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.
What's wrong with Combat Patrol? Points are never going to be equally balanced for 500 and 2k. Set lists for 500 removes a lot of complications and making the box sets playable without extra purchases is great. The imbalance between Combat Patrols is just stock GW laziness, but it has a lot more validity than PL. With PL you have to do everything you have to do in pts, select units and wargear, the only step you skip is adding up 20 1 digit numbers (assuming you're not using an app that does it automatically). Set lists let you skip list-building completely.
nou wrote: 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 Farstalkerd 8,75ppm and so on.
So I expect you to now all 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.
Those models should all cost 20 pts each, how many Kroot Hounds do you have in a list? Like 5 or something right? Who cares, it's just 100 pts, why do you care so much you tryhard /sarcasm.
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.
PL changed the cost of Stratagems and how many units you could put into reserves.
nou wrote: 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 Farstalkerd 8,75ppm and so on.
So I expect you to now all 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.
Nothing inherent to points prevented them from using fractional points before, just like nothing inherent to points prevented them from costing things in increments other than 5.
nou wrote: 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 Farstalkerd 8,75ppm and so on.
So I expect you to now all 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.
Nothing inherent to points prevented them from using fractional points before, just like nothing inherent to points prevented them from costing things in increments other than 5.
To points, no. To playerbase? Yes. Current system allows for hidden fractions, something previous system could not do. You now get all the benefits of fractional system without added clutter. Current system could readily handle 8th ed Consctripts problem via points adjustment alone.
And I want to kindly remind you, that on previous 80 pages of this thread potential of either point system archetype was unimportant, it was the GW’s implementation that mattered to the discussion.
I have now trully objectively proven, that not only GW now utilises fractional costs, but also that all of you didn’t even bothered to try to understand why GW designers chose to switch to fixed squad sizes. This was not due to supposed imcompetence of those guys, quite the opposite.
Seconded. As per usual it's not a bad concept executed with a lack of finesse, but EP you can't seriously argue it's harder to balance set lists than make the game work with options that small.
You want balance? Less options, less variance, fewer places to balls up = combat patrol. Magic does great out of the commanders format afaik, so it's hardly a foreign concept either.
Or is it now "granular points only, one army building method only, 1 game size only"?
I'm sure Jervis is sat at home growing in power, waiting for you to invoke his name again until you summon him.
Or is it now "granular points only, one army building method only, 1 game size only"?
This is exactly what EP and few other posters argue all the time is „true 40k”. Heck, some pages ago they argued, that if two guys play with unoptimised lists, they play by houserules.
Or is it now "granular points only, one army building method only, 1 game size only"?
This is exactly what EP and few other posters argue all the time is „true 40k”. Heck, some pages ago they argued, that if two guys play with unoptimised lists, they play by houserules.
Would you agree that you can have a house rule not to play netlists?
Or is it now "granular points only, one army building method only, 1 game size only"?
This is exactly what EP and few other posters argue all the time is „true 40k”. Heck, some pages ago they argued, that if two guys play with unoptimised lists, they play by houserules.
Would you agree that you can have a house rule not to play netlists?
Can have? Yes. Must have? No. No edition of 40k had a rule that states, that you must minmax to play by the rules. Both players may play the gakkiest lists they can come up with and will still play rules as written, to the letter. Same as they can play mixed level armies, narrative asymmetric scenarios, especially those supplied directly by GW outside of Matched GT.
Minmax competitive mindset is as much social contract, as relaxed mindset is. Don’t even bother to repeat those dozens of pages of arguing otherwise. Warmachine had page 5(?) rule, 40k never had it. What is more - at countless ocasions GW stressed very clearly, that you are encouraged to play this game anyway that means fun to you and has always encouraged you to play it in modes other than 2000pts Matched (in addition or exclusively. just as you and your opponent wish).
nou wrote: 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.
I don't think you understand what granular actually means.
nou wrote: 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.
I don't think you understand what granular actually means.
I think I do. I also think most people in this thread confuse granularity of point system with modularity of list building.
nou wrote: 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.
I don't think you understand what granular actually means.
I think I do. I also think most people in this thread confuse granularity of point system with modularity of list building.
Having tried to parse your arguments in several of your posts, I'm going to suggest that your arguments are not as clear to others as they are to you.
I will say that fixed unit sizes is a minor concern in this discussion. There's far less consensus on it. The major issue is mostly about 10th edition not even bothering to balance wargear in most indices, and the current implementation of pseudo power level making it harder to correct balance issues in the game than just returning to the previous system.
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.
Honestly I don't think making (old) PL took them that much time, a couple of days in total tops. Especially as they didn't update it during the editions, there's hardly any time investment there. I'm fully with you on why the current system is worse than points, but this feels pretty "my way or the highway" said against someone who is trying to find compromise.
I'd be fine with old PL returning. I'm far more worried about each unit having a bespoke rule when it comes to rules bloat, or the ever-expanding power armor range.
nou wrote: 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.
I don't think you understand what granular actually means.
I think I do. I also think most people in this thread confuse granularity of point system with modularity of list building.
Having tried to parse your arguments in several of your posts, I'm going to suggest that your arguments are not as clear to others as they are to you.
I will say that fixed unit sizes is a minor concern in this discussion. There's far less consensus on it. The major issue is mostly about 10th edition not even bothering to balance wargear in most indices, and the current implementation of pseudo power level making it harder to correct balance issues in the game than just returning to the previous system.
You mean go back to the system, that couldn’t handle balance over 9 different editions and 40 years of it’s existence?
nou wrote: 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 Farstalkerd 8,75ppm and so on.
So I expect you to now all 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.
Nothing inherent to points prevented them from using fractional points before, just like nothing inherent to points prevented them from costing things in increments other than 5.
To points, no. To playerbase? Yes. Current system allows for hidden fractions, something previous system could not do. You now get all the benefits of fractional system without added clutter. Current system could readily handle 8th ed Consctripts problem via points adjustment alone.
And I want to kindly remind you, that on previous 80 pages of this thread potential of either point system archetype was unimportant, it was the GW’s implementation that mattered to the discussion.
I have now trully objectively proven, that not only GW now utilises fractional costs, but also that all of you didn’t even bothered to try to understand why GW designers chose to switch to fixed squad sizes. This was not due to supposed imcompetence of those guys, quite the opposite.
That is such a bs claim. the same could be done and is still done HH and 40k with the R&H list f.e.
I think we are close to all agreeing that a two system solution is the answer, only a truly miserable person could argue that power level as an option diminished the game for anyone who did not want to use it. It did not soak up tons of time for the devs as had been claimed, it was a quick calculation after working out the points cost from what I read, but could easily see it just been a meeting with tea and biscuits assigning power levels.
I have also heard claims it took up valuable space on datasheets, that’s real straw clutching there. Either way there is loads of room on new datasheets now.
But….in the real world GW will likely stick with the new system (it’s worked for AoS for ages) and we will all have to adapt and get used to it. I have embraced list building on an app, others will have to do what they will (change the way they play or add plasma pistols and sponsons to everything). Not what I want but what they will do.
Or is it now "granular points only, one army building method only, 1 game size only"?
This is exactly what EP and few other posters argue all the time is „true 40k”. Heck, some pages ago they argued, that if two guys play with unoptimised lists, they play by houserules.
Would you agree that you can have a house rule not to play netlists?
Can have? Yes. Must have? No. No edition of 40k had a rule that states, that you must minmax to play by the rules. Both players may play the gakkiest lists they can come up with and will still play rules as written, to the letter. Same as they can play mixed level armies, narrative asymmetric scenarios, especially those supplied directly by GW outside of Matched GT.
Minmax competitive mindset is as much social contract, as relaxed mindset is. Don’t even bother to repeat those dozens of pages of arguing otherwise. Warmachine had page 5(?) rule, 40k never had it. What is more - at countless ocasions GW stressed very clearly, that you are encouraged to play this game anyway that means fun to you and has always encouraged you to play it in modes other than 2000pts Matched (in addition or exclusively. just as you and your opponent wish).
Right, we can agree that if you just play all kinds of lists, no pre-game talk about what tier list you are bringing, but one or both of you happen to bring a terrible list no house rule is involved. We also agree that if you have a sign hanging at your local club that says "no netlists" and nobody plays netlists then you've got a house rule. Inbetween those two is where some might say there is a house rule, when netlists aren't strictly banned but you're expected to warn your opponents that you will be bringing a netlist, even if you're just looking for a laid back game of 40k. Some places, like the boar infested jungles of Tamriel might not have the social contract you're used to, so players feel the sting of imbalance more than you might in a place with what we might call a healthy social contract where you're looking for both players to have fun.
nou wrote: 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 Farstalkerd 8,75ppm and so on.
So I expect you to now all 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.
Nothing inherent to points prevented them from using fractional points before, just like nothing inherent to points prevented them from costing things in increments other than 5.
To points, no. To playerbase? Yes. Current system allows for hidden fractions, something previous system could not do. You now get all the benefits of fractional system without added clutter. Current system could readily handle 8th ed Consctripts problem via points adjustment alone.
And I want to kindly remind you, that on previous 80 pages of this thread potential of either point system archetype was unimportant, it was the GW’s implementation that mattered to the discussion.
I have now trully objectively proven, that not only GW now utilises fractional costs, but also that all of you didn’t even bothered to try to understand why GW designers chose to switch to fixed squad sizes. This was not due to supposed imcompetence of those guys, quite the opposite.
I don't think you have proven that fractional costs actually matter. If you did prove the fraction of a point matters despite being a 1/10 fraction of the model's cost, you'd have to concede that sponsons that used to cost 1/3 of the model's cost are 3 times as important which makes points 3 times as good as PL. *Edit: Objectively /sarcasm.
nou wrote: 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 Farstalkerd 8,75ppm and so on.
So I expect you to now all 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.
Nothing inherent to points prevented them from using fractional points before, just like nothing inherent to points prevented them from costing things in increments other than 5.
To points, no. To playerbase? Yes. Current system allows for hidden fractions, something previous system could not do. You now get all the benefits of fractional system without added clutter. Current system could readily handle 8th ed Consctripts problem via points adjustment alone.
And I want to kindly remind you, that on previous 80 pages of this thread potential of either point system archetype was unimportant, it was the GW’s implementation that mattered to the discussion.
I have now trully objectively proven, that not only GW now utilises fractional costs, but also that all of you didn’t even bothered to try to understand why GW designers chose to switch to fixed squad sizes. This was not due to supposed imcompetence of those guys, quite the opposite.
That is such a bs claim. the same could be done and is still done HH and 40k with the R&H list f.e.
Last time I checked, HH is a specialist game not aimed at little Timmies and thus doesn’t have to adhere to the same accessibility goals as 40k.
nou wrote: 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 Farstalkerd 8,75ppm and so on.
So I expect you to now all 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.
Nothing inherent to points prevented them from using fractional points before, just like nothing inherent to points prevented them from costing things in increments other than 5.
To points, no. To playerbase? Yes. Current system allows for hidden fractions, something previous system could not do. You now get all the benefits of fractional system without added clutter. Current system could readily handle 8th ed Consctripts problem via points adjustment alone.
And I want to kindly remind you, that on previous 80 pages of this thread potential of either point system archetype was unimportant, it was the GW’s implementation that mattered to the discussion.
I have now trully objectively proven, that not only GW now utilises fractional costs, but also that all of you didn’t even bothered to try to understand why GW designers chose to switch to fixed squad sizes. This was not due to supposed imcompetence of those guys, quite the opposite.
That is such a bs claim. the same could be done and is still done HH and 40k with the R&H list f.e.
Last time I checked, HH is a specialist game not aimed at little Timmies and thus doesn’t have to adhere to the same accessibility goals as 40k.
What accessibility goals? Are you 4 years old and can't add?
Seconded. As per usual it's not a bad concept executed with a lack of finesse, but EP you can't seriously argue it's harder to balance set lists than make the game work with options that small.
You want balance? Less options, less variance, fewer places to balls up = combat patrol. Magic does great out of the commanders format afaik, so it's hardly a foreign concept either.
Or is it now "granular points only, one army building method only, 1 game size only"?
I'm sure Jervis is sat at home growing in power, waiting for you to invoke his name again until you summon him.
Combat Patrol is not only imbalanced (and it's honestly to believe it is), but it does the absolute most schizophrenic loadouts for units as well. There's nothing to like about Combat Patrol and everything to hate.
Or is it now "granular points only, one army building method only, 1 game size only"?
This is exactly what EP and few other posters argue all the time is „true 40k”. Heck, some pages ago they argued, that if two guys play with unoptimised lists, they play by houserules.
That's not the argument. The argument is that you play with house rules because you won't let your opponent run four of the same weapon in a Havoc Squad because it's optimized.
Andykp wrote: I think we are close to all agreeing that a two system solution is the answer, only a truly miserable person could argue that power level as an option diminished the game for anyone who did not want to use it. It did not soak up tons of time for the devs as had been claimed, it was a quick calculation after working out the points cost from what I read, but could easily see it just been a meeting with tea and biscuits assigning power levels.
I have also heard claims it took up valuable space on datasheets, that’s real straw clutching there. Either way there is loads of room on new datasheets now.
But….in the real world GW will likely stick with the new system (it’s worked for AoS for ages) and we will all have to adapt and get used to it. I have embraced list building on an app, others will have to do what they will (change the way they play or add plasma pistols and sponsons to everything). Not what I want but what they will do.
Why do you continue to berate people and shout them down for having different opinions from you? You have no more information about the time it takes GW to implement an extra points system than the rest of us. Do you think GW should come up with a pts system that adapts points costs depending on the other things in your list? Such that if you include Orikan with Immortals to boost their durability a little bit he costs one thing, but if you include him in a list with Warriors, Cryptothralls, Canoptek Reanimator, Ghost Ark and an Overlord with a reanimation orb he costs something different because the level of value he adds to your list is different.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Combat Patrol is not only imbalanced (and it's honestly to believe it is), but it does the absolute most schizophrenic loadouts for units as well. There's nothing to like about Combat Patrol and everything to hate.
That's just poor execution. Same thing with Eldar having a stupid faction ability, that doesn't mean faction abilities are a bad idea.
nou wrote: 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 Farstalkerd 8,75ppm and so on.
So I expect you to now all 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.
Nothing inherent to points prevented them from using fractional points before, just like nothing inherent to points prevented them from costing things in increments other than 5.
To points, no. To playerbase? Yes. Current system allows for hidden fractions, something previous system could not do. You now get all the benefits of fractional system without added clutter. Current system could readily handle 8th ed Consctripts problem via points adjustment alone.
And I want to kindly remind you, that on previous 80 pages of this thread potential of either point system archetype was unimportant, it was the GW’s implementation that mattered to the discussion.
I have now trully objectively proven, that not only GW now utilises fractional costs, but also that all of you didn’t even bothered to try to understand why GW designers chose to switch to fixed squad sizes. This was not due to supposed imcompetence of those guys, quite the opposite.
That is such a bs claim. the same could be done and is still done HH and 40k with the R&H list f.e.
Last time I checked, HH is a specialist game not aimed at little Timmies and thus doesn’t have to adhere to the same accessibility goals as 40k.
What accessibility goals? Are you 4 years old and can't add?
Seconded. As per usual it's not a bad concept executed with a lack of finesse, but EP you can't seriously argue it's harder to balance set lists than make the game work with options that small.
You want balance? Less options, less variance, fewer places to balls up = combat patrol. Magic does great out of the commanders format afaik, so it's hardly a foreign concept either.
Or is it now "granular points only, one army building method only, 1 game size only"?
I'm sure Jervis is sat at home growing in power, waiting for you to invoke his name again until you summon him.
Combat Patrol is not only imbalanced (and it's honestly to believe it is), but it does the absolute most schizophrenic loadouts for units as well. There's nothing to like about Combat Patrol and everything to hate.
I don’t really expect you to understand, that GW does not aim at adults only, and that people are not born with the innate understanding of fractions, either natural nor decimal. I don’t know how it’s in the only country in the world that still uses natural fractions for tool sizes, but here kids only learn about decimal fractions at 12 y.o.
You may also want to do a quick search on social media for one of those „math riddles” like „2+2*2=…” and see just how many people of all ages not only answers wrong, but then endlessly discuss, that they are right.
You mean go back to the system, that couldn’t handle balance over 9 different editions and 40 years of it’s existence?
You'd have a point if PL wasn't proven to be objectively worse and your only defense is "but I like it". People liking something isn't a reason to give it validation.
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'd rather the two days spent on "developing" PL be spent arguing what value a Bolt Pistol is on an Infantry Squad sergeant. PL does not have a reason to exist.
You mean go back to the system, that couldn’t handle balance over 9 different editions and 40 years of it’s existence?
You'd have a point if PL wasn't proven to be objectively worse and your only defense is "but I like it". People liking something isn't a reason to give it validation.
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'd rather the two days spent on "developing" PL be spent arguing what value a Bolt Pistol is on an Infantry Squad sergeant. PL does not have a reason to exist.
You should really re-read my posts, as they are not „because I like them” line of argument at all. And no, nothing has been proven in this thread except for ignorance of some of posters here.
nou wrote: 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 Farstalkerd 8,75ppm and so on.
So I expect you to now all 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.
Nothing inherent to points prevented them from using fractional points before, just like nothing inherent to points prevented them from costing things in increments other than 5.
To points, no. To playerbase? Yes. Current system allows for hidden fractions, something previous system could not do. You now get all the benefits of fractional system without added clutter. Current system could readily handle 8th ed Consctripts problem via points adjustment alone.
And I want to kindly remind you, that on previous 80 pages of this thread potential of either point system archetype was unimportant, it was the GW’s implementation that mattered to the discussion.
I have now trully objectively proven, that not only GW now utilises fractional costs, but also that all of you didn’t even bothered to try to understand why GW designers chose to switch to fixed squad sizes. This was not due to supposed imcompetence of those guys, quite the opposite.
That is such a bs claim. the same could be done and is still done HH and 40k with the R&H list f.e.
Last time I checked, HH is a specialist game not aimed at little Timmies and thus doesn’t have to adhere to the same accessibility goals as 40k.
What accessibility goals? Are you 4 years old and can't add?
Seconded. As per usual it's not a bad concept executed with a lack of finesse, but EP you can't seriously argue it's harder to balance set lists than make the game work with options that small.
You want balance? Less options, less variance, fewer places to balls up = combat patrol. Magic does great out of the commanders format afaik, so it's hardly a foreign concept either.
Or is it now "granular points only, one army building method only, 1 game size only"?
I'm sure Jervis is sat at home growing in power, waiting for you to invoke his name again until you summon him.
Combat Patrol is not only imbalanced (and it's honestly to believe it is), but it does the absolute most schizophrenic loadouts for units as well. There's nothing to like about Combat Patrol and everything to hate.
I don’t really expect you to understand, that GW does not aim at adults only, and that people are not born with the innate understanding of fractions, either natural nor decimal. I don’t know how it’s in the only country in the world that still uses natural fractions for tool sizes, but here kids only learn about decimal fractions at 12 y.o.
You may also want to do a quick search on social media for one of those „math riddles” like „2+2*2=…” and see just how many people of all ages not only answers wrong, but then endlessly discuss, that they are right.
I hate to break this to you, but you don't require PEMDAS to add up wargear costs. It's not a difficult task even for a 10 year old.
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.
Except those points are mostly including wargear that adds to the base (only exception is kroot hounds in your list).
So it might very well be that tzaangors cost 6ppm, but the banner costs 2pts and the brayhorn costs 3pts for example.
Also, being able to go in increments of less than 1 for model cost isnt BECAUSE of PL, GW could very easily have the same option with points, by simply raising the amount of points from 2k to 20k or whatever
Andykp wrote: I think we are close to all agreeing that a two system solution is the answer, only a truly miserable person could argue that power level as an option diminished the game for anyone who did not want to use it. It did not soak up tons of time for the devs as had been claimed, it was a quick calculation after working out the points cost from what I read, but could easily see it just been a meeting with tea and biscuits assigning power levels.
I have also heard claims it took up valuable space on datasheets, that’s real straw clutching there. Either way there is loads of room on new datasheets now.
But….in the real world GW will likely stick with the new system (it’s worked for AoS for ages) and we will all have to adapt and get used to it. I have embraced list building on an app, others will have to do what they will (change the way they play or add plasma pistols and sponsons to everything). Not what I want but what they will do.
Why do you continue to berate people and shout them down for having different opinions from you? You have no more information about the time it takes GW to implement an extra points system than the rest of us. Do you think GW should come up with a pts system that adapts points costs depending on the other things in your list? Such that if you include Orikan with Immortals to boost their durability a little bit he costs one thing, but if you include him in a list with Warriors, Cryptothralls, Canoptek Reanimator, Ghost Ark and an Overlord with a reanimation orb he costs something different because the level of value he adds to your list is different.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Combat Patrol is not only imbalanced (and it's honestly to believe it is), but it does the absolute most schizophrenic loadouts for units as well. There's nothing to like about Combat Patrol and everything to hate.
That's just poor execution. Same thing with Eldar having a stupid faction ability, that doesn't mean faction abilities are a bad idea.
Not shouting anyone down, just saying a two system solution would be nice. Everyone is happy. Just trying to apply some common sense. Can you honestly say that power level was such a development time sink that it impacted on the rest of the games development time in any significant way? I did in read in white dwarf they had a simple formula for coining up with it based on average unit cost divided by something. If that’s true (and why would they lie?) it’s hardly a massive expenditure.
I wouldn’t like a points system like you describe. Far too complicated
Automatically Appended Next Post: And…no one is saying the maths is hard for points, it’s just unnecessary.
My biggest bug bear has always been with points always changing. If they made them and just left them alone that’d be great.
Recently played some second edition, and I could still most of the upgrade costs, because they didn’t change.
Seconded. As per usual it's not a bad concept executed with a lack of finesse, but EP you can't seriously argue it's harder to balance set lists than make the game work with options that small.
You want balance? Less options, less variance, fewer places to balls up = combat patrol. Magic does great out of the commanders format afaik, so it's hardly a foreign concept either.
Or is it now "granular points only, one army building method only, 1 game size only"?
I'm sure Jervis is sat at home growing in power, waiting for you to invoke his name again until you summon him.
Combat Patrol is not only imbalanced (and it's honestly to believe it is), but it does the absolute most schizophrenic loadouts for units as well. There's nothing to like about Combat Patrol and everything to hate.
Do you have any metrics or evidence of it's imbalance? I'm not convinced it is but have you played any? Is this just your anecdotal opinion?
It's supposed to be balanced around the unit loadouts, that's the point. In terms of the rest, it's a smaller size game for smaller spaces with quick set up and play time.
If you're done dodging the question, is it a superior concept to playing at small points, or do you suppose to dictate a game size?
Try hating less stuff, try listing things about the game you like for once.
My biggest bug bear has always been with points always changing. If they made them and just left them alone that’d be great.
Well not wanting points to change asks that GW get it right from the start (which i agree should be the case but let's be realistic).
But i'm curious why specifically you seem to care so much that points change over the course of the editions?
It’s just a ball ache to keep up with, an army you designed and painted is all of a sudden over or under the points? And where are they? Online, in an app, is the pdf I have the latest version and then they tried to charge you for the points. I cannot be arsed with any of that. I like simple, and that is not simple. If I was more bothered about balance and all that it would be worth the hassle but I’m not, all that doesn’t help me have a better game.
Or is it now "granular points only, one army building method only, 1 game size only"?
This is exactly what EP and few other posters argue all the time is „true 40k”. Heck, some pages ago they argued, that if two guys play with unoptimised lists, they play by houserules.
Would you agree that you can have a house rule not to play netlists?
That's not a house rule. House rules would be like the House rule my playgroup uses that allows me to run a custom made Nob in my Ork list that has 8 slugga's. (btw he has never ever done a single wound). House rules add or modify the official rules. Refusing to play against someone who copy/pasta's a list they found on BoLS is not exactly the same as imposing some form of list building restriction like a house ruled FOC.
Or is it now "granular points only, one army building method only, 1 game size only"?
This is exactly what EP and few other posters argue all the time is „true 40k”. Heck, some pages ago they argued, that if two guys play with unoptimised lists, they play by houserules.
Would you agree that you can have a house rule not to play netlists?
That's not a house rule. House rules would be like the House rule my playgroup uses that allows me to run a custom made Nob in my Ork list that has 8 slugga's. (btw he has never ever done a single wound). House rules add or modify the official rules. Refusing to play against someone who copy/pasta's a list they found on BoLS is not exactly the same as imposing some form of list building restriction like a house ruled FOC.
What is the difference between restricting people to building weak lists vs restricting people to lists that adhere to a FOC?
vict0988 wrote: ½ is a natural fraction right? So Kroot could cost 7½ and that'd be fine for the 9YO army playing 40k outside Combat Patrol and Open Play?
In the short list of examples from MFM I provided earlier, you have 1/2, 3/4, 1/3 and there are also things like 1/11. Be my guest explaining to little Timmy why he has to do things like converting fractions to common denominator to be able to build an army and push some toy soldiers. Oh, and while you're at it, explain to him what 0,09(09) means if you want to switch to decimals after all. Hiding fractions is way more preferable for GW than exposing them to their target audience.
And as I wrote earlier, and everybody just skipped over: go and witness for yourselves how people are helpless with basic "2+2*2=" riddles. I'm old enough to have exactly zero faith in general population's ability to perform even the simplest math, when half of them don't even know what the proper order of operations is.
catbarf wrote: Little Timmy has a smartphone, is better at using it than you are, and has no problems downloading a listbuilding app to do the math for him.
I'm back in school for mathematics and still won't make a list without an app now.
catbarf wrote: Little Timmy has a smartphone, is better at using it than you are, and has no problems downloading a listbuilding app to do the math for him.
Not so long ago there was a thread here along "name three things in wargames, that are a no-go for you". Mandatory app was the highest ranking objection.
Or is it now "granular points only, one army building method only, 1 game size only"?
This is exactly what EP and few other posters argue all the time is „true 40k”. Heck, some pages ago they argued, that if two guys play with unoptimised lists, they play by houserules.
No, the argument was that playing with an agreement to not use optimized lists is a house rule. They don't just happen to not use all of the most powerful options, they have an unwritten agreement that they will deliberately avoid them and make specific choices instead. That's what makes it a house rule.
Andykp wrote: I think we are close to all agreeing that a two system solution is the answer
Not at all. You continue to want a two system solution because you want PL to exist but you haven't provided any real justification for it beyond "I like it" and you reject the point system that does an even better job of accomplishing your stated goals. At best you have provided an argument for a 10+ system solution, where every conceivable point system is used in parallel no matter how niche its audience is.
Also, if PL took such minimal effort to create then why do you need GW to provide it for you? Just make your own PL system with an equally trivial amount of effort.
Andykp wrote: It’s just a ball ache to keep up with, an army you designed and painted is all of a sudden over or under the points? And where are they? Online, in an app, is the pdf I have the latest version and then they tried to charge you for the points. I cannot be arsed with any of that. I like simple, and that is not simple. If I was more bothered about balance and all that it would be worth the hassle but I’m not, all that doesn’t help me have a better game.
If you don't care about balance then why does it matter if the points change? So what if your 2000 point list is now 2150 points, just keep playing in 2000 point games.
nou wrote: go and witness for yourselves how people are helpless with basic "2+2*2=" riddles.
Those things are just badly written equations designed to farm engagement. No one should write ambiguous things like that and rely on order of operations to do the lifting.
catbarf wrote: Little Timmy has a smartphone, is better at using it than you are, and has no problems downloading a listbuilding app to do the math for him.
Yep. And if Timmy can't handle the basic addition and subtraction involved in writing a list he sure as hell isn't going to be able to understand 40k's dice math and be able to play the game in any meaningful way.
nou wrote: go and witness for yourselves how people are helpless with basic "2+2*2=" riddles.
Those things are just badly written equations designed to farm engagement. No one should write ambiguous things like that and rely on order of operations to do the lifting.
nou wrote: go and witness for yourselves how people are helpless with basic "2+2*2=" riddles.
Those things are just badly written equations designed to farm engagement. No one should write ambiguous things like that and rely on order of operations to do the lifting.
Thank you for prooving my point. There is exactly zero ambiguity in this equation and order of operations is obligatory knowledge in fourth grade here. Yes, you learn order of operations ONLY at 11. And some of you expect people at that age to fluently add natural fractions...
I don’t really expect you to understand, that GW does not aim at adults only, and that people are not born with the innate understanding of fractions, either natural nor decimal. I don’t know how it’s in the only country in the world that still uses natural fractions for tool sizes, but here kids only learn about decimal fractions at 12 y.o.
You may also want to do a quick search on social media for one of those „math riddles” like „2+2*2=…” and see just how many people of all ages not only answers wrong, but then endlessly discuss, that they are right.
There are neither fractions nor decimals used in making a 40k army. Basic arithmetic of whole numbers is all that's required.
If order of operations is difficult I think that's a problem outside of 40k. Git gud!
nou wrote: go and witness for yourselves how people are helpless with basic "2+2*2=" riddles.
Those things are just badly written equations designed to farm engagement. No one should write ambiguous things like that and rely on order of operations to do the lifting.
That's not ambiguous. It's basic math.
And a social contract is not a houserule.
Social contract is taking a shower before you go to the store and not throw slurs at your opponent. Social contract is not "you're not allowed to use XYZ models you built".
catbarf wrote: Little Timmy has a smartphone, is better at using it than you are, and has no problems downloading a listbuilding app to do the math for him.
Not so long ago there was a thread here along "name three things in wargames, that are a no-go for you". Mandatory app was the highest ranking objection.
Nobody said anything about making the app mandatory.
nou wrote: go and witness for yourselves how people are helpless with basic "2+2*2=" riddles.
Those things are just badly written equations designed to farm engagement. No one should write ambiguous things like that and rely on order of operations to do the lifting.
That's not ambiguous. It's basic math.
And a social contract is not a houserule.
Social contract is taking a shower before you go to the store and not throw slurs at your opponent. Social contract is not "you're not allowed to use XYZ models you built".
Social contract can and should include “Do your best to make the game good for all parties involved.”
Seconded. As per usual it's not a bad concept executed with a lack of finesse, but EP you can't seriously argue it's harder to balance set lists than make the game work with options that small.
You want balance? Less options, less variance, fewer places to balls up = combat patrol. Magic does great out of the commanders format afaik, so it's hardly a foreign concept either.
Or is it now "granular points only, one army building method only, 1 game size only"?
I'm sure Jervis is sat at home growing in power, waiting for you to invoke his name again until you summon him.
Combat Patrol is not only imbalanced (and it's honestly to believe it is), but it does the absolute most schizophrenic loadouts for units as well. There's nothing to like about Combat Patrol and everything to hate.
Do you have any metrics or evidence of it's imbalance? I'm not convinced it is but have you played any? Is this just your anecdotal opinion?
It's supposed to be balanced around the unit loadouts, that's the point. In terms of the rest, it's a smaller size game for smaller spaces with quick set up and play time.
If you're done dodging the question, is it a superior concept to playing at small points, or do you suppose to dictate a game size?
Try hating less stuff, try listing things about the game you like for once.
Aside from knowing a bunch of people who have been playing the format (and who have quickly discovered how unbalanced it is) it doesn't really take much data to see where the problems could arise. The Guard one is playing with like 200-300 less points than pretty much everything else and let me tell you, the specific Guard datasheets and rules in there have most certainly not been boosted up to compensate.
Other fun ones are the Dark Angels and Daemons ones. The DA have a Redemptor which many other patrols have 0 ways of deal with and the Daemons one just has so many surprisingly tanky + killy bodies that it can just roll over people with them having 0 counterplay to it.
nou wrote: go and witness for yourselves how people are helpless with basic "2+2*2=" riddles.
Those things are just badly written equations designed to farm engagement. No one should write ambiguous things like that and rely on order of operations to do the lifting.
That's not ambiguous. It's basic math.
And a social contract is not a houserule.
Social contract is taking a shower before you go to the store and not throw slurs at your opponent. Social contract is not "you're not allowed to use XYZ models you built".
Social contract can and should include “Do your best to make the game good for all parties involved.”
"Make the game good for all parties" is the job of GW, not us customers. You seem to forget that as do the others that defend mediocre and below rules.
A game can be balanced on a razors edge and it will still be possible for your opponent to make a game a miserable experience. The game designer cannot force you to be a good opponent. That is a job for each and every player in each and every game ever created.
nou wrote: go and witness for yourselves how people are helpless with basic "2+2*2=" riddles.
