GW has always had a marketing strategy heavily based on word of mouth. That makes existing player perception more important to them than it would be for other companies.
Content creators are good for marketing - but they can only sustain themselves as businesses because people will watch their stuff. Right now there's clearly a market for people to watch 40k videos - and people fill that niche. If they quit 40k, others are likely to fill their shoes. Some of the audience might go "sure, I'd watch even if you became a LotR/Battletech/MTG channel" but a lot would go "nah, I'm here to watch 40k, I'm out."
If the playerbase as a whole goes "40k sucks, I'm off" - then that sector will contract. This can happen quite suddenly, as creators try to stick it out, then all give up the ghost together.
Tbh all the arguments about PL have been made. I personally don't mind the rules reflecting what's "in the box".
I think trying to argue that 10 guardsmen with lasguns is functionally the same as 10 guardsmen but the unit has a melta gun and a lascannon is silly. It isn't. One a one-off basis its probably not deciding games - but across a whole army, it will clearly add up.
If however these come in the box, its not an unreasonable assumption that the unit will have a special weapon and a heavy weapon. In turn, you can then balance these weapons such that a melta gun isn't miles better in all circumstances than a flamer etc. So the argument becomes whether "flamer/HB" is worth +/- the same as "melta/Lascannon". And while I don't think we are there, its not conceptually impossible to imagine you could be. At which point "free wargear" is not really a problem, beyond the desire to not take these weapons for aesthetic reasons I guess.
Its sort of the same argument as "but I liked taking minimal sized units for 5 guys to act as chaff, they did that job really well" - "but now you can't".
Unfortunately you've then got the Combat Patrol rules going "you should this loadout of limited special options" and then "proper 40k rules" are saying "take all the options, we don't care". Probably because different people handled them or something - but its incoherent.
Which is the problem with trying to defend anything GW does with rules. There's no guiding philosophy - its just arbitrary and inconsistent choices all the way down. I wouldn't be surprised at all if in a year or so they bring back points for wargear. And possibly upgraded psychic powers. And all the bloat from 9th etc. They might become more restrictive on bringing all the options in a unit again - but I doubt it partly due to the "Scatbike" precedent.
when I picked up the Burning of Prospero box (twice) it was notable that the suggested loadouts for the scenarios presented were not going to create 30k legal units
it was also notable that there was not actual "build this way to play the games in this box" guide, so no real idea of how many of what to build
built them all as tactical squads in the end, 15 man ones, plus some 5 man support units
the idea that whats in the box isn't a legal army is not new, the idea that its suggested to make none game legal units is perhaps slightly more cynical of GW
H.B.M.C. wrote: But at the end, these are upgrades. They make units [u]better[/i] than they were. They should cost points.
As far as I can understand it, the argument is that units should be good as standard and as such all "upgrades" are expected and should be an innate (free) part of the unit. It is just not spelled out on the datasheets because that much handholding would really nudge people the wrong way.
We still don’t know this is the 10th Ed approach, because we’re yet to see a Codex.
Consider, getting all these cards done and release at the same time is a different job to working on a single Codex and its own constituent parts.
I am absolutely happy to be proven wrong in due course, but calling these cards the final evidence is simply erroneous.
And if it is? Do we still have the significant differences in utility across the weapon options open to a given unit? I genuinely don’t know, as I’ve only really looked at the Tyranid data sheets, and never mind 10th, I lack understanding and experience of 7th, 8th and indeed 9th Ed.
If that difference is less pronounced, then the unit points quite likely incorporate those upgrades as something you were going to take anyway, there being little to no disadvantage in doing so.
I suspect the few few codexes will be remarkably similar to this, as they will have been locked down months ago and are likely already on their way here from China, if not already here
it will, as usual, all turn upside down about the 4th or 5th book released
and as for the utility of the upgrades and the cost in effect being baked in, it works for some things but not others, the problem is when as HMBC notes one option is stand out better than the others in the majority of cases, if thats not what GW have baked in problems will occur
I mean now its not "is it worth upgrading this bolt pistol?" its "which upgrade will I take?"
Now across an entire army of upgrades? Sure that might run away from you a bit, 2 extra pts of damage becomes 20 - but both parties have equal access to it...
That's a lie.
Necrons, for example, don't have anywhere near the same access to Free Stuff as Marines have, as they have few upgrade options for their units.
Now across an entire army of upgrades? Sure that might run away from you a bit, 2 extra pts of damage becomes 20 - but both parties have equal access to it...
That's a lie.
Necrons, for example, don't have anywhere near the same access to Free Stuff as Marines have, as they have few upgrade options for their units.
But there you have the unwritten seeming assumption the points for Necrons and Marines don’t reflect those options or lack thereof.
This is a FOIP matter, because we will need game time experience to understand the balance.
They really shouldn't be referred to as free upgrades, as the word "free" shapes the thought around the subject in a certain way. You see this when you buy products with free add-ons, when it is just a promotion that is factored into the price.
Now across an entire army of upgrades? Sure that might run away from you a bit, 2 extra pts of damage becomes 20 - but both parties have equal access to it...
That's a lie.
Necrons, for example, don't have anywhere near the same access to Free Stuff as Marines have, as they have few upgrade options for their units.
But there you have the unwritten seeming assumption the points for Necrons and Marines don’t reflect those options or lack thereof.
This is a FOIP matter, because we will need game time experience to understand the balance.
I see two options here*:
1. Marines are costed as if paying for the most expensive upgrades they could take (and are therefore penalized for taking less). Say 200pts for 10 dudes + 50 for a plasmagun+lascannon (or whatever), a total of 250. Necrons are also costed as if taking the most expensive upgrade, but they have less expensive upgrades. Say 200pts for 10 warriors + 10 for zappier rayguns, a total of 210. If I take a barebones marine squad I'm overpaying by 50 pts, while the necron barebones unit is overpaying by 10pts in this scenario. The marine player is 40 pts worse off than the necron player, but both are hurting themselves. The price of being a filthy casual, I guess.
2. Marines are costed for the barebones squad and all weapons are free, same for the necrons. The result is the opposite from the scenario above. The marines are getting 40pts more free stuff by kitting out their unit with all the bells and whistles, both are getting free stuff. Again, you're screwing yourself if you take a not fully decked out unit (or *gasp* a barebones unit).
Either way, balance's fethed. Anyone with upgrade options is now punished in points for not taking the most valuable ones and the straight upgrades.
I also disagree with "wait and see: till the codex drops". We now have the full product gw deemed as sufficient for this edition's release and we can analyze/judge it as such.
Google can't tell me what FOIP is, but after vocalising a bit I discovered it's similar to the sound of dripping water. This has only made my confusion worse :p
* they could also have taken the average of barebones/fully kitted out, that'd lessen the effects but wouldn't eliminate them. Doesn't look like it afaict, but who knows.
Dandelion wrote: Just to consider the guard infantry squad: 10 lasguns do about .55 damage to a marine, a single heavy bolter averages 1 damage. That one gun triples the threat of the infantry squad.
And now your unit actually does something but the lasguns do a bit more now with Lethal Wounds as well.
Lethal Hits, you mean.
Standing stationary and with Lethal Hits, an Infantry Squad's heavy bolter actually averages 1.5 wounds against Marines.
The 7 lasguns from the squad + 2 laspistols, rapid firing with Lethal Hits, also average 1.5 damage. So that's 3 wounds total.
If the squad didn't take a heavy bolter, it'd have 9 lasguns and a laspistol, for a total of 1.76 wounds.
So even in 10th, benefitting from an army ability that makes lasguns actually pretty credible, adding a heavy bolter to an Infantry Squad nearly doubles its offensive output. That multiplier goes up further when you start looking at heavier stuff like autocannons or lascannons, against harder targets than basic Marines, or at the early turns where the Infantry won't be rapid firing or potentially able to fire their lasguns at all.
If attaching a heavy weapon was all of a 5% increase in damage then I don't think anyone would care about it becoming free, but turns out that number's actually a total asspull, so...
The HWT adds 0 wounds to the units lethality if its dead before it can be used.
Evaluating based purely on a weapons lethality is giving you a misleading sense of value. You have to account for the actual level of utility being provided by the option, which is kind of the core of my point (and what nou understood and everyone else didn't). In most cases (especially in the last couple editions), you will not get 6 turns of use out of a weapon, in many cases you won't even get 3 turns. In the case of guard squads, in many cases you'll be lucky to get a single turn of value out of it. You have to look at average performance over the course of a real game, not the potential offered by a single isolated and idealized scenario where you're getting the use of a fully loaded out and equipped unit. The value of that HWT is not so much what it adds to the unit using it, but rather how it compensates for the loss/degradation in effectiveness of the rest of the unit - as well as the loss/degradation in effectiveness of other units in the army as a whole - over the course of a game.
Its also helpful to (once again - been a while since I've said this) frame points in the correct context - points are balanced and evaluated at the army level, not the unit level, not the model level, nor the weapon level. The points cost of an individual weapon or model is meaningless, because whats being balanced is a 2000pt army, not a 200 point unit, nor a 20 point model nor a 2 point weapon. It certainly helps in theory if all your weapons and models and units are balanced, but thats not really how it works in actuality, because the meta is an emergent aspect of gameplay directly shaped by the interaction of your points system with your core gameplay mechanics, and any adjustment made to points results in a shift in meta which might exacerbate or mitigate said points adjustment. In reality, points are purposefully skewed by the designer of basically every game in order to shape the meta to meet a preconceived notion of what gameplay "should" look like, rather than being set in an idealized vacuum by a blind lady using a scale to evaluate the worth of any given option.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Furthermore, it may be hard to "prove" that 7pts is correct for a meltagun on a squad vs say 5pts, but it is very EASY to say that 0 pts is totally inappropriate.
One does not have to prove that something is worth exactly X points in order to refute that Y points is wrong. They must only prove that Y points are wrong and I think that is trivial.
"Is a thing better than the other thing? If yes, it costs more than.0 points"
Great, lets give every perceived "upgrade" (as opposed to "sidegrade") a symbolic cost of 1 point. There, problem solved. I agree, you can't really prove what the correct cost of something should be and that 0 points is inappropriate - so all upgrades are now 1 point, in recognition that they add "something" though we can't really quantify how much of something it actually adds.
Again your reasoning is based on there being a pronounced difference in the upgrades available to a given unit, and ignoring any other perks and advantages a given army or even unit might have available.
Necron Warriors for instance have Resurrection Protocols because they’re Necrons, and an improved version because they’re Necron Warriors.
The Necron army has various means to improve Resurrection Protocols - and the Warrior’s native boost triggers on every instance.
So whilst yes, a Tactical Squad may have greater flexibility of options, Necron Warriors can just keep on getting up, and getting up, and getting up, and getting up. Not only does that help them avoid Battle Shock, but suitably supported they may prove bloody difficult to shift off an Objective.
Hence FOIP. Right now, we only have theory hammer for the most part. Until we’ve seen how overall armies perform, particularly as we’ve a much looser FOC, we can’t really say too much about balance.
Because the game is about more than just trying to annihilate each other’s models. It may not matter if you’re kicking my head in each turn, if I’m deft at scoring Objectives and other sources of VPs.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Furthermore, it may be hard to "prove" that 7pts is correct for a meltagun on a squad vs say 5pts, but it is very EASY to say that 0 pts is totally inappropriate.
One does not have to prove that something is worth exactly X points in order to refute that Y points is wrong. They must only prove that Y points are wrong and I think that is trivial.
"Is a thing better than the other thing? If yes, it costs more than.0 points"
It doesn't cost 0 points here. We're just not privy to the actual cost. Instead you're forced to take the option.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Furthermore, it may be hard to "prove" that 7pts is correct for a meltagun on a squad vs say 5pts, but it is very EASY to say that 0 pts is totally inappropriate.
One does not have to prove that something is worth exactly X points in order to refute that Y points is wrong. They must only prove that Y points are wrong and I think that is trivial.
"Is a thing better than the other thing? If yes, it costs more than.0 points"
It doesn't cost 0 points here. We're just not privy to the actual cost. Instead you're forced to take the option.
Does that change anything though? At most it makes squads that are not built with the KT version of the CSM kit just inherently worse?
H.B.M.C. wrote: "Well we can't do it because you can't perfectly balance it."
"You don't need to do it that way."
"Well we can't do it because it's what's the game designers decided on!"
Remind to never challenge you to an arm wrestle. All that time moving goalposts has made you strong!
I don't think all those things are mutually exclusive.
There's are aspects to paying points for wargear that changes how you view it...do you own a model with that weapon? What's the opportunity cost? Will gluing this on be a regret if balance shifts later on?
The vast majority of people skipped all upgrades on their basic units, because they'd rather have bigger and longer range guns.
You could look at data and see meltas not getting used. With granular points how are you interpreting that? Is it because no one likes meltas or is it because they're not good? The reality is that meltas could be very good and that people aren't choosing them for other reasons. Dropping the points on them would make them a no brainer and suddenly you've upset the value of the other weapons. This system doesn't have that problem and it looks like they made an effort to rebalance the weapon rules at least a little.
You could look at data and see meltas not getting used. With granular points how are you interpreting that? Is it because no one likes meltas or is it because they're not good? The reality is that meltas could be very good and that people aren't choosing them for other reasons. Dropping the points on them would make them a no brainer and suddenly you've upset the value of the other weapons. This system doesn't have that problem and it looks like they made an effort to rebalance the weapon rules at least a little.
Yes, it does. Previously, which weapon you chose out of melta, plasma, flamer and grav was determined by the points efficiency of each choice. That's still the case, it just so happens the cost of each one is 0. The difference with the system in 10th is you can never alter that equation. If you charge points for upgrades you can, theoretically, balance each option through its cost. The fact GW sucked at this doesn't alter that.
Also, to take your example, determining the reason melta wasn't taken is literally the designers job. Yes, it may be difficult to figure out, but it's hardly an impossible task. You seem to be suggesting it was so difficult the only possible solution is to abdicate all responsibility for even trying.
chaos0xomega wrote: The HWT adds 0 wounds to the units lethality if its dead before it can be used.
That's a facile observation. Avoiding upgrades on units that are unlikely to get to employ them is basic stuff. That has no bearing on the delta in lethality provided by the upgrade; they're still twice as effective with the HWT whether they shoot once, six times, or not at all.
At 10-15pts a heavy bolter only has to shoot a Marine once to earn its points back and be worth the cost of upgrade. That's a reasonably safe bet, and why HWTs were regularly used for decades despite the cost. Unless you were getting tabled turn 2, it was not difficult for surviving squads to inflict enough damage to make up for the ones that were knocked out before they got their chance.
Working out the expected level of utility provided by the option really is not as complicated at the mathematical gymnastics you are performing. Nobody assumes shooting an optimal target for 6 turns, and you certainly don't need to do that to make a case for why heavy weapons have value that is worth paying for.
chaos0xomega wrote: Great, lets give every perceived "upgrade" (as opposed to "sidegrade") a symbolic cost of 1 point. There, problem solved. I agree, you can't really prove what the correct cost of something should be and that 0 points is inappropriate - so all upgrades are now 1 point, in recognition that they add "something" though we can't really quantify how much of something it actually adds.
It would be a small step in the right direction as we work towards quantifying what the actual cost should be.
Points don't need to be perfect. 'Close enough' would be fine.
That said, I am, again, fine with special/heavy weapons being rolled into the unit's basic wargear with sidegrade options available, because points are a structuring mechanism. It's the straight upgrades that are currently unaccounted for in the system where the structuring mechanism is producing unintuitive results. Astra Militarum fielding infantry squads with special and heavy weapons fits the lore and vision for how the army should operate better than a tidal wave of riflemen. Every last officer packing a power sword and plasma pistol does not.
Not Online!!! wrote: Does that change anything though? At most it makes squads that are not built with the KT version of the CSM kit just inherently worse?
Certainly there's a reckoning with issues like that, but the Balefire is a pretty small upgrade now. And you don't need the heavy weapons if you don't plan on melee. I imagine though most people can sort the issues with an extra box and use of the leftover sprues.
Daedalus81 wrote: You could look at data and see meltas not getting used. With granular points how are you interpreting that?
The ruleset is fugged. In fact, I don't even need points of any kind to draw that conclusion from meltas not getting used.
Slipspace wrote: Also, to take your example, determining the reason melta wasn't taken is literally the designers job. Yes, it may be difficult to figure out, but it's hardly an impossible task. You seem to be suggesting it was so difficult the only possible solution is to abdicate all responsibility for even trying.
I don't think it is a suggestion as much as a (IMO) pretty accurate observation.
You could look at data and see meltas not getting used. With granular points how are you interpreting that? Is it because no one likes meltas or is it because they're not good? The reality is that meltas could be very good and that people aren't choosing them for other reasons. Dropping the points on them would make them a no brainer and suddenly you've upset the value of the other weapons. This system doesn't have that problem and it looks like they made an effort to rebalance the weapon rules at least a little.
Yes, it does. Previously, which weapon you chose out of melta, plasma, flamer and grav was determined by the points efficiency of each choice. That's still the case, it just so happens the cost of each one is 0. The difference with the system in 10th is you can never alter that equation. If you charge points for upgrades you can, theoretically, balance each option through its cost. The fact GW sucked at this doesn't alter that.
Also, to take your example, determining the reason melta wasn't taken is literally the designers job. Yes, it may be difficult to figure out, but it's hardly an impossible task. You seem to be suggesting it was so difficult the only possible solution is to abdicate all responsibility for even trying.
No, because you're making the assumption something isn't taken because it isn't costed properly. It can absolutely be costed properly and people will still abandon it. You as a designer are not privy to these thoughts and so you act on the data where the weapon is not used and fundamentally break the balance.
I mean, they could always try asking players why they don't use X weapon before hitting the "Increase the cost of every weapon a unit has to the price of their most expensive and bake that into the cost of the unit regardless of what weapon is actually taken" button.
Daedalus81 wrote: You could look at data and see meltas not getting used. With granular points how are you interpreting that? Is it because no one likes meltas or is it because they're not good?
Six of one, half dozen of the other- it doesn't matter. From a design standpoint it might be helpful to understand why people aren't using melta, but the ideal is simply to find a cost where the melta is just as enticing as other weapons and all are worth considering.
This is no different between points and 'pick one special weapon'; it's just a numerical points cost versus an opportunity cost. The points are easier to tweak but you can adjust stats to work it out either way.
Not Online!!! wrote: Does that change anything though? At most it makes squads that are not built with the KT version of the CSM kit just inherently worse?
Certainly there's a reckoning with issues like that, but the Balefire is a pretty small upgrade now. And you don't need the heavy weapons if you don't plan on melee. I imagine though most people can sort the issues with an extra box and use of the leftover sprues.
It's not just the balefire that is in the KT version. It's also the "Heavy melee weapon" and the reaper chaincannon that actually propperly fits on the CSM.
No matter how you slice it. It's stupidity x10.
Because even if we just say, yea specialisation would lower the bling, the fundamental fact is, that a melee squad with 2 heavy melee weapons will outperform a melee squad without the two.
And those are far more similar in performance than the shooting version of legionaires would be due to the tome and the PP on the champ adding quite a bit of mmph above the special / heavies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: I mean, they could always try asking players why they don't use X weapon before hitting the "Increase the cost of every weapon a unit has to the price of their most expensive and bake that into the cost of the unit regardless of what weapon is actually taken" button.
See, but at some point' they'd be confronted with the fact that the core rules are not good enough to facilitate a serious consideration for weaponry like flamers or grenade launchers, due to cover mechanics beeing pretty tame, Stubbers and HB and mortars due to surpression as already discussed , not being a thing anymore, PG and Melta often being to close due to the armor system being dumbed down to MC's etc.
Which would hinder the simplification in search of the supposedly existing greater playerbase as i brought up in another thread.
You could look at data and see meltas not getting used. With granular points how are you interpreting that? Is it because no one likes meltas or is it because they're not good? The reality is that meltas could be very good and that people aren't choosing them for other reasons. Dropping the points on them would make them a no brainer and suddenly you've upset the value of the other weapons. This system doesn't have that problem and it looks like they made an effort to rebalance the weapon rules at least a little.
Yes, it does. Previously, which weapon you chose out of melta, plasma, flamer and grav was determined by the points efficiency of each choice. That's still the case, it just so happens the cost of each one is 0. The difference with the system in 10th is you can never alter that equation. If you charge points for upgrades you can, theoretically, balance each option through its cost. The fact GW sucked at this doesn't alter that.
