 4 pages shouting down a new voice repeatedly with the same arguments.
Dudeface wrote: Then the circular arguments need to stop. If someone comes in with an opinion they like something and the evidence to the contrary is already presented, people need to not waste another 4 pages shouting down a new voice repeatedly with the same arguments.
Maybe you should follow your own demands and stop posting here since your own arguments are no more novel than the ones posted by anyone else, and your attempt at tone policing is far more obnoxious.
Dudeface wrote: Then the circular arguments need to stop. If someone comes in with an opinion they like something and the evidence to the contrary is already presented, people need to not waste another 4 pages shouting down a new voice repeatedly with the same arguments.
Maybe you should follow your own demands and stop posting here since your own arguments are no more novel than the ones posted by anyone else, and your attempt at tone policing is far more obnoxious.
I'm happy to but when someone says "why does this keep happening" I provided an answer. You may continue to carry on your usual service.
I return two editions later only to find the same people arguing with different bad faith actors.
Impressive.
For the same reason they cannot understand the concept of granularity is the same reason why you cannot have a faithful argument. This conversation had been tread too many times.
Bosskelot wrote: I just find it astounding that this thread is still going on and people are arguing that 10th's approach is better.
Truly unhinged behaviour.
We had one person here say they'd love to get insight into game design from Jervis. That should tell you everything right there.
Yes?
I mean, I'd enjoy speaking with game design people at pp, warlord, corvus beli etc as well.
Insight and other perspectives always have value.
But hey, you do you.
Not all perspectives have value, hate to burst your bubble.
You're bursting nothing so dont worry.
I just Disagree. There is always value. Sometimes more, sometimes less. But never none. Jervis is a nice guy. He's been there for what? Thirty? Forty years? Bet he's got more than enough stories for a few rounds of beers. Id love to pick his brains, especially on the older/earlier eras of gw. I'd do the same with Soles or Seacat or any of the big names (or former names) at privateer press etc.
Understanding why someone/a group thinks a thing is just as important as what they think, in far more important things that table top wargames. If you want the big picture, This includes getting an understanding of their worldview, approach, what their aim/approach was, what top-down design constraints, and imposed limitations(time,staff #s, reaources etc), hell, even workplace politics - impeded them etc you wont get these by reading the stats in a codex. There's always something to learn. Maybe I just like people and find these things interesting.
In any case I'd rather hear what they have to say before dismissing them out of hand and claiming nothing they have to say has value - thats just incredibly small minded if you ask me.
I am happy to be exposed to different approaches and worldviews - even if its not something I'll ever keep/repeat, I've still grown and learned from the experience.
Regarding bringing new players into the game. In my opinion, where the disillusionment occurs is when it comes to "what to buy next".
Then you have to sit down and explain to people what GW means by "balancing". Sure you can play Guard, but even with a tournament army (which you might not want to play because you don't like the models or playstyle) you'll have a hard time against a random selection of Custodes, Eldar or Marines.
And even if you do get the models, there's no guarantee they'll survive the next balance update. We've already seen it with Guard artillery getting its first nerf, although the rest of the army could use a buff.
This is a much bigger roadblock to overcome than any kind of list building.
Little Timmy goes and builds all his Sergeants with chainswords, because chainsaw swords are cool.
This was the same scenario that came up when I was chatting to my mates.
Timmy and Jimmy buy some Space Marines and glue them together.
Jimmy says "My sergeant has a big hammer he'll smash you to bits!".
Timmy says "Hah, you don't have a chance, mine has a freakin' CHAINSAW!"
Poor Timmy.
The "Poor Timmy" sentiment is only applicable if Timmy and Jimmy are seeking a balanced game. If they are looking for cool narrative and pick what they think is cool and have fun, then I think it matters not.
Most people I know that play are not tournament players, and don't bring what is "meta" they specifically bring what models they think look the coolest, regardless of competitive viability. I would wager, there are far more people like this than there are people who try to eek out every ounce of value from their lists.
Little Timmy goes and builds all his Sergeants with chainswords, because chainsaw swords are cool.
This was the same scenario that came up when I was chatting to my mates.
Timmy and Jimmy buy some Space Marines and glue them together.
Jimmy says "My sergeant has a big hammer he'll smash you to bits!".
Timmy says "Hah, you don't have a chance, mine has a freakin' CHAINSAW!"
Poor Timmy.
The "Poor Timmy" sentiment is only applicable if Timmy and Jimmy are seeking a balanced game. If they are looking for cool narrative and pick what they think is cool and have fun, then I think it matters not.
Most people I know that play are not tournament players, and don't bring what is "meta" they specifically bring what models they think look the coolest, regardless of competitive viability. I would wager, there are far more people like this than there are people who try to eek out every ounce of value from their lists.
If you're not bothered about balance then the nature of the points system is irrelevant to you. At which point you might as well go with the superior system over the one that's strictly worse.
Even if they're not necessarily seeking a balanced game, good balance and effective methods to achieve that balance benefit everyone.
If you're not bothered about balance then the nature of the points system is irrelevant to you. At which point you might as well go with the superior system over the one that's strictly worse.
Even if they're not necessarily seeking a balanced game, good balance and effective methods to achieve that balance benefit everyone.
"Superior" is subjective to the goals of the hobbyist. My play group enjoys that list building is fast and not a chore anymore, to us, it is a point towards superiority over the granular point system before. People who value as close to semblance of balance and believe that the granular points structure provides that more effectively than the block point structure we currently have would likely feel that the previous structure was superior. It all depends on what your play group is trying to get out of the hobby. I do not believe anyone can blanket one system superior over the other since everyone's goals/objectives with the hobby are different.
The "Poor Timmy" sentiment is only applicable if Timmy and Jimmy are seeking a balanced game. If they are looking for cool narrative and pick what they think is cool and have fun, then I think it matters not.
Most people I know that play are not tournament players, and don't bring what is "meta" they specifically bring what models they think look the coolest, regardless of competitive viability. I would wager, there are far more people like this than there are people who try to eek out every ounce of value from their lists.
It's still a game though. People still play games to win them. You expect the game to be fair and not broken. You want something a bit deeper than Candyland and a bit more mature than lining up your models on the carpet and make pew-pew noises.
I have a group that plays a lot of Magic Commander. Which is utterly broken at competitive levels, so we consciously play with lower power cards(also we aren't spending $8K on our decks). That doesn't mean that when the decks are on the table we aren't trying our best to use all the tools available to win the game.
I just find it a little hard to take seriously people that say they don't care about winning. Like, c'mon. You do a little. Otherwise why play a game at all?
That's entirely separate from only caring about winning. A healthy outlook on competitiveness and winning is not a "plays in tournaments" versus "not plays in tournaments" thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tittliewinks22 wrote: [
"Superior" is subjective to the goals of the hobbyist. My play group enjoys that list building is fast and not a chore anymore, to us, it is a point towards superiority over the granular point system before. People who value as close to semblance of balance and believe that the granular points structure provides that more effectively than the block point structure we currently have would likely feel that the previous structure was superior. It all depends on what your play group is trying to get out of the hobby. I do not believe anyone can blanket one system superior over the other since everyone's goals/objectives with the hobby are different.
Playgroups could have always house ruled to meet their particular temperaments. It's nice that this change meets your groups needs, but it kind of shafts anyone with less formal groups or do want to play in tournaments. You need 'word of god' level agreed upon rules for those types of play to function., Your nice to have comes at the cost of a baseline requirement for other players.
Timmy builds all 3 of his LR without sponsons for the look.
Jimmy builds all 3 of his LR with sponsons.
They have similar armies, but Timmy got the worse weapons. If both are of equal skill level, Timmy will lose more than he wins and his units will perfom worse for the same cost. I'm sure he will have fun getting dunked on regularely while the system does nothing to compensate him for picking the "wrong" loadouts.
They have similar armies, but Timmy got the worse weapons. If both are of equal skill level, Timmy will lose more than he wins and his units will perfom worse for the same cost. I'm sure he will have fun getting dunked on regularely while the system does nothing to compensate him for picking the "wrong" loadouts.
If it did something to compensate that wasn't points, would be a reasonable outcome for you? If there was fair compensation rules wise instead?
Why would I ever build another Sister Superior with bolter and chainsword?
So that when GW 180 and put wagear costs on and leave power weapons and combi whatevers (sorry don't know sisters) with crap points values you've accidentally gotten the most efficient build whilst we get the sister thread to this full of people complaining they made points granular after they went and shoved the most expensive optional upgrades on everything they own.
They have similar armies, but Timmy got the worse weapons. If both are of equal skill level, Timmy will lose more than he wins and his units will perfom worse for the same cost. I'm sure he will have fun getting dunked on regularely while the system does nothing to compensate him for picking the "wrong" loadouts.
If it did something to compensate that wasn't points, would be a reasonable outcome for you? If there was fair compensation rules wise instead?
They have similar armies, but Timmy got the worse weapons. If both are of equal skill level, Timmy will lose more than he wins and his units will perfom worse for the same cost. I'm sure he will have fun getting dunked on regularely while the system does nothing to compensate him for picking the "wrong" loadouts.
If it did something to compensate that wasn't points, would be a reasonable outcome for you? If there was fair compensation rules wise instead?
This is harder to get right with rules that with points. If you make the bonus to not running sponsions too good, then taking sponsons then becomes the 'wrong' choice.
It's easier to fix these kind of problems by adjusting points than it is to adjust rules. Rules changes can introduce unintended consequences that a point change is less likely too. If your game has historically a lot of balance problems, you want to stick with points cause you're going to have to make lots of small adjustments. If you are a design shop that generally get's it right the first time, you can get away with less points granularity and just fix the rules on an ad-hoc basis.
They have similar armies, but Timmy got the worse weapons. If both are of equal skill level, Timmy will lose more than he wins and his units will perfom worse for the same cost. I'm sure he will have fun getting dunked on regularely while the system does nothing to compensate him for picking the "wrong" loadouts.
If it did something to compensate that wasn't points, would be a reasonable outcome for you? If there was fair compensation rules wise instead?
This is harder to get right with rules that with points. If you make the bonus to not running sponsions too good, then taking sponsons then becomes the 'wrong' choice.
It's easier to fix these kind of problems by adjusting points than it is to adjust rules. Rules changes can introduce unintended consequences that a point change is less likely too. If your game has historically a lot of balance problems, you want to stick with points cause you're going to have to make lots of small adjustments. If you are a design shop that generally get's it right the first time, you can get away with less points granularity and just fix the rules on an ad-hoc basis.
I mean that also works on the premise that there isn't going to be a "right" choice with points as there almost certainly will be. The better question would be how far right or wrong would they get, but the additional risks are correct, more rules options are harder to balance.
I mean that also works on the premise that there isn't going to be a "right" choice with points as there almost certainly will be. The better question would be how far right or wrong would they get, but the additional risks are correct, more rules options are harder to balance.
There's also another external 'cost' to consider. That's how the change is presented to the players. Points are already communicated in a living document. The changes are expected. Rules changes requires errata for printed and shipped product.
I don't think GW plans to change the actual unit data slate rules that much. Not when they just shipped all those printed index cards. We'll see when the Marine Codex comes out, but I expect we don't see many changes to wats on the cards.
They basically created a situation where they have to eat crow at some point. Heavy changes to the printed product or start adding back individual upgrade costs.
I mean that also works on the premise that there isn't going to be a "right" choice with points as there almost certainly will be. The better question would be how far right or wrong would they get, but the additional risks are correct, more rules options are harder to balance.
There's also another external 'cost' to consider. That's how the change is presented to the players. Points are already communicated in a living document. The changes are expected. Rules changes requires errata for printed and shipped product.
I don't think GW plans to change the actual unit data slate rules that much. Not when they just shipped all those printed index cards. We'll see when the Marine Codex comes out, but I expect we don't see many changes to wats on the cards.
They basically created a situation where they have to eat crow at some point. Heavy changes to the printed product or start adding back individual upgrade costs.
I imagine it'll be the latter, but I suspect as I mentioned, it'll come with a fresh wave of malcontent.
I have a group that plays a lot of Magic Commander. Which is utterly broken at competitive levels, so we consciously play with lower power cards(also we aren't spending $8K on our decks). That doesn't mean that when the decks are on the table we aren't trying our best to use all the tools available to win the game.
In this example, isn't 'not taking the best cards' for magic kinda synonymous with 'not taking the best loadout' in the chainsword v thunder hammer question? If the tools are available but you choose not to use them, there's not much difference?
I just find it a little hard to take seriously people that say they don't care about winning. Like, c'mon. You do a little. Otherwise why play a game at all?
I think its fair to say its often synonymous with 'winning isn't a priority' or even its well down the list. Usually we play our games as an excuse to get together at the end of the week, roll some dice and wind down for the weekend.
And by the way, not taking optimum gear and not taking bleeding-edge lists does not mean folks don't care about winning. Ive often found the most fun games are the low power, less-than-optimised ones.
Little Timmy goes and builds all his Sergeants with chainswords, because chainsaw swords are cool.
This was the same scenario that came up when I was chatting to my mates.
Timmy and Jimmy buy some Space Marines and glue them together.
Jimmy says "My sergeant has a big hammer he'll smash you to bits!".
Timmy says "Hah, you don't have a chance, mine has a freakin' CHAINSAW!"
Poor Timmy.
The "Poor Timmy" sentiment is only applicable if Timmy and Jimmy are seeking a balanced game. If they are looking for cool narrative and pick what they think is cool and have fun, then I think it matters not.
Most people I know that play are not tournament players, and don't bring what is "meta" they specifically bring what models they think look the coolest, regardless of competitive viability. I would wager, there are far more people like this than there are people who try to eek out every ounce of value from their lists.
You don't need to be a cutthroat competitive tournament player to be disappointed when your lovingly assembled and painted dudes get walloped. Not many players are invested in the narrative of their guys getting trounced over and over again. The cooler Timmy thinks his chainsword sergeants are, the more it's going to sting when they get turned to paste.
And when the solution is 'break apart your models and build them correctly this time, dumbass', that's when I find new players tend to bail out.
I've seen this more than once, in 40K and other systems. Balance is not just a competitive thing.
Little Timmy goes and builds all his Sergeants with chainswords, because chainsaw swords are cool.
This was the same scenario that came up when I was chatting to my mates.
Timmy and Jimmy buy some Space Marines and glue them together.
Jimmy says "My sergeant has a big hammer he'll smash you to bits!".
Timmy says "Hah, you don't have a chance, mine has a freakin' CHAINSAW!"
Poor Timmy.
The "Poor Timmy" sentiment is only applicable if Timmy and Jimmy are seeking a balanced game. If they are looking for cool narrative and pick what they think is cool and have fun, then I think it matters not.
Most people I know that play are not tournament players, and don't bring what is "meta" they specifically bring what models they think look the coolest, regardless of competitive viability. I would wager, there are far more people like this than there are people who try to eek out every ounce of value from their lists.
You don't need to be a cutthroat competitive tournament player to be disappointed when your lovingly assembled and painted dudes get walloped. Not many players are invested in the narrative of their guys getting trounced over and over again. The cooler Timmy thinks his chainsword sergeants are, the more it's going to sting when they get turned to paste.
And when the solution is 'break apart your models and build them correctly this time, dumbass', that's when I find new players tend to bail out.
I've seen this more than once, in 40K and other systems. Balance is not just a competitive thing.
Quoting myself from the "how's 10th going for you" thread:
Agreed, this is such a weird argument that keeps popping up. I'd imagine a tournament player would just take whatever is powerful. They'd easily spot weak units and simply wouldn't take them. A casual player will buy models they like the look or fluff of, only to find out on the tabletop that that unit has garbage rules. That's a feelsbad moment, and something I've experienced more than once. In fact, those experiences led me to start mathhammering in an attempt to gauge a unit's true effectiveness, since gw's points turned out to be less than reliable.
Bosskelot wrote: I just find it astounding that this thread is still going on and people are arguing that 10th's approach is better.
Truly unhinged behaviour.
Every 10-15 pages a new poster barges in, doesn't bother to read any previous posts and starts spouting pro-current-system arguments that have already been thoroughly answered earlier in the thread. It's like watching groundhog day.
Bosskelot wrote: I just find it astounding that this thread is still going on and people are arguing that 10th's approach is better.
Truly unhinged behaviour.
Every 10-15 pages a new poster barges in, doesn't bother to read any previous posts and starts spouting pro-current-system arguments that have already been thoroughly answered earlier in the thread. It's like watching groundhog day.
bruh, nobody is gonna read 74 fething pages lol
Bruh that's fine bruh but don't come in here with a stupid fething argument then lol lmao
Bosskelot wrote: I just find it astounding that this thread is still going on and people are arguing that 10th's approach is better.
Truly unhinged behaviour.
We had one person here say they'd love to get insight into game design from Jervis. That should tell you everything right there.
Yes?
I mean, I'd enjoy speaking with game design people at pp, warlord, corvus beli etc as well.
Insight and other perspectives always have value.
But hey, you do you.
Not all perspectives have value, hate to burst your bubble.
You're bursting nothing so dont worry.
I just Disagree. There is always value. Sometimes more, sometimes less. But never none. Jervis is a nice guy. He's been there for what? Thirty? Forty years? Bet he's got more than enough stories for a few rounds of beers. Id love to pick his brains, especially on the older/earlier eras of gw. I'd do the same with Soles or Seacat or any of the big names (or former names) at privateer press etc.
Understanding why someone/a group thinks a thing is just as important as what they think, in far more important things that table top wargames. If you want the big picture, This includes getting an understanding of their worldview, approach, what their aim/approach was, what top-down design constraints, and imposed limitations(time,staff #s, reaources etc), hell, even workplace politics - impeded them etc you wont get these by reading the stats in a codex. There's always something to learn. Maybe I just like people and find these things interesting.
In any case I'd rather hear what they have to say before dismissing them out of hand and claiming nothing they have to say has value - thats just incredibly small minded if you ask me.
I am happy to be exposed to different approaches and worldviews - even if its not something I'll ever keep/repeat, I've still grown and learned from the experience.
.
Jervis thought that, because his 10 YO son couldn't do math, we couldn't and therefore did the 4th edition Dark Angels travesty. That's not someone worth gaining insight from.
Bosskelot wrote: I just find it astounding that this thread is still going on and people are arguing that 10th's approach is better.
Truly unhinged behaviour.
Every 10-15 pages a new poster barges in, doesn't bother to read any previous posts and starts spouting pro-current-system arguments that have already been thoroughly answered earlier in the thread. It's like watching groundhog day.
bruh, nobody is gonna read 74 fething pages lol
If you refuse to read what others have said before don't expect anyone to bother to read what you say. it's completely normal not wanting to read so many pages but then you shouldn't assume that you have something to say that hasn't been said already before. Forum threads have an ephemeral character but that doesn't mean that they are exactly the same that an oral conversation.
"Superior" is subjective to the goals of the hobbyist. My play group enjoys that list building is fast and not a chore anymore, to us, it is a point towards superiority over the granular point system before. People who value as close to semblance of balance and believe that the granular points structure provides that more effectively than the block point structure we currently have would likely feel that the previous structure was superior. It all depends on what your play group is trying to get out of the hobby. I do not believe anyone can blanket one system superior over the other since everyone's goals/objectives with the hobby are different.
I keep seeing the defenders of power level saying that making a list is faster now, as the example above shows, so let’s break the process step by step as it was from 2nd edition to 9th edition.
1) You choose the unit you want to add to your list. You need to read the datasheets from your army to know what each unit does and what options does it have. You make a rough list of units you want in your list or add them one by one and revise later.
2) You read the options that it has. Then you choose between them. You note the options chosen and their costs.
3) You add the basic cost of the unit and the cost of each option.
4) You repeat the 3 steps above for each unit that you want in your list and add the total costs. Then as you have overshoot or fall short of the points limit you make some small changes in upgrades or replace an unit with another. You keep iterating until you get a list you are happy with.
Then in 10th edition the changes in this process are that the upgrades are all free so the 2nd step becomes
2) You read the options that it has. Then you choose between them.
You still need to consider what every option does and what do you want, the only difference is that the cost of each one is 0. I don’t think there is a meaningful difference in the time that it takes to decide between picking a flamer, a melta gun or a plasma gun if they each cost 0, 3 and 5 points and the time it takes to pick one if each one costs 0 points. There is of course a case where it takes less time, when one is so clearly superior that picking the others is gimping yourself. This is the case with all the upgrades that lack an opportunity cost as has been said before so many time, this system homogenizes units and in a game where the visual spectacle is an important part I would guess that variety is a virtue.
But this isn’t the only change as many have pointed before. In 10th edition the 4th step becomes
4) You repeat the 3 steps above for each unit that you want in your list and add the total costs. Then as you have overshoot or fall short of the points limit you start replacing units until you get a list you are happy with or play with a small or great handicap.
This takes more time that fiddling a bit with updates to get close to the time limit.
Now, if what you are making is picking the miniatures you want to play and make a list with them the only difference is that you need to add a small number for each costed upgrade that you take to an addition that already has an element for each unit you have. The difference is negligible if you are using an app or a spreadsheet, and if you find these kind of additions where some elements are changed in each iteration tedious, and they are for many me included, you should use one of these programs.
If you care about the efficiency of your list you are making a mathhammer analysis anyway, so then, how the hell such small changes turn the process from a chore into something fast? Simplifying is fine when the changes produced in the game are small enough to make the reduction in time worthwhile, but here we have a minute change in the time it takes to make a list in exchange for strong deleterious effects in the game. I can only see an advantage of the current system, it’s faster for whomever writes the datasheets. Now, I don’t think that makes it rational for GW to behave this way because the quality of the game influence sales, but that isn’t worth much if competence isn’t rewarded in the company.
Bosskelot wrote: I just find it astounding that this thread is still going on and people are arguing that 10th's approach is better.
Truly unhinged behaviour.
We had one person here say they'd love to get insight into game design from Jervis. That should tell you everything right there.
Yes?
I mean, I'd enjoy speaking with game design people at pp, warlord, corvus beli etc as well.
Insight and other perspectives always have value.
But hey, you do you.
Not all perspectives have value, hate to burst your bubble.
You're bursting nothing so dont worry.
I just Disagree. There is always value. Sometimes more, sometimes less. But never none. Jervis is a nice guy. He's been there for what? Thirty? Forty years? Bet he's got more than enough stories for a few rounds of beers. Id love to pick his brains, especially on the older/earlier eras of gw. I'd do the same with Soles or Seacat or any of the big names (or former names) at privateer press etc.
Understanding why someone/a group thinks a thing is just as important as what they think, in far more important things that table top wargames. If you want the big picture, This includes getting an understanding of their worldview, approach, what their aim/approach was, what top-down design constraints, and imposed limitations(time,staff #s, reaources etc), hell, even workplace politics - impeded them etc you wont get these by reading the stats in a codex. There's always something to learn. Maybe I just like people and find these things interesting.
In any case I'd rather hear what they have to say before dismissing them out of hand and claiming nothing they have to say has value - thats just incredibly small minded if you ask me.
I am happy to be exposed to different approaches and worldviews - even if its not something I'll ever keep/repeat, I've still grown and learned from the experience.
.
Jervis thought that, because his 10 YO son couldn't do math, we couldn't and therefore did the 4th edition Dark Angels travesty. That's not someone worth gaining insight from.
An example of inferior reasoning can still be useful, ironically enough.
Why would I ever build another Sister Superior with bolter and chainsword?
So that when GW 180 and put wagear costs on and leave power weapons and combi whatevers (sorry don't know sisters) with crap points values you've accidentally gotten the most efficient build whilst we get the sister thread to this full of people complaining they made points granular after they went and shoved the most expensive optional upgrades on everything they own.
I mean it took GW two decades to finally figure out a Plasma Pistol wasn't worth 15 points for any army and turned them into a reasonable 5 points for a short period of time. It's hard to imagine they'd do that again, but then again the GW "rules designers" aren't terribly smart so they don't require you to defend them.
Many have said that this system can work if each option that an unit has is a sidegrade and weapons that are clearly better turn the unit into a new unit with its own datasheet, but , isn’t this just the old points system presented in an obtuse way?
Let’s take the land speeder as it was in the 3rd edition codex. The plastic model had just came out in the 3rd edition starter box and the only weapon it has is either a heavy bolter or a multi melta for the gunner. Then you could add a heavy flamer, assault cannon or the typhoon missile launcher with metal bits. Since they updated the land speeder everything is in the same kit, GW loves to present different datasheets as different kits in the webstore but the tornado, typhoon and the basic land speeder are the same kit.
In the codex you have
Land Speeder Squadron (1-3 landspeeders) can only be armed with the gunner weapons.
Land Speeder Tornado, you can add 1 assault cannon or 1 heavy flamer.
Land Speeder Typhoon, it has a Typhoon missile launcher and the gunner weapons.
The squadron is a bit different in that you can take 3 barebones speeders in a single slot in the same way that in the current index each landspeeder is different due to their wargear and their bespoke abilities, but I dont’ think that each speeder having a different bespoke rule is a virtue at all.
The tornado and the Typhoon are basically the same that saying, you can add either an heavy flamer, assault cannon or Typhoon missile launcher to a land speeder but then each one occupies a fast attack slot. In the 4th edition codex they combined the 3 types in a single entry and you can field a 1-3 squadron of Land speeders where each one can be of any of the 3 types. This is for my taste better writing where you don’t need to compare the stats of each datasheet to know that they are identical and you don’t need to flip from one page to another unnecessarily.
Why would I ever build another Sister Superior with bolter and chainsword?
So that when GW 180 and put wagear costs on and leave power weapons and combi whatevers (sorry don't know sisters) with crap points values you've accidentally gotten the most efficient build whilst we get the sister thread to this full of people complaining they made points granular after they went and shoved the most expensive optional upgrades on everything they own.
I mean it took GW two decades to finally figure out a Plasma Pistol wasn't worth 15 points for any army and turned them into a reasonable 5 points for a short period of time. It's hard to imagine they'd do that again, but then again the GW "rules designers" aren't terribly smart so they don't require you to defend them.
Well given I defended sweet nothing in my post, I'm sure they're quivering in their pj's right now. Maybe they'll check in with Jervis in the morning for a communal cry.
If you refuse to read what others have said before don't expect anyone to bother to read what you say. it's completely normal not wanting to read so many pages but then you shouldn't assume that you have something to say that hasn't been said already before. Forum threads have an ephemeral character but that doesn't mean that they are exactly the same that an oral conversation.
Sorry, so no-one else should contribute now in this thread unless they've read *74 whole pages* just in case someone weeks back made a comment that related to what they were going to say? What do they do if they want to reply to that comment? Dredge it up from page 12? Page 1?
Sorry, but Vladimir's got the point here. We'll keep seeing the same perspectives cropping up until people can learn to accept them, or change their minds. As the second is doubtful, why not live and let live, and accept that people want different things - and maybe stop bandying around phrases like "objective" or "empirical" when they refer to matters of opinion.