Those things are just badly written equations designed to farm engagement. No one should write ambiguous things like that and rely on order of operations to do the lifting.
That's not ambiguous. It's basic math.
And a social contract is not a houserule.
Social contract is taking a shower before you go to the store and not throw slurs at your opponent. Social contract is not "you're not allowed to use XYZ models you built".
Social contract can and should include “Do your best to make the game good for all parties involved.”
"Make the game good for all parties" is the job of GW, not us customers. You seem to forget that as do the others that defend mediocre and below rules.
Would you rather play a mediocre game with an awesome person, or a perfect game with an absolute craphead?
I think GW should do more work to make the game balanced, without needing people to play down in list-making for a fair game.
I don't plan on playing much of any 10th Edition, because the rules just don't do it for me.
But, if someone chooses to play a game with someone else (literally any game-could be 40k, could be charades, could be Magic, anything) it's on everyone involved to make sure everyone has a good time.
In 40k, that means that sometimes you shouldn't take your hardest list. Sometimes it means ignoring the tactically optimal thing for a more in-character action. But no game is going to be good to play if your opponent makes you miserable.
alextroy wrote: A game can be balanced on a razors edge and it will still be possible for your opponent to make a game a miserable experience. The game designer cannot force you to be a good opponent. That is a job for each and every player in each and every game ever created.
This is technically true but we're talking about "bad opponent" issues that are a direct result of game design problems. It's not GW's fault if your opponent moves an extra 1" and hasn't bathed in weeks, it is GW's fault when stuff is unbalanced and you need a bunch of unwritten rules about "fair" lists to have an enjoyable game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: In 40k, that means that sometimes you shouldn't take your hardest list. Sometimes it means ignoring the tactically optimal thing for a more in-character action. But no game is going to be good to play if your opponent makes you miserable.
This is all a direct result of GW's inability to make a good game. It is not a problem with better games.
alextroy wrote: A game can be balanced on a razors edge and it will still be possible for your opponent to make a game a miserable experience. The game designer cannot force you to be a good opponent. That is a job for each and every player in each and every game ever created.
This is technically true but we're talking about "bad opponent" issues that are a direct result of game design problems. It's not GW's fault if your opponent moves an extra 1" and hasn't bathed in weeks, it is GW's fault when stuff is unbalanced and you need a bunch of unwritten rules about "fair" lists to have an enjoyable game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: In 40k, that means that sometimes you shouldn't take your hardest list. Sometimes it means ignoring the tactically optimal thing for a more in-character action. But no game is going to be good to play if your opponent makes you miserable.
This is all a direct result of GW's inability to make a good game. It is not a problem with better games.
Would you rather play a mediocre game with an awesome opponent, or an awesome game with an absolute craphead of an opponent?
"Make the game good for all parties" is the job of GW, not us customers. You seem to forget that as do the others that defend mediocre and below rules.
That is incredibly selfish of you.
Its also[u] our respinsibility.Our opponents. Our communities. Our games. Our time. We are a part of the equation, not helpless bystanders. Ruining the other persons evening can absolutely be on you and how you choose to play.
Saying 'don't be a dick' and/or advocating for accomodation within the games we play isn't defending poor rules.
JNAProductions wrote: Would you rather play a mediocre game with an awesome opponent, or an awesome game with an absolute craphead of an opponent?
What does that have to do with anything? Why do I have to choose between two bad options?
Working to make sure everyone involved in a game has a good time should be what you do when playing-regardless of the game's quality.
Your response (that they're both bad) shows that even with an amazing game, a bad opponent is still a recipe for an unenjoyable experience.
Should GW do better? Yes.
Does that mean players have no responsibility at all? No.
JNAProductions wrote: Working to make sure everyone involved in a game has a good time should be what you do when playing-regardless of the game's quality.
Your response (that they're both bad) shows that even with an amazing game, a bad opponent is still a recipe for an unenjoyable experience.
Should GW do better? Yes.
Does that mean players have no responsibility at all? No.
I still don't see what this has to do with anything even tangentially related to the topic of this thread. "Take a shower before going to the store" has nothing to do with game design and certainly has nothing to do with point systems.
catbarf wrote: Little Timmy has a smartphone, is better at using it than you are, and has no problems downloading a listbuilding app to do the math for him.
Not so long ago there was a thread here along "name three things in wargames, that are a no-go for you". Mandatory app was the highest ranking objection.
Little Timmy's primary social media platforms are Tiktok, Youtube, Instagram, and Reddit. He doesn't participate in forums, and he's certainly not going to DakkaDakka, home of the grognards who have been playing for longer than he's been alive, to participate in their polls.
He doesn't like doing fractional math, but he always has his phone with him and is perfectly willing to use an optional app to help play the game. He likely prefers it over having to write things out on obsolete media like paper.
His generational cohort has been raised on inherently competitive recreational activities like e-sports, and he is likely much more okay with granular listbuilding, seasonal updates, and a focus on balanced competitive play than the older and more casual players here for whom wargaming is a primarily social activity.
If you don't want to do fractional math but also aren't willing to use an optional app, just say so. Little Timmy will be fine, and any concern over his ability to handle fractional math is misplaced.
nou wrote: go and witness for yourselves how people are helpless with basic "2+2*2=" riddles.
Those things are just badly written equations designed to farm engagement. No one should write ambiguous things like that and rely on order of operations to do the lifting.
That's not ambiguous. It's basic math.
And a social contract is not a houserule.
Social contract is taking a shower before you go to the store and not throw slurs at your opponent. Social contract is not "you're not allowed to use XYZ models you built".
Social contract can and should include “Do your best to make the game good for all parties involved.”
"Make the game good for all parties" is the job of GW, not us customers. You seem to forget that as do the others that defend mediocre and below rules.
Would you rather play a mediocre game with an awesome person, or a perfect game with an absolute craphead?
The latter, because the game already has crapheads. At least if the latter were true, I already have enough friends to discuss the actual awesome game, and at least ACTUAL social contract will ensure they will have at least taken a shower beforehand. I can deal with a gakky attitude.
JNAProductions wrote: Would you rather play a mediocre game with an awesome opponent, or an awesome game with an absolute craphead of an opponent?
What does that have to do with anything? Why do I have to choose between two bad options?
Does that mean players have no responsibility at all? No.
No, players don't have a responsibility AT ALL outside basic social norms. It has nothing to do with the game, and frankly my friends DO abandon gak games, because why would awesome people try to make a bad game work? That's not our job as customers, and you should NOT suggest otherwise.
you need to play with the right people, that have the same mindset about how games are played, for the game to be fun is just a polite way of saying "the game sucks"
any game can be fun with the right people and if you only play with the right people you don't need to play the popular one at all
the main point of 40k is that you can easily find someone to play
but if this is further limited because it is not fun playing against random people but only with a fixed group, no real reason to go with 40k in the first place
I really liked the 2+2*2 argument, it puts things into perspective, I can see how 5*18+10 is even harder and would therefore lead to illegal lists or just a lot of frustration. I will also confess I often made mistakes before I started using an app and that might not be a thing if I used PL and did lists by hand. Calculators driven by sunlight might stop being available at clubs because of the prevalence of smartphones and in the event of a solar flare I can see people still wanting to play 40k without electricity since they would be unable to gakpost on Dakka and be driven to write lists on paper and without a calculator. But to protect us against that case we should have physical rules.
vict0988 wrote: ½ is a natural fraction right? So Kroot could cost 7½ and that'd be fine for the 9YO army playing 40k outside Combat Patrol and Open Play?
In the short list of examples from MFM I provided earlier, you have 1/2, 3/4, 1/3 and there are also things like 1/11. Be my guest explaining to little Timmy why he has to do things like converting fractions to common denominator to be able to build an army and push some toy soldiers. Oh, and while you're at it, explain to him what 0,09(09) means if you want to switch to decimals after all. Hiding fractions is way more preferable for GW than exposing them to their target audience.
And as I wrote earlier, and everybody just skipped over: go and witness for yourselves how people are helpless with basic "2+2*2=" riddles. I'm old enough to have exactly zero faith in general population's ability to perform even the simplest math, when half of them don't even know what the proper order of operations is.
You don't believe the difference between 1/3, 3/4 and 1/2 matters so what are you trying to say? You know I will just pull the Uno reverse of sponsons on you every time you try to mention such meaningless stuff. I don't think for a second GW knows that 7,5 is the right cost for a Kroot, it might be as little as 5, neither GW nor I know that. 10th edition has probably been balanced in the old way of throwing some stuff on the table, watching how things shake out and then the designers give their best guess what things are worth. With a system as terrible as that there is no way the difference between 7,5 and 8 says anything meaningful. Guard Conscripts did not need to be 3,5 pts, they needed to be 4 pts, you'll also notice we don't have units under 5 pts anymore. Conscripts also didn't have variable unit sizes so they could be 20 models for 69 pts. While it would be good and nice to have finer pts, 5,25 pts is not the sort of fine balance acts GW engages in on purpose, all the things you mentioned were done on accident, although it would be interesting to hear GW say they went with set unit sizes to get half points without using half points, it'd be quite clever.
Don't Polish children use grosz to pay for stuff? That's 1/100 of a zloti, so using half a point should be easy. I think Combat Patrol and Open Play is more correct for small children, even PL is wasting time with them.
Any game also doesn't cost triple to quadruple digits. Having fun with people in Monopoly costs how much?
Does monopoly or the price of it impact the points system in 40k 10th edition?
yes of course in a hyperbolical fashion. Commitment and expected product quality are tied to the price no`? Maybee a bit of a closer comparison is .f.e. Turnip 28. Despite being positivly symplistic it has better balance, morale rules and far cheaper higher quality models available since it is based upon historicals which allow including offerings of the perry brothers.
40k on the other hand, solely a rulebook and single codex allow me comparativly to get 3 full turnip armies and left overs.
catbarf wrote: Little Timmy has a smartphone, is better at using it than you are, and has no problems downloading a listbuilding app to do the math for him.
Not so long ago there was a thread here along "name three things in wargames, that are a no-go for you". Mandatory app was the highest ranking objection.
His generational cohort has been raised on inherently competitive recreational activities like e-sports, and he is likely much more okay with granular listbuilding, seasonal updates, and a focus on balanced competitive play than the older and more casual players here for whom wargaming is a primarily social activity.
Yeah there's this generational divide going on here but people also misunderstand who/why "casualization" or "simplification" efforts should be geared towards.
There's a large contingent of people who think these changes should be made for newer younger players, and yet as you say the younger generation is coming at 40k from a completely different perspective. A lot of the very good 40k players I know, locally and more broadly, are in their low-mid 20's. Many of the best players I know locally started in 9th and are fresh out of uni or actively attending one. They're not the ones who complained about seasonal updates or complex rules; they actively sought those out and liked them.
Who these "simplifying" measures are for are for 40+ year old dads who are juggling a full-time career, 2+ kids and whatever else.
It's very telling that a lot of the 20's-early 30's crowd in my local area (i.e. my crowd) have all basically dropped off 40k for the moment and a bunch of the 40-50 dads have started up again.
there is a difference between a mandatory and and an app that works as "aid" to support
and a problem is that 40k is on a level were without an aid, you have a hard time to make an army list, simply because there is too much in too many different places to have get it simply done
writing an army list in 10th needs you 3 different pdf documents or an app
removing points from options did not solve the basic problem of list writing in 40k
Any game also doesn't cost triple to quadruple digits. Having fun with people in Monopoly costs how much?
Does monopoly or the price of it impact the points system in 40k 10th edition?
Does your opponent? Because that's the point, people brought up that they had fun with power level if you played with the right people.
Which has feth all to do with power level and is entirely due to "the right people". I literally made this exact point when I said you could have fun playing snakes and ladders, which is basically a non-game, if you were playing it with an awesome person who makes everything fun with their personality.
Fun is a measure of many things, not just the quality of a game you're playing. This topic is about one specific aspect of the game, not the group you play it with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: yes, as it shows that you don't need a point system at all to have fun, with the right people and easily accept flaws of the game is cheap
None of which is actually relevant to the topic, which is specifically about a narrow aspect of game design.
It’s just a ball ache to keep up with, an army you designed and painted is all of a sudden over or under the points? And where are they? Online, in an app, is the pdf I have the latest version and then they tried to charge you for the points. I cannot be arsed with any of that. I like simple, and that is not simple. If I was more bothered about balance and all that it would be worth the hassle but I’m not, all that doesn’t help me have a better game.
ok but its litterally just :
-Open the app
-Click on battleforge
-click on list
-"Oh, its now x points over/under 2k"
Do people really only make a single 2k list and stop there?
And as I wrote earlier, and everybody just skipped over: go and witness for yourselves how people are helpless with basic "2+2*2=" riddles. I'm old enough to have exactly zero faith in general population's ability to perform even the simplest math, when half of them don't even know what the proper order of operations is.
we didn't skip over it... many of us pointed out that you don't require PEMDAS to build a 40k list. It's litterally all additions, made by an app for you, so you don't even need to know what math is, just make sure you don't go over the pts limit for your game (which the app also warns you if you do)
catbarf wrote: Little Timmy has a smartphone, is better at using it than you are, and has no problems downloading a listbuilding app to do the math for him.
Not so long ago there was a thread here along "name three things in wargames, that are a no-go for you". Mandatory app was the highest ranking objection.
it's not mandatory lol, you can use Excel/pen and paper just as easily as people have for 20+ years. Addition isnt a hard concept for anyone out of first grade
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vict0988 wrote: I really liked the 2+2*2 argument, it puts things into perspective, I can see how 5*18+10 is even harder and would therefore lead to illegal lists or just a lot of frustration.
in what world are you doing "5*18+10" when listbuilding for 40k?
vict's sarcasm/absurdity is often very dry but when they say something kind of silly, 99% of the time it's sarcasm. You can tell because the rest of the post is full of it.
(To be clear, I say this as a fan of vict's posting style, don't take it the wrong way )
Who these "simplifying" measures are for are for 40+ year old dads who are juggling a full-time career, 2+ kids and whatever else.
It's very telling that a lot of the 20's-early 30's crowd in my local area (i.e. my crowd) have all basically dropped off 40k for the moment and a bunch of the 40-50 dads have started up again.
As a 40+ year old dad. . . give me my points-for-wargear-options back! I enjoy optimizing and fine tuning lists just as much as I did when I was 14. Also, when I talk to other 40+ year old dads, they don't like the change either, because it's obviously stupid on the face of it.
Who these "simplifying" measures are for are for 40+ year old dads who are juggling a full-time career, 2+ kids and whatever else.
It's very telling that a lot of the 20's-early 30's crowd in my local area (i.e. my crowd) have all basically dropped off 40k for the moment and a bunch of the 40-50 dads have started up again.
As a 40+ year old dad. . . give me my points-for-wargear-options back! I enjoy optimizing and fine tuning lists just as much as I did when I was 14. Also, when I talk to other 40+ year old dads, they don't like the change either, because it's obviously stupid on the face of it.
Right. 40 y.o.s (okay fine I'm not quite there yet, but spiritually I am) may struggle with remembering a lot of random rules crap, but we never struggled with Battlescribe or building lists. I personally struggled with quarterly seasons and patches, but a good app would've fixed that IMO. And even now, GW haven't delivered on the app side (meanwhile raising the price of it today LOL).
Who these "simplifying" measures are for are for 40+ year old dads who are juggling a full-time career, 2+ kids and whatever else.
It's very telling that a lot of the 20's-early 30's crowd in my local area (i.e. my crowd) have all basically dropped off 40k for the moment and a bunch of the 40-50 dads have started up again.
As a 40+ year old dad. . . give me my points-for-wargear-options back! I enjoy optimizing and fine tuning lists just as much as I did when I was 14. Also, when I talk to other 40+ year old dads, they don't like the change either, because it's obviously stupid on the face of it.
as a 40 year old dad myself, I don't like it but also have given up on 40k to play it with tgf kids
Despite all the nice models and the lore too read for them, I am too old to waste time on games that are mediocre and play something that is easier to learn but still as fun with them
It was never adding points that I had or have an issue with, it’s all the other issues in the game GW cannot ever seem to understand.
And I actually enjoy building lists a lot before, and my marines are mostly using basic gear since I think bolt weapons are iconic for them, and chainswords are a brutal and fitting weapon for what’s marine represented.
My mistake for digging into that theme it seems.
nou wrote: And as I wrote earlier, and everybody just skipped over: go and witness for yourselves how people are helpless with basic "2+2*2=" riddles. I'm old enough to have exactly zero faith in general population's ability to perform even the simplest math, when half of them don't even know what the proper order of operations is.
That's a nonsense argument and you know it. Those riddles are deliberately ambiguous and completely free of context, in the real world even if you have an equation that is ambiguously written you almost always have some context that tells you how it should be interpreted. If you're building a 40k list and you see 5*10+5 you know based on the unit that it's either "5 copies of a 10 point model plus a single 5 point upgrade" or "five copies of a 10 point model, each with a 5 point upgrade" and it's then very obvious how you should do the math. Nobody is sitting there struggling to understand if they should add the cost of the 5 point upgrade to the 10 point model before or after they multiply by 5.
(And yes, some people are either small children or have a mental disability that prevents them from doing even that level of basic math. Those people aren't playing 40k.)
JNAProductions wrote: 2+2*2 has no ambiguity. None. If you find it ambiguous, you need to refresh your math skills.
And that isn't the equation that actually gets people stumped.
It is stuff like 8÷2(2+2), which involves implicit multiplication. To see why it is ambiguous, if you were to write it as a fraction would you have 8*(2+2) as the numerator, or 2*(2+2) as the denominator?
JNAProductions wrote: 2+2*2 has no ambiguity. None. If you find it ambiguous, you need to refresh your math skills.
And that isn't the equation that actually gets people stumped.
It is stuff like 8÷2(2+2), which involves implicit multiplication. To see why it is ambiguous, if you were to write it as a fraction would you have 8*(2+2) as the numerator, or 2*(2+2) as the denominator?
Also unambiguous. There is a reason the mnemonic PEDMAS exist. It reminds you of the correct answer. Not that it really has anything to do with 10th Ed Unit Upgrade philosophy.
alextroy wrote: Also unambiguous. There is a reason the mnemonic PEDMAS exist. It reminds you of the correct answer. Not that it really has anything to do with 10th Ed Unit Upgrade philosophy.
It's ambiguous because there is a conflict between the strict interpretation of the written numbers and symbols and the implicit meaning of the way they are written. Nitpicking that the common use is not technically correct is missing the point.
You are correct, though, that this has nothing to do with 40k. Not only does 40k not use any of this the riddles are deliberately stupid. In any real use of math you will have context for what the math represents and it will be obvious how you're supposed to interpret any ambiguity or conflict between literal and implicit representations. It's only relevant to obnoxious KIDS THESE DAYS CANT DO MATH CAN YOU SOLVE THIS?????? facebook memes shared by tech-illiterate boomers.
alextroy wrote: Also unambiguous. There is a reason the mnemonic PEDMAS exist. It reminds you of the correct answer. Not that it really has anything to do with 10th Ed Unit Upgrade philosophy.
It's ambiguous because there is a conflict between the strict interpretation of the written numbers and symbols and the implicit meaning of the way they are written. Nitpicking that the common use is not technically correct is missing the point.
You are correct, though, that this has nothing to do with 40k. Not only does 40k not use any of this the riddles are deliberately stupid. In any real use of math you will have context for what the math represents and it will be obvious how you're supposed to interpret any ambiguity or conflict between literal and implicit representations. It's only relevant to obnoxious KIDS THESE DAYS CANT DO MATH CAN YOU SOLVE THIS?????? facebook memes shared by tech-illiterate boomers.
As others above wrote, there is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever in any of such riddles. Anybody who thinks otherwise should seriously reconsider their perspective on their math prowess. The linked wiki on mixed multiplication and division only applies to polynomials - there is no such thing as an implicit fraction bar for non-polynomial equations. If you see an inline notation of just numbers with a division in it, it is resolved in normal order of operations. You want it to be treated as a fraction bar? You have to use parentheses. Period. And no, you don't need a fething context to solve 2+2*2 properly. If there is no context given, it is resolved directly as written.
And while it no longer exists in 40k, why do you all think GW got rid of U melee strength and U strength modifiers? Exactly because of the order of operations causing problems and unnecessary disputes, especially since the wrong interpretation was the more advantageous one.
alextroy wrote: Also unambiguous. There is a reason the mnemonic PEDMAS exist. It reminds you of the correct answer. Not that it really has anything to do with 10th Ed Unit Upgrade philosophy.
It's ambiguous because there is a conflict between the strict interpretation of the written numbers and symbols and the implicit meaning of the way they are written. Nitpicking that the common use is not technically correct is missing the point.
You are correct, though, that this has nothing to do with 40k. Not only does 40k not use any of this the riddles are deliberately stupid. In any real use of math you will have context for what the math represents and it will be obvious how you're supposed to interpret any ambiguity or conflict between literal and implicit representations. It's only relevant to obnoxious KIDS THESE DAYS CANT DO MATH CAN YOU SOLVE THIS?????? facebook memes shared by tech-illiterate boomers.
As others above wrote, there is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever in any of such riddles. Anybody who thinks otherwise should seriously reconsider their perspective on their math prowess. The linked wiki on mixed multiplication and division only applies to polynomials - there is no such thing as an implicit fraction bar for non-polynomial equations. If you see an inline notation of just numbers with a division in it, it is resolved in normal order of operations. You want it to be treated as a fraction bar? You have to use parentheses. Period. And no, you don't need a fething context to solve 2+2*2 properly. If there is no context given, it is resolved directly as written.
And while it no longer exists in 40k, why do you all think GW got rid of U melee strength and U strength modifiers? Exactly because of the order of operations causing problems and unnecessary disputes, especially since the wrong interpretation was the more advantageous one.
As someone that recently just had the whole discussion and is a mathematician, 8÷2(2+2) is ambiguous though.
Partly because ÷ has had different definitions throghout the years and based on where you live. One of the first things you learn these days when studying serious mathematics is to never use ÷ for this reason: it's not part of formal standard mathematical notation anymore because of it's ambiguity.
If you go back 100 years, if you had asked someone what 8÷2(2+2) was, they'd have told you it was 1... and for the time that was most definitely the correct answer because ÷ meant you divided the result of the terms on the left of it by the result of the terms on the right of it.
Because of all this abiguity, ÷ has been replaced by less ambiguous are more strictly definied symbols in formal mathematics, like the humble /
JNAProductions wrote: 2+2*2 has no ambiguity. None. If you find it ambiguous, you need to refresh your math skills.
And that isn't the equation that actually gets people stumped.
It is stuff like 8÷2(2+2), which involves implicit multiplication. To see why it is ambiguous, if you were to write it as a fraction would you have 8*(2+2) as the numerator, or 2*(2+2) as the denominator?
Also unambiguous. There is a reason the mnemonic PEDMAS exist. It reminds you of the correct answer. Not that it really has anything to do with 10th Ed Unit Upgrade philosophy.
P.S. 8÷2(2+2) = 16
Apparently you're unaware that PEDMAS is not, in fact, a universally acknowledged rule.
There are, in fact, multiple such rules that vary the order of operations (usually either reversing division and multiplication or giving them equal weight - e.g. BEDMAS, PE(MD)AS.)
Thus, the answer to that equation is indeed ambiguous because it depends on which mathematical rule you have been taught (or choose) to use.
PS. please don't bother replying to tell me how your preferred mathematical rule is obviously the best and correct because I couldn't give a damn and I have no interest in arguing such. My point is not which system is "best" or most popular - merely that other systems (and thus other interpretations) do exist and such ambiguity should be acknowledged, even if you don't personally agree with those other systems.
nou wrote: The linked wiki on mixed multiplication and division only applies to polynomial
The link literally explains, with examples, where the ambiguity exploited by the meme is. You can be the tech-illiterate FB boomer and KIDS THESE DAYS all you want over the meme but the fact that you're technically correct about the math doens't change the implicit meaning of how the equation is written. Writing conventions matter just as much as formal math rules when interpreting what writing is meant to say.
And while it no longer exists in 40k, why do you all think GW got rid of U melee strength and U strength modifiers? Exactly because of the order of operations causing problems and unnecessary disputes, especially since the wrong interpretation was the more advantageous one.
GW got rid of modifiers because there was no reason to have them. There is no reason to list Sx2 for a weapon's strength value if the user's strength is always 4 and the weapon's base value is always 8. It was nothing more than a relic of the era when standard weapon profiles were in a table at the back of the codex and applied to all units equipped with them. A power fist had to have Sx2 because it would be equipped on units with different strength values. But when a "power fist" is a separate weapon on each datasheet that is no longer the case, you can just give its profile the appropriate value directly.
By the Olde Gods. I know that this is Dakka, and tirades are expected here, but what, exactly, does all of this talk of mathematical equations have to do with 40k? A system that takes into account different prices for different wargear and equipment only requires knowledge of basic addition. No mathematical equations beyond that are required.
Gadzilla666 wrote: By the Olde Gods. I know that this is Dakka, and tirades are expected here, but what, exactly, does all of this talk of mathematical equations have to do with 40k?
Nou's claim was that his boomer FB meme proves that people can't do math and therefore 40k needs the simplest possible point system. The rest is pointing out why it's self-congratulatory nonsense.
Gadzilla666 wrote: By the Olde Gods. I know that this is Dakka, and tirades are expected here, but what, exactly, does all of this talk of mathematical equations have to do with 40k?
Nou's claim was that his boomer FB meme proves that people can't do math and therefore 40k needs the simplest possible point system. The rest is pointing out why it's self-congratulatory nonsense.
Right. We all know that this is just a weird side argument. So, maybe ignore it? As it has nothing to do with the actual question. People can do math. Especially the basic math involved in every edition of 40k up to this one. I could do it when I was a kid. My kids can do it. Basic addition isn't a problem.
Uhh! This is so damned frustrating. I can't help but be dragged back in...
Gadzilla666 wrote: By the Olde Gods. I know that this is Dakka, and tirades are expected here, but what, exactly, does all of this talk of mathematical equations have to do with 40k?
It's just straw. Endless straw and the desperate flailings of people who lost the argument 50 pages ago and are still trying obfuscate and make attempts at 'gotchas' when they can't answer the simple questions being put to them, nor counter the points that have been proven page after page after page after page.
Upgrades should cost points. Things that are better than the base equipment should never be free. Points are objectively superior in every respect to non-granular "power level" systems (even when they're called "points" like they are in 10th). Power Level provides no advantage over points in any scenario or situation.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Uhh! This is so damned frustrating. I can't help but be dragged back in...
Gadzilla666 wrote: By the Olde Gods. I know that this is Dakka, and tirades are expected here, but what, exactly, does all of this talk of mathematical equations have to do with 40k?
It's just straw. Endless straw and the desperate flailings of people who lost the argument 50 pages ago and are still trying obfuscate and make attempts at 'gotchas' when they can't answer the simple questions being put to them, nor counter the points that have been proven page after page after page after page.
Upgrades should cost points. Things that are better than the base equipment should never be free. Points are objectively superior in every respect to non-granular "power level" systems (even when they're called "points" like they are in 10th). Power Level provides no advantage over points in any scenario or situation.
And now I'm leaving the thread again...
Balls.
My first post in this car crash of thread was that it was pointless arguing with the people who demand points for all upgrades because they genuinely believe that their way is the only way to enjoy the game and will call you a liar when you point out that they are wrong and that there are in fact lots of different ways to enjoy a game of 40K, and some of those include not worrying about how much a plasma pistol or tank sponson improves one unit.
80 pages on and it’s exactly the same and I keep getting sucked back in and all it’s achieved is more people on my ignore list.
End of the day, if you really believe the game is “objectively better” with points like they were in 9th edition, can any of you at least concede that some people still manage to enjoy the game with power levels or 10th edition style points?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Uhh! This is so damned frustrating. I can't help but be dragged back in...
Gadzilla666 wrote: By the Olde Gods. I know that this is Dakka, and tirades are expected here, but what, exactly, does all of this talk of mathematical equations have to do with 40k?
It's just straw. Endless straw and the desperate flailings of people who lost the argument 50 pages ago and are still trying obfuscate and make attempts at 'gotchas' when they can't answer the simple questions being put to them, nor counter the points that have been proven page after page after page after page.
Upgrades should cost points. Things that are better than the base equipment should never be free. Points are objectively superior in every respect to non-granular "power level" systems (even when they're called "points" like they are in 10th). Power Level provides no advantage over points in any scenario or situation.
And now I'm leaving the thread again...
Balls.
My first post in this car crash of thread was that it was pointless arguing with the people who demand points for all upgrades because they genuinely believe that their way is the only way to enjoy the game and will call you a liar when you point out that they are wrong and that there are in fact lots of different ways to enjoy a game of 40K, and some of those include not worrying about how much a plasma pistol or tank sponson improves one unit.
80 pages on and it’s exactly the same and I keep getting sucked back in and all it’s achieved is more people on my ignore list.
End of the day, if you really believe the game is “objectively better” with points like they were in 9th edition, can any of you at least concede that some people still manage to enjoy the game with power levels or 10th edition style points?
Do you think that's a smart way to enter a discussion?
original wrote:Power Level provides no advantage over points in any scenario or situation.
strawman wrote:they genuinely believe that their way is the only way to enjoy the game
These two are not the same. Now try to respond to the actual message instead of strawmanning him.
Andykp wrote: End of the day, if you really believe the game is “objectively better” with points like they were in 9th edition, can any of you at least concede that some people still manage to enjoy the game with power levels or 10th edition style points?
"I use PL and it doesn't ruin the game for me" and "PL is a good system that should continue to exist" are not the same thing. Virtually everyone who uses PL would have just as much fun using the traditional point system, and the few who wouldn't would have even more fun if they dumped points-based matched play entirely and used an even simpler system for choosing forces.
End of the day, if you really believe the game is “objectively better” with points like they were in 9th edition, can any of you at least concede that some people still manage to enjoy the game with power levels or 10th edition style points?
Why would we need to concede this? I don't believe anyone here has claimed that no one can possibly have fun with PL.
The point is not that no one can ever have fun with PL. The point is that there are demonstrable shortcomings with PL that are not present with points. Thus, if the game has to choose a single system, it makes sense to choose the one that can better account for the intra-unit variations.
Yeah, but what is the number of people actually affected by the power points change GW made in 10th?
It is easy to say, well the tyranids, eldar, necron , knights etc players are mostly okey with it, when the change doesn't affect them that much or at all. On the other hand if you ask anyone who plays or owns a Lemman Russ without sponsons, GK termintors without apothecaries in each squad etc they are not going to be happy. People that run their squads at something else then 5 or 10 size, not happy about the change. SoB for some reason glued to 10 man squads in units they want at 5, and to 5 in units they may actualy do want to have at 10 models etc.
Plus it is just another thing to pile in for the have not and have armies. Will a GSC player be unhappy about the need for seismic canons? No his units never not had them, plus his army is doing great. A votan player on the other hand is probably not very happy that his squads cost as much as they do, no matter what gear they have.
End of the day, if you really believe the game is “objectively better” with points like they were in 9th edition, can any of you at least concede that some people still manage to enjoy the game with power levels or 10th edition style points?
I have fun playing Warpath Firefight so it would be best 40k is removed and all people play Firefight instead, I don't see the point why other would want to still play 40k instead of Firefight so don't see why that system should exist
/S
A Town Called Malus wrote: Any extra time you save on army assembly using power level is nullified by the extra time it takes to resolve all the different weapons that someone can take under that system. That's a fair chunk of extra rolling.
Also, there is no universal rule that points have to be integer values. If a bolt pistol isn't worth 1 point, then is it worth 0.5?
Try rolling for a squad of primaris sword brethren. You can have like 5 different melee weapons and 4 different ranged weapons in a 5 man squad. Then you add Helbrecht and Apothecary or Castellan and it takes 10 minutes to resolve attacks for 1 squad every turn.
End of the day, if you really believe the game is “objectively better” with points like they were in 9th edition, can any of you at least concede that some people still manage to enjoy the game with power levels or 10th edition style points?
People managed to enjoy the gak show that was the end of 7th. People can enjoy objective garbage, but that doesn't mean it should continue.
Try rolling for a squad of primaris sword brethren. You can have like 5 different melee weapons and 4 different ranged weapons in a 5 man squad. Then you add Helbrecht and Apothecary or Castellan and it takes 10 minutes to resolve attacks for 1 squad every turn.