Also, to take your example, determining the reason melta wasn't taken is literally the designers job. Yes, it may be difficult to figure out, but it's hardly an impossible task. You seem to be suggesting it was so difficult the only possible solution is to abdicate all responsibility for even trying.
No, because you're making the assumption something isn't taken because it isn't costed properly. It can absolutely be costed properly and people will still abandon it. You as a designer are not privy to these thoughts and so you act on the data where the weapon is not used and fundamentally break the balance.
Again, it's literally your job as a designer to figure this sort of thing out. It's not an unknowable mystery, just not necessarily straight forward. In a given paradigm, maybe points aren't the reason something isn't taken, though meltas are a bad example because there will always be a non-zero cost where people will take a melta over a bolter. Flamers, for example, suffered in previous editions because they usually weren't an upgrade, so any points cost above 0 was too high.
Taking meltas specifically, let's show why you're wrong. We'll assume we're talking about Tacticals here and we'll assume meltaguns are not currently taken but we don't know why. A simple thought experiment shows why your reasoning doesn't work. If we increased the cost of plasma, grav and flamers to 100 points and changed the cost of meltaguns to 1, we'd see everyone taking meltaguns and nobody taking the other options. That fact alone tells you there is a point-based solution to this. You can argue the reduced range means the bolter still has some utility over the meltagun, but I'd challenge that assertion given the huge lethality increase a meltagun provides and the tiny cost in our example. The exact ratios are not easy to determine, but that's not the same as things being impossible. If nobody is ever taking a weapon that is an upgrade over your basic gun you haven't costed it appropriately, by definition.
Even with all that said, GW's current solution still isn't the solution.
catbarf wrote: From a design standpoint it might be helpful to understand why people aren't using melta, but the ideal is simply to find a cost where the melta is just as enticing as other weapons and all are worth considering.
I don't think there is a cost. It's mostly binary. 2 point meltas might be enticing over 5 point plasma, but ultimately both get dumped to find room elsewhere.
Slipspace wrote: Again, it's literally your job as a designer to figure this sort of thing out. It's not an unknowable mystery, just not necessarily straight forward. In a given paradigm, maybe points aren't the reason something isn't taken, though meltas are a bad example because there will always be a non-zero cost where people will take a melta over a bolter. Flamers, for example, suffered in previous editions because they usually weren't an upgrade, so any points cost above 0 was too high.
Taking meltas specifically, let's show why you're wrong. We'll assume we're talking about Tacticals here and we'll assume meltaguns are not currently taken but we don't know why. A simple thought experiment shows why your reasoning doesn't work. If we increased the cost of plasma, grav and flamers to 100 points and changed the cost of meltaguns to 1, we'd see everyone taking meltaguns and nobody taking the other options. That fact alone tells you there is a point-based solution to this. You can argue the reduced range means the bolter still has some utility over the meltagun, but I'd challenge that assertion given the huge lethality increase a meltagun provides and the tiny cost in our example. The exact ratios are not easy to determine, but that's not the same as things being impossible. If nobody is ever taking a weapon that is an upgrade over your basic gun you haven't costed it appropriately, by definition.
Even with all that said, GW's current solution still isn't the solution.
Flamers are an interesting one. GW has tried a few things. CSM had +2 flamers that were half the cost of plasma and melta. No one took them. AoO dropped points to zero. Do you know what people took? Cultists.
Making meltas 1 and everything else would STILL have people not taking them. Why? When you build your list what do you do? You fill in your basic requirements, which is the cheapest of the cheap. Then you do the rest of your list. THEN if you have points left over you start grabbing tertiary upgrades starting from the top - not the bottom.
Regarding points for weapons not being as straightforward as just making all meltaguns cost ten:
A "wielder multiplier" sounds like the answer to a lot of the issues with different models being less effective or less durable with a weapon. We could call this stat something that indicates the relative power of the model. Something like "Power Level". Use a basic space marine as the benchmark, then normalize up and down based on the accuracy and durability of the model.
Something like this:
Space Marine Multiplier: 1
Guardsman Multiplier: 0.5
Storm Trooper Multiplier: 0.75
Sisters Multiplier: 0.75
Canoness Multiplier: 1
This lets you create a single table for weapon costs which is wielder agnostic.
Paimon wrote: Regarding points for weapons not being as straightforward as just making all meltaguns cost ten:
A "wielder multiplier" sounds like the answer to a lot of the issues with different models being less effective or less durable with a weapon. We could call this stat something that indicates the relative power of the model. Something like "Power Level". Use a basic space marine as the benchmark, then normalize up and down based on the accuracy and durability of the model.
Something like this:
Space Marine Multiplier: 1
Guardsman Multiplier: 0.5
Storm Trooper Multiplier: 0.75
Sisters Multiplier: 0.75
Canoness Multiplier: 1
This lets you create a single table for weapon costs which is wielder agnostic.
That still isn't that simple, is the marine multiplier of 1 based on firing with or without oaths, with or without the various smattering of attached output characters, does it factor in resilience of the wielder as well if so there's a series of other characters you need to worry about. If you factor in for the max stacking then the other units or targets will be overcosted, if you balance it against base cost then it might get out of hand with XYZ combinations.
catbarf wrote: From a design standpoint it might be helpful to understand why people aren't using melta, but the ideal is simply to find a cost where the melta is just as enticing as other weapons and all are worth considering.
I don't think there is a cost. It's mostly binary. 2 point meltas might be enticing over 5 point plasma, but ultimately both get dumped to find room elsewhere.
If there is a cost where you would never take melta and a cost where you would always take melta, there is a cost in between where it's a choice.
In the real world where 'perfect points' is an unattainable Platonic ideal and the best you can hope for is 'close enough', then maybe more squads will take melta than not, or maybe you'll only see it occasionally, but either of those presents a decision where there are pros and cons and you aren't overtly punished by assembling your models wrong.
I don't think this is something you can logic out of. It isn't giving up, because it's too hard. It's recognizing that humans are gonna human and a system you design will be corrupted ( chaos always wins ) in every possible manner. It's like a 'when in Rome...' situation. Instead of worrying about weapons entice with unit abilities and see what shakes out.
I'm not commenting on the efficacy of the system, because I have no idea. I see some of the reasoning behind it and I'm curious to see what happens.
catbarf wrote: From a design standpoint it might be helpful to understand why people aren't using melta, but the ideal is simply to find a cost where the melta is just as enticing as other weapons and all are worth considering.
I don't think there is a cost. It's mostly binary. 2 point meltas might be enticing over 5 point plasma, but ultimately both get dumped to find room elsewhere.
For who? My Space Marines always bought Specials.
I've seen Guard players both buy Specials and not buy Specials, excercising their choice as to where to spend their points.
Daedalus81 wrote: I don't think this is something you can logic out of. It isn't giving up, because it's too hard. It's recognizing that humans are gonna human and a system you design will be corrupted ( chaos always wins ) in every possible manner. It's like a 'when in Rome...' situation. Instead of worrying about weapons entice with unit abilities and see what shakes out.
You don't need to be able to logic your way out of it - design isn't just about logic and maths. Not being able to construct a logical argument for what the cost of a given upgrade should be doesn't mean you can never determine that cost, to within a reasonable margin of error. Everything you've said there is just about throwing your hands up, declaring the whole thing too difficult, and going with the worst possible "solution".
I don't think anyone's saying the system GW have chosen can't work. The problem is, in order for it to work, you need every available upgrade to be of equal value, which requires a ground-up redesign of almost all the units in the game. GW haven't even done 1% of the work that would be required to use the system they've chosen. So the last sentence of your post is moot since that's not what we're dealing with in 10th.
Daedalus81 wrote: It's recognizing that humans are gonna human and a system you design will be corrupted ( chaos always wins ) in every possible manner.
I can see this exact same thought running through a developer's head during a coffee break. "Humans are gonna human and chaos always wins, so let's just throw something at the wall to see what sticks and play Battlebits on the office computer for the rest of the day. The suits are gonna pay me the same either way!" Heh. The irony.
The problem being that they then decided to go with the system that creates the largest disparity between those who "corrupt" (takes every best in slot upgrade they can now that there is absolutely no reason not to) and those who do not (anyone who doesn't do that).
Insectum7 wrote: For who? My Space Marines always bought Specials.
I've seen Guard players both buy Specials and not buy Specials, excercising their choice as to where to spend their points.
There is always going to be people who do. The question is do people do it regularly? I don't think so. New players are also going to be the most excited to roll their cool squad with gubbins. Then they find out that the points are better spent elsewhere.
I've literally never not taken specials in my Marine, Chaos Marine and Guard Squads unless there was an organisational reason why I couldn't (ie. weapon limitation based on squad size).
Insectum7 wrote: For who? My Space Marines always bought Specials.
I've seen Guard players both buy Specials and not buy Specials, excercising their choice as to where to spend their points.
There is always going to be people who do. The question is do people do it regularly? I don't think so. New players are also going to be the most excited to roll their cool squad with gubbins. Then they find out that the points are better spent elsewhere.
I know all of this is gonna be anecdotal but both my LGS is pretty split on a 50/50 when it comes to bringing naked squads or fully upgraded squads. Even within the same army, i've seen people bring naked tacticals and full 10-man with all the bells and whistle
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: I've literally never not taken specials in my Marine, Chaos Marine and Guard Squads unless there was an organisational reason why I couldn't (ie. weapon limitation based on squad size).
al my legionnaires ran with a combi melta on the leader + a melta (until the 9th ed codex dropped)
Insectum7 wrote: For who? My Space Marines always bought Specials.
I've seen Guard players both buy Specials and not buy Specials, excercising their choice as to where to spend their points.
There is always going to be people who do. The question is do people do it regularly? I don't think so. New players are also going to be the most excited to roll their cool squad with gubbins. Then they find out that the points are better spent elsewhere.
The answer is yes, people purchase Specials regularly enough to keep the design space open to player choice.
I think the only unit I've run with my Tau that didn't take upgrades when it could was Pathfinders. Crisis of course did, stealth suits did for some extra punch (fusion blasters) and more battlefield support capabilities (homing beacon etc.), Broadsides did (shield drones, choice of support system).
And that was because Pathfinders existed to do one job in my army and the opponent would always focus on killing them ASAP to shut that down. So investing more points on them for better guns, which also had the side effect of reducing their ability to do the main job they were taken for, was not a sound move.
Now that those better guns are free, and no longer decrease the units effectiveness at being a spotter for other things as markerlights aren't a piece of wargear but just a keyword? Yes, I will have 3 rail rifles, a grenade launcher, 2 gun drones, a recon drone or a grav inhibitor or pulse accelerator in every unit of pathfinders. Pathfinders are now a more lethal infantry unit than the Fire Warrior teams that are meant to be the standard line infantry of the Tau military.
It doesn't cost 0 points here. We're just not privy to the actual cost. Instead you're forced to take the option.
Actually, for Devastators at least we do get a window into costs. The first 5 models, where the upgrades are concentrated, cost 120 points. The next 5 models are extra bolter bodies, and they cost 80 points to add to the squad. So 40 points for Heavy weapons plus extra Sergeant equipment.
Slipspace wrote: I don't think anyone's saying the system GW have chosen can't work. The problem is, in order for it to work, you need every available upgrade to be of equal value, which requires a ground-up redesign of almost all the units in the game. GW haven't even done 1% of the work that would be required to use the system they've chosen. So the last sentence of your post is moot since that's not what we're dealing with in 10th.
I think most people here think it won't work.
There's also multiple issues :
A - Upgrades within units being at parity
B - Physical models not possessing upgrades and the impact of that
C - The removal of choice
These issues bleed into each other and I'm sure I've missed stuff.
It's entirely possible this trades not picking weapons to not picking units and for a good while it's going to be messier than we might hope.
I don't think anyone's saying the system GW have chosen can't work. The problem is, in order for it to work, you need every available upgrade to be of equal value, which requires a ground-up redesign of almost all the units in the game. GW haven't even done 1% of the work that would be required to use the system they've chosen. So the last sentence of your post is moot since that's not what we're dealing with in 10th.
No real work was done on the older system either. Thing was either must-have or must-avoid. Probably because game systems tend to be very binary.
Now, let us make this more granular.
First we have weapons. Weapon systems are complex, and I will admit that some can occasionally cost points(weapons with high strength, high ap, high damage, and high range). The problem is that closer you get to the cost of a model in your army the less valuable it is compared to a body and default gun, but if I was still on hopium I might believe GW could do it in the 11th iteration. You want meltagun with 12" range? However, the unit operates at 24-36" range meaning that meltagun is super situational. So most of the time you'll probably go with the default layout making the meltagun a moot point. Hell, even if the meltagun is free it doesn't necessarily rhyme with the squad due to its short range, meaning that in a free universe a single melta guy might never shoot due to his short range. Hell, even if you had a plasma with equal range of others in the squad you'd still see so little return of investment. Are you willing to pay 10 points to have a slightly better chance at killing one grunt?
Second we have unit upgrades like banners, sigils, trumpets, clarinets, or whatever. These I'd argue were taken about 1% of the time. If they gave you an ability that unlocked the unit then it was used, otherwise it was left in the garbage bin like an old DVD of The Happening. There was no either or and if the points got raised on it, it either was still a must have or the unit was just now too expensive. There was rarely any middle ground.
Daedalus81 wrote: We already had weapon costs based on the wielder. It didn't change much.
Still better than having no cost at all and saying we should give up because it's too hard or can't be done perfectly.
To my mind, the big issue is that the cost based on wielder was obfuscated. By giving every model a "power level" modifier, it gives a more precise dial to tweak balance. If Unit A is buffed too much from a faction ability, then change the multiplier on Unit A. Heck, give faction abilities multipliers too. If a 'no faction' space marine model is 10 points, and taking a faction gives a buff, make that buff an explicit multiplier. Say a 10% increase for Space Wolves, bringing their base cost to 11.
Right now it feels like they pulled unit points costs out of their ass. By making an obvious system, the book keeping that they seem to hate gets reduced.
I know all of this is gonna be anecdotal but both my LGS is pretty split on a 50/50 when it comes to bringing naked squads or fully upgraded squads. Even within the same army, i've seen people bring naked tacticals and full 10-man with all the bells and whistle
It depends on the army though, and a lot. My GK terminators didn't come with banners or an apothecary. Now in order to have full equpied units, I have to get 4 banner dudes and 4 apothecaries from somewhere, and I will be left with 8 regular terminators I will never use. And someone at the stupid decided that my dudes supposet to not just be elite in name, but in point costs too. We cost like custodes, for weaker stat line and weapons. A squad without those upgrades is really not worth the points, and to make it even more fun. Paladins who for some reason can't take an apothecary, were made both bad and over costed, so there is no way to get around the no apothecary/no ancient in unit.
The rule doesn't matter for units with no options, and there is more then enough of those, even counting space marines with primaris.
I don't think anyone's saying the system GW have chosen can't work. The problem is, in order for it to work, you need every available upgrade to be of equal value, which requires a ground-up redesign of almost all the units in the game. GW haven't even done 1% of the work that would be required to use the system they've chosen. So the last sentence of your post is moot since that's not what we're dealing with in 10th.
No real work was done on the older system either. Thing was either must-have or must-avoid. Probably because game systems tend to be very binary.
Now, let us make this more granular.
First we have weapons. Weapon systems are complex, and I will admit that some can occasionally cost points(weapons with high strength, high ap, high damage, and high range). The problem is that closer you get to the cost of a model in your army the less valuable it is compared to a body and default gun, but if I was still on hopium I might believe GW could do it in the 11th iteration. You want meltagun with 12" range? However, the unit operates at 24-36" range meaning that meltagun is super situational. So most of the time you'll probably go with the default layout making the meltagun a moot point. Hell, even if the meltagun is free it doesn't necessarily rhyme with the squad due to its short range, meaning that in a free universe a single melta guy might never shoot due to his short range. Hell, even if you had a plasma with equal range of others in the squad you'd still see so little return of investment. Are you willing to pay 10 points to have a slightly better chance at killing one grunt?
Disagree. People chose the upgrade for how they expected to use the squad. Rear objective holders would take Heavies and/or long ranged Specials. Squads expecting to operate closer to the front would often take Meltas and sometimes Flamers in past editions. Some people just wanted screens of bodies, and chose to go without upgrades. It wasn't binary. For me at least there was a lot of internal chemistry between those choices too, as I never wanted to lean to heavily into a single choice, and the options allowed me to plug capability gaps depending on what other units were taken.
Eldarsif wrote: Second we have unit upgrades like banners, sigils, trumpets, clarinets, or whatever. These I'd argue were taken about 1% of the time. If they gave you an ability that unlocked the unit then it was used, otherwise it was left in the garbage bin like an old DVD of The Happening. There was no either or and if the points got raised on it, it either was still a must have or the unit was just now too expensive. There was rarely any middle ground.
There was a time in 8th where the Banner came and went form my army in response to the rest of my build. That made it neither a "must-have" or a "must-leave". It can be done.
Karol wrote: It depends on the army though, and a lot. My GK terminators didn't come with banners or an apothecary. Now in order to have full equpied units, I have to get 4 banner dudes and 4 apothecaries from somewhere, and I will be left with 8 regular terminators I will never use. And someone at the stupid decided that my dudes supposet to not just be elite in name, but in point costs too. We cost like custodes, for weaker stat line and weapons. A squad without those upgrades is really not worth the points, and to make it even more fun. Paladins who for some reason can't take an apothecary, were made both bad and over costed, so there is no way to get around the no apothecary/no ancient in unit.
The rule doesn't matter for units with no options, and there is more then enough of those, even counting space marines with primaris.
Don't go buy models for that stuff. Paint one helmet white ( or some complementary color ) - that's the apothecary. Then find banners from your sprues or buy printed ones and rig them up.
Paladins get -1 to wound and hit on 2s. I'm not sure they're that far off.
Also don't necessarily count on the Apothecary upgrade staying for Terminators. Given that Paladins - the unit which has always previously been associated with the Apothecary CAN'T take the upgrade, it could very well be an error.
chaos0xomega wrote: The HWT adds 0 wounds to the units lethality if its dead before it can be used.
The same is true for replacing naked Tacticals with heavily armed Devastators, you are still engaging in sophistry.
Evaluating based purely on a weapons lethality is giving you a misleading sense of value.
I suppose the person who values things clearly worth more than 0 at 0 is the one with the wrong sense of value.
You have to account for the actual level of utility being provided by the option, which is kind of the core of my point (and what nou understood and everyone else didn't)
There is no great shame in being taken in by sophistry, hopefully, nou will come to see reason, if not then it's thankfully no big deal as this is after all just a game of toy soldiers.
You have to look at average performance over the course of a real game
Then why do you keep proposing its worth is indistinguishable from zero when that is evidently not the case?
points are balanced and evaluated at the army level, not the unit level, not the model level, nor the weapon level.
There are two kinds of balance, internal balance and external balance. It would be a rather shoddy wargame if the game was entirely externally balanced but wholly unbalanced internally as every faction would devolve to playing the same list with no opportunity for replacements or personal expression because a unit of Guardsmen costs more than a Leman Russ and Monoliths less than Deathmarks per model.
Insectum7 wrote: People chose the upgrade for how they expected to use the squad.
Which is something you can still do. Worrying that your rearguard wouldn't be as efficient if the Sarge doesn't have a TH is kind of moot. Yes, you paid for a TH or whatever weapon you might use. A weapon you probably won't use actively and if you did it comes down to like 30% change to do a wound or two.
Are you aiming for the top tables at LVO? Then get those TH on. Otherwise I don't think it's worth worrying about. I do imagine most older gamers here have enough models to accommodate if they wanted to.
There's a more nuance on what to do with stuff like Death Company though ( highly dependent on unit buffs ).
Insectum7 wrote: People chose the upgrade for how they expected to use the squad.
Which is something you can still do. Worrying that your rearguard wouldn't be as efficient if the Sarge doesn't have a TH is kind of moot. Yes, you paid for a TH or whatever weapon you might use. A weapon you probably won't use actively and if you did it comes down to like 30% change to do a wound or two.
Are you aiming for the top tables at LVO? Then get those TH on. Otherwise I don't think it's worth worrying about. I do imagine most older gamers here have enough models to accommodate if they wanted to.
There's a more nuance on what to do with stuff like Death Company though ( highly dependent on unit buffs ).
its not about if theyre gonna use them or not tho... Its about purposefully choosing as a player that you want to bring naked squads as a backfield holder/action monkey. Now you can't do that.
If i want a cheap squad of legionnaires to hold my home objective, i can't do that, i have to pay extra points (therefore, limiting the options in the rest of my army) just because GW decided that bolters are the same as a lascannon+heavy melee weapon+tome+plasma pistol+icon.