If you refuse to read what others have said before don't expect anyone to bother to read what you say. it's completely normal not wanting to read so many pages but then you shouldn't assume that you have something to say that hasn't been said already before. Forum threads have an ephemeral character but that doesn't mean that they are exactly the same that an oral conversation.
Sorry, so no-one else should contribute now in this thread unless they've read *74 whole pages* just in case someone weeks back made a comment that related to what they were going to say? What do they do if they want to reply to that comment? Dredge it up from page 12? Page 1?
Sorry, but Vladimir's got the point here. We'll keep seeing the same perspectives cropping up until people can learn to accept them, or change their minds. As the second is doubtful, why not live and let live, and accept that people want different things - and maybe stop bandying around phrases like "objective" or "empirical" when they refer to matters of opinion.
Glad you've joined us here Smudge, that means this lovely thread will go on for another 74 pages
If you refuse to read what others have said before don't expect anyone to bother to read what you say. it's completely normal not wanting to read so many pages but then you shouldn't assume that you have something to say that hasn't been said already before. Forum threads have an ephemeral character but that doesn't mean that they are exactly the same that an oral conversation.
Sorry, so no-one else should contribute now in this thread unless they've read *74 whole pages* just in case someone weeks back made a comment that related to what they were going to say? What do they do if they want to reply to that comment? Dredge it up from page 12? Page 1?
Sorry, but Vladimir's got the point here. We'll keep seeing the same perspectives cropping up until people can learn to accept them, or change their minds. As the second is doubtful, why not live and let live, and accept that people want different things - and maybe stop bandying around phrases like "objective" or "empirical" when they refer to matters of opinion.
Glad you've joined us here Smudge, that means this lovely thread will go on for another 74 pages
There's also another external 'cost' to consider. That's how the change is presented to the players. Points are already communicated in a living document. The changes are expected. Rules changes requires errata for printed and shipped product.
I don't think GW plans to change the actual unit data slate rules that much. Not when they just shipped all those printed index cards. We'll see when the Marine Codex comes out, but I expect we don't see many changes to wats on the cards.
They basically created a situation where they have to eat crow at some point. Heavy changes to the printed product or start adding back individual upgrade costs.
This means some armies are in for a year or more of fun, because aside for making stuff cost 50% less, which GW will not do, problems with some armies aren't fixable with points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sorry, so no-one else should contribute now in this thread unless they've read *74 whole pages* just in case someone weeks back made a comment that related to what they were going to say? What do they do if they want to reply to that comment? Dredge it up from page 12? Page 1?
Sorry, but Vladimir's got the point here. We'll keep seeing the same perspectives cropping up until people can learn to accept them, or change their minds. As the second is doubtful, why not live and let live, and accept that people want different things - and maybe stop bandying around phrases like "objective" or "empirical" when they refer to matters of opinion.
Because those that have it good will keep having it good and their way, and those that are not having fun, are suppose to live in some sort of bizzaro world, where they should ignore their armies not working and keep silent. Below 30% win rates armies are objectivly bad, armies lacking or being unable to deal with core edition mechanics or ways to play are empiricaly true. Those are not opinions, they are facts. GW, again, made a game set of rules, where the difference between the haves and have nots is gigantic. It is not like the armies that are good are just a "bit" better, in opinions of some players.Stuff like gear, simplification but only for some armies, just add to all of this. And even then we are only looking at this from day one started with a new army point of view. People have their lemman russess modeled in a way, because GW wrote rules in a specific way. Now they get punished for following GW rules. While people with armies that play armies without upgrades not only don't get punished, but actualy get rewarded.
Dudeface wrote: If it did something to compensate that wasn't points, would be a reasonable outcome for you? If there was fair compensation rules wise instead?
In theory yes, it would be fine. But remember:
PL requires the strict design constraint that all options must have equal power even when it goes directly against the lore. A laspistol must somehow be balanced against a plasma pistol despite the lore saying very clearly that the only advantage the laspistol has is that it's cheap.
The traditional point system has no such constraint. A plasma pistol can be accurate to the lore and cost +X points to upgrade to.
PL is an objectively worse system.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tittliewinks22 wrote: The "Poor Timmy" sentiment is only applicable if Timmy and Jimmy are seeking a balanced game. If they are looking for cool narrative and pick what they think is cool and have fun, then I think it matters not.
Most people I know that play are not tournament players, and don't bring what is "meta" they specifically bring what models they think look the coolest, regardless of competitive viability. I would wager, there are far more people like this than there are people who try to eek out every ounce of value from their lists.
Everyone seeks a balanced game because losing in the list building or select your faction phase isn't fun. Timmy isn't stupid, he's going to see very clearly that Jimmy's sergeants are doing way more on the table than his own sergeants and didn't pay more for the privilege, he just built all of his models wrong. That gets frustrating very quickly and leads to people quitting.
I will never understand what kind of mind hoops one has to go through 10 editions to somehow arrive at the point where good rules is somehow in opposition to fun and "the narrative". What are those tournament players doing, to be non lore accurate? Are the imperial knights using eldar stratagems, maybe GSC "borrowing" some LoS launchers from marines? What is not narrative in an army of just custodes or just knights? Bar few outliers, which somehow always include eldar each edition for some reason, the way to fix problems of a lot of people in 10th, is not to make custodes or knights unplayable. GW should have done the same work they did for them, or eldar or GSC, for other armies too. Or at least they should show us how they think the factions should be played, but not with studio armies running some sort of wierd highlander list, but how you really think the armies should function. Instead we get rule set full of not just typos, but rules that seem to be writen by 2 or 3 different teams or people. There is no way, and if there is one I would like to know it, the same person or team wrote the eldar or GSC rules and then wrote the DG ones. Or if all else fails, and the studio has it likes and dislikes, then put it in the open. Say army X is just for painter, army Y is going to be bad for the next 1-2 editions, because we plan to update it and till we do that we don't want to waste time and stuff most people won't buy/play with. GW doesn't have to remove the trap units or armies, but just mark it as so. Don't make it so someone has to waste 700-800$ to find out how it is.
If you refuse to read what others have said before don't expect anyone to bother to read what you say. it's completely normal not wanting to read so many pages but then you shouldn't assume that you have something to say that hasn't been said already before. Forum threads have an ephemeral character but that doesn't mean that they are exactly the same that an oral conversation.
Sorry, so no-one else should contribute now in this thread unless they've read *74 whole pages* just in case someone weeks back made a comment that related to what they were going to say? What do they do if they want to reply to that comment? Dredge it up from page 12? Page 1?
Sorry, but Vladimir's got the point here. We'll keep seeing the same perspectives cropping up until people can learn to accept them, or change their minds. As the second is doubtful, why not live and let live, and accept that people want different things - and maybe stop bandying around phrases like "objective" or "empirical" when they refer to matters of opinion.
Well, you can certainly intervene when you are answering an aside that has probably been forgotten in the ebbs and flows of the thread, although recognizing that you haven't read everything is still the polite thing to do, but this 74 number that agitates you so much cuts both ways, the longer the thread has gone on the higher the chance that whatever you are going to say has been said already, and let's not be dishonest it won't be "someone weeks back made a comment related to what they were going to say" it will have been exactly the same comment for practical effects. And when it's something related to the core of the thread is quite arrogant and rude to assume that nobody has made your, oh so witty, argument. And if you want to reply to a comment it's certainly the polite thing to check that your answer hasn't been made already, really I stand for what I said, if what others say it's worthless for you they should see you in the same way. Look, the rest of the thread is right there and it's easy to check it, this isn't discord where you can technically see what was said before but they don't make it easy for you.
And for your non sequitur, whether new people join the thread without reading it or not isn't the main factor in how long this keeps going on, it's more a matter of how long the patience of the participants last, or the entertainment they derive from it keeps making it worth it.
And it sounds so good leaving words like objective or empirical out of matters of opinion, it's just that a lot of the things that have been argued in the thread are quite objective as Karol already said. Whether you are punished for having a miniature that doesn't have the best option is objective, whether the process of making an army list is much faster or is more or less the same is objective and whether addition is akin to undergraduate mathematics as many seem to think is also an objective fact.
Karol wrote: Or if all else fails, and the studio has it likes and dislikes, then put it in the open. Say army X is just for painter, army Y is going to be bad for the next 1-2 editions, because we plan to update it and till we do that we don't want to waste time and stuff most people won't buy/play with. GW doesn't have to remove the trap units or armies, but just mark it as so. Don't make it so someone has to waste 700-800$ to find out how it is.
That hits the nail in the head, GW tendency to write dreadful rules would be much more easy to forgive if they weren't always giving a description of their games that have little relationship with reality, both in how the rules actually work and how expensive a full army really is.
Really, one of the best things of threads like this is that it lets you take full advantage of the superb dakka ignore list. When someone is arguing in bad faith about something that is actually a matter of opinion you may have suspicions but only that, but when they defend truly barmy ideas you can see clearly that adding them to your ignore list is the best thing to do.
I'm not being sarcastic when I praise dakka ignore list, other pages have an approach too binary to their ignore list where they only have an all blocked or nothing blocked, but here when you need to see what others say, like when you have advanced an argument that the next answers may have refuted conclusively, you can chose easily what to see and what not to see. That's very nice.
If you refuse to read what others have said before don't expect anyone to bother to read what you say. it's completely normal not wanting to read so many pages but then you shouldn't assume that you have something to say that hasn't been said already before. Forum threads have an ephemeral character but that doesn't mean that they are exactly the same that an oral conversation.
Sorry, so no-one else should contribute now in this thread unless they've read *74 whole pages* just in case someone weeks back made a comment that related to what they were going to say? What do they do if they want to reply to that comment? Dredge it up from page 12? Page 1?
Sorry, but Vladimir's got the point here. We'll keep seeing the same perspectives cropping up until people can learn to accept them, or change their minds. As the second is doubtful, why not live and let live, and accept that people want different things - and maybe stop bandying around phrases like "objective" or "empirical" when they refer to matters of opinion.
Well, you can certainly intervene when you are answering an aside that has probably been forgotten in the ebbs and flows of the thread, although recognizing that you haven't read everything is still the polite thing to do, but this 74 number that agitates you so much cuts both ways, the longer the thread has gone on the higher the chance that whatever you are going to say has been said already, and let's not be dishonest it won't be "someone weeks back made a comment related to what they were going to say" it will have been exactly the same comment for practical effects. And when it's something related to the core of the thread is quite arrogant and rude to assume that nobody has made your, oh so witty, argument. And if you want to reply to a comment it's certainly the polite thing to check that your answer hasn't been made already, really I stand for what I said, if what others say it's worthless for you they should see you in the same way. Look, the rest of the thread is right there and it's easy to check it, this isn't discord where you can technically see what was said before but they don't make it easy for you.
Politely, yeah, nah.
74 pages is 74 pages. It's not the responsibility of a new poster to search through ALL pages (hell, discord *would* be easier to search through than this), if their point can be so easily rebutted then the person who wants to rebut it could also find a post which rebukes that comment all over again. They could even link to it, if they wanted to be pithy about it.
I stand by what I said. Asking that someone check EVERY comment in any thread before posting, at risk of repeating someone else, would be a sword that swung both ways against all sides in this conversation, and only serves to limit the voices of those taking part to those most entrenched on the matter. I rather think that goes against what a forum should be about.
And for your non sequitur, whether new people join the thread without reading it or not isn't the main factor in how long this keeps going on, it's more a matter of how long the patience of the participants last, or the entertainment they derive from it keeps making it worth it.
Oh, absolutely. It's why I'm not going to be commenting further on this, because it's not a debate, not with some of the arguments being thrown out from varying perspectives. Frankly, the calibre of discussion isn't worth engaging with.
And it sounds so good leaving words like objective or empirical out of matters of opinion, it's just that a lot of the things that have been argued in the thread are quite objective as Karol already said.
An army being in a good or bad place is objective (or rather, its win rate). Which solution fixes that is not an objective matter.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: and maybe stop bandying around phrases like "objective" or "empirical" when they refer to matters of opinion.
They are not matters of opinion.
The LRBT sponson issue is objective fact (which is why I use it, unlike cases like flamer vs. plasma gun where the answer is clear to almost everyone but can be dismissed as opinion).
That the LRBT sponson issue is a systemic error that is a direct result of PL's deliberate design decisions is objective fact.
That the systemic error does not exist in the traditional point system is objective fact.
PL is an objectively worse point system than the traditional point system and that's why every defense of it comes down to "but I like it and that should be enough".
Given who just joined the thread, I have a feeling that this'll be closed within 6 pages as the insults and accusations start to fly. You have been warned.
I wasn't expecting my point about a new poster barging in without reading anything to be proven right away lol. Fwiw I get not wanting to read 75 pages before commenting. It's just that I had this realisation when the thread was still in the 30-40 page range, and that many pages of this "I didn't read your reasoning for disliking the current way but I don't like your conclusion so I'm going to try to dismiss it as an opinion" stuff is just saddening.
and yes 30+ pages is also too much homework, but it's how we ended up with a 75+ page thread of repeated arguments.
Given who just joined the thread, I have a feeling that this'll be closed within 6 pages as the insults and accusations start to fly. You have been warned.
I'm waking away...
Get. Ready. For. Each. And. Every. Sentence. You. Write. To. Be. Picked. Apart. And. Taken. Out. Of. Context. In. Their. Own. Individual. Quote. Block.
Given who just joined the thread, I have a feeling that this'll be closed within 6 pages as the insults and accusations start to fly. You have been warned.
Oh, like this, you mean?
Grimtuff wrote:Get. Ready. For. Each. And. Every. Sentence. You. Write. To. Be. Picked. Apart. And. Taken. Out. Of. Context. In. Their. Own. Individual. Quote. Block.
Not exactly very on-topic, is it? Or really productive to anything except being insulting.
Honestly, sounds like a skill issue on your end about not being able to actually defend your arguments under proper scrutiny. But, thankfully for all of you, as I mentioned:
I'm waking away...
as well.
I mean, honestly, for saying I've only made four posts in this thread, stating that I'm not getting involved, the amount of you who couldn't read that - maybe all this talk about reading 74 pages is too much for y'all if you can't read four posts! As I mentioned, I remain unimpressed by the quality of the discussion here (as evidenced literally by the ad hom positions that you've both taken at my *mere appearance*), and I've got better things to do.
For the record, the most egregious thread (and the one I was thinking of when I wrote the post you quoted), was a straight up Points vs. PL thread that happened I think somewhere around December of 2021. CadianSgtBob, Blndmage and Smudge got locked into a super battle- people ended up ripping on people with disabilities, Cadian SGT came back as three different alts to try and boost up the pro-Bob post count, and we caught him all three times... It was just a dumpster fire of a thread- it might have even been locked by the end of it.
...
And of course, a bunch of folks (though primarily ThePaintingOwl) tried to undermine my point; he wasn't rude or offensive about it at all, but his attempt at invalidation was off the mark, because this is MY story, MY perspective... And I'm not trying to force it on anyone. Like I keep saying, I advocate for the continued existence of BOTH conventional, granular points AND PL... And if GW HAD to pick one or the other, granular points would have been the healthier choice for the game despite my personal preference for PL.
If you hadn't noticed yet, ThePaintingOwl is CadianSgtbob.
If you hadn't noticed yet, ThePaintingOwl is CadianSgtbob.
I thought so too, but he's gotten a little bit better at varying his tone when he changes his name than he was in the dumpster fire thread I'm referring to, so I didn't bother calling him out. I mentioned him in the posted you quoted specifically because I was suspicious.
I'm still lurking this thread... I'm not sure why. Is my life really that boring?
Ahhh, feth it, maybe I'll respond to one of the posts I saw yesterday....
I keep seeing the defenders of power level saying that making a list is faster now, as the example above shows, so let’s break the process step by step as it was from 2nd edition to 9th edition.
1) You choose the unit you want to add to your list. You need to read the datasheets from your army to know what each unit does and what options does it have. You make a rough list of units you want in your list or add them one by one and revise later.
2) You read the options that it has. Then you choose between them. You note the options chosen and their costs.
3) You add the basic cost of the unit and the cost of each option.
4) You repeat the 3 steps above for each unit that you want in your list and add the total costs. Then as you have overshoot or fall short of the points limit you make some small changes in upgrades or replace an unit with another. You keep iterating until you get a list you are happy with.
Then in 10th edition the changes in this process are that the upgrades are all free so the 2nd step becomes
2) You read the options that it has. Then you choose between them.
You still need to consider what every option does and what do you want, the only difference is that the cost of each one is 0. I don’t think there is a meaningful difference in the time that it takes to decide between picking a flamer, a melta gun or a plasma gun if they each cost 0, 3 and 5 points and the time it takes to pick one if each one costs 0 points. There is of course a case where it takes less time, when one is so clearly superior that picking the others is gimping yourself. This is the case with all the upgrades that lack an opportunity cost as has been said before so many time, this system homogenizes units and in a game where the visual spectacle is an important part I would guess that variety is a virtue.
But this isn’t the only change as many have pointed before. In 10th edition the 4th step becomes
4) You repeat the 3 steps above for each unit that you want in your list and add the total costs. Then as you have overshoot or fall short of the points limit you start replacing units until you get a list you are happy with or play with a small or great handicap.
This takes more time that fiddling a bit with updates to get close to the time limit.
Now, if what you are making is picking the miniatures you want to play and make a list with them the only difference is that you need to add a small number for each costed upgrade that you take to an addition that already has an element for each unit you have. The difference is negligible if you are using an app or a spreadsheet, and if you find these kind of additions where some elements are changed in each iteration tedious, and they are for many me included, you should use one of these programs.
If you care about the efficiency of your list you are making a mathhammer analysis anyway, so then, how the hell such small changes turn the process from a chore into something fast? Simplifying is fine when the changes produced in the game are small enough to make the reduction in time worthwhile, but here we have a minute change in the time it takes to make a list in exchange for strong deleterious effects in the game. I can only see an advantage of the current system, it’s faster for whomever writes the datasheets. Now, I don’t think that makes it rational for GW to behave this way because the quality of the game influence sales, but that isn’t worth much if competence isn’t rewarded in the company.
I respond because I feel like there might be the potential for sensible conversation around this point.
In MY experience (and yours might well be different), that isn't actually how list building with conventional points feels for me. It feels like this:
I pick a unit I want to use and its load out at the same time... But every time I do, I second guess every choice I make, because its load out is going to effect what I can take with the next, and that second guessing (not optimization, not efficiency, not fluff- just the impact that the choice has on what else I'll be able to afford) is what slows ME down.
And when I get to the end of the list and I find out it doesn't fit, now I have to go back and modify at least one of the units that I thought I had finalized... And I have to figure out which one I can modify with the least damage to my original idea. This sucks for ME because my choices tend to based on the narrative I want to explore via the game, not efficiency, so having to respec the second unit I chose in order to be able to fit the last unit in with all the gear it needs messes with my story.
With PL, I pick all the units I want without even thinking about their equipment. Once they're picked, I the list is built, because none of the decisions I make from here on in have any effect on any other unit.
I'm now free to personalize each unit as the story demands, without worrying that it might make me have to rethink the loadout of any of the other choices I've made. The example I gave back on page 45 was deciding to reflect a fire-team's affiliation with the Ordo Hereticus by giving my Superior a Condemnor boltgun. I was 100% free to make that choice without having to modify any other unit's load out to do it.
I cited this as an Objective benefit to a PL type system, and one that matters more to ME than the obvious advantages for balance that a costed equipment system would provide. Story freedom is worth the difference in granularity for ME. For the majority of other players, despite being an objective advantage to a PL system, story freedom ISN'T worth the difference in granularity that a costed equipment system provides, which is why the two system solution is objectively the best choice for the game.
It's also why, if GW ISN'T willing to give us a two system solution, I think they should have stuck with costed equipment, despite my personal preference.
Now my theory, Matt, is that while I am responding to YOU, and while I am agreeing with everyone who likes costed equipment better than PL by saying "In a one system solution, points feels like a better choice for balance than PL," a bunch of people won't be satisfied with me agreeing with them because I also believe that there is an objective advantage in PL type system.
They hate so very much anyone saying a single good thing about PL that even though I am agreeing points are better for balance, they will still want to fight with me. I have compromised with and acknowledged their point of view, that Points is more effective at balance. It won't be enough to make them happy. It never is.
PenitentJake wrote: It's also why, if GW ISN'T willing to give us a two system solution, I think they should have stuck with costed equipment, despite my personal preference.
Now my theory, Matt, is that while I am responding to YOU, and while I am agreeing with everyone who likes costed equipment better than PL by saying "In a one system solution, points feels like a better choice for balance than PL," a bunch of people won't be satisfied with me agreeing with them because I also believe that there is an objective advantage in PL type system.
They hate so very much anyone saying a single good thing about PL that even though I am agreeing points are better for balance, they will still want to fight with me. I have compromised with and acknowledged their point of view, that Points is more effective at balance. It won't be enough to make them happy. It never is.
PenitentJake shares my opinion on this. There should be two systems in place, but *if* only one system can exist, then it should be points.
Yes there does because, when GW can hardly do points right, any time taking away from that is bad. As well, the PL system is just bad regardless of your virtue signaling of "look how casual I am!"
You can be filthy casual with points, so let's not pretend PL offers anything.
Yes there does because, when GW can hardly do points right, any time taking away from that is bad. As well, the PL system is just bad regardless of your virtue signaling of "look how casual I am!"
You can be filthy casual with points, so let's not pretend PL offers anything.
Hey now, don't discount your (and others) bitter tears, angst, & rage over its existence. Because it's definitely amusing how upset this makes some of you.
Yes there does because, when GW can hardly do points right, any time taking away from that is bad. As well, the PL system is just bad regardless of your virtue signaling of "look how casual I am!"
You can be filthy casual with points, so let's not pretend PL offers anything.
Anyone with a calculator can take the base cost of the squad, double it, add all the costs of all the most expensive upgrades, and divide by 40. You now have a Power Level representing the 'average' points cost of the squad where 1PL is roughly equivalent to 20pts.
It is not an accurate representation of the relative value of each unit, but it is a quick-and-dirty heuristic that reduces listbuilding to adding fixed single-digit values. It allows you to throw something on the table faster than fully mathing it out, or rough out a list and then refine with exact points. An intern or community volunteer could bang out values for the whole game in an afternoon without taking anything away from the points balancing.
I'm pretty strongly opposed to PL or the current pseudo-PL as the only system but some of you guys are being a little unreasonable here.
Yes there does because, when GW can hardly do points right, any time taking away from that is bad. As well, the PL system is just bad regardless of your virtue signaling of "look how casual I am!"
You can be filthy casual with points, so let's not pretend PL offers anything.
Anyone with a calculator can take the base cost of the squad, double it, add all the costs of all the most expensive upgrades, and divide by 40. You now have a Power Level representing the 'average' points cost of the squad where 1PL is roughly equivalent to 20pts.
It is not an accurate representation of the relative value of each unit, but it is a quick-and-dirty heuristic that reduces listbuilding to adding fixed single-digit values. It allows you to throw something on the table faster than fully mathing it out, or rough out a list and then refine with exact points. An intern or community volunteer could bang out values for the whole game in an afternoon without taking anything away from the points balancing.
I'm pretty strongly opposed to PL or the current pseudo-PL as the only system but some of you guys are being a little unreasonable here.
That intern could do the efficiency math for a faction instead and help set the foundation for balance for that faction for the entire edition.
It also fractures the community, of course some fractures are desirable, you don't want efficiency gamers in your campaigns because campaigns aren't and shouldn't be balanced enough for that, but while PL can scare them away if they do show up it's going to be twice as bad if you're using PL compared to if you are using pts. If you are using pts it's also very easy to notice tournament net lists, but where are you going to find the cheesiest PL lists? You're not, Spike is just going to win all his campaign games because he went oops all TH and you might think "we'd notice and kick him out" but then we have a PL advocate in this thread who might go all TH, not to mention the other places where PL can be abused like with breakpoints where the courseness means you get more value than you're supposed to. No where it really hurts is for casual campaigners that want pts, but most campaigners will be suspicious because they want to signal "no powergamers allowed".
How many pts systems should the game have? Let's say the right amount is 2 as we had in 9th edition, is pts but worse really the best secondary balancing system we could have? Nothing more interesting could be added? How about Decurions as was suggested in 9th as an alternative to the Detachment system? It could be fluffy and the kind of involved and weird system that could fit right into Crusade. You get the core of your Decurion with x units inside and then you can add y number of auxiliaries to the decurion and bam, that's your list. It's not balanced whatsoever, but it'd be a fluffy varied list and Decurions with each faction's auxiliary limit could be roughly balanced against each other.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: PL is an objectively worse point system than the traditional point system and that's why every defense of it comes down to "but I like it and that should be enough".
I think there is something to be said for the 'it isn't less balanced than before' argument, since when GW introduces more variables they tend to end up as more ways for them to fail at properly balancing things.
I've seen the arguments regarding a Leman Russ with and without Sponsons, and I raise you:
Crisis Battlesuits are 195 points for 3, have highly customisable loadouts, and can take a selection of Drones. I struggle to think of any other unit in the game that has more options and different configurations, and they are also, in my opinion, the Signature Tau Unit.
Stock they come with a burst cannon.
Alternatively you can upgrade them with a wide selection of upgrades. A current top configuration is 3 Ion blasters, a shield generator, and a pair of shield drones each.
Both loadouts cost you 195 points in 10th edition.
in 9th edition you would pay 150 points for the first, and 405 points for the second loadout (I would not recommend it, since you pay through the nose for doubling and tripling up on weapons)
using a more granular system you could at least make arguments as to which loadout is better, given that you would get what you paid for. having a fixed points cost means that you are deliberately placing yourself at a disadvantage by NOT using the best configuration you can think of.
vict0988 wrote: That intern could do the efficiency math for a faction instead and help set the foundation for balance for that faction for the entire edition.
If a tabletop wargame can be reduced to efficiency math, you might as well not bother trying to balance it too hard because it's as shallow as a game of Yahtzee.
vict0988 wrote: It also fractures the community, of course some fractures are desirable, you don't want efficiency gamers in your campaigns because campaigns aren't and shouldn't be balanced enough for that, but while PL can scare them away if they do show up it's going to be twice as bad if you're using PL compared to if you are using pts. If you are using pts it's also very easy to notice tournament net lists, but where are you going to find the cheesiest PL lists? You're not, Spike is just going to win all his campaign games because he went oops all TH and you might think "we'd notice and kick him out" but then we have a PL advocate in this thread who might go all TH, not to mention the other places where PL can be abused like with breakpoints where the courseness means you get more value than you're supposed to. No where it really hurts is for casual campaigners that want pts, but most campaigners will be suspicious because they want to signal "no powergamers allowed".
I played casually all through 8th and most of 9th and I never observed this. It doesn't have to be billed as an equally legitimate way to play, it is okay if it's just a heuristic tool to help get armies on the table.
vict0988 wrote: That intern could do the efficiency math for a faction instead and help set the foundation for balance for that faction for the entire edition.