And? I am assuming the person is coming prepared and doesn't have different coloured dice for different weapons. Still where is the problem. And how is it better then all your weapon are unifited and now suddenly you don't have a melee weapon over the strenght of 6, in an army with bad shoting and the only way of dealing with tanks being historicaly melee, only now you can't do it, because tanks are t8-12, so with strenght 4 ap- guns and str 6 melee weapons you are not even scratching paint. And God help you if they have FnP or a way to fix wounds.
Deadnight wrote: ...the guy who did the astartes videos being run out of the hobby by 'fans'. And he wasn't even in gw!
Can you expand on that? Last I heard he was just working for GW in some capacity.
Iirc didn't he rescind the acceptance based on the response after he accepted? I remember a big hoo-ha on the forum at the time.
dug up a link on spiky bits (apologies - sb is akin to a tabloid for me but its the first link on the google!). Don't know if stuff happened after though.
Karol wrote: ...becase games are all about removing the random aspect from them to garentee a result as often as possible.
That sounds really boring, a degree of randomness is fun.
And who is having more fun right now, and eldar player who gets exactly the roll he wants at the time he wants or a GK player fishing for 6s ?
Why train then, why hire couches, whey learn the rules of your and other armies, tricks for the given meta or obscure rules interactions etc When all you need is to roll well. I mean I guess it is a bit less work, because all you have to do is get a few sets of loaded dice to manipulate those results and learn how to pick the dice based on rougness and weight to properly roll required avarges without drawing too much suspicion. Still by this time, other games are better for it.
End of the day, if you really believe the game is “objectively better” with points like they were in 9th edition, can any of you at least concede that some people still manage to enjoy the game with power levels or 10th edition style points?
I have fun playing Warpath Firefight so it would be best 40k is removed and all people play Firefight instead, I don't see the point why other would want to still play 40k instead of Firefight so don't see why that system should exist /S
I have never argued for the removal of a points system system, quite the opposite, I have argued for the two system solution. That way both sides get what they want, most people who have argued in defence of power levels have said that.
I can manage to get my head around someone enjoying a different thing from me, I can imagine the current situation isn’t great for them. I am not just assuming that because I like a thing anyone else who says they don’t like it is either stupid or a liar. You don’t see that consideration or respect from the other side. The very fact that there are sides is stupid as feth.
If gw did a you turn and went back to the old way of having only points like they were before, I could live with that, like I can with this half way house we have now. I played for 7 editions before power levels were an option. It’s not make or break for me.
There are downsides to classic points, and downsides to power level. I can see that and say it without contradicting anything I have said on here before. All I am asking that the pro points side (power level deniers) open their minds a bit and see that what matters to them doesn’t to others. What is frustrating and has been since power levels came in is the dismissal of others experiences and rudeness that is directed at anyone who said as much as “l like them”.
And who is having more fun right now, and eldar player who gets exactly the roll he wants at the time he wants or a GK player fishing for 6s ?
Why train then, why hire couches, whey learn the rules of your and other armies, tricks for the given meta or obscure rules interactions etc When all you need is to roll well. I mean I guess it is a bit less work, because all you have to do is get a few sets of loaded dice to manipulate those results and learn how to pick the dice based on rougness and weight to properly roll required avarges without drawing too much suspicion. Still by this time, other games are better for it.
Who the hell is hiring coaches for 40K?? Does that really happen. If so that is the stupidest thing I ever heard.
Karol wrote: Why train then, why hire couches, whey learn the rules of your and other armies, tricks for the given meta or obscure rules interactions etc When all you need is to roll well.
Because it is all based on risk management, which takes thought and planning. You do your best to weigh the probabilities in your favour, but actions always carry a risk. Even fate dice carry that now, to an extent. Which dice roll do you guarantee in a phase? The number of shots? Do you take a risk there, so you can guarantee a high damage roll? It is all about playing the probabilities. Without risk, things can quickly become stale.
The best moments are when something unexpected happens. 9 times out of 10, Angron may stomp Straken. But that time that Straken wins will be the one that you remember for years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: Who the hell is hiring coaches for 40K?? Does that really happen. If so that is the stupidest thing I ever heard.
Not seen the youtubers and tournament players offering "coaching services", I guess?
Karol wrote: .. becase games are all about removing the random aspect from them to garentee a result as often as possible.
Thats not true, like at all.
There's plenty wargames out there, particularly in historicals that have a very important 'fog of war' component which is facilitated by randomness which seeks to represent elements of the battle outside of the players control.
Warlords bolt action and test of honour are two good examples where the order of activation, or which player activates next are down chance. Firestorm armada was very janky and random (and fun!).Plenty other historicals require a leadership test in order for a unit to activate in the first place - effectively a scenario where you don't fully control your own army and it reflects the absolute chaos of a battlefield where so much is out of your hands .
Deadnight wrote: Warlords bolt action and test of honour are two good examples where the order of activation, or which player activates next are down chance. Firestorm armada was very janky and random (and fun!).Plenty other historicals require a leadership test in order for a unit to activate in the first place - effectively a scenario where you don't fully control your own army and it reflects the absolute chaos of a battlefield where so much is out of your hands .
Anyway this is o/t
Firestorm Armada was janky?
Those are fighting word, sir! There was a definite mathematical beauty to that game that 40K could only dream of emulating.
Pistols at dawn!
More on point, Jarvis Johnson hasn’t been employed by GW for years. How about we leave him and his kid out of this discussion? Is that too much to ask for?
alextroy 810334 11573313 wrote:Firestorm Armada was janky?
Those are fighting word, sir! There was a definite mathematical beauty to that game that 40K could only dream of emulating.
Pistols at dawn!
More on point, Jarvis Johnson hasn’t been employed by GW for years. How about we leave him and his kid out of this discussion? Is that too much to ask for?
^grabs super soaker^
Rest assured I mean it in the best way possible. :p I enjoy FAimmensely. Its memorable. But it is very luck dependent with the exploding 6s, hence janky. That said, when you finish a game with a triple crit against a battleship and roll a 10, 11 and 12 (true story, I swear) and read out the crit descriptions, you have the potential for a great narrative.
And yes, more than happy to leave him and his kid out of it. Should never have been raised. Hence my outrage and the initial raising of this tangent.
Karol wrote: Why train then, why hire couches, whey learn the rules of your and other armies, tricks for the given meta or obscure rules interactions etc When all you need is to roll well.
Because it is all based on risk management, which takes thought and planning. You do your best to weigh the probabilities in your favour, but actions always carry a risk. Even fate dice carry that now, to an extent. Which dice roll do you guarantee in a phase? The number of shots? Do you take a risk there, so you can guarantee a high damage roll? It is all about playing the probabilities. Without risk, things can quickly become stale.
The best moments are when something unexpected happens. 9 times out of 10, Angron may stomp Straken. But that time that Straken wins will be the one that you remember for years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: Who the hell is hiring coaches for 40K?? Does that really happen. If so that is the stupidest thing I ever heard.
Not seen the youtubers and tournament players offering "coaching services", I guess?
No I have not….what a sorry state we are in.
Automatically Appended Next Post: How would anyone feel about bringing back random equipment tables that you pay the same for regardless of what you roll like we had in first edition? I enjoyed them, made designing your army into a game all of its own, I’m guessing it’s going to be “objectively” worse than choosing your equipment.
Andykp wrote: How would anyone feel about bringing back random equipment tables that you pay the same for regardless of what you roll like we had in first edition? I enjoyed them, made designing your army into a game all of its own, I’m guessing it’s going to be “objectively” worse than choosing your equipment.
Worst part of 6th/7th. Got no place in a game that is supposed to put two evenly matched forces against each other. I even despise every P&P game that forces this kind of crap during character creation.
Why train then, why hire couches, whey learn the rules of your and other armies, tricks for the given meta or obscure rules interactions etc When all you need is to roll well. I mean I guess it is a bit less work, because all you have to do is get a few sets of loaded dice to manipulate those results and learn how to pick the dice based on rougness and weight to properly roll required avarges without drawing too much suspicion. Still by this time, other games are better for it.
Guess if you have money to waste.
No point hiring coaches since gw games are easy enough to figureout on quick read.
Money spent on coach more effective buying models gw marketingdepartment wantsto sell you ifyou want to be exploited by gw marketing derpartment though.
Why train then, why hire couches, whey learn the rules of your and other armies, tricks for the given meta or obscure rules interactions etc When all you need is to roll well. I mean I guess it is a bit less work, because all you have to do is get a few sets of loaded dice to manipulate those results and learn how to pick the dice based on rougness and weight to properly roll required avarges without drawing too much suspicion. Still by this time, other games are better for it.
Guess if you have money to waste.
No point hiring coaches since gw games are easy enough to figureout on quick read.
Money spent on coach more effective buying models gw marketingdepartment wantsto sell you ifyou want to be exploited by gw marketing derpartment though.
Does seem crazy that anyone would want to compete in a game that is so unbalanced and objectively not good as a competitive game, let alone pay for coaching and stuff. Proper mind boggling!
Who the hell is hiring coaches for 40K?? Does that really happen. If so that is the stupidest thing I ever heard.
Sometime back in 9th one of the pro-players was selling coaching services. I remember reading about it here & seeing a link to thier site or something. Don't know how it worked out.
Andykp wrote: How would anyone feel about bringing back random equipment tables that you pay the same for regardless of what you roll like we had in first edition? I enjoyed them, made designing your army into a game all of its own, I’m guessing it’s going to be “objectively” worse than choosing your equipment.
God no. That would be a profoundly stupid thing to do, the rare change that manages to be bad for everyone: bad for competitive players, bad for narrative players, bad for anyone who cares about WYSIWYG. RNG replacing player agency is something best left in the past.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: Who the hell is hiring coaches for 40K?? Does that really happen. If so that is the stupidest thing I ever heard.
People with more money than sense. Pay a "coach" to copy/paste the latest netlist so you don't have to bother reading tournament results, pay a commission painter to build and paint it for you, then pay the coach to teach you how to execute all the buff stacking combos. It's the fastest way to go from zero to winning your local store's 5-person monthly tournament every time!
Also, people with weird parasocial relationships with "celebrities" who will pay money to have any interaction with them, no matter how minor or absurd.
Andykp wrote: How would anyone feel about bringing back random equipment tables that you pay the same for regardless of what you roll like we had in first edition? I enjoyed them, made designing your army into a game all of its own, I’m guessing it’s going to be “objectively” worse than choosing your equipment.
As someone that played Daemons in 6th and 7th... God no.
Especially not with all the wargear we have.
You'd have to be smoking crack to think random wargear is "objectively good", especially in a game where people have fun modeling their own guys.
"Sorry Steve the Tactical Marine, I know you're holding a Grav-cannon, but I rolled on the 'Heavy Weapons Table' and it's actually a Heavy Flamer for this battle"
What if GW handled weapons closer to the way Infinity does it for their special weapons. Every unit costs what it costs and can take any weapons they want as it is now, but certain weapons have a special weapon cost and each game size has a pre determined limit on special weapon cost. It would be a way to add some kind of inherent extra value to certain weapons and also be a limiting factor to how much fire power a list can bring, so also doubles down on making the game a little less lethal.
I think it would be easy to make an argument in favour of random wargear tables, at that point it becomes a subjective preference whether you prefer 5th ed pts or 1st ed pts. As soon as someone makes a logical argument in favour 10th ed PL I will concede that pts are not objectively better.
I think wargear lists are a bad idea for the most part, but I liked the personality table for Transcendent C'tan, it was very limited, optional and fit thematically with the unit. Custodes running out of storm shields seems silly and immersion-breaking, not to mention the time it takes.
Certainly the very busy PL players with 20 posts in this thread wouldn't have time for rolling on any tables /sarcasm.
Look at how much time people spend discussing lists on Dakka, it really isn't that weird to skip all of that to get the help of a professional. Supporting artists you like is also a cool thing to do, people being able to make a career out of the thing they love is cool. I pay for video games and books, but I've sent a donation to a gaming streamer once, I asked a question that I wanted answered about the game but I really just wanted to support someone whose videos I had watched and enjoyed. I'd rather patronage that and my local pizzeria (best I've had outside Italy) than support GW's inept and lazy designers when they gak on me by punishing me for not having Wraiths armed to da teef.
Zeruel13 wrote: What if GW handled weapons closer to the way Infinity does it for their special weapons. Every unit costs what it costs and can take any weapons they want as it is now, but certain weapons have a special weapon cost and each game size has a pre determined limit on special weapon cost. It would be a way to add some kind of inherent extra value to certain weapons and also be a limiting factor to how much fire power a list can bring, so also doubles down on making the game a little less lethal.
I'm sure it works great for infinity, but it doesn't allow the freedom 5th edition pts does, we had 100 degrees of nakedness-armed to da teef. If you want middle of the road amounts of wargear upgrades in your group then just agree to do so most of the time. If it's not your entire group that wants it then I think it's a bit unfair for the person who loves his naked Wraiths to be forced to have points that are locked out of being used on other units and for the person who loves thunder hammers it sucks that they can't get very many of them because they reach the upgrade ceiling, even if they'd be happy giving up a naked squad to get more upgrades.
Zeruel13 wrote: What if GW handled weapons closer to the way Infinity does it for their special weapons. Every unit costs what it costs and can take any weapons they want as it is now, but certain weapons have a special weapon cost and each game size has a pre determined limit on special weapon cost. It would be a way to add some kind of inherent extra value to certain weapons and also be a limiting factor to how much fire power a list can bring, so also doubles down on making the game a little less lethal.
Seems like a solution in need of a problem when the simpler traditional point system already covers all the things it would be trying to do.
End of the day, if you really believe the game is “objectively better” with points like they were in 9th edition, can any of you at least concede that some people still manage to enjoy the game with power levels or 10th edition style points?
I have fun playing Warpath Firefight so it would be best 40k is removed and all people play Firefight instead, I don't see the point why other would want to still play 40k instead of Firefight so don't see why that system should exist
/S
I have never argued for the removal of a points system system, quite the opposite, I have argued for the two system solution. That way both sides get what they want, most people who have argued in defence of power levels have said that.
I can manage to get my head around someone enjoying a different thing from me, I can imagine the current situation isn’t great for them. I am not just assuming that because I like a thing anyone else who says they don’t like it is either stupid or a liar. You don’t see that consideration or respect from the other side. The very fact that there are sides is stupid as feth.
If gw did a you turn and went back to the old way of having only points like they were before, I could live with that, like I can with this half way house we have now. I played for 7 editions before power levels were an option. It’s not make or break for me.
There are downsides to classic points, and downsides to power level. I can see that and say it without contradicting anything I have said on here before. All I am asking that the pro points side (power level deniers) open their minds a bit and see that what matters to them doesn’t to others. What is frustrating and has been since power levels came in is the dismissal of others experiences and rudeness that is directed at anyone who said as much as “l like them”.
We had a 3 system solution, Powerlevel, Points and Open Play
Those were replaced by "Points but worse than Powerlevel"
So were is the advantage that everyone must play now something that is in the middle of Powerlevel and Open Play?
That some still have fun? That the others have something to look forward to 11th? That we must accept that GW made the perfect game and casuals are told by competitive player that they are just haters if they cannot see how much more fun 40k is and should stop criticise and just play the game?
Andykp wrote: I can manage to get my head around someone enjoying a different thing from me, I can imagine the current situation isn’t great for them. I am not just assuming that because I like a thing anyone else who says they don’t like it is either stupid or a liar. You don’t see that consideration or respect from the other side. The very fact that there are sides is stupid as feth.
I don't say people are liars because they say they like PL, I say they are liars because they say it takes them seconds to make a PL list or because they say it takes them an hour to make a pts list or because they say you were allowed to switch wargear whenever you liked in PL.
I don't say people are stupid because they choose PL, the system might be garbage but using it can be a way to signal that you don't want people to min-max because it is so obviously unbalanced, while in pts it's more legitimate to spam Fire Prisms despite them being undercosted because that's what GW says the price is, but in PL you know the value of a thunder hammer is more than 0. That doesn't make the system good though. The fact that you don't miscalculate the PL doesn't matter when using PL in the first place means the numerical value of your army will be off unless you arm you dudes to da teef.
The PL side has treated every argument and inquiry as an affront to their religion, stop playing the victim.
The PL side has treated every argument and inquiry as an affront to their religion, stop playing the victim.
Very few people have taken any sort of "I support the official rules" or "GW knows what they're doing" or even said 10th edition's approach is balanced and flawless. There are no white knights here to unhorse, other than in the swaggery threads posted in support of 9th ed points. The question was and is "do we like the 10th ed approach to unit upgrades". The answer for some is "yes". We try to explain why... people try to prove opinions wrong (which is just dumb) and then can't comprehend why that approach is met with resistance.
If honed, and improved, say with treating sponsons like assault bikes (cost wise), and making all options more evenly compelling (at least situationally), this COULD serve as a system that just stays streamlined (which, to many people, is needed). The fixes would not need to be weird, over-contrived alterations.
Someone will yell this down with "that is points!" and I couldn't care less. If a few fixes to the 10th edition approach cross into someone's unicorn/snowflake definition of points, great. Stop trying to make every tweak binary. I've got no emotional investment in one label over the other. Deathwatch is kinda hosed by this approach, and I concede that. They should have just Grey Knighted them and moved on. Ditto with main guns on LRBTs.
Everyone I know who spends a large part of their hobby focus on bringing in new players in North America, likes the potential for the changes. You can argue all you want about how long it takes to make a list vs "PL" and you may be 100% right, unfortunately with sales and encouraging new player buy-in, their perception is reality. Many wargames have headed to cards that are largely self-contained for the tabletop. GW is mimicking this because it has had success for others.
You can insist they did it poorly, I agree. But when asked "do I like the approach", I say "yes" (and I hope they get better at it and address many obvious flaws as the codices release without undoing the good by bloating everything in the process).
The PL side has treated every argument and inquiry as an affront to their religion, stop playing the victim.
Very few people have taken any sort of "I support the official rules" or "GW knows what they're doing" or even said 10th edition's approach is balanced and flawless.
You don't need to say that 10th is flawless to say something wrong. Saying that you like PL and therefore PL is not objectively worse is silly.
There are no white knights here to unhorse
Except for all the white knights that say that GW employees cannot be criticized for failing to do their job and the only acceptable answer to a lack of quality is money grubbers and tight schedules or a silent majority like 10th ed PL. These are veteran game designers that need to learn or let the community do the pts for them and then simply publish the results, doing PL is not good enough.
The question was and is "do we like the 10th ed approach to unit upgrades". The answer for some is "yes". We try to explain why... people try to prove opinions wrong (which is just dumb) and then can't comprehend why that approach is met with resistance.
It's not the opinions that are proven wrong, but rather the facts backing those opinions up. If you say you like PL because it lets you make a list in 59 seconds and it takes you 59 minutes to make a pts list then you are lying. If you say that you like PL because it allows you to change your wargear after selecting the mission and seeing your opponent's list you're lying. You can just say you like writing down your lists by hand and would rather cut the math for list building in half and save a minute that's fine, people's subjective preference and lack of standards for how balanced games need to be for you to have fun is 100% cool. Just don't come here and say that PL is a good system or a better system, it's clearly not and GW not knowing this is what has led to us only have PL in 10th. Do you think all 60% that answered they don't like 10th's approach cannot have fun with 10th edition? No, that'd be ridiculous. They just want sponsons to cost pts, there really is nothing to be opset at about that. When I say that a ruler with millimetre marks in addition to centimetre marks is objectively better you don't have to get mad because you use a ruler for your wood shop that only has centimetre marks and no millimetre marks.
So basically the endless circular argument is just that this method is better for getting newer players into the game.
But PL already existed previously.
So why ditch points entirely and force everyone onto PL-but-called-points. You could always introduce the game using PL before and everyone else could use points.
This is similar to the arguments surrounding easy modes in games, specifically games made by Fromsoftware, and how they must be included in order to facilitate newer players, completely disregarding that by implementing such mechanics could often easily damage the experience for every other player. The best example of this is in New N' Tasty, the remake of Oddworld: Abe's Exoddus. In that remake they added difficulty modes, the easiest one having a health system so the player wouldn't just die in one hit. To facilitate this they made the triangle button a health display. The issue is, in the original the triangle button was used for making short hops/jumps, which is very important in a cinematic platformer where exact movements are crucial. You could still do the hop/jump, but now it was this awkward directional move button press + the jump button at the same time. Anyone who has tried to do a kick in Dark Souls knows how finnicky such a move actually is over just pressing one button.
So, to accommodate "newer" players, the entire control scheme of the game is completely fethed. And a person who wants to play on Normal (the actual main intended difficulty) or Hard is stuck with terrible jump controls and a now useless triangle button, because you don't get health in those modes so the triangle button prompt has nothing to show you. There were other solutions they could have done here, including un-used buttons on the controller for the health display, but they didn't. They chose the worst one to try and facilitate new players but just ruined the experience for everyone, new players included as they'd quickly get frustrated with some of the jumping puzzles/segments because of the ass controls.
So a new player in 40k might might find the game easier to access, but if they stick around for long enough and slowly get better at the game, gain knowledge on it, get deeper into the mechanics, how well do you really think they're going to view the current points system. Especially as some of their early choices for weapon loadouts, which were just done on the basis of looking cool, get more and more obviously bad to them as the accrue more experience. You can be as casual as you like, but only the most braindead beer and pretzel chucking dice at table trogs will claim to unaffected by trap choices and ultra-bad units. Everyone has a certain level of tolerance for that kind of thing and for example even the most casual, inexperienced Aeldari players in 9th weren't playing Dark Reapers.
And if this is all for new players, then how do you explain 9th and its supposed complexity bringing in more new blood than ever before and being, by all metrics, the most successful edition they'd ever launched. Can't just blame the pandemic lockdowns here either; tons of new people were still getting into the game in 2022.
It’s a continuation of GW wanting 40K to be everything and nothing all at once.
As well as very poor management of the game and setting as a whole.
Things like knights and flyers being pushed into the game without good planing, I think has lead to a lot of issues we now are dealing with.
Like this and the way they are dealing with points and the way army’s are constructed in game.
Rules layering without any thought to the meta game as well is all over the place.
The game isn’t new player friendly in any way and I don’t think these points do anything much to help.
Each of its potential advantages come with issues that GW didn’t bother to care about.
Bosskelot wrote: And if this is all for new players, then how do you explain 9th and its supposed complexity bringing in more new blood than ever before and being, by all metrics, the most successful edition they'd ever launched. Can't just blame the pandemic lockdowns here either; tons of new people were still getting into the game in 2022.
I thought 9th was the best edition, but there were constant complaints that it was too complicated/too bloated/too frequently updated, and so new/infrequent players couldn't follow. I'm not surprised GW has listened to them.
I think PL/no wargear costs is an inferior way to balance the game to having points because it gives GW one less lever to pull. But late 9th shows you can have a (relatively) balanced and fun game with it being applied to certain factions. For example we had that long thread about Marines - and while I think they were top tier, I don't they broke the game.
Fixed unit sizes could, potentially at least, give a more balanced system than when the optimal position is to shave a few models from a max squad to then buy other units. (I.E. take 3 units of 8 and a character rather than 10). Not sure this is more fun for players exactly for the reasons mentioned. I.E. you discover you are 25~ points over and can't then just leave a model or two behind. But in terms of balance, saying this is either a unit of 5 or 10 should give you a clearer idea of what this unit is, and so it should in turn be easier to decide on a points value relative to everything else.
Unfortunately 10th isn't remotely balanced, because GW don't seem to have thought about it. I don't really care about what Jervis Johnson wrote circa 2002. I think its a far more legitimate complaint to talk about Stu Black giving interviews where he said "we've gone through every datasheet" (or something to that effect).
Technically that's true I guess. But this was clearly a rush job, without any sort of consistency across the factions. You've talked about this elsewhere - some factions/units moved across from 9th to 10th without much change. Some got reductions in damage output - losing attacks, strength and/or AP - but maybe got a bit cheaper as a consequence. Others got nerfed unto the ground because screw you I guess.
"PLification" is not why Eldar and GSC are at 70%~ win rates (after you take out mirrors) and DG/LoV are struggling to maintain 30%. Its because the points are massively wrong relative to the capabilities of said factions. I think if points were better, and factions were therefore nearer the supposed desirable 45/55 win rate split - with say no worse than 40/60 for any given faction matchup - then there would be a lot less hostility and willingness to accept "nuPoints".
Lobokai wrote: Everyone I know who spends a large part of their hobby focus on bringing in new players in North America, likes the potential for the changes.
That's an interesting thing to say given that you had a 5x better retention rate with X-Wing and its standard point system. It sounds like the point system is not the issue but you're desperately hoping that anything will fix 40k's retention issues and focusing on minor details like the point system lets you avoid the hard work of trying to make the rest of the game newbie-friendly. But in reality two things are still true no matter how much you ignore them:
1) The point system should never be relevant in a new player's experience. All of their learning games should be played with pre-made forces where the teacher has done all the work up front and the newbie can focus 100% on the on-table game. Building a list should not be introduced until well after the point where the newbie's first impression has been formed and they've made some purchasing decisions. You're doing a poor job of selling 40k by introducing the wrong stuff too early in the process.
2) A slightly simpler point system is slightly easier to learn up front but can have catastrophic consequences for player retention later. In the traditional point system an excited newbie who jumps straight into building their models without knowing what options are best won't have a perfect list but at least they will have appropriate point costs to balance it out somewhat and minimize the damage. In a PL system a newbie who builds the wrong options can be harshly punished for it, being stuck with a clearly sub-optimal choice with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. And once they find out their expensive models are wasted and suitable only for the trash can they're very often angry about it and far less likely to keep buying.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: I think if points were better, and factions were therefore nearer the supposed desirable 45/55 win rate split - with say no worse than 40/60 for any given faction matchup - then there would be a lot less hostility and willingness to accept "nuPoints".
Maybe. The system would still suck and be obviously inferior but maybe people would tolerate bad design if it was the only instance of bad design instead of merely one layer of bad design on a giant pile of it. But I don't think it would be all that much of a difference. Faction win rates only consider external balance while PL's defects are about internal balance. Addressing external balance doesn't do anything to touch the frustration over LRBT sponsons, mandatory plasma pistols and thunder hammers, etc.
(The difference between external and internal balance is why GW loves faction win rate as their primary metric, it hides a lot of major balance problems and makes them look better.)
1) The point system should never be relevant in a new player's experience. All of their learning games should be played with pre-made forces where the teacher has done all the work up front and the newbie can focus 100% on the on-table game. Building a list should not be introduced until well after the point where the newbie's first impression has been formed and they've made some purchasing decisions.
I know that stores and GW would love that. Noob spends 700-1000$ on an army, and then starts to learn how the real game looks like, which given the number of trap choices, and even trap armies means that the potential that he will have to spend another 700-1000$ to fix or get a proper army is huge. I am not sure how many players would stay in the game, after finding out that they spend so much money on a non functional models though. GW games already have horrible retention rate, so maybe that aspect is unimportant.
its a circular argument, however its also a tad academic as I can't see the "wargear is free!" changing until 11th roles round
to fix it now would mean making codex units significantly cheaper to put points in for wargear and then you start to get a lot of issues as you have some armies paying for stuff and some not until all have a codex. I mean they could do it, but with the direction GW have been going I highly doubt they will
Karol wrote: I know that stores and GW would love that. Noob spends 700-1000$ on an army, and then starts to learn how the real game looks like, which given the number of trap choices, and even trap armies means that the potential that he will have to spend another 700-1000$ to fix or get a proper army is huge. I am not sure how many players would stay in the game, after finding out that they spend so much money on a non functional models though. GW games already have horrible retention rate, so maybe that aspect is unimportant.
Teaching games are played with borrowed models before the new player buys anything. Nobody is spending $700-1000 on an army before they've played their first game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
leopard wrote: its a circular argument, however its also a tad academic as I can't see the "wargear is free!" changing until 11th roles round
to fix it now would mean making codex units significantly cheaper to put points in for wargear and then you start to get a lot of issues as you have some armies paying for stuff and some not until all have a codex. I mean they could do it, but with the direction GW have been going I highly doubt they will
The whole purpose of making a separate points document was so that point changes don't require updating the codex. GW could overhaul the entire system and put up a new points document tomorrow if they wanted. The only thing blocking them is their own stubborn unwillingness to admit that PL was a stupid idea.
Karol wrote: I know that stores and GW would love that. Noob spends 700-1000$ on an army, and then starts to learn how the real game looks like, which given the number of trap choices, and even trap armies means that the potential that he will have to spend another 700-1000$ to fix or get a proper army is huge. I am not sure how many players would stay in the game, after finding out that they spend so much money on a non functional models though. GW games already have horrible retention rate, so maybe that aspect is unimportant.
Teaching games are played with borrowed models before the new player buys anything. Nobody is spending $700-1000 on an army before they've played their first game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
leopard wrote: its a circular argument, however its also a tad academic as I can't see the "wargear is free!" changing until 11th roles round
to fix it now would mean making codex units significantly cheaper to put points in for wargear and then you start to get a lot of issues as you have some armies paying for stuff and some not until all have a codex. I mean they could do it, but with the direction GW have been going I highly doubt they will
The whole purpose of making a separate points document was so that point changes don't require updating the codex. GW could overhaul the entire system and put up a new points document tomorrow if they wanted. The only thing blocking them is their own stubborn unwillingness to admit that PL was a stupid idea.
well that and either trying to have the same bit of kit cost the same army wide, or have a huge document to have all the different "identical wargear with a different name" stuff listed under each item
could it be done, probably, doubt it will because as you note its a stubbornness issue, they did with with AoS1 and had to roll back, they tried with "PL" on 8th etc
No "probably" about it, it's literally what GW did in 9th with the point documents. Each unit had all of its options listed with individual point costs and it worked just fine. The only thing standing in the way of going back to that system is GW's stubborn refusal to admit that PL sucks.
No "probably" about it, it's literally what GW did in 9th with the point documents. Each unit had all of its options listed with individual point costs and it worked just fine. The only thing standing in the way of going back to that system is GW's stubborn refusal to admit that PL sucks.
I mean, we've not even hit the first formal points review, no books out yet. Its not 100% they won't introduce gear costs in a codex until we see one, although neither outcome would surprise.
But the point (lol) is that the edition isn't even 3 months old, they've not ruled out anything explicitly nor agreed to anything. They could change yet.
No "probably" about it, it's literally what GW did in 9th with the point documents. Each unit had all of its options listed with individual point costs and it worked just fine. The only thing standing in the way of going back to that system is GW's stubborn refusal to admit that PL sucks.
its basically how every codex and armybook used to work
for %REASONS% they decided to drop that for the indexes used for 10th 40k's launch, it seems unlikely they would do that if they then planned to put individual points back
especially since at least the first three/four codexes are likely already on order for printing or even the first one/two in containers on their way back
so if they have points that was the intention, if they lack points and its a pure "you need to download this" it suggests panic
the main risk they really have is some of the larger event organisers coming out with a parallel point system (possible?) and they end up losing control over it through their own refusal to do it right
End of the day, if you really believe the game is “objectively better” with points like they were in 9th edition, can any of you at least concede that some people still manage to enjoy the game with power levels or 10th edition style points?
I have fun playing Warpath Firefight so it would be best 40k is removed and all people play Firefight instead, I don't see the point why other would want to still play 40k instead of Firefight so don't see why that system should exist
/S
I have never argued for the removal of a points system system, quite the opposite, I have argued for the two system solution. That way both sides get what they want, most people who have argued in defence of power levels have said that.
I can manage to get my head around someone enjoying a different thing from me, I can imagine the current situation isn’t great for them. I am not just assuming that because I like a thing anyone else who says they don’t like it is either stupid or a liar. You don’t see that consideration or respect from the other side. The very fact that there are sides is stupid as feth.
If gw did a you turn and went back to the old way of having only points like they were before, I could live with that, like I can with this half way house we have now. I played for 7 editions before power levels were an option. It’s not make or break for me.
There are downsides to classic points, and downsides to power level. I can see that and say it without contradicting anything I have said on here before. All I am asking that the pro points side (power level deniers) open their minds a bit and see that what matters to them doesn’t to others. What is frustrating and has been since power levels came in is the dismissal of others experiences and rudeness that is directed at anyone who said as much as “l like them”.