Ok, that's a good point, but we're talking about a system where everyone has that deficit and where all your other stuff is 'upgraded' so there's no points to shave. And that burrows right into part of why this system could be useful - it's not so easy to strip squads to meet requirements so that you can fit more good stuff.
Instead of CSM just punching down 3 Cultists squads and using the additional 150 points to go buy another tank you have to make sure the unit suits your particular army's strategy. I just see the focus changing from fiddling for efficiency to fiddling for synergy and function.
Insectum7 wrote: People chose the upgrade for how they expected to use the squad.
Which is something you can still do. Worrying that your rearguard wouldn't be as efficient if the Sarge doesn't have a TH is kind of moot. Yes, you paid for a TH or whatever weapon you might use. A weapon you probably won't use actively and if you did it comes down to like 30% change to do a wound or two.
Why would I be fighting every battle the same way? Do I fight long-ranged Tau in the same way that I fight CC Tyranids? I sure don't! There is no "rearguard unit" when charging in with Devastators is a smart move (and a move that I've absolutely done). Having the extra capability is something that should definitely cost points because it forces more/harder decisions at the listbuilding stage.
It's free now. You can expect every squad to start fielding the already built P-fist Sergeants I have lying around, and you can expect more to show up in the assembly line. It's going to be all Powerfist/ThunderHammer-Plasma Pistols all the time.
But also, did you just chaosXomega with your "30% chance to do a wound or two?" statement? A Powerfist more than doubles the damage output of a 5 Marine squad against MEQ.
Again your reasoning is based on there being a pronounced difference in the upgrades available to a given unit, and ignoring any other perks and advantages a given army or even unit might have available.
Necron Warriors for instance have Resurrection Protocols because they’re Necrons, and an improved version because they’re Necron Warriors.
The Necron army has various means to improve Resurrection Protocols - and the Warrior’s native boost triggers on every instance.
So whilst yes, a Tactical Squad may have greater flexibility of options, Necron Warriors can just keep on getting up, and getting up, and getting up, and getting up. Not only does that help them avoid Battle Shock, but suitably supported they may prove bloody difficult to shift off an Objective.
Hence FOIP. Right now, we only have theory hammer for the most part. Until we’ve seen how overall armies perform, particularly as we’ve a much looser FOC, we can’t really say too much about balance.
Because the game is about more than just trying to annihilate each other’s models. It may not matter if you’re kicking my head in each turn, if I’m deft at scoring Objectives and other sources of VPs.
Ah, that I can agree on, the change in rules could mean these profile differences don't matter as much. I'm not very optimistic about that, but I sincerely hope it isn't as bad as it looks. I also wouldn't mind the weapons being baked into the unit cost if they felt more like sidegrades, I'm actually glad they're trying to reduce complexity a bit (less so with how they're going about it, but it is gw).
if everyone has that deficit is the one big problem of that system if used by GW
it is not that such a system in general cannot work
remember there are games out there were alternating turns work
problem is that how GW uses it does not work, and it already shows the flaws with the index so we expect that it gets worse with the Codex
and not better
Insectum7 wrote: But also, did you just chaosXomega with your "30% chance to do a wound or two?" statement? A Powerfist more than doubles the damage output of a 5 Marine squad against MEQ.
I don't find that statement to be a useful representation of what is actually happening there when we're talking about a single wound -- on average.
Insectum7 wrote: But also, did you just chaosXomega with your "30% chance to do a wound or two?" statement? A Powerfist more than doubles the damage output of a 5 Marine squad against MEQ.
I don't find that statement to be a useful representation of what is actually happening there when we're talking about a single wound -- on average.
I'm going to screenshot this and save it for the next million years to post when you drop some nitpicky mathhammer to justify some unjustifiable balance decision.
Insectum7 wrote: But also, did you just chaosXomega with your "30% chance to do a wound or two?" statement? A Powerfist more than doubles the damage output of a 5 Marine squad against MEQ.
I don't find that statement to be a useful representation of what is actually happening there when we're talking about a single wound -- on average.
It's pretty straightforward. This particular upgrade increases the models CC damage output by 4-8x depending on target. It should have an associated cost.
You keep using that word. I don't think you know what it means. Sophistry implies that I have motive to attempt to mislead - if I do, thats certainly news to me.
Then why do you keep proposing its worth is indistinguishable from zero when that is evidently not the case?
Because based on my own extensive experience playtesting and designing tabletop games, I basically arrived at the same conclusions that GW evidently did - its a lot of smoke and mirrors and the perceived improvement to game balance resulting from increasing the much-vaunted "granularity" of points systems and micro-costing individual weapons is purely illusory fiction, especially when the options are in many case effective side-grades (as has been the case in 40k for a couple years now, which makes this whole discussion even more funny because in many cases units have had free weapon options for upwards of a year now without anyone really batting an eye). There are corner-cases and scenarios where it matters (and those should certainly be addressed, but as is typical GW is heavy handed and ham fisted and takes a one-size fits all approach to everything), but in most use cases taken in aggregate, the minor differences in weapon loadouts between two opposed armies are not a meaningful factor in the outcome of a game.
Many other designers whom I respect greatly (and who, more importantly, are actually published and therefore have more clout than little ol' me) have arrived at very similar conclusions as well and moved towards less granular points systems or replacing points and using other mechanisms for army construction.
Granted, that might change if player A is the type to go out of their way to maximize everything, and player B is a no-frills barebones player, so you end up with player A having an army of high tech specops types loaded for bear, while player B has an equal number of dudes carrying nothing but lasrifles. But in my experience this is a corner case (and I say this as someone who is more often than not inclined towards acting like player B), and the average player in what I will refer to as an "open ended" system like this will often make choices and decisions that may otherwise seem "sub-optimal" if a points system is actually applied.
There are two kinds of balance, internal balance and external balance. It would be a rather shoddy wargame if the game was entirely externally balanced but wholly unbalanced internally as every faction would devolve to playing the same list with no opportunity for replacements or personal expression because a unit of Guardsmen costs more than a Leman Russ and Monoliths less than Deathmarks per model.
Both internal and external balance are achieved using the same points system and methodology, so if you want to talk about sophistry, trying to argue that points only impact one but not the other might just be it.
Insectum7 wrote: People chose the upgrade for how they expected to use the squad.
Which is something you can still do. Worrying that your rearguard wouldn't be as efficient if the Sarge doesn't have a TH is kind of moot. Yes, you paid for a TH or whatever weapon you might use. A weapon you probably won't use actively and if you did it comes down to like 30% change to do a wound or two.
Are you aiming for the top tables at LVO? Then get those TH on. Otherwise I don't think it's worth worrying about. I do imagine most older gamers here have enough models to accommodate if they wanted to.
There's a more nuance on what to do with stuff like Death Company though ( highly dependent on unit buffs ).
its not about if theyre gonna use them or not tho... Its about purposefully choosing as a player that you want to bring naked squads as a backfield holder/action monkey. Now you can't do that.
If i want a cheap squad of legionnaires to hold my home objective, i can't do that, i have to pay extra points (therefore, limiting the options in the rest of my army) just because GW decided that bolters are the same as a lascannon+heavy melee weapon+tome+plasma pistol+icon.
It's not about the loss of % on effectiveness.
You're right, it has nothing to do with effectiveness %. It's just you arguing for the sake of arguing.
I mean, let's be clear here. You're bitching about a 5 man Legionaies squad now costing a flat 100pts. As opposed to the 90pts it ended 9th at. Double those #s if you want the full 10 man squad. In both cases there's no pts cost associated with lascannons etc (just the Balefire tome & god marks in 9th).
That's a difference of 2 pts per CSM!
Don't try & convince us that you can't deal with this minor degree of pts variance, that the sky has fallen etc. Things shift up & down by a few pts all the time in this game. Especially as editions change.
chaos0xomega wrote: Because based on my own extensive experience playtesting and designing tabletop games, I basically arrived at the same conclusions that GW evidently did - its a lot of smoke and mirrors and the perceived improvement to game balance resulting from increasing the much-vaunted "granularity" of points systems and micro-costing individual weapons is purely illusory fiction, especially when the options are in many case effective side-grades (as has been the case in 40k for a couple years now, which makes this whole discussion even more funny because in many cases units have had free weapon options for upwards of a year now without anyone really batting an eye). There are corner-cases and scenarios where it matters (and those should certainly be addressed, but as is typical GW is heavy handed and ham fisted and takes a one-size fits all approach to everything), but in most use cases taken in aggregate, the minor differences in weapon loadouts between two opposed armies are not a meaningful factor in the outcome of a game.
Insectum7 wrote: People chose the upgrade for how they expected to use the squad.
Which is something you can still do. Worrying that your rearguard wouldn't be as efficient if the Sarge doesn't have a TH is kind of moot. Yes, you paid for a TH or whatever weapon you might use. A weapon you probably won't use actively and if you did it comes down to like 30% change to do a wound or two.
It's free now. You can expect every squad to start fielding the already built P-fist Sergeants I have lying around, and you can expect more to show up in the assembly line. It's going to be all Powerfist/ThunderHammer-Plasma Pistols all the time.
Weird how different minds work. In many cases I'm looking at options available to me and opting not to leverage them because its more effort to build/convert/paint the extra minis than I will get utility out of them on the tabletop. For all the times I actually paid for plasma pistols and power swords on my guard sgts in previous editions, I can't ever think of a time that I was actually glad I did so (whereas I can think of many cases where I determined that maybe the option wasn't actually worth taking because they ultimately did nothing to meaningfully alter the flow or outcome of the game for me and it was a capability that I wasn't actually utilizing or necessarily even able to utilize given the actual dynamics of play on the tabletop). Granted, the inclination to give a unit the free upgrade definitely varies depending on what the upgrade options are and what unit/army they are available to - a power fist or thunderhammer in a squad of marines certainly has more appeal than a powersword in a guard squad, for example.
Theres certainly the argument of "better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it", but I'll re-evaluate my feelings on this after I've played enough games where the absence of the "free upgrade" actually felt like it was a contributing factor to my loss. FOIP as Grotsnik says.
You're right, it has nothing to do with effectiveness %. It's just you arguing for the sake of arguing.
I mean, let's be clear here. You're bitching about a 5 man Legionaies squad now costing a flat 100pts. As opposed to the 90pts it ended 9th at. Double those #s if you want the full 10 man squad. In both cases there's no pts cost associated with lascannons etc (just the Balefire tome & god marks in 9th).
That's a difference of 2 pts per CSM!
Don't try & convince us that you can't deal with this minor degree of pts variance, that the sky has fallen etc. Things shift up & down by a few pts all the time in this game. Especially as editions change.
I gave ONE example on ONE unit.... Expand that to litterally every unit in my army, and its easily one extra squad that i can't bring anymore.
yeah, when balance is so bad you better skip points all together and play scenarios
that is way historical games don't use points, they have a setting with the historical order of battle and recreate that
there is never a system that lets you pay points for an upgrade
the conscript with bad weapons is worth the same as the veteran units with the best weapons available
except ther actually are point systems, even in Black Powder you pay for upgrades and your veteran unit with rifles cost more than your veteran unit with smoothbore muskets
somehow points for upgrades must have an impact on the performance of an army in game, otherwise it would not be used
that there is no real difference if a laser cannon costs 5 or 10 points, while a plasma cannon cost 10 or 15, but there is a difference between a naked unit and a full upgunned one
and even the basic "we don't use points at all" games make a difference there
chaos0xomega wrote: Because based on my own extensive experience playtesting and designing tabletop games, I basically arrived at the same conclusions that GW evidently did - its a lot of smoke and mirrors and the perceived improvement to game balance resulting from increasing the much-vaunted "granularity" of points systems and micro-costing individual weapons is purely illusory fiction, especially when the options are in many case effective side-grades (as has been the case in 40k for a couple years now, which makes this whole discussion even more funny because in many cases units have had free weapon options for upwards of a year now without anyone really batting an eye). There are corner-cases and scenarios where it matters (and those should certainly be addressed, but as is typical GW is heavy handed and ham fisted and takes a one-size fits all approach to everything), but in most use cases taken in aggregate, the minor differences in weapon loadouts between two opposed armies are not a meaningful factor in the outcome of a game.
Oof
Yeah, I know lol. In this case though I have a long post history on dakka advocating for points systems moving in a similar direction, so in my view its an example of GW doing something right (which happens, rarely) rather than me doing something wrong. As a general trend, the points systems in other games which I have found to work best in my experience are those which are less granular rather than more granular, and this would be GW seemingly moving in that same direction (though admittedly not in a way that I think is actually being executed well, but I give GW credit for trying lol).
I guess cheating is a bit easier now, as you could just have the same list printed twice and swap all the weapons from AT to AP easily. Not a major consideration of course, but a thought I had.
Insectum7 wrote: But also, did you just chaosXomega with your "30% chance to do a wound or two?" statement? A Powerfist more than doubles the damage output of a 5 Marine squad against MEQ.
I don't find that statement to be a useful representation of what is actually happening there when we're talking about a single wound -- on average.
It's pretty straightforward. This particular upgrade increases the models CC damage output by 4-8x depending on target. It should have an associated cost.
One could instead argue that by assuming the legionaries always have a scary power fist guy in it without paying a significant cost for the weapon they are better suited for defending themselves compared to the actual cheap chaff objective holders, cultists.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: I'm going to screenshot this and save it for the next million years to post when you drop some nitpicky mathhammer to justify some unjustifiable balance decision.
If you can back up with relevant info and not just gak posting for fun then by all means do so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: It's pretty straightforward. This particular upgrade increases the models CC damage output by 4-8x depending on target. It should have an associated cost.
Well, it does have that cost. This is a scenario where you don't have the item and worrying about not being efficient as a result ( as opposed to not having free points to spend elsewhere ).
Insectum7 wrote: It's pretty straightforward. This particular upgrade increases the models CC damage output by 4-8x depending on target. It should have an associated cost.
Well, it does have that cost. This is a scenario where you don't have the item and worrying about not being efficient as a result ( as opposed to not having free points to spend elsewhere ).
It's the same thing, because points are a fluid asset. I no longer have the option of not taking the P-fist and spending the points on an upgrade elsewhere.
The upgrade is either worth something, or it isn't. And despite your attempt to minimize it, it's clearly worth something.
Yeah, I know lol. In this case though I have a long post history on dakka advocating for points systems moving in a similar direction, so in my view its an example of GW doing something right (which happens, rarely) rather than me doing something wrong. As a general trend, the points systems in other games which I have found to work best in my experience are those which are less granular rather than more granular, and this would be GW seemingly moving in that same direction (though admittedly not in a way that I think is actually being executed well, but I give GW credit for trying lol).
the idea was never the problem, but as usually GWs execution of it
2 examples, a good one and a bad one
the 3 Landspeeders (though historical reasons): 3 Datasheets with 3 different points and 3 different weapon options that are sidegrades, if you take a Melta in addition to the rocket launcher, a flamer or a bolter does not matter for the points
the Crisis Suit: 1 Datasheet, ~30 different loadouts, all cost the same points and it is just not realistic that a unit with 2 flamer and a rocket launcher is equal to a unit with 2 rocket launcher and a flamer
otherwise, if the crisis ones are all equal value in points, why does the Landspeeder have 3 different values as they should be all equal as well
specially as the difference between 2 of them is 5 points
so the point system is granular enough that a landspeeder with assault cannon is worth 5 points less than one with rocket launcher
but not granular enough that a Crisis with assault cannon must be the same cost as a crisis with rocket launcher
that the basic idea works is not the problem
that GW does not know how to handle such ideas is and either we see units with several weapon options split into different datacards were loadouts are just options that do not change the value,, or we get the granular system of points for upgrades back
as it is now, it won't work and some factions will turn out better than the others because of how the units are priced
chaos0xomega wrote: (as has been the case in 40k for a couple years now, which makes this whole discussion even more funny because in many cases units have had free weapon options for upwards of a year now without anyone really batting an eye).
If you didn't see "eyes-batted" over a lack of point costs for wargear this past year you are blind.
JNAProductions wrote: I'm sure you are capable of doing the math, but you didn't bother to. You just pulled a number from your rear and assumed it was correct.
In my experience with the industry, many designers don't have much background with math or more specifically probability, and struggle to get the math to align to intuition. I've seen all sorts of probabilistic fallacies cited to justify balance decisions and it's no surprise that many designers have trouble with purely numerical systems.
The overwhelming majority of non-historical wargames use some kind of resource-based army-building limitations- still functionally points, but lower granularity makes the math easier, and it emphasizes design as the balancing factor rather than raw points. And it works, it legitimately does.
But GW hasn't done the legwork to actually support this across the game.
Arachnofiend wrote: One could instead argue that by assuming the legionaries always have a scary power fist guy in it without paying a significant cost for the weapon they are better suited for defending themselves compared to the actual cheap chaff objective holders, cultists.
That ties back to points as a shaping mechanism rather than a balancing mechanism per se. You can make wargear free because it's what the unit 'should' be using; essentially declaring as a designer that Tactical Marines are shock troops, not backfield objective monkeys, and running them naked is contrary to their fluff. But you can also create that shaping effect through points if powerfists and special weapons are cheap enough to be no-brainers, and then there is strong incentive to take them (while at least having some trade-off). The problem is when you have multiple choices that are clearly unequal, but still being treated as no-cost sidegrade options.
Is having a powerfist so integral to the setting's depiction of Legionnaires that it ought to be functionally standard-issue wargear in every squad? If it is, there's no point in having the other options; just delete them from the datasheet and all those legacy models with chainswords count them as powerfists. If not, then there ought to be some incentive to take other loadouts. There are a bunch of ways to do that:
1. Make all the melee options equally powerful sidegrades. Chainswords equal to powerfists- you can make it work, but you might not like the side effects.
2. Tie the melee weapons to other options. Maybe it's chainsword + plasma pistol versus powerfist + nothing, or taking the chainsword confers a special rule to the unit, or the powerfist has an opportunity cost like not being able to deep strike or strikes-last. This may be challenging if these weapons are options on a wide variety of units that the advantages/disadvantages may not apply equally to.
3. Give the better weapons some kind of cost to offset the greater power.
#3 is straightforward and the least likely to have knock-on effects elsewhere. GW already has the tool to do this, they just seem reluctant to leverage it in the cases where it's more appropriate than the sidegrade model.
And as I've said before: We already went through this song and dance in recent memory. The 9th Ed Tyranids codex tried the 'all free' approach, and then fairly quickly walked it back after public outcry over some of the options having no reason to exist, being clear upgrades/downgrades forced into a sidegrade model. GW really doesn't need to slap a cost on every option, they just need to make sure that all options have a reason to be taken, and 'my models are already built like that' is the worst one possible.
Insectum7 wrote: It's pretty straightforward. This particular upgrade increases the models CC damage output by 4-8x depending on target. It should have an associated cost.
Well, it does have that cost. This is a scenario where you don't have the item and worrying about not being efficient as a result ( as opposed to not having free points to spend elsewhere ).
It's the same thing, because points are a fluid asset. I no longer have the option of not taking the P-fist and spending the points on an upgrade elsewhere.
The upgrade is either worth something, or it isn't. And despite your attempt to minimize it, it's clearly worth something.
On one end it's worth potentially zero, because you might never swing it. On the other end it does have some effect on what you can fit in a list, but everyone is at the same level.
That said a tac squad is 175 and was 180 before gear in Nephilim. And Devs were 130 with Heavy Bolters and now sit at 120. They already shaved the points off for you! ( slight sarcasm )
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: so the point system is granular enough that a landspeeder with assault cannon is worth 5 points less than one with rocket launcher
but not granular enough that a Crisis with assault cannon must be the same cost as a crisis with rocket launcher
What speeders are you talking about? I see 130, 160, and 160.
Insectum7 wrote: It's pretty straightforward. This particular upgrade increases the models CC damage output by 4-8x depending on target. It should have an associated cost.
Well, it does have that cost. This is a scenario where you don't have the item and worrying about not being efficient as a result ( as opposed to not having free points to spend elsewhere ).
It's the same thing, because points are a fluid asset. I no longer have the option of not taking the P-fist and spending the points on an upgrade elsewhere.
The upgrade is either worth something, or it isn't. And despite your attempt to minimize it, it's clearly worth something.
Stop looking at it as an upgrade, look at it as base equipment you can opt not to use for whatever reason. That's the general point of the discussion I think, same with the squad of legionnaires mentioned earlier, if you can have 5 with a free special/heavy, assume they always have one.