If a tabletop wargame can be reduced to efficiency math, you might as well not bother trying to balance it too hard because it's as shallow as a game of Yahtzee.
To be fair this is modern 40k, I think Yahtzee has harder decision points (though admittedly much less frequently)
vict0988 wrote: That intern could do the efficiency math for a faction instead and help set the foundation for balance for that faction for the entire edition.
If a tabletop wargame can be reduced to efficiency math, you might as well not bother trying to balance it too hard because it's as shallow as a game of Yahtzee.
1. Almost anything can be reduced to math, even Monopoly.
2. People can deny Mathhammer all they want, and those are the same people that would think 15 point per model Cultists are fine and it's "all about how you use them!!!1!"
Mathematical analysis is valid to answer specific questions in specific scenarios.
'Efficiency math for a faction' is boiling the entire game down to raw offense and defense- no positioning, no movement, no synergies, just line 'em up and knock 'em down. If that's a useful metric then the game is gak.
The point is that working out derived power level as a secondary task is something that requires no real effort and comes at zero cost to balance. It's on the level of looking for typos or text fitting for readability. Actual design and balancing requires a lot more work than points value derivatives or idealized efficiency in a vacuum.
In what case isn't mathematical analysis a valid tool for balance?
If you upgrade from a boltgun to a plasma gun the unit should become more efficient against Obliterators and Rhinos, but less efficient against Cultists. If you upgrade from a boltgun to a melta gun the unit should become more efficient against Obliterators and much more efficient against Rhinos, but also much less efficient against Cultists. With the wrong point values (like 0 for plasma guns) this will not be true, doing the efficiency math ensures things stay sane.
Units should not be too efficient at killing things at long range. It's a healthy thing for GW to know for every unit when something becomes too much to ensure things aren't insanely pushed when they send out the pts to beta testers to try to break the pts, because the fewer broken pts there are the fewer broken pts will survive to release.
vict0988 wrote: That intern could do the efficiency math for a faction instead and help set the foundation for balance for that faction for the entire edition.
If a tabletop wargame can be reduced to efficiency math, you might as well not bother trying to balance it too hard because it's as shallow as a game of Yahtzee.
I assume that's why Vict said to use it to set the foundations rather than be the final word on balance. You need some boundaries to start with your balancing and maths is the best way to quickly do that. Not doing any sort of calculations around the efficiency of units seems like a terrible idea. You can shortcut a lot of playtesting by starting from something that's roughly correct and iterating from there.
It seems as though GW have just plucked numbers from nowhere in many cases. Sanguinary Guard are probably the best example at 43 points each. I really want to know what they were smoking when they came up with that.
When I started Custom40k, one of the first things I did was to take the common Imperial weaponry and adjust a point calculation formula so they all came out roughly at a 33% efficiency against their "ideal target".
I don't think I got my army balance perfectly right, but outliers are usually coming up from esoteric special rules that are difficult to point right or the interaction with themselves and not from raw stats/points efficiency.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: PenitentJake shares my opinion on this. There should be two systems in place, but *if* only one system can exist, then it should be points.
However, there doesn't need to be one system.
My only contention with the two-system approach is that it seems like a number of sacrifices were inflicted on Points to serve the PL system.
The most notable example is Artefacts. Previously, artefacts were purchased in the same manner as wargear (i.e. with points). Indeed, for many editions there was little distinction between artefacts and normal wargear, save that the former was one-per-army.
However, when 8th introduced PL, artefacts were suddenly purchased with CPs instead of points, clearly to serve the PL system which didn't have small enough increments to even try to cost artefacts. This immediately led to the problem of all artefacts having the exact same cost, even though their effectiveness fluctuated wildly - so pistols that would once have been 5-10pt flavour options were suddenly the same as 50pt mega-weapons or super support abilities.
Put simply, I'm happy for both systems to exist, but I would like to see dual costs for artefacts, WLTs and the like (in the same manner as units), so that they have a point cost for point games and then a CP or PL cost for PL games.
I actually think 8-9's approach for Relics was fine. Using CP gives advantage to generic characters vs named ones. Named characters get their better weapons and special rules with points, whereas generic characters use a different resource to get the same efficiency.
Then again I've said I'm for one free relic per character from a specific list and then adding a second one from a different list to cost points or CP.
I actually think 8-9's approach for Relics was fine. Using CP gives advantage to generic characters vs named ones. Named characters get their better weapons and special rules with points, whereas generic characters use a different resource to get the same efficiency.
Then again I've said I'm for one free relic per character from a specific list and then adding a second one from a different list to cost points or CP.
Strong disagree, as not all traits or relics are made equal, as such making them all cost 1cp is tantamount to just giving them a PL rating.
If you suggest "make them equal" that undermines the points against what GW tried (and failed) to do with this point paradigm.
I actually think 8-9's approach for Relics was fine. Using CP gives advantage to generic characters vs named ones. Named characters get their better weapons and special rules with points, whereas generic characters use a different resource to get the same efficiency.
Then again I've said I'm for one free relic per character from a specific list and then adding a second one from a different list to cost points or CP.
Strong disagree, as not all traits or relics are made equal, as such making them all cost 1cp is tantamount to just giving them a PL rating.
If you suggest "make them equal" that undermines the points against what GW tried (and failed) to do with this point paradigm.
No gak not all relics are equal, I literally state that in the last sentence. Nobody would take the Spartean over Benediction of Fury. Also CP =/= PL. You completely didn't read my post.
I actually think 8-9's approach for Relics was fine. Using CP gives advantage to generic characters vs named ones. Named characters get their better weapons and special rules with points, whereas generic characters use a different resource to get the same efficiency.
Then again I've said I'm for one free relic per character from a specific list and then adding a second one from a different list to cost points or CP.
Strong disagree, as not all traits or relics are made equal, as such making them all cost 1cp is tantamount to just giving them a PL rating.
If you suggest "make them equal" that undermines the points against what GW tried (and failed) to do with this point paradigm.
How so?
Plasma pistols ought to have stronger rules than las pistols for fluff reasons.
Balance should be as good as possible.
Plasma pistols should cost more than las pistols to account for having stronger rules.
Balance should be as good as possible.
Veil of Darkness does not need to have stronger rules than Sempiternal Weave.
Veil of Darkness does not need to be more expensive than Sempiternal Weave.
The coarseness doesn't matter when it is truly one per army, even if one option is "mandatory" because it's worth 25 pts while the others are worth 15 pts it doesn't matter, it's 10 pts. Sponsons matter because they're modelled and because you can have multiple of them. Whether Orikan the Diviner (EPIC HERO) is 80 or 90 pts isn't a big deal, you have at least 80 reasons not to take him and you have at least 1 reason to take him. 0 pt plasma pistols leave no reason not to take them over las pistols.
The only reason why you need pts for wargear is if you want completely useless relics and I don't. Paying pts for it doesn't hurt though,I don't think it was worth changing then and I don't think it's worth changing now.
I actually think 8-9's approach for Relics was fine. Using CP gives advantage to generic characters vs named ones. Named characters get their better weapons and special rules with points, whereas generic characters use a different resource to get the same efficiency.
Then again I've said I'm for one free relic per character from a specific list and then adding a second one from a different list to cost points or CP.
Strong disagree, as not all traits or relics are made equal, as such making them all cost 1cp is tantamount to just giving them a PL rating.
If you suggest "make them equal" that undermines the points against what GW tried (and failed) to do with this point paradigm.
No gak not all relics are equal, I literally state that in the last sentence. Nobody would take the Spartean over Benediction of Fury. Also CP =/= PL. You completely didn't read my post.
You did not say that in the last sentence, you simply stated having 2 lists with a different selection method. You also stated the 8/9th approach for paying a cp was fine. A cp doesn't account for granular changes inability, hence is the same issue as PL.
I actually think 8-9's approach for Relics was fine. Using CP gives advantage to generic characters vs named ones. Named characters get their better weapons and special rules with points, whereas generic characters use a different resource to get the same efficiency.
Then again I've said I'm for one free relic per character from a specific list and then adding a second one from a different list to cost points or CP.
Strong disagree, as not all traits or relics are made equal, as such making them all cost 1cp is tantamount to just giving them a PL rating.
If you suggest "make them equal" that undermines the points against what GW tried (and failed) to do with this point paradigm.
No gak not all relics are equal, I literally state that in the last sentence. Nobody would take the Spartean over Benediction of Fury. Also CP =/= PL. You completely didn't read my post.
You did not say that in the last sentence, you simply stated having 2 lists with a different selection method. You also stated the 8/9th approach for paying a cp was fine. A cp doesn't account for granular changes inability, hence is the same issue as PL.
CP is a finite resource, so using it during list construction wasn't the end of the world. The problem was pretending pistol relics were ever as good as support relics or melee relics. GW making them all the same is literally the PL you defend.
I actually think 8-9's approach for Relics was fine. Using CP gives advantage to generic characters vs named ones. Named characters get their better weapons and special rules with points, whereas generic characters use a different resource to get the same efficiency.
Then again I've said I'm for one free relic per character from a specific list and then adding a second one from a different list to cost points or CP.
Strong disagree, as not all traits or relics are made equal, as such making them all cost 1cp is tantamount to just giving them a PL rating.
If you suggest "make them equal" that undermines the points against what GW tried (and failed) to do with this point paradigm.
No gak not all relics are equal, I literally state that in the last sentence. Nobody would take the Spartean over Benediction of Fury. Also CP =/= PL. You completely didn't read my post.
You did not say that in the last sentence, you simply stated having 2 lists with a different selection method. You also stated the 8/9th approach for paying a cp was fine. A cp doesn't account for granular changes inability, hence is the same issue as PL.
CP is a finite resource, so using it during list construction wasn't the end of the world. The problem was pretending pistol relics were ever as good as support relics or melee relics. GW making them all the same is literally the PL you defend.
Yes, which is why you saying "that was fine" is incredibly hypocritical.
Dudeface wrote: Yes, which is why you saying "that was fine" is incredibly hypocritical.
It's not hypocritical because the two situations are entirely different. Relics are few in number (or at least should be) and always have lore of "this super-cool thing is the best possible weapon/armor/etc". So it's far easier to balance the small set of choices as sidegrades and you don't have any equivalent to the laspistol vs. plasma pistol problem, where the lore says an option needs to be weaker but the point system requires it to be equal to the best gun. And you don't have any equivalent to the sponson problem where you have to balance "take the extra gun" vs. "take nothing" because all relics have a cost, you never have a situation where you get one for free but have a fake option to opt out of taking it.
The real issue with relics costing CP is that the entire CP/stratagem system is a profoundly stupid and anti-lore concept invented by GW to compensate for the lack of depth in the core mechanics. The entire thing should be scrapped but if you accept as a premise that it must exist then having relics cost CP is fine.
Dudeface wrote: Yes, which is why you saying "that was fine" is incredibly hypocritical.
It's not hypocritical because the two situations are entirely different. Relics are few in number (or at least should be) and always have lore of "this super-cool thing is the best possible weapon/armor/etc". So it's far easier to balance the small set of choices as sidegrades and you don't have any equivalent to the laspistol vs. plasma pistol problem, where the lore says an option needs to be weaker but the point system requires it to be equal to the best gun. And you don't have any equivalent to the sponson problem where you have to balance "take the extra gun" vs. "take nothing" because all relics have a cost, you never have a situation where you get one for free but have a fake option to opt out of taking it.
The real issue with relics costing CP is that the entire CP/stratagem system is a profoundly stupid and anti-lore concept invented by GW to compensate for the lack of depth in the core mechanics. The entire thing should be scrapped but if you accept as a premise that it must exist then having relics cost CP is fine.
And for the record I'm 100% fine with Relics costing points, just merely pointing out that it helps with making generic Characters more appealing vs the named ones, but allowing multiple relics to be bought for one character would help alleviate the issue as well.
Dudeface wrote: Yes, which is why you saying "that was fine" is incredibly hypocritical.
It's not hypocritical because the two situations are entirely different. Relics are few in number (or at least should be) and always have lore of "this super-cool thing is the best possible weapon/armor/etc". So it's far easier to balance the small set of choices as sidegrades and you don't have any equivalent to the laspistol vs. plasma pistol problem, where the lore says an option needs to be weaker but the point system requires it to be equal to the best gun. And you don't have any equivalent to the sponson problem where you have to balance "take the extra gun" vs. "take nothing" because all relics have a cost, you never have a situation where you get one for free but have a fake option to opt out of taking it.
The real issue with relics costing CP is that the entire CP/stratagem system is a profoundly stupid and anti-lore concept invented by GW to compensate for the lack of depth in the core mechanics. The entire thing should be scrapped but if you accept as a premise that it must exist then having relics cost CP is fine.
And for the record I'm 100% fine with Relics costing points, just merely pointing out that it helps with making generic Characters more appealing vs the named ones, but allowing multiple relics to be bought for one character would help alleviate the issue as well.
I mean, on that front, perhaps the concept of relics in general needs rethinking?
As mentioned previously, in the past relics were only different from normal wargear in that they were one-per-army, to represent them being especially rare and/or powerful. However, there weren't any limits beyond that (you weren't prevented from having multiple relics on the same character, or limited to a maximum number of relics per army). What's more, there was plenty of generic wargear so you could still customise characters a lot even if you'd already used your relics elsewhere.
However, in 8th/9th, most non-relic wargear was dropped. So suddenly the items that were once just ordinary wargear with an extra limitation were now the main avenue of customisation, meaning the extra limits were felt much more strongly. And now in 10th we've gone even further - removing even warlord traits and limiting customisation to just 4 relics, often with even more limitations as to which characters can even take them.
It just feels like the only real difference between a lot of generic characters and special characters at this point is that you can only take 1 of each special character.
Agreed. At this point you could name Ursula Creed into "Valeria Yarrick" and just call it a day.
Gone are the days when generic characters did (or could do) something truly unique (or at least, something rare that it took a very specific set of traits, items, and upgrades to do).
You want to order Baneblades? Better be Guy On Horse Man, or you can't. Because everyone knows unless the High Lord himself is around, Baneblades are just wild animals, roaming feral and free, taking orders from no one and grazing on the field of battle oblivious to the world.
(A group of Baneblades travelling together is called a "Shelf" if you must know, if there are more than three in the group).
Unit1126PLL wrote: Agreed. At this point you could name Ursula Creed into "Valeria Yarrick" and just call it a day.
Gone are the days when generic characters did (or could do) something truly unique (or at least, something rare that it took a very specific set of traits, items, and upgrades to do).
You want to order Baneblades? Better be Guy On Horse Man, or you can't. Because everyone knows unless the High Lord himself is around, Baneblades are just wild animals, roaming feral and free, taking orders from no one and grazing on the field of battle oblivious to the world.
(A group of Baneblades travelling together is called a "Shelf" if you must know, if there are more than three in the group).
If there's one thing Ward's codex did correctly, it was not limit the characters to specific Chapters in that regard.
EviscerationPlague wrote: If there's one thing Ward's codex did correctly, it was not limit the characters to specific Chapters in that regard.
Ward did a lot of things right in terms of rules writing. His codizes were excellent - them being OP was a collective failure of the rules team, not on Ward alone.
The background in his books... a whole different story.
Dudeface wrote: Yes, which is why you saying "that was fine" is incredibly hypocritical.
It's not hypocritical because the two situations are entirely different. Relics are few in number (or at least should be)
Meh. This relic is from 5,000 years ago. It is the pinky finger of a guy who immolated a Greater Daemon of Khorne. And himself. Well except for this pinky finger which is now a polished bone. So it must be lucky. Which makes people who feel lucky perform better.
This relic is a 10,000 year old tank. That we never use because it's 10,000 years old. And a Relic. So when we do take it out, everyone around it works better to keep it alive.
Meanwhile this Relic is a matched pair of Powerfists and super strong bolters fit for a Primarch. Or at least a Chapter Master.
What I'm getting at is the word "relic" covers a lot of ground to be considered rare.
Dudeface wrote: Yes, which is why you saying "that was fine" is incredibly hypocritical.
It's not hypocritical because the two situations are entirely different. Relics are few in number (or at least should be) and always have lore of "this super-cool thing is the best possible weapon/armor/etc". So it's far easier to balance the small set of choices as sidegrades and you don't have any equivalent to the laspistol vs. plasma pistol problem, where the lore says an option needs to be weaker but the point system requires it to be equal to the best gun. And you don't have any equivalent to the sponson problem where you have to balance "take the extra gun" vs. "take nothing" because all relics have a cost, you never have a situation where you get one for free but have a fake option to opt out of taking it.
The real issue with relics costing CP is that the entire CP/stratagem system is a profoundly stupid and anti-lore concept invented by GW to compensate for the lack of depth in the core mechanics. The entire thing should be scrapped but if you accept as a premise that it must exist then having relics cost CP is fine.
And for the record I'm 100% fine with Relics costing points, just merely pointing out that it helps with making generic Characters more appealing vs the named ones, but allowing multiple relics to be bought for one character would help alleviate the issue as well.
I mean, on that front, perhaps the concept of relics in general needs rethinking?
As mentioned previously, in the past relics were only different from normal wargear in that they were one-per-army, to represent them being especially rare and/or powerful. However, there weren't any limits beyond that (you weren't prevented from having multiple relics on the same character, or limited to a maximum number of relics per army). What's more, there was plenty of generic wargear so you could still customise characters a lot even if you'd already used your relics elsewhere.
However, in 8th/9th, most non-relic wargear was dropped. So suddenly the items that were once just ordinary wargear with an extra limitation were now the main avenue of customisation, meaning the extra limits were felt much more strongly. And now in 10th we've gone even further - removing even warlord traits and limiting customisation to just 4 relics, often with even more limitations as to which characters can even take them.
It just feels like the only real difference between a lot of generic characters and special characters at this point is that you can only take 1 of each special character.
Warlord Traits, Chapter Traits, Chapter Relics - we've lost the majority of what separated the X Legion/Chapter from the Y Legion/Chapter. Some of that is good - they did need to take a step back and figure out the best way to do this without it becoming a caricature. The wolf cloak with an animatronic tail that whips around the wolf teeth embedded into the tip is probably a bridge too far. But that's where they were headed. And trying to hammer the square peg of Chapter Traits into the Round Hole of Ork Society didn't work either. IF and I mean IF this is just a pause for the cause as they try and bring those ideas back in a way that works better hooray. Even chapter Command was getting silly. For 2 CP pre-game you can then run this "strat" for free and/or that ability twice a round at max level - but without those two CP the unit itself isn't really worth taking. But I do hope they bring back more of the individuality/flavor soon.
Dudeface wrote: Yes, which is why you saying "that was fine" is incredibly hypocritical.
It's not hypocritical because the two situations are entirely different. Relics are few in number (or at least should be) and always have lore of "this super-cool thing is the best possible weapon/armor/etc". So it's far easier to balance the small set of choices as sidegrades and you don't have any equivalent to the laspistol vs. plasma pistol problem, where the lore says an option needs to be weaker but the point system requires it to be equal to the best gun. And you don't have any equivalent to the sponson problem where you have to balance "take the extra gun" vs. "take nothing" because all relics have a cost, you never have a situation where you get one for free but have a fake option to opt out of taking it.
The real issue with relics costing CP is that the entire CP/stratagem system is a profoundly stupid and anti-lore concept invented by GW to compensate for the lack of depth in the core mechanics. The entire thing should be scrapped but if you accept as a premise that it must exist then having relics cost CP is fine.
It absolutely is hypocritical, stating that the exact thing you're shouting people down for is fine because it happens fewer times or with smaller gaps with relics doesn't alter the fact that if you want to press for granular points of everything, you press for everything.
If you'd noted EP's post they were also ok with 1 free relic, so no, they didn't all have a cost all the time. They also acknowledge that all relics were not made equal.
Have fun parsing
I actually think 8-9's approach for Relics was fine. Using CP gives advantage to generic characters vs named ones. Named characters get their better weapons and special rules with points, whereas generic characters use a different resource to get the same efficiency.
Then again I've said I'm for one free relic per character from a specific list and then adding a second one from a different list to cost points or CP.
Now tell me how granular in value those relics are when they're free or cost CP. yes EP has stated they're fine with them costing points. Now compare it to a summary of what a lot of people in here have said:
I actually think 10ths approach for unit selection is fine. Using pseudo-PL gives me the ability to model as I please without faffing about with points. Most units either have or should have sidegrades and special rules to get the same efficiency.
Then again I've said I'm for one building system that's simpler and second one from a granular points list.
Which is what you've been both shouting down repeatedly.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Agreed. At this point you could name Ursula Creed into "Valeria Yarrick" and just call it a day.
Gone are the days when generic characters did (or could do) something truly unique (or at least, something rare that it took a very specific set of traits, items, and upgrades to do).
You want to order Baneblades? Better be Guy On Horse Man, or you can't. Because everyone knows unless the High Lord himself is around, Baneblades are just wild animals, roaming feral and free, taking orders from no one and grazing on the field of battle oblivious to the world.
(A group of Baneblades travelling together is called a "Shelf" if you must know, if there are more than three in the group).
Ah yes - these group nouns that are so seldomly used nowadays, because the youth just doesn't learn them: a Shelf of Baneblades. a Tangle of Hierophants. An Insolvency of Warlords
My view of relics is this. If they are a must have on a unit and taken 100% of time, then they should be build in to the unit. Otherwise if they are an option, especialy of the some sort skew meta choice, then I think they generate more trouble then they do good for the game.
Now if GW was good at writing rules and I truested them enough, I could imagine stuff like relics and warlord traits opening specific builds. But A I do not trust them and B the detachments are suppose to do it. So I don't think it matters much.
Ah and for all d2 swords, non -1 to hit fists etc If they exist for heroes , then they should be baked in to the stat line.
Breton wrote: What I'm getting at is the word "relic" covers a lot of ground to be considered rare.
Not really. In all of those cases the lore can be summed up as "this is the coolest {sword/gun/tank/random finger bone/etc} and it is so badass because Reasons". The exact mechanics can be whatever, in all cases the lore is that it's clearly better than the thing it replaces. You don't have the plasma pistol problem, where if you want to avoid balance issues in PL you have to somehow make a plasma pistol and a laspistol equally effective on the tabletop despite the lore clearly saying that the plasma pistol is a far better gun. Relics can be straight upgrades of stuff because their lore is never "this basic piece of mediocre standard-issue equipment is only used by losers who can't get anything better" like a laspistol.
In MY experience (and yours might well be different), that isn't actually how list building with conventional points feels for me. It feels like this:
I pick a unit I want to use and its load out at the same time... But every time I do, I second guess every choice I make, because its load out is going to effect what I can take with the next, and that second guessing (not optimization, not efficiency, not fluff- just the impact that the choice has on what else I'll be able to afford) is what slows ME down.
And when I get to the end of the list and I find out it doesn't fit, now I have to go back and modify at least one of the units that I thought I had finalized... And I have to figure out which one I can modify with the least damage to my original idea. This sucks for ME because my choices tend to based on the narrative I want to explore via the game, not efficiency, so having to respec the second unit I chose in order to be able to fit the last unit in with all the gear it needs messes with my story.
PL has the same problem, but worse. If you get to the end of your list and you're 25 points over, but your cheapest unit is 90 points, you now have no flexibility to try to adjust. The same is true if you're 50 points under, but the minimum unit cost is 55 points. In this sense the current system is somehow even worse than the old PL system, because at least the old PL system squashed the values together to the extent that reconfiguring a list was a little bit easier. This system has all the worst parts of the old PL system and adds new terrible ideas at the same time. It's really quite impressive.
With PL, I pick all the units I want without even thinking about their equipment. Once they're picked, I the list is built, because none of the decisions I make from here on in have any effect on any other unit.
I'm now free to personalize each unit as the story demands, without worrying that it might make me have to rethink the loadout of any of the other choices I've made. The example I gave back on page 45 was deciding to reflect a fire-team's affiliation with the Ordo Hereticus by giving my Superior a Condemnor boltgun. I was 100% free to make that choice without having to modify any other unit's load out to do it.
I cited this as an Objective benefit to a PL type system, and one that matters more to ME than the obvious advantages for balance that a costed equipment system would provide. Story freedom is worth the difference in granularity for ME. For the majority of other players, despite being an objective advantage to a PL system, story freedom ISN'T worth the difference in granularity that a costed equipment system provides, which is why the two system solution is objectively the best choice for the game.
A PL-style system isn't required to allow you to do what you want. There's absolutely no issue using the traditional points system to create your initial list and then having the rules of the campaign system simply allow you to make these sort of upgrades to units without paying the points for them if that's a goal of the system. You cna tie it to various experience systems or game-related goals if you want. You can then either assume everyone will be doing the same so the balance works out OK, or build in a system of compensation that doesn't have to revolve around points. The original Necromunda did this to deal with the differences in power between gangs with different levels of experience.
This is one of the frustrations the pro-points people are having in these arguments, I think. None of the "advantages" of the current system that its proponents mention are really features of the system itself. They always seem to be tied to narrative games, or at least gaming where balance isn't as important to the players. The possibility of using those narrative systems themselves to provide what those players need rather than forcing everyone into one system that doesn't seem to offer exactly what either side needs (and in the case of the people looking for balance, is absolutely terrible) never seems to occur to them.
Now my theory, Matt, is that while I am responding to YOU, and while I am agreeing with everyone who likes costed equipment better than PL by saying "In a one system solution, points feels like a better choice for balance than PL," a bunch of people won't be satisfied with me agreeing with them because I also believe that there is an objective advantage in PL type system.
They hate so very much anyone saying a single good thing about PL that even though I am agreeing points are better for balance, they will still want to fight with me. I have compromised with and acknowledged their point of view, that Points is more effective at balance. It won't be enough to make them happy. It never is.
See above. The problem is, I don't think the advantages you want are actually inherent to the PL system. That's the reason those who are against it are getting frustrated.
Dudeface wrote: It absolutely is hypocritical, stating that the exact thing you're shouting people down for is fine because it happens fewer times or with smaller gaps with relics doesn't alter the fact that if you want to press for granular points of everything, you press for everything.
The point is that it isn't the same thing.
The core point system has to account for a huge range of options, including things like plasma pistols and LRBT sponsons where there are very clear differences in value between the choices (and those difference must exist for lore reasons). A granular point system is required to represent those differences in value and avoid having certain options become auto-take or never-take choices.
The relic system only has to account for a very small pool of options and none of them are forced by lore or other factors to be more or less powerful than the others. It's possible to use a much simpler pricing system as long as they are all genuinely sidegrades, and it's possible to make them all sidegrades.
I don't think that relics can't be included in the normal point system but it's simply false to argue that they must be or that they function the same way as the rest of list building. It isn't a double standard to apply different point systems to very different situations.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Altruizine wrote: If you hadn't noticed yet, ThePaintingOwl is CadianSgtbob.