We had a 3 system solution, Powerlevel, Points and Open Play
Those were replaced by "Points but worse than Powerlevel"
So were is the advantage that everyone must play now something that is in the middle of Powerlevel and Open Play?
That some still have fun? That the others have something to look forward to 11th? That we must accept that GW made the perfect game and casuals are told by competitive player that they are just haters if they cannot see how much more fun 40k is and should stop criticise and just play the game?
Where is the advantage?? God knows! doesn’t seem to be one, it’s worse than power levels for me and worse for tournament players points wise. If you read he post of mine you quoted you will find the 10th system isn’t something I wanted or called for. Bring back power levels and points I say. Two state solution all the way.
The PL side has treated every argument and inquiry as an affront to their religion, stop playing the victim.
Very few people have taken any sort of "I support the official rules" or "GW knows what they're doing" or even said 10th edition's approach is balanced and flawless.
You don't need to say that 10th is flawless to say something wrong. Saying that you like PL and therefore PL is not objectively worse is silly.
There are no white knights here to unhorse
Except for all the white knights that say that GW employees cannot be criticized for failing to do their job and the only acceptable answer to a lack of quality is money grubbers and tight schedules or a silent majority like 10th ed PL. These are veteran game designers that need to learn or let the community do the pts for them and then simply publish the results, doing PL is not good enough.
The question was and is "do we like the 10th ed approach to unit upgrades". The answer for some is "yes". We try to explain why... people try to prove opinions wrong (which is just dumb) and then can't comprehend why that approach is met with resistance.
It's not the opinions that are proven wrong, but rather the facts backing those opinions up. If you say you like PL because it lets you make a list in 59 seconds and it takes you 59 minutes to make a pts list then you are lying. If you say that you like PL because it allows you to change your wargear after selecting the mission and seeing your opponent's list you're lying. You can just say you like writing down your lists by hand and would rather cut the math for list building in half and save a minute that's fine, people's subjective preference and lack of standards for how balanced games need to be for you to have fun is 100% cool. Just don't come here and say that PL is a good system or a better system, it's clearly not and GW not knowing this is what has led to us only have PL in 10th. Do you think all 60% that answered they don't like 10th's approach cannot have fun with 10th edition? No, that'd be ridiculous. They just want sponsons to cost pts, there really is nothing to be opset at about that. When I say that a ruler with millimetre marks in addition to centimetre marks is objectively better you don't have to get mad because you use a ruler for your wood shop that only has centimetre marks and no millimetre marks.
No one is getting mad about points existing or people wanting them. We are getting mad at how rude and obnoxious some people are being in response people saying that they like something. No one is saying PL are “better” than points, it just it works better for some people. To use your ruler analogy (because we really needed ANOTHER stupid analogy), what markings the ruler has on don’t matter if you don’t use it measure things and just use it to draw straight lines.
If the last 80 odd pages are a anything to go by this will get a response saying that pl aren’t drawing straight lines but are in fact poking your eyes out with the ruler or something equally stupid.
And to start calling anyone who enjoys the game a white knight is internet banality at its worst. I love 40K, that’s why I have played it for 30+ years, but I can criticise it and have in this and other threads.
And to start calling anyone who enjoys the game a white knight is internet banality at its worst. I love 40K, that’s why I have played it for 30+ years, but I can criticise it and have in this and other threads.
You misunderstand, you're a white Knight if you suggest or accept any possibility other than the rules designers having a room temp IQ.
And to start calling anyone who enjoys the game a white knight is internet banality at its worst. I love 40K, that’s why I have played it for 30+ years, but I can criticise it and have in this and other threads.
You misunderstand, you're a white Knight if you suggest or accept any possibility other than the rules designers having a room temp IQ.
Or maybe the designers are good and management is enforcing unreasonable demands.
You misunderstand, you're a white Knight if you suggest or accept any possibility other than the rules designers having a room temp IQ.
This is not an appropriate way to speak about other human beings. You can dislike the state of the game. You can be frustrated at what seem like obvious errors, or things that 'should' have been done differently. But in a company the size of GW, there are any number of factors that affect the quality of the final product that are entirely outside the control of the people writing the rules.
By all means be critical of the end product. But you can do so without insulting people. It does nothing positive for the discussion, and just reinforces the perception of toxicity in the community. Be better.
Andykp wrote: I can manage to get my head around someone enjoying a different thing from me, I can imagine the current situation isn’t great for them. I am not just assuming that because I like a thing anyone else who says they don’t like it is either stupid or a liar. You don’t see that consideration or respect from the other side. The very fact that there are sides is stupid as feth.
I don't say people are liars because they say they like PL, I say they are liars because they say it takes them seconds to make a PL list or because they say it takes them an hour to make a pts list or because they say you were allowed to switch wargear whenever you liked in PL.
So is this like having your answer rejected for not phrasing it in the form of a question on Jeopardy?
If I were to leave out specific #s & just say that "I like it because it takes me less time using PL than it did when using pts." would you still claim I'm lying?
Yes, because (as someone who has used both systems) it's not actually true.
Having to Tetris-fit your army together is slower than having to choose what minor options to fill or drop.
Now if you don't Tetris-fit your army together, that's fine - but you'll be playing an imbalanced game, at which point you might as well just throw together what you intend to take and get roughly there in a points system too without fiddling with the details.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes, because (as someone who has used both systems) it's not actually true.
...for you.
Different people process things differently, and what's easier for you isn't necessarily the easiest option for someone else. So when someone says that they find it easier to do something in a way you personally don't find easiest, it's generally more productive to assume that they're just, you know, not you, rather than that they're lying.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes, because (as someone who has used both systems) it's not actually true.
...for you.
Different people process things differently, and what's easier for you isn't necessarily the easiest option for someone else. So when someone says that they find it easier to do something in a way you personally don't find easiest, it's generally more productive to assume that they're just, you know, not you, rather than that they're lying.
I agree with this ultimately, but I think that's been raised earlier in the 80 page thread - the "it's subjective" argument against it.
Seeing it again in this context makes me believe that they genuinely think it is a good objective reason for PL, giving it the appearance of having at least some objective redeeming qualities.
I don't think anyone here is contesting that PL feels better or is subjectively faster for folks or whatever. Just its objective merits and demerits.
Edit:
I mean, I think it is fundsmentally impossible to accuse someone of lying about subjective things (or at least, is folly to do so) so perhaps there has been a miscommunication, but my understanding is that there was a claim that PL was (objectively) faster and that's a reason to (subjectively) like it.
And in that context I think it is worth pointing out that PL is not (objectively) faster at all.
Unit1126PLL wrote: ... but my understanding is that there was a claim that PL was (objectively) faster and that's a reason to (subjectively) like it.
And in that context I think it is worth pointing out that PL is not (objectively) faster at all.
Based on what data? The argument here seems to be more over the definition of 'objective' rather than which system people actually find faster. But 'objectively faster' doesn't inherently mean 'faster for everyone'...
If I personally can put together a list faster using PL than using points, then, for me, PLs are objectively faster. The fact that you may have a different result doesn't change that... The speed difference is measurable, and if it exists, then it is objective fact.
Yeah. some people here say points are “objectively better at everything,” which is untrue.
If even one person finds PL easier than points, then points are worse there. I do agree that points are better (or at least able to better) at balance than PL… but not everyone values that super highly.
JNAProductions wrote: Yeah. some people here say points are “objectively better at everything,” which is untrue.
If even one person finds PL easier than points, then points are worse there. I do agree that points are better (or at least able to better) at balance than PL… but not everyone values that super highly.
Well, people are saying points are objectively better at everything that can be objectively measured...
(Which is inherent in the term objectively)
To say that that is untrue is a lie... Or if it isn't, proof is needed.
But why only two systems? This is something neither you nor any of the other PL defenders have managed to answer. Why shouldn't we have five different point systems, or ten systems? Why not have every possible system that anyone has ever thought of so that every player can be happy?
To use your ruler analogy (because we really needed ANOTHER stupid analogy), what markings the ruler has on don’t matter if you don’t use it measure things and just use it to draw straight lines.
That's an excellent analogy. You claim you just want a straight edge to draw lines and the markings don't matter. I offer you a ruler with no markings at all that costs half as much. Not only do you reject something that should be a clear improvement if your claim about "I only draw straight lines" is accurate, you insist that it's such an obviously stupid idea that I must be trolling for suggesting it.
Power levels were great for getting new people to start playing. When I restarted back in 8th my collection was minimal and I just wanted to try things out. Power level let me get a feel for the game without having to fuss about stuff I didn’t understand anyway. Later on I switched to using points more often, but against new players (often with my models) I’d always go PL just so that we could make a list on the spot and get going. Spending 10 min explaining every point and detail would overwhelm new players. I couldn’t even get them to care about relics and such at first.
In any case, PL coexisting with points doesn’t hurt anything so the massive disdain for PL is largely irrational IMO, and I don’t know why people care so much. The current system is bad, sure, but the previous system was fine.
End of the day, if you really believe the game is “objectively better” with points like they were in 9th edition, can any of you at least concede that some people still manage to enjoy the game with power levels or 10th edition style points?
I have fun playing Warpath Firefight so it would be best 40k is removed and all people play Firefight instead, I don't see the point why other would want to still play 40k instead of Firefight so don't see why that system should exist /S
I have never argued for the removal of a points system system, quite the opposite, I have argued for the two system solution. That way both sides get what they want, most people who have argued in defence of power levels have said that.
I can manage to get my head around someone enjoying a different thing from me, I can imagine the current situation isn’t great for them. I am not just assuming that because I like a thing anyone else who says they don’t like it is either stupid or a liar. You don’t see that consideration or respect from the other side. The very fact that there are sides is stupid as feth.
If gw did a you turn and went back to the old way of having only points like they were before, I could live with that, like I can with this half way house we have now. I played for 7 editions before power levels were an option. It’s not make or break for me.
There are downsides to classic points, and downsides to power level. I can see that and say it without contradicting anything I have said on here before. All I am asking that the pro points side (power level deniers) open their minds a bit and see that what matters to them doesn’t to others. What is frustrating and has been since power levels came in is the dismissal of others experiences and rudeness that is directed at anyone who said as much as “l like them”.
We had a 3 system solution, Powerlevel, Points and Open Play Those were replaced by "Points but worse than Powerlevel"
So were is the advantage that everyone must play now something that is in the middle of Powerlevel and Open Play? That some still have fun? That the others have something to look forward to 11th? That we must accept that GW made the perfect game and casuals are told by competitive player that they are just haters if they cannot see how much more fun 40k is and should stop criticise and just play the game?
Where is the advantage?? God knows! doesn’t seem to be one, it’s worse than power levels for me and worse for tournament players points wise. If you read he post of mine you quoted you will find the 10th system isn’t something I wanted or called for. Bring back power levels and points I say. Two state solution all the way.
GW saved time on balancing their game and writing numbers down, I hope the community will make it clear that's not good enough, I think you should write GW and ask for your two-way solution, at least if GW changes nuPoints to PL we can stop having the argument over whether 10th really uses PL.
The PL side has treated every argument and inquiry as an affront to their religion, stop playing the victim.
Very few people have taken any sort of "I support the official rules" or "GW knows what they're doing" or even said 10th edition's approach is balanced and flawless.
You don't need to say that 10th is flawless to say something wrong. Saying that you like PL and therefore PL is not objectively worse is silly.
There are no white knights here to unhorse
Except for all the white knights that say that GW employees cannot be criticized for failing to do their job and the only acceptable answer to a lack of quality is money grubbers and tight schedules or a silent majority like 10th ed PL. These are veteran game designers that need to learn or let the community do the pts for them and then simply publish the results, doing PL is not good enough.
The question was and is "do we like the 10th ed approach to unit upgrades". The answer for some is "yes". We try to explain why... people try to prove opinions wrong (which is just dumb) and then can't comprehend why that approach is met with resistance.
It's not the opinions that are proven wrong, but rather the facts backing those opinions up. If you say you like PL because it lets you make a list in 59 seconds and it takes you 59 minutes to make a pts list then you are lying. If you say that you like PL because it allows you to change your wargear after selecting the mission and seeing your opponent's list you're lying. You can just say you like writing down your lists by hand and would rather cut the math for list building in half and save a minute that's fine, people's subjective preference and lack of standards for how balanced games need to be for you to have fun is 100% cool. Just don't come here and say that PL is a good system or a better system, it's clearly not and GW not knowing this is what has led to us only have PL in 10th. Do you think all 60% that answered they don't like 10th's approach cannot have fun with 10th edition? No, that'd be ridiculous. They just want sponsons to cost pts, there really is nothing to be opset at about that. When I say that a ruler with millimetre marks in addition to centimetre marks is objectively better you don't have to get mad because you use a ruler for your wood shop that only has centimetre marks and no millimetre marks.
No one is getting mad about points existing or people wanting them. We are getting mad at how rude and obnoxious some people are being in response people saying that they like something. No one is saying PL are “better” than points, it just it works better for some people. To use your ruler analogy (because we really needed ANOTHER stupid analogy), what markings the ruler has on don’t matter if you don’t use it measure things and just use it to draw straight lines.
If the last 80 odd pages are a anything to go by this will get a response saying that pl aren’t drawing straight lines but are in fact poking your eyes out with the ruler or something equally stupid.
And to start calling anyone who enjoys the game a white knight is internet banality at its worst. I love 40K, that’s why I have played it for 30+ years, but I can criticise it and have in this and other threads.
GW have been mad about pts existing for a long time. I conjecture that a small vocal minority of PL players convinced GW that sponsons don't need to cost pts and the conversation about balance in 9th got focussed too much around external balance because of GW's stupid 45-55 heuristic so while the PL datasheets of Guard and SM had the possibility of breaking the game, they ended up not doing that so everyone thought it was fine, especially because it was so later in the edition and we knew 10th was coming in 6-12 months so there wasn't a big enough riot. Do you know how rude it is to lie to people and not apologize when you're caught in a lie? Do you know how obnoxious it is to claim to be shouted down while doing that exact thing yourself? Nobody has called anyone who enjoys 40k a white knight, see this is the strawmanning gak you've been putting out. People that think the company or the people who work there are beyond criticism are white knights. If you like Justin Bieber you're fine, if you defend Justin Bieber spitting on a fan you're a white knight.
Tyel wrote: "PLification" is not why Eldar and GSC are at 70%~ win rates (after you take out mirrors) and DG/LoV are struggling to maintain 30%. Its because the points are massively wrong relative to the capabilities of said factions. I think if points were better, and factions were therefore nearer the supposed desirable 45/55 win rate split - with say no worse than 40/60 for any given faction matchup - then there would be a lot less hostility and willingness to accept "nuPoints".
the difference here is or the problem we have with the arguments is that "a system cannot work at all" is mixed with "GW suck at making games"
GW is not able to write a good game no matter what system they use and instead of targeting GW as a company trying to sell a bad product, people target the default system.
that matched play points did not work was not a points problem but is a GW problem.
that nu-points are not working is not a points problem but a GW problem
that Universal Special Rules did not work is not a USR problem but a GW problem
that 40k is not balanced is not because a game with so many units can never be balanced but because GW decided to add too many units
so yes, Powerlevel can work if done right, yes granular points are better than PL if done right
problem is just GW cannot or does not want to do it right, so best would be to stop playing their games until the get the message that they need to put some effort into it rather than making a new one every 3 years
Dandelion wrote: If I’m having fun, and you’re trying to stop me then yes it is valid.
You're trying to stop me from having fun, do you not see a problem with that?
I would like to point out, no one wants to stop granular points from existing.
There’s folk who want PL in addition to points. Whereas there’s lots of points fanatics who want PL gone entirely.
H.B.M.C. wrote: "Why do you care so much?" is a terrible non-argument.
If I’m having fun, and you’re trying to stop me then yes it is valid.
And besides, I find it curious that you would treat this as a debate anyway. I’m not trying to change your mind, I’m just suggesting that people should consider the importance (or lack thereof) of all this back and forth. Some people like things a certain way, and berating them or calling them liars is just unnecessary. Maybe granular points are objectively better, but people would need to discover that themselves instead of being told as much.
JNAProductions wrote: I would like to point out, no one wants to stop granular points from existing.
There’s folk who want PL in addition to points. Whereas there’s lots of points fanatics who want PL gone entirely.
My fun requires a game with a single unified point system and the two system "solution" is taking away my fun. Why is that any less valid than a claim that the 30 seconds saved in writing a list with PL is essential for fun?
H.B.M.C. wrote: "Why do you care so much?" is a terrible non-argument.
If I’m having fun, and you’re trying to stop me then yes it is valid.
And besides, I find it curious that you would treat this as a debate anyway. I’m not trying to change your mind, I’m just suggesting that people should consider the importance (or lack thereof) of all this back and forth. Some people like things a certain way, and berating them or calling them liars is just unnecessary. Maybe granular points are objectively better, but people would need to discover that themselves instead of being told as much.
When the calculator company starts releasing calculators that treat pi as 3,2 I have a problem. I'm not going to say that the calculator company doesn't have the ultimate and largest responsibility to use the right number for pi, but trying to convince vocal advocates of using 3,2 with logical arguments also makes sense.
Dandelion wrote: If I’m having fun, and you’re trying to stop me then yes it is valid.
You're trying to stop me from having fun, do you not see a problem with that?
I would like to point out, no one wants to stop granular points from existing. There’s folk who want PL in addition to points. Whereas there’s lots of points fanatics who want PL gone entirely.
It has already been established there are PL fanatics that want anyone who don't like PL gone because they're playing the game wrong by caring about whether sponsons cost pts. The number of people that want PL gone is tiny, if GW agreed to never get rid of pts I wouldn't advocate for getting rid of PL, but I guessed right when I said GW would like to scrap points entirely. You're free to believe that no amount of people saying "I like PL I think pts takes too long" is going to change the least bit for GW, we'll just have to agree to disagree until we get some word from GW on why they went with this and whether they looked at the number of PL players and people's opinions on the system. We have seen with both the changes during 8th and 9th and especially changes for 10th that GW is very receptive to player feedback, this is why I think it'd be nice if we could cause a wave of support for getting pts back. Strategically it would have been a better idea to argue in favour of the 2-system solution the entire way, I'll have to take that into consideration in the future whether it is worth getting hung up on arguing about objectivism and logic.
Dandelion wrote: If I’m having fun, and you’re trying to stop me then yes it is valid.
You're trying to stop me from having fun, do you not see a problem with that?
I would like to point out, no one wants to stop granular points from existing.
There’s folk who want PL in addition to points. Whereas there’s lots of points fanatics who want PL gone entirely.
It has already been established there are PL fanatics that want anyone who don't like PL gone because they're playing the game wrong by caring about whether sponsons cost pts. The number of people that want PL gone is tiny, if GW agreed to never get rid of pts I wouldn't advocate for getting rid of PL, but I guessed right when I said GW would like to scrap points entirely. You're free to believe that no amount of people saying "I like PL I think pts takes too long" is going to change the least bit for GW, we'll just have to agree to disagree until we get some word from GW on why they went with this and whether they looked at the number of PL players and people's opinions on the system. We have seen with both the changes during 8th and 9th and especially changes for 10th that GW is very receptive to player feedback, this is why I think it'd be nice if we could cause a wave of support for getting pts back. Strategically it would have been a better idea to argue in favour of the 2-system solution the entire way, I'll have to take that into consideration in the future whether it is worth getting hung up on arguing about objectivism and logic.
Who here, in this thread or forum at large, has advocated for the removal of points?
When the calculator company starts releasing calculators that treat pi as 3,2 I have a problem. I'm not going to say that the calculator company doesn't have the ultimate and largest responsibility to use the right number for pi, but trying to convince vocal advocates of using 3,2 with logical arguments also makes sense.
Person A says pi is 3.14
Person B says pi is 3.14159
Both are technically wrong but no one really cares. The extra precision from the additional digits is quickly lost when you start using it on real projects.
I round pi to 3 occasionally for quick mental math. I also occasionally used PL for quick matchups. Not always, but it helped sometimes.
For the record, I am against the current point system.
H.B.M.C. wrote: "Why do you care so much?" is a terrible non-argument.
If I’m having fun, and you’re trying to stop me then yes it is valid.
No-one is.
But removing points and replacing it with PL is actively stunting my enjoyment of the game.
I'll refer back to my previous post in the thread; ruining the game experience of everyone else to accommodate newer players/other small minorities isn't good games design. PL was fine when it was an option. It actively ruins the game and will keep on causing problems over the edition now that it is the only option. Recently I had to break the bad news to someone who bought a large Aeldari army second-hand; all of those shuriken weapons glued down to vehicles and such are now an active detriment because you're being charged for bright lances instead.
JNAProductions wrote: Who here, in this thread or forum at large, has advocated for the removal of points?
just read the first pages, there are again some in the middle of the topic but harder to find.
thing is, points are already removed, so defending the new system, that removed points, as superior is identical to advocating for the removal of points
JNAProductions wrote: Who here, in this thread or forum at large, has advocated for the removal of points?
just read the first pages, there are again some in the middle of the topic but harder to find.
thing is, points are already removed, so defending the new system, that removed points, as superior is identical to advocating for the removal of points
There's 2 people in the first 3 pages, who had fairly bad takes on it in honesty, although they did mention "points are poorly implemented", which is not only a weak argument but the same one used against the current system ironically.
But thank you insaniak for stepping in to cool it off.
Unit1126PLL wrote: ... but my understanding is that there was a claim that PL was (objectively) faster and that's a reason to (subjectively) like it.
And in that context I think it is worth pointing out that PL is not (objectively) faster at all.
Based on what data? The argument here seems to be more over the definition of 'objective' rather than which system people actually find faster. But 'objectively faster' doesn't inherently mean 'faster for everyone'...
If I personally can put together a list faster using PL than using points, then, for me, PLs are objectively faster. The fact that you may have a different result doesn't change that... The speed difference is measurable, and if it exists, then it is objective fact.
2 issues with that claim. 1. That may well be dependant upon the army and collection you own. Armies with broader profile spread and therefore broader spread of PL-pts cost will inevitably have a far easier time than armies that don't. And thanks to gw introducing armies like knights. That is questionable. Even in old granular points you'd run into this issue but it was easier to alleviate fill up points. Or eliminate wargear.
2. Objective insofar as the counter claim is also verifyably true. And going on a limb, i actually would state since the armies are often pretty homogenous in profile spread that you may very well find more armies not being able to easily replace things in a list.
Armies with low profile spread include i rekon: Marines, custodes, Knights both flavours, SoB, Drukhari. GSC. That is not a negliable quanitity.
When the calculator company starts releasing calculators that treat pi as 3,2 I have a problem. I'm not going to say that the calculator company doesn't have the ultimate and largest responsibility to use the right number for pi, but trying to convince vocal advocates of using 3,2 with logical arguments also makes sense.
Person A says pi is 3.14 Person B says pi is 3.14159 Both are technically wrong but no one really cares. The extra precision from the additional digits is quickly lost when you start using it on real projects.
I round pi to 3 occasionally for quick mental math. I also occasionally used PL for quick matchups. Not always, but it helped sometimes. For the record, I am against the current point system.
The current system is the worst of both systems.
PL would work better if we had a mechanical level of depth that 40k doesn't have at which point opportunity cost associated with choices especially on special and heavy weaponry unit type etc would balance forces and 40k never came close to having such a mechanical depth. Pts are bad because for some inane (greed, because recuring revenue through rulessales is a thing) reason GW restarts new editions all 3 years instead of refining the points and frankly has with the wriathknight incident and certain questionable pts cost a very wierd behaviour in regards to what is worth xyz, especially with the mechanically less deep 40k since 8th edition but bolt on rules on demand "unforseen" issues apear in every codex in specific situations and combinations enabled due to the widening of rules that are subfaction rules, etc.
PL would work better if we had a mechanical level of depth that 40k doesn't have at which point opportunity cost associated with choices especially on special and heavy weaponry unit type etc would balance forces and 40k never came close to having such a mechanical depth.
On this, I can agree, somewhat. It doesn't have to be mechanical depth specifically, but for my money PL should be built around a system where all of the available options are equally useful.
The system GW seem to be going for is one for players who don't care at all about balance and just want a rough framework to build a list. Which is also where I think some of the misunderstanding about whether or not it is faster comes from... The messing about when the list goes one point over the max that had been suggested as a problem to solve is only a thing if you're trying to optimize your list. Otherwise, you either ignore the point over, or you drop a unit and get on with the game. No point juggling required.
Whether or not this system appeals to enough of the customer base to pay off for them is, I guess, something we'll find out over the next couple of years.
Pts are bad because for some inane (greed, because recuring revenue through rulessales is a thing) reason GW restarts new editions all 3 years.. .
I've been thinking about this, and I'm wondering if this is actually at least partly responsible for the shift to a less precise system, driven by GW corporate rather than the studio. Previously, they've had to spend a bunch of time preparing for a new edition revising points costs for everything, and that process ideally needs to be reviewed with every new release. Scrapping individual points costs for a less precise system means no longer having to 'waste' studio resources redoing stuff, leaving more time to work on new stuff instead.
if you need to build up the point system from 0 every 3 years, going with a system that cost less money and time to be written is preferred from a company point of view
also talking the customers into a system of "don't care" by marketing helps to reduce the demand from their site (of the players stop asking for balance and well written rules, there is a lot of money to be saved)
and that this was one reason behind it is shown on how in the Indices are handled as how different certain units are someone just thought it was easier and cheaper but realised it is even more work if done for the first time and therefore it was even more simplified as planned (comparing Landspeeder and Crisis suits)
No one is trying to stop anyone having fun, none of us PL “fanatics” are calling for everyone to use PL and none of us made GW decide to use a points scheme that they have used for years with AoS. So the attacks and slurs are wholly uncalled for.
I think if you were using PL (8th and 9th) then adjusting to the new system is not so hard. But if you weren’t then it’s a bigger adjustment. The thing that seems to baffle people not used to PL is that all the things they complain about it, aren’t that relevant to the pope, who embraced it.
They say it’s the death of wysiwyg but in my group that more important than ever, we don’t do counts as, I wouldn’t play my leman Russ tanks as having sponsons because they don’t, and more importantly I am happy to play them without even though they are free because I prefer how they look without them. If I bought a new leman Russ I wouldn’t build with all the free options on it either. We don’t game the system.
This is not saying anyone who does is wrong or waac it is just another equally valid way of playing.
If Gw are going down this route as the only option then it would work better if all the upgrades had equal value but different roles, like I have seen in aos where the unit can have two melee weapon choices, one deadlier but one less deadly but with more range, or a shield to improve survivability so that they were tactical choices for those that like to play competitively.
PL would work better if we had a mechanical level of depth that 40k doesn't have at which point opportunity cost associated with choices especially on special and heavy weaponry unit type etc would balance forces and 40k never came close to having such a mechanical depth.
On this, I can agree, somewhat. It doesn't have to be mechanical depth specifically, but for my money PL should be built around a system where all of the available options are equally useful.
The system GW seem to be going for is one for players who don't care at all about balance and just want a rough framework to build a list. Which is also where I think some of the misunderstanding about whether or not it is faster comes from... The messing about when the list goes one point over the max that had been suggested as a problem to solve is only a thing if you're trying to optimize your list. Otherwise, you either ignore the point over, or you drop a unit and get on with the game. No point juggling required.
Whether or not this system appeals to enough of the customer base to pay off for them is, I guess, something we'll find out over the next couple of years.
I only see locally, that HH gains massive ammounts of players. 40k this edition atleast looks to go the same way 6th / 7th went in regards to how it is percieved by the local community and i mean the general community, ranging from basically only painting to tournament goers. The playing population looks at it and sees that it is disfunctional on a basic level. The swift intervention in regards to the WK and eldar that needed to happen but crippled the units due to the problem of the PL-Pts being a sledgehammer and every problem consequently turning in GW's rulesdesigner eyes into fenceposts, just highlighted the issues tied to it being an ungranular system by design.
As for the mechanical depth. The issue is, to facilitate that all weapons are worth a close enough to equal cost, requires for all the weapons to have a use. However between the ridicoulsly bad S-T table, lackluster moralemechanics, lackluster covermechanics, etc, why would you ever take something else than an AT weapon unless you have an anti infantry weapon with an absurd RoF. For those weapons to actually be on parity and therefore a question of how you want to specialise a squad there needs to be an incentive and ability to do so. Hence the kit restrictions, for exemple the traitor guardsmen recently going back to 3 specials but only 1 of x y z is moronical. So long cover is not relevant so long weapons that would work well against cover like nade launchers and flamers won't be relevant. So long surpression and morale are not relevant so long Hb's and stubbers and mortars won't be relevant.
Pts are bad because for some inane (greed, because recuring revenue through rulessales is a thing) reason GW restarts new editions all 3 years.. .
I've been thinking about this, and I'm wondering if this is actually at least partly responsible for the shift to a less precise system, driven by GW corporate rather than the studio. Previously, they've had to spend a bunch of time preparing for a new edition revising points costs for everything, and that process ideally needs to be reviewed with every new release. Scrapping individual points costs for a less precise system means no longer having to 'waste' studio resources redoing stuff, leaving more time to work on new stuff instead.
No, i think it's more ... questionable in motive than mere time saving. Recently the outer circle highlighted the fact that GW claims that the community and GW do interact in a two-way system on warcom. Now you can think about the Aussie saltmine what you want , but he is perfectly on the number in regards that this is a bold faced lie to it's shareholders by GW, because there IS no interaction on warcom from the community torwards GW. Twitch stream interactions are behind a paywall aswell, and Facebook is so heavily moderated that when R&H got legended and people asked justifyably WTF is going on and suddendly comments go missing. That is not two-way communication.
To me, this system looks like: 1. create Pts/PL-system as cheap and fast as possible, hence 1 system that isn't taxing to create. Saving Hours = $£€CHF whatevs. 2. solving the problems from the too fast created pts system by moving pts up and down and avoiding touching the core rules as much as possible. 3. make a replacement of the system necessary by introducing changes and add ons in the last part of the edition. 4. replacing edition, claim that you listened to the community, make some PR fluff up. 5. repeat steps 1-4.
There was no reason at the end of 8th for 9th which shifted just barely enough in the core rules, which could've however been done changing the rules in 8th already. 9th was also more strict on soup and had a more stringent detachment system. 10th magically has basically no detachment system at all. 11th will solve the 10th issue of the detachment system and probably reimplement PL or play around again. (prognosis)
Ontop of that the archaic codex after codex after codex release cycle to pad numbers over a buissness years between quartals and consequently the possibility to have lower ammount of designers due to a timetable. And you get the typicall codex-creep which as highlighted above is just a feature to facilitate the need for a solution of a problem of your own design.
It's like video games artificially increasing the grind and then selling you boosters for xp etc. BTWgw also took quite a bit of inspiration from the Videogames industry with the "DLC-ification" of campaigns f.e. there was no reason for that many PA books, nvm that half the contents in there were in essence just cut content.
^Yah, that's 100% what it feels like. Born of coorperate cynicism and financial structures, and extremely little good-faith game design.
Improved accessibility in general was a solid move of 8th edition, but the churn has proven, at least to me, that their motives are not about improvement, but raw sales however they can get them.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Yah, that's 100% what it feels like. Born of coorperate cynicism and financial structures, and extremely little good-faith game design.
Improved accessibility in general was a solid move of 8th edition, but the churn has proven, at least to me, that their motives are not about improvement, but raw sales however they can get them.
This is he GW mission statement for their own website.
“ We make the best fantasy miniatures in the world, to engage and inspire our customers, and to sell our products globally at a profit. We intend to do this forever. ”
Key bit for me, “miniatures”. They use the games to inspire their customers to sell more miniatures. They don’t say “we make the best war games in the world”. The games are means to an end. They aren’t meant to be the best, they are meant to be inspiring and accessible.
Here is another quote from the site,
“ The more fun and enjoyable we make our games, the more customers we attract and retain, and the more miniatures our customers want to buy. ”
Fun and enjoyable, not balanced and competitive. For some people the two things are the same, but not all. And it is clear that the games are designed to attract new customers.
I’m not saying anyone wanting a super tight competitive wargame is doing 40K wrong and should play something else, not at all. But if that is what you want, 40K is not that, has never been that and isn’t going to be that. Please play, the more the merrier but manage your expectations. 40K the game is a mass market vehicle for selling great models. This new way of doing points fits that model precisely, they haven’t made a mistake doing this it isn’t laziness or incompetence, it’s a business choice.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Yah, that's 100% what it feels like. Born of coorperate cynicism and financial structures, and extremely little good-faith game design.