Yeah, I know lol. In this case though I have a long post history on dakka advocating for points systems moving in a similar direction, so in my view its an example of GW doing something right (which happens, rarely) rather than me doing something wrong. As a general trend, the points systems in other games which I have found to work best in my experience are those which are less granular rather than more granular, and this would be GW seemingly moving in that same direction (though admittedly not in a way that I think is actually being executed well, but I give GW credit for trying lol).
the idea was never the problem, but as usually GWs execution of it
2 examples, a good one and a bad one
the 3 Landspeeders (though historical reasons): 3 Datasheets with 3 different points and 3 different weapon options that are sidegrades, if you take a Melta in addition to the rocket launcher, a flamer or a bolter does not matter for the points
the Crisis Suit: 1 Datasheet, ~30 different loadouts, all cost the same points and it is just not realistic that a unit with 2 flamer and a rocket launcher is equal to a unit with 2 rocket launcher and a flamer
otherwise, if the crisis ones are all equal value in points, why does the Landspeeder have 3 different values as they should be all equal as well
specially as the difference between 2 of them is 5 points
so the point system is granular enough that a landspeeder with assault cannon is worth 5 points less than one with rocket launcher
but not granular enough that a Crisis with assault cannon must be the same cost as a crisis with rocket launcher
that the basic idea works is not the problem
that GW does not know how to handle such ideas is and either we see units with several weapon options split into different datacards were loadouts are just options that do not change the value,, or we get the granular system of points for upgrades back
as it is now, it won't work and some factions will turn out better than the others because of how the units are priced
Heres the thing about the crisis suits, depending on what the rest of my army looks like, I could legitimately have need for the capability a unit of crisis suits equipped with 2 flamers and a rocket launcher whereas a unit with 2 rocket launchers and a flamer carries less utility to me given the other selections in my army.
Going back to guard for example (because its an easy baseline that everyone understands), there have been times when I wrote my guard lists where every infantry unit was equipped with a lascannon and a meltagun, because all my other unit selections were heavily focused on other capabilities which left me exposed to enemy tanks from an army building standpoint. There are also times when I wrote my guard lists where every infantry unit was equipped with a flamer or grenade launcher and a heavy bolter/mortar, because my other selections were so heavily focused on anti-tank weapons and heavy firepower that I lacked sufficient mass to deal with a green tide or a tyranid horde. A lascannon and meltagun is basically at the opposite end of the spectrum from a heavy bolter and a flamer, etc. yet they all found equal uses in my lists, even when they were all priced identically at 5/0 points over the last edition, so yes - even those "less ideal" weapons can have a place in a world where they are stacked against a "more ideal" weapon at the same cost.
As far as the comparison to land speeders is concerned, I don't know what to tell you except GW is generally bad at their job. 5 points is basically the nothingburger of points differences - its literally 0.25% of the typical points total, and somewhere between 2.5% and 5% of the cost of the typical unit in the game, which is why I find the reaction to the current point system so hilarious, keeping in mind that the majority of upgrades in the previous edition were priced at 5 points already. Based on my analysis, I find margin of error on unit performance in relation to points to generally vary about +/- 7-12% (with some things, like certain ork units and underperforming units having much higher margins), because balance isn't really perfect and tying everything to a d6 outcome often produces pretty big swings, etc. For the typical unit, stacking up those 5pt upgrades does not result in a cost swing that exceeds the margin of error on the units performance, meaning that the upgrades probably should have been free in the first place because they aren't statistically changing the outcome of what that unit will do in a meaningful way. The exception to this is very low cost units like guard squads in 9e where the upgrades could almost double the cost of the unit - ironically enough, however, doing so produced a unit that was basically guaranteed to underperform and it wasn't until GW fixed the squad at 65pts and made the upgrades entirely free that the unit started seeing success in actual games.
Point is, those landspeeders probably should all cost the same, because its unlikely that the results they generate for you on the table will significantly vary.
Mmm. I'm not sure that Predator thing is a good approach to the problem, because there's waaaay to many variables to assess that outcome. Especially when you assess target types, buffs like Oath, and reduction in return fire.
I'm happy sticking to Thunderhammers. Sponsons are a bridge too far.
chaos0xomega wrote: Heres the thing about the crisis suits, depending on what the rest of my army looks like, I could legitimately have need for the capability a unit of crisis suits equipped with 2 flamers and a rocket launcher whereas a unit with 2 rocket launchers and a flamer carries less utility to me given the other selections in my army.
What Tau army are you running where you came to the conclusion that Crisis suits were the best solution for below-average-for-Tau-strength firepower?
Daedalus81 wrote: There's a more nuance on what to do with stuff like Death Company though ( highly dependent on unit buffs ).
Cool. Please explain the nuance that makes either the bolt pistol or the chainsword a valid choice over the plasma pistol and the power weapon for Death Company.
chaos0xomega wrote: Heres the thing about the crisis suits, depending on what the rest of my army looks like, I could legitimately have need for the capability a unit of crisis suits equipped with 2 flamers and a rocket launcher whereas a unit with 2 rocket launchers and a flamer carries less utility to me given the other selections in my army.
What Tau army are you running where you came to the conclusion that Crisis suits were the best solution for below-average-for-Tau-strength firepower?
It's funny. I was just thinking to myself how absent the Cyclic Ion Blaster, you probably could just call all the Crisis Suit guns basically side grades. And you'd be hard pressed to come up with a bad configuration of Crisis Suit weapons...other than maybe some combination of flamers and missile pods
Daedalus81 wrote: What speeders are you talking about? I see 130, 160, and 160.
Landspeeder 80pts, Landspeeder Tornado 95 pts and Landspeeder Typhoon 100pts (in the app, the pdf I have shows 70 for the Landspeeder)
The 130/160/160 ate the Stormspeeder
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote: Heres the thing about the crisis suits, depending on what the rest of my army looks like, I could legitimately have need for the capability a unit of crisis suits equipped with 2 flamers and a rocket launcher whereas a unit with 2 rocket launchers and a flamer carries less utility to me given the other selections in my army.
and you might feel the need to run an LS with Melta+Flamer instead of Rocket Launcher
And if you do it costs 5 points less
Here is the thing, whatever the idea was, GW messed it up and does not follow their design sheme
Hence it does not work as either they are worth a difference of 5 points, than Tau are off, or they are not and than Marines are off
Whatever the idea behind that was, o does not work
PS: we had the same with the movement icons for Kill Team, GW does not understand their own design ideas
Slipspace wrote: Again, it's literally your job as a designer to figure this sort of thing out. It's not an unknowable mystery, just not necessarily straight forward. In a given paradigm, maybe points aren't the reason something isn't taken, though meltas are a bad example because there will always be a non-zero cost where people will take a melta over a bolter. Flamers, for example, suffered in previous editions because they usually weren't an upgrade, so any points cost above 0 was too high.
Taking meltas specifically, let's show why you're wrong. We'll assume we're talking about Tacticals here and we'll assume meltaguns are not currently taken but we don't know why. A simple thought experiment shows why your reasoning doesn't work. If we increased the cost of plasma, grav and flamers to 100 points and changed the cost of meltaguns to 1, we'd see everyone taking meltaguns and nobody taking the other options. That fact alone tells you there is a point-based solution to this. You can argue the reduced range means the bolter still has some utility over the meltagun, but I'd challenge that assertion given the huge lethality increase a meltagun provides and the tiny cost in our example. The exact ratios are not easy to determine, but that's not the same as things being impossible. If nobody is ever taking a weapon that is an upgrade over your basic gun you haven't costed it appropriately, by definition.
Even with all that said, GW's current solution still isn't the solution.
Flamers are an interesting one. GW has tried a few things. CSM had +2 flamers that were half the cost of plasma and melta. No one took them. AoO dropped points to zero. Do you know what people took? Cultists.
Making meltas 1 and everything else would STILL have people not taking them. Why? When you build your list what do you do? You fill in your basic requirements, which is the cheapest of the cheap. Then you do the rest of your list. THEN if you have points left over you start grabbing tertiary upgrades starting from the top - not the bottom.
And yet people still aren't going to take Flamers with the new system either, because it now costs the same as a Plasma gun.
Not Online!!! wrote: See, i can see your point but you yourself admited that for that to happen we would need a better designed game. I'd even go so far as to say a game that right now GW has not the capability to design.
And the predator exemple shows preciscly the problem, the other versions still suck now
What gets me is that if a trio of Predators getting sponson lascannons (that let them do an extra 150-200pts of damage over the course of the game) is irrelevant and not worth putting a cost on, there is absolutely no reason why it should cost 25pts to replace a squad of Tacticals with a squad of Devastators.
Points are tracked minutely when you're picking units, but then you get to wargear and it's 'eh, sure, it's only tripling their firepower, who cares'.
It's a lot of excuses and handwaving for sloppy, inconsistent design.
This is very true. They created a new strength/toughness matrix that should open up the possibility of fine tuning unit performance. But then, instead, they throw all those options into a bucket and say, "Eh, take whatever, It'll all even out"
Daedalus81 wrote: There's a more nuance on what to do with stuff like Death Company though ( highly dependent on unit buffs ).
Cool. Please explain the nuance that makes either the bolt pistol or the chainsword a valid choice over the plasma pistol and the power weapon for Death Company.
When I say nuance I mean it's trickier to navigate. Not that all is right with it. I'm of the mind that people should just counts-as their pistol of choice. Someone did mention cheating, but generally your lists are loaded into BCP so you'll get found out eventually. Obviously that doesn't pertain to non-BCP tournaments, but I don't know how many of those there are. Pick up games are whatever.
Plasma pistols can mess your squad up if you OC. Otherwise they do 2.2 wounds to T6 termies and BP do just about jack gak. Technically BP close the gap on 3+ saves in cover, but hardly worth mathing.
Chainswords *should* have A5 instead of 4, which would help, but I have no idea if GW has that on their radar or if they intended it as such.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
catbarf wrote: Points are tracked minutely when you're picking units, but then you get to wargear and it's 'eh, sure, it's only tripling their firepower, who cares'.
1) Abilities
2) Tacs are 17.5 per model and Devs are 24 per model ( for the first 5 ).
It would be more appropriate to say that 88 points of tacs with all the upgrades are matched to 120 points of Devs. Then the remaining 88 points of Tacs gets matched to the 80 of Devs.
catbarf wrote: Points are tracked minutely when you're picking units, but then you get to wargear and it's 'eh, sure, it's only tripling their firepower, who cares'.
1) Abilities
2) Tacs are 17.5 per model and Devs are 24 per model ( for the first 5 ).
It would be more appropriate to say that 88 points of tacs with all the upgrades are matched to 120 points of Devs. Then the remaining 88 points of Tacs gets matched to the 80 of Devs.
Er, I think you're rather making my point for me- GW recognizes that the first five Devastators with the lascannons are more valuable than the next five with bolters, and GW also recognizes that ten Marines with four lascannons is more valuable than ten Marines with las/plas (also with some ability shuffling in there).
But when it comes to a tank, an upgrade that just about triples its offensive output isn't accounted for at all.
There's a clear incongruity between which things are considered important enough to account for with points, and which things are handwaved away as too insignificant to matter. If you're going to tell me that a Devastator with a lascannon is worth 8pts more than a Devastator with a bolter then you can damn well set an appropriate value for sponsons.
catbarf wrote: Points are tracked minutely when you're picking units, but then you get to wargear and it's 'eh, sure, it's only tripling their firepower, who cares'.
1) Abilities
2) Tacs are 17.5 per model and Devs are 24 per model ( for the first 5 ).
It would be more appropriate to say that 88 points of tacs with all the upgrades are matched to 120 points of Devs. Then the remaining 88 points of Tacs gets matched to the 80 of Devs.
Er, I think you're rather making my point for me- GW recognizes that the first five Devastators with the lascannons are more valuable than the next five with bolters, and GW also recognizes that ten Marines with four lascannons is more valuable than ten Marines with las/plas (also with some ability shuffling in there).
But when it comes to a tank, an upgrade that just about triples its offensive output isn't accounted for at all.
There's a clear incongruity between which things are considered important enough to account for with points, and which things are handwaved away as too insignificant to matter. If you're going to tell me that a Devastator with a lascannon is worth 8pts more than a Devastator with a bolter then you can damn well set an appropriate value for sponsons.
Throw in that Retributors, a nearly identical unit with roughly half the defensive statistics, are 26 points per model and don't let you buy the additional 5 just in case you thought actually getting to USE your detachment buff would be cool.
Yeah, that's the issue. The difference between a Baneblade and a Hellhammer is probably about right at 30pts (540 vs 510) because the Hellhammer has a gun that is about 30pts weaker (str 7, ap -1, damage 2, 4d6 shots, ignores cover).
The difference between a Baneblade with 2 sponsons pairs and 1 sponson pair is 6 twin-linked bolter shots (slightly better than the d6 extra shots Hellhammer cannon) and 2 lascannon shots.
This tells me that a Baneblade with 1 sponson pair has no business costing as much as a Hellhammer, not to mention costing the same as an entire, fully upgraded Baneblade.
Insectum7 wrote: It's pretty straightforward. This particular upgrade increases the models CC damage output by 4-8x depending on target. It should have an associated cost.
Well, it does have that cost. This is a scenario where you don't have the item and worrying about not being efficient as a result ( as opposed to not having free points to spend elsewhere ).
It's the same thing, because points are a fluid asset. I no longer have the option of not taking the P-fist and spending the points on an upgrade elsewhere.
The upgrade is either worth something, or it isn't. And despite your attempt to minimize it, it's clearly worth something.
On one end it's worth potentially zero, because you might never swing it. On the other end it does have some effect on what you can fit in a list, but everyone is at the same level.
Noooo, everyone isn't on the same level, because some people have shown up to the battle without the now free Powerfist. Having a powerfist in your list is worth more than not having it. Being able to put it to use is a result of on-table decision making.
Daedalus81 wrote: That said a tac squad is 175 and was 180 before gear in Nephilim. And Devs were 130 with Heavy Bolters and now sit at 120. They already shaved the points off for you! ( slight sarcasm )
Insectum7 wrote: It's pretty straightforward. This particular upgrade increases the models CC damage output by 4-8x depending on target. It should have an associated cost.
Well, it does have that cost. This is a scenario where you don't have the item and worrying about not being efficient as a result ( as opposed to not having free points to spend elsewhere ).
It's the same thing, because points are a fluid asset. I no longer have the option of not taking the P-fist and spending the points on an upgrade elsewhere.
The upgrade is either worth something, or it isn't. And despite your attempt to minimize it, it's clearly worth something.
Stop looking at it as an upgrade, look at it as base equipment you can opt not to use for whatever reason. That's the general point of the discussion I think, same with the squad of legionnaires mentioned earlier, if you can have 5 with a free special/heavy, assume they always have one.
It's just the same situation in the negative. I could take the free Powerfist, or I could take an obvious downgrade and get no advantage for it. You still changing the "battle value " of the unit without accounting for it.
The Powerfist is not a sidegrade. It's an upgrade from the default loadout, points or not.
catbarf wrote: But when it comes to a tank, an upgrade that just about triples its offensive output isn't accounted for at all.
There's a clear incongruity between which things are considered important enough to account for with points, and which things are handwaved away as too insignificant to matter. If you're going to tell me that a Devastator with a lascannon is worth 8pts more than a Devastator with a bolter then you can damn well set an appropriate value for sponsons.
At the same time tanks are usually an easier solve and typically people will want to switch weapons on those models more often since magnetization is so easy.
It's hard to tell if GW is committing to the system or taking a pit stop here. Tomb Blades, for example, could just have had the profile with all the upgrades and just not give the upgrades as options.
It creates this scenario where all the new kits get built with upgrades and if they reverse the decision those people are left holding the bag. There's lots of weird stuff.
Daedalus81 wrote: It creates this scenario where all the new kits get built with upgrades and if they reverse the decision those people are left holding the bag. There's lots of weird stuff.
Yeah, that's exactly why I abandoned my plans to buy new stuff for my armies after reading the MFM. It's such a clumsily executed paradigm shift that I have no idea whether GW will stick with it, so I'm not about to glue anything together in the interim.
(Again, because this is exactly what happened with the 9th Ed Tyranid codex, and GW did end up adding points to wargear)
If the codices start coming out and show a better-thought-out approach, then I'll reconsider. Putting points on upgrades, properly establishing them as sidegrades, or eliminating the pointless options- I don't care what approach they take so long as it's consistent.
Daedalus81 wrote: It creates this scenario where all the new kits get built with upgrades and if they reverse the decision those people are left holding the bag. There's lots of weird stuff.
Yeah, that's exactly why I abandoned my plans to buy new stuff for my armies after reading the MFM. It's such a clumsily executed paradigm shift that I have no idea whether GW will stick with it, so I'm not about to glue anything together in the interim.
(Again, because this is exactly what happened with the 9th Ed Tyranid codex, and GW did end up adding points to wargear)
If the codices start coming out and show a better-thought-out approach, then I'll reconsider. Putting points on upgrades, properly establishing them as sidegrades, or eliminating the pointless options- I don't care what approach they take so long as it's consistent.
Yeah, seeing the Tyranid codex whiplash, then the ridiculous points-costs shift in late 9th, and then seeing what's going on now . . . I'm not exactly seeing anything stable that I would invest in, meta wise.
I have the things I already want to complete, and a few items will shift in priority. But to actually buy into anything GW is doing? Forget it.
Hope not. And fully balanced side grades is also not something I have any interest in. Because it's not possible without homogenizing them to a point they hold no interest to me.
One of the frustrating things about this edition (any edition, really) is GW's concepts vs execution.
In the context of this thread, and upgrades, something I mentioned is the concept of upgrades where one of them is generally good enough in most situations to the point where they make other options not worth taking even if there are specific situations where they would be better (plasma vs everything else being the classic example).
One simple way to avoid this type of situation is to ensure that weapons have defined roles, thereby ensuring that you might not just pick the most generally useful one. And the way you can do this in 10th - and the way GW aren't doing so, hence concept vs execution - is through the use of their weapon keywords.
Why am I bringing this up then?
Well, I just got my Leviathan box. In that box are the assembly instructions for all the miniatures, and like all modern day assembly instructions from GW, they come with basic rules for all the units. And the Primaris Lieutenant/Primaris Sternguard entries are eye opening.
We know that when GW engaged their hyper-incredible levels of imagination it resulted in generic Combi-Weapons... except it didn't in these 'simple' rules.
The Combi-Flamer, Plasma and Melta are all distinct. Yes, they're all S4 AP-1 D1 with Devastating wounds (and the Lt. hits on 2+, but he's a character so ignore that), but they have further things that define them:
1. The Combi-Flamer has Ignores Cover. 2. The Combi-Plasma has Anti-Monster 4+ and Hazardous. 3. The Combi-Melta has Anti-Vehicle 4+ and Melta 2.
All of them are essentially the same, but they have specific roles in that one is good for ignoring cover, one is better for hunting monsters (and anti-monster is a fairly rare rule at this point), and the other one is for hunting vehicles.
Imaging doing that to the current list of weapons. You would have more clearly defined roles, and each special weapon could be a side-grade for one another rather than one weapon being generally better than the other in most situations, rendering those other options essentially redundant.
Now I'm just talking about special weapons here. This does not strictly apply to heavy weapons (I don't think we can call a Lascannon a "side grade" to a Heavy Bolter), nor does it mean they can suddenly be free (you should always be paying for ugprades), but I think using the weapon rule system (something GW introduced but has failed to use in a comprehensive capacity) helps quite a bit here.
(Side note: Imagine if all Melta weapons had Anti-Vehicle 4+? Every single issue with the Melta weapons in 10th being left behind would vanish in an instant!)
You keep using that word. I don't think you know what it means. Sophistry implies that I have motive to attempt to mislead - if I do, thats certainly news to me.
I'll gladly repeat it every time you say that an offensive upgrade is worthless because "opponent can kill the unit" or defensive upgrade is worthless because "opponent can choose not to attack the unit". It is true for every offensive and defensive upgrade and therefore adds nothing of value to the discussion. Do some math, roll some dice, play some games, anything other than relying on misleading arguments. I haven't seen your lists but I don't think you're even convinced yourself because you seem to be taking lascannons in your Infantry Squads, that might just be a holdover from ancient times when you first built your Guardsmen in 95 so I can only say that it makes me suspicious, in any case the outrageous statistics you came up with were clearly sophistry, if you're bad at mathhammer that's okay, just don't mention it and if you're confused or curious about something ask me and I will try to help you understand, although I am not a math expert and only a sup-par teacher.
units have had free weapon options for upwards of a year now without anyone really batting an eye
What constitutes batting an eye at the change? Perhaps a poll where 60% of people dislike it? Two 50 page threads where people call each other devil worshipper for wanting to play pts/PL, another huge thread discussing whether Space Marines are going to be broken with free wargear? Still nobody batted an eye? I will admit a lot of competitive folks just kind of accepted it, internal balance is a foreign concept to many of these people surprisingly, the same as it is to you. Show me that the value is illusory, play 3 games with as few and as bad options as possible, you have a tonne of experience, you should be able to do that, then 3 games with the best options. Take notes on how things went.