Of course I am. I'm also EviscerationPlague, vict0988, Unit1126PLL, madtankbloke, H.B.M.C, a_typical_hero, CaulynDarr, and probably several others except I got tired of scrolling back to find names. All of us are sock puppets of the same person and you can absolutely dismiss everything we're saying based on grudges you hold against anyone you have ever argued about PL with. I even made 503 sock puppets (as of right now) to rig the outcome of the poll so don't worry about that over 3:1 ratio of people agreeing that pseudo-PL is bad, that's also fake news.
Dudeface wrote: It absolutely is hypocritical, stating that the exact thing you're shouting people down for is fine because it happens fewer times or with smaller gaps with relics doesn't alter the fact that if you want to press for granular points of everything, you press for everything.
The point is that it isn't the same thing.
The core point system has to account for a huge range of options, including things like plasma pistols and LRBT sponsons where there are very clear differences in value between the choices (and those difference must exist for lore reasons). A granular point system is required to represent those differences in value and avoid having certain options become auto-take or never-take choices.
The relic system only has to account for a very small pool of options and none of them are forced by lore or other factors to be more or less powerful than the others. It's possible to use a much simpler pricing system as long as they are all genuinely sidegrades, and it's possible to make them all sidegrades.
I don't think that relics can't be included in the normal point system but it's simply false to argue that they must be or that they function the same way as the rest of list building. It isn't a double standard to apply different point systems to very different situations.
Nope, if you can make relics of equal strength and usefulness, you can certainly do it elsewhere. There is no way you can excuse relics being free or using "not points" but not wargear, you fell back on las pistol vs plasma pistol, but a relic plasma pistol is obviously better than a standard one. It is worth more points than an ordinary plasma pistol as they are a direct comparison. What isn't a direct comparison is a plasma pistol vs an on demand re-roll or a -1 to hit on a unit.
Dudeface wrote: Nope, if you can make relics of equal strength and usefulness, you can certainly do it elsewhere. There is no way you can excuse relics being free or using "not points" but not wargear, you fell back on las pistol vs plasma pistol, but a relic plasma pistol is obviously better than a standard one. It is worth more points than an ordinary plasma pistol as they are a direct comparison. What isn't a direct comparison is a plasma pistol vs an on demand re-roll or a -1 to hit on a unit.
I already explained how this isn't the same thing.
A plasma pistol must be better than a laspistol and so the only way to balance it is with a point cost to upgrade from a laspistol to a plasma pistol. The traditional point system handles this just fine (and PL can't).
A relic plasma pistol must be better than a basic plasma pistol so it must also have an upgrade cost. And it does, only paid in CP instead of points.
A relic plasma pistol and a relic finger bone of a saint don't have to have equal strength and can be designed as sidegrades. Yes, giving -1 to hit on a whole unit is (probably) more powerful than the relic plasma pistol but there's nothing that inherently requires the relic finger bone to be a -1 to hit buff. It works just fine if you make it equal in power to the relic plasma pistol.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote: And when I get to the end of the list and I find out it doesn't fit, now I have to go back and modify at least one of the units that I thought I had finalized... And I have to figure out which one I can modify with the least damage to my original idea. This sucks for ME because my choices tend to based on the narrative I want to explore via the game, not efficiency, so having to respec the second unit I chose in order to be able to fit the last unit in with all the gear it needs messes with my story.
And this is the part I still don't understand. You claim to be here purely for narrative play and make all of your choices based on the needs of the story, without any concern given to list strength. You claim to not care about the nuances of balance. So why is it a problem if you have your 500 point list, upgrade to that condemnor boltgun, and just play a 520 point list against your opponent's 500 point list (or 485 point list or 530 point list)? Why is it so important that both lists have to have the same number, even if the only way to do so is to make the number an obvious error? How is the game improved by pretending that your 520 point list actually costs 500 points and your opponent's 485 point list also costs 500 points? Why not just be honest about it and play 520 points vs. 485 points?
The issue here doesn't seem to be PL, it's that you're very stuck on this concept of points-based matched play gaming that is intended for pickup games and tournaments, not narrative play. I don't know if it's because you've bought into the myth that matched play is synonymous with "better" or because you haven't seen what real narrative games look like (and you sadly wouldn't be alone in this) but you'd be far better served by dumping the entire concept of points-based matched play and embracing the narrative. And you don't need PL/pseudo-PL for that, it's a needlessly complicated system that has all the drawbacks you object to with the traditional point system. A simple "take about 5 units and 3 characters each" structure to set the rough size of the battle combined with collaboratively deciding what units would be in the battle according to the story is going to work far better for your goals than PL.
Dudeface wrote: It absolutely is hypocritical, stating that the exact thing you're shouting people down for is fine because it happens fewer times or with smaller gaps with relics doesn't alter the fact that if you want to press for granular points of everything, you press for everything.
The point is that it isn't the same thing.
The core point system has to account for a huge range of options, including things like plasma pistols and LRBT sponsons where there are very clear differences in value between the choices (and those difference must exist for lore reasons). A granular point system is required to represent those differences in value and avoid having certain options become auto-take or never-take choices.
The relic system only has to account for a very small pool of options and none of them are forced by lore or other factors to be more or less powerful than the others. It's possible to use a much simpler pricing system as long as they are all genuinely sidegrades, and it's possible to make them all sidegrades.
I don't think that relics can't be included in the normal point system but it's simply false to argue that they must be or that they function the same way as the rest of list building. It isn't a double standard to apply different point systems to very different situations.
Nope, if you can make relics of equal strength and usefulness, you can certainly do it elsewhere. There is no way you can excuse relics being free or using "not points" but not wargear, you fell back on las pistol vs plasma pistol, but a relic plasma pistol is obviously better than a standard one. It is worth more points than an ordinary plasma pistol as they are a direct comparison. What isn't a direct comparison is a plasma pistol vs an on demand re-roll or a -1 to hit on a unit.
I've literally said Relics weren't usually equal strength and need different opportunity costs. Did you read my post or were you super stuck on a particular wording to try to garner your win for PL?
Dudeface wrote: It absolutely is hypocritical, stating that the exact thing you're shouting people down for is fine because it happens fewer times or with smaller gaps with relics doesn't alter the fact that if you want to press for granular points of everything, you press for everything.
The point is that it isn't the same thing.
The core point system has to account for a huge range of options, including things like plasma pistols and LRBT sponsons where there are very clear differences in value between the choices (and those difference must exist for lore reasons). A granular point system is required to represent those differences in value and avoid having certain options become auto-take or never-take choices.
The relic system only has to account for a very small pool of options and none of them are forced by lore or other factors to be more or less powerful than the others. It's possible to use a much simpler pricing system as long as they are all genuinely sidegrades, and it's possible to make them all sidegrades.
I don't think that relics can't be included in the normal point system but it's simply false to argue that they must be or that they function the same way as the rest of list building. It isn't a double standard to apply different point systems to very different situations.
Nope, if you can make relics of equal strength and usefulness, you can certainly do it elsewhere. There is no way you can excuse relics being free or using "not points" but not wargear, you fell back on las pistol vs plasma pistol, but a relic plasma pistol is obviously better than a standard one. It is worth more points than an ordinary plasma pistol as they are a direct comparison. What isn't a direct comparison is a plasma pistol vs an on demand re-roll or a -1 to hit on a unit.
I've literally said Relics weren't usually equal strength and need different opportunity costs. Did you read my post or were you super stuck on a particular wording to try to garner your win for PL?
You also said you're fine with them being free and not costing points....
Heck, they are basically wargear. The 4th edition IG codex had warlord traits (essentially) in the armory (like the Honorifica Imperialis or Macharian Cross).
Dudeface wrote: It absolutely is hypocritical, stating that the exact thing you're shouting people down for is fine because it happens fewer times or with smaller gaps with relics doesn't alter the fact that if you want to press for granular points of everything, you press for everything.
The point is that it isn't the same thing.
The core point system has to account for a huge range of options, including things like plasma pistols and LRBT sponsons where there are very clear differences in value between the choices (and those difference must exist for lore reasons). A granular point system is required to represent those differences in value and avoid having certain options become auto-take or never-take choices.
The relic system only has to account for a very small pool of options and none of them are forced by lore or other factors to be more or less powerful than the others. It's possible to use a much simpler pricing system as long as they are all genuinely sidegrades, and it's possible to make them all sidegrades.
I don't think that relics can't be included in the normal point system but it's simply false to argue that they must be or that they function the same way as the rest of list building. It isn't a double standard to apply different point systems to very different situations.
Nope, if you can make relics of equal strength and usefulness, you can certainly do it elsewhere. There is no way you can excuse relics being free or using "not points" but not wargear, you fell back on las pistol vs plasma pistol, but a relic plasma pistol is obviously better than a standard one. It is worth more points than an ordinary plasma pistol as they are a direct comparison. What isn't a direct comparison is a plasma pistol vs an on demand re-roll or a -1 to hit on a unit.
I've literally said Relics weren't usually equal strength and need different opportunity costs. Did you read my post or were you super stuck on a particular wording to try to garner your win for PL?
You also said you're fine with them being free and not costing points....
Some of them and only the first one off a list. Please read the full post for content before I bother to reply to you again
Dudeface wrote: It absolutely is hypocritical, stating that the exact thing you're shouting people down for is fine because it happens fewer times or with smaller gaps with relics doesn't alter the fact that if you want to press for granular points of everything, you press for everything.
The point is that it isn't the same thing.
The core point system has to account for a huge range of options, including things like plasma pistols and LRBT sponsons where there are very clear differences in value between the choices (and those difference must exist for lore reasons). A granular point system is required to represent those differences in value and avoid having certain options become auto-take or never-take choices.
The relic system only has to account for a very small pool of options and none of them are forced by lore or other factors to be more or less powerful than the others. It's possible to use a much simpler pricing system as long as they are all genuinely sidegrades, and it's possible to make them all sidegrades.
I don't think that relics can't be included in the normal point system but it's simply false to argue that they must be or that they function the same way as the rest of list building. It isn't a double standard to apply different point systems to very different situations.
Nope, if you can make relics of equal strength and usefulness, you can certainly do it elsewhere. There is no way you can excuse relics being free or using "not points" but not wargear, you fell back on las pistol vs plasma pistol, but a relic plasma pistol is obviously better than a standard one. It is worth more points than an ordinary plasma pistol as they are a direct comparison. What isn't a direct comparison is a plasma pistol vs an on demand re-roll or a -1 to hit on a unit.
I've literally said Relics weren't usually equal strength and need different opportunity costs. Did you read my post or were you super stuck on a particular wording to try to garner your win for PL?
You also said you're fine with them being free and not costing points....
Some of them and only the first one off a list. Please read the full post for content before I bother to reply to you again
LMAO ok, so because there's a list of free upgrades that means they suddenly aren't worth points? Is the first lascannon upgrade in an army better than a bolter? How's life with the boot on the other foot? This is exactly what anyone who doesn't gak on things has to go through replying to you.
Altruizine wrote: If you hadn't noticed yet, ThePaintingOwl is CadianSgtbob.
Of course I am. I'm also EviscerationPlague, vict0988, Unit1126PLL, madtankbloke, H.B.M.C, a_typical_hero, CaulynDarr, and probably several others except I got tired of scrolling back to find names. All of us are sock puppets of the same person and you can absolutely dismiss everything we're saying based on grudges you hold against anyone you have ever argued about PL with. I even made 503 sock puppets (as of right now) to rig the outcome of the poll so don't worry about that over 3:1 ratio of people agreeing that pseudo-PL is bad, that's also fake news.
(/s)
Truth. You're also the holder of the 190 accounts that voted "yes" or "mixed", the operator of all accounts posting in the current point system's defense, all other posters and the mod team. Weird that you felt the need to expose yourself through the altruizine puppet though, what's the point? Everyone already knows this, we're all you anyways... Wait, that doesn't sound right, I'm you too. You're all me? I'm all you? No, still weird. I'm all me? Yeah, that's it. I'm all me anyways
It's been a long time since i've played, but I really don't understand this. Things costing points was a way to balance and mean players had to put some thought into choosing things. Like reading through a few of the new rules there are things like "can be equipped with up to", but I don't know why anyone would ever take less than the maximum, or leave out things that are just objectively the better choice like bolt/plasma pistol VS Laspistol or not giving everything sponsons and pintle weapons if they can take them.
Mentlegen324 wrote: It's been a long time since i've played, but I really don't understand this. Things costing points was a way to balance and mean players had to put some thought into choosing things. Like reading through a few of the new rules there are things like "can be equipped with up to", but I don't know why anyone would ever take less than the maximum, or leave out things that are just objectively the better choice like bolt/plasma pistol VS Laspistol or not giving everything sponsons and pintle weapons if they can take them.
I'm convinced SOMEONE (probably rhymes with Duddace) at GW wanted to leave a mark on 40k that would last for decades and thought PL would be it, so they pushed it despite everyone hating it and now they're trying to disguise it by sticking a zero onto the end of PL values and calling it points.
maybe we should all just play GrimDarkFuture at this point... streamlined points and rules for the PL crowd, upgrades cost points for all wargear being costed crowd
Dudeface wrote: LMAO ok, so because there's a list of free upgrades that means they suddenly aren't worth points? Is the first lascannon upgrade in an army better than a bolter? How's life with the boot on the other foot? This is exactly what anyone who doesn't gak on things has to go through replying to you.
How many Veils of Darkness can a list include? Which miniature come with the Veil of Darkness?
Lobokai wrote: would should all just play GrimDarkFuture at this point... streamlined points and rules for the PL crowd, upgrades cost points for all wargear being costed crowd
just saying
I don't want to play Space Robot Liches with psychic powers, I want to play Necrons and they don't use psykers.
Mentlegen324 wrote: It's been a long time since i've played, but I really don't understand this. Things costing points was a way to balance and mean players had to put some thought into choosing things. Like reading through a few of the new rules there are things like "can be equipped with up to", but I don't know why anyone would ever take less than the maximum, or leave out things that are just objectively the better choice like bolt/plasma pistol VS Laspistol or not giving everything sponsons and pintle weapons if they can take them.
I'm convinced SOMEONE (probably rhymes with Duddace) at GW wanted to leave a mark on 40k that would last for decades and thought PL would be it, so they pushed it despite everyone hating it and now they're trying to disguise it by sticking a zero onto the end of PL values and calling it points.
Jervis Johnson thought that one of the worse part of GW games like WFB or w40k, was having a point system, and that games should be played with what I can describe as people magicaly agreing with each other on balance, game size, game objective etc each game from scratch and it should somehow work. So it isn't a new concept as far as some people at GW goes. It sure as hell makes GW design team work easier. Rules changes almost never, especialy when structural ones are needed, outside of a codex. "Changes" done through point costs, which we already see the impact of with eldar going from the best to, 2ed best army in the entire game. No one has to worry about load outs, what a str 6 power fist on a IG Lt should cost and what one on a SM cpt should cost. What rules there are in FW, which the studio tries to ignore that it exists. etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lobokai wrote: would should all just play GrimDarkFuture at this point... streamlined points and rules for the PL crowd, upgrades cost points for all wargear being costed crowd
just saying
We could all be playing PL, if all armies were designed for PL, which for GW means that the boxes of models have to be designed in a specific way. I mean there is a lot to say about the mind set of rules writers in the studio, when they make PM squads 5 or 10 models strong and only give the option of 7 after the entire internet made fun of them for selling the boxes with 7 models in it.
Dudeface wrote: LMAO ok, so because there's a list of free upgrades that means they suddenly aren't worth points? Is the first lascannon upgrade in an army better than a bolter? How's life with the boot on the other foot? This is exactly what anyone who doesn't gak on things has to go through replying to you.
How many Veils of Darkness can a list include? Which miniature come with the Veil of Darkness?
1, any character and associated unit. Is that unit objectively better than without the veil of darkness. Yes. That's why it now costs points and correctly so.
You want to order Baneblades? Better be Guy On Horse Man, or you can't. Because everyone knows unless the High Lord himself is around, Baneblades are just wild animals, roaming feral and free, taking orders from no one and grazing on the field of battle oblivious to the world.
Sometimes I think that people here want others to own 8000pts of an army with all load outs and all units, no matter good or bad, just waiting that maybe in this or next edition they get good. That is not a very good way to entice new players or those people who just want a 2000pts list that works.
I don't want to play Space Robot Liches with psychic powers, I want to play Necrons and they don't use psykers.
Ah, so you're the reason each datasheet has to have a bespoke rule that does the same thing as some other bespoke rule on another datasheet instead of making the rule a USR.
I don't want to play Space Robot Liches with psychic powers, I want to play Necrons and they don't use psykers.
Ah, so you're the reason each datasheet has to have a bespoke rule that does the same thing as some other bespoke rule on another datasheet instead of making the rule a USR.
Yeah, unable to understand the concept of abstraction.
Psychic power: (does a thing. Can do more things on an ld check. Failure, psyker suffers perils of the Warp)
Mechanicum Cybertheurgy: (does a thing. Can do more things on an ld check. Failure, cybertheurgist suffers effects identical to perils but called Feedback).
They're different mechanics guys, honest!!
(To be fair, things that deny/shut off psychic powers don't shut off Cybertheurgy).
Psychic power: (does a thing. Can do more things on an ld check. Failure, psyker suffers perils of the Warp)
Mechanicum Cybertheurgy: (does a thing. Can do more things on an ld check. Failure, cybertheurgist suffers effects identical to perils but called Feedback).
They're different mechanics guys, honest!!
(To be fair, things that deny/shut off psychic powers don't shut off Cybertheurgy).
I'd honestly be fine with this approach.
There are a number of races with abilities that aren't psychic but which would probably still be best represented with psychic mechanics.
Necrons, obviously, with C'tan powers. DE also come to mind with stuff like Mandrakes, as well as some of their arcane technology that's even said to resemble magic.
Dudeface wrote: LMAO ok, so because there's a list of free upgrades that means they suddenly aren't worth points? Is the first lascannon upgrade in an army better than a bolter? How's life with the boot on the other foot? This is exactly what anyone who doesn't gak on things has to go through replying to you.
How many Veils of Darkness can a list include? Which miniature come with the Veil of Darkness?
1, any character and associated unit. Is that unit objectively better than without the veil of darkness. Yes. That's why it now costs points and correctly so.
Mentlegen324 wrote: It's been a long time since i've played, but I really don't understand this. Things costing points was a way to balance and mean players had to put some thought into choosing things. Like reading through a few of the new rules there are things like "can be equipped with up to", but I don't know why anyone would ever take less than the maximum, or leave out things that are just objectively the better choice like bolt/plasma pistol VS Laspistol or not giving everything sponsons and pintle weapons if they can take them.
Let me help you understand.
Some of us, like me, have been playing for a long (long) time.
We play WYSIWYG.
We have finished armies. We are not going to re-arm all of our decades finished (and often metal) Guard Sgts with plasma pistols just because today that option costs zero pts. That's simply more work than it's worth & it could easily change again.
So I have some sgts Bolt Pistols, some with plasma, and most with Las. Why? Because that's what the metal models were cast with & the time to change those guns out would've been prior to having painted them.
Same with my Baneblades & related chasis. Extra sponsons were not an option back then. My 'Blades? They've been finished models for 20+ years.....
Likewise for many other armies we have.
Unless an option becomes illegal it's often just NOT WORTH THE EFFORT.
Now if I build a new unit? Yes, I'd consider equipment g it optimally for the edition it's getting built in (or for - some of us do play older editions)
There's also the asthesics. If I don't like how an option looks? I'm fine with forgoing it. No matter how effective it might be.
I know that I'm not alone in this.
Lobokai wrote: All of these things are true for me too. I like simpler points too. I’m fine taking a 10% handicap for my aesthetic choices.
Then why play with points-based list construction at all when a "take X units and Y characters each" system is just as accurate and even simpler to use?
Lobokai wrote: All of these things are true for me too. I like simpler points too. I’m fine taking a 10% handicap for my aesthetic choices.
Then why play with points-based list construction at all when a "take X units and Y characters each" system is just as accurate and even simpler to use?
Because we have that system. So we use it. What a stupid question.
Andykp wrote: Because we have that system. So we use it. What a stupid question.
Why would you use a subpar system just because it exists when you also have the "take X units and Y characters" system that does what you want and is even simpler to use? It seems like you've fallen for the "officialness" trap where endorsement by GW matters more than how well a system works for your needs.
JNAProductions wrote: Enough to counter GW's imbalance in just being crap at assigning points?
Maybe, but also enough to make GW's errors worse. The systemic error in PL doesn't oppose the assignment error. The two are entirely independent, sometimes they cancel and sometimes they stack. So sometimes you have effectively 2200 points vs. 1800 points because of GW's errors in assigning costs, and then free gear adds another 10% on top of that so you're playing with 2400 points vs. 1600 points. Good luck getting a fun game out of that one.
Lobokai wrote: All of these things are true for me too. I like simpler points too. I’m fine taking a 10% handicap for my aesthetic choices.
Then why play with points-based list construction at all when a "take X units and Y characters each" system is just as accurate and even simpler to use?
Because we have that system. So we use it. What a stupid question.
Open play exists and you don't use it, why?
why must there be PL instead of points when open play offers that version of the game as well?
Andykp wrote: Because we have that system. So we use it. What a stupid question.
Why would you use a subpar system just because it exists when you also have the "take X units and Y characters" system that does what you want and is even simpler to use? It seems like you've fallen for the "officialness" trap where endorsement by GW matters more than how well a system works for your needs.
I think this is also why better rulesets than 40k made by non-gw makers have a hard time gaining traction
I actually think 8-9's approach for Relics was fine.
Did not cost points, everyone got a free one.
Using CP gives advantage to generic characters vs named ones. Named characters get their better weapons and special rules with points, whereas generic characters use a different resource to get the same efficiency.
So, why didn't the generic characters pay points? Why is a cp as anymore of an acceptable currently than PL? You acknowledge not all relics were made equal.
Then again I've said I'm for one free relic per character
Free upgrades!
from a specific list and then adding a second one from a different list to cost points or CP.
Again, why is CP acceptable as a made up currency compared to points, beyond the free upgrades, you manage to list points as an option alongside a 2nd currency. Imagine that!
Relics are not strict upgrades of other relics and relics don't have to be trash as the lore dictates. Las pistols are supposed to be trash. Plasma pistols are supposed to be superior to las pistols, even if they weren't a strict upgrade they should still be superior.
Having 75% of relics cost 20 pts and 25% cost 15 pts or 25 pts makes the question which one is more cost-efficient instead of which one fits my list better if they all had the same cost. That answer would often be the one that has a value of 25 pts and it would rarely be one that has a value of 15 pts, but it could be the case sometimes. I can dig up Phreak's video on why they try to make League of Legends items that compete against each other the same price so they compete on stats and abilities instead of price if you want a professional communicator and designer to explain it, I'm doing it poorly.
Whether the plasma pistol is worth it is the only way to make the choice between plasma pistol and las pistol interesting because with no cost the plasma pistol is the automatic choice. The only time Relics costing pts matters is when you want useless 5-pt non-Relics to be called Relics and I don't, so PL was fine for Relics, pts is also fine. PL is not fine for plasma guns.
I am wondering whether you think convincing us through arguing that choosing between a Veil of Darkness and a Sempiternal Weave is the same as choosing between las pistol and plasma pistol you can convince us that PL isn't an objectively inferior system or whether you're just trolling because you're mad you couldn't come up with a logical argument.
vict0988 wrote: Relics are not strict upgrades of other relics and relics don't have to be trash as the lore dictates. Las pistols are supposed to be trash. Plasma pistols are supposed to be superior to las pistols, even if they weren't a strict upgrade they should still be superior.
Having 75% of relics cost 20 pts and 25% cost 15 pts or 25 pts makes the question which one is more cost-efficient instead of which one fits my list better if they all had the same cost. That answer would often be the one that has a value of 25 pts and it would rarely be one that has a value of 15 pts, but it could be the case sometimes. I can dig up Phreak's video on why they try to make League of Legends items that compete against each other the same price so they compete on stats and abilities instead of price if you want a professional communicator and designer to explain it, I'm doing it poorly.
Whether the plasma pistol is worth it is the only way to make the choice between plasma pistol and las pistol interesting because with no cost the plasma pistol is the automatic choice. The only time Relics costing pts matters is when you want useless 5-pt non-Relics to be called Relics and I don't, so PL was fine for Relics, pts is also fine. PL is not fine for plasma guns.
I am wondering whether you think convincing us through arguing that choosing between a Veil of Darkness and a Sempiternal Weave is the same as choosing between las pistol and plasma pistol you can convince us that PL isn't an objectively inferior system or whether you're just trolling because you're mad you couldn't come up with a logical argument.
A bit of both, I'm openly applying the same bs logic that EP uses to yell at people who aren't even pro-PL but simply tolerate it's existence on a point that they themselves made in praise of not using points. I find it amusing that yourself and other "points or dead" all gang together to defend upgrades not costing points when it suits your arguments.
I'm not going to say whether a veil of darkness or sempiternal weave or any other relics are the same as choosing between any other upgrades. You're also missing the point: is a chronomancer with veil worth more points than one without? Yes, very obviously.
You lot as a wider group cannot keep saying "Not giving upgrades points is bad apart from when I say it's fine".
Dudeface wrote: You're also missing the point: is a chronomancer with veil worth more points than one without? Yes, very obviously.
It has a higher value, but why do you insist that value be expressed by pts instead of by opportunity cost (you only get one relic) or by costing CP?
This isn't like with las pistols and plasma pistols in PL where one has a higher value, but PL fans insist that value not be expressed because the value is too low to matter. No, the value of a Veil of Darkness matters and should be expressed, but that expression can come from a number of ways and pts isn't a much better way of expressing it than any other method of expression. I actually think having Relics cost CP was the wrong choice in a PL system because having things you can add for the last points you have leftover lowers the headache of using PL, but if all Relics were 20 pts now that wouldn't bother me, the 10 pt 4+ FNP is already worth 50 pts for some armies, while the 20 pt DS is worth at most 40 I reckon so saying one is worth more than the other doesn't really make sense. But I think it was inarguable that multimeltas were worth more than heavy bolters in 9th and that sponsons add value in 10th.
Dudeface wrote: You're also missing the point: is a chronomancer with veil worth more points than one without? Yes, very obviously.
It has a higher value, but why do you insist that value be expressed by pts instead of by opportunity cost (you only get one relic) or by costing CP?
This isn't like with las pistols and plasma pistols in PL where one has a higher value, but PL fans insist that value not be expressed because the value is too low to matter. No, the value of a Veil of Darkness matters and should be expressed, but that expression can come from a number of ways and pts isn't a much better way of expressing it than any other method of expression. I actually think having Relics cost CP was the wrong choice in a PL system because having things you can add for the last points you have leftover lowers the headache of using PL, but if all Relics were 20 pts now that wouldn't bother me, the 10 pt 4+ FNP is already worth 50 pts for some armies, while the 20 pt DS is worth at most 40 I reckon so saying one is worth more than the other doesn't really make sense. But I think it was inarguable that multimeltas were worth more than heavy bolters in 9th and that sponsons add value in 10th.