Improved accessibility in general was a solid move of 8th edition, but the churn has proven, at least to me, that their motives are not about improvement, but raw sales however they can get them.
This is he GW mission statement for their own website.
“ We make the best fantasy miniatures in the world, to engage and inspire our customers, and to sell our products globally at a profit. We intend to do this forever. ”
Key bit for me, “miniatures”. They use the games to inspire their customers to sell more miniatures. They don’t say “we make the best war games in the world”. The games are means to an end. They aren’t meant to be the best, they are meant to be inspiring and accessible.
Here is another quote from the site,
“ The more fun and enjoyable we make our games, the more customers we attract and retain, and the more miniatures our customers want to buy. ”
Fun and enjoyable, not balanced and competitive. For some people the two things are the same, but not all. And it is clear that the games are designed to attract new customers.
I’m not saying anyone wanting a super tight competitive wargame is doing 40K wrong and should play something else, not at all. But if that is what you want, 40K is not that, has never been that and isn’t going to be that. Please play, the more the merrier but manage your expectations. 40K the game is a mass market vehicle for selling great models. This new way of doing points fits that model precisely, they haven’t made a mistake doing this it isn’t laziness or incompetence, it’s a business choice.
now we are going the way of the lacy excuse why they don't need to be better
all the above is true and would not be a problem, if GW would not charge a premium price for their rules
if they would be just a miniature company and rules would be there to inspire people, all the rules would be free and by sure not being replaced by something new every 3 years
if they are not a rules making company, no reason to make a new army book every 3 years or change rules for a new edition
there are other companies focused on miniatures and not on games, they also have rules but made free ones once and never changed them again (except for adding FAQ/Errata)
GW is the only miniature company with a business model build around selling a game
and if they sell a game, I demand that it is worth the money and not some expensive crap that needs to be replaced every 3 years because it is so bad that it is beyond fixing after that
Andy, you could've saved the wear-and-tear on your keyboard by Ctrl+C/+V-ing "GW claims to be a models company, not a rules company" from one of the 10,000 posts where that argument has been used.
Though, to be fair, I could've also Ctrl+C/+V-ed one of the 100,000 responses that rebuts that very well-trod and frankly weak argument.
I'll probably catch flak for this, but I think this thread woke up a bit because a mod is posting in it. Not sure if the mod was following or not (I'm guessing not given how rowdy things got) but not one of the recent arguments are new, all of this has been rehashed in the previous pages.
GW is the only miniature company with a business model build around selling a game
and if they sell a game, I demand that it is worth the money and not some expensive crap that needs to be replaced every 3 years because it is so bad that it is beyond fixing after that
Well good news for you! The rules for 10e are free.
So what's your complaint about cost again?
GW is the only miniature company with a business model build around selling a game
and if they sell a game, I demand that it is worth the money and not some expensive crap that needs to be replaced every 3 years because it is so bad that it is beyond fixing after that
If the game is not worth your money then don't spend the money. To some people there is value and they gladly spend the money on it. This isn't a problem for the whole customer base, just the people who complain that the game/models/rules/whatever are not enjoyable to them, but they still keep shelling out cash to buy up every latest release.
kodos wrote: Oh, I did no know that they released the mission cards and scenarios for free now, got a link because I cannot find them on WC?
Also were did they announce that faction rules will be free?
Mission cards - extra rules/optional. You've got 1 free generic mission in the core rules. Play that. Or you & opponent determine your own victory conditions.
Otherwise just rely on the opponent to have the cards if your too cheap to buy a deck yourself.
GW is the only miniature company with a business model build around selling a game
and if they sell a game, I demand that it is worth the money and not some expensive crap that needs to be replaced every 3 years because it is so bad that it is beyond fixing after that
If the game is not worth your money then don't spend the money. To some people there is value and they gladly spend the money on it. This isn't a problem for the whole customer base, just the people who complain that the game/models/rules/whatever are not enjoyable to them, but they still keep shelling out cash to buy up every latest release.
So I think this is a rather short sighted and sad statement, since I think largely GW is able to do this since the community that surrounds 40K and GW is so robust.
Often players maybe stuck in a community that only plays GW games, or even just 40K.
They can’t leave the game, if they want to stay with the hobby.
But even getting other games off the ground can be tougher, there is less support, less advertising online.
Even on YouTube finding painting for some games is hard on YouTube, guides or even just news and guides.
So in this environment players are stuck in the GW Hobby so to say, and they want to be able to have a say in the game they are playing.
Especially if GW is pulling what they enjoy out from under them.
If healthy competition could really thrive, I think it would be much more healthy and GW would need to make sure they at least support their design choices through.
It’s probably why GW puts so much into even there more niche small games now, as it is a way to keep players within a GW bubble.
Community rant about GW being so strong within the wider hobby. But I feel it’s an important thought to keep in mind for discussions like this.
GW is the only miniature company with a business model build around selling a game
and if they sell a game, I demand that it is worth the money and not some expensive crap that needs to be replaced every 3 years because it is so bad that it is beyond fixing after that
If the game is not worth your money then don't spend the money. To some people there is value and they gladly spend the money on it. This isn't a problem for the whole customer base, just the people who complain that the game/models/rules/whatever are not enjoyable to them, but they still keep shelling out cash to buy up every latest release.
So I think this is a rather short sighted and sad statement, since I think largely GW is able to do this since the community that surrounds 40K and GW is so robust.
Often players maybe stuck in a community that only plays GW games, or even just 40K.
They can’t leave the game, if they want to stay with the hobby.
But even getting other games off the ground can be tougher, there is less support, less advertising online.
Even on YouTube finding painting for some games is hard on YouTube, guides or even just news and guides.
So in this environment players are stuck in the GW Hobby so to say, and they want to be able to have a say in the game they are playing.
Especially if GW is pulling what they enjoy out from under them.
If healthy competition could really thrive, I think it would be much more healthy and GW would need to make sure they at least support their design choices through.
It’s probably why GW puts so much into even there more niche small games now, as it is a way to keep players within a GW bubble.
Community rant about GW being so strong within the wider hobby. But I feel it’s an important thought to keep in mind for discussions like this.
It is unfortunate that some people do not have communities/groups/clubs that are willing to branch out of the GW ecosystem. Traveling to a GT or whatever the major series is in your region is not the same as someone who is unable to find a local club that is willing to try new things. I have zero sympathy for people who complain non-stop about the things they dislike about GW game, and turn around and dump tons of money on them to travel and play in tournaments... It's no secret that GW is in the business of making money, and their objective with all decisions regarding game balance/rules changes is to facilitate increasing revenue. So the only way to get through to them is to vote with your wallet if you are disheartened... it worked in 6th/7th.
GW is the only miniature company with a business model build around selling a game
and if they sell a game, I demand that it is worth the money and not some expensive crap that needs to be replaced every 3 years because it is so bad that it is beyond fixing after that
If the game is not worth your money then don't spend the money. To some people there is value and they gladly spend the money on it. This isn't a problem for the whole customer base, just the people who complain that the game/models/rules/whatever are not enjoyable to them, but they still keep shelling out cash to buy up every latest release.
So I think this is a rather short sighted and sad statement, since I think largely GW is able to do this since the community that surrounds 40K and GW is so robust.
Often players maybe stuck in a community that only plays GW games, or even just 40K.
They can’t leave the game, if they want to stay with the hobby.
But even getting other games off the ground can be tougher, there is less support, less advertising online.
Even on YouTube finding painting for some games is hard on YouTube, guides or even just news and guides.
So in this environment players are stuck in the GW Hobby so to say, and they want to be able to have a say in the game they are playing.
Especially if GW is pulling what they enjoy out from under them.
If healthy competition could really thrive, I think it would be much more healthy and GW would need to make sure they at least support their design choices through.
It’s probably why GW puts so much into even there more niche small games now, as it is a way to keep players within a GW bubble.
Community rant about GW being so strong within the wider hobby. But I feel it’s an important thought to keep in mind for discussions like this.
I just don't know anyone playing that game who paid for the rules since 7th edition
and they would stop playing it the moment they cannot pirate the rules any more
the game is not worth the money for a lot of people, but they play it because it is the game played and not because it is so good, they have fun or they like the 3 year cycle
also there are those making money as a 3rd party of the community and try to shut down any negativity or moving the goalpost if they cannot counter critic
like the game is free, yet it is not, so be happy with the 1 mission you get for free for the next 3 years
GW is the only miniature company with a business model build around selling a game
and if they sell a game, I demand that it is worth the money and not some expensive crap that needs to be replaced every 3 years because it is so bad that it is beyond fixing after that
If the game is not worth your money then don't spend the money. To some people there is value and they gladly spend the money on it. This isn't a problem for the whole customer base, just the people who complain that the game/models/rules/whatever are not enjoyable to them, but they still keep shelling out cash to buy up every latest release.
so we are not allowed to demand better rules as long as someone will happily pay for what is offered
got it, just be a corporate shill and everything is fine
kodos wrote: Oh, I did no know that they released the mission cards and scenarios for free now, got a link because I cannot find them on WC?
Also were did they announce that faction rules will be free?
Mission cards - extra rules/optional. You've got 1 free generic mission in the core rules. Play that. Or you & opponent determine your own victory conditions.
Otherwise just rely on the opponent to have the cards if your too cheap to buy a deck yourself.
Faction rules - right now they're free.
so the rules are not free, and the amount of free rules will be reduced over time and we should be happy with what we get instead of demanding a better product for our money
GW is the only miniature company with a business model build around selling a game
and if they sell a game, I demand that it is worth the money and not some expensive crap that needs to be replaced every 3 years because it is so bad that it is beyond fixing after that
If the game is not worth your money then don't spend the money. To some people there is value and they gladly spend the money on it. This isn't a problem for the whole customer base, just the people who complain that the game/models/rules/whatever are not enjoyable to them, but they still keep shelling out cash to buy up every latest release.
so we are not allowed to demand better rules as long as someone will happily pay for what is offered
got it, just be a corporate shill and everything is fine
It's literally the opposite of a corporate shill to boycott or not buy product in order to enact change. They won't listen to complainers if their pockets keep getting stuffed...........
And to be sure, I do practice what I preach. I completely sold out of another game system because I disliked the direction the company was taking it. Throughout 8th and 9th I was not really interested in the 40k ruleset so I spent $0 on 40k product. 10th I've spent just a little because I like some of the changes. Once the codex's drop I'll determine if that arms race is worth my pursuit.
GW is the only miniature company with a business model build around selling a game
and if they sell a game, I demand that it is worth the money and not some expensive crap that needs to be replaced every 3 years because it is so bad that it is beyond fixing after that
If the game is not worth your money then don't spend the money. To some people there is value and they gladly spend the money on it. This isn't a problem for the whole customer base, just the people who complain that the game/models/rules/whatever are not enjoyable to them, but they still keep shelling out cash to buy up every latest release.
So I think this is a rather short sighted and sad statement, since I think largely GW is able to do this since the community that surrounds 40K and GW is so robust.
Often players maybe stuck in a community that only plays GW games, or even just 40K.
They can’t leave the game, if they want to stay with the hobby.
But even getting other games off the ground can be tougher, there is less support, less advertising online.
Even on YouTube finding painting for some games is hard on YouTube, guides or even just news and guides.
So in this environment players are stuck in the GW Hobby so to say, and they want to be able to have a say in the game they are playing.
Especially if GW is pulling what they enjoy out from under them.
If healthy competition could really thrive, I think it would be much more healthy and GW would need to make sure they at least support their design choices through.
It’s probably why GW puts so much into even there more niche small games now, as it is a way to keep players within a GW bubble.
Community rant about GW being so strong within the wider hobby. But I feel it’s an important thought to keep in mind for discussions like this.
bs.
If you don't like a game - GW or otherwise - you are not forced to stick with it no matter what others are doing.
If you want to play something else? You need to invest the effort.
*That might be growing interest in a game yourself..
*Or you might need to go actively seeking the community who does play that game. Just because you don't see something being played at a shop DOESN'T mean it's not being played.
Apple fox wrote: ...
Especially if GW is pulling what they enjoy out from under them.
...
I want to call this specific line of thinking out. Nothing is being "taken away." Nothing prevents an individual from pursuing older editions of the game or previous iterations of Chapter Approved / Errata / FAQ except the individual themselves.
D&D is a great example. How many years do people prefer and play 3rd over 5th edition now???
This mindset of only grinding the latest's ruleset should be exclusive to Tournaments, and even then, what's to stop a TO from running a classic edition event?
Apple fox wrote: ...
Especially if GW is pulling what they enjoy out from under them.
...
I want to call this specific line of thinking out. Nothing is being "taken away." Nothing prevents an individual from pursuing older editions of the game or previous iterations of Chapter Approved / Errata / FAQ except the individual themselves.
D&D is a great example. How many years do people prefer and play 3rd over 5th edition now???
This mindset of only grinding the latest's ruleset should be exclusive to Tournaments, and even then, what's to stop a TO from running a classic edition event?
A common rule set to draw on, as well as being able to play anywhere and any event is a big thing.
RPGs are much more forgiving with a single GM making the rules choices, as well as deciding on a common rule set.
It also provides common ground for new players joining.
There is just a huge list of reasons for players to want the rule set as a base to be good, and we’ll designed by GW.
GW is the only miniature company with a business model build around selling a game
and if they sell a game, I demand that it is worth the money and not some expensive crap that needs to be replaced every 3 years because it is so bad that it is beyond fixing after that
If the game is not worth your money then don't spend the money. To some people there is value and they gladly spend the money on it. This isn't a problem for the whole customer base, just the people who complain that the game/models/rules/whatever are not enjoyable to them, but they still keep shelling out cash to buy up every latest release.
So I think this is a rather short sighted and sad statement, since I think largely GW is able to do this since the community that surrounds 40K and GW is so robust.
Often players maybe stuck in a community that only plays GW games, or even just 40K.
They can’t leave the game, if they want to stay with the hobby.
But even getting other games off the ground can be tougher, there is less support, less advertising online.
Even on YouTube finding painting for some games is hard on YouTube, guides or even just news and guides.
So in this environment players are stuck in the GW Hobby so to say, and they want to be able to have a say in the game they are playing.
Especially if GW is pulling what they enjoy out from under them.
If healthy competition could really thrive, I think it would be much more healthy and GW would need to make sure they at least support their design choices through.
It’s probably why GW puts so much into even there more niche small games now, as it is a way to keep players within a GW bubble.
Community rant about GW being so strong within the wider hobby. But I feel it’s an important thought to keep in mind for discussions like this.
I just don't know anyone playing that game who paid for the rules since 7th edition
and they would stop playing it the moment they cannot pirate the rules any more
the game is not worth the money for a lot of people, but they play it because it is the game played and not because it is so good, they have fun or they like the 3 year cycle
also there are those making money as a 3rd party of the community and try to shut down any negativity or moving the goalpost if they cannot counter critic
like the game is free, yet it is not, so be happy with the 1 mission you get for free for the next 3 years
GW is the only miniature company with a business model build around selling a game
and if they sell a game, I demand that it is worth the money and not some expensive crap that needs to be replaced every 3 years because it is so bad that it is beyond fixing after that
If the game is not worth your money then don't spend the money. To some people there is value and they gladly spend the money on it. This isn't a problem for the whole customer base, just the people who complain that the game/models/rules/whatever are not enjoyable to them, but they still keep shelling out cash to buy up every latest release.
so we are not allowed to demand better rules as long as someone will happily pay for what is offered
got it, just be a corporate shill and everything is fine
kodos wrote: Oh, I did no know that they released the mission cards and scenarios for free now, got a link because I cannot find them on WC?
Also were did they announce that faction rules will be free?
Mission cards - extra rules/optional. You've got 1 free generic mission in the core rules. Play that. Or you & opponent determine your own victory conditions.
Otherwise just rely on the opponent to have the cards if your too cheap to buy a deck yourself.
Faction rules - right now they're free.
so the rules are not free, and the amount of free rules will be reduced over time and we should be happy with what we get instead of demanding a better product for our money
(shrugs) You're simply wrong on this. Right now the rules, the faction rules, & all the various index cards are free. You can get them here: https://www.warhammer-community.com/warhammer-40000-downloads/ The only things you might want to spend $ on are the optional bits - the mission card pack & the main rulebook if you want Crusade info. Maybe the app as well if you think that's useful enough.
GW is the only miniature company with a business model build around selling a game
and if they sell a game, I demand that it is worth the money and not some expensive crap that needs to be replaced every 3 years because it is so bad that it is beyond fixing after that
If the game is not worth your money then don't spend the money. To some people there is value and they gladly spend the money on it. This isn't a problem for the whole customer base, just the people who complain that the game/models/rules/whatever are not enjoyable to them, but they still keep shelling out cash to buy up every latest release.
So I think this is a rather short sighted and sad statement, since I think largely GW is able to do this since the community that surrounds 40K and GW is so robust.
Often players maybe stuck in a community that only plays GW games, or even just 40K.
They can’t leave the game, if they want to stay with the hobby.
But even getting other games off the ground can be tougher, there is less support, less advertising online.
Even on YouTube finding painting for some games is hard on YouTube, guides or even just news and guides.
So in this environment players are stuck in the GW Hobby so to say, and they want to be able to have a say in the game they are playing.
Especially if GW is pulling what they enjoy out from under them.
If healthy competition could really thrive, I think it would be much more healthy and GW would need to make sure they at least support their design choices through.
It’s probably why GW puts so much into even there more niche small games now, as it is a way to keep players within a GW bubble.
Community rant about GW being so strong within the wider hobby. But I feel it’s an important thought to keep in mind for discussions like this.
I just don't know anyone playing that game who paid for the rules since 7th edition
and they would stop playing it the moment they cannot pirate the rules any more
the game is not worth the money for a lot of people, but they play it because it is the game played and not because it is so good, they have fun or they like the 3 year cycle
also there are those making money as a 3rd party of the community and try to shut down any negativity or moving the goalpost if they cannot counter critic
like the game is free, yet it is not, so be happy with the 1 mission you get for free for the next 3 years
GW is the only miniature company with a business model build around selling a game
and if they sell a game, I demand that it is worth the money and not some expensive crap that needs to be replaced every 3 years because it is so bad that it is beyond fixing after that
If the game is not worth your money then don't spend the money. To some people there is value and they gladly spend the money on it. This isn't a problem for the whole customer base, just the people who complain that the game/models/rules/whatever are not enjoyable to them, but they still keep shelling out cash to buy up every latest release.
so we are not allowed to demand better rules as long as someone will happily pay for what is offered
got it, just be a corporate shill and everything is fine
kodos wrote: Oh, I did no know that they released the mission cards and scenarios for free now, got a link because I cannot find them on WC?
Also were did they announce that faction rules will be free?
Mission cards - extra rules/optional. You've got 1 free generic mission in the core rules. Play that. Or you & opponent determine your own victory conditions.
Otherwise just rely on the opponent to have the cards if your too cheap to buy a deck yourself.
Faction rules - right now they're free.
so the rules are not free, and the amount of free rules will be reduced over time and we should be happy with what we get instead of demanding a better product for our money
You can demand better rules, but my point is, don’t expect them. They haven’t done it yet, they don’t design the game to appeal people who wants super tight competitive rules. That’s not its purpose. You want that, play a different game, still play 40K but get your competitive wargaming fox with something that suits that and just have fun with 40K. (I’m not saying you have to do this, it’s just a suggestion that might lead to happier less frustrated hobby times)
End of the day 40K is the best wargame, for me, because I love the lore, I love the models and I have a huge history with it. I have narratives and characters that span all 10 editions and I go all the way back to my childhood with this game. A slightly ganky points system is a minor thing compared to all that and is something I can live with because overall I enjoy the game regardless.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, right now I’m playing 40K with spending a penny on rules and do the same when I get to play a bit of AoS (very rare), but I have never bought a AoS rule book and haven’t pirated them either.
You can demand better rules, but my point is, don’t expect them. They haven’t done it yet, they don’t design the game to appeal people who wants super tight competitive rules. That’s not its purpose. You want that, play a different game, still play 40K but get your competitive wargaming fox with something that suits that and just have fun with 40K. (I’m not saying you have to do this, it’s just a suggestion that might lead to happier less frustrated hobby times)
End of the day 40K is the best wargame, for me, because I love the lore, I love the models and I have a huge history with it. I have narratives and characters that span all 10 editions and I go all the way back to my childhood with this game. A slightly ganky points system is a minor thing compared to all that and is something I can live with because overall I enjoy the game regardless.
I don't demand a competitive game, I demand a working and balanced casual game so I can enjoy the lore (and don't need to be careful that my fluffly lore-heavy list is not a crushing WAAC list) without planned obsolescence
for competitive gaming 40k works very well anyway, because the one thing that is needed are players, everything else does not matter, neither balance nor how bad the rules are written because those things will be handled by the TO and the players
Eldar are too strong and everyone who wants to win an event plays Eldar, who cares, this does not matter at all for competitive players, this is just a problem for casual and pick up games, not for tournaments
halve the units in a Codex are not worth taking, just a problem for the fluff and casual gamers, competitive players don't care and use the the half
40k fails at the one thing were it is said to be best, and people are defending that as if GW paid good money for it rather than demanding GW to do better
and when you say 40k is the best "wargame" because of all the good things that are not related to the game at all is a strange way to put it
the same way you would say Star Wars are the best "movies" because you like the extended universe books
what you are talking about is that 40k is the best IP/Setting for you, nothing you like has to do anything with the wargame
Insectum7 wrote: I'll bet the codexes wont be free, include extra rules and will be standard for competetive and most pick up game environments.
Ding ding ding.
Do people really believe this state of affaires will remain? A company that has the gall to sell you on occasion two codices in a single edition?
I thought everyone knew this was going to be the case? DId anyone honestly think otherwise? They just announced that the army builder is getting locked away behind WH+, anyone who though GW wouldn't find a way to try to make you pay to play is a fool.
Sim-Life wrote: I thought everyone knew this was going to be the case? DId anyone honestly think otherwise? They just announced that the army builder is getting locked away behind WH+, anyone who though GW wouldn't find a way to try to make you pay to play is a fool.
I got dogpiled for having the temerity to suggest that the datasheets wouldn't be free forever in a thread discussing that very topic. Some people get very angry when you point it out.
Sim-Life wrote: I thought everyone knew this was going to be the case? DId anyone honestly think otherwise? They just announced that the army builder is getting locked away behind WH+, anyone who though GW wouldn't find a way to try to make you pay to play is a fool.
I got dogpiled for having the temerity to suggest that the datasheets wouldn't be free forever in a thread discussing that very topic. Some people get very angry when you point it out.
nah, you got dogpiled because you were pointing it out when it wasn't relevant. People were saying indexes were free and that was a nice touch by GW and you came in there "BUT CODEXES WONT BE!!!11!".
Sim-Life wrote: I thought everyone knew this was going to be the case? DId anyone honestly think otherwise? They just announced that the army builder is getting locked away behind WH+, anyone who though GW wouldn't find a way to try to make you pay to play is a fool.
I got dogpiled for having the temerity to suggest that the datasheets wouldn't be free forever in a thread discussing that very topic. Some people get very angry when you point it out.
nah, you got dogpiled because you were pointing it out when it wasn't relevant. People were saying indexes were free and that was a nice touch by GW and you came in there "BUT CODEXES WONT BE!!!11!".
And people were only saying the indexes were free in order to try and deflect from the rules being bad with the argument that they are free so quality doesn't matter.
Sim-Life wrote: I thought everyone knew this was going to be the case? DId anyone honestly think otherwise? They just announced that the army builder is getting locked away behind WH+, anyone who though GW wouldn't find a way to try to make you pay to play is a fool.
I got dogpiled for having the temerity to suggest that the datasheets wouldn't be free forever in a thread discussing that very topic. Some people get very angry when you point it out.
nah, you got dogpiled because you were pointing it out when it wasn't relevant. People were saying indexes were free and that was a nice touch by GW and you came in there "BUT CODEXES WONT BE!!!11!".
And people were only saying the indexes were free in order to try and deflect from the rules being bad with the argument that they are free so quality doesn't matter.
And people only say the rules are bad if they don't like them, but somehow think they speak with authority even when some people like certain aspects or design decisions of the rules.
VladimirHerzog wrote: nah, you got dogpiled because you were pointing it out when it wasn't relevant. People were saying indexes were free and that was a nice touch by GW and you came in there "BUT CODEXES WONT BE!!!11!".
That's not what I said at all. I said that they'd stop being free as soon as the Codices arrived.
"Once the Codex comes out the datacards will vanish (one by one - not all at once)."
And people were only saying the indexes were free in order to try and deflect from the rules being bad with the argument that they are free so quality doesn't matter.
My personal discourse was :
"Although the rules aren't perfect, them being free is a good step from GW, hopefully they stick to it for the whole edition but i fully expect codexes to be paid. Most likely the army builder will stay free like the AoS one"
i was wrong on the app but the rest of my claim still holds, even if GW dissapointed me
VladimirHerzog wrote: nah, you got dogpiled because you were pointing it out when it wasn't relevant. People were saying indexes were free and that was a nice touch by GW and you came in there "BUT CODEXES WONT BE!!!11!".
That's not what I said at all. I said that they'd stop being free as soon as the Codices arrived.
"Once the Codex comes out the datacards will vanish (one by one - not all at once)."
Learn to read.
ok, was that confirmed anywhere? (legitimately asking)
VladimirHerzog wrote: nah, you got dogpiled because you were pointing it out when it wasn't relevant. People were saying indexes were free and that was a nice touch by GW and you came in there "BUT CODEXES WONT BE!!!11!".
That's not what I said at all. I said that they'd stop being free as soon as the Codices arrived.
"Once the Codex comes out the datacards will vanish (one by one - not all at once)."
Learn to read.
ok, was that confirmed anywhere? (legitimately asking)
No. The opposite has been mentioned by Stu Black in various interviews prior to the release of 10th. In reality, nobody really knows and we'll have to wait for the first Codices to be released before we find out for sure.
You can demand better rules, but my point is, don’t expect them. They haven’t done it yet, they don’t design the game to appeal people who wants super tight competitive rules. That’s not its purpose. You want that, play a different game, still play 40K but get your competitive wargaming fox with something that suits that and just have fun with 40K. (I’m not saying you have to do this, it’s just a suggestion that might lead to happier less frustrated hobby times)
End of the day 40K is the best wargame, for me, because I love the lore, I love the models and I have a huge history with it. I have narratives and characters that span all 10 editions and I go all the way back to my childhood with this game. A slightly ganky points system is a minor thing compared to all that and is something I can live with because overall I enjoy the game regardless.
I don't demand a competitive game, I demand a working and balanced casual game so I can enjoy the lore (and don't need to be careful that my fluffly lore-heavy list is not a crushing WAAC list) without planned obsolescence
for competitive gaming 40k works very well anyway, because the one thing that is needed are players, everything else does not matter, neither balance nor how bad the rules are written because those things will be handled by the TO and the players
Eldar are too strong and everyone who wants to win an event plays Eldar, who cares, this does not matter at all for competitive players, this is just a problem for casual and pick up games, not for tournaments
halve the units in a Codex are not worth taking, just a problem for the fluff and casual gamers, competitive players don't care and use the the half
40k fails at the one thing were it is said to be best, and people are defending that as if GW paid good money for it rather than demanding GW to do better
and when you say 40k is the best "wargame" because of all the good things that are not related to the game at all is a strange way to put it
the same way you would say Star Wars are the best "movies" because you like the extended universe books
what you are talking about is that 40k is the best IP/Setting for you, nothing you like has to do anything with the wargame
That was kind of my point, it’s the best not because of the game but because of everything else. The reason I play is because all of that, I have tried other games, ones that people claim are “objectively” better than 40K and not enjoyed them at all, because I don’t have that history with them or that live of the fluff and models. A game is a sum of your experiences with it not just your time at the table. Changing points and doing with with power level as some here want so I have to use an army design system set up for competitive play would not improve my experience at all and probably lessen it.
I have said all along and will do it again, I think there should be a granular points system to help out people playing pick up games and competitive play, ALONGSIDE a PL style system for those that don’t care about that. That would solve all your issues. But so many in favour of points seem to think you have to remove power level so for some reason?
Another solution again would be if people playing pick up games and the like accepted a more narrative approach, moved away from match play being the standard. Relaxed a little. That is something I have no influence over or experience of but it sounds pretty grim out there, all the talk of legends not being aloud and optimising lists and all this. The fact that peoples first thoughts about not paying for upgrades is about how they can gain an advantage from this.
And eldar apparently being too strong is not about the points system. Using points to fix it is a bad idea. If a factions rules aren’t working as intended fix the rules don’t just charge more points for them to compensate.
VladimirHerzog wrote: nah, you got dogpiled because you were pointing it out when it wasn't relevant. People were saying indexes were free and that was a nice touch by GW and you came in there "BUT CODEXES WONT BE!!!11!".
That's not what I said at all. I said that they'd stop being free as soon as the Codices arrived.
"Once the Codex comes out the datacards will vanish (one by one - not all at once)."
Learn to read.
ok, was that confirmed anywhere? (legitimately asking)
No. The opposite has been mentioned by Stu Black in various interviews prior to the release of 10th. In reality, nobody really knows and we'll have to wait for the first Codices to be released before we find out for sure.
The 40 k app is identical in design to the AoS one, the datasheets in that are free still so why would 40K be any different?
The 40 k app is identical in design to the AoS one, the datasheets in that are free still so why would 40K be any different?
because there is one big difference between the two : the 40k listbuilding will not be free, so them using thesame model for both has gone out the window sadly
ccs 810334 11574206 wrote:(shrugs) You're simply wrong on this. Right now the rules, the faction rules, & all the various index cards are free. You can get them here: https://www.warhammer-community.com/warhammer-40000-downloads/ The only things you might want to spend $ on are the optional bits - the mission card pack & the main rulebook if you want Crusade info. Maybe the app as well if you think that's useful enough.
How do you draw missions from a deck, if you don't have a deck? And this is not some sort of attack question, but a "how to" question. Do people use some sort of dice roll system to randomize the results and how do they avoid getting the same missions for two people. Like maybe first person roll and the other rolls +1/-1 depending on something or re-rolls same missions? Is that how it is done?
ccs 810334 11574206 wrote:(shrugs) You're simply wrong on this. Right now the rules, the faction rules, & all the various index cards are free. You can get them here: https://www.warhammer-community.com/warhammer-40000-downloads/ The only things you might want to spend $ on are the optional bits - the mission card pack & the main rulebook if you want Crusade info. Maybe the app as well if you think that's useful enough.
How do you draw missions from a deck, if you don't have a deck? And this is not some sort of attack question, but a "how to" question. Do people use some sort of dice roll system to randomize the results and how do they avoid getting the same missions for two people. Like maybe first person roll and the other rolls +1/-1 depending on something or re-rolls same missions? Is that how it is done?
Goonhammer's Tabletop Battles App can simulate the card draws, as well and being a super useful tool for tracking the battle in general.
One day I will stop buying supplements and paying rent, and buy myself a smart phone. It is good to know there is something that works well. Although it is kind of a ironic that a bit like with Battlescribe, it is done by a non GW entity.
Very nice that parts of the community stepped in to resolve a problem, the community didn't create.
Karol wrote: One day I will stop buying supplements and paying rent, and buy myself a smart phone. It is good to know there is something that works well. Although it is kind of a ironic that a bit like with Battlescribe, it is done by a non GW entity.
Very nice that parts of the community stepped in to resolve a problem, the community didn't create.
I believe CCS was implying that the mission cards are not a required item to play the game since the core rules have a free mission available to play. The cards are an extra bit to play that variant.
Karol wrote: One day I will stop buying supplements and paying rent, and buy myself a smart phone. It is good to know there is something that works well. Although it is kind of a ironic that a bit like with Battlescribe, it is done by a non GW entity.
Very nice that parts of the community stepped in to resolve a problem, the community didn't create.
I believe CCS was implying that the mission cards are not a required item to play the game since the core rules have a free mission available to play. The cards are an extra bit to play that variant.
Karol wrote: One day I will stop buying supplements and paying rent, and buy myself a smart phone. It is good to know there is something that works well. Although it is kind of a ironic that a bit like with Battlescribe, it is done by a non GW entity.
Very nice that parts of the community stepped in to resolve a problem, the community didn't create.