Many other designers whom I respect greatly (and who, more importantly, are actually published and therefore have more clout than little ol' me) have arrived at very similar conclusions as well and moved towards less granular points systems or replacing points and using other mechanisms for army construction.
What tests do you reckon I could run that would convince me that options should be free? I am curious whether you've tried to do break a game before like what is done by video game playtesters or if you do GW-style testing where you bring balanced lists and see if the game can be fun.
There are two kinds of balance, internal balance and external balance. It would be a rather shoddy wargame if the game was entirely externally balanced but wholly unbalanced internally as every faction would devolve to playing the same list with no opportunity for replacements or personal expression because a unit of Guardsmen costs more than a Leman Russ and Monoliths less than Deathmarks per model.
Both internal and external balance are achieved using the same points system and methodology, so if you want to talk about sophistry, trying to argue that points only impact one but not the other might just be it.
I did not argue that points affect one and not the other, I said directly that internal balance is dictated by the relative points differences between units within a codex (I bolded my original message). Let's say fully equipped SM are balanced against fully equipped Necrons then necessarily faultily equipped SM will be worse than faultily equipped Necrons because Necrons have fewer straight upgrades, like special and heavy weapons. There is terrible internal balance in the SM codex, but the SM codex when played at its peak could be equal to Necrons played at their peak if so the external balance would be great.
5 points is basically the nothingburger of points differences - its literally 0.25% of the typical points total, and somewhere between 2.5% and 5% of the cost of the typical unit in the game
5 points is a huge amount, going from 4 pts to 9 pts is a massive increase and means the unit was either useless before or now. Even 40 to 45 is a pretty big difference in how far up the competitive ladder or how far down the trash pile a unit is. I don't understand how you can say 5 pts when you take was it 15 lascannons? That'd be 75 pts if they became 5 pts more expensive, you'd have to cut two Infantry Squads.
catbarf wrote: That ties back to points as a shaping mechanism rather than a balancing mechanism per se.
That only works if you're consistent with it, if you intentionally shape the game so people need to destroy their miniatures every 3 years you are being a git. If GW consistently said "Space Marines Squads are usually 5-man and they usually wield a thunder hammer, plasma pistol and plasma gun and only use other weapon options when their plasma weapons overheat and the thunder hammer runs out of energy, then players would know to take these options when trying to be effective and choosing any other options or no options would be a deliberate downgrade in power to convey a narrative of a hard-stripped squad of Marines who no longer have the equipment to fight at optimal efficiency but fight regardless because they must, similar to Goblins and Halflings being funny little underdogs in Bloodbowl. But 10th? That's just GW being lazy.
We know that when GW engaged their hyper-incredible levels of imagination it resulted in generic Combi-Weapons... except it didn't in these 'simple' rules.
The Combi-Flamer, Plasma and Melta are all distinct. Yes, they're all S4 AP-1 D1 with Devastating wounds (and the Lt. hits on 2+, but he's a character so ignore that), but they have further things that define them:
1. The Combi-Flamer has Ignores Cover.
2. The Combi-Plasma has Anti-Monster 4+ and Hazardous.
3. The Combi-Melta has Anti-Vehicle 4+ and Melta 2.
All of them are essentially the same, but they have specific roles in that one is good for ignoring cover, one is better for hunting monsters (and anti-monster is a fairly rare rule at this point), and the other one is for hunting vehicles.
Imaging doing that to the current list of weapons. You would have more clearly defined roles, and each special weapon could be a side-grade for one another rather than one weapon being generally better than the other in most situations, rendering those other options essentially redundant.
Now I'm just talking about special weapons here. This does not strictly apply to heavy weapons (I don't think we can call a Lascannon a "side grade" to a Heavy Bolter), nor does it mean they can suddenly be free (you should always be paying for ugprades), but I think using the weapon rule system (something GW introduced but has failed to use in a comprehensive capacity) helps quite a bit here.
(Side note: Imagine if all Melta weapons had Anti-Vehicle 4+? Every single issue with the Melta weapons in 10th being left behind would vanish in an instant!)
question now is that this change prior or after the cards
the pdf look like to be just the stuff that went to the printer for the cards that were sold
so either we have again 2 people working on rules not talking to each other, or it was decided to change one for the other which could mean we get that rules back with the Codex
just imagine Melta being anti-vehicle 4+ with the Codices meaning only Index faction having that problem
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dominuschao wrote: Since upgrades are treated like side grades and in either case those are now "point less" maybe we should do away with all upgrades.
funnily enough, they did with some units
1 datacard for the base unit, with sidegrades, and 1 datacard for each upgrade with different points
so somehow someone understood how that works but failed to do it with all of the units from all factions
which indicates either different people working on the same not talking to each other (likely to prevent any leaks) or they started out well and gave up early on as they would not meet the deadline if they do it right (and someone above decided that it is not necessary anyway as people buy it anyway)
or both
problem for GW, such things often cause the designers to leave which will interrupt the process
We know that when GW engaged their hyper-incredible levels of imagination it resulted in generic Combi-Weapons... except it didn't in these 'simple' rules.
The Combi-Flamer, Plasma and Melta are all distinct. Yes, they're all S4 AP-1 D1 with Devastating wounds (and the Lt. hits on 2+, but he's a character so ignore that), but they have further things that define them:
1. The Combi-Flamer has Ignores Cover.
2. The Combi-Plasma has Anti-Monster 4+ and Hazardous.
3. The Combi-Melta has Anti-Vehicle 4+ and Melta 2.
All of them are essentially the same, but they have specific roles in that one is good for ignoring cover, one is better for hunting monsters (and anti-monster is a fairly rare rule at this point), and the other one is for hunting vehicles.
Imaging doing that to the current list of weapons. You would have more clearly defined roles, and each special weapon could be a side-grade for one another rather than one weapon being generally better than the other in most situations, rendering those other options essentially redundant.
Now I'm just talking about special weapons here. This does not strictly apply to heavy weapons (I don't think we can call a Lascannon a "side grade" to a Heavy Bolter), nor does it mean they can suddenly be free (you should always be paying for ugprades), but I think using the weapon rule system (something GW introduced but has failed to use in a comprehensive capacity) helps quite a bit here.
(Side note: Imagine if all Melta weapons had Anti-Vehicle 4+? Every single issue with the Melta weapons in 10th being left behind would vanish in an instant!)
question now is that this change prior or after the cards
the pdf look like to be just the stuff that went to the printer for the cards that were sold
so either we have again 2 people working on rules not talking to each other, or it was decided to change one for the other which could mean we get that rules back with the Codex
just imagine Melta being anti-vehicle 4+ with the Codices meaning only Index faction having that problem
The stats in the instructions differ wildly from those on the cards in some places. It's either the manual stats were from well before the current rules were decided or they're a preview into the codex. Given the difference I'd wager the former.
Not Online!!! wrote: See, i can see your point but you yourself admited that for that to happen we would need a better designed game. I'd even go so far as to say a game that right now GW has not the capability to design.
And the predator exemple shows preciscly the problem, the other versions still suck now
What gets me is that if a trio of Predators getting sponson lascannons (that let them do an extra 150-200pts of damage over the course of the game) is irrelevant and not worth putting a cost on, there is absolutely no reason why it should cost 25pts to replace a squad of Tacticals with a squad of Devastators.
Points are tracked minutely when you're picking units, but then you get to wargear and it's 'eh, sure, it's only tripling their firepower, who cares'.
It's a lot of excuses and handwaving for sloppy, inconsistent design.
he, formations also just gave you what, 700-800pts in free transports... not trippling but was considered problematic (for all but the 5 minutes it was the top of the line formation ) surely it won't lead to problems when you can just tripple the firepower
One of the frustrating things about this edition (any edition, really) is GW's concepts vs execution.
In the context of this thread, and upgrades, something I mentioned is the concept of upgrades where one of them is generally good enough in most situations to the point where they make other options not worth taking even if there are specific situations where they would be better (plasma vs everything else being the classic example).
One simple way to avoid this type of situation is to ensure that weapons have defined roles, thereby ensuring that you might not just pick the most generally useful one. And the way you can do this in 10th - and the way GW aren't doing so, hence concept vs execution - is through the use of their weapon keywords.
Why am I bringing this up then?
Well, I just got my Leviathan box. In that box are the assembly instructions for all the miniatures, and like all modern day assembly instructions from GW, they come with basic rules for all the units. And the Primaris Lieutenant/Primaris Sternguard entries are eye opening.
We know that when GW engaged their hyper-incredible levels of imagination it resulted in generic Combi-Weapons... except it didn't in these 'simple' rules.
The Combi-Flamer, Plasma and Melta are all distinct. Yes, they're all S4 AP-1 D1 with Devastating wounds (and the Lt. hits on 2+, but he's a character so ignore that), but they have further things that define them:
1. The Combi-Flamer has Ignores Cover.
2. The Combi-Plasma has Anti-Monster 4+ and Hazardous.
3. The Combi-Melta has Anti-Vehicle 4+ and Melta 2.
All of them are essentially the same, but they have specific roles in that one is good for ignoring cover, one is better for hunting monsters (and anti-monster is a fairly rare rule at this point), and the other one is for hunting vehicles.
Imaging doing that to the current list of weapons. You would have more clearly defined roles, and each special weapon could be a side-grade for one another rather than one weapon being generally better than the other in most situations, rendering those other options essentially redundant.
Now I'm just talking about special weapons here. This does not strictly apply to heavy weapons (I don't think we can call a Lascannon a "side grade" to a Heavy Bolter), nor does it mean they can suddenly be free (you should always be paying for ugprades), but I think using the weapon rule system (something GW introduced but has failed to use in a comprehensive capacity) helps quite a bit here.
(Side note: Imagine if all Melta weapons had Anti-Vehicle 4+? Every single issue with the Melta weapons in 10th being left behind would vanish in an instant!)
Sounds very much like the 'ol missile launcher rules - frag vs. infantry, krak vs. hardened targets. I'd like if a lot of upgrades were sidegrades for tweaking your army against specific builds/threats. But, in the end they do need to be accounted for with an additional point cost, even if they were all +10 point upgrades. That GW is currently baking them in whether taken or not is ultimately the core problem.
Neurotyrant:
Instructions: 5''/5/5+/5/4+/1 AND 5''/5/5+/2/10+/1
Download: 6''/8/4+/9/7+/3
So, practically no profile is the same, and the instruction booklet has separate profiles for the thingies that are only markers on the Neurotyrant in the pdf.
Neurotyrant:
Instructions: 5''/5/5+/5/4+/1 AND 5''/5/5+/2/10+/1
Download: 6''/8/4+/9/7+/3
So, practically no profile is the same, and the instruction booklet has separate profiles for the thingies that are only markers on the Neurotyrant in the pdf.
Good job Gee-dubs.
Given the lead times for a big box like Leviathan it's probably safe to assume the profiles in the box are older ones and the ones released in the PDFs are the up-to-date correct ones. It is pretty worrying that fairly fundamental design decisions were still being taken so late in the process though.
Neurotyrant:
Instructions: 5''/5/5+/5/4+/1 AND 5''/5/5+/2/10+/1
Download: 6''/8/4+/9/7+/3
So, practically no profile is the same, and the instruction booklet has separate profiles for the thingies that are only markers on the Neurotyrant in the pdf.
Good job Gee-dubs.
Given the lead times for a big box like Leviathan it's probably safe to assume the profiles in the box are older ones and the ones released in the PDFs are the up-to-date correct ones. It is pretty worrying that fairly fundamental design decisions were still being taken so late in the process though.
Yeah, that's probably the reason. It's also possible to conclude that the changes in LD score (consistent over all profiles) is due to the Tyranid 'Synapse' ability not being finalized until the 11th hour; i find it more worrying that even stuff like 'these two dudes are just markers' seems to have been decided only when some printed stuff was already out the factory door.
Also, that's like the 3rd conflicting profile for the Screamer-Killer now, what with the 'my girlfriend from Canada' edition and whatnot
Think they could have done it like in 4th or 5th marine book. There a 10 man tactical squad started with flamer and heavy bolter for like 200pts since even the worst extra option is better than the bolter and the unit should come with some special options to fit the background and design. Then if you wanted a melta gun or a lascannon you paid only the difference between the flamer or heavy bolter.
Still makes it easier than what we had before to set points if you assume some minimum upgrades that are baked in and sidegrades are free but any actual upgrades cost points. They did it a bit like this in 9th with only upgrades that had point costs actually cost points and everything else was free but it wasnt a very good solution in how they presented this stuff since you had to flip between point costs and datasheet to see which upgrades were free (since if they were free they werent listed with points) by comparing 2 entries and see what was missing and then knowing it was free.
But if they write the datasheet with some built in options and then have rest cost points then it is fine. Hunter Killer Missiles and stormbolters/stubbers should be automatically included in the profile and be part of the cost of the unit. Let the sergeants have "leader pistol" and "leader weapon" that is included in the price and is depending on unit something like an astartes chainsword to a powerweapon in power level. Then 5pts if you want it to be a fist or hammer. Have flamers and heavy bolters/flamers be on the datasheet of units and pay 5pt if upgrading to melta or plasma. Be it dreads, tacticals, devastators, assault marines, or infantry squads. Maybe do it with sponsons as well but make it the weakest you pay for.
Then you get more kitted out squads than before but not every squad is having 100% of all possible upgrades and all of them being the most expensive ones in the previous editions. You can still choose to not have a flamer or heavy bolter in your squad if you like the look of it or not sponsons on your tanks and it will be less optimal but at least you only pay for some flamers, heavy bolters and a maybe a powersword and not twice or thrice that amount for meltas, lascannons and thunderhammers.
This approach and doing more stuff like in the box (they just need to design the box load out with this point/rules design too so they are in sync) load outs would help out in the long run with both balance and ease for newer players. But they went too far and are just as bad as the previous way, just different. Like always when GW do a good change they go overboard and at best it is equal to what we had before when it could and should have been a straight improvement.
Neurotyrant:
Instructions: 5''/5/5+/5/4+/1 AND 5''/5/5+/2/10+/1
Download: 6''/8/4+/9/7+/3
So, practically no profile is the same, and the instruction booklet has separate profiles for the thingies that are only markers on the Neurotyrant in the pdf.
Good job Gee-dubs.
The screamer killer is also S6 I think in melee, leapers look to have lost a point of strength, prime looks to be down a point of strength and damagea nd psychic scream is unrecognisable from what is on the index card.
Neurotyrant:
Instructions: 5''/5/5+/5/4+/1 AND 5''/5/5+/2/10+/1
Download: 6''/8/4+/9/7+/3
So, practically no profile is the same, and the instruction booklet has separate profiles for the thingies that are only markers on the Neurotyrant in the pdf.
Good job Gee-dubs.
The screamer killer is also S6 I think in melee, leapers look to have lost a point of strength, prime looks to be down a point of strength and damagea nd psychic scream is unrecognisable from what is on the index card.
We seem to be drifting somewhat from the point I was making. Not even sure why Dudeface posted Tyranid stats when I was talking about the Primaris Lt/Sternguard stats being different.
H.B.M.C. wrote: We seem to be drifting somewhat from the point I was making. Not even sure why Dudeface posted Tyranid stats when I was talking about the Primaris Lt/Sternguard stats being different.
It was an example of how different they were from the released version and it wasn't just combi weapons, although don't worry, we all know how you feel about that.
Dudeface wrote: It was an example of how different they were from the released version and it wasn't just combi weapons, although don't worry, we all know how you feel about that.
And you just suddenly have to have a snide go at me about it? What is your major malfunction, Dudeface?
Did you just miss the entire point of the post? How it relates to the topic of upgrades and the paying of points for said upgrades?
Here, I'll do a cut-down version of the important bit you clearly just up and ignored as you were uploading rando-Tyranid sheets into Dakka:
H.B.M.C. wrote: In the context of this thread, and upgrades, something I mentioned is the concept of upgrades where one of them is generally good enough in most situations to the point where they make other options not worth taking even if there are specific situations where they would be better (plasma vs everything else being the classic example).
One simple way to avoid this type of situation is to ensure that weapons have defined roles, thereby ensuring that you might not just pick the most generally useful one. And the way you can do this in 10th - and the way GW aren't doing so, hence concept vs execution - is through the use of their weapon keywords.
...
All of [the combi-weapons] are essentially the same, but they have specific roles in that one is good for ignoring cover, one is better for hunting monsters (and anti-monster is a fairly rare rule at this point), and the other one is for hunting vehicles.
Imaging doing that to the current list of weapons. You would have more clearly defined roles, and each special weapon could be a side-grade for one another rather than one weapon being generally better than the other in most situations, rendering those other options essentially redundant
Dudeface wrote: It was an example of how different they were from the released version and it wasn't just combi weapons, although don't worry, we all know how you feel about that.
And you just suddenly have to have a snide go at me about it? What is your major malfunction, Dudeface?
Did you just miss the entire point of the post? How it relates to the topic of upgrades and the paying of points for said upgrades?
Here, I'll do a cut-down version of the important bit you clearly just up and ignored as you were uploading rando-Tyranid sheets into Dakka:
H.B.M.C. wrote: In the context of this thread, and upgrades, something I mentioned is the concept of upgrades where one of them is generally good enough in most situations to the point where they make other options not worth taking even if there are specific situations where they would be better (plasma vs everything else being the classic example).
One simple way to avoid this type of situation is to ensure that weapons have defined roles, thereby ensuring that you might not just pick the most generally useful one. And the way you can do this in 10th - and the way GW aren't doing so, hence concept vs execution - is through the use of their weapon keywords.
...
All of [the combi-weapons] are essentially the same, but they have specific roles in that one is good for ignoring cover, one is better for hunting monsters (and anti-monster is a fairly rare rule at this point), and the other one is for hunting vehicles.
Imaging doing that to the current list of weapons. You would have more clearly defined roles, and each special weapon could be a side-grade for one another rather than one weapon being generally better than the other in most situations, rendering those other options essentially redundant
I offered an example to back up your observation that the build instructions are wrong in comparison to the index cards. You're the one aggressively questioning what I'm posting, if you consider it off topic just flag it for a mod? And contrary to your defensive nature there, you have made your stance on combi-weapons widely known at every opportunity and clearly were wanting to discuss them further as you just showed, I'm not being snide, it's an observation.
Stop looking for inferred insult where there is none.
Wild how little consistency there has been so far. This just reinforces how much GW leans on the community to balance their product.. after the releases.
I know some players enjoy being part of that sort of thing but I haven't for at least a few editions. I find much less stress if I just lag behind until someone else sorts it out.
It's almost like buying an IPO these days. You wanna straight up gamble GL. I'll wait until I see an entry point.
dominuschao wrote: Wild how little consistency there has been so far. This just reinforces how much GW leans on the community to balance their product.. after the releases.
as I learned today from the people here, GW is a miniature company and not a gaming company, making a game is not their job and we should not expect them to write rules with the same quality as a gaming company would do.....
dominuschao wrote: Wild how little consistency there has been so far. This just reinforces how much GW leans on the community to balance their product.. after the releases.
I know some players enjoy being part of that sort of thing but I haven't for at least a few editions. I find much less stress if I just lag behind until someone else sorts it out.
It's almost like buying an IPO these days. You wanna straight up gamble GL. I'll wait until I see an entry point.
Not defending them, but it might have something to do with insane container lead times nowadays. Stuff from China takes 6 months of just shipping nowadays, which is 1/6th of their 3-year-window between editions right there, and this is a (relatively) recent development, before Corona it was more like 2 months. It's not impossible that the instruction booklets are sourced in a totally different process than e.g. books, and need to be locked in months before printed products, and these (of course) again months before digital stuff. They still have dumb as hell processes in place if that is the case - it's an explanation, not a justification.
Could it be that these different profiles are meant for the Combat Patrol game mode? I recall something about units having different rules in that one. Although, it could also be last-minute changes or a series of mistakes. Those are also pretty likely with GW.
dominuschao wrote: Hope not. And fully balanced side grades is also not something I have any interest in. Because it's not possible without homogenizing them to a point they hold no interest to me.