We agree there, the other underlying point you comment on is regards opportunity cost etc on the upgrade itself. It's not impossible to do that for different options on everything, be it heavy bolter vs multimelta or whatever. Given GW haven't seen that through in the current version, but they have started recognising that enhancements have a relative value in points for whatever is carrying them, they've recognised that as the easier version to control.
This topic is the nearest that many on the anti-PL side of things have come to recognising that it is possible to actually have options that don't require point upgrades.
Yeah, when we are talking about competent gamedesigners and not churn and burn 3 years / edition GW40k rulesdesign, which doesn't even manage to keep to a singular design ethos through a full 40k edition.
Which harks once again back. Why the feth are we letting GW remove granularity that would allow for unit specific pricing of weaponry (obviously a plasma gun on a traitor guardsmen is worth less than one on a Legionaire) for a system that just flat out states price regardless of contents of squad beforehand, when we know that GW doesn't do pricing good at all, nor has the mechanics in place to actually make opportunity cost count for weapon choices?
No matter how you slice it, this is a system implemented for lazyness without understanding what is required to make it work. Were the game in a state were it actually would work, now that 'd be a game that would be interesting, alas it isn't.
Lobokai wrote: All of these things are true for me too. I like simpler points too. I’m fine taking a 10% handicap for my aesthetic choices.
Why stop there? Are you fine with a 15% or 20% handicap?
What makes you think the collections not deep/wide enough to find something to plug such a hole?
Assassins, other Imperial Agents, freeblsde Knights, demons, or just pulling additional units of the same force.
Just because I'm not altering long finished models or playing with things I don't like doesn't mean I'm not putting as near the pts limit on the table as possible.
Andykp wrote: Because we have that system. So we use it. What a stupid question.
Why would you use a subpar system just because it exists when you also have the "take X units and Y characters" system that does what you want and is even simpler to use? It seems like you've fallen for the "officialness" trap where endorsement by GW matters more than how well a system works for your needs.
What the hell are you on about? You are saying that because of how we like to play we shouldn’t use the official army design rules, even though they suit our needs…..
That’s not anyone falling for a trap you have have just made up, that’s you clutching at straws. Why would I use another system, one I would have to invent, when the one that there is ok by me?? That’s why it’s a stupid question, it’s like saying why doesn’t each person just play what ever they have painted, or why don’t you sit and work the precise “value” of each piece of wargear and invent your own points system that runs of some formula of effectiveness vs competitiveness divided by the optimisation coefficient??
You seem to forget, I’m pretty happy with the current points system, I don’t need to do anything different to enjoy a game or list building. Looks like you have the problem not me? What are you doing about it, apartment throwing your toys out the pram on the internet? Maybe you should embrace the change and try playing a bit more like jervis suggests. You might like it?
Dudeface wrote: This topic is the nearest that many on the anti-PL side of things have come to recognising that it is possible to actually have options that don't require point upgrades.
You're still ignoring the fact that the relic case does not have the constraints of normal upgrades, where you have the plasma pistol and sponson problems. Relics can be sidegrades because the lore supports it, regular upgrades can't. A laspistol and a plasma pistol can never be equal unless you want to completely ignore the lore, and that means you either use a point system that accurate evaluates those options or you accept systemic errors from a system that is incapable of doing so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: What the hell are you on about? You are saying that because of how we like to play we shouldn’t use the official army design rules, even though they suit our needs…..
That's exactly what I'm saying. You're using a needlessly complex system instead of one that is better suited to your needs, apparently out of some misguided assumption that "official" is something that matters outside of a matched play context. The official rules may be adequate but why settle for adequate when there are far better systems for the kind of game you claim to want?
Why would I use another system, one I would have to invent, when the one that there is ok by me?
Because you claim to value the time savings of not adding up point values for equipment and don't care much about balance. If this is true then why not use a system that is even faster to build lists with and is no worse at balance? It's not like you have to invent anything, I already provided the system for you. Take 10 units, upgrade 5 of them with characters, play the game.
Or are the claimed virtues of PL not really things that are important to you?
Maybe you should embrace the change and try playing a bit more like jervis suggests.
Maybe you should do the same. You're the one arguing against the kind of game Jervis advocates and insisting that you want to play points-based matched play games instead.
(And it's fine if you want to play standard 2000 point matched play games, tournament play is 100% valid. But from what you've said previously you're more interested in narrative play and don't have any interest in tournament games.)
If it wasn’t for the 80 pages of the same nonsense preceding this I would think you were taking the piss but you actually think you are somehow making sensible arguments. But you’re not, you are making things up to support the idea that somehow I am being dishonest because surely I must really think the same way as you, surely!
Some made system you have just made up with zero thought is in no way something I want to to try, inventing my own system is more work then I am prepared to do, don’t get me wrong I make loads of house rules. I love making datasheets for home brewed units and models. But why on Earth would I bother spending time coming up with a system to replace on that is fine by me?? That’s truly idiotic part of your weird assertion.
10th edition points work well enough for me. It’s good enough. If my opponent goes a few over or under it’s fine. As I said, I am happy with that system, it is in no way “match play”, it’s just a way of getting roughly equal forces on the table, ROUGHLY. not exactly down to the pistols the squad leaders have.
And no, the points I liked about power levels are very valid, and no I don’t need to do anything else, I’m happy as I am. In fact I am really enjoying 10th edition. Best games in ages. If they go back to granular points I might invent my own system like power levels but no need now.
So back to what are you doing about not liking the current system, because that is what we are discussing here, not the merits of some BS system you have thought up to try and win an argument. What are you doing about the lack of granular points that are making you so unhappy?
Are you going to give up? invent your own system? Or trying in a more casual way?
I would recommend you get a group of friends together (if you have any) and write a narrative campaign, invent your own missions and back stories for your armies. Even make up a unit or two. Maybe even try your take x units system, could be good? Embrace the “casual”, get into the role playing side of the game. I have played this game for 30+years now and I can tell you that the only people I see getting upset with the state of the game are people like you. Why be unhappy?
Dudeface wrote: This topic is the nearest that many on the anti-PL side of things have come to recognising that it is possible to actually have options that don't require point upgrades.
You're still ignoring the fact that the relic case does not have the constraints of normal upgrades, where you have the plasma pistol and sponson problems. Relics can be sidegrades because the lore supports it, regular upgrades can't. A laspistol and a plasma pistol can never be equal unless you want to completely ignore the lore, and that means you either use a point system that accurate evaluates those options or you accept systemic errors from a system that is incapable of doing so.
They can be side grades, sure, it's really hard to side grade "4+ invuln" against "unit can immediately deepstrike". You might argue that innately some relics have more value to some armies and should... cost more... free relic? You also absolutely can make a laspistol close the gap with a plasma pistol without altering either weapons stats by providing ancillary buffs via the weapon, changing what can be paired with it, or if needs be consolidating it down as they doesn't have to be an obviously more powerful option. Imagine if you could only have a chainsword with a plasma pistol to balance out the options, or if a laspistol gave +1 to WS and +1A to represent it being a lot lighter and less cumbersome. You might have a decision to make then instead "gun got big number".
For my homebrew, relics are regular wargear with a limitation of 1 per army.
Depending on the relic and army in question, a single character could have all the limited items.
Relics cost points.
Weapon relics do not exist as their own entry, as that would make all the other weapons irrelevant. There is no use in even having a power sword, if you can take a power sword +1 for your 1-2 HQ beatstick characters.
Instead there is for example a "weapon relic" wargear selection that allows you to pick one of several additions to add to your weapon. Every enhacement is limited to 1 per army.
Enhancements include things like "+1 Strength", "-1 AP", "+6" range" and so on.
I don't see any reason not to point relics in a system that points individual pistols for a squad leader.
Dudeface wrote: This topic is the nearest that many on the anti-PL side of things have come to recognising that it is possible to actually have options that don't require point upgrades.
You're still ignoring the fact that the relic case does not have the constraints of normal upgrades, where you have the plasma pistol and sponson problems. Relics can be sidegrades because the lore supports it, regular upgrades can't. A laspistol and a plasma pistol can never be equal unless you want to completely ignore the lore, and that means you either use a point system that accurate evaluates those options or you accept systemic errors from a system that is incapable of doing so.
They can be side grades, sure, it's really hard to side grade "4+ invuln" against "unit can immediately deepstrike". You might argue that innately some relics have more value to some armies and should... cost more... free relic? You also absolutely can make a laspistol close the gap with a plasma pistol without altering either weapons stats by providing ancillary buffs via the weapon, changing what can be paired with it, or if needs be consolidating it down as they doesn't have to be an obviously more powerful option. Imagine if you could only have a chainsword with a plasma pistol to balance out the options, or if a laspistol gave +1 to WS and +1A to represent it being a lot lighter and less cumbersome. You might have a decision to make then instead "gun got big number".
You missed the "because the lore supports it" clause then. The lore does not support limiting Plasma Piatols to chainswords-only.
Dudeface wrote: You're also missing the point: is a chronomancer with veil worth more points than one without? Yes, very obviously.
It has a higher value, but why do you insist that value be expressed by pts instead of by opportunity cost (you only get one relic) or by costing CP?
This isn't like with las pistols and plasma pistols in PL where one has a higher value, but PL fans insist that value not be expressed because the value is too low to matter. No, the value of a Veil of Darkness matters and should be expressed, but that expression can come from a number of ways and pts isn't a much better way of expressing it than any other method of expression. I actually think having Relics cost CP was the wrong choice in a PL system because having things you can add for the last points you have leftover lowers the headache of using PL, but if all Relics were 20 pts now that wouldn't bother me, the 10 pt 4+ FNP is already worth 50 pts for some armies, while the 20 pt DS is worth at most 40 I reckon so saying one is worth more than the other doesn't really make sense. But I think it was inarguable that multimeltas were worth more than heavy bolters in 9th and that sponsons add value in 10th.
We agree there, the other underlying point you comment on is regards opportunity cost etc on the upgrade itself. It's not impossible to do that for different options on everything, be it heavy bolter vs multimelta or whatever. Given GW haven't seen that through in the current version, but they have started recognising that enhancements have a relative value in points for whatever is carrying them, they've recognised that as the easier version to control.
This topic is the nearest that many on the anti-PL side of things have come to recognising that it is possible to actually have options that don't require point upgrades.
Do you think wargear costs are under control? I think 5th edition points was like a herd of horses in a pen, the pen was rather shoddy so there was always a horse loose, sometimes several. 10th is like a herd of wild horses, there is no shoddy broken pen but the herd aren't under control at all.
You don't need pts for combat patrol, you only need them to internally balance datasheet options. The balance at the release of 10th ought to satisfy any intellectual interest you might have had as to whether ignoring internal balance would give GW the time to externally balance codexes against eachother.
a_typical_hero wrote: I don't see any reason not to point relics in a system that points individual pistols for a squad leader.
Suppose I desire each list include 1 relic and for those relics to convey the faction's flavor. In a system with relics of various prices players might take the cheapest option to pay the relic tax, if I desire instead players to just take the one that is most synergistic I could make them all cost the same and attempt to balance the rules as much as possible.
Suppose I desire each list include 1 relic and for those relics to convey the faction's flavor. In a system with relics of various prices players might take the cheapest option to pay the relic tax, if I desire instead players to just take the one that is most synergistic I could make them all cost the same and attempt to balance the rules as much as possible.
No I don't consider wargear options under control at the minute, but the snippet above is what GW was aiming for across the board. I am on board with that concept if they can deliver it and if some loadout options being weird or lost is the cost of it I'm not against that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: You missed the "because the lore supports it" clause then. The lore does not support limiting Plasma Piatols to chainswords-only.
The lore supports a lot of things that aren't readily represented on the tabletop in fairness, I don't think one more feather in that cap would really be a problem.
Aye, i agree with Dudefaces point. Especially since we are missing nowadays whole factions and formations which would be required by an galaxy spanning empire? Like droptroopers because there's not enough marines to go around to support all landings.
If it wasn’t for the 80 pages of the same nonsense preceding this I would think you were taking the piss but you actually think you are somehow making sensible arguments. But you’re not, you are making things up to support the idea that somehow I am being dishonest because surely I must really think the same way as you, surely!
Some made system you have just made up with zero thought is in no way something I want to to try, inventing my own system is more work then I am prepared to do, don’t get me wrong I make loads of house rules. I love making datasheets for home brewed units and models. But why on Earth would I bother spending time coming up with a system to replace on that is fine by me?? That’s truly idiotic part of your weird assertion.
10th edition points work well enough for me. It’s good enough. If my opponent goes a few over or under it’s fine. As I said, I am happy with that system, it is in no way “match play”, it’s just a way of getting roughly equal forces on the table, ROUGHLY. not exactly down to the pistols the squad leaders have.
And no, the points I liked about power levels are very valid, and no I don’t need to do anything else, I’m happy as I am. In fact I am really enjoying 10th edition. Best games in ages. If they go back to granular points I might invent my own system like power levels but no need now.
So back to what are you doing about not liking the current system, because that is what we are discussing here, not the merits of some BS system you have thought up to try and win an argument. What are you doing about the lack of granular points that are making you so unhappy?
Are you going to give up? invent your own system? Or trying in a more casual way?
I would recommend you get a group of friends together (if you have any) and write a narrative campaign, invent your own missions and back stories for your armies. Even make up a unit or two. Maybe even try your take x units system, could be good? Embrace the “casual”, get into the role playing side of the game. I have played this game for 30+years now and I can tell you that the only people I see getting upset with the state of the game are people like you. Why be unhappy?
There's a perfectly valid way of playing the game, a way that many of us have been playing for decades, that becomes very challenging to do under the current point system.
I'm glad you like it, but it's just a really really really bad implementation for a lot of us. Getting back to where we want to be from here, is way harder than it is for you to get to something you want from the previous iterations of points.
I also don't see many competitive players telling casuals they are playing the game wrong. The general argument is better balance is better for everybody.
Don't assume competitive players don't know how to casual. I personal play all kinds of games casually, but there are certain games I like to put more into. I wish 40k failed me a lot less in that regards, but it's ubiquitous. Better games rise and fall in popularity, and sometimes it's just easier to play 40k than to chase every fad.
Andykp wrote: Some made system you have just made up with zero thought is in no way something I want to to try
And yet you're perfectly happy to use 10th's system, which is equally made up and with next-to-zero thought, because GW did it?
Andykp wrote: 10th edition points work well enough for me. It’s good enough. If my opponent goes a few over or under it’s fine. As I said, I am happy with that system, it is in no way “match play”, it’s just a way of getting roughly equal forces on the table, ROUGHLY. not exactly down to the pistols the squad leaders have.
"I'm alright, Jack. I've got mine"
Andykp wrote: And no, the points I liked about power levels are very valid, and no I don’t need to do anything else,
Your points are subjective. You happen (for whatever bizarre reason) to like Power Level/NuPoints. That is the only defence you or any other PL/NP advocate has, because there is not one tangible, objective benefit to PL/NP. It does precisely zero better than granular points do.
Andykp wrote: What are you doing about the lack of granular points that are making you so unhappy?
I suspect 'not play it' is quite a common response to that, particularly among potential new players who will be understandably annoyed to build their models only to find that they've fallen into 'trap' choices and disadvantaged themselves significantly. And like it or not, losing players is not good for the game nor anyone involved with it. The loss of visibility translates to a loss in recruitment, and as we have seen in the past, neglecting existing players too much and focusing too hard on new sales (rather than players) can hurt GW.
Andykp wrote: I would recommend you get a group of friends together (if you have any) and write a narrative campaign, invent your own missions and back stories for your armies. Even make up a unit or two. Maybe even try your take x units system, could be good? Embrace the “casual”, get into the role playing side of the game. I have played this game for 30+years now and I can tell you that the only people I see getting upset with the state of the game are people like you. Why be unhappy?
Nothing quite like rounding off your post with a large dose of condescention.
People are unhappy because they have invested a lot of time and money into the game and therefore *care* about it. 'Just accept mediocrity' and 'just ignore all the numerous flaws' are not strong arguments, and for the prices GW charge they should be held to a higher standard than they are.
There are plenty of games out there (model agnostic ones, too, for those who arn't willing to divorce themselves from the 40k setting) with far more thought and effort put into their design, so why should anyone just settle for whatever GW slaps together?
Lobokai wrote: All of these things are true for me too. I like simpler points too. I’m fine taking a 10% handicap for my aesthetic choices.
Then why play with points-based list construction at all when a "take X units and Y characters each" system is just as accurate and even simpler to use?
Yes, let's just be silly and say nonsense. If you've played 40k for any real time at all, I feel confident that you've fielded a unit that wasn't the most optimized or didn't have the most meta build because of one of the following:
a) kit changed, you had the old version, you were fine not having the new upgrade
b) you really liked the way something looked/felt on the battlefield
c) you found a great deal on a model you normally wouldn't go get, so you were fine with it as built
d) your force had a theme and you were leaning into that
e) pure aesthetic joy of the unit
So we all have played with "less than" choices at times and that was our choice. But that doesn't mean you'd leave some massive points gap or aren't trying to build a force that can have a reasonable chance to win a game. There's a balance between:
Ease of play
Learning curve
Budget
Customization
Power balance
While I'm not saying the last two are unimportant to me, I am certain we're all well aware that GW has really struggled with these in the past and there have been numerous times that parallel units have not had the same net points. But sometimes making the learning curve and ease of play better means customization and power balance become more abstract.
We clearly have different desires on which features matter more to us, but this "proving things" attitude or the constant insisting on it being "systemic" flaws both is subjective and untrue. Clearly ALL units aren't affected by the errors you see in the system in the same way, and the system itself is not malfunctioning or flawed, it's just making compromises and priorities that YOU don't like. I agree with some of your complaints, but I think it's easy to see that the system needs some relatively minor tweaks to work better, not that they system itself in malfunctioning and needs to be abandoned.
I hope you've played Battletech, because then this has a decent analogous relationship. I get you wanting 40k's equivalent of "Battletech classic". But the market now and the need for the game to thrive requires that there be a more "Alpha Strike" edition of 40k. As someone who views tons of games a year and splits his time between big competitive events like Adepticon and week-long beginners' campaigns, I have advocated (along with many others in the Warhammer Alliance) for a more Alpha Strike-like edition to 40k. With a little under 1000 different units and roughly 26 factions (factions and subfactions get a little blurry) there's just too much already going on. Battletech currently has 3-ish factions and dozens of subfactions. They only have (if looking at currently produced models and cards) 400 units and many of those are subtle variations of the same model, so the number is smaller than that. The game is SO much faster to learn, so much easier to play, yet still gives an incredible amount of modular options while list building and in force construction. It's selling like hotcakes and its getting played.
Now, I fully concede that there are still big problems with 10th edition's datasheets (or whatever we're calling them now).
-I'd love to see separate cards for tanks with and w/o sponsons (good for balance, good for list building) or at least cost variability for it (we have different costs for some unit size changes, definitely should have them for sponsons)
-Some sort of better balance for lighter hitting weapons (like a laspistol vs a plasma pistol), whether that is a stat bump in A or in BS or whatever
And while I know someone will hate this for "lore" reasons, having a limit on 1 weapon because you took another in the more modular squads would make sense for balance too. The approach is a great improvement. It needs to be done better (which is pretty much the motto for 40k rules the last 20 years)
Andykp wrote: Some made system you have just made up with zero thought is in no way something I want to to try
And yet you're perfectly happy to use 10th's system, which is equally made up and with next-to-zero thought, because GW did it?
Andykp wrote: 10th edition points work well enough for me. It’s good enough. If my opponent goes a few over or under it’s fine. As I said, I am happy with that system, it is in no way “match play”, it’s just a way of getting roughly equal forces on the table, ROUGHLY. not exactly down to the pistols the squad leaders have.
"I'm alright, Jack. I've got mine"
Andykp wrote: And no, the points I liked about power levels are very valid, and no I don’t need to do anything else,
Your points are subjective. You happen (for whatever bizarre reason) to like Power Level/NuPoints. That is the only defence you or any other PL/NP advocate has, because there is not one tangible, objective benefit to PL/NP. It does precisely zero better than granular points do.
Andykp wrote: What are you doing about the lack of granular points that are making you so unhappy?
I suspect 'not play it' is quite a common response to that, particularly among potential new players who will be understandably annoyed to build their models only to find that they've fallen into 'trap' choices and disadvantaged themselves significantly. And like it or not, losing players is not good for the game nor anyone involved with it. The loss of visibility translates to a loss in recruitment, and as we have seen in the past, neglecting existing players too much and focusing too hard on new sales (rather than players) can hurt GW.
Andykp wrote: I would recommend you get a group of friends together (if you have any) and write a narrative campaign, invent your own missions and back stories for your armies. Even make up a unit or two. Maybe even try your take x units system, could be good? Embrace the “casual”, get into the role playing side of the game. I have played this game for 30+years now and I can tell you that the only people I see getting upset with the state of the game are people like you. Why be unhappy?
Nothing quite like rounding off your post with a large dose of condescention.
People are unhappy because they have invested a lot of time and money into the game and therefore *care* about it. 'Just accept mediocrity' and 'just ignore all the numerous flaws' are not strong arguments, and for the prices GW charge they should be held to a higher standard than they are.
There are plenty of games out there (model agnostic ones, too, for those who arn't willing to divorce themselves from the 40k setting) with far more thought and effort put into their design, so why should anyone just settle for whatever GW slaps together?
The fact that I prefer it and it’s purely subjective has been my whole point, all along.
My “condescending” comments were aimed purely at painting owl because that is all he has been doing now for a long time. And he seems content to tell me how I should play but incapable of seeing how anyone could like something he doesn’t.
I am sorry you are unhappy with it, and if you could bothered to scroll through the 80 page horror that is this thread (I don’t blame you if you don’t) my position on points this edition is that it worse then last edition. I liked the choice, the option people had for points or power levels. I used power levels but am grown up enough to see that doesn’t suit everyone. The way pick) to had got in the last 30 years they were an unnecessary pain in the arse. Not for me but if you played competitive or pick up games with strangers then they were probably better.
But I also spent 2 editions being told that I was laying the game wrong, l didn’t even know what I liked or why and that I was ruining the game using power levels. Now the same thing is going on, because I find this system good enough.
I get that you are upset but don’t go telling me that I would be better off playing with super granular points updated all the time to reflect the “meta”. This system isn’t exactly as I would want it but I can live with it. I will adapt and make it work. I am just suggesting you and the other angry people try a different way. If you have a didn’t like it or can’t because of your gaming group then that’s a shame. But if you can, it is surely better than polluting the internet with your disappointment.
Either way you do what you like, my comment was not directed at you at all, in fact I dint think I have ever encountered you in here before. But maybe try and a bit a little bit less judgmental.
Lobokai wrote: All of these things are true for me too. I like simpler points too. I’m fine taking a 10% handicap for my aesthetic choices.
Then why play with points-based list construction at all when a "take X units and Y characters each" system is just as accurate and even simpler to use?
Yes, let's just be silly and say nonsense. If you've played 40k for any real time at all, I feel confident that you've fielded a unit that wasn't the most optimized or didn't have the most meta build because of one of the following:
a) kit changed, you had the old version, you were fine not having the new upgrade
b) you really liked the way something looked/felt on the battlefield
c) you found a great deal on a model you normally wouldn't go get, so you were fine with it as built
d) your force had a theme and you were leaning into that
e) pure aesthetic joy of the unit
So we all have played with "less than" choices at times and that was our choice. But that doesn't mean you'd leave some massive points gap or aren't trying to build a force that can have a reasonable chance to win a game. There's a balance between:
Ease of play
Learning curve
Budget
Customization
Power balance
While I'm not saying the last two are unimportant to me, I am certain we're all well aware that GW has really struggled with these in the past and there have been numerous times that parallel units have not had the same net points. But sometimes making the learning curve and ease of play better means customization and power balance become more abstract.
We clearly have different desires on which features matter more to us, but this "proving things" attitude or the constant insisting on it being "systemic" flaws both is subjective and untrue. Clearly ALL units aren't affected by the errors you see in the system in the same way, and the system itself is not malfunctioning or flawed, it's just making compromises and priorities that YOU don't like. I agree with some of your complaints, but I think it's easy to see that the system needs some relatively minor tweaks to work better, not that they system itself in malfunctioning and needs to be abandoned.
I hope you've played Battletech, because then this has a decent analogous relationship. I get you wanting 40k's equivalent of "Battletech classic". But the market now and the need for the game to thrive requires that there be a more "Alpha Strike" edition of 40k. As someone who views tons of games a year and splits his time between big competitive events like Adepticon and week-long beginners' campaigns, I have advocated (along with many others in the Warhammer Alliance) for a more Alpha Strike-like edition to 40k. With a little under 1000 different units and roughly 26 factions (factions and subfactions get a little blurry) there's just too much already going on. Battletech currently has 3-ish factions and dozens of subfactions. They only have (if looking at currently produced models and cards) 400 units and many of those are subtle variations of the same model, so the number is smaller than that. The game is SO much faster to learn, so much easier to play, yet still gives an incredible amount of modular options while list building and in force construction. It's selling like hotcakes and its getting played.
Now, I fully concede that there are still big problems with 10th edition's datasheets (or whatever we're calling them now).
-I'd love to see separate cards for tanks with and w/o sponsons (good for balance, good for list building) or at least cost variability for it (we have different costs for some unit size changes, definitely should have them for sponsons)
-Some sort of better balance for lighter hitting weapons (like a laspistol vs a plasma pistol), whether that is a stat bump in A or in BS or whatever
And while I know someone will hate this for "lore" reasons, having a limit on 1 weapon because you took another in the more modular squads would make sense for balance too. The approach is a great improvement. It needs to be done better (which is pretty much the motto for 40k rules the last 20 years)
Love this post! Very calmly and concisely put. Wish I could manage such a thing. Thank you.
Lobokai wrote: All of these things are true for me too. I like simpler points too. I’m fine taking a 10% handicap for my aesthetic choices.
Then why play with points-based list construction at all when a "take X units and Y characters each" system is just as accurate and even simpler to use?
Yes, let's just be silly and say nonsense. If you've played 40k for any real time at all, I feel confident that you've fielded a unit that wasn't the most optimized or didn't have the most meta build because of one of the following:
a) kit changed, you had the old version, you were fine not having the new upgrade
b) you really liked the way something looked/felt on the battlefield
c) you found a great deal on a model you normally wouldn't go get, so you were fine with it as built
d) your force had a theme and you were leaning into that
e) pure aesthetic joy of the unit
So we all have played with "less than" choices at times and that was our choice. But that doesn't mean you'd leave some massive points gap or aren't trying to build a force that can have a reasonable chance to win a game. There's a balance between:
Ease of play
Learning curve
Budget
Customization
Power balance
While I'm not saying the last two are unimportant to me, I am certain we're all well aware that GW has really struggled with these in the past and there have been numerous times that parallel units have not had the same net points. But sometimes making the learning curve and ease of play better means customization and power balance become more abstract.