I believe CCS was implying that the mission cards are not a required item to play the game since the core rules have a free mission available to play. The cards are an extra bit to play that variant.
Ah okey. I don't think as matched play as a variant, as it is the dominant way to play the game. But I understand the argument much better now.
The 40 k app is identical in design to the AoS one, the datasheets in that are free still so why would 40K be any different?
because there is one big difference between the two : the 40k listbuilding will not be free, so them using thesame model for both has gone out the window sadly
But the layout is identical, they have said that the battleforge part of the app will be behind the paywall. The datasheets are in a different section, reference. The announcement specifically said battleforge will be paid for so the datasheets “should” still be free for all. I may be wrong but it makes sense.
Andykp wrote: The 40 k app is identical in design to the AoS one, the datasheets in that are free still so why would 40K be any different?
Past performance is no indication of future performance.
And in simple economical terms: Probably because GW thinks they can get away with it. For AoS it probably needs the boost as it's not as popular as 40k. For 40k they've proven they can release nothing but gak year in and year out and people still lap it up.
Andykp wrote: The 40k app is identical in design to the AoS one, the datasheets in that are free still so why would 40K be any different?
for the very simple reason that the army builder function in the AoS app is free and not for the 40k version so there is already a difference between those
and the only reason to let people pay for the army builder is that GW does not want to give away essential rules for the game for free
saying you can play the full game for free (and not just an demo version) and the app is just a paid calculator is naive
Andykp wrote: The 40k app is identical in design to the AoS one, the datasheets in that are free still so why would 40K be any different?
for the very simple reason that the army builder function in the AoS app is free and not for the 40k version so there is already a difference between those
and the only reason to let people pay for the army builder is that GW does not want to give away essential rules for the game for free
saying you can play the full game for free (and not just an demo version) and the app is just a paid calculator is naive
??
What demo version do you think people are playing?
kodos wrote: I am not aware of anyone who plays the "free" version because it is missing essential parts
Sorry, be more specific.
*The rules - aside from Crusade & a pack of mission cards - are free atm.
*All the unit stats are free atm.
*The pts doc is free.
So what "essential parts" are missing?
kodos wrote: I am not aware of anyone who plays the "free" version because it is missing essential parts
Sorry, be more specific.
*The rules - aside from Crusade & a pack of mission cards - are free atm.
*All the unit stats are free atm.
*The pts doc is free.
So what "essential parts" are missing?
If you aren’t playing match play you aren’t playing 40K, apparently.
Andykp wrote: If you aren’t playing match play you aren’t playing 40K, apparently.
Sure, matched play isn't the only way to play. But it is hard to deny that matched play is seen as the default way to play for a lot of people, perhaps even majority. Especially if you are viewing it through the lens of store/club pickup games.
Andykp wrote: If you aren’t playing match play you aren’t playing 40K, apparently.
Sure, matched play isn't the only way to play. But it is hard to deny that matched play is seen as the default way to play for a lot of people, perhaps even majority. Especially if you are viewing it through the lens of store/club pickup games.
To be fair, the ability to get a pickup game is absolutely one of 40ks greatest strengths. It also tends to require being up to date with your army, and therefore a codex purchase.
Andykp wrote: If you aren’t playing match play you aren’t playing 40K, apparently.
Sure, matched play isn't the only way to play. But it is hard to deny that matched play is seen as the default way to play for a lot of people, perhaps even majority. Especially if you are viewing it through the lens of store/club pickup games.
To be fair, the ability to get a pickup game is absolutely one of 40ks greatest strengths. It also tends to require being up to date with your army, and therefore a codex purchase.
We are in pretty unique spot now with now codexs out though.
I think it’s no bad thing to challenge the idea that matched play is the normal way to play.
We could challenge matched play, but personally I find matched play to be the most interesting. Make one list, bring it up against various opponents and builds, and within different mission conditions and terrain layouts. Then revisit and fine tune the list. Peak 40k if you ask me.
Dabbling with one off battles and casual scenarios is fun and relaxing, but doesn't bring the same engagement and challenge.
Andykp wrote: If you aren’t playing match play you aren’t playing 40K, apparently.
Sure, matched play isn't the only way to play. But it is hard to deny that matched play is seen as the default way to play for a lot of people, perhaps even majority. Especially if you are viewing it through the lens of store/club pickup games.
To be fair, the ability to get a pickup game is absolutely one of 40ks greatest strengths. It also tends to require being up to date with your army, and therefore a codex purchase.
We are in pretty unique spot now with now codexs out though.
I think it’s no bad thing to challenge the idea that matched play is the normal way to play.
I tend to agree but I think that that mindset comes with the territory of being in a different country from those who claim that matched play is the only way. In America the game is typically played in a pick up style at a store where matched play is really the only way to play. I have looked for people who want to play a more relaxed narrative style to no avail, people here just want to go to the store one night a week and play a game.
Narrative play requires a group of dedicated people all with similar goals in mind. It requires a bit more commitment from people and generally in America players are not looking to invest more time than they already do with building, painting and setting aside one night a week to play. Pick up games lend themselves to matched play and if all you can get locally is pick up games then you end up with people only playing matched play.
CCS can make obtuse bad faith arguments all day long but people play matched play, which means they need the cards to play more than just "kill everything" and they don't make their own missions because that would require everyone coming together to agree to those missions.
Insectum7 wrote: We could challenge matched play, but personally I find matched play to be the most interesting. Make one list, bring it up against various opponents and builds, and within different mission conditions and terrain layouts. Then revisit and fine tune the list. Peak 40k if you ask me.
Dabbling with one off battles and casual scenarios is fun and relaxing, but doesn't bring the same engagement and challenge.
I get that, it’s not for me but fair enough. I can also see that these new points aren’t great for that.
For me the game is all about the stories, there are characters I have invented who have been part of the game for me since first edition. That world building and filling it with your guys, that’s my peak 40K.
Andykp wrote: If you aren’t playing match play you aren’t playing 40K, apparently.
Sure, matched play isn't the only way to play. But it is hard to deny that matched play is seen as the default way to play for a lot of people, perhaps even majority. Especially if you are viewing it through the lens of store/club pickup games.
To be fair, the ability to get a pickup game is absolutely one of 40ks greatest strengths. It also tends to require being up to date with your army, and therefore a codex purchase.
We are in pretty unique spot now with now codexs out though.
I think it’s no bad thing to challenge the idea that matched play is the normal way to play.
I tend to agree but I think that that mindset comes with the territory of being in a different country from those who claim that matched play is the only way. In America the game is typically played in a pick up style at a store where matched play is really the only way to play. I have looked for people who want to play a more relaxed narrative style to no avail, people here just want to go to the store one night a week and play a game.
Narrative play requires a group of dedicated people all with similar goals in mind. It requires a bit more commitment from people and generally in America players are not looking to invest more time than they already do with building, painting and setting aside one night a week to play. Pick up games lend themselves to matched play and if all you can get locally is pick up games then you end up with people only playing matched play.
CCS can make obtuse bad faith arguments all day long but people play matched play, which means they need the cards to play more than just "kill everything" and they don't make their own missions because that would require everyone coming together to agree to those missions.
It does seem that it is a culturally different thing in the US. It might be that I have spent too much time on dakka and have a skewed view of the competitive/match play scene, but if you listen to people on here no one enjoys it. I mean, some must, the events are pretty popular, but on here it sounds like a truly miserable scene.
Is that your experience? Or is dakka just a bit of an echo chamber?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I agree about the rules thing, I have no rules books for AoS. I have an army or two just for the hobby side. I have played a few games with just the free rules, like the free 40K ones now and it woks but literally for a game every 6 months or so. If was playing more often I would have to buy some more content.
Same with 40K, you can play it free but it’s pretty shallow. You do need paid for stuff or be prepared to write it yourself and as bad as everyone says gw game design is, they are better than me.
Andykp wrote: It does seem that it is a culturally different thing in the US. It might be that I have spent too much time on dakka and have a skewed view of the competitive/match play scene, but if you listen to people on here no one enjoys it. I mean, some must, the events are pretty popular, but on here it sounds like a truly miserable scene.
Is that your experience? Or is dakka just a bit of an echo chamber? .
I think it's more of a 'skewed impression from taking online discussion as the norm in the hobby' sort of thing, to be honest.
There's a perception amongst many players online that most 40K games are played at gaming clubs (or stores, in the US, where clubs are less common) or tournies, where matched play is indeed the norm due to it being more or less required for pick up games and tournie list building. This is backed up by ... not much, really, aside from anecdotal evidence. I* play at a store, and all the players I speak to play at a store, so clearly most people play at a store. What it ignores is that there is a portion of the playerbase that is occupied by people who play at home with a couple of relatives or friends and rarely or never actually interact with the wider hobby community. It's practically impossible to establish just how large that chunk of the community actually is, but given the volume of GW's sales and the comparative scarcity of stores and clubs of any real significant size, I strongly suspect that it makes up the majority.
How many of those players use matched play rules, and how many use a more narrative-based setup, or just throw models on the table and go for it... is anyone's guess.
Doesn't matter if you play pickup games, or with a select group of friends, or if you do matched play, or narrative games. Better balance is better for everyone. And the current system is pretty unbalanced. Both externally and internally.
To play 40k "at home" you need space + terrain. This is not something a lot of people actually have. I'm a part of a lot of 40k communities and discords and the people who have set-ups where they play regularly in their homes/garages etc is very clearly the minority. Saying "oh but that's just people online it doesn't count" is certainly an opinion, but considering how much the internet controls our entire lives and how ubiquitous it is I think we have to admit that the behaviours and trends of online 40k communities has to be somewhat representative. And it's not like there is this vast swathe of casual garageplayers who don't interact with the hobby online either; this is an enthusiasts hobby and is expensive; if you're into 40k you're likely actively talking about it and sharing experiences online too.
In the US the numbers might be skewed differently, as homes might have the space to set-up tables for play, and some of the larger more empty states might not have much in the way of accessible stores/clubs for people to play at. But in UK, continental Europe, Japan etc this is absolutely not the case. In my city alone I can think of 4 separate stores/gaming clubs, not even counting GW ones. The most people can manage with playing games in their homes is when it's summer and the weather is nice and they might be able to set a table up in their back garden.
It's common in the UK, and down here in Oz, but is apparently much less common in the US.
To play 40k "at home" you need space + terrain. This is not something a lot of people actually have.
Most people have a dinner table. I couldn't say how many people do or don't have terrain, but I would assume if they're playing at home they would collect at least enough to get by. I did when I was starting out.
I'm a part of a lot of 40k communities and discords and the people who have set-ups where they play regularly in their homes/garages etc is very clearly the minority. Saying "oh but that's just people online it doesn't count" is certainly an opinion, but considering how much the internet controls our entire lives and how ubiquitous it is I think we have to admit that the behaviours and trends of online 40k communities has to be somewhat representative. And it's not like there is this vast swathe of casual garageplayers who don't interact with the hobby online either; this is an enthusiasts hobby and is expensive; if you're into 40k you're likely actively talking about it and sharing experiences online too.
The internet may be pervasive, but a lot of people don't actually use it to talk about their hobbies. I've met far more gamers over the years who had no interest in participating in online discussion than those who did. Even amongst those who do, I'd say the majority were casual browsers rather than active participants. The number of gamers actively participating in online discussion is a drop in the ocean.
Insectum7 wrote:We could challenge matched play, but personally I find matched play to be the most interesting. Make one list, bring it up against various opponents and builds, and within different mission conditions and terrain layouts. Then revisit and fine tune the list. Peak 40k if you ask me.
I'll disagree hard that its the most interesting and its perfectly reasonable that you like something i dont- different strokes etc (genuinely not having a go, 7)Even though i have little interest in matched play, i recognise the value of its niche and Im glad it works for you. I did matched play for years and just kinda burned out of it.
For me matched play is the lowest common denominator - and imo for all the benefits of it allowing us to 'play a common format with a complete stranger with a minimum if effort/fuss', it forces a 'default' on how the game is built and played and i find that search for 'one true list' stifling. Personally, while it requires more up-front effort, I much prefer the narrative/collaborative game-building approach and have found games to be far more refreshing and interesting.
Neither of us is wrong. And I'll repeat - I'm glad yours works for you.
insaniak wrote:
Most people have a dinner table. I couldn't say how many people do or don't have terrain, but I would assume if they're playing at home they would collect at least enough to get by. I did when I was starting out.
Indeed- we do the dinner table during the winter and the garage (12×6 board) during the 'better' weather (scotland so 'less grey' is better). Yoyre right about terrain. Regarding terrain, I found when I was younger I only bought 'dudes', now that I'm.older I place far more value on the immersion of scenery *mainly for Kill-Team and Necromunda. Put group has loads - whether North africa/europe terrain/scenic features, ww2 ruins, sci-fi/fantasy and at different scales. You'll find as well in other communities (eg historicals) the scenic elements are considered to be very important.
insaniak wrote:
I'm a part of a lot of 40k communities and discords and the people who have set-ups where they play regularly in their homes/garages etc is very clearly the minority. Saying "oh but that's just people online it doesn't count" is certainly an opinion, but considering how much the internet controls our entire lives and how ubiquitous it is I think we have to admit that the behaviours and trends of online 40k communities has to be somewhat representative. And it's not like there is this vast swathe of casual garageplayers who don't interact with the hobby online either; this is an enthusiasts hobby and is expensive; if you're into 40k you're likely actively talking about it and sharing experiences online too.
The internet may be pervasive, but a lot of people don't actually use it to talk about their hobbies. I've met far more gamers over the years who had no interest in participating in online discussion than those who did. Even amongst those who do, I'd say the majority were casual browsers rather than active participants. The number of gamers actively participating in online discussion is a drop in the ocean.
I'd echo this as well. Of our extended group of 6, I'm the only one that 'wargames online'. One occasionally fb's to 'like' a new box set, or watches YouTube painting tutorials but neither gets involved with forums/discussions.
Andykp wrote: It does seem that it is a culturally different thing in the US. It might be that I have spent too much time on dakka and have a skewed view of the competitive/match play scene, but if you listen to people on here no one enjoys it. I mean, some must, the events are pretty popular, but on here it sounds like a truly miserable scene.
Is that your experience? Or is dakka just a bit of an echo chamber? .
I think it's more of a 'skewed impression from taking online discussion as the norm in the hobby' sort of thing, to be honest.
There's a perception amongst many players online that most 40K games are played at gaming clubs (or stores, in the US, where clubs are less common) or tournies, where matched play is indeed the norm due to it being more or less required for pick up games and tournie list building. This is backed up by ... not much, really, aside from anecdotal evidence. I* play at a store, and all the players I speak to play at a store, so clearly most people play at a store. What it ignores is that there is a portion of the playerbase that is occupied by people who play at home with a couple of relatives or friends and rarely or never actually interact with the wider hobby community. It's practically impossible to establish just how large that chunk of the community actually is, but given the volume of GW's sales and the comparative scarcity of stores and clubs of any real significant size, I strongly suspect that it makes up the majority.
How many of those players use matched play rules, and how many use a more narrative-based setup, or just throw models on the table and go for it... is anyone's guess.
*Figurative 'I', not me personally...
I have almost never heard of Americans playing garagehammer and I think it's fair to say Americans make up most of 40ks audience these days.
Can confirm you can play 40k over a kitchen table.
My suspicion would be that there are far more garagehammerers out there than club-players. But, in turn, a lot of those garagehammers play relatively infrequently - maybe once every 3-6 months. So someone showing up to the club 2-3 times a month will play a lot more games. They are also more likely to be active in the hobby online - posting on forums, reading blogs, watching videos etc.
Its a bit like how the "tournament scene" is probably only in the thousands (maybe up towards 20k~ if you stretch the definition) - but in the "has consumed some GW product in the past couple of years" is almost certainly in the millions.
I have almost never heard of Americans playing garagehammer and I think it's fair to say Americans make up most of 40ks audience these days.
If they're not active online, you wouldn't, though, would you?
I'm reminded of the high point of the LOTR bubble, when a lot of 40k and WHFB players online were convinced that the game was a flop because they never saw anyone playing it...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: . But, in turn, a lot of those garagehammers play relatively infrequently - maybe once every 3-6 months. So someone showing up to the club 2-3 times a month will play a lot more games.
Maybe. My prime garagehammer days were certainly not like that though. For a time there at the start of 3rd ed, I was living with another player and we were playing several games a week, and regularly having friends over to play on weekends.
I have almost never heard of Americans playing garagehammer and I think it's fair to say Americans make up most of 40ks audience these days.
If they're not active online, you wouldn't, though, would you?
I'm reminded of the high point of the LOTR bubble, when a lot of 40k and WHFB players online were convinced that the game was a flop because they never saw anyone playing it...
...
Maybe. My prime garagehammer days were certainly not like that though. For a time there at the start of 3rd ed, I was living with another player and we were playing several games a week, and regularly having friends over to play on weekends.
These days it's... Less frequent.
If your flag is anything to go by of course garagehammer isn't going to be common if you have to drive 16 hours through a desert to get to your nearest players house.
I think a lot of this perception about garagehammer and online presence is mired in the fact that Dakka is DEFINITLY an Old Guard stronghold. That is to say almost all of us remember a time when we played with upturned cups for buildings on the polished wood of kitchen tables and our only larger connection to the hobby outside of friends or GW stores was the letters page in White Dwarf. Younger players don't post here. They post in Facebook and Reddit communities. I quit using Facebook groups because I found explaining the same things over and over again annoying.
Andykp wrote: It does seem that it is a culturally different thing in the US. It might be that I have spent too much time on dakka and have a skewed view of the competitive/match play scene, but if you listen to people on here no one enjoys it. I mean, some must, the events are pretty popular, but on here it sounds like a truly miserable scene.
Is that your experience? Or is dakka just a bit of an echo chamber? .
I think it's more of a 'skewed impression from taking online discussion as the norm in the hobby' sort of thing, to be honest.
There's a perception amongst many players online that most 40K games are played at gaming clubs (or stores, in the US, where clubs are less common) or tournies, where matched play is indeed the norm due to it being more or less required for pick up games and tournie list building. This is backed up by ... not much, really, aside from anecdotal evidence. I* play at a store, and all the players I speak to play at a store, so clearly most people play at a store. What it ignores is that there is a portion of the playerbase that is occupied by people who play at home with a couple of relatives or friends and rarely or never actually interact with the wider hobby community. It's practically impossible to establish just how large that chunk of the community actually is, but given the volume of GW's sales and the comparative scarcity of stores and clubs of any real significant size, I strongly suspect that it makes up the majority.
How many of those players use matched play rules, and how many use a more narrative-based setup, or just throw models on the table and go for it... is anyone's guess.
*Figurative 'I', not me personally...
Yeah you can switch dakka for any online forum in my post really.
The video I posted about 20 pages back with peachy interviewing the ex gw designer where he talks about the gw business ethos of aiming to sell to the “wide end of the trumpet”, the masses of relatively new players entering the hobby, not the old gognards like me who have payed for ever and and have lots of niche tastes. I think that applies here, gw doesn’t care how many people play match play vs garage hammer because none of us are who they aim their products at, so they won’t do the research into which is biggest or most important. It’s only really us online that care I suppose,
I posted that video because it applies to the topic in that is why I think these points have come about. Simplified not simple. More effect for less effort. Keeping it simple to explain to a new comer, a kid walking into a games store having a demo game explained. Not that that kid can’t do the maths, it not hard maths. Just that they aren’t put off by the idea of having to maths!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: Doesn't matter if you play pickup games, or with a select group of friends, or if you do matched play, or narrative games. Better balance is better for everyone. And the current system is pretty unbalanced. Both externally and internally.
So fed up of hearing this, it’s been around for years, better balance is better for everyone! It’s not true.
Balance is one factor towards enjoyment. It will vary between individuals how important a factor it is. Because balance is normally achieved by adding complexity, eg granular points updated very often or removing complexity, eg less units or less specific weapons profiles that are easier to balance.
For the points specific discussion balance seems to equal a more complex point system. It has been said a million times that granular points equals better balance.
Now to me, balance is not that important to game enjoyment. The environment I play in has less of an impact in our games so I do not give it much value. Simplicity of the points system is very important to me, I do not want to worrying about if I’m using the most up to date points for a bolt pistol on my sergeant. I don’t really want to have to use an app to build my army lists.
So for me, an increase in balance achieved by making the points system more complicated is going to have an over all negative effect on my gaming experience. A small if any gain in enjoyment caused by an increase in something I don’t care about but a large decrease in enjoyment by Pre battle prep time become more complicate than I like. So a net decrease in enjoyment.
I know this is true because I have played 40K a LONG time and have seem many attempts at increasing balance etc and has this exact thing happen. Like when they started changing pints all the time balance the game. They didn’t always used to do that. When they started I enjoyed the game less, balance improved but my games didn’t.
So better balance does NOT mean better experience. It all depend on at what cost the balance comes and from who experience you view that balance.
Andykp wrote: So fed up of hearing this, it’s been around for years, better balance is better for everyone! It’s not true.
Balance is one factor towards enjoyment. It will vary between individuals how important a factor it is. Because balance is normally achieved by adding complexity, eg granular points updated very often or removing complexity, eg less units or less specific weapons profiles that are easier to balance.
For the points specific discussion balance seems to equal a more complex point system. It has been said a million times that granular points equals better balance.
Now to me, balance is not that important to game enjoyment. The environment I play in has less of an impact in our games so I do not give it much value. Simplicity of the points system is very important to me, I do not want to worrying about if I’m using the most up to date points for a bolt pistol on my sergeant. I don’t really want to have to use an app to build my army lists.
So for me, an increase in balance achieved by making the points system more complicated is going to have an over all negative effect on my gaming experience. A small if any gain in enjoyment caused by an increase in something I don’t care about but a large decrease in enjoyment by Pre battle prep time become more complicate than I like. So a net decrease in enjoyment.
I know this is true because I have played 40K a LONG time and have seem many attempts at increasing balance etc and has this exact thing happen. Like when they started changing pints all the time balance the game. They didn’t always used to do that. When they started I enjoyed the game less, balance improved but my games didn’t.
So better balance does NOT mean better experience. It all depend on at what cost the balance comes and from who experience you view that balance.
Intentional imbalance can be good in the right setting. High level Wizards being above and beyond everybody else in 3rd edition D&D felt immersive. Since the game was supposed to be played in a co-op style with a GM creating encounters that challenge all party members in some way, the imbalance only matters if you got a "I want to be the best" attitude at the table.
In a competitive styled game like Warhammer, where the game defines a clear winner among two players, external balance is a must, with internal balance being a very close second (albeit for different reasons). A good base balance helps tournaments and narrative play alike. While the former benefits from a bigger variety for the playing field, the latter will have an easier time creating a game as balanced or unbalanced as desired.
Your preference for not getting updates to your datasheets have nothing to do with any point/PL system, as GW is doing it in both.
In a competitive styled game like Warhammer, where the game defines a clear winner among two players, external balance is a must, with internal balance being a very close second (albeit for different reasons). A good base balance helps tournaments and narrative play alike. While the former benefits from a bigger variety for the playing field, the latter will have an easier time creating a game as balanced or unbalanced as desired.
Your preference for not getting updates to your datasheets have nothing to do with any point/PL system, as GW is doing it in both.
For campaign players though, A GAME defines nothing. It is the series of games that define everything. And some players DO have campaigns that define clear winners and losers... But some campaigns don't.
In 9th ed Crusade, I think Drukhari are the best example of "Winning despite losing." If you play the Ascendant Lord rules, really, your goal is not to defeat as many enemies in realspace in order to have an impact on realspace. Your goal is to take over Commorragh, and everything that happens in realspace is a means to that end.
Now if you DO happen to defeat a lot of enemies in realspace, it is very likely that your Ascent to power in Commorragh will be faster. But you don't have to win in order to make progress toward the story goal- every single time I had the opportunity to gain raid points, I took it no matter how many victory points or experience points I had to sacrifice in order to make it happen.
I do agree with your larger point that better balance can help narrative players... But only if you get that balance without sacrificing narrative tools.
And as to your line about GW updating both points and PL, it's only kind of true. In all of 8th and 9th, I think PL changed once, though it might have been twice. And even then, all the othe gak that comes with a balance update didn't touch Crusade. We never lost the capacity for mixing subfactions in army by using seperate detachments, we never lost air cavalry and we never had a rule of three. And frankly, for me it's THOSE updates rather than PL that were frustrating.
The Dhrukari player should have an equal chance of winning games as everybody else.
If the rules are set in a way that your Archon gets annihilated every.single.game without being able to bring anything of interest home, there is a disconnect between what is happening on the table and what is supposed to happen in the background.
In a balanced environment this can still happen based on player skill, but I'm not convinced that it should be possible to become the head honcho of Commoragh without winning any game at all in the first place.
a_typical_hero wrote: The Dhrukari player should have an equal chance of winning games as everybody else.
If the rules are set in a way that your Archon gets annihilated every.single.game without being able to bring anything of interest home, there is a disconnect between what is happening on the table and what is supposed to happen in the background.
In a balanced environment this can still happen based on player skill, but I'm not convinced that it should be possible to become the head honcho of Commoragh without winning any game at all in the first place.
Clearly the Drukhari that advances to head honcho without a win, has done so without a fight, else it wouldn't be a possibility
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
The archon took that clearly to heart and so should we.
But that begs the question: What happens if we do so? Why are we playing a wargame then in the first place
For campaign players though, A GAME defines nothing. It is the series of games that define everything. And some players DO have campaigns that define clear winners and losers... But some campaigns don't.
In 9th ed Crusade, I think Drukhari are the best example of "Winning despite losing." If you play the Ascendant Lord rules, really, your goal is not to defeat as many enemies in realspace in order to have an impact on realspace. Your goal is to take over Commorragh, and everything that happens in realspace is a means to that end.
Now if you DO happen to defeat a lot of enemies in realspace, it is very likely that your Ascent to power in Commorragh will be faster. But you don't have to win in order to make progress toward the story goal- every single time I had the opportunity to gain raid points, I took it no matter how many victory points or experience points I had to sacrifice in order to make it happen.
I do agree with your larger point that better balance can help narrative players... But only if you get that balance without sacrificing narrative tools.
And as to your line about GW updating both points and PL, it's only kind of true. In all of 8th and 9th, I think PL changed once, though it might have been twice. And even then, all the othe gak that comes with a balance update didn't touch Crusade. We never lost the capacity for mixing subfactions in army by using seperate detachments, we never lost air cavalry and we never had a rule of three. And frankly, for me it's THOSE updates rather than PL that were frustrating.
As the poster above stated. Nobody is going to accept an Archon in a place of power that can't walk the walk so to speak. And the same is true with the GSC system. then fact that the campaign faction system is so disconected not just from the battle but also from your opponent is another point why crusade comparativly to a decently made community campaign fails, and doesn't even compare to some of the old campaigns.
So for me, an increase in balance achieved by making the points system more complicated is going to have an over all negative effect on my gaming experience. A small if any gain in enjoyment caused by an increase in something I don’t care about but a large decrease in enjoyment by Pre battle prep time become more complicate than I like. So a net decrease in enjoyment.
So for me, an increase in balance achieved by making the points system more complicated is going to have an over all negative effect on my gaming experience. A small if any gain in enjoyment caused by an increase in something I don’t care about but a large decrease in enjoyment by Pre battle prep time become more complicate than I like. So a net decrease in enjoyment.
This reads so crazy to me.
same, we're already doing basic addition to list build (and theres litterally an app to take off that "complex task").
But at this point we've been going in circles forever, this thread is wayyyyy past its life expectancy and shouldve been locked like 80 pages ago.
So for me, an increase in balance achieved by making the points system more complicated is going to have an over all negative effect on my gaming experience. A small if any gain in enjoyment caused by an increase in something I don’t care about but a large decrease in enjoyment by Pre battle prep time become more complicate than I like. So a net decrease in enjoyment.
This reads so crazy to me.
To be honest your description of peak 40K on the last page read crazy to me, I can think no worse way to play the game. But as I have had to say many times, people enjoy different things in different ways.
People always assume it’s the maths that’s the problem, it’s the book keeping that bothers me. Points in separate documents, changing them every 3 months. Now I don’t get to play all the time, it might be weeks between games, so pregame when designing my army list I would have to go on the community sites, and download the latest up to date points, then make a my army list using the new points. All to tweak how much a gretchin is.
Simple question, which maths is easier?
14x5+12+6+8+25
Or
5
All the balance updates over every edition never made an impact on the game I played. All the changes to help balance and counter act loopholes found by tournament players never made a bit of difference.
For example the rule of 3. That caused such a scene to try and stop comp players spamming powerful units, there was internet rage all over place for it. It had zero impact on how we played in our group. We didn’t spam things, that’s dull. But if we wanted to use more than 3 of a given unit for a good narrative reason we ignore that rule and do.
The balance patch that stopped the loyal 32, not effect, we didn’t use that as it was just a power move.
The nerf to conscripts, no impact because we only ever used conscripts as they are in the fluff.
All these big changes that were made in order increase balance had no impact on improving the game for me.
I’m not keen on using apps either, much rather have a pen and paper. I’ve adjusted and trying out apps this edition now.
So for me, an increase in balance achieved by making the points system more complicated is going to have an over all negative effect on my gaming experience. A small if any gain in enjoyment caused by an increase in something I don’t care about but a large decrease in enjoyment by Pre battle prep time become more complicate than I like. So a net decrease in enjoyment.
This reads so crazy to me.
same, we're already doing basic addition to list build (and theres litterally an app to take off that "complex task").
But at this point we've been going in circles forever, this thread is wayyyyy past its life expectancy and shouldve been locked like 80 pages ago.
Agree this thread is done, at least it’s ending in a more civil tone than it carried on before the mod arrived.
Andykp wrote: Points in separate documents, changing them every 3 months. Now I don’t get to play all the time, it might be weeks between games, so pregame when designing my army list I would have to go on the community sites, and download the latest up to date points, then make a my army list using the new points. All to tweak how much a gretchin is.
I'm sympathetic to wanting ease of listbuilding over theoretically improved balance, but I don't understand this at all.
You play with like-minded casual players. You don't feel the points tweaks affected your games. You already ignore rules that you don't feel are necessary. You can just not use points updates. Why do you feel that if points were updated more frequently, you'd be compelled to use them? Why is it necessary for GW to return to the old days of never fixing egregious balance errors to accommodate the way you want to play?
So consensus seems to be let the thread go... sorry, I don't mean to prolong this. This is just to respond to the folks who responded to me. It's a tangent, so I don't expect it to ignite another 88 pages of rage, and that's not my intention.
Okay, here goes:
a_typical_hero wrote: The Dhrukari player should have an equal chance of winning games as everybody else.
This isn't what I meant. I meant that sometimes Crusaders will CHOOSE to complete Agendas (which don't award VP, and therefore get you no closer to winning) rather than trying to win. It was a response to your assertion that external balance is a must because the game defines a winner. My point is that campaign play has the potential to create games where a player isn't actively trying to win, but rather to complete Agendas for the sake of building the narrative across a SERIES of games. The Drukhari were just one of the easiest armies to talk about WHY a player might CHOOSE to pursue in-game goals that are not connected to winning the current game.
In no way was I talking about going after Agendas because an army isn't strong enough to win... Though to be fair, I have talked about doing that in other posts, and it is one of the advantages I see to Crusude over matched- in Crusade, it is possible to walk away from a game you didn't win and still be absolutely thrilled with what your army achieved during the game. Matched play does not allow for this, because VP and winning are the only measures of success available in a stand-alone Matched play game.
If the rules are set in a way that your Archon gets annihilated every.single.game without being able to bring anything of interest home, there is a disconnect between what is happening on the table and what is supposed to happen in the background.
In a balanced environment this can still happen based on player skill, but I'm not convinced that it should be possible to become the head honcho of Commoragh without winning any game at all in the first place.
First, in Crusade games, removal of a model from the table top =/= death. Could mean injury, incapacitation, terror or strategic retreat from an untenable melee. But even if that weren't the case, as I mentioned above, it was never about the army being weak- is was about balance having lesser value in a game that promotes goals that aren't connected to victory. And as for your thoughts on what's happening being disconnected from the background, or whether or not you SHOULD be able to take over Commorragh without winning a fight:
My Agendas involved sending out the Wyches to capture slaves to take back to the arena and then convincing someone back in Commorragh that I should be granted controlling rights in a territory by taking all the credit for the wyches work.