I think it's more possible with the expanded toughness brackets, but all the chaotic issues need to settle before we understand what games really look like.
Dudeface wrote: I offered an example to back up your observation that the build instructions are wrong in comparison to the index cards.
Was that required? I mean, they're obviously different. I was highlighting said difference, and doing so in relation to the topic. What were you attempting to highlight, precisely?
Dudeface wrote: You're the one aggressively questioning what I'm posting...
Because it sure looked like an attempt at "Yeah well they're all wrong anyway, so let's ignore everything you just said!".
Dudeface wrote: ... you have made your stance on combi-weapons widely known at every opportunity...
I wasn't re-presenting my stance on combi-weapons. The post wasn't even about combi-weapons! It was about using the rules that already exist in the game - in this instance the weapon abilities - to differentiate weapons in their role in an effort to create a system where all of them are useful, rather than some being specific and one generalist weapon being taken most of the time. It was more about special weapons - y'know, one of the things we're discussing in this topic - than just combi-weapons; combi-weapons were the example given that I found different rules for them that really highlight what they could do if given half a chance and how that could apply to special weapons so that they are side-grades to one another, and not mostly redundant in the face of one generalist weapon.
Dudeface wrote: I offered an example to back up your observation that the build instructions are wrong in comparison to the index cards.
Was that required? I mean, they're obviously different. I was highlighting said difference, and doing so in relation to the topic. What were you attempting to highlight, precisely?
Dudeface wrote: You're the one aggressively questioning what I'm posting...
Because it sure looked like an attempt at "Yeah well they're all wrong anyway, so let's ignore everything you just said!".
Dudeface wrote: ... you have made your stance on combi-weapons widely known at every opportunity...
I wasn't re-presenting my stance on combi-weapons. The post wasn't even about combi-weapons! It was about using the rules that already exist in the game - in this instance the weapon abilities - to differentiate weapons in their role in an effort to create a system where all of them are useful, rather than some being specific and one generalist weapon being taken most of the time. It was more about special weapons - y'know, one of the things we're discussing in this topic - than just combi-weapons; combi-weapons were the example given that I found different rules for them that really highlight what they could do if given half a chance and how that could apply to special weapons so that they are side-grades to one another, and not mostly redundant in the face of one generalist weapon.
How did you miss that?
Whilst that was the context of the opening and closing of your post, you used a general complaint about GW's consolidation of combi-weapons as your jumping point:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
We know that when GW engaged their hyper-incredible levels of imagination it resulted in generic Combi-Weapons... except it didn't in these 'simple' rules.
The Combi-Flamer, Plasma and Melta are all distinct. Yes, they're all S4 AP-1 D1 with Devastating wounds (and the Lt. hits on 2+, but he's a character so ignore that), but they have further things that define them:
1. The Combi-Flamer has Ignores Cover.
2. The Combi-Plasma has Anti-Monster 4+ and Hazardous.
3. The Combi-Melta has Anti-Vehicle 4+ and Melta 2.
Apologies that it maybe looks like I falsely assumed it was a pretence to continue to complain about the current combi-weapon via a "look what it could have been", that isn't the case as you did manage to expand the scope and even take a random stab at a topic I was involved in discussing earlier:
Now I'm just talking about special weapons here. This does not strictly apply to heavy weapons (I don't think we can call a Lascannon a "side grade" to a Heavy Bolter)
From here and your inclusion of a breakdown detailing the inconsistencies in GW design we got:
kodos wrote:
question now is that this change prior or after the cards
the pdf look like to be just the stuff that went to the printer for the cards that were sold
so either we have again 2 people working on rules not talking to each other, or it was decided to change one for the other which could mean we get that rules back with the Codex
just imagine Melta being anti-vehicle 4+ with the Codices meaning only Index faction having that problem
Which is largely related to the instructions and how different they are, so I gave Kodos more info:
Dudeface wrote:
The stats in the instructions differ wildly from those on the cards in some places. It's either the manual stats were from well before the current rules were decided or they're a preview into the codex. Given the difference I'd wager the former.
Dudeface wrote:I'll pop them on here for reference:
So at this point I've only tried to be helpful and provide more info to the topic that was being talked about: how far removed the stats are and when they happened with a little evidence for people who were curious.
H.B.M.C. wrote:We seem to be drifting somewhat from the point I was making. Not even sure why Dudeface posted Tyranid stats when I was talking about the Primaris Lt/Sternguard stats being different.
Then you go all drama queen suddenly because people weren't talking about combi-weapons.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Except the point wasn't about combi-weapons. How do you keep missing this? But, y'know, whatever...
So...
We seem to be drifting somewhat from the point I was making. Not even sure why Dudeface posted Tyranid stats when I was talking about the Primaris Lt/Sternguard stats being different.
What about them is different you wanted to draw attention to exactly?
I don't want to argue, if you want to talk about the different weapon profiles for different purposes being an appropriate concept feel free, I'll leave you to it.
I still have let to see a good argument for wargear/weapons points being removed.
The only one people keep coming back to is “it’s easier” which isn’t a good argument in my eyes. I don’t know anyone, even children new to the hobby, that struggled with basic calculator addition before.
Nazrak wrote: Just out of interest, how many people who aren't keen on aspects of the new edition have put that down in writing and emailed GW about it?
It's got a little lost but I wanted to comment on the point about finding the right costs for special weapons. Because, barring maybe the melta, 8th edition actually settled on a lot of really good point costs for weapons.
Let me use the example of my Imperial Guard. I like to run infantry heavy lists, and I'd usually plan to set up said infantry in waves - a frontline, a middle-line, and a backline. Then, of course, you'd have officers, HWTs, maybe the odd command squad or such sprinkled around.
Anyway, the frontline infantry would have flamers and plasma pistols. These were both relatively cheap and helped with the squad's role of closing with the enemy and/or absorbing charges. The flamers were useful in that second role thanks to overwatch. They weren't amazing weapons by any means, but they cost only 5pts.
The middle-line infantry would have plasma pistols and plasmaguns. These guys would follow behind the second wave and try to do more concentrated damage. They would still aim to get within 12", so the plasma pistols made sense. However, plasmaguns also give them more versatility against heavier infantry and monsters.
The backline would have plasmaguns and lascannons or missile launchers. These guys would generally stay behind. Their aim would be to guard home objectives (if any) and provide long-range fire support.
HWTs were more vulnerable than infantry squads, so they had cheaper weapons - usually a couple of Heavy Bolters and an Autocannon. As with the backline infantry, they'd provide fire support for as long as they lasted.
Veterans had to pay twice as much for a plasmagun as guardsmen but only 3pts each for Grenade Launchers. Thus, that's what they'd be outfitted with. Especially given their vulnerability.
Commanders had a mix of weapons. I liked having different melee and ranged weapons to differentiate them.
Thus, at the end of 8th, my infantry were using almost every weapon available (I think the only ones I didn't use were meltas - which never got down to a reasonable cost and didn't work as well with Scions parachuting beyond their optimum range, and snipers - which just weren't very good in general).
Then came 9th. Suddenly, every weapon costed exactly the same. No longer was there any cost benefit to taking a grenade launcher on a veteran over a plasmagun. Not only that, but the change to Overwatch and the drastic increase in the durability of Marines, Orks etc. meant that flamers were now farting into the wind.
Not only that, but weapon costs also no longer took into consideration the cost of the model using them. In 8th, IG characters received discounts on power swords and power fists, because they were being wielded by squishy IG characters with poor stats. But then 9th hit and suddenly they were paying the exact same costs as SM captains with far better durability and melee stats.
I guess what I'm saying is that 8th actually made a lot of solid strides forward in terms of finding appropriate costs for weapons . . . and then 9th just threw the entire thing out of the window for no reason beyond Churn for the Churn God.
Nazrak wrote: Just out of interest, how many people who aren't keen on aspects of the new edition have put that down in writing and emailed GW about it?
It's rather academic how many, since the GW filing cabinet for letters/emails/petitions of complaint is the dustbin.
The only language they will understand is people not giving them money for mediocrity. Don't pay them for shoddy, lazy rules. Don't just accept a deeply flawed product because of sunk cost. For the prices they charge, demand better.
That is the only way GW will care and perhaps improve. Anything else is just blowing smoke.
nemesis464 wrote: I still have let to see a good argument for wargear/weapons points being removed.
The only one people keep coming back to is “it’s easier” which isn’t a good argument in my eyes. I don’t know anyone, even children new to the hobby, that struggled with basic calculator addition before.
Since no one has seemed to have a good argument, I'll take a stab.
The Case for Zero Point Options
It has long been an issue that the game that the Design Studio produces is not played in the way they designed it. This is not a case of the rules not being followed, but one of them assuming players will make the same decisions around setting up a game that the Design Studio uses in their play testing. We've all heard the stories of the playtesters being given specific armies to play and then only wanting specific feedback. We have all seen the Design Studio respond with a parenthetical "that's not what we intended". Zero Point Options is a way to get the player base to play closer to the game the Design Studio uses when they are designing the game.
All indications is that the Design Studio like to play with cool models rather than efficient ones. They bring the special and heavy weapons and randomly upgrade their unit champions in cool ways. They test the game with those models and sculpt the rules to work on the assumption that the game will be played in that manner. The problem is they have so far failed to get the players to do the same. This is where Zero Points Options can help bridge the gap.
Zero Points Options help because the Design Studio's game crafted on the extensive presence of unit options falls apart in the face of the tyranny of upgrade cost. Evidence indicates to me that points values of units is an afterthought in the Design Studio process. They have the units they use to build balanced playtest game and then start working backwards to get the points. The mostly fully-loaded Tactical Squad is worth 180 points. Now how much is the model and how much are the upgrades? I guess these upgrades are 5 points, these are 10, and this one is 20. I guess the models are 130 points left over, so 13 points a model. Do this for every unit (or fudge because X is 5 points there so it is 5 points everywhere) and you get the MFM.
Once the player base get their grubby hands on the MFM they quickly decide that some upgrades are simply not worth the point. "Only a fool puts upgrades on Infantry Squads", "I'm going to keep this unit cheap so I can have more units", and "that upgrade isn't worth the point so I never take it" enter the arena and warp the game well outside of the design parameters. Zero Point Upgrades helps solve this issue.
If the unit is worth X points for Y models with no cost for upgrades, people are more likely to take the upgrades. Also, people can never take a cheaper than designed version of the unit to save points. Limiting the unit to proscribed sizes also removes the issue of players taking "just the right amount" of models in a unit and again warping the Design Studio's points balancing work.
So all the Design Studio needs to do is properly craft the units such that the Zero Point Options are properly balanced against each other. Note that this requires approximate balance not perfect balance. The weapon options of a Terminator Squad are balanced rather well because you have simple and relatively balanced options: Power Fist or Chainfist; Choice of Assault Cannon, Cyclone Missile Launcher or Heavy Flamer for 1 in every 5 models. Players have the choice of 5 or 10 Terminator in a squad (points wise) Produce all the unit datasheets in this fashion and you have a successful use of Zero Point Options.
Design Studio Grade: D The Design Studio seems to have taken the idea as their goal and fumbled the execution into a barely passing grade. For every well-crafted unit datasheet, there is another the labors under a number of serious flaws such as:
No Downside Every Model Upgrades: The Battlewagon has a large number of no cost additions in the Upgrade section. This is not a 1 in 10 Infantry Squad members can take a Vox Caster, which they assume you will just take. It is the ability to add 6 guns, 2 Extra attacks melee weapons, and a massive upgraded melee weapon for no cost. This all requires extensive modeling, but the difference is still substantial and free.
Inconsistent Design Application: Death Company Marines are allowed to have every model upgrade from Blowgun and Close Combat Weapon into a dizzying array of melee weapon, each with it's own stat line. Sanguinary Guard can only upgrade Encarmine Blade to a Power Fist for 1 in 5 models. Meanwhile, Vanguard Veterans have Heirloom Weapons with no option for a Power Fist or Thunder Hammer! Would it be that hard to produce a second weapon stat line in the PF/TH zone that was balanced with Heirloom Weapons?
No Brainer Upgrades: For may unit champions, there exist a number of upgrades that have no downside. There is no reason to not give your Infantry Squad Sergeant a Plasma Pistol and Power Sword. There is no downside. It wouldn't have been difficult to either add a downside or produce a Sergeant's Melee Weapon and Sergeant's Pistol wargear entry to give them one statline all the time.
So there you go. My case for Zero Point Upgrades along with my assessment on the Design Studio's success in applying it to 10th Edition.
nemesis464 wrote: I still have let to see a good argument for wargear/weapons points being removed.
The only one people keep coming back to is “it’s easier” which isn’t a good argument in my eyes. I don’t know anyone, even children new to the hobby, that struggled with basic calculator addition before.
Since no one has seemed to have a good argument, I'll take a stab..
Thanks for the detailed reply. It’s a good explanation as to why it’s been implemented, I just don’t think anything could change my mind as to it being better than good old upgrade points.
Nazrak wrote: Just out of interest, how many people who aren't keen on aspects of the new edition have put that down in writing and emailed GW about it?
I'm still not buying rules material from GW after writing to them about their butchery of Codex: Death Guard for NMNR.
nemesis464 wrote: I still have let to see a good argument for wargear/weapons points being removed.
The only one people keep coming back to is “it’s easier” which isn’t a good argument in my eyes. I don’t know anyone, even children new to the hobby, that struggled with basic calculator addition before.
Since no one has seemed to have a good argument, I'll take a stab..
Thanks for the detailed reply. It’s a good explanation as to why it’s been implemented, I just don’t think anything could change my mind as to it being better than good old upgrade points.
This is most likely why those who like the new system are being quiet on it, we have been here before having the same arguments in the defence of power levels. No matter what is said it won’t change anyone’s mind. But if you say you like it, you get set up on by a small minded few on here who love to tell you how wrong you are having your fun!
nemesis464 wrote: I still have let to see a good argument for wargear/weapons points being removed.
The only one people keep coming back to is “it’s easier” which isn’t a good argument in my eyes. I don’t know anyone, even children new to the hobby, that struggled with basic calculator addition before.
Since no one has seemed to have a good argument, I'll take a stab..
Thanks for the detailed reply. It’s a good explanation as to why it’s been implemented, I just don’t think anything could change my mind as to it being better than good old upgrade points.
This is most likely why those who like the new system are being quiet on it, we have been here before having the same arguments in the defence of power levels. No matter what is said it won’t change anyone’s mind. But if you say you like it, you get set up on by a small minded few on here who love to tell you how wrong you are having your fun!
The poll would suggest that rather than a "few", it's actually the vast majority who dislike this Power-Level-by-a-different-name.
nemesis464 wrote: I still have let to see a good argument for wargear/weapons points being removed.
The only one people keep coming back to is “it’s easier” which isn’t a good argument in my eyes. I don’t know anyone, even children new to the hobby, that struggled with basic calculator addition before.
Since no one has seemed to have a good argument, I'll take a stab..
Thanks for the detailed reply. It’s a good explanation as to why it’s been implemented, I just don’t think anything could change my mind as to it being better than good old upgrade points.
This is most likely why those who like the new system are being quiet on it, we have been here before having the same arguments in the defence of power levels. No matter what is said it won’t change anyone’s mind. But if you say you like it, you get set up on by a small minded few on here who love to tell you how wrong you are having your fun!
The poll would suggest that rather than a "few", it's actually the vast majority who dislike this Power-Level-by-a-different-name.
He was saying the people who say that they are having fun wrong are small-minded, not the ones who simply do not like the system. I have no problem with people enjoying PL privately, any more than I have a problem with people eating foods I do not like, but the vocal supporters need to be shut down so 40k can get back on course. If the 60% of the community had been more vocal in their disagreement with PL when Astra Militarum were updated then we might have been saved from this farce. Still we see people saying wait and see for the codexes. How did that work out in 9th edition? The pts changes at the start of the edition were awful and the third codex turned the game on its head. We should not wait and see, GW should create pts, leave the current power level available for people that want that and give us true points, if it was balanced internally and externally I'd happily pay for it every 6 months.
Since no one has seemed to have a good argument, I'll take a stab.
The Case for Zero Point Options
It has long been an issue that the game that the Design Studio produces is not played in the way they designed it. This is not a case of the rules not being followed, but one of them assuming players will make the same decisions around setting up a game that the Design Studio uses in their play testing. We've all heard the stories of the playtesters being given specific armies to play and then only wanting specific feedback. We have all seen the Design Studio respond with a parenthetical "that's not what we intended". Zero Point Options is a way to get the player base to play closer to the game the Design Studio uses when they are designing the game.
All indications is that the Design Studio like to play with cool models rather than efficient ones. They bring the special and heavy weapons and randomly upgrade their unit champions in cool ways. They test the game with those models and sculpt the rules to work on the assumption that the game will be played in that manner. The problem is they have so far failed to get the players to do the same. This is where Zero Points Options can help bridge the gap.
Zero Points Options help because the Design Studio's game crafted on the extensive presence of unit options falls apart in the face of the tyranny of upgrade cost. Evidence indicates to me that points values of units is an afterthought in the Design Studio process. They have the units they use to build balanced playtest game and then start working backwards to get the points. The mostly fully-loaded Tactical Squad is worth 180 points. Now how much is the model and how much are the upgrades? I guess these upgrades are 5 points, these are 10, and this one is 20. I guess the models are 130 points left over, so 13 points a model. Do this for every unit (or fudge because X is 5 points there so it is 5 points everywhere) and you get the MFM.
Once the player base get their grubby hands on the MFM they quickly decide that some upgrades are simply not worth the point. "Only a fool puts upgrades on Infantry Squads", "I'm going to keep this unit cheap so I can have more units", and "that upgrade isn't worth the point so I never take it" enter the arena and warp the game well outside of the design parameters. Zero Point Upgrades helps solve this issue.
If the unit is worth X points for Y models with no cost for upgrades, people are more likely to take the upgrades. Also, people can never take a cheaper than designed version of the unit to save points. Limiting the unit to proscribed sizes also removes the issue of players taking "just the right amount" of models in a unit and again warping the Design Studio's points balancing work.
So all the Design Studio needs to do is properly craft the units such that the Zero Point Options are properly balanced against each other. Note that this requires approximate balance not perfect balance. The weapon options of a Terminator Squad are balanced rather well because you have simple and relatively balanced options: Power Fist or Chainfist; Choice of Assault Cannon, Cyclone Missile Launcher or Heavy Flamer for 1 in every 5 models. Players have the choice of 5 or 10 Terminator in a squad (points wise) Produce all the unit datasheets in this fashion and you have a successful use of Zero Point Options.
Design Studio Grade: D The Design Studio seems to have taken the idea as their goal and fumbled the execution into a barely passing grade. For every well-crafted unit datasheet, there is another the labors under a number of serious flaws such as:
No Downside Every Model Upgrades: The Battlewagon has a large number of no cost additions in the Upgrade section. This is not a 1 in 10 Infantry Squad members can take a Vox Caster, which they assume you will just take. It is the ability to add 6 guns, 2 Extra attacks melee weapons, and a massive upgraded melee weapon for no cost. This all requires extensive modeling, but the difference is still substantial and free.
Inconsistent Design Application: Death Company Marines are allowed to have every model upgrade from Blowgun and Close Combat Weapon into a dizzying array of melee weapon, each with it's own stat line. Sanguinary Guard can only upgrade Encarmine Blade to a Power Fist for 1 in 5 models. Meanwhile, Vanguard Veterans have Heirloom Weapons with no option for a Power Fist or Thunder Hammer! Would it be that hard to produce a second weapon stat line in the PF/TH zone that was balanced with Heirloom Weapons?
No Brainer Upgrades: For may unit champions, there exist a number of upgrades that have no downside. There is no reason to not give your Infantry Squad Sergeant a Plasma Pistol and Power Sword. There is no downside. It wouldn't have been difficult to either add a downside or produce a Sergeant's Melee Weapon and Sergeant's Pistol wargear entry to give them one statline all the time.
So there you go. My case for Zero Point Upgrades along with my assessment on the Design Studio's success in applying it to 10th Edition.
This is a good writeup, and I think it gets to the heart of what people's main problem with this is. Anybody who thinks about the zero points upgrade approach for even a short length of time would immediately understand it is entirely possible to write a system where upgrades are "free". They're not actually free, just included in the cost of the unit but that's practically the same thing. In order to do this you need to design your game so that all the upgrades a unit can take are equal, or close enough to it to not matter enough to affect balance. What's really, really frustrating is that 10th is a ground-up rewrite of the system so GW had the opportunity to do this. They could have used their weapons keyword system to try to make all heavy weapons have a solid preferred role in which they excel. They can use restrictions like "1 in every 5 models can take a Power Fist" to still allow upgraded weapons but limit their numbers and therefore still determine a decent cost for the unit as a whole.