We clearly have different desires on which features matter more to us, but this "proving things" attitude or the constant insisting on it being "systemic" flaws both is subjective and untrue. Clearly ALL units aren't affected by the errors you see in the system in the same way, and the system itself is not malfunctioning or flawed, it's just making compromises and priorities that YOU don't like. I agree with some of your complaints, but I think it's easy to see that the system needs some relatively minor tweaks to work better, not that they system itself in malfunctioning and needs to be abandoned.
I hope you've played Battletech, because then this has a decent analogous relationship. I get you wanting 40k's equivalent of "Battletech classic". But the market now and the need for the game to thrive requires that there be a more "Alpha Strike" edition of 40k. As someone who views tons of games a year and splits his time between big competitive events like Adepticon and week-long beginners' campaigns, I have advocated (along with many others in the Warhammer Alliance) for a more Alpha Strike-like edition to 40k. With a little under 1000 different units and roughly 26 factions (factions and subfactions get a little blurry) there's just too much already going on. Battletech currently has 3-ish factions and dozens of subfactions. They only have (if looking at currently produced models and cards) 400 units and many of those are subtle variations of the same model, so the number is smaller than that. The game is SO much faster to learn, so much easier to play, yet still gives an incredible amount of modular options while list building and in force construction. It's selling like hotcakes and its getting played.
Now, I fully concede that there are still big problems with 10th edition's datasheets (or whatever we're calling them now).
-I'd love to see separate cards for tanks with and w/o sponsons (good for balance, good for list building) or at least cost variability for it (we have different costs for some unit size changes, definitely should have them for sponsons)
-Some sort of better balance for lighter hitting weapons (like a laspistol vs a plasma pistol), whether that is a stat bump in A or in BS or whatever
And while I know someone will hate this for "lore" reasons, having a limit on 1 weapon because you took another in the more modular squads would make sense for balance too. The approach is a great improvement. It needs to be done better (which is pretty much the motto for 40k rules the last 20 years)
How dare you! This post is way, way too sensible for this thread! Don’t interrupt this perfect flow of hate, ignorance and bad manners with your carefully written and well thought post!
Lobokai wrote: All of these things are true for me too. I like simpler points too. I’m fine taking a 10% handicap for my aesthetic choices.
Then why play with points-based list construction at all when a "take X units and Y characters each" system is just as accurate and even simpler to use?
Yes, let's just be silly and say nonsense. If you've played 40k for any real time at all, I feel confident that you've fielded a unit that wasn't the most optimized or didn't have the most meta build because of one of the following:
a) kit changed, you had the old version, you were fine not having the new upgrade
b) you really liked the way something looked/felt on the battlefield
c) you found a great deal on a model you normally wouldn't go get, so you were fine with it as built
d) your force had a theme and you were leaning into that
e) pure aesthetic joy of the unit
So we all have played with "less than" choices at times and that was our choice. But that doesn't mean you'd leave some massive points gap or aren't trying to build a force that can have a reasonable chance to win a game. There's a balance between:
Ease of play
Learning curve
Budget
Customization
Power balance
While I'm not saying the last two are unimportant to me, I am certain we're all well aware that GW has really struggled with these in the past and there have been numerous times that parallel units have not had the same net points. But sometimes making the learning curve and ease of play better means customization and power balance become more abstract.
Free sponsons are not abstractly balanced, they're not balanced at all. The only way to make balance worse is if taking sponsons gave you extra points.
We clearly have different desires on which features matter more to us, but this "proving things" attitude or the constant insisting on it being "systemic" flaws both is subjective and untrue. Clearly ALL units aren't affected by the errors you see in the system in the same way, and the system itself is not malfunctioning or flawed, it's just making compromises and priorities that YOU don't like. I agree with some of your complaints, but I think it's easy to see that the system needs some relatively minor tweaks to work better, not that they system itself in malfunctioning and needs to be abandoned.
Whereever a unit can take something extra I predict there will be an imbalance in 10th, I will be right in every case because I know that part of PL is not accounting for such extra equipment is inherent to what makes PLPL, if it accounted for those extra somethings with some kind of cost then it would not be PL. This is true in every codex in the game, it is an inherent and systemic flaw. The fact that some point values are right does not mean the system has no systemic flaws, that is ridiculous. It is widespread and affects many parts of the system. Adding pts costs to every upgrade is not a minor tweak and that is what is needed. PL needs to be gone, pts need to come back.
-I'd love to see separate cards for tanks with and w/o sponsons (good for balance, good for list building) or at least cost variability for it (we have different costs for some unit size changes, definitely should have them for sponsons)
-Some sort of better balance for lighter hitting weapons (like a laspistol vs a plasma pistol), whether that is a stat bump in A or in BS or whatever
That's points, you are arguing in favour of scrapping PL and bringing back pts.
Andykp wrote: The fact that I prefer it and it’s purely subjective has been my whole point, all along.
Why should I care that you subjectively prefer 3,2 to using Pi for calculating circumferences of circles? You're objectively wrong about the value of Pi and your circumference calculations are all objectively wrong as well. You're not saving any time because your calculator has a Pi sign, you're just being argumentative and denialist. Stop propagating bad math on the internet and nobody will care about your hobby of doing math wrong for your own enjoyment. A Leman Russ with sponsons > Leman Russ without sponsons at the same price, objectively imbalanced, inherent to the system of PL because PL does not have pts costs for upgrades which creates a systemic issue of naked units being unviable.
And while I know someone will hate this for "lore" reasons, having a limit on 1 weapon because you took another in the more modular squads would make sense for balance too. The approach is a great improvement. It needs to be done better (which is pretty much the motto for 40k rules the last 20 years)
We're beyond any reasonable thought now.
You're the person that "build only what's in the box" is for, and you're the person defending it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: But that's okay, because I'm sure you hope Jervis sees your post or something.
How is limiting the choice for only some faction an improvment? Especialy when with the other hand other factions are being handed out extra rules, more powerful rules, actual options. And on top of that GW doesn't give an option to "fix" your army, besides rebuying it almost in total. There is no upgrade X, Y or Z upgrade kit. No, now if your army has a unit that misses a crucial option X, then you have to rebuy the whole unit.
CaulynDarr wrote: ...
I also don't see many competitive players telling casuals they are playing the game wrong. The general argument is better balance is better for everybody.
...
This statement is the crux of most people's vitrol in this thread, and I believe it is a misconception.
Better balance is not necessarily better for everyone, if to achieve that perceived balance, you must sacrifice other factors that an individual values more. There are many players that want imbalance since it leads to more diverse concepts being introduced within the system. I know the competitive crowd disfavor rules like "hatred of chaos" that provides bonuses to a faction or unit when fighting a specific enemy, because it is hard to balance something so niche. But there are probably more non-competitive players in the world of wargaming that prefer having zany rules that fit the theme of the armies lore, aesthetics or a multitude of other rational for why a more casual player would choose to spend time collecting a specific faction of their chosen game.
I've been a long proponent that the only way to truly satiate the competitive crowd and the narrative/casual crowd is to offer two separate core rule systems for the same game. This is something that will likely never be done, since Logistically GW cannot seem to handle this. So the game system will continually have pendulum swings between casual stint and competitive stint alienating one crowd or the other. There is no true healthy medium where everyone is happy, but there is a medium where no one is. I believe decisions like the points change in 10th are made to the betterment of the majority of players, and it is a shame the competitive players feel slighted, but that's pretty much how 9th felt to many casual groups that wanted a fun system and we received the "tournament edition" with a half-assed tacked on crusade bloat.
The pendulum will swing back. It's just a matter of time.
CaulynDarr wrote: ...
I also don't see many competitive players telling casuals they are playing the game wrong. The general argument is better balance is better for everybody.
...
This statement is the crux of most people's vitrol in this thread, and I believe it is a misconception.
Better balance is not necessarily better for everyone, if to achieve that perceived balance, you must sacrifice other factors that an individual values more. There are many players that want imbalance since it leads to more diverse concepts being introduced within the system. I know the competitive crowd disfavor rules like "hatred of chaos" that provides bonuses to a faction or unit when fighting a specific enemy, because it is hard to balance something so niche. But there are probably more non-competitive players in the world of wargaming that prefer having zany rules that fit the theme of the armies lore, aesthetics or a multitude of other rational for why a more casual player would choose to spend time collecting a specific faction of their chosen game.
I've been a long proponent that the only way to truly satiate the competitive crowd and the narrative/casual crowd is to offer two separate core rule systems for the same game. This is something that will likely never be done, since Logistically GW cannot seem to handle this. So the game system will continually have pendulum swings between casual stint and competitive stint alienating one crowd or the other. There is no true healthy medium where everyone is happy, but there is a medium where no one is. I believe decisions like the points change in 10th are made to the betterment of the majority of players, and it is a shame the competitive players feel slighted, but that's pretty much how 9th felt to many casual groups that wanted a fun system and we received the "tournament edition" with a half-assed tacked on crusade bloat.
The pendulum will swing back. It's just a matter of time.
It is way easier to unbalance a balanced game than to balance and unbalanced one. If you want to set up a narrative campaign where your army has "hatred of chaos" You say "my army has +1 WS against Chaos" and boom, your army has +1 WS against Chaos so long as your couple of buddies you play with agree. It's much harder to unilaterally agree on balance for an GT that's hosting 200 players. Competitive gaming needs critical mass-- that you loose as soon as you get ah-hoc tournament specific balance adjustments. Balance is absolutely necessary for us, and it gives you a starting point for doing whatever you want to do for your narrative.
You can go forth and narrative without the blessing of GW. Competitive players feel slighted, because we have been. You have gained no real appreciative benefit (except maybe feeling validated by GW's design team) while we've been crippled with a broken game.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Honestly, whatever narrative support GW puts out, it will always be insufficient compared to whatever you can come up with on your own. If you want to tell a story, tell the story you want. GW can't put out a framework to cover everything. It's not an RPG system. Not to mention that people house rule on top of RPG systems all.the.time. I've never been in a group that didn't just come up with stuff on the fly for the fun of it. The rules are only ever going to be a jumping off point for narrative gaming.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Addendum to the addendum. GW did once put out a narrative miniature game without points. It was called Inquisitor and it bombed hugely. The minis were cool though.
If Inquisitor bombed (and I'm not sure I agree that it did), it was as much because of 54mm scale as anything else.
The reason I'm not so sure it bombed is that Inquisitor 28 rose from its ashes, which suggests that there was still interest, but we needed more to work with... Which was provided many times over by switching scale and using 40k models.
Andykp wrote: If my opponent goes a few over or under it’s fine. As I said, I am happy with that system, it is in no way “match play”, it’s just a way of getting roughly equal forces on the table, ROUGHLY. not exactly down to the pistols the squad leaders have.
This is the fundamental issue we have: you say you don't care about minor balance differences. It's fine if upgrades aren't accurately priced, it's fine if you and your opponent don't have exactly the same point total. Having it be roughly the same is good enough, and speed of use is more important than going from "roughly the same" to "very close to the same".
So why, when I present you with a system that does a better job of accomplishing the things you claim to value, do you insist that it's "BS" and reject it?
Is it because it isn't "roughly correct"? Nope. The error in the system isn't any worse than the error with crisis suits, LRBTs, etc, and that's not even touching things like the vast power level difference between Eldar and Admech.
Is it because it doesn't meet your ease of use goals? Obviously not, it's objectively faster and easier to use than PL.
Is it because it is work? No, no matter how many times you say "why should I make up a new system" there is no extra work to be done. I already gave you the complete system. It's ready to use, all you have to do is start playing games with it.
So we have to conclude one of two things: either your claimed goals and reasons for liking PL are false or you have some other reason for liking PL (officialness, symbolic value as "the casual system", etc) that you are not willing to admit for whatever reason.
What are you doing about the lack of granular points that are making you so unhappy?
Nothing, because matched play by the standard rules is how 40k is played here. 2000 point games, standard tournament mission pack, standard rules. The choice is to either play by the standard rules or not play at all. But that's not really relevant because the topic here is "do you like the point system" not "what are you doing to convince people to change the point system".
And no, "convince people to play something else and give up on matched play" is not a solution.
CaulynDarr wrote: It is way easier to unbalance a balanced game than to balance and unbalanced one. If you want to set up a narrative campaign where your army has "hatred of chaos" You say "my army has +1 WS against Chaos" and boom, your army has +1 WS against Chaos so long as your couple of buddies you play with agree. It's much harder to unilaterally agree on balance for an GT that's hosting 200 players. Competitive gaming needs critical mass-- that you loose as soon as you get ah-hoc tournament specific balance adjustments. Balance is absolutely necessary for us, and it gives you a starting point for doing whatever you want to do for your narrative.
.
"competitive" players just go for next broken OP patting on their back for "figuring" out the new OP combo.
"competitive" players love the broken rules as they can then math game out pre-game. Mathematical problem to solve and remove as much of dice rolling from game as possible.
And can get to pat out on back figuring out "super secret OP combo" of the month.
PenitentJake wrote: If Inquisitor bombed (and I'm not sure I agree that it did), it was as much because of 54mm scale as anything else.
The reason I'm not so sure it bombed is that Inquisitor 28 rose from its ashes, which suggests that there was still interest, but we needed more to work with... Which was provided many times over by switching scale and using 40k models.
Inquisitor 28 is a niche game with so little interest that GW hasn't even bothered to make a competing official version. I don't see any evidence that it's any more popular than the various third-party alternative 40k rules, or that it would be a viable product as a 28mm game.
Insectum7 wrote: You missed the "because the lore supports it" clause then. The lore does not support limiting Plasma Piatols to chainswords-only.
The lore supports a lot of things that aren't readily represented on the tabletop in fairness, I don't think one more feather in that cap would really be a problem.
Yet another move away from "your dudes" again, then. Can't field a guy with a Plasma Pistol and Powerfist anymore then, all for the sake of getting rid of those pesky point values! Sanitize away!
CaulynDarr wrote: It is way easier to unbalance a balanced game than to balance and unbalanced one. If you want to set up a narrative campaign where your army has "hatred of chaos" You say "my army has +1 WS against Chaos" and boom, your army has +1 WS against Chaos so long as your couple of buddies you play with agree. It's much harder to unilaterally agree on balance for an GT that's hosting 200 players. Competitive gaming needs critical mass-- that you loose as soon as you get ah-hoc tournament specific balance adjustments. Balance is absolutely necessary for us, and it gives you a starting point for doing whatever you want to do for your narrative.
.
"competitive" players just go for next broken OP patting on their back for "figuring" out the new OP combo.
"competitive" players love the broken rules as they can then math game out pre-game. Mathematical problem to solve and remove as much of dice rolling from game as possible.
And can get to pat out on back figuring out "super secret OP combo" of the month.
This is where your misconception lies.
Balanced rules are not what WAAC players use to be jerks. Balanced rules are what competitive players use to defend themselves against WAAC jerks. Competitive players just want the challenge and self improvement from testing ourselves. And we like to do it without dealing with cheating cheeseballs. Just like you.
Andykp wrote: If my opponent goes a few over or under it’s fine. As I said, I am happy with that system, it is in no way “match play”, it’s just a way of getting roughly equal forces on the table, ROUGHLY. not exactly down to the pistols the squad leaders have.
This is the fundamental issue we have: you say you don't care about minor balance differences. It's fine if upgrades aren't accurately priced, it's fine if you and your opponent don't have exactly the same point total. Having it be roughly the same is good enough, and speed of use is more important than going from "roughly the same" to "very close to the same".
So why, when I present you with a system that does a better job of accomplishing the things you claim to value, do you insist that it's "BS" and reject it?
Is it because it isn't "roughly correct"? Nope. The error in the system isn't any worse than the error with crisis suits, LRBTs, etc, and that's not even touching things like the vast power level difference between Eldar and Admech.
Is it because it doesn't meet your ease of use goals? Obviously not, it's objectively faster and easier to use than PL.
Is it because it is work? No, no matter how many times you say "why should I make up a new system" there is no extra work to be done. I already gave you the complete system. It's ready to use, all you have to do is start playing games with it.
So we have to conclude one of two things: either your claimed goals and reasons for liking PL are false or you have some other reason for liking PL (officialness, symbolic value as "the casual system", etc) that you are not willing to admit for whatever reason.
What are you doing about the lack of granular points that are making you so unhappy?
Nothing, because matched play by the standard rules is how 40k is played here. 2000 point games, standard tournament mission pack, standard rules. The choice is to either play by the standard rules or not play at all. But that's not really relevant because the topic here is "do you like the point system" not "what are you doing to convince people to change the point system".
And no, "convince people to play something else and give up on matched play" is not a solution.
So your conclusion is that I am either lying or have some weird attraction to official rules. That is a very odd position to take. Simply because I haven’t kept up and adopted your idea of taking so many units and or characters and calling it a day….
I think it’s best just to pop you on ignore, good luck playing your unsatisfactory war game.
Andykp wrote: So your conclusion is that I am either lying or have some weird attraction to official rules. That is a very odd position to take. Simply because I haven’t kept up and adopted your idea of taking so many units and or characters and calling it a day….
I think it’s best just to pop you on ignore, good luck playing your unsatisfactory war game.
Because your actions are not in alignment with your claimed priorities. If someone posts "god I hate 40k, such a stupid game with terrible overpriced models" all the time but keeps buying three copies of every new 40k release it's obvious that their posts are not honest.
PS: it's not an airport, you don't have to announce your departure.
Andykp wrote: If my opponent goes a few over or under it’s fine. As I said, I am happy with that system, it is in no way “match play”, it’s just a way of getting roughly equal forces on the table, ROUGHLY. not exactly down to the pistols the squad leaders have.
This is the fundamental issue we have: you say you don't care about minor balance differences. It's fine if upgrades aren't accurately priced, it's fine if you and your opponent don't have exactly the same point total. Having it be roughly the same is good enough, and speed of use is more important than going from "roughly the same" to "very close to the same".
So why, when I present you with a system that does a better job of accomplishing the things you claim to value, do you insist that it's "BS" and reject it?
Is it because it isn't "roughly correct"? Nope. The error in the system isn't any worse than the error with crisis suits, LRBTs, etc, and that's not even touching things like the vast power level difference between Eldar and Admech.
Is it because it doesn't meet your ease of use goals? Obviously not, it's objectively faster and easier to use than PL.
Is it because it is work? No, no matter how many times you say "why should I make up a new system" there is no extra work to be done. I already gave you the complete system. It's ready to use, all you have to do is start playing games with it.
So we have to conclude one of two things: either your claimed goals and reasons for liking PL are false or you have some other reason for liking PL (officialness, symbolic value as "the casual system", etc) that you are not willing to admit for whatever reason.
What are you doing about the lack of granular points that are making you so unhappy?
Nothing, because matched play by the standard rules is how 40k is played here. 2000 point games, standard tournament mission pack, standard rules. The choice is to either play by the standard rules or not play at all. But that's not really relevant because the topic here is "do you like the point system" not "what are you doing to convince people to change the point system".
Now who's lying?
What you're doing about it is lashing out in anger & frustration like a small child. You can't get anyone to play your way IRL so you're filling page after page here with your argument that granular pts are better than the current scheme, general BS, & accusing people of lying about wether they like the current system and/or why.
ccs wrote: Now who's lying?
What you're doing about it is lashing out in anger & frustration like a small child. You can't get anyone to play your way IRL so you're filling page after page here with your argument that granular pts are better than the current scheme, general BS, & accusing people of lying about wether they like the current system and/or why.
HOW DARE YOU POST IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MERITS OF THE POINT SYSTEM UR NOT ALLOWD TO HAVE OPIIONS I DONT LIKE.
I see that we've finished the phase of this debate where we pretend there are any reasonable arguments in defense of PL and move on to petty insults and lashing out at anyone who doesn't support PL.
And no, saying "I like it because I do" isn't a reasonable defense. There's people that listen to grindcore unironically and I'm sure as hell not going to listen to their opinions about music.
JNAProductions wrote: But if your stance is “Anyone who disagrees with me is lying or stupid” you should probably reevaluate.
Fortunately that's not anyone's stance here. "If you claim to want X but your actions prioritize Y instead there's something you aren't being honest about" does not mean that everyone who supports PL is lying or stupid.
Andykp wrote: My “condescending” comments were aimed purely at painting owl because that is all he has been doing now for a long time. And he seems content to tell me how I should play but incapable of seeing how anyone could like something he doesn’t.
Except that isn't at all what he has been doing. All he, and any of us supporting granular points, have done is point out that there are objective problems with PL and that they offer nothing that points don't also do, and do better. How you choose to play is irrelevant and I doubt most people particularly care; the point is that PL is a poorer structual baseline for all styles of play. A narrative focused campaign with a bunch of house rules can still be easily done with granular points, but PL is insufficient for a more balanced and potentially competitive style. PL is actively worse for everyone.
Andykp wrote: I am sorry you are unhappy with it, and if you could bothered to scroll through the 80 page horror that is this thread (I don’t blame you if you don’t) my position on points this edition is that it worse then last edition. I liked the choice, the option people had for points or power levels. I used power levels but am grown up enough to see that doesn’t suit everyone. The way pick) to had got in the last 30 years they were an unnecessary pain in the arse. Not for me but if you played competitive or pick up games with strangers then they were probably better.
I stopped playing 40k years ago; I follow it's development now mainly out of morbid curiosity and because it was a setting I used to care a great deal for. As for this thread, I've watched it since the beginning. What I have mostly seen throughout it is PL advocates insisting that PL is fine because they like it, routinely failing to refute the objective fact that it is an inferior system with no actual advantages for any style of play, or offer any valid reason that anyone should just settle for medicority, and then usually flouncing out of the thread with a dramatic announcement of such.
Andykp wrote: I get that you are upset but don’t go telling me that I would be better off playing with super granular points updated all the time to reflect the “meta”. This system isn’t exactly as I would want it but I can live with it. I will adapt and make it work. I am just suggesting you and the other angry people try a different way. If you have a didn’t like it or can’t because of your gaming group then that’s a shame. But if you can, it is surely better than polluting the internet with your disappointment.
I am not remotely upset. The 'meta' is not relevant here; the fact is that for the style of game you clearly prefer, granular points is better. No one is telling you you're 'playing wrong', they're telling you the objective fact that charging appropriately for upgrades works better for what you want. If you prefer not to care too much for the pistols characters hold or whatever arbitrary granularity limit you set, then it's fine within your own group to just...not bother with the points for those, if you all agree it doesn't matter enough. But going the other way is not possible, and there are plenty of folks who prefer every upgrade to be counted. Both ways of looking at the game are valid, but points is the better starting point for both styles. Not everyone has the same circumstances or the same access to a close-knit regular group, so 'good enough' for you or your group is, ironically, not good enough to be universal or a baseline.
'Polluting the internet with your disappointment' is a just another way to say 'no criticism or negativity allowed'. It does not help your case to try and shut down discussion. What you would have then is an echo chamber.
Andykp wrote: Either way you do what you like, my comment was not directed at you at all, in fact I dint think I have ever encountered you in here before. But maybe try and a bit a little bit less judgmental.
I'll stop being judgemental when you stop ending your posts with condescending little swipes like this. As for my involvement,I do normally try to stay out of these discussions directly, but equally I tire of seeing the same flawed arguments getting repeated. Accepting mediocrity is never going to incentivize GW to do any better. Players and customers (including you) deserve better and should demand better.
That's points, you are arguing in favour of scrapping PL and bringing back pts
No. You’ve fabricated both a definition for what a “systemic error” is and where the imaginary line between PL and “points” are. But I don’t share your unseen line drawn in your sandbox and you don’t get to yell out that I’m no longer on base and get tagged. Clearly this is not PL. The app has added customization beyond that. Because I think that a level of customization that is in place for some units, cost wise, but is not there for vehicles that take sponsons could be added, does not mean that I’m arguing for abandoning the conceptual structure in 10th.
But since you are advocating some simple and bland system where you aren’t paying for ammunition, you’re not choosing the skill level of your crew, you’re not picking which forge world or pattern your LRBT is from… then I’ve decided that’s too abstract to be points. We used to choose these things. We don’t now. You’ve crossed my imaginary line and I declare you to be PL lover and clearly scrapping all the choices we use to have and no longer caring about customization and incremental costs. Welcome to team PL! We bring in new players and hand them 5 cards, some models, and get right to the game. When they want to build an army they can do so quickly and it’s at a level familiar to them from other games. We have fun here
Don’t mistake yelling longer as people walk in and out of a room as having proven everyone wrong or being right. You might be…. or you just might just be squatting.
Lobokai wrote: You’ve fabricated both a definition for what a “systemic error” is
Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. I've used a standard definition for "systemic error": an error caused by the system. PL contains systemic errors because things like the LRBT sponson issue are a direct result of how PL works. PL dictates that two options of obviously unequal value must be assigned the same point cost. You can argue that you personally don't care about that systemic error but it is indisputable fact that it is one, and one which does not happen in the traditional point system.
Clearly this is not PL.
It absolutely is. The fact that they changed the name from "power" to "points" doesn't change what the system is. It is still very much PL's concept of flat prices for units regardless of options.
The app has added customization beyond that.
No it hasn't. The app uses the exact same point system as the pdf points document.
But since you are advocating some simple and bland system where you aren’t paying for ammunition, you’re not choosing the skill level of your crew, you’re not picking which forge world or pattern your LRBT is from…
I am advocating no such thing. I have taken no position on the question of whether you should customize ammunition load, crew skill, etc, on a LRBT. That's a design question that has nothing to do with the question of how the point system should work. Please do not make straw man arguments.
Don’t mistake yelling longer as people walk in and out of a room as having proven everyone wrong or being right. You might be…. or you just might just be squatting.
Don't mistake pretending to be champion of a silent majority with actually having a valid argument. The poll in this thread shows very clearly that I'm in the majority on this issue.
JNAProductions wrote: I prefer points to PL, and PL to what 10th has.
But if your stance is “Anyone who disagrees with me is lying or stupid” you should probably reevaluate.
no one really said that
and when people in this topic say PL, they mean what 10th currently has as we miss a better term by now (I suggest to use FP, Fail Points)
the discussion is a different one, because claiming the current points are the only official possibility to play an easy game is wrong as other game modes exist
so replacing the old point system with a worse power level one to have 3 "I don't care" ways to play was not necessary
That's points, you are arguing in favour of scrapping PL and bringing back pts
No. You’ve fabricated both a definition for what a “systemic error” is and where the imaginary line between PL and “points” are. But I don’t share your unseen line drawn in your sandbox and you don’t get to yell out that I’m no longer on base and get tagged. Clearly this is not PL. The app has added customization beyond that. Because I think that a level of customization that is in place for some units, cost wise, but is not there for vehicles that take sponsons could be added, does not mean that I’m arguing for abandoning the conceptual structure in 10th.