To win, I would have to hold an objective/ hold more objectives than my opponent.
Which seems more in tune with the background to you?
As the poster above stated. Nobody is going to accept an Archon in a place of power that can't walk the walk so to speak.
"Hey, I don't trust this guy's leadership because I've never seen him win a battle; let's take him out! Boys, freshen up the poison on those splinter rifles!"
"Uh, master? The poison distiller says he doesn't work for us anymore."
"Fine, where are my Wyches?"
"Uh... They're all fighting at another guy's arena."
"I'll have to hire extra Scourges!"
"Uhhhm, sorry master, but he controls the Eyries too!"
If I'm not mistaken, this is kinda how Vect rose to power- he ensured that his enemies were already defeated before he actually revealed himself and attacked. The blade you see is never as deadly as the blade you don't.
And the same is true with the GSC system. then fact that the campaign faction system is so disconected not just from the battle but also from your opponent is another point why crusade comparativly to a decently made community campaign fails, and doesn't even compare to some of the old campaigns.
Bit of a misinterpretation going on here: Crusade on its own ISN'T a campaign system as much as it is an open ended progression system. It is Campaign agnostic, meaning that it can work with any campaign system you want to use. Wanna go map based? Crusade still works. Tree campaigns? Crusade still works. Play the missions in a campaign book? Crusade still works.
As for the the faction goals being disconnect from either the game or the other player, it's only written that way in the book so that people understand you can score Agendas and pursue your faction goals even if the people you play with aren't interested in campaign play.
When you ARE in a campaign, the wise GM will use the faction goals from the dexes of each of the players and use those as tools in the story. We used the Tau Crusade rules to generate our star system... But once it was generated, we then found a planet type equivalent in the GSC book (so a Shrine World in the Tau dex = a Cardinal World in the GSC).
Now we know how much military power and how much diplomacy power the Tau need to seize control of the planet, but we ALSO know which four institutions the GSC has to infiltrate to take control of the same planet. So both of them are trying to take control while the Sisters are looking to prevent either player from taking control. The cool dynamic here is that the Tau are doing their thing in the open, but the GSC are trying to stay under the radar. So it's possible for the Tau to win control of a planet which is already partially controlled by the GSC and not even know that 2/4 of the planet's institutions have already been infiltrated.
Imagine winning a planet from Imperial defenders, only to have an uprising on that planet a week or two later. That's hella interactive, and a wicked campaign.
You could also track detection of the GSC separately for the Imperials and the Tau- so that the Sisters, being aware of the Tau, might actually decide to retreat from the planet knowing that there's a GSC lurking in the shadows- a sort of Kryptman's gambit, wherein the aliens weaken and destroy each other, and then the sisters return to mop up the weakened victor before they have a chance to recover.
And remember, all those old campaign systems from previous editions that you think might have an edge over Crusade?
Well, Crusade is actually campaign agnostic, so Crusade can work with those. The easiest example is Urban Conquest, because as an 8th ed product, it shares enough rules with 9th that it can be ported over with little to no effort. Planet Strike was Octarius- you can just ignore the planet specific lore and content, but port the Planet Strike piece to your own worlds.
Campaign systems from older editions can be difficult if they include or reference game rules which are incompatible with the current edition, but with the right group of people it could work.
Andykp wrote: Points in separate documents, changing them every 3 months. Now I don’t get to play all the time, it might be weeks between games, so pregame when designing my army list I would have to go on the community sites, and download the latest up to date points, then make a my army list using the new points. All to tweak how much a gretchin is.
I'm sympathetic to wanting ease of listbuilding over theoretically improved balance, but I don't understand this at all.
You play with like-minded casual players. You don't feel the points tweaks affected your games. You already ignore rules that you don't feel are necessary. You can just not use points updates. Why do you feel that if points were updated more frequently, you'd be compelled to use them? Why is it necessary for GW to return to the old days of never fixing egregious balance errors to accommodate the way you want to play?
I don't get it.
I can and did before power level, then power level came in and made it even simpler. The issue by then Was points weren’t on the data sheets, but crammed at the back of the book and such like. Lots of page flipping. Rubbish. Power levels were right there on the datasheet. Just lovely.
Now, no power levels, no points on the data sheet. So, I’ve gone all modern and taken to an app. So far so good with the gw one, better than battle scribe for now and I have a warhammer+ account already so no extra cost.
Bear in mind none of these things were deal breakers. If they had never done power level I would have kept on playing and using points but being annoyed by the stupid layout. None of it was that big a deal real.
If I had to choose a favourite army design time it would have been first edition. I loved the random tables of equipment. Designing an army felt like a game in itself. Then trying to build models that represented what ever you rolled up was a great challenge. But they definitely wouldn’t have gone down well with the anti power level crowd, no balance at all, a lascannon cost exactly the same as heady Webber.
Plus, penitentjake, your campaigns sound amazing, jealous of the fun you’re having. Oh for more free time to do that.
So fed up of hearing this, it’s been around for years, better balance is better for everyone! It’s not true.
Balance is one factor towards enjoyment. It will vary between individuals how important a factor it is. Because balance is normally achieved by adding complexity, eg granular points updated very often or removing complexity, eg less units or less specific weapons profiles that are easier to balance.
For the points specific discussion balance seems to equal a more complex point system. It has been said a million times that granular points equals better balance/
Not necessarily. ASOIAF is typically played at 40 points and has much tighter balance than 40k. The issue is that the game is designed from the ground up to be a better balanced, more enjoyable experience than 40k is.
Balance is an incredibly important factor towards enjoyment *if you are sportsmanlike*; that is, if you are interested in both players having a "sporting chance." Most people do have a sense of this. Hell, studies with mice show they have a sense of this when they play with each other.
And everyone I know who poo-poos balance irl are the types most likely to fly off the handle if they lose a game; they just want the outcome of the game decided by their social environment (i.e. can they ostracize or kick out everyone who beats them) rather than rules and tactics.
Hecaton wrote: You know what's interesting to me? In 9th the pro-PL advocates talked about how the math was easier, that much granularity wasn't needed, etc. Now we've got nobody bringing it up, almost like that argument was made in bad faith back in 9th and it's really about something else. I wonder which of the current arguments are being made in bad faith...
Neither.
Those who like PL for whatever reason like PL .
Those who like more granular pts for whatever reason like more granular pts.
The difference is who's happy here in 10e concerning how pts are done.
Those who are happy/happy enough with the current pt scheme? They really don't have to say anything. Life is good enough.
But those who like more granular pts? Oh boy.... They feel they've "lost" here in 10e. They're aggrieved & they feel the need to go on & on about what they perceive the pros of thier preferred method are vs what the cons of the other are. They've no problem insulting the developers & any who tell them why they prefer the PL style are accused of lying about thier reasons. And sometimes insulted.
This 80-some page salt monument is just the granular pts fans trying to come to terms with how this edition works. It's almost like one of the stages of grief.
Eventually they'll hopefully either accept it as what is for the time being & decide to have as much fun as possible, go away (for an edition? For longer?), or at least get tired of typing the same stuff day after day.
Otherwise it's going to be a looong 3 years.
In any event? Those who like the current pts style still don't need to say much on the subject.
Andykp wrote: Points in separate documents, changing them every 3 months. Now I don’t get to play all the time, it might be weeks between games, so pregame when designing my army list I would have to go on the community sites, and download the latest up to date points, then make a my army list using the new points. All to tweak how much a gretchin is.
I'm sympathetic to wanting ease of listbuilding over theoretically improved balance, but I don't understand this at all.
You play with like-minded casual players. You don't feel the points tweaks affected your games. You already ignore rules that you don't feel are necessary. You can just not use points updates. Why do you feel that if points were updated more frequently, you'd be compelled to use them? Why is it necessary for GW to return to the old days of never fixing egregious balance errors to accommodate the way you want to play?
I don't get it.
I can and did before power level, then power level came in and made it even simpler. The issue by then Was points weren’t on the data sheets, but crammed at the back of the book and such like. Lots of page flipping. Rubbish. Power levels were right there on the datasheet. Just lovely.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Doesn't matter if you play pickup games, or with a select group of friends, or if you do matched play, or narrative games. Better balance is better for everyone. And the current system is pretty unbalanced. Both externally and internally.
So better balance does NOT mean better experience. It all depend on at what cost the balance comes and from who experience you view that balance.
I agree, up to a point. Obviously, you could make balancing the game much easier by restricting al factions to a single army, and that would suck for pretty much everyone even though it could easily be much better balanced.
The problem I have with your reasoning is I just can't see how making points more granular is too great a cost. The logic just doesn't hold up. If you and your group are not too concerned about balance you can still not bother to pay for every last pistol and random upgrade. I'm pretty sure most people will have done that before if they had to throw together a rough list for a quick game, and if balance isn't your concern it works fine. I also think people massively overstate the extra time more granular points would take when writing a list even if you decide to use the full costs for everything. We're not talking about advanced mathematics here, and the bulk of the time spent on list construction is figuring out what to take, not how much it costs.
If you use an app it automatically updates the points for you and you can either then adjust lists accordingly or - again - not bother. One advantage of the app is it might give an indication that your list is maybe too powerful if it jumps from 1000 points to 1200 points after an update.
The problem I have with your reasoning is I just can't see how making points more granular is too great a cost. The logic just doesn't hold up.
From a different perspective -(warmachine/hordes), going from mk1s high granularity to mk2's low granularity was a step forward in every way for me. I vastly preferred mk2s points-costings to mk1's and found they contributed to a better game- though obviously there were a lot more elements at play.
Even now, nearly 15 years later, I'd prefer low granularity to high.
If you use an app it automatically updates the points for you and you can either then adjust lists accordingly or - again - not bother. One advantage of the app is it might give an indication that your list is maybe too powerful if it jumps from 1000 points to 1200 points after an update.
Youre not wrong but What if you simply don't want to use an app? Considering my job is computer based for example, I put a lot of value on non-screen based activities outside of my working hours. I value a hobby where I don't need a Tablet/phone element involved and can 'switch off' and 'disconnect' for an evening.
If you use an app it automatically updates the points for you and you can either then adjust lists accordingly or - again - not bother. One advantage of the app is it might give an indication that your list is maybe too powerful if it jumps from 1000 points to 1200 points after an update.
Youre not wrong but What if you simply don't want to use an app? Considering my job is computer based for example, I put a lot of value on non-screen based activities outside of my working hours. I value a hobby where I don't need a Tablet/phone element involved and can 'switch off' and 'disconnect' for an evening.
I was specifically responding to AndyKP here as they said they did now use one. If you don't, that's fine too. I don't think it really changes anything significantly if you're not too bothered about balance anyway. You still have to add up the points somehow and as I said above I just don't think the time saving is anywhere near significant enough to warrant the removal of the old points system. I've stated a few times that in many cases the new system actually makes building lists more time consuming, not less, as a direct result of the lack of granularity.
Youre not wrong but What if you simply don't want to use an app? Considering my job is computer based for example, I put a lot of value on non-screen based activities outside of my working hours. I value a hobby where I don't need a Tablet/phone element involved and can 'switch off' and 'disconnect' for an evening.
I guess 40k is not for those kind of people any more because there is no possibility to get the point costs and create an army list without
Youre not wrong but What if you simply don't want to use an app? Considering my job is computer based for example, I put a lot of value on non-screen based activities outside of my working hours. I value a hobby where I don't need a Tablet/phone element involved and can 'switch off' and 'disconnect' for an evening.
I guess 40k is not for those kind of people any more because there is no possibility to get the point costs and create an army list without
Also, even if you use an app to make your list, that is what, 15 minutes, maybe, out of the hours you will be playing for?
It's not like after you make the list you have to have your phone screen in view the entire time you play. Once you have put together the list you do not need to look at it ever again for that evening of play.
It's akin to complaining that your friends text/whatsapp/whatever you to organise the when/where of the game. You don't want to look at a screen as part of the prep for your game of 40k dammit! People should send their queries and suggestions by the good ol' postal service!
1. Why isn't a Plasma Pistol/Power Sword worth more than a Bolt Pistol/Chainsword? 2. Why shouldn't a Leman Russ with sponsons cost more than one without? 3. How come a vehicle with a hunter-killer missile and a multi-melta is the same cost as one that doesn't take these upgrades? 4. Why should I pay so much for a Baneblade when I'm not bringing double sponsons? 5. Why should a weapon without indirect fire get a price increase because it has the option for indirect, but isn't taking said option?
... and many more like it.
When you can finally answer those questions, then maybe we'll have a proper discussion.
1. Why isn't a Plasma Pistol/Power Sword worth more than a Bolt Pistol/Chainsword? 2. Why shouldn't a Leman Russ with sponsons cost more than one without? 3. How come a vehicle with a hunter-killer missile and a multi-melta is the same cost as one that doesn't take these upgrades? 4. Why should I pay so much for a Baneblade when I'm not bringing double sponsons? 5. Why should a weapon without indirect fire get a price increase because it has the option for indirect, but isn't taking said option?
... and many more like it.
When you can finally answer those questions, then maybe we'll have a proper discussion.
Do they have to be answers that you agree with?
I believe there is one easy answer for all of these "why does it cost X when the 'strongest' and 'weakest' options have a disparity in perceived efficacy."
The answer is: Games Workshop has chosen to take the game in a direction that is less focused on matched play balance, and instead favor supporting customers who casually pick up models here and there, build them however they want and throw them down to play. Their metrics for these decisions are likely not driven by anything other than pure bottom line. GW is in the business of selling models, and if this direction facilitates and increase in that, then they are accomplishing their mission statement.
You and many others may feel betrayed, let down, or otherwise abrasive towards these design decisions, that's fine, vent away, you as a paying customer have that right. But on the opposite side of that coin, you/others are not the arbiter of fun within the hobby.
There's a few reasons I enjoy the new system over the old, I've expressed them within the thread. Every time I get ridiculed by the same handful of individuals because I dare to like something they do not. As a matter of FACT, my first foray into these discussions was on page 3, where I expressed that my play group enjoys these changes, and that we always preferred the Age of Sigmar method to the 40k 8th/9th. YOU (H.B.M.C.) then proceeded to show your true virtue and dismissed the notion of liking something with a common AoS hater slur.
Tell me again, who here truly desires honest discussion, and who here just want's to whine that they don't get their way?
And then they get to the table and find they built their model wrong, because their bolt pistol and chainsword is inferior to the plasma pistol and power sword their friend is using, or their tank without sponsons does so much less than their friend's that does, or they build their leader illegally because it can only be armed with The Shiny Stick if they have The Sparkly Cap and not The Dark Hood they thought looked cooler when building it. Ok that last part is more of a problem with datasheet options than 10th's points, but it shows that GWreally doesn't favour those sorts of customers like you claim they do.
Every time I get ridiculed by the same handful of individuals because I dare to like something they do not. As a matter of FACT, my first foray into these discussions was on page 3, where I expressed that my play group enjoys these changes, and that we always preferred the Age of Sigmar method to the 40k 8th/9th. YOU (H.B.M.C.) then proceeded to show your true virtue and dismissed the notion of liking something with a common AoS hater slur.
Tell me again, who here truly desires honest discussion, and who here just want's to whine that they don't get their way?
What, Sigmarines? What is wrong with sigmarines? Hell there wasn't anything wrong with chaos marines in WHFB because that is what armored Chaos warriors were
also see above. You don't actually resolve the issue, because there is still a points system, just one that thinks you'll have picked all the fancy stuff instead, it therefore still feths with the casual. Probably even moreso considering a scenario were one runs Dragon warriors CSM full with melta into SoB with flamers because fluff.
Not that it was a fair matchup beforehand seemingly as sisters don't do well ATM but that is a diffrent debate about quality controll and the lack of oversight and coordination.
The answer is:
Games Workshop has chosen to take the game in a direction that is less focused on matched play balance, and instead favor supporting customers who casually pick up models here and there, build them however they want and throw them down to play. Their metrics for these decisions are likely not driven by anything other than pure bottom line. GW is in the business of selling models, and if this direction facilitates and increase in that, then they are accomplishing their mission statement.
GW is in the business of selling models
models
Ugh not this again! You have been a good faith participant in this thread so please take my question in good faith. Why does GW sell rules then? Why did they roll out their metawatch articles? Why the explicit catering to tournaments with MTG-style (an explicitly competitive oriented game, mind you) tournament packs for LGSes? Focusing less on matched play balance undermines this concerted effort on their part to make the game more appealing to competitive-minded players.
The answer is: Games Workshop has chosen to take the game in a direction that is less focused on matched play balance, and instead favor supporting customers who casually pick up models here and there, build them however they want and throw them down to play. Their metrics for these decisions are likely not driven by anything other than pure bottom line. GW is in the business of selling models, and if this direction facilitates and increase in that, then they are accomplishing their mission statement.
That doesn't actually favor "supporting customers who casually pick up modols here and there, build them however they want...", though, because if they build the unit "wrong" they're at a disadvantage. Under points with each option costed, different options for the same unit could be relatively balanced. Donyou understand?
H.B.M.C. wrote: 1. Why isn't a Plasma Pistol/Power Sword worth more than a Bolt Pistol/Chainsword? 2. Why shouldn't a Leman Russ with sponsons cost more than one without? 3. How come a vehicle with a hunter-killer missile and a multi-melta is the same cost as one that doesn't take these upgrades? 4. Why should I pay so much for a Baneblade when I'm not bringing double sponsons? 5. Why should a weapon without indirect fire get a price increase because it has the option for indirect, but isn't taking said option?
1. As it stands it likely is, is it possible to make them parallel? Yes. 2. As it stands, yes it should cost more, again it could be made to not or be remedied other ways. 3. This is stupid, they should either be mandatory extras and baked in or cease to exist in absence of a points value. 4. Again, you shouldn't, make them mandatory to waive wysiwyg. 5. The biggest issue and 100% agree, this cantbe resolved without granular coats.
I've had this talk with H.B.M.C. elsewhere and sidegrades or a different implementation is possible.
Not Online!!! wrote:What, Sigmarines? What is wrong with sigmarines? Hell there wasn't anything wrong with chaos marines in WHFB because that is what armored Chaos warriors were
also see above. You don't actually resolve the issue, because there is still a points system, just one that thinks you'll have picked all the fancy stuff instead, it therefore still feths with the casual. Probably even moreso considering a scenario were one runs Dragon warriors CSM full with melta into SoB with flamers because fluff.
Not that it was a fair matchup beforehand seemingly as sisters don't do well ATM but that is a diffrent debate about quality controll and the lack of oversight and coordination.
I admit this new system has it's flaws. My counterpoint is that most systems GW has produced will have strengths and flaws. I genuinely believe there are strengths to the new system, and I am aware that many on Dakka do not share in those beliefs. I just wish we could be a little more accepting of different perspectives without demanding a flawless argument.
I know many that may not view the phrase "Sigmarine" as a slur. But having been a major support of AoS from inception (even when there were no points), I find the two uses of the nick-name to be from supporters who are trying to reclaim the phrase, or detractors who consistently blame Sigmar for every wrongdoing within the company (8th-10th 40k included). I was a little presumptuous attributing H.B.M.C.'s usage of the phrase as a derogatory slur towards comparisons between the systems, so I will recant that he used it as a slur, until proven otherwise.
Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Why did they roll out their metawatch articles? Why the explicit catering to tournaments with MTG-style (an explicitly competitive oriented game, mind you) tournament packs for LGSes? Focusing less on matched play balance undermines this concerted effort on their part to make the game more appealing to competitive-minded players.
In the same vein that other companies sell peripherals to support their mission statement. MTG is in the card selling business, to sell packs of cards. Historically they have also sold: novels, dice, playmats, sleeves, etc to support their primary product.
Some may not consider the rules of the game a peripheral and more of a mainstay in order to play, however I believe Games Workshop has also made strides in recent years to have more and more of their rules free. I believe ccs has itemized earlier in the thread that right now for 10th, you can get the index's free, the core rules free. So someone interested in the hobby only need to spend money on models in order to play.
I am by no means discounting that eventual Codex releases, mission packs, chapter approved, campaign books etc. will be sold and not provided for free... However if Games Workshop finds that their largest growth in model sales comes from the working moms at the open end of the "trumpet" buy some model kits for their teen who will play for a year or two max, then it's rather obvious why they changed the point system to accommodate that revenue stream. Those revolving door players likely account for the vast majority of sales from models and they likely weren't buying up every codex or chapter approve or mission pack that gets released anyway.
I believe another prime example (in recent days) that these are the types of customers that GW is seeking to capitalize on as opposed to the entrenched veteran was the outrage at the culling of the space marine line. If the company's goal (as stated in their mission statement) is to sell models, who do you think they should cater too? The people with perpetual armies that make one purchase 20 years ago and rarely buy more models. Or the influx of new blood who spend the most money up front weather they stay or leave.
GW has listened to the customers and provided a more affordable entry point to the hobby. Free rules, just buy your models/hobby supply. This is a good thing in my opinion.
Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Why did they roll out their metawatch articles? Why the explicit catering to tournaments with MTG-style (an explicitly competitive oriented game, mind you) tournament packs for LGSes? Focusing less on matched play balance undermines this concerted effort on their part to make the game more appealing to competitive-minded players.
Historically GW was never match play minded. In fact the term "matched play" didn't even come about until 8th. They had some losses in the late part of 5th-7th so they readjusted their focus. One of the major complaints at that time was the lack of balance and playtesting. That is why they focused on this as part of their 8th/9th initiative. I do not believe they are going to stop with the meta watch article going into 10th, but I would also not be surprised if they become more sparse and eventually dropped.
I am being purely speculative on this, as I do not sit in their board meetings or strategy sessions, but a shift in design generally correlates to sales. Maybe the sales of 8th/9th weren't hitting targets they expected. They historically didn't listen to internet tournament grinders complaints for 7 editions, then they did for 2 editions (6 years) and maybe didn't see a meaningful change in sales. Meanwhile their other flagship games (AoS) has been increasing profit year over year. Again, this is speculation on my part, but I can rationalize a few scenarios like this as to why they choose the direction they did at the time they did, and are now backing off or shifting to a new design philosophy.
That doesn't actually favor "supporting customers who casually pick up modols here and there, build them however they want...", though, because if they build the unit "wrong" they're at a disadvantage. Under points with each option costed, different options for the same unit could be relatively balanced. Donyou understand?
I understand this complaint/talking point. I try to put myself in a mindset of when I was first getting into the hobbies, and I didn't really build based on what is optimal, hell I didn't know the difference between a lascannon and an autocannon. When I found out later as i got more ingrained into the gaming side, I realized some of my choices weren't optimal. But also I don't chock that up as a negative experience. Cool models are forever, rules constantly change. Also, I believe most casual players do not adhere to strict WYSIWYG so it is likely a non issue for most. At least that was my experience back in the early 2000s when I started these games.
Not Online!!! wrote:What, Sigmarines? What is wrong with sigmarines? Hell there wasn't anything wrong with chaos marines in WHFB because that is what armored Chaos warriors were
also see above. You don't actually resolve the issue, because there is still a points system, just one that thinks you'll have picked all the fancy stuff instead, it therefore still feths with the casual. Probably even moreso considering a scenario were one runs Dragon warriors CSM full with melta into SoB with flamers because fluff.
Not that it was a fair matchup beforehand seemingly as sisters don't do well ATM but that is a diffrent debate about quality controll and the lack of oversight and coordination.
I admit this new system has it's flaws. My counterpoint is that most systems GW has produced will have strengths and flaws. I genuinely believe there are strengths to the new system, and I am aware that many on Dakka do not share in those beliefs. I just wish we could be a little more accepting of different perspectives without demanding a flawless argument.
I know many that may not view the phrase "Sigmarine" as a slur. But having been a major support of AoS from inception (even when there were no points), I find the two uses of the nick-name to be from supporters who are trying to reclaim the phrase, or detractors who consistently blame Sigmar for every wrongdoing within the company (8th-10th 40k included). I was a little presumptuous attributing H.B.M.C.'s usage of the phrase as a derogatory slur towards comparisons between the systems, so I will recant that he used it as a slur, until proven otherwise.
Whilest i get what you mean, i am sorry i will remain adamant about the way how 40k is that an ungranular system is not the way forward and never was. I was in disfavour about PL in 9th because of that. And the argument about flaws and strengths, i find flawed in itself, mostly because regardless what system we pick AoS, 40k you name it the core problem remains GW. Just because GW failed at points doesn't discount the fact that it in the current state of affairs would be a better system then the PL-ified points, NVM even old school PL would be a better system because atleast it was clear. Which just goes to show the new system is flat out worse since it's a hybridised bastard with all the weaknesses of the former systems with 0 of the benefits.
as for AoS, i'll freely admit i dislike it. Mostly because it was a shoddy job for replacing WHFB with something that isn't even in the same ballpark with AoS. BUT the problem sit's hardly with people enjoying AoS, the problem is once again GW being GW. So yeah sure , Sigmarine may be derogatory torwards something, but that something is gw's design department being boring at most. And even that nowadys is inacurate consideirng the fact that said sigmarine faction nowadays has quite decent looking unique models, even if i prefer the more lower fantasy design of the former WHFB esthetique more than the AoS high ammount of fantasy elements including design.
The main thing is that if you play the game with a certain mindset it doesn’t matter if your unit has the most optimal load out even though a “better load out is free. You don’t care.
You might not have that mind set but surely at least one of you has the empathetic ability to understand someone else’s point of view!
As for apps, I’m not keen. I’m using one this edition but I’d rather not have to.
And for whoever said my issue with points was with GW formatting, yeah you are right. I played 7 editions using points quite happily. But they were all in the one book and mostly on the army list page.
And through those 7 editions I still didn’t equip my units with what was “best”. I went with what I thought was cool. That’s why I still have las pistols on my guard sergeants and no sponsons on my leman Russ tanks. And that isn’t changing.
Tittliewinks22 wrote: However if Games Workshop finds that their largest growth in model sales comes from the working moms at the open end of the "trumpet" buy some model kits for their teen who will play for a year or two max, then it's rather obvious why they changed the point system to accommodate that revenue stream. Those revolving door players likely account for the vast majority of sales from models and they likely weren't buying up every codex or chapter approve or mission pack that gets released anyway.
This is just the classic "three purchase" model GW has been pursuing for years. Get a kid interested in the store (where only GW products are shown and the employee is 100% focused on recruiting new customers) and an initial purchase, get a birthday gift, get a christmas gift, and after that who cares because you've already made all the profit you expect to get. This was the driving force behind GW cutting stores back to tiny closets with a single table for demo games, cutting staff down to a single employee, evaluating (and firing) employees based on sales metrics that were overwhelmingly focused on sales of starter sets, etc. GW thought they could build the entire company on selling starter purchases to kids and take any sales to veteran players as a nice bonus.
But guess what: it didn't work. GW saw significant declines in sales, veterans weren't showing up to give new customers something to aspire to and a reason to buy stuff, and GW's rivals were taking market share. GW only turned things around when they invested more in regular balance updates, frequent FAQs, writing rules with the clarity required for competitive play, hosting their own major tournaments, partnering with third-party tournament groups, etc. And aside from the point system being one last dying gasp of the Jervis cult 40k is continuing all of these trends. GW continues to run competitive events, post competitive content regularly, partner with competitive play groups, write the rules to be suitable for competitive play, etc. The broken point system is a clear outlier in this trend.
(And outside of 40k there's the debacle of launch day AoS, where GW nearly killed the entire product line and the company with it by attempting to make your suggested "just appeal to the newbies" game with rules being an afterthought and "casual" games with cool models the emphasis.)
GW has listened to the customers and provided a more affordable entry point to the hobby. Free rules, just buy your models/hobby supply. This is a good thing in my opinion.
Except you're missing one key part here: the rules will not be free. Free rules are not an ongoing sales strategy, they're a necessary but very temporary part of launching a major update to the game. The changes in 10th were significant enough to require re-writing literally every datasheet and army rule so GW had three choices: do a "FAQ" update that was essentially a whole new release of free rules, publish every new codex on launch day and self destruct their business model, or publish free temporary rules so that people can keep playing (and buying!) until their codex is released. GW is absolutely intending to add the cost of buying rules back into the startup cost and they are releasing codices on an aggressive schedule to get there ASAP.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: The issue by then Was points weren’t on the data sheets, but crammed at the back of the book and such like. Lots of page flipping. Rubbish. Power levels were right there on the datasheet. Just lovely.
This is just baffling to me. How is it more page flipping to build lists with 1-2 page points list than with point costs distributed across the entire datasheet section of the codex? With traditional points it was all in one place and you could have the entire points section for your army laid out in front of you, with PL you had to keep flipping between pages and trying to remember what order all your units were in so you could find the appropriate point cost.
(And by the end of 9th PL was presented in the exact same format, a major upgrade.)
If I had to choose a favourite army design time it would have been first edition. I loved the random tables of equipment. Designing an army felt like a game in itself. Then trying to build models that represented what ever you rolled up was a great challenge. But they definitely wouldn’t have gone down well with the anti power level crowd, no balance at all, a lascannon cost exactly the same as heady Webber.
How exactly did that work? You had to write your lists weeks in advance of a game so you could build the required models? Or did you have to make your army once and then be stuck with playing the exact same list forever?
And TBH it sounds like a pretty terrible system in general. Screw the narrative, the RNG says you're equipped with this and you'll like it. I will never understand the fascination some people have with replacing player agency with RNG.
I'm sure all of that is a lot of fun. The question though is why you're still committed to points-based list construction for matched play when your goals are all about the story? Why do you care so much about which system makes it easier to get to exactly 500 points when balance matters so little that you'd rather lose the game than fail to accomplish your story-related objective? Why not use the simple "X units and Y characters" system I gave you to give a rough estimate for the size of the game and then build appropriate forces for the story? It's even simpler and easier to use than PL and balance isn't any worse for a situation like yours.
And really this goes for all of Crusade in general. Why embrace a matched play system where the narrative is constrained by balance concerns and an emphasis on the rules working well for pickup games against random strangers? Why have a balance constraint of having to spend RP to change equipment or add units when those are things that can be done based on if/when they're appropriate for the story? Why play symmetrical matched play missions when you can dump the entire primary scoring system and only have each side's story-related goals? Why track an arbitrary point system for the Tau and GSC fighting over the planet when you can have the GM decide based on the outcome of games (which only have story-related objectives) and set up the next games based on the consequences? Which is more engaging from a story point of view, the Tau taking the planet because they reached 5 military points or the Tau taking the planet because you collectively agreed that the next game should be a Tau assault on the planetary governor's palace?
I understand this complaint/talking point. I try to put myself in a mindset of when I was first getting into the hobbies, and I didn't really build based on what is optimal, hell I didn't know the difference between a lascannon and an autocannon. When I found out later as i got more ingrained into the gaming side, I realized some of my choices weren't optimal. But also I don't chock that up as a negative experience. Cool models are forever, rules constantly change. Also, I believe most casual players do not adhere to strict WYSIWYG so it is likely a non issue for most. At least that was my experience back in the early 2000s when I started these games.
You're arguing the game should have trap options, without giving a justification. That makes for a real bad game. Telling Nate the Noob "Haha! You built your unit wrong! Call it a 'learning experience!' Also I'll decry you for being a cutthroat bad sport if you point out that this gives you an unfair disadvantage!" does not make for a healthy gaming community.
I'm sure all of that is a lot of fun. The question though is why you're still committed to points-based list construction for matched play when your goals are all about the story? Why do you care so much about which system makes it easier to get to exactly 500 points when balance matters so little that you'd rather lose the game than fail to accomplish your story-related objective? Why not use the simple "X units and Y characters" system I gave you to give a rough estimate for the size of the game and then build appropriate forces for the story? It's even simpler and easier to use than PL and balance isn't any worse for a situation like yours.
And really this goes for all of Crusade in general. Why embrace a matched play system where the narrative is constrained by balance concerns and an emphasis on the rules working well for pickup games against random strangers? Why have a balance constraint of having to spend RP to change equipment or add units when those are things that can be done based on if/when they're appropriate for the story? Why play symmetrical matched play missions when you can dump the entire primary scoring system and only have each side's story-related goals? Why track an arbitrary point system for the Tau and GSC fighting over the planet when you can have the GM decide based on the outcome of games (which only have story-related objectives) and set up the next games based on the consequences? Which is more engaging from a story point of view, the Tau taking the planet because they reached 5 military points or the Tau taking the planet because you collectively agreed that the next game should be a Tau assault on the planetary governor's palace?