I think your grade of D is far too generous. I'd give them an F at most, and possibly just send their work back on the basis they haven't even tried. There's just no coherent thought or strategy in what they're doing. We can see that from obvious things like the Battlewagon or the Tomb Blades, with free upgrades that are literally just improvements to the baseline unit. Or the fact some squad leaders get generic "squad leader sidearms" while others have the "option" to take a plasma pistol, which is just an upgrade over their regular pistol. It's infuriating. The utter bullgak of the article they released alongside the MFM explaining their "process" and "reasoning" was patronising in the extreme too.
GW have a history of this sort of thing. They take concepts and ideas from other designers and other games, then totally misunderstand them and fumble the execution. Even their more legalese approach to rules with sequences with steps mapped out are an example of this. It feels like a 5-year old mimicking something they've seen without understanding anything about it.
I guess what I'm saying is that 8th actually made a lot of solid strides forward in terms of finding appropriate costs for weapons . . . and then 9th just threw the entire thing out of the window for no reason beyond Churn for the Churn God.
This is true and it is puzzling to me to this day. Let's face it, 9th was 8th with different missions and new terrain rules, but overall it was the same system. Nevertheless somehow GW felt they have to throw out the point values they had nicely refined in the prior 3 years, these would have been a great base for the new edition. Instead everything had to be 5 or 10 now, like in 5th - 7th.
And in comes 10th with... everything 0.
Slipspace wrote: In order to do this you need to design your game so that all the upgrades a unit can take are equal, or close enough to it to not matter enough to affect balance.
I don't think all upgrades should be equal though. Some things should be better than others, and this should be reflected in rarity, cost, both, or versatility vs specificity.
My issue with upgrades are whether they are meaningful in game.
Sheild Vanes on Necron Tomb Blades are a clear example where its not. "Would you like to go to a 3+ Sv over a 4+ Sv" - "obvious yes, if its worth the points?"
So most of the time, its going to be either an auto-take, or a never take. Its very hard to have a scenario where both options are justifiable.
Now you could write the rules so there were "Heavy Tomb Blades" with say a 3+/5++ that play completely differently to "Light Tomb Blades" (4+, perhaps even a 5+) without these upgrades. You'd also probably need to tweak the guns, speed, objective scoring etc etc.
But if you aren't going to have that in the rules, its pointless. The option should just be removed. Make Necron Tomb Blades a 3+ Sv unit and move on.
Its arguably the same with the Battlewagon. In "the rules" - do you want a slimmed down no-gun option to be played? Or do you want the Battlewagon to have such and such firepower, and you don't really care how its modelled? If you want meaningfully different units, this can be set up in the rules - or not if you don't.
You might say this sucks and removes agency from the player etc - but ultimately that argument applies to every limitation in the rules.
I think the thing that annoys me most is that it's so damn inconsistent...
Some upgrades have been restricted to what comes in the box - Kabalite Warriors can't take two blasters in a 10 man squad any more.
On the other hand, CSM Raptors can still take two meltaguns in a squad of 5 - despite only one coming in the box.
And the poor DE Wyches have lost their special weapons altogether.
There's a lot of flavour missing too. What's the Succubus armed with now? Succubus weapons, duh! The Solarite leading your flock of Scourges? He's packing a Solarite weapon. The Chaos Lord In Terminator Armour can swap his combi-bolter and exalted weapon for a pair of accursed weapons - that means nothing. What's the difference between an exalted weapon (doesn't sound very chaosy to me!) and an accursed weapon? Why did lightning claws have to be renamed as the comparatively lame and non-descriptive accursed weapons? Oh, unless you're a Warp Talon - then they're warp claws... And obviously, you still get to call them lightning claws if they're in a loyalist marine army. FFS
Like we've been saying: Different people writing each book, locked in different rooms - perhaps on different continents - with no communication between them, and some of them were given 8th Edition Codices for reference rather than 9th Edition books.
Tyel wrote: My issue with upgrades are whether they are meaningful in game.
Sheild Vanes on Necron Tomb Blades are a clear example where its not. "Would you like to go to a 3+ Sv over a 4+ Sv" - "obvious yes, if its worth the points?"
So most of the time, its going to be either an auto-take, or a never take. Its very hard to have a scenario where both options are justifiable.
Now you could write the rules so there were "Heavy Tomb Blades" with say a 3+/5++ that play completely differently to "Light Tomb Blades" (4+, perhaps even a 5+) without these upgrades. You'd also probably need to tweak the guns, speed, objective scoring etc etc.
But if you aren't going to have that in the rules, its pointless. The option should just be removed. Make Necron Tomb Blades a 3+ Sv unit and move on.
Its arguably the same with the Battlewagon. In "the rules" - do you want a slimmed down no-gun option to be played? Or do you want the Battlewagon to have such and such firepower, and you don't really care how its modelled? If you want meaningfully different units, this can be set up in the rules - or not if you don't.
You might say this sucks and removes agency from the player etc - but ultimately that argument applies to every limitation in the rules.
I think in cases where the core rules actually have complexity and depth it is more possible to have points based updates. What you say here is true for Leman Russ tank sponsons as well (either so cheap as to be "always on" or so expensive it's not worth).
In 4th, though, back when Blasts scattered, Defensive Weapons existed, and Ordnance had certain very specific rules about when it could be fired, you had genuine thought put into it:
1) Heavy Bolter and Heavy Flamer sponsons were Strength 5, making them Defensive Weapons. These were fantastic on a tank that wants to maneuver as they can supplement the main armament while maneuvering at Combat Speed... EXCEPT
2) Firing an Ordnance weapon meant that you couldn't fire any other guns, Defensive or Not, so there's no reason to take them on an Ordnance tank, EXCEPT
3) Ordnance scattered when on the move a full 2d6 inches unmitigated; moving and firing with the secondary guns against certain targets may be more reliable than moving and slinging Ordnance. So you have to decide whether or not the points charged for sponsons was worth this use case (and the firepower increase when the main gun was destroyed). AND
4) Plasma Cannons and Multimeltas were not Defensive Weapons, so you had to seriously consider their use-cases if you planned to use them.
So you ended up in a case where Leman Russ Exterminators were good with Heavy Bolter sponsons because they could shoot on the move with almost all their guns (fitting the fluff about them being slightly lighter and more maneuverable on the battlefield than a regular Russ), while something like the old Fireball Demolisher was pretty much an either-or situation with auto-hitting heavy flamers on the move, or the risky moving Ordnance roll..
Anyways, whether or not an upgrade was worth it was much more complex back when the core rules were deeper than "do I want +1 save, or don't I?"
I'm pretty sure we had an entire thread dedicated to the question of "power level vs. points" no too long ago. You might want to check that out if you are looking for arguments supporting PL.
One I remember is that PL is more accessible to handicapped people who have an easier time dealing with less granular systems.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Like we've been saying: Different people writing each book, locked in different rooms - perhaps on different continents - with no communication between them, and some of them were given 8th Edition Codices for reference rather than 9th Edition books.
Yeah.
I guess they may not be aware of this - given that they're a miniatures company, not a publishing company - but generally there's someone called an editor who is meant to plan and coordinate this sort of thing...
Tyel wrote: My issue with upgrades are whether they are meaningful in game.
Sheild Vanes on Necron Tomb Blades are a clear example where its not. "Would you like to go to a 3+ Sv over a 4+ Sv" - "obvious yes, if its worth the points?"
So most of the time, its going to be either an auto-take, or a never take. Its very hard to have a scenario where both options are justifiable.
Now you could write the rules so there were "Heavy Tomb Blades" with say a 3+/5++ that play completely differently to "Light Tomb Blades" (4+, perhaps even a 5+) without these upgrades. You'd also probably need to tweak the guns, speed, objective scoring etc etc.
But if you aren't going to have that in the rules, its pointless. The option should just be removed. Make Necron Tomb Blades a 3+ Sv unit and move on.
Its arguably the same with the Battlewagon. In "the rules" - do you want a slimmed down no-gun option to be played? Or do you want the Battlewagon to have such and such firepower, and you don't really care how its modelled? If you want meaningfully different units, this can be set up in the rules - or not if you don't.
You might say this sucks and removes agency from the player etc - but ultimately that argument applies to every limitation in the rules.
I see where you’re coming from. But you have the choice of Shield Vanes or Nebuloscope. Yes Shield Vanes are of course useful. But, Nebuloscopes remove the benefits of cover.
Which is more desirable is something we’ll have to get games in to better appreciate. With less AP than 9th Ed in general, Nebuloscopes may prove more of a choice than we currently appreciate. Especially if your build leans into Resurrection Protocols, which if stacked right can keep them in the fight longer, somewhat mitigating the appeal of a 3+ save.
Tyel wrote: My issue with upgrades are whether they are meaningful in game.
Sheild Vanes on Necron Tomb Blades are a clear example where its not. "Would you like to go to a 3+ Sv over a 4+ Sv" - "obvious yes, if its worth the points?"
So most of the time, its going to be either an auto-take, or a never take. Its very hard to have a scenario where both options are justifiable.
Now you could write the rules so there were "Heavy Tomb Blades" with say a 3+/5++ that play completely differently to "Light Tomb Blades" (4+, perhaps even a 5+) without these upgrades. You'd also probably need to tweak the guns, speed, objective scoring etc etc.
But if you aren't going to have that in the rules, its pointless. The option should just be removed. Make Necron Tomb Blades a 3+ Sv unit and move on.
Its arguably the same with the Battlewagon. In "the rules" - do you want a slimmed down no-gun option to be played? Or do you want the Battlewagon to have such and such firepower, and you don't really care how its modelled? If you want meaningfully different units, this can be set up in the rules - or not if you don't.
You might say this sucks and removes agency from the player etc - but ultimately that argument applies to every limitation in the rules.
I see where you’re coming from. But you have the choice of Shield Vanes or Nebuloscope. Yes Shield Vanes are of course useful. But, Nebuloscopes remove the benefits of cover.
Which is more desirable is something we’ll have to get games in to better appreciate. With less AP than 9th Ed in general, Nebuloscopes may prove more of a choice than we currently appreciate. Especially if your build leans into Resurrection Protocols, which if stacked right can keep them in the fight longer, somewhat mitigating the appeal of a 3+ save.
Nope. Tomb Blades choose between Nebuloscope (ignores cover) and Shadowloom (5++). Shield Vanes are a separate item that doesn't conflict with anything else and it increases your save to 3+. It's the perfect example of how half-baked this whole thing is.
Tyel wrote: My issue with upgrades are whether they are meaningful in game.
Sheild Vanes on Necron Tomb Blades are a clear example where its not. "Would you like to go to a 3+ Sv over a 4+ Sv" - "obvious yes, if its worth the points?"
So most of the time, its going to be either an auto-take, or a never take. Its very hard to have a scenario where both options are justifiable.
Now you could write the rules so there were "Heavy Tomb Blades" with say a 3+/5++ that play completely differently to "Light Tomb Blades" (4+, perhaps even a 5+) without these upgrades. You'd also probably need to tweak the guns, speed, objective scoring etc etc.
But if you aren't going to have that in the rules, its pointless. The option should just be removed. Make Necron Tomb Blades a 3+ Sv unit and move on.
Its arguably the same with the Battlewagon. In "the rules" - do you want a slimmed down no-gun option to be played? Or do you want the Battlewagon to have such and such firepower, and you don't really care how its modelled? If you want meaningfully different units, this can be set up in the rules - or not if you don't.
You might say this sucks and removes agency from the player etc - but ultimately that argument applies to every limitation in the rules.
My issue with transports are whether they are meaningful in game.
Rhinos for Tactical Marines are a clear example where it's not. "Would you like to get carried by a vehicle or walk on foot" - "obvious yes, if its worth the points?"
So most of the time, its going to be either an auto-take, or a never take. Its very hard to have a scenario where both options are justifiable.
Now you could write rules so there are Gladius Detachments were Tactical Squads ride in Rhinos, completely different from Hammerstrike Detachments were Tactical Squad walk on foot.
But if you aren't going to have that in the rules, its pointless. The option should just be removed. Give Tactical Squads a free Rhino and move on.
You might say this sounds like 7th edition (otherwise known as worst edition) etc - but ultimately I think we should be looking to 7th edition for how to make a great 40k edition, not because it was, but because it could have been and we'll never know if it can work until we get it right or until the end of intelligent life interested in playing with toy soldiers.
...Whether or not to buy a transport for a unit is a much more significant, impactful, and interesting choice than whether you can spare the points to upgrade a 4+ save to a 3+ one.
More relevantly, a transport is something that still does cost points- as it should- while the 4+-to-3+ is free with no downsides and so might as well just be a 3+ on the profile.
I mean, what's the point of even having the option? A 'feth you' to people who built their minis without it?
Points are not the only way to make this balanced and you can in fact make such options sidegrades. In this particular case it would be enough to make sponson upgrade reduce the movement stat as a drawback. If firing arcs and turn radius rules were reintroduced, it would be even easier to do, because now the added firepower is situational and depends on your ability to manouver, which is already reduced.
So while agree, that GW effort to make this system work properly is not sufficient (and by a large margin), it can, in principle, work just fine. And moreover, be vastly more interesting than points system approach of the past.
vipoid wrote: Then came 9th. Suddenly, every weapon costed exactly the same. No longer was there any cost benefit to taking a grenade launcher on a veteran over a plasmagun. Not only that, but the change to Overwatch and the drastic increase in the durability of Marines, Orks etc. meant that flamers were now farting into the wind.
Not only that, but weapon costs also no longer took into consideration the cost of the model using them. In 8th, IG characters received discounts on power swords and power fists, because they were being wielded by squishy IG characters with poor stats. But then 9th hit and suddenly they were paying the exact same costs as SM captains with far better durability and melee stats.
I guess what I'm saying is that 8th actually made a lot of solid strides forward in terms of finding appropriate costs for weapons . . . and then 9th just threw the entire thing out of the window for no reason beyond Churn for the Churn God.
Those GL went from S6 AP1 DD3 to S9 AP2 DD3, which makes it just as useful ( if not more so, because of frag ). It's very much an equivalent weapon now and the D3 Blast tries not to step on the horde clearing toes of a flamer. With overwatch as it is you'll rarely want to overwatch with them though, but with the Platoon CS you can have...
20 dudes with 2 flamers plus the PCS with a Regimental Standard and Medipack plus 2 more flamers, 3 plasma pistols, 2 power swords and a power fist for 190 ( was 235 in 9th ). Toss in an Ogryn to pick up an extra 6 wounds for 40 points. You could even go for 5 flamers for a decent overwatch.
Then your next line could drop the Standard and pick up the Master Vox to command from behind, but instead of flamers you're rolling the GLs. Same points. No faffing about. You just have two units serving different roles. Trying to add 5 points here or there isn't changing the utility or outcome for these units.
The grenade launcher change was definitely a step in the right directon for guard special balance. I think the flamer could use a bit of a buff, maybe d6+2 shots, or somehow make blast work with torrent. I would be ok with free upgrades a bit more if they were all sidegrades.
Russes are nowhere near that yet, although some of the melta/bolter changes were a step.
nemesis464 wrote: I still have let to see a good argument for wargear/weapons points being removed.
The only one people keep coming back to is “it’s easier” which isn’t a good argument in my eyes. I don’t know anyone, even children new to the hobby, that struggled with basic calculator addition before.
Since no one has seemed to have a good argument, I'll take a stab.
The Case for Zero Point Options
It has long been an issue that the game that the Design Studio produces is not played in the way they designed it. This is not a case of the rules not being followed, but one of them assuming players will make the same decisions around setting up a game that the Design Studio uses in their play testing. We've all heard the stories of the playtesters being given specific armies to play and then only wanting specific feedback. We have all seen the Design Studio respond with a parenthetical "that's not what we intended". Zero Point Options is a way to get the player base to play closer to the game the Design Studio uses when they are designing the game.
All indications is that the Design Studio like to play with cool models rather than efficient ones. They bring the special and heavy weapons and randomly upgrade their unit champions in cool ways. They test the game with those models and sculpt the rules to work on the assumption that the game will be played in that manner. The problem is they have so far failed to get the players to do the same. This is where Zero Points Options can help bridge the gap.
Zero Points Options help because the Design Studio's game crafted on the extensive presence of unit options falls apart in the face of the tyranny of upgrade cost. Evidence indicates to me that points values of units is an afterthought in the Design Studio process. They have the units they use to build balanced playtest game and then start working backwards to get the points. The mostly fully-loaded Tactical Squad is worth 180 points. Now how much is the model and how much are the upgrades? I guess these upgrades are 5 points, these are 10, and this one is 20. I guess the models are 130 points left over, so 13 points a model. Do this for every unit (or fudge because X is 5 points there so it is 5 points everywhere) and you get the MFM.
Once the player base get their grubby hands on the MFM they quickly decide that some upgrades are simply not worth the point. "Only a fool puts upgrades on Infantry Squads", "I'm going to keep this unit cheap so I can have more units", and "that upgrade isn't worth the point so I never take it" enter the arena and warp the game well outside of the design parameters. Zero Point Upgrades helps solve this issue.
If the unit is worth X points for Y models with no cost for upgrades, people are more likely to take the upgrades. Also, people can never take a cheaper than designed version of the unit to save points. Limiting the unit to proscribed sizes also removes the issue of players taking "just the right amount" of models in a unit and again warping the Design Studio's points balancing work.
So all the Design Studio needs to do is properly craft the units such that the Zero Point Options are properly balanced against each other. Note that this requires approximate balance not perfect balance. The weapon options of a Terminator Squad are balanced rather well because you have simple and relatively balanced options: Power Fist or Chainfist; Choice of Assault Cannon, Cyclone Missile Launcher or Heavy Flamer for 1 in every 5 models. Players have the choice of 5 or 10 Terminator in a squad (points wise) Produce all the unit datasheets in this fashion and you have a successful use of Zero Point Options.
Design Studio Grade: D The Design Studio seems to have taken the idea as their goal and fumbled the execution into a barely passing grade. For every well-crafted unit datasheet, there is another the labors under a number of serious flaws such as:
No Downside Every Model Upgrades: The Battlewagon has a large number of no cost additions in the Upgrade section. This is not a 1 in 10 Infantry Squad members can take a Vox Caster, which they assume you will just take. It is the ability to add 6 guns, 2 Extra attacks melee weapons, and a massive upgraded melee weapon for no cost. This all requires extensive modeling, but the difference is still substantial and free.
Inconsistent Design Application: Death Company Marines are allowed to have every model upgrade from Blowgun and Close Combat Weapon into a dizzying array of melee weapon, each with it's own stat line. Sanguinary Guard can only upgrade Encarmine Blade to a Power Fist for 1 in 5 models. Meanwhile, Vanguard Veterans have Heirloom Weapons with no option for a Power Fist or Thunder Hammer! Would it be that hard to produce a second weapon stat line in the PF/TH zone that was balanced with Heirloom Weapons?
No Brainer Upgrades: For may unit champions, there exist a number of upgrades that have no downside. There is no reason to not give your Infantry Squad Sergeant a Plasma Pistol and Power Sword. There is no downside. It wouldn't have been difficult to either add a downside or produce a Sergeant's Melee Weapon and Sergeant's Pistol wargear entry to give them one statline all the time.
So there you go. My case for Zero Point Upgrades along with my assessment on the Design Studio's success in applying it to 10th Edition.
Great write up. That deserves an exalt. The more I use it the more I enjoy these points. There's enough good to outweigh the bad, but I know it won't be for everyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: From the Forge World Marine rules, specifically the Thunderhawk entry:
Thunderhawk Heavy Cannon [Blast]
48" D6+6 3+ S10 Ap-2 D3
BertBert wrote: I'm pretty sure we had an entire thread dedicated to the question of "power level vs. points" no too long ago. You might want to check that out if you are looking for arguments supporting PL.
One I remember is that PL is more accessible to handicapped people who have an easier time dealing with less granular systems.
The main issue with PL has always been that the weapon options underneath it were designed with points in mind. The vast majority of stuff was designed with a Standard, Standard+, Deluxe structure that required points to create meaningful choices. The redesign puts more emphasis on options serving different roles, so while there's no longer a cost element to consider, there's still a sense that you are making an informed choice in your loadout. Obviously there are still winners and losers in this, just as there were in a points driven system, but they have at least taken steps to make PL an interesting system.