But since you are advocating some simple and bland system where you aren’t paying for ammunition, you’re not choosing the skill level of your crew, you’re not picking which forge world or pattern your LRBT is from… then I’ve decided that’s too abstract to be points. We used to choose these things. We don’t now. You’ve crossed my imaginary line and I declare you to be PL lover and clearly scrapping all the choices we use to have and no longer caring about customization and incremental costs. Welcome to team PL! We bring in new players and hand them 5 cards, some models, and get right to the game. When they want to build an army they can do so quickly and it’s at a level familiar to them from other games. We have fun here
Don’t mistake yelling longer as people walk in and out of a room as having proven everyone wrong or being right. You might be…. or you just might just be squatting.
You misquoted. Give an example of what would be a systemic error in points balance. What are the differences between 9th edition PL and 9th edition points? What are you referring to when you write of app customization? I don't use the GW40k app. What is the conceptual structure in 10th? Upgrades should be made as equal as possible, if you can upgrade to either bolter sponsons or plasma sponsons both should have the same value and cost? I'm fine with that, I just want sponsons to cost pts, like they did in 5th edition, like they didn't do in PL or or do in 10th. Why would everyone pay for 5 turns of ammunition when the amount of ammunition you take it mandatory? Sponsons are not mandatory, therefore they should cost pts, sponsons =/= ammo. Making arguments on a forum isn't yelling, if you want to share your opinions without giving anyone the opportunity to directly respond make a blog, I've said this before. You can make a text to speech Youtube channel and ban comments or you can post once and then never read the thread again to make sure nobody points out any inconsistencies in your logic.
JNAProductions wrote: I prefer points to PL, and PL to what 10th has.
But if your stance is “Anyone who disagrees with me is lying or stupid” you should probably reevaluate.
no one really said that
They might as well have done tbh, it's the inability of a group to simply be able to say "oh cool, I don't like it but as long as you're enjoying yourself". There is only one way to play, it's the way they want to play and if you disagree you will be heckled.
the main problem with the current discussion is that people use "Power Level" but mean different things with it
as PL as synonym for the general system of fixed points per units, PL as the system GW used during 9th and PL as the points system used in 10th are very different things
Saying PL work, is true in context of a system with fixed points costs can work, as other games show, it is true in context that it was fine in 9th
but given that in 10th we have units that vary in options for 200 points but have a single cost assigned so are either over-costed or under-costed depending on the options you chose, they don't work
saying PL in general will work if GW updates the Indices and start splitting of the units with to many different options to assign the right point cost is something different than just saying "I like PL because they work"
because people will understand something different from the last sentence and claiming that a melee Wraithkight is worth the point cost is something that people take personally
one can like PL in general and the system in general is not bad and will work
but it does not work the way GW used it for 10th
but we also have the same level with universal special rules, when people claim that USRs are bad and do not work, but actually mean the way GW is using them for 7th did not work
same as Command Points did not work well the way GW used them and not they did not work in general
Dudeface wrote: They might as well have done tbh, it's the inability of a group to simply be able to say "oh cool, I don't like it but as long as you're enjoying yourself". There is only one way to play, it's the way they want to play and if you disagree you will be heckled.
This is a discussion of the merits of the system, not asking for permission to use a flawed system. If PL fans don't want to have their system and arguments criticized then they're free to not engage in a discussion of its merits. They're free to have their private PL games without any interference at all. So spare us the enlightened centrist tone policing.
Dudeface wrote: They might as well have done tbh, it's the inability of a group to simply be able to say "oh cool, I don't like it but as long as you're enjoying yourself". There is only one way to play, it's the way they want to play and if you disagree you will be heckled.
This is a discussion of the merits of the system, not asking for permission to use a flawed system. If PL fans don't want to have their system and arguments criticized then they're free to not engage in a discussion of its merits. They're free to have their private PL games without any interference at all. So spare us the enlightened centrist tone policing.
The topic is "do you like it". If they like it, why do you feel compulsion to tell them they're wrong? Or can people only respond if they don't like it?
Dudeface wrote: The topic is "do you like it". If they like it, why do you feel compulsion to tell them they're wrong? Or can people only respond if they don't like it?
Please don't try to make nonsensical arguments about the literal title of the thread. It is very obvious that, regardless of what the thread title technically says, this is a discussion of the merits of each system and nobody is treating it at as a simple yes/no question.
Dudeface wrote: The topic is "do you like it". If they like it, why do you feel compulsion to tell them they're wrong? Or can people only respond if they don't like it?
Please don't try to make nonsensical arguments about the literal title of the thread. It is very obvious that, regardless of what the thread title technically says, this is a discussion of the merits of each system and nobody is treating it at as a simple yes/no question.
Well no, because naturally people ask why and then you lot jump in to tell people how wrong they are.
Dudeface wrote: Well no, because naturally people ask why and then you lot jump in to tell people how wrong they are.
That's a very aggressive way of saying "people with opinions I disagree with participate in the discussion" but ok.
It will be if you never stop to consider why the opposing viewpoint feels attacked or valued at every turn.
Are you happy for some people to be OK with the current points method and for them to be content with the game as GW offers? Are you OK with them coming in here and saying they're happy without wanting or having to debate it?
Dudeface wrote: Are you happy for some people to be OK with the current points method and for them to be content with the game as GW offers? Are you OK with them coming in here and saying they're happy without wanting or having to debate it?
Are you happy for some people to hate the current points method and for them to be unhappy with the game as GW offers? Are you OK with them coming in here and saying they hate it without wanting or having to debate it?
The reality is that those of us who dislike PL are only continuing to post because people continue to post defenses of PL. Don't like it? Stop defending PL. You don't get to have a monopoly on the conversation and insist that everyone validate your opinions before they give their own.
Dudeface wrote: Are you happy for some people to be OK with the current points method and for them to be content with the game as GW offers? Are you OK with them coming in here and saying they're happy without wanting or having to debate it?
Are you happy for some people to hate the current points method and for them to be unhappy with the game as GW offers?
Yes, very.
Are you OK with them coming in here and saying they hate it without wanting or having to debate it?
Yes, very.
The reality is that those of us who dislike PL are only continuing to post because people continue to post defenses of PL. Don't like it? Stop defending PL. You don't get to have a monopoly on the conversation and insist that everyone validate your opinions before they give their own.
So the upshot is you just want the last word and you're obligated by your moral compass to tell people who are happy as they are, that they're wrong to be, is the upshot. You're lecturing me about not having a monopoly on conversation but you openly state your objective is to shut down anyone who isn't unhappy with the current system. "Agree or stop talking" is basically the same as you're accusing me of and if you think I should stop, then....
Dudeface wrote: Well no, because naturally people ask why and then you lot jump in to tell people how wrong they are.
That's a very aggressive way of saying "people with opinions I disagree with participate in the discussion" but ok.
It will be if you never stop to consider why the opposing viewpoint feels attacked or valued at every turn.
This is pretty ironic given the contents of your last few posts.
What are you even arguing about at this point?
This is another "hate GW or we hate you" echo chamber largely, you can't have other opinions in here. I say this as someone who would prefer granular points but can see other ways forwards, but I see people like Andykp who started out and has at great lengths politely explained "I like it more because it fits my needs" and that's simply unacceptable. Daed got heckled out to the point they stopped posting. People are allowed to like/not like something and deserve not to be told they're wrong for doing so, let people have fun how they want.
I've been certainly more narked of late but to be honest when you're constantly having to go into threads with people forever taking potshots and shouting down anything that isn't innately a complaint about something GW do/did, it wears you down. Bizzarely the news thread for Legends is the only thread I've seen be less of a shithole than elsewhere.
Dakka is infamous for it's black knights who stay here because they can openly whine and complain, with a few decent people in the midst.
So yes, you win ThePaintingOwl, I'll add my first comment in the thread from page 1 back in here and leave it at that.
Dudeface wrote: No, solely because they half implemented something sensible as a concept (reducing needless side grades, consolidating some options in the same design space, making options equal but for different tasks hence enough needing different points).
They then proceeded to stop what seems like less than 5% of the way through the process and just thought "nahhh whatever sticks, sticks".
Even with what we have they could have made it better. Imagine if the battlewagon rather than being the same points for a naked transport, and a model with all the upgrades, now came with all the upgrades as a default loadout so could have a price tag appropriate and people needn't care about wysiwyg as every battlewagon is the same.
Dudeface wrote: You're lecturing me about not having a monopoly on conversation but you openly state your objective is to shut down anyone who isn't unhappy with the current system.
Posting disagreement with claims someone makes is not shutting them down, it's how a discussion forum works. People are free to continue posting in defense of PL and I'm not going to do anything to stop them. I can't do anything to stop them as I am not a mod on this forum, and AFAIK nor are any of the other people who dislike PL.
This is another "hate GW or we hate you" echo chamber largely, you can't have other opinions in here.
Nonsense. Lots of people are posting things in support of GW. What we aren't tolerating is unchallenged opinions, this weird idea you seem to have that people are entitled to make claims about something and not have anyone disagree with them because seeing disagreement is somehow "shutting them down". You're the one who wants an echo chamber where anyone objecting to PL or criticizing the claims of its defenders first has to validate their opinions and reassure them that their way of playing is fine if it's what they like.
People are allowed to like/not like something and deserve not to be told they're wrong for doing so, let people have fun how they want.
And yet I don't see you objecting to Andykp trashing my proposed narrative list building system and insulting me for saying it's a better solution than PL. Why is it fine for him to tell me I'm wrong but not fine for me to tell him he's wrong?
Dakka is infamous for it's black knights who stay here because they can openly whine and complain, with a few decent people in the midst.
There you go again, insulting anyone who disagrees with you while simultaneously trying to claim some moral high ground that only your side is polite and reasonable. Do you really not see the double standard here?
To provide my own perspective from the pro-points camp - and not looking to put words in anyone else's mouth - I think the problem I have is pretty simple to explain.
When the points system was revealed, and it turned out to basically just be PL, I looked through it and was immediately disappointed by how bad it was. I thought a bit more about it and couldn't really see any advantage to the system, especially once I built a few lists and realised it wasn't even quicker, as I had first thought it might be. So when some people said they preferred it I was genuinely interested in finding out why. What had they seen that I had missed? What advantages were there for different groups.
This is where the problems started for me. Where justifications were provided they didn't seem to make much sense. In some cases they were just "I prefer it" without any explanation, which isn't conducive to discussion. Where justifications were given, it seemed like they were either not aligned with my experiences ("it's quicker") or they described things that weren't really an advantage of PL over points (all the "I don't care as much about exact balance" arguments fall into this category). There doesn't then seem to be much actual discussion when these issues are pointed out, with the pro-PL group usually just falling back on "I like it" or complaining about being told they're playing wrong, which I think is a disingenuous stance.
It feels like some people don't want to have a discussion or justify their position. That's fine, to a point, but it sort of misses the purpose of a discussion forum, particularly in a thread like this. You're not required to justify your position, but equally you shouldn't be surprised if people examine your reasoning and push back where they feel it doesn't make sense. That's just what a discussion forum is.
Slipspace wrote: ...
It feels like some people don't want to have a discussion or justify their position. That's fine, to a point, but it sort of misses the purpose of a discussion forum, particularly in a thread like this. You're not required to justify your position, but equally you shouldn't be surprised if people examine your reasoning and push back where they feel it doesn't make sense. That's just what a discussion forum is.
With regards to preference of one system over another, I do not believe there needs to be a quantifiable justification why someone would have a preference. A few times now in this thread people who enjoy the new system have given their reasons for enjoying it, and have subsequently been berated because "their opinion is not valid since it is not objective." But the entire concept of preference is not beholden to anyone's metric except the individual. Not everything needs to be nuanced or deep. Some people can just like something for the sake of liking it, others can be indifferent milk-toast on the matter, and some people can dislike something because it fails to meet whatever metric they deem as acceptable.
I do not believe this is a subject that can be quantified and applied to every individual in the hobby since everyone will have different weight to their rationale.
EDIT:
Some people want to just spread their enjoyment on the matter and are not looking for a debate. The vocal minority that attack anyone who says anything positive about GW decisions don't seem to understand that they are doing nothing but pushing away people from engaging in meaningful discussion. Why would someone want to extrapolate further and distil their ideas down to the quantifiable metric and make it digestible for the people who stick to ad-homonym attacks when it's much simpler to express their opinion as it relates to the Original Post and thread title, then leave.
Slipspace wrote: ...
It feels like some people don't want to have a discussion or justify their position. That's fine, to a point, but it sort of misses the purpose of a discussion forum, particularly in a thread like this. You're not required to justify your position, but equally you shouldn't be surprised if people examine your reasoning and push back where they feel it doesn't make sense. That's just what a discussion forum is.
With regards to preference of one system over another, I do not believe there needs to be a quantifiable justification why someone would have a preference. A few times now in this thread people who enjoy the new system have given their reasons for enjoying it, and have subsequently been berated because "their opinion is not valid since it is not objective." But the entire concept of preference is not beholden to anyone's metric except the individual. Not everything needs to be nuanced or deep. Some people can just like something for the sake of liking it, others can be indifferent milk-toast on the matter, and some people can dislike something because it fails to meet whatever metric they deem as acceptable.
I do not believe this is a subject that can be quantified and applied to every individual in the hobby since everyone will have different weight to their rationale.
EDIT:
Some people want to just spread their enjoyment on the matter and are not looking for a debate. The vocal minority that attack anyone who says anything positive about GW decisions don't seem to understand that they are doing nothing but pushing away people from engaging in meaningful discussion. Why would someone want to extrapolate further and distil their ideas down to the quantifiable metric and make it digestible for the people who stick to ad-homonym attacks when it's much simpler to express their opinion as it relates to the Original Post and thread title, then leave.
You're opinions are totally valid. That just doesn't have anything to do with whether they are objective or not. Applying critical analysis doesn't invalidate you're enjoyment of a thing. You may love a movie for a ton of reasons, and I may write a 100 page dissertation about the cinematography being bad. Doesn't mean you have to stop liking the movie. Hell, it doesn't even mean I don't like the movie. Understanding things sometimes means being critical of a thing and standing outside of your personal preferences.
What a lot of us are trying to tell you is that while the current system is subjectively and improvement for you, it is objectively worse for other players. Taking away points for wargear takes away one of the tools the game has historically used to internally balance a unit. You can still balance a unit without it, but we've shown many specific examples of that not being executed well in the current indexes.
The follow up argument is that the old points for wargear system wasn't that much different for the pro-PL players than the current system. Such that if they added wargear cost to the game tomorrow, you could just ignore them and keep on as you've been doing. If a choice by GW is negatively impacting a lot of players (by like a 2/3rds margin to some degree according to the informal poll here) more than it's helping you...well, where do you want to go from there?
I'm going to cut Painting Owl some slack- in a very recent post (on this very page), he said this:
ThePaintingOwl wrote: They're free to have their private PL games without any interference at all.
It doesn't explicitly state that he would be willing to accept a system in which players can choose to use either points or PL, but it heavily implies he'd be okay with it.
And the funny thing is, if he had led with that, many "PL supporters" would have stopped arguing with him. We may explain why we like PL, but most of us don't really want to force anyone else to use it- most of us actually prefer the dual system solution, because we know it creates the greatest number of positive outcomes for the widest cross section of the player base.
I won't argue against anyone who advocates a dual system, even if I disagree with the reason they hate PL, or the reasons they prefer points. They are allowed to both hate PL and prefer points, just as we should be allowed to prefer PL. Neither side in this debate has to lose their preference in order to allow the possibility for the other side get what they want.
We just have to be able to allow both systems to exist, and we did that for two whole editions, without any real problems. Some folks claim the continuing existence of PL cuts into design time for the other game, but I'm not sure I buy that- in all of 8th/9th, I think PL was updated twice, whereas points was updated minimal twice per year. The former did not prevent the latter from occurring, so I think the design time argument in favour of the single system approach is on fairly shakey ground.
EDIT: Some people want to just spread their enjoyment on the matter and are not looking for a debate. The vocal minority that attack anyone who says anything positive about GW decisions don't seem to understand that they are doing nothing but pushing away people from engaging in meaningful discussion. Why would someone want to extrapolate further and distil their ideas down to the quantifiable metric and make it digestible for the people who stick to ad-homonym attacks when it's much simpler to express their opinion as it relates to the Original Post and thread title, then leave.
Red: And when confronted as to why the MAJORITY does want a reasoning as to why, they get attacked, by a minority claiming to be harassed. You know what this reminds me off? the classic everything is great type of cult or totalitarian argumentation form that orwell summarised pretty well. Because that is fundamentally the point where you are going here. He even had a nice name for that form: Deldenk and Delstop, because that is fundamentally where the "not looking for a debate" and ""spread their enjoyment"" end.
Underlined: As already shown, it's not GW in general that get's criticised, this is merely strawmanning and Ad -hominem on your basis. Au contraire you claim that you get pushed away? Yet you can't deal with the fact that oh wait more than a 3:1 ratio is against this new system? Newsflash, the majority doesn't have to bow to the minority, ever, not in any organisational form of society that is run on consent. Uncomfortable ain't it. Furthermore i want to highlight the Claiming of a "vocal minority" attacking "silent majority", that is such an old rethoric strategy that it was cancerous in the early 20s of the last century and even earlier and funnily enough and get's disproven easily when one looks at the top of this thread where the poll results are annonymusly placed in an clearly understandable fashion.Or when such systems are confronted by actual oppen visible results of democratic proceedings.
Blue: ah, the tried and true, project and accuse your own issues onto thine opponent. Also a tried and true classic.
Some folks claim the continuing existence of PL cuts into design time for the other game,
I see an overall shift in released kits from generalist units that can be specialized(i.e. Tactical Squads) to units that can be built as one or two different datasheets with very minimal options(i.e. practically all Primaris releases). I'm more of a fan of the former versus the latter.
Though it's hard to say if this is product design leading game design or game design leading product design. Anyway for me it's a minor gripe. It feels slightly more gamey than fluffy, but as long as the models still look cool I can roll with it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Overall I think it's kind of ironic too, that if PL does effect the product development like this is leads to a more gamified outcome than a narrative driven one.
Not Online!!! wrote: Red: And when confronted as to why the MAJORITY does want a reasoning as to why, they get attacked, by a minority claiming to be harassed. You know what this reminds me off? the classic everything is great type of cult or totalitarian argumentation form that orwell summarised pretty well. Because that is fundamentally the point where you are going here. He even had a nice name for that form: Deldenk and Delstop, because that is fundamentally where the "not looking for a debate" and ""spread their enjoyment"" end.
The majority in regards to this internet forum sure. It's dubious to claim the majority of hobbyist have an opinion deeper than a puddle on the subject. Games Workshop shares seem to corroborate this.
Underlined: As already shown, it's not GW in general that get's criticised, this is merely strawmanning and Ad -hominem on your basis. Au contraire you claim that you get pushed away? Yet you can't deal with the fact that oh wait more than a 3:1 ratio is against this new system? Newsflash, the majority doesn't have to bow to the minority, ever, not in any organisational form of society that is run on consent. Uncomfortable ain't it. Furthermore i want to highlight the Claiming of a "vocal minority" attacking "silent majority", that is such an old rethoric strategy that it was cancerous in the early 20s of the last century and even earlier and funnily enough and get's disproven easily when one looks at the top of this thread where the poll results are annonymusly placed in an clearly understandable fashion.Or when such systems are confronted by actual oppen visible results of democratic proceedings.
Go read pages 70-75 of this thread and then let me know that GW in general is not the scapegoat for every wrongdoing in these posters perspective. Again Majority on this forum, I agree. This forum as most other internet discussion networks represent a fraction of the majority of a hobby. Diablo IV is a great recent example, there is insane backlash across the chat space of the internet on how terrible this game is, yet the vast majority of the players do not care, and there are still queue times to login to their servers. The internet vocal majority is not representative of the hobby's population.
Blue: ah, the tried and true, project and accuse your own issues onto thine opponent. Also a tried and true classic.
You can scour this thread and find numerous examples of ad-hom attacks against people who are expressing their positive views of the points system change and the GW as a whole. I was even called a "shill" for GW when I mentioned that the priority in GW decision making process is sales, and not good rules.
This is not projection, it is observation. You too can observe as much if you read back even just the past 10 pages or so of this thread.
EDIT: I am aware that defending my statements will be taken as a admission of defeat or sign of weakness for the bloodhounds of anonymous internet discourse.
Not Online!!! wrote: Red: And when confronted as to why the MAJORITY does want a reasoning as to why, they get attacked, by a minority claiming to be harassed. You know what this reminds me off? the classic everything is great type of cult or totalitarian argumentation form that orwell summarised pretty well. Because that is fundamentally the point where you are going here. He even had a nice name for that form: Deldenk and Delstop, because that is fundamentally where the "not looking for a debate" and ""spread their enjoyment"" end.
The majority in regards to this internet forum sure. It's dubious to claim the majority of hobbyist have an opinion deeper than a puddle on the subject. Games Workshop shares seem to corroborate this.
Underlined: As already shown, it's not GW in general that get's criticised, this is merely strawmanning and Ad -hominem on your basis. Au contraire you claim that you get pushed away? Yet you can't deal with the fact that oh wait more than a 3:1 ratio is against this new system? Newsflash, the majority doesn't have to bow to the minority, ever, not in any organisational form of society that is run on consent. Uncomfortable ain't it. Furthermore i want to highlight the Claiming of a "vocal minority" attacking "silent majority", that is such an old rethoric strategy that it was cancerous in the early 20s of the last century and even earlier and funnily enough and get's disproven easily when one looks at the top of this thread where the poll results are annonymusly placed in an clearly understandable fashion.Or when such systems are confronted by actual oppen visible results of democratic proceedings.
Go read pages 70-75 of this thread and then let me know that GW in general is not the scapegoat for every wrongdoing in these posters perspective. Again Majority on this forum, I agree. This forum as most other internet discussion networks represent a fraction of the majority of a hobby. Diablo IV is a great recent example, there is insane backlash across the chat space of the internet on how terrible this game is, yet the vast majority of the players do not care, and there are still queue times to login to their servers. The internet vocal majority is not representative of the hobby's population.
Blue: ah, the tried and true, project and accuse your own issues onto thine opponent. Also a tried and true classic.
You can scour this thread and find numerous examples of ad-hom attacks against people who are expressing their positive views of the points system change and the GW as a whole. I was even called a "shill" for GW when I mentioned that the priority in GW decision making process is sales, and not good rules.
This is not projection, it is observation. You too can observe as much if you read back even just the past 10 pages or so of this thread.
EDIT: I am aware that defending my statements will be taken as a admission of defeat or sign of weakness for the bloodhounds of anonymous internet discourse.
Criticism is not hate. Providing and receiving criticism can be healthy. How else do we improve?
And GW can be a successful company with bad rules. They make really good physical products. They make a lot of money managing their IP. It's not an insane take to say that the don't make the greatest rules. And personally I don't need their rules to be perfect. I'm ok with good enough. I think there's a lot of things about 10th edition that don't clear my personal bar for good enough. It's not irrevocably broken though. There's a path to improvement, but that requires being able to describe what is bad and what is good. I'm not here because I hate GW. I'm here because 40K is kind of a special game for me, and I would just like it to be a little less frustrating in the rules department.
I just came back from talking to every 40k player and they all hated PL and they wanted me note that they did not know a Tittliewinks22.
I talked with half the 40k design team (the other half doesn't play would you believe it?) and they said they didn't like PL and knew they had made a mistake with the new points, they'd get right on fixing it whenever time allowed. I was very pleased to hear this from the 40k design team, they wanted me to hand a bag of plastic crack to a fellow named Tittliewinks22, their most fervent shill who told anybody with criticism to shut up. They further told me that constructive criticism explaining flaws in their designs actually help them produce better rules in the future and they were hopeful that most of the things they tried with 10th will turn out well when they publish the real points.
I talked with a man of logic who worked at the local university and he told me that his dog had derived a method whereby it could determine whether the professor ought to put sponsons on his tanks in 10th edition. The dog would bark to put on sponsons and stay silent to put on sponsons. I was puzzled by the mighty intelligence of this dog, to think it was more logical than half the posters in this thread, what a wonderful thing.
I also talked with several fellows who insisted that all their friends would cheat when playing PL and that the most fervent PL fans were Tau players and frequent liars, now that I can believe.
ThePaintingOwl wrote: Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. I've used a standard definition for "systemic error": an error caused by the system. PL contains systemic errors because things like the LRBT sponson issue are a direct result of how PL works. PL dictates that two options of obviously unequal value must be assigned the same point cost. You can argue that you personally don't care about that systemic error but it is indisputable fact that it is one, and one which does not happen in the traditional point system.
Well let me do the impossible and dispute it then. A system not working the way it is intended and causing equal harm to all parts of the greater system is a "systemic error". Now a SYSTEMATIC error is when there is a problem occurring somewhere in the system due to its design. You can assert that this is a "systemic" error, but that's purely opinion. Unless you have a quote from a game designer saying "Well crap, that's not what we wanted this to do, and it's ruining every unit in the game" your imagined systemic error might be that, but it's probably not. When you find a glitch or a bug, a singular specific instance(s) of "this part isn't working in this case" and it could be fixed in part and the rest of the system could keep doing its thing... that's not a systemic error, quite the opposite in fact. Just an error.
I might add, I agree on the singular case you keep bringing up. Sponsons are a large enough alteration to the game impact of almost every unit with them, that treating them as change in points does make sense. Personally, I'd have combined some of the LRBT and then treated it just like a bike squad and made the sponson option increase the points
But see.... see... that's an existing part of the system that would work to solve your concern. Because the system has a mechanic already in it that would largely mitigate the issue you're seeing, that shows it to be a systematic choice that could be fixed without altering the system as a whole. Ditto with more compelling stat-lines for some options (a position pretty consistently taken by most who like the current 10th ed structure). The system also allows for vanguards, for example, to have a separate datasheet when they gain jump packs... there's another way the system (working as designed) could treat LRBT with sponsons. Your main issue seems to be with the lack of these two options being used with LRBTs, sure, I agree. But the system can solve this issue
Clearly this is not PL.
It absolutely is. The fact that they changed the name from "power" to "points" doesn't change what the system is. It is still very much PL's concept of flat prices for units regardless of options.
Funny, on my app a bike squad without an attack bike is 160 points, and with it the cost is 215. Options do matter and we've added an additional level of points beyond PL. I'll pretend you said "weapon options", and yes. That this isn't working simply means that some of the weapon profiles should have be altered and GW being pigheaded about not adding A or BS improvements to many weapons was foolish. That's a design choice, not a system flaw. One of the largest problems with PL was that 4 different "PL 5" units could be vastly different in game impact and their ability to buy their points back on the pitch (a solid standard for evaluating many units' level of appropriate pricing), but "points", as you define it, has had they issue too. By adding another 10s place (maybe another 2, depending on which unit you pick), we've gained granulation and something that would cost 2 now has a much larger array of values it takes from total army construction... a very clear difference with PL. Unless you want to make the bizarre arguement that 1-20 = 1-2000. To equate the 10th edition system with PL is some serious intellectual dishonesty and is chucking strawmen all over the place. I've not seen anyone here saying "I liked PL and therefore I like 10th" (though I'll admit, though I've read many pages here, I have no intention of reading all 70+ pages to check). Your mislabeling of our position and then making a false equivalency robs you of any high ground to complain about strawmen, real or perceived.