Especially given that in 9th you could play Crusade with points rather than PL and it was much better. There was nothing you could do with PL that you couldn't do with points.
And through those 7 editions I still didn’t equip my units with what was “best”. I went with what I thought was cool. That’s why I still have las pistols on my guard sergeants and no sponsons on my leman Russ tanks. And that isn’t changing.
So when you play against someone who *does* have sponsons on their Leman Russes, what do you do? Just eat the loss and say "you were a better player, you modeled your units with the right stuff?"
Because if you don't, you're acknowledging that your devotion to PL is in spite of its flaws and has to do with something else than its efficacy at creating a good, balanced, or fun game.
Andykp wrote: I said from day one of it that there’s no convincing some, and I don’t think anyone from pro PL side has tried to convince anyone. Just to make them see there may be more than one way.
"Make the see there may be more than one way" is trying to convince people. Please don't play word games like this.
Andykp wrote: I said from day one of it that there’s no convincing some, and I don’t think anyone from pro PL side has tried to convince anyone. Just to make them see there may be more than one way.
"Make the see there may be more than one way" is trying to convince people. Please don't play word games like this.
Trying to convince someone power level is better than points is one thing, no one did that. Trying to convince people you can do things differently from them and still have a good time, while in no way invalidating their experience is a totally different thing that has been done.
The only people trying to tell anyone they are objectively wrong is you and your tribe. The only one telling anyone they are lying or not playing the game right is you.
You will find I have said that there should be points as they were just for people like you, and even said it’s a shame there isn’t anymore. So please don’t talk nonsense.
Andykp wrote: I also think people are overestimating the importance of points. It’s a very minor bit of the game experience really, which is why I can live with it which ever way they go. The current system isn’t as good as powerlevel was but it’s far from a deal breaker. It’s a very minor irritation.
It's minor as long as your particular army isn't hurt by the errors. If you have crisis suits built the wrong way, LRBTs without sponsons, etc, it's a ~30-40% error on those units and you're going to struggle to win because of it. And even on other units those little 5-10% errors from missing plasma pistols, hunter-killer missiles, etc add up. Add 10% value to one player's list, subtract 10% value from the other player's list, and now you're playing 1800 points vs. 2200 points. IOW, I get to add a free Baneblade to my list.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: Trying to convince people you can do things differently from them and still have a good time, while in no way invalidating their experience is a totally different thing that has been done.
That's still trying to convince people, and "PL isn't damaging my fun" is not a defense of PL. For PL to have any reason to exist it needs to be better than the traditional system and so far the entire argument in defense of PL is an appeal to a very minor time savings which doesn't exist at all for most people.
When I play someone who has sponsons on their leman Russ I dont say anything at all, I would be very surprised if that was a deciding factor in the battle and don’t really care either way if they have sponsons or not. That’s their choice.
The fact that that is what you think would catch me out shows just how far from the point you are. You really don’t get it at all.
And as for devotion, that’s a word you have chosen and that is quite ridiculous. I have a devotion to a few things and an army design mechanic is not one of them. Hence why I am happy to use points as they are now and was happy the 7 editions before PL existed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: "Better for some" is not the same as "universally better", but it's still better.
Unless you want to insist that those who enjoyed PL and found it better for themselves are lying or mistaken, you should take them at face value.
I’ve already said that I enjoyed my PL games better but have already been called a liar for it. Flogging a dead horse here.
JNAProductions wrote: Unless you want to insist that those who enjoyed PL and found it better for themselves are lying or mistaken, you should take them at face value.
I take them at face value. I accept that for a small minority of players PL produced a minor time savings in some cases. The question though is not "has PL provided non-zero value to any player ever", it's "should the game have multiple point systems to cater to a small minority who doesn't even get any significant benefit from the additional point system". And the answer to that is a pretty clear "no".
(And there's still the question, which I haven't seen any PL advocate answer, of why there should only be two point systems. Why not 5-10 point systems, or even more? Why should PL be the only alternative system?)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: When I play someone who has sponsons on their leman Russ I dont say anything at all, I would be very surprised if that was a deciding factor in the battle and don’t really care either way if they have sponsons or not. That’s their choice.
You don't think a 30-40% increase in value of a major unit like a LRBT, repeated across multiple tanks, is something that makes a significant difference in the outcome? As a guard player I can tell you that it 100% does make a difference and if sponsons are free not taking them is crippling your list.
Andykp wrote: I also think people are overestimating the importance of points. It’s a very minor bit of the game experience really, which is why I can live with it which ever way they go. The current system isn’t as good as powerlevel was but it’s far from a deal breaker. It’s a very minor irritation.
It's minor as long as your particular army isn't hurt by the errors. If you have crisis suits built the wrong way, LRBTs without sponsons, etc, it's a ~30-40% error on those units and you're going to struggle to win because of it. And even on other units those little 5-10% errors from missing plasma pistols, hunter-killer missiles, etc add up. Add 10% value to one player's list, subtract 10% value from the other player's list, and now you're playing 1800 points vs. 2200 points. IOW, I get to add a free Baneblade to my list.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: Trying to convince people you can do things differently from them and still have a good time, while in no way invalidating their experience is a totally different thing that has been done.
That's still trying to convince people, and "PL isn't damaging my fun" is not a defense of PL. For PL to have any reason to exist it needs to be better than the traditional system and so far the entire argument in defense of PL is an appeal to a very minor time savings which doesn't exist at all for most people.
1. Powerlevel doesn’t exist anymore.
2. When it did you did not have to use it.
3. Your maths there is assuming that you are playing someone with a “perfect” list optimised to 100%. If your opponent is like minded and playing a list of models they think of as cool the percentages cancel each other out.
4. Equally, if you are playing someone who is like minded a few hundred points doesn’t matter. It really doesn’t. Get over it.
5. I don’t have to defend my experience to you. I don’t have to justify my enjoyment to you simple because you have taken it upon your self to be the judge of what is best.
Take some of the time you were going to spend beating people, with the perfect net list and read up on some phenomenology, it’s fascinating and might help you under stand other peoples perspective a bit.
3. Your maths there is assuming that you are playing someone with a “perfect” list optimised to 100%. If your opponent is like minded and playing a list of models they think of as cool the percentages cancel each other out.
Sometimes they cancel out. How exactly do they cancel out between my army where the lore is advanced weapons are in short supply so everyone gets laspistols and chainswords and infantry squads only get basic lasguns vs. your army which is a regiment on great terms with the admech and well supplied with plasma pistols and power weapons and all the special/heavy upgrades you can legally take?
4. Equally, if you are playing someone who is like minded a few hundred points doesn’t matter. It really doesn’t. Get over it.
If a few hundred points of balance error in a 2000 point game is acceptable then why do you reject the "take X units and Y characters" system? Its balance errors are no worse than the few hundred points of error you're willing to accept and it's far faster and easier to use than PL.
5. I don’t have to defend my experience to you. I don’t have to justify my enjoyment to you simple because you have taken it upon your self to be the judge of what is best.
You don't. At any time you're free to walk away from this thread and stop engaging with people who disagree with you. But it's absurd to come in here and continue to post arguments for your position while simultaneously objecting when people post their own arguments instead of accepting whatever you say.
Take X units and Y characters-what if I want a character heavy list? Or a character light list?
What if the armies are significantly different in unit strength-like Custodes vs. infantry Guard or Cultist CSM?
3. Your maths there is assuming that you are playing someone with a “perfect” list optimised to 100%. If your opponent is like minded and playing a list of models they think of as cool the percentages cancel each other out.
Sometimes they cancel out. How exactly do they cancel out between my army where the lore is advanced weapons are in short supply so everyone gets laspistols and chainswords and infantry squads only get basic lasguns vs. your army which is a regiment on great terms with the admech and well supplied with plasma pistols and power weapons and all the special/heavy upgrades you can legally take?
4. Equally, if you are playing someone who is like minded a few hundred points doesn’t matter. It really doesn’t. Get over it.
If a few hundred points of balance error in a 2000 point game is acceptable then why do you reject the "take X units and Y characters" system? Its balance errors are no worse than the few hundred points of error you're willing to accept and it's far faster and easier to use than PL.
5. I don’t have to defend my experience to you. I don’t have to justify my enjoyment to you simple because you have taken it upon your self to be the judge of what is best.
You don't. At any time you're free to walk away from this thread and stop engaging with people who disagree with you. But it's absurd to come in here and continue to post arguments for your position while simultaneously objecting when people post their own arguments instead of accepting whatever you say.
Because your arguments are “you’re wrong my way is better”. That’s just stupid. Just as stupid as you saying you like powerlevels so you should play this way I just invented and then going on about it for 30 pages. I have no interest in designing my own army creation system, as I said a few comments ago, it really isn’t that big a deal. Army lists making is a very tiny part of the experience for me. I’m not that bothered.
And you can’t disagree with me, that’s the whole point, you can’t say I’m wrong because all I’m saying is I prefer this way not that. YOU CANNOT DISAGREE WITH THAT. You are literally saying, no you don’t you prefer this way”.
It’s like me saying I like tea, and you shouting for 80pages that coffee is better and I don’t like tea, I actually like coffee but don’t realise it.
So go on, keep telling me I don’t like tea, while I sit here with my brew.
And seriously, take a look at phenomenology, I think it will really help you.
JNAProductions wrote: Take X units and Y characters-what if I want a character heavy list? Or a character light list?
What if the armies are significantly different in unit strength-like Custodes vs. infantry Guard or Cultist CSM?
Good question. It's obviously not a perfect or balanced system but that's why I only suggest it for people like Andykp or PenitentJake who claim to not care about balance. If you want a balanced matched play system you clearly need more structure beyond a very rough guide for how large the game is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: Just as stupid as you saying you like powerlevels so you should play this way I just invented and then going on about it for 30 pages. I have no interest in designing my own army creation system, as I said a few comments ago, it really isn’t that big a deal.
You keep being aggressive and insulting by calling my system stupid but you still haven't provided any serious argument for why you don't like it. It's simpler and faster to use than PL, the things you claim to like about PL, and its drawback of poor balance is one you claim to not care about. Are you objecting to it for the sole reason that it isn't Official GW Approved Warhammer, or is there something else about your reasons for liking PL that you aren't willing to admit?
And you don't have to design anything. I already designed the whole system for you, all you have to do is use it.
Army lists making is a very tiny part of the experience for me. I’m not that bothered.
Then why do you keep advocating the two system (but only two, not a point system for everyone else who wants a different one) solution? If it's not a big deal then the obvious answer is a single unified point system using the traditional approach to upgrade and per-model costs.
It’s like me saying I like tea, and you shouting for 80pages that coffee is better and I don’t like tea, I actually like coffee but don’t realise it.
It's like me offering you a 50% off coupon for your favorite tea store and you calling me an idiot for suggesting something so stupid.
You’re going to have to explain the 50% off thing at the tea store?
Are you saying, if I listened to you I would enjoy the game more, if I did things your way? Cos that’s crazy, that’s just saying I’m playing the game wrong, the very thing you lambasted jervis Johnson for. Surely you wouldn’t dare do that.??
And again for your made up on the spot army design system that would be “perfect me”, it could work, it could be interesting. But I have no interest in trying out your home brew rules. Thanks though.
I suggest the two system solution, because we had that and it worked. It pleased most folk most the time.
They system we have now, I can live with. I will use that rather than try and invent my own based on your idea.
And keep ignoring the fact that your whole argument is based on telling me I don’t like what I like.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
H.B.M.C. wrote: 1. Why isn't a Plasma Pistol/Power Sword worth more than a Bolt Pistol/Chainsword? 2. Why shouldn't a Leman Russ with sponsons cost more than one without? 3. How come a vehicle with a hunter-killer missile and a multi-melta is the same cost as one that doesn't take these upgrades? 4. Why should I pay so much for a Baneblade when I'm not bringing double sponsons? 5. Why should a weapon without indirect fire get a price increase because it has the option for indirect, but isn't taking said option?
I’ll answer the questions. Because it doesn’t matter. The cost of these things doesn’t really matter. If you don’t build your armies to be as optimised a possible, someone having a few more toys here and there for free makes no real difference. And then you start rolling dice, and all plasma pistols blow up and kill their owners and all of a sudden me with my suboptimal laspistols are ahead, and all for free. If you and all your opponents have a similar mind set then these “advantage” disappear.
Now if you are in a competitive game or such a thing then yes it matters. But we do not play that way.
So for you, 10th edition points aren’t as good. For me, they are ok.
There, answered! You won’t like or accept the answer but that’s the truth of it. It doesn’t matter.
Andykp wrote: Are you saying, if I listened to you I would enjoy the game more, if I did things your way? Cos that’s crazy.
There you go again, dismissing my attempt at listening to what you claim to want out of the game and offering you a solution that accomplishes those things even better than PL.
Cos that’s crazy, that’s just saying I’m playing the game wrong, the very thing you lambasted jervis Johnson for.
It's not at all the same. Jervis said "if you want balance and symmetrical missions you're having fun the wrong way", I'm saying "if you want simplicity and don't care about balance here's a system designed to meet those goals". I'm not telling you simplicity and lack of concern for balance are bad things.
But I have no interest in trying out your home brew rules.
Why not? Is your goal to get the best game for your needs or to find excuses for why PL is a good thing?
I’ll answer the questions. Because it doesn’t matter. The cost of these things doesn’t really matter. If you don’t build your armies to be as optimised a possible, someone having a few more toys here and there for free makes no real difference. And then you start rolling dice, and all plasma pistols blow up and kill their owners and all of a sudden me with my suboptimal laspistols are ahead, and all for free. If you and all your opponents have a similar mind set then these “advantage” disappear.
That leaves no room for tactics, gameplay, or sportsmanship.
If the "game" part of the miniature wargaming hobby is what you're trying to avoid, then take this bit of advice - no system cannot be optimized by the people willing to do so. The system you advocate for can be optimized *more fully* because the gulf between the optimal and non-optimal options is larger. Trying to pretend that you can create a system without optimization will just make the problem worse.
I’ll answer the questions. Because it doesn’t matter. The cost of these things doesn’t really matter. If you don’t build your armies to be as optimised a possible, someone having a few more toys here and there for free makes no real difference. And then you start rolling dice, and all plasma pistols blow up and kill their owners and all of a sudden me with my suboptimal laspistols are ahead, and all for free. If you and all your opponents have a similar mind set then these “advantage” disappear.
That leaves no room for tactics, gameplay, or sportsmanship.
If the "game" part of the miniature wargaming hobby is what you're trying to avoid, then take this bit of advice - no system cannot be optimized by the people willing to do so. The system you advocate for can be optimized *more fully* because the gulf between the optimal and non-optimal options is larger. Trying to pretend that you can create a system without optimization will just make the problem worse.
Or just don’t play with those people. You see the bit where I talk about “similar mindset”. That matters. Which is also why I say for competitive games, or pick up games, old points is probably better than 10th or PL.
Andykp wrote: And then you start rolling dice, and all plasma pistols blow up and kill their owners and all of a sudden me with my suboptimal laspistols are ahead, and all for free.
Are you really suggesting that extreme outlier dice luck favoring the player with a weaker list is somehow a solution to balance problems? What about the far more common scenario where the plasma pistols roll even close to average and you're behind with nothing to make up for it?
It seems nuance is lost in this thread. Middle grounds don’t exist, either you must use points for the best possible balance or you must play completely open ended games with no thought or care at all.
Or I could like that an approximate system is… approximate. If I played a 50 PL game it doesn’t bother me if my opponent ends up with 52 PL, because it’s all rounded anyway. But at the same time a baneblade is worth much more than a sentinel, and getting close to those values is good enough. Could I run max sponsons? Yes. Would I? No.
And despite the claims otherwise, PL does save me noticeable time, particularly if I’m already at the table or with a newer player just trying out the game. I’m not out there theory crafting lists for fun.
I still think points are better for balance, but not everyone cares that much about it. And it may also depend on the day and one’s mood.
I'm sure all of that is a lot of fun. The question though is why you're still committed to points-based list construction for matched play when your goals are all about the story? Why do you care so much about which system makes it easier to get to exactly 500 points when balance matters so little that you'd rather lose the game than fail to accomplish your story-related objective? Why not use the simple "X units and Y characters" system I gave you to give a rough estimate for the size of the game and then build appropriate forces for the story? It's even simpler and easier to use than PL and balance isn't any worse for a situation like yours.
It's been answered at least once. In a 90 page thread though, one can be forgiven for forgetting, so here it is again:
The first problem with your "Increase supply limit by adding a unit" suggestion is that units can range from a pair of Crusaders, coming in at somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30pts, or a Forgeworld superheavy coming in at 500+. While the difference between a unit having gear upgrades or not having gear upgrades isn't going to bother anyone playing in our campaign, somebody who takes that pair of Crusaders is likely to be at a real disadvantage and maybe feel bad when another player spends the same RP to raise supply limit and gets a Knight out of the deal. People who like PL like it because it's "Balanced enough" for their needs. This does not automatically imply that they would be happy with something less balanced than PL.
The second problem with your proposal is that it prevents someone from taking more than one weaker unit instead of one more powerful one... Which they might want to do for a wide variety of reasons (ie. they want to use models they already have, it suits the narrative, or it gives them that feeling of Balanced Enough).
And really this goes for all of Crusade in general. Why embrace a matched play system where the narrative is constrained by balance concerns and an emphasis on the rules working well for pickup games against random strangers? Why have a balance constraint of having to spend RP to change equipment or add units when those are things that can be done based on if/when they're appropriate for the story? Why play symmetrical matched play missions when you can dump the entire primary scoring system and only have each side's story-related goals? Why track an arbitrary point system for the Tau and GSC fighting over the planet when you can have the GM decide based on the outcome of games (which only have story-related objectives) and set up the next games based on the consequences? Which is more engaging from a story point of view, the Tau taking the planet because they reached 5 military points or the Tau taking the planet because you collectively agreed that the next game should be a Tau assault on the planetary governor's palace?
I was going to break this down a line at a time to try and provide greater clarity, but I figured I could probably still say the most important things and keep the post length down if I tried to do it all at once:
The short and the long is that we didn't find it broke, so we didn't bother to fix it. If the system as written hadn't been fun enough for us, believe me, we would have taken it into our own hands- we've done it before, and depending on how the release schedule breaks down compared to our painting schedules, we might have to do it for 10th. But 9th ed Crusade as written felt great for me and the people in the campaign.
But to respond specifically to the Tau/ GSC mechanics question, and the notion of using mechanical systems to achieve stories rather than just making it pure story: sometimes, that works- like when people DO decide by mutual agreement that the next game should be a Tau assault on the governor's palace. And with our crew, a lot of the time- certainly more often than not- this way WOULD work. But even with my crew of close, like-minded family and friends, there will be times when it doesn't work- not always because of a failure of compromise; sometimes a story idea just might not suggest itself. And in those times, the system is always there for you. When the story isn't coming, just roll the dice, play the Agendas VS Victory conditions based on what feels right, and the system will allow a story to emerge. When the creativity is right there, feel free to ignore the system for a game or two and sure, run pure story... But the system is always available to do the work when you don't have the creativity, or the energy or the time.
Especially given that in 9th you could play Crusade with points rather than PL and it was much better. There was nothing you could do with PL that you couldn't do with points.
I don't doubt that for many people playing Crusade with points did feel better, and I was happy for all of them to be able to do that. I think players should always be able to choose between a PL system or a costed equipment system according to their own needs and preferences, but for me, the experience felt better with PL.
And I've answered this before too, though I wasn't responding to you when I gave the answer... So here it goes again:
The thing that PL systems can do that costed equipment systems can't is allow you to change the load out of one unit without impacting the rest of the army. There are several story situations which may change an equipment load out for one unit, when no story situation exist to cover the changes you'd have to make to all the other units in order to accommodate the cost of the new equipment (in 9th, my wych cults fought a special mission to find Wych weapons and get them off the board; PL allowed us to do this without figuring out what we would have to give up in order to do that).
The other thing we like better about PL is that it was only updated once or twice over the entire lifespan of 8th and 9th, while points where updated a MINIMUM of twice per year every year. And unfortunately, that is something that EVERYONE has to put up with in 10th. But in 8th/ 9th? It was the primary reason why we preferred PL.
Andykp wrote: Are you saying, if I listened to you I would enjoy the game more, if I did things your way? Cos that’s crazy.
There you go again, dismissing my attempt at listening to what you claim to want out of the game and offering you a solution that accomplishes those things even better than PL.
Cos that’s crazy, that’s just saying I’m playing the game wrong, the very thing you lambasted jervis Johnson for.
It's not at all the same. Jervis said "if you want balance and symmetrical missions you're having fun the wrong way", I'm saying "if you want simplicity and don't care about balance here's a system designed to meet those goals". I'm not telling you simplicity and lack of concern for balance are bad things.
But I have no interest in trying out your home brew rules.
Why not? Is your goal to get the best game for your needs or to find excuses for why PL is a good thing?
As for jervis, that’s exactly the same, what you just said there, they are the same thing. You are telling me I am playing the game wrong, for like a million pages now.
You clearly have no idea of what my needs are. No idea at all, you do not seem to be able to understand them at all. Why would I try some system you came up with to try and prove a point when I have perfectly suitable functioning systems that weren’t thought up in a moment by some rando off the internet. Why would I invest any of my time in trying out your system.
But I tell you what, you try it and feedback how it goes. It might have some merit, it might work. Try it, tweak and feedback, maybe in the proposed rules forum. And if it s good I may try it. But you put the work in to make it a functioning system and not just a brain fart to try and win an argument we aren’t even having. I will look forward to seeing your work in the proper forum. Until then let it go, I am not trying your half wrested idea.
I can tell you powerlevel did work and worked well. I know because I used it and enjoyed my games thoroughly. More so than I did when I used points in 8th. And that, is not something you can argue with. (But I am sure you will )
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just read penitentjakes comment and it sums it up brilliantly. PL was balanced enough. That’s the whole point. Thank you.
If the "game" part of the miniature wargaming hobby is what you're trying to avoid, then take this bit of advice - no system cannot be optimized by the people willing to do so. The system you advocate for can be optimized *more fully* because the gulf between the optimal and non-optimal options is larger. Trying to pretend that you can create a system without optimization will just make the problem worse.
You have misunderstood the argument. Nobody (as far as I'm aware) has argued that lists built with Power Levels can't be optimised. The point being made is that Power Levels are a list building system designed for people who don't optimise their lists.
Yes, that can absolutely be abused by people looking to build the most powerful list, and that's a good argument for the rules writer to make at least some effort to keep the PL system at least somewhat balanced. The ideal system, to my mind, is one where all of the options are free, but also equally useful, as that would satisfy both camps. But what keeps being overlooked in this thread is that imbalance in the system only actually matters to those people who care about lists being equal. For those who just want a rough framework to throw together a force, it's just not an issue.
So pointing out that, for example, a leman russ with sponsons is more effective than one without is not the slam dunk that it's been presented as. Yes, the leman russ with sponsons is more effective. But if you don't care that it's more effective, that simply doesn't matter.
Andykp wrote: As for jervis, that’s exactly the same, what you just said there, they are the same thing.
They are in no way the same. Jervis says "if you want X from a game you are wrong". I am saying "If you want X from a game here's the best way to accomplish X".
You clearly have no idea of what my needs are.
Then why don't you explain them better? All I have to work with is the things you've said here: that you value simplicity and speed of use, and that you don't really care about balance. If there's something else you need from a system then you need to tell us what it is.
Why would I try some system you came up with to try and prove a point when I have perfectly suitable functioning systems that weren’t thought up in a moment by some rando off the internet.
Because it is better suited to your needs than PL? Because you're open-minded and want make your game as good as it can be, not look for reasons to ad hominem your way into "winning" an online argument?
But I tell you what, you try it and feedback how it goes.
Or not. It's a system suited for your needs, not mine, and it does a very poor job of the things I want in a game. Me playing a bunch of test games to satisfy your arbitrary demands, a list of demands created just so you can dismiss my suggestions, would accomplish nothing.
Why would I try some system you came up with to try and prove a point when I have perfectly suitable functioning systems that weren’t thought up in a moment by some rando off the internet.
Because it is better suited to your needs than PL? Because you're open-minded and want make your game as good as it can be, not look for reasons to ad hominem your way into "winning" an online argument?
But I tell you what, you try it and feedback how it goes.
Or not. It's a system suited for your needs, not mine, and it does a very poor job of the things I want in a game. Me playing a bunch of test games to satisfy your arbitrary demands, a list of demands created just so you can dismiss my suggestions, would accomplish nothing.
Excellent, so now that we've established that, you can move on. The topic of this thread is the current system. If you want to design a new one, take it to Proposed Rules.
PenitentJake wrote: The first problem with your "Increase supply limit by adding a unit" suggestion is that units can range from a pair of Crusaders, coming in at somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30pts, or a Forgeworld superheavy coming in at 500+.
Not a problem at all. Supply limit is a matched play balance restriction that should not exist in a narrative context. Which units are in your pool should be based on which units are appropriate to the story, not how many arbitrary resource points you have accumulated.
(And it's not even a particularly good matched play restriction as increased supply limit is of minimal value. Putting more units into your pool is inherently balanced by the game size limit on how many of those units can be actively participating in games and gaining levels. But it's clearly a rule that exists for matched play purposes.)
The second problem with your proposal is that it prevents someone from taking more than one weaker unit instead of one more powerful one... Which they might want to do for a wide variety of reasons (ie. they want to use models they already have, it suits the narrative, or it gives them that feeling of Balanced Enough).
Also not really a problem. Averaged out over an entire force most units are roughly equivalent in power. Sure, you'll have that 30 point unit of crusaders but you'll also have a 300 point tank, a couple of 150 point infantry squads, etc. It's certainly not exactly balanced but you've already clearly said that you're willing to accept 30-40% balance errors without any concerns at all. If you put together forces based on what the story says is appropriate rather than maximizing the most value you can get from "one unit" it's certainly going to be good enough balance. And if it sometimes isn't, so what? Sometimes you encounter a superior force and get massacred, that's just how war works. That shouldn't be an issue at all if the story is what matters.
And in those times, the system is always there for you. When the story isn't coming, just roll the dice, play the Agendas VS Victory conditions based on what feels right, and the system will allow a story to emerge. When the creativity is right there, feel free to ignore the system for a game or two and sure, run pure story... But the system is always available to do the work when you don't have the creativity, or the energy or the time.
That seems like a lot of bookkeeping to create what is essentially a random mission table. Why bother tracking, say, Tau planetary control points if you're going to ignore what the planetary control system says and play a "capture the governor" mission instead to decide the fate of the system? It seems like a simple D66 table would be just as good at creating the starting point for a story and involve a lot less tedious bookkeeping.
The thing that PL systems can do that costed equipment systems can't is allow you to change the load out of one unit without impacting the rest of the army.
But why does this matter? Why is it so important that your army exactly match the 500 point limit that you're willing to strip away the meaning of the numbers just to make them match? Instead of saying "I know my army is only 500 points because of deliberate errors in assigning point costs but it's very important that it be 500 points" why not just add stuff to your list without taking anything out and play 525 points vs. 500 points? It's the same end result, why does it matter so much that the numbers be equal?
I get that point limits are a hard limit in a tournament context but we aren't talking about tournament games, those constraints don't apply in a narrative context where balance is a minor concern at best.
Or just don’t play with those people. You see the bit where I talk about “similar mindset”. That matters. Which is also why I say for competitive games, or pick up games, old points is probably better than 10th or PL.
If you're already playing with people with similat ideas about optimization, then why do you need PL?
Tittliewinks22 wrote: I was a little presumptuous attributing H.B.M.C.'s usage of the phrase as a derogatory slur towards comparisons between the systems, so I will recant that he used it as a slur, until proven otherwise.
Sigmarine and Sigmarines are simple and effective methods of ridiculing GW's attempts to put Space Marines into Warhammer Fantasy. That is what those words have always been.
It has never has been and never will be a "slur". What an absolutely absurd notion.
I don't doubt that for many people playing Crusade with points did feel better, and I was happy for all of them to be able to do that. I think players should always be able to choose between a PL system or a costed equipment system according to their own needs and preferences, but for me, the experience felt better with PL.
I would question the validity of your feelings then. I played more Crusade than any other format in 9th and PL always made it objectively worse. How did it handle someone spamming 9e Voidweavers at 5 PL each?
And before you say "ugh you can't question my feelings," *you* made them a topic of discussion and are using them as a justification for your viewpoint.
And I've answered this before too, though I wasn't responding to you when I gave the answer... So here it goes again:
The thing that PL systems can do that costed equipment systems can't is allow you to change the load out of one unit without impacting the rest of the army. There are several story situations which may change an equipment load out for one unit, when no story situation exist to cover the changes you'd have to make to all the other units in order to accommodate the cost of the new equipment (in 9th, my wych cults fought a special mission to find Wych weapons and get them off the board; PL allowed us to do this without figuring out what we would have to give up in order to do that).
Not true. You can do the same thing in points by just setting aside enough points for the most expensive option you're willing to take. What's more, you could always spend RP to increase your supply limit, so you'd never have to necessarily give up anything for those Wych weapons.
The effects you're describing are basically modeled by granting a free Rearm & Resupply requisition, which is a common effect among victor bonuses in the Crusade missions.
The other thing we like better about PL is that it was only updated once or twice over the entire lifespan of 8th and 9th, while points where updated a MINIMUM of twice per year every year. And unfortunately, that is something that EVERYONE has to put up with in 10th. But in 8th/ 9th? It was the primary reason why we preferred PL.
Well, I don't see thatbas a good thing, since as I mentioned upthread the power levels were oftentimes very imbalanced. I liked games that were fair, not ones where one side had a massive unearned advantage due to GW failing to update their PL. People who complained about that were, in my experience, looking to score some easy wins and weren't interested in being sportsmanlike.
Tittliewinks22 wrote: I was a little presumptuous attributing H.B.M.C.'s usage of the phrase as a derogatory slur towards comparisons between the systems, so I will recant that he used it as a slur, until proven otherwise.
Sigmarine and Sigmarines are simple and effective methods of ridiculing GW's attempts to put Space Marines into Warhammer Fantasy. That is what those words have always been.
It has never has been and never will be a "slur". What an absolutely absurd notion.
Why would I try some system you came up with to try and prove a point when I have perfectly suitable functioning systems that weren’t thought up in a moment by some rando off the internet.
Because it is better suited to your needs than PL? Because you're open-minded and want make your game as good as it can be, not look for reasons to ad hominem your way into "winning" an online argument?
But I tell you what, you try it and feedback how it goes.
Or not. It's a system suited for your needs, not mine, and it does a very poor job of the things I want in a game. Me playing a bunch of test games to satisfy your arbitrary demands, a list of demands created just so you can dismiss my suggestions, would accomplish nothing.
Excellent, so now that we've established that, you can move on. The topic of this thread is the current system. If you want to design a new one, take it to Proposed Rules.
He's using the idea of it to point out a contradiction in the pro-PL argument, so it's relevant.
Although the mods nuked most of my post on the last page, likely because I was quoting alextroy and his entire post was wiped from existence, I did point out the lack of honesty from the pro-PL side.
This right here is an example of that dishonesty.
The current points system in 40k is just a different form of Power Level. Saying otherwise indicates either a staggering lack of reading comprehension on your part, or a wilful misrepresentation of the truth to the point of being a deliberately malicious deception.
You have misunderstood the argument. Nobody (as far as I'm aware) has argued that lists built with Power Levels can't be optimised. The point being made is that Power Levels are a list building system designed for people who don't optimise their lists.
Hecaton wrote: He's using the idea of it to point out a contradiction in the pro-PL argument, so it's relevant.
Exactly. The point is not to develop the perfect alternative point system here, it's to illustrate the weakness and arbitrariness of the pro-PL arguments. PL advocates claim that PL is good and desirable because it offers X/Y/Z feature, but then when presented with a system that does those things even better they are suddenly no longer worth caring about and the pro-PL side flips to wanting features A/B/C that are the things the traditional point system does better than PL.
Or, in short: PL is an awkward middle ground system that doesn't meet any specific design target other than "be PL" and even if you think there should be an alternative to the traditional point system it shouldn't be PL.
Just because you don't care about a problem, does not mean it is not actually a problem.
In the English language it most assuredly does.
It most assuredly does not. "I don't care that my house is on fire" means you are, at best, severely underestimating the consequences of the problem you have. You still very much have a problem even if you say those words in the moment.
)