The app has added customization beyond that.
mNo it hasn't. The app uses the exact same point system as the pdf points document.
I never said anything about the pdf, I said beyond simple PL, but whatever
I have taken no position on the question of whether you should customize ammunition load, crew skill, etc, on a LRBT. That's a design question that has nothing to do with the question of how the point system should work. Please do not make straw man arguments.
Right, strawmen would be so out of character for this discussion . But wait, you are exactly taking a position on a design question. It was decided years ago that we no longer cared about crew skill or forge world or pattern of LRBT, all of that became abstracted or ignored... the line of detail vs simplicity was moved. A design question on "where do points stop and specifics no longer matter." The 10th ed system just slides that line again. It is still points, not PL, they just moved the line a bit more. You've taken the position that you don't like that. That's fine. But to call things "proven" and "indisputable" is not accurate at all. I know the points system did have serious flaws. There is no deconstructable and usable matrix by which one can compute points in 9th. Many other games (GrimDark, Battletech, CAV, etc) have exactly this. 40k used to. That (the lack of reliable points calculation) would be an excellent example of a systemic flaw... but we're not using real definitions, so it doesn't matter. And if a system with core flaws is disqualified in your mind, then defending 9th edition 40k will be a sisyphean task... good luck with that.
Don't mistake pretending to be champion of a silent majority with actually having a valid argument. The poll in this thread shows very clearly that I'm in the majority on this issue.
Don't mistake agreeing with the majority on a poll (which has an 100% predictable outcome here on dakkadakka) as having the only argument (ON AN OPINION) that can be right. I'm sure you are with the majority on this. Well done. Another nice strawman btw, when did I ever claim to represent a majority? I'm explaining why I have my opinion, why the change was made, and why (in my opinion) it has validity. Clearly some people agree (poll numbers) and clearly those in my camp made persuasive arguments in the past as GW listened (in that horrible, half done, missing most of the point GW way).
I'm hardly some GW apologist. My signature has a link to a free 3rd party rules system for years and in this very thread I've advocated for better options than the rules GW sells alongside the models. 10th ed points structure could work well if better used and I agree that if an ATV or an attack bike increases that cost of a unit by 55-80 points then bolting 2 plasma cannons should probably do the same on a sub-200 point unit. GW needs to consistently treat adding new weapon platforms to a unit as being at the level of specificity to increase the cost.
I hope you can try to see the 10th ed structure through the market's eyes and why it could be an improvement (we all know its likely to bloat and mutate and be even more inconsistent the second the codices hit, but that's always been the GW pattern). If you don't/won't/can't then there is GDF and HH, both of which will give you exactly what you're coping with losing and do it far far better than that abomination that was 8th or 9th.
Until the codex inflation starts, I am thrilled to have a very easy-to-teach and easy-to-introduce official 40k ruleset that I can have a new player loving and comfortable with by the end of game 1 at a much higher rate than I've ever seen with this current generation of new players. I would have preferred a few more core changes, but knowing where GW is stealing their inspirations from and who they are polling for design changes, there's a good chance 11th will have some of those too.
I truly am sorry that this does not seem like an improvement to many (and in here, most) established players, and I'm very unhappy with some of the changes too. But being punished by GW for buying into their hobby is part and parcel and I truly hope that the good of it will out weigh the bad for you too.
The majority in regards to this internet forum sure. It's dubious to claim the majority of hobbyist have an opinion deeper than a puddle on the subject. Games Workshop shares seem to corroborate this.
See it has already been brought up it is not an insignificant Number of people and part of the community. And quoting the share price in an age where the shares have been inflated because moneyprinters went into overheating due to covid and a questionable sociopolitical environment the last say 20-30 years including but not limited to eceonomy policies regarding fiat currencies etc... is not as indicative as you think it is.
Underlined: As already shown, it's not GW in general that get's criticised, this is merely strawmanning and Ad -hominem on your basis. Au contraire you claim that you get pushed away? Yet you can't deal with the fact that oh wait more than a 3:1 ratio is against this new system? Newsflash, the majority doesn't have to bow to the minority, ever, not in any organisational form of society that is run on consent. Uncomfortable ain't it. Furthermore i want to highlight the Claiming of a "vocal minority" attacking "silent majority", that is such an old rethoric strategy that it was cancerous in the early 20s of the last century and even earlier and funnily enough and get's disproven easily when one looks at the top of this thread where the poll results are annonymusly placed in an clearly understandable fashion.Or when such systems are confronted by actual oppen visible results of democratic proceedings.
Go read pages 70-75 of this thread and then let me know that GW in general is not the scapegoat for every wrongdoing in these posters perspective. Again Majority on this forum, I agree. This forum as most other internet discussion networks represent a fraction of the majority of a hobby. Diablo IV is a great recent example, there is insane backlash across the chat space of the internet on how terrible this game is, yet the vast majority of the players do not care, and there are still queue times to login to their servers. The internet vocal majority is not representative of the hobby's population.
I just did. I even went further back. None of this refutes at any stage my issues with your argument painting yourself and certain other posters as being attacked. I f.e. specifically pointed to my issues into the context of GW40k rulesteam.
Further Diablo IV and the online community can be explained by the time required to reach the bland endgame. Probably an effect of higher rate of information. But inevitably the quality issues will be known, even for the "normies".. and we had a similar edition not so long ago a certain 6th.
Blue: ah, the tried and true, project and accuse your own issues onto thine opponent. Also a tried and true classic.
You can scour this thread and find numerous examples of ad-hom attacks against people who are expressing their positive views of the points system change and the GW as a whole. I was even called a "shill" for GW when I mentioned that the priority in GW decision making process is sales, and not good rules.
This is not projection, it is observation. You too can observe as much if you read back even just the past 10 pages or so of this thread.
EDIT: I am aware that defending my statements will be taken as a admission of defeat or sign of weakness for the bloodhounds of anonymous internet discourse.
I just did. I disagree with some posters, regardless of position. However what i can't stand is the type of nonsense your argumentation in that post reminded me off.
Funny, on my app a bike squad without an attack bike is 160 points, and with it the cost is 215. Options do matter and we've added an additional level of points beyond PL.
thats not the argument you think it is lol. In 9th, adding an attack bike cost +2 PL...
Funny, on my app a bike squad without an attack bike is 160 points, and with it the cost is 215. Options do matter and we've added an additional level of points beyond PL.
thats not the argument you think it is lol. In 9th, adding an attack bike cost +2 PL...
I'm making the point that options do matter and showing that there is a way to use them to improve sponsons... I even then admitted that he likely meant weapon options and then addressed that. I also explained that I meant the significant digits at play was the "level of points" I was talking about. But take an isolated quote out of context and pretend there weren't sentences right after that framing my point if you so desire.
Funny, on my app a bike squad without an attack bike is 160 points, and with it the cost is 215. Options do matter and we've added an additional level of points beyond PL. I'll pretend you said "weapon options", and yes. That this isn't working simply means that some of the weapon profiles should have be altered and GW being pigheaded about not adding A or BS improvements to many weapons was foolish.
You can add in all of the Deathwatch Killteams to the problem units as their extra guys are all charged at a flat rate despite being potentially vastly different. So a completely different approach to the bike squads, showing the lack of thought GW put into the system. There are likely loads of others but I think the point stands even with a handful of them.
Again (for maybe the 20th time in this thread) the problem isn't that a system of sidegrades can't work. The problem is it's obvious the implementation GW has chosen won't work because they didn't do the groundwork when designing the units and weapons to make it work. There's no solution to that except either redesigning a huge number of options and upgrades (hey, a new edition would be the perfect time to do that!) or charging points for them like they used to. One of those solutions will work with the current set-up. One will not. Whether you label that error systemic or systematic is irrelevant. It's the fact there is an error inherent in the system itself, that is not present in the points system, that matters. Sure, you could try to eliminate the error in the PL system by moving it closer to granular points, at which point I'm wondering why we don't just go the whole way anyway.
None of the examples you cite of the system working as designed are precluded under the old points system. So we're back to advocating for a system that's demonstrably worse. The fact it could be better if the game were designed completely differently is irrelevant.
Funny, on my app a bike squad without an attack bike is 160 points, and with it the cost is 215. Options do matter and we've added an additional level of points beyond PL.
thats not the argument you think it is lol. In 9th, adding an attack bike cost +2 PL...
The MFM has a Model + cost 6 times within it. Each time it adds a significantly different model to a unit. It is never used for wargear cost. The two Astartes bike squads are 2 of those 6 instances.
"Systematic error means that your measurements of the same thing will vary in predictable ways: every measurement will differ from the true measurement in the same direction, and even by the same amount in some cases.
Systematic error is also referred to as bias because your data is skewed in standardized ways that hide the true values. This may lead to inaccurate conclusions."
If an Infantry Squad stays with las pistol it is missing out on 3 pts, if it upgrades to bolt pistol it is missing out on 2 pts. There is also no guarantee that the replacement is not a downgrade, I'm sure we could find a few examples. This is not systematic. If a Leman Russ takes no sponsons it is missing out on 30 pts. If a Leman Russ does not take the free storm bolter it is missing out on 5 pts. This is not systematic.
Inherent and pervasive are synonyms of systemic and apt descriptions for the problems in 10th's balance, we know that a lot of the pts costs for replacements and upgrades are wrong, but whether up or down or by how much we cannot tell, that's what makes the problem systemic rather than systematic. If all upgrade pts costs were half as large as they ought to be then there would be a systematic error because GW's system led them to always undervalue upgrades by half. Why are you nitpicking the word choice anyway? Even if we were using the words wrong (which I don't think is evident), you yourself say that sponsons need to cost points.
PenitentJake wrote: It doesn't explicitly state that he would be willing to accept a system in which players can choose to use either points or PL, but it heavily implies he'd be okay with it.
No, PL should be removed and there is no more reason for a dual system than for having a dozen different point systems catering to every possible niche. Rules bloat is bad and redundant point systems are an excellent example of rules bloat that has minimal practical value and can be streamlined away without any consequences.
That quote is merely stating the obvious: that I am not forcing anyone to use any particular point system, and that it's absurd to argue that my criticism of PL is somehow oppressing the poor fans of the system.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lobokai wrote: A system not working the way it is intended and causing equal harm to all parts of the greater system is a "systemic error". Now a SYSTEMATIC error is when there is a problem occurring somewhere in the system due to its design.
Thanks for admitting that you have no better argument than nitpicking about whether the exact term is "systemic" or "systematic", despite knowing what type of error I'm referring to and how it contrasts with the random error of GW using the system incorrectly and assigning inaccurate costs to individual units.
Sponsons are a large enough alteration to the game impact of almost every unit with them, that treating them as change in points does make sense.
Thank you for conceding that PL is a fundamentally broken system and the only way to prevent the errors it creates is to remove its core principle and make it no longer PL.
But wait, you are exactly taking a position on a design question.
I am taking a position on A design question (that PL is a broken system) but not the particular design question in your ridiculous straw man argument. The game no longer representing things like which forge world a particular LRBT came from or what load of ammunition it carries has nothing to do with PL vs. traditional points. The point system is about how units and options are evaluated, your straw man is about what options exist. The two are entirely independent questions.
Until the codex inflation starts, I am thrilled to have a very easy-to-teach and easy-to-introduce official 40k ruleset that I can have a new player loving and comfortable with by the end of game 1 at a much higher rate than I've ever seen with this current generation of new players.
What does any of that have to do with PL vs. traditional points? You aren't introducing the point system at all in game 1 so your success rate with other aspects of 10th has nothing to do with this topic.
No, PL should be removed and there is no more reason for a dual system than for having a dozen different point systems catering to every possible niche. Rules bloat is bad and redundant point systems are an excellent example of rules bloat that has minimal practical value and can be streamlined away without any consequences.
That quote is merely stating the obvious: that I am not forcing anyone to use any particular point system, and that it's absurd to argue that my criticism of PL is somehow oppressing the poor fans of the system.
You can't have it both ways.
You can a) not advocate for the removal of a costed equipment alternative, and get credit for not depriving a portion of the player base its preference, or b) advocated for the removal of a costed equipment alternative and admit that this would be depriving someone of their preference.
The two are mutually exclusive. Advocating that everyone who doesn't want to use a costed equipment system has to houserule an alternative IS the same as denying them the option, or to be more precise, it's advocating that GW deprive them of it.
There is no "both ways" here. The statement you quoted was about the (absurd and confrontational) accusation that I'm not allowing people to like a thing without having to fight about it here, by someone who refuses to acknowledge the difference between liking a thing and joining a discussion of the merits of that thing. IOW, it's pure tone policing and "positive vibes only" nonsense. It has nothing to do with system preferences or advocating changes by GW.
But here's a question: why do you advocate denying me the game that I want so that you can have the one you want?
(And why do you care so much about points-based matched play games and the systems that enable them when you claim to be entirely focused on the story?)
But here's a question: why do you advocate denying me the game that I want so that you can have the one you want?
I don't. In my best case scenario, both points and PL exist. You get to play points, I get to play PL. I'm not advocating for you to lose anything.
And as I've said several times, if GW insists on a single system, I think they should have chosen costed equipment because it's better for the game as a whole. Tournaments absolutely require balance, and even though I don't participate in tournaments, many players do, and it is an important part of the hobby. Quite a few narrative players place a higher priority on balance than I do too.
(And why do you care so much about points-based matched play games and the systems that enable them when you claim to be entirely focused on the story?)
I don't care about matched play games at all- for me, stand-alone games aren't worth the time it takes to paint the army build the terrain and play.
PL isn't just about the size of an army; it is the way you measure escalation, and it is connected to other Crusade mechanics, as well as 40k's scaling mechanics (which have been diminished significantly in the new edition with its single detachment army structure and fixed CP). And while not all games in a campaign require balance, some will need more than others, so having a system that allows you to get balanced enough when you need it is helpful.
PenitentJake wrote: I don't. In my best case scenario, both points and PL exist. You get to play points, I get to play PL. I'm not advocating for you to lose anything.
I want a game where rules bloat is culled, and any two-system proposal is anathema to that. You can only have the game you want at the expense of me not having the game I want.
(Not that this is a problem, everyone wants the game they prefer even if it means other people don't get what they want.)
I don't care about matched play games at all- for me, stand-alone games aren't worth the time it takes to paint the army build the terrain and play.
You absolutely care about matched play. You're advocating for a matched play point system for use in a matched play format (Crusade) and rejecting the idea of using a narrative-based system with collaborative army building. In fact, you prioritize the concept of equal-points matched play games so much that you're willing to accept significant inaccuracies in the point system as long as it makes it easier to arrange a game where both sides have an equal point total.
But here's a question: why do you advocate denying me the game that I want so that you can have the one you want?
I don't. In my best case scenario, both points and PL exist. You get to play points, I get to play PL. I'm not advocating for you to lose anything.
And as I've said several times, if GW insists on a single system, I think they should have chosen costed equipment because it's better for the game as a whole. Tournaments absolutely require balance, and even though I don't participate in tournaments, many players do, and it is an important part of the hobby. Quite a few narrative players place a higher priority on balance than I do too.
(And why do you care so much about points-based matched play games and the systems that enable them when you claim to be entirely focused on the story?)
I don't care about matched play games at all- for me, stand-alone games aren't worth the time it takes to paint the army build the terrain and play.
PL isn't just about the size of an army; it is the way you measure escalation, and it is connected to other Crusade mechanics, as well as 40k's scaling mechanics (which have been diminished significantly in the new edition with its single detachment army structure and fixed CP). And while not all games in a campaign require balance, some will need more than others, so having a system that allows you to get balanced enough when you need it is helpful.
I think the point and power level can work fine as well, if they do the game in points and Avg out for a power level it works fine for those wanting a power level as a base.
Would prefer them not trying to tie it into a campaign system, or them doing more than one campaign system. But that’s probably a lot to ask for.
For a campaign I would rather them do a resource management campaign, and focus on better shared narrative.
A lot of issues is mixed messaging and general issues of what GW is really focused on, and if they are building systems to be built upon.
Also generally a lack of any care for the systems they used, I find it almost comical how little people in support of the current system bring up other game systems use things that are similar. But often have other supporting systems within the games to arrive at a better balance.
Also for all the supposed talk of the devs likening narrative games, they suck at it…like bare minimum narrative support in the game, every other game meets this. And with better balance supports narrative better without the GW marketing needing to pull it up.
PenitentJake wrote: Crusade is not a Matched play format, and this time, I am done with this thread.
Crusade is absolutely matched play. Everything about the system is built on the matched play concept of points-based list construction to an equal total for each player, standardized symmetrical missions, balance restrictions to keep armies equal, and extreme importance placed on being able to have pickup games against random strangers at your local store/club. And in many cases it makes these design choices at the expense of narrative elements. Crusade is a good matched play format that a lot of people like but it is very much a matched play format.
Why does seeing the argument that Crusade is a matched play format make you so angry that you're done with this thread? Do you think that matched play is somehow morally inferior, and that Crusade is tainted by being associated with it? Do you think the possibility that you enjoy playing a matched play format makes you a bad person?
I think the point and power level can work fine as well, if they do the game in points and Avg out for a power level it works fine for those wanting a power level as a base.
How do you average out the cost of a versatile unit like Crisis Suits where the range of potential points costs for different loadouts is potentially very large?
I think the point and power level can work fine as well, if they do the game in points and Avg out for a power level it works fine for those wanting a power level as a base.
How do you average out the cost of a versatile unit like Crisis Suits where the range of potential points costs for different loadouts is potentially very large?
1upgrade, 2 and 3.
That PL can be used as a quick get it on the table for friendly games I don’t think is a big problem. Some units may need some special care, but I think that’s ok for a non serious style of gameplay.
It’s more that the game isn’t at all designed for it, and GW went for it anyway. Honestly it’s Dropping some of the main reasons I enjoy 40K still as a game. But I also lucky, I can play better games easy enough There are things GW could have done, but GW is stuck in a self imposed one big change an edition it seems. And no one wanted the effort to make it work to go in.
I think the point and power level can work fine as well, if they do the game in points and Avg out for a power level it works fine for those wanting a power level as a base.
How do you average out the cost of a versatile unit like Crisis Suits where the range of potential points costs for different loadouts is potentially very large?
you split it into several units that have a basic loadout and options that are sidegrades
see the (now legendary) Landspeeders and Stormspeeders as example on how to do it
I think the point and power level can work fine as well, if they do the game in points and Avg out for a power level it works fine for those wanting a power level as a base.
How do you average out the cost of a versatile unit like Crisis Suits where the range of potential points costs for different loadouts is potentially very large?
you split it into several units that have a basic loadout and options that are sidegrades
see the (now legendary) Landspeeders and Stormspeeders as example on how to do it
and by doing that, you kill the option of running mixed weapons crisis suits.
Just bring back points, it's litterally that easy. And with GW themselves providing an app, the whole "too much math" argument is a joke
I think the point and power level can work fine as well, if they do the game in points and Avg out for a power level it works fine for those wanting a power level as a base.
How do you average out the cost of a versatile unit like Crisis Suits where the range of potential points costs for different loadouts is potentially very large?
you split it into several units that have a basic loadout and options that are sidegrades
see the (now legendary) Landspeeders and Stormspeeders as example on how to do it
and by doing that, you kill the option of running mixed weapons crisis suits.
Just bring back points, it's litterally that easy. And with GW themselves providing an app, the whole "too much math" argument is a joke
You will find most PL fans or what ever we are being called are actually in favour of the old two system approach. I said it pages ago and it s been said on this page. Tournament/match play need granular points, I don’t, the best solution would be bring back the two systems and everyone is happy.
I think the point and power level can work fine as well, if they do the game in points and Avg out for a power level it works fine for those wanting a power level as a base.
How do you average out the cost of a versatile unit like Crisis Suits where the range of potential points costs for different loadouts is potentially very large?
you split it into several units that have a basic loadout and options that are sidegrades
see the (now legendary) Landspeeders and Stormspeeders as example on how to do it
and by doing that, you kill the option of running mixed weapons crisis suits.
Just bring back points, it's litterally that easy. And with GW themselves providing an app, the whole "too much math" argument is a joke
You will find most PL fans or what ever we are being called are actually in favour of the old two system approach.
You don't explain why there NEEDS to be a two system approach though. If y'all don't think GW gets regular points right, why are you going to advocate for a second system that does it worse? And why do we need to stop at two systems? Why not throw a third in?
Oh wait they did with Combat Patrol and that's absolutely laughable. I'm sure you'll defend it though.
I think the point and power level can work fine as well, if they do the game in points and Avg out for a power level it works fine for those wanting a power level as a base.
How do you average out the cost of a versatile unit like Crisis Suits where the range of potential points costs for different loadouts is potentially very large?
you split it into several units that have a basic loadout and options that are sidegrades
see the (now legendary) Landspeeders and Stormspeeders as example on how to do it
and by doing that, you kill the option of running mixed weapons crisis suits.
Just bring back points, it's litterally that easy. And with GW themselves providing an app, the whole "too much math" argument is a joke
You will find most PL fans or what ever we are being called are actually in favour of the old two system approach.
You don't explain why there NEEDS to be a two system approach though. If y'all don't think GW gets regular points right, why are you going to advocate for a second system that does it worse? And why do we need to stop at two systems? Why not throw a third in?
Oh wait they did with Combat Patrol and that's absolutely laughable. I'm sure you'll defend it though.
Need is a strong word, it’s a game, we NEED anything.
I have said so many times now, points as they have been the last two editions were a pain in the ass with the constant tweaking and changing. A pain I did not need or get any benefit from. A simpler system worked for me just fine.
So if there are two groups of players, one who need granular constantly changing points to balance the meta and all that and another group who don’t care about that and are happy with a more vague points system why not make both groups happy and do that. Why make one group deal with a points system that doesn’t suit their needs?
I’ll answer that for you, there is no reason. None at all. If you want to argue we only can have one way and that’s your way then that’s pretty crappy of you. Because why would having two systems impact you at all?
Now we have a system that doesn’t do what either side want too well, I can live with it but have had to make adjustments to how I do things to keep track of potential point changes. I preferred power levels.
simple reasons not to have two different point systems :
-It doubles the dev's workload when it comes to pointing units
-Points and PL aren't more or less of a pain to use when there is an app provided for your listbuilding
Which I think is part of the point with non-granular points. Done well, the developers only need to decide on a small number (1-3) of points levels for a unit. No need to spend time deciding exactly how many points each individual upgrade needs to be for best balance.
The problem is they didn't do a good job with the vast majority of units. That leaves us with the system being badly received by those who love high degrees of balance and customization.
-It doubles the dev's workload when it comes to pointing units
-Points and PL aren't more or less of a pain to use when there is an app provided for your listbuilding
I don't think it's that much work knock our PL for the whole game. It's a system that only has to be good enough for a player base that expressly does not care too deeply about game balance. The time it would take them to do it is a bargin compared to getting wargear cost back. And the two system approach probably has a greater chance of working than them following though and making the current psudo-pl system workable.
alextroy wrote: Which I think is part of the point with non-granular points. Done well, the developers only need to decide on a small number (1-3) of points levels for a unit. No need to spend time deciding exactly how many points each individual upgrade needs to be for best balance.
The problem is they didn't do a good job with the vast majority of units. That leaves us with the system being badly received by those who love high degrees of balance and customization.
It's not just the pointing of the units that's the problem. Those systems running successfully on a PL type system in historicals have mechanics on a tactical level and stricter list building requirements through other mechanics implemented that facilitate severe opportunity cost not just in ammount of x you can take but with what x can deal realistically.
Since GW contrary decided to dumb 40k down mechanically in search of the broader audience those opportunity cost questions don't arise. Since they don't it is inevitably a worse system with GW's current facilitation of spam through basically not implementing limits at all that makes this system DOA for people that want a decent ammount of balance.
-It doubles the dev's workload when it comes to pointing units
-Points and PL aren't more or less of a pain to use when there is an app provided for your listbuilding
I don't think it's that much work knock our PL for the whole game. It's a system that only has to be good enough for a player base that expressly does not care too deeply about game balance. The time it would take them to do it is a bargin compared to getting wargear cost back. And the two system approach probably has a greater chance of working than them following though and making the current psudo-pl system workable.
-It doubles the dev's workload when it comes to pointing units
-Points and PL aren't more or less of a pain to use when there is an app provided for your listbuilding
I don't think it's that much work knock our PL for the whole game. It's a system that only has to be good enough for a player base that expressly does not care too deeply about game balance. The time it would take them to do it is a bargin compared to getting wargear cost back. And the two system approach probably has a greater chance of working than them following though and making the current psudo-pl system workable.
The same thing can be said about points.
That's craaaaaazy.
Quick question: is a Plasma Pistol better than a Laspistol, yes or no?
You're welcome to disagree, but the simple fact is that as much braying as there is about points changes--they're basically uncared about unless they affect "The Meta". There's a weird satisfaction in simply points changes happening, not that they're done well.
The funniest thing about this thread is that over 80 pages of „objectively prooving” that oldPoints are more granular and thus better than nuPoints you guys didn’t notice, that it is the nuPoints that are more granular. Theoretically up to 10x more granular, and exactly where the added granularity may indeed make a difference.
You guys, in all this hatred of change didn’t notice, that e.g. Tzangors are now 6,5ppm, Kroot Hounds 7,5ppm, Kroot Farstalkers 8,75ppm and so on. Even fething Guardsmen, the basic reference unit is now 6,5ppm.
So I expect you all to now switch sides, since over the last 80 pages you have „objectively proven”, that granular is better in all regards and greater granularity trumps all other traits of a point system.
No, PL should be removed and there is no more reason for a dual system than for having a dozen different point systems catering to every possible niche. Rules bloat is bad and redundant point systems are an excellent example of rules bloat that has minimal practical value and can be streamlined away without any consequences.
I would have to disagree with this line of thinking.
Whilst a parallel points system is a little redundant, I wouldn't consider it rules-bloat per se. The reason being that If you choose to use points, the existence of Power Level has no impact on your games whatsoever (unlike, say, the addition of Stratagems).
The only exception I can think of would be stuff like costing artefacts/WLTs with CP, which (while not rules bloat) seems to be a obvious compromise to save having to cost artefacts differently between the systems. Though this is GW so it could just be general laziness.
Even in terms of time, PL is just Points with much greater rounding errors, so once you've done the former you've basically done the latter as well.
If the aforementioned compromises are rectified, and points is cemented as the primary system, I'd consider the existence of PL as a secondary system to be pretty inoffensive, all things considered.
I am really not certain that, outside of YouTube and similar circles, we veterans have all that much effect in comparison. Not saying it is nothing, just there are far more effective ways of 