BertBert wrote: I'm pretty sure we had an entire thread dedicated to the question of "power level vs. points" no too long ago. You might want to check that out if you are looking for arguments supporting PL.
One I remember is that PL is more accessible to handicapped people who have an easier time dealing with less granular systems.
The main issue with PL has always been that the weapon options underneath it were designed with points in mind. The vast majority of stuff was designed with a Standard, Standard+, Deluxe structure that required points to create meaningful choices. The redesign puts more emphasis on options serving different roles, so while there's no longer a cost element to consider, there's still a sense that you are making an informed choice in your loadout. Obviously there are still winners and losers in this, just as there were in a points driven system, but they have at least taken steps to make PL an interesting system.
Right. PL wasn't good. I didn't like it, because they explicitly did not design the game around it. It was never going to work. This at least has the pretense of being designed to work with these other considerations in mind.
With Guard infantry specials, there isn't a "sword to slay all" in terms of hitting everything as hard. I think that makes the new points more palatable for me.
Weird example to choose. At the point someone is fielding a Thunderhawk your game is not about balance. You’re off into narrative or should-be-Apocalypse territory.
nemesis464 wrote: I still have let to see a good argument for wargear/weapons points being removed.
The only one people keep coming back to is “it’s easier” which isn’t a good argument in my eyes. I don’t know anyone, even children new to the hobby, that struggled with basic calculator addition before.
Since no one has seemed to have a good argument, I'll take a stab.
The Case for Zero Point Options
It has long been an issue that the game that the Design Studio produces is not played in the way they designed it. This is not a case of the rules not being followed, but one of them assuming players will make the same decisions around setting up a game that the Design Studio uses in their play testing. We've all heard the stories of the playtesters being given specific armies to play and then only wanting specific feedback. We have all seen the Design Studio respond with a parenthetical "that's not what we intended". Zero Point Options is a way to get the player base to play closer to the game the Design Studio uses when they are designing the game.
All indications is that the Design Studio like to play with cool models rather than efficient ones. They bring the special and heavy weapons and randomly upgrade their unit champions in cool ways. They test the game with those models and sculpt the rules to work on the assumption that the game will be played in that manner. The problem is they have so far failed to get the players to do the same. This is where Zero Points Options can help bridge the gap.
Zero Points Options help because the Design Studio's game crafted on the extensive presence of unit options falls apart in the face of the tyranny of upgrade cost. Evidence indicates to me that points values of units is an afterthought in the Design Studio process. They have the units they use to build balanced playtest game and then start working backwards to get the points. The mostly fully-loaded Tactical Squad is worth 180 points. Now how much is the model and how much are the upgrades? I guess these upgrades are 5 points, these are 10, and this one is 20. I guess the models are 130 points left over, so 13 points a model. Do this for every unit (or fudge because X is 5 points there so it is 5 points everywhere) and you get the MFM.
Once the player base get their grubby hands on the MFM they quickly decide that some upgrades are simply not worth the point. "Only a fool puts upgrades on Infantry Squads", "I'm going to keep this unit cheap so I can have more units", and "that upgrade isn't worth the point so I never take it" enter the arena and warp the game well outside of the design parameters. Zero Point Upgrades helps solve this issue.
If the unit is worth X points for Y models with no cost for upgrades, people are more likely to take the upgrades. Also, people can never take a cheaper than designed version of the unit to save points. Limiting the unit to proscribed sizes also removes the issue of players taking "just the right amount" of models in a unit and again warping the Design Studio's points balancing work.
So all the Design Studio needs to do is properly craft the units such that the Zero Point Options are properly balanced against each other. Note that this requires approximate balance not perfect balance. The weapon options of a Terminator Squad are balanced rather well because you have simple and relatively balanced options: Power Fist or Chainfist; Choice of Assault Cannon, Cyclone Missile Launcher or Heavy Flamer for 1 in every 5 models. Players have the choice of 5 or 10 Terminator in a squad (points wise) Produce all the unit datasheets in this fashion and you have a successful use of Zero Point Options.
Design Studio Grade: D The Design Studio seems to have taken the idea as their goal and fumbled the execution into a barely passing grade. For every well-crafted unit datasheet, there is another the labors under a number of serious flaws such as:
No Downside Every Model Upgrades: The Battlewagon has a large number of no cost additions in the Upgrade section. This is not a 1 in 10 Infantry Squad members can take a Vox Caster, which they assume you will just take. It is the ability to add 6 guns, 2 Extra attacks melee weapons, and a massive upgraded melee weapon for no cost. This all requires extensive modeling, but the difference is still substantial and free.
Inconsistent Design Application: Death Company Marines are allowed to have every model upgrade from Blowgun and Close Combat Weapon into a dizzying array of melee weapon, each with it's own stat line. Sanguinary Guard can only upgrade Encarmine Blade to a Power Fist for 1 in 5 models. Meanwhile, Vanguard Veterans have Heirloom Weapons with no option for a Power Fist or Thunder Hammer! Would it be that hard to produce a second weapon stat line in the PF/TH zone that was balanced with Heirloom Weapons?
No Brainer Upgrades: For may unit champions, there exist a number of upgrades that have no downside. There is no reason to not give your Infantry Squad Sergeant a Plasma Pistol and Power Sword. There is no downside. It wouldn't have been difficult to either add a downside or produce a Sergeant's Melee Weapon and Sergeant's Pistol wargear entry to give them one statline all the time.
So there you go. My case for Zero Point Upgrades along with my assessment on the Design Studio's success in applying it to 10th Edition.
Great write up. That deserves an exalt. The more I use it the more I enjoy these points. There's enough good to outweigh the bad, but I know it won't be for everyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: From the Forge World Marine rules, specifically the Thunderhawk entry:
Thunderhawk Heavy Cannon [Blast]
48" D6+6 3+ S10 Ap-2 D3
They serve different roles. The WK Cannon breaks the mold, because of DW otherwise the Suncannon could have some room to breathe.
These are just anti-heavy infantry and anti-tank options. The turbo laser cooks vehicles, but what if you face all DA Termies?
Retributor Squad T3, 3+SV, 1W Models. Can take 4 heavy weapons out of Multimelta, HF, HB. Sergeant gets a CombiWeapon/Pistol suite and a 2A WS4, S4 power weapon. Unit ability is reroll 1s to wound. 130pts.
Devastator Squad. T4, 3+SV 2W Models. Can take 4 heavy weapons out of: Multimelta, HF, HF, Missile Launcher, Lascannon, Grav Canno, Plasma Cannon. Sergeant gets imperial pistol options+Grav pistol and Options for a Powerfist or Thunderhammer. Unit ability is Ignores Cover when Remain stationary. 120pts
Explain to me how GW's fluff based design principles determined that 5 Sisters of battle with a Powersword is worth 10 more points than 5 Space Marines with a Powerfist.
Then keep in mind that the Dev squad also gets the option to go up to 10 (sisters don't but would LOVE to), 4 heavy weapon options sisters don't, and that their faction rules and detachment rules basically cancel out.
BertBert wrote: I'm pretty sure we had an entire thread dedicated to the question of "power level vs. points" no too long ago. You might want to check that out if you are looking for arguments supporting PL.
One I remember is that PL is more accessible to handicapped people who have an easier time dealing with less granular systems.
The main issue with PL has always been that the weapon options underneath it were designed with points in mind. The vast majority of stuff was designed with a Standard, Standard+, Deluxe structure that required points to create meaningful choices. The redesign puts more emphasis on options serving different roles, so while there's no longer a cost element to consider, there's still a sense that you are making an informed choice in your loadout. Obviously there are still winners and losers in this, just as there were in a points driven system, but they have at least taken steps to make PL an interesting system.
Right. PL wasn't good. I didn't like it, because they explicitly did not design the game around it. It was never going to work. This at least has the pretense of being designed to work with these other considerations in mind.
With PL systems, internal balance doesn't really matter. It's just going to be everyone bringing the same stuff every time. It's ultimately just a different kind of meta than points create. It's why I thought PL events would have been a fun alternate format.
It's the inter-factional balance being so far off that upsets me. They're pretending Desolation Squads are somehow worse than Dominions, or that 2 Fire Prisms are exactly the same as 3 Paragon Warsuits.
You're only balancing around the absolute best stuff the unit can bring and you somehow got it WORSE?
Those GL went from S6 AP1 DD3 to S9 AP2 DD3, which makes it just as useful ( if not more so, because of frag ). It's very much an equivalent weapon now and the D3 Blast tries not to step on the horde clearing toes of a flamer. With overwatch as it is you'll rarely want to overwatch with them though, but with the Platoon CS you can have...
20 dudes with 2 flamers plus the PCS with a Regimental Standard and Medipack plus 2 more flamers, 3 plasma pistols, 2 power swords and a power fist for 190 ( was 235 in 9th ). Toss in an Ogryn to pick up an extra 6 wounds for 40 points. You could even go for 5 flamers for a decent overwatch.
And those four flamers together kill . . . a whole Marine.
Oh stop it, Daed! Every time someone shows a clear upgrade you find a way to excuse it. And vipoid was talking about 9th Edition Grenade Launchers.
Upgrades should cost points.
JohnnyHell wrote: At the point someone is fielding a Thunderhawk your game is not about balance. You’re off into narrative or should-be-Apocalypse territory.
Says who? Based on what metric? Who are you to determine how people and why people use their models? And balance helps everyone, even narrative games. Why does this need to be constantly restated?
And as far as examples so, it's perfectly fine, because it shows a base gun and then an alternate weapon option that is vastly more powerful, yet you don't pay one measly point to get it.
Retributor Squad T3, 3+SV, 1W Models. Can take 4 heavy weapons out of Multimelta, HF, HB. Sergeant gets a CombiWeapon/Pistol suite and a 2A WS4, S4 power weapon. Unit ability is reroll 1s to wound. 130pts.
Devastator Squad. T4, 3+SV 2W Models. Can take 4 heavy weapons out of: Multimelta, HF, HF, Missile Launcher, Lascannon, Grav Canno, Plasma Cannon. Sergeant gets imperial pistol options+Grav pistol and Options for a Powerfist or Thunderhammer. Unit ability is Ignores Cover when Remain stationary. 120pts
Explain to me how GW's fluff based design principles determined that 5 Sisters of battle with a Powersword is worth 10 more points than 5 Space Marines with a Powerfist.
You do realize this example has nothing to do with Zero Cost Upgrades? Both units have come we to comparable upgrades available. No, this is simply a case of the points being just plan wrong.
10 Battle Sisters are worth 110 points
10 Tactical Marines are worth 175 points
5/10 Devastator Marines are worth 120/200 points
Anyone with a basic understanding of the game can tell you 5 Retributors have no business being 130 points. Based on the comparison of Tacticals to Devastators, 130 is about right for 10 Retributors. 5 should be maybe 80 points.
Would not be shocked if the points guy thought Rets were set at Squad Size 10 like basic Sisters and Doms were, instead of having the 5 extra girls cut from the squad completely
Oh stop it, Daed! Every time someone shows a clear upgrade you find a way to excuse it. And vipoid was talking about 9th Edition Grenade Launchers.
Upgrades should cost points.
It's only an upgrade if you want to shoot tanks, it is marginally a little bit tol much of an improvement imo, but the cannon just needs the number of shots regulating very slightly and a bump to range. It already is better against terminators and almost all infantry as per daeds comment.
Right. PL wasn't good. I didn't like it, because they explicitly did not design the game around it. It was never going to work. This at least has the pretense of being designed to work with these other considerations in mind.
I haven't seen anything by now that would convince me that this game is more designed around power level than the previous ones
just because some units look to be designed with PL in mind (like the 3 Landspeeder) you could also say GW started to design it with PL but gave up on it and the Codex will feature points because most data cards are witten is if they would have had points in mind and not PL
That's not really an upgrade. 7-12 Avg 9 S10 Medium damage shots vs 2-4 avg 3 S20 High damage shots isn't an upgrade its different priorities. 1 Str 400 Shot is not an upgrade to 40 Str 10 shots.
That's not really an upgrade. 7-12 Avg 9 S10 Medium damage shots vs 2-4 avg 3 S20 High damage shots isn't an upgrade its different priorities. 1 Str 400 Shot is not an upgrade to 40 Str 10 shots.
One is just a glorified Battle Cannon, I guess you can bully Intercessors with it or something. The other slaps a Land Raider off the board in one attack.
That's not really an upgrade. 7-12 Avg 9 S10 Medium damage shots vs 2-4 avg 3 S20 High damage shots isn't an upgrade its different priorities. 1 Str 400 Shot is not an upgrade to 40 Str 10 shots.
One is just a glorified Battle Cannon, I guess you can bully Intercessors with it or something. The other slaps a Land Raider off the board in one attack.
And one scratches paint on said Landraider while the other vaporizes one, maybe two Intercessors while the rest shrug their shoulders. They have different preferred targets.
Lets try this another way: You need to shoot up the unit of 10 genestealers about to take objective #5 from your Eliminators. Would you rather do it with 11 (BLAST) S10 shots, or 4 (BLAST) S20 shots?
One turn behind it is a Tyrranofex (T12, 2+ 16W) would you rather do it with the S10 or the S20 attack? The S20 naturally. They're not upgrades, they're options for different brackets or what is referred to as a sidegrade.
NVM that profiles got so streamlined that mechanically speaking that is a boldfaced lie but that is another debate.
One blows up large infantry to small monsters while bouncing off large tanks/monsters. The other melts the tanks/large monsters and can't keep up with the large infantry/small monsters. Profiles aren't that streamlined - in fact I'd say they created/reinforced/expanded another stat band beyond GEQ/MEQ/Vehicles. TEQ has more company, the vehicles have been split - probably right around T9/T10.
Breton wrote: Lets try this another way: You need to shoot up the unit of 10 genestealers about to take objective #5 from your Eliminators. Would you rather do it with 11 (BLAST) S10 shots, or 4 (BLAST) S20 shots?
Neither, obviously. The 11 S10 shots won't save my Eliminators because they will kill only half the 'stealers and my Eliminators will lose the objective the same way, the 'stealers will just overkill them less. The battle cannon is not exactly impressive against hordes (not as much as the turbo laser is against big stuff), it can just swing hard if you have a good hand, but I'm not exactly a fan of turning my 40k game into a gamble if you know what I mean.
Breton wrote: Lets try this another way: You need to shoot up the unit of 10 genestealers about to take objective #5 from your Eliminators. Would you rather do it with 11 (BLAST) S10 shots, or 4 (BLAST) S20 shots?
Neither, obviously. The 11 S10 shots won't save my Eliminators because they will kill only half the 'stealers and my Eliminators will lose the objective the same way, the 'stealers will just overkill them less. The battle cannon is not exactly impressive against hordes (not as much as the turbo laser is against big stuff), it can just swing hard if you have a good hand, but I'm not exactly a fan of turning my 40k game into a gamble if you know what I mean.
You got me there, both of them are an upgrade over nothing. However Nothing is not an option on the Thunderhawk, Nothing is also even further from saving your Eliminators. I'm guessing from the non-answer though the point about different roles probably meaning Not-Upgrade has been made. At least until the next person goes chasing A1 S20, D6+6 just because the numbers are bigger. Sort Of.
People miss that the reason anti-tank weapons were expensive (when points were a thing) was because you didn't need anti-infantry weapons as badly since you had basic guns.
Adding a better anti-infantry gun to an army is a difference of degrees.
Adding a better anti-tank gun to an army is a difference in kind.
Simply saying "well, one is anti-tank and the other is anti-infantry, therefore they are balanced and equivalent in cost" misses that tanks and infantry THEMSELVES are not the same cost.
Yes, you could in fact do poorly by shooting an anti-tank weapon at infantry. But that doesn't matter, because you have a million and one other ways to slap infantry. Vaporizing a tank, though, in a single shot is an extremely rare capability, that bypasses the toughness that someone buying a tank has themselves paid for.
The only times you won't get value out of a heavy AT weapon is:
1) you have some kind of spongy, damaged brain and decided to ignore the heavy enemy assets and only shoot it at infantry
2) the enemy hasn't brought any heavy assets
If 1, that's on you.
If 2? You should be dancing for joy. Sure, this one expensive gun is less effective, but you have efficiently suppressed/deterred some of the most powerful capabilities available to his army. Losing value on the AT gun is a small price to pay for your enemy losing access to anything with more than 4 wounds in his book.
Breton wrote: Lets try this another way: You need to shoot up the unit of 10 genestealers about to take objective #5 from your Eliminators. Would you rather do it with 11 (BLAST) S10 shots, or 4 (BLAST) S20 shots?
Neither, obviously. The 11 S10 shots won't save my Eliminators because they will kill only half the 'stealers and my Eliminators will lose the objective the same way, the 'stealers will just overkill them less. The battle cannon is not exactly impressive against hordes (not as much as the turbo laser is against big stuff), it can just swing hard if you have a good hand, but I'm not exactly a fan of turning my 40k game into a gamble if you know what I mean.
You got me there, both of them are an upgrade over nothing. However Nothing is not an option on the Thunderhawk, Nothing is also even further from saving your Eliminators. I'm guessing from the non-answer though the point about different roles probably meaning Not-Upgrade has been made. At least until the next person goes chasing A1 S20, D6+6 just because the numbers are bigger. Sort Of.
I would rather use the superzap gun on the Swarmlord making the Genestealers themselves better, and then use the huge amount of anti-infantry firepower that every army gets just for existing to shoot the Genestealers themselves. If the Genestealers are the only enemy unit left while I have Eliminators and a Thunderhawk then the fact that the superzap gun is less efficient against them is probably not going to change the outcome of the game.
catbarf wrote: ...Whether or not to buy a transport for a unit is a much more significant, impactful, and interesting choice than whether you can spare the points to upgrade a 4+ save to a 3+ one.
More relevantly, a transport is something that still does cost points- as it should- while the 4+-to-3+ is free with no downsides and so might as well just be a 3+ on the profile.
I mean, what's the point of even having the option? A 'feth you' to people who built their minis without it?
Not everyone built their Tomb Blades with shield vanes or their Tacticals with hidden tiger blades and crouching dragon guns out of every orifice. It's okay for a faction sometimes to produce an inferior but cheaper soldier, it makes perfect sense, otherwise, the Imperium would just field Space Marines instead of Guardsmen. In an aggressive army or one trying to maximize MSU for objective control it has made sense in the past to save on shield vanes and in lists where the Tomb Blades needed to hold, not die and regenerate the shield vanes were an interesting and worthwhile option. The 5++ was generally overcosted, but many still enjoyed taking the option. Dumbing the game down enough so that PL works is fantastically stupid, there is no reason for it to exist in the first place.
Unit1126PLL wrote: People miss that the reason anti-tank weapons were expensive (when points were a thing) was because you didn't need anti-infantry weapons as badly since you had basic guns.
Adding a better anti-infantry gun to an army is a difference of degrees.
Adding a better anti-tank gun to an army is a difference in kind.
Simply saying "well, one is anti-tank and the other is anti-infantry, therefore they are balanced and equivalent in cost" misses that tanks and infantry THEMSELVES are not the same cost.
A Vindicator is 205 points. 5 Terminators is about 205 Points. Sounds pretty close to me. Few guns are the optimal gun for both, especially with the plateau around S/T 9 or 10.
Yes, you could in fact do poorly shooting an anti-tank weapon at infantry. But that doesn't matter, because you have a million and one other ways to slap infantry. Vaporizing a tank, though, in a single shot is an extremely rare capability, that bypasses the toughness that someone buying a tank has themselves paid for.
The only times you won't get value out of a heavy AT weapon is:
1) you have some kind of spongy, damaged brain and decided to ignore the heavy enemy assets and only shoot it at infantry
2) the enemy hasn't brought any heavy assets
If 1, that's on you.
If 2? You should be dancing for joy. Sure, this one expensive gun is less effective, but you have efficiently suppressed/deterred some of the most powerful capabilities available to his army. Losing value on the AT gun is a small price to pay for your enemy losing access to anything with more than 4 wounds in his book.
S10 -2 D3D isn't heavy anti-tank anymore - its aimed at light vehicles and heavy infantry.
Breton wrote: Lets try this another way: You need to shoot up the unit of 10 genestealers about to take objective #5 from your Eliminators. Would you rather do it with 11 (BLAST) S10 shots, or 4 (BLAST) S20 shots?
Neither, obviously. The 11 S10 shots won't save my Eliminators because they will kill only half the 'stealers and my Eliminators will lose the objective the same way, the 'stealers will just overkill them less. The battle cannon is not exactly impressive against hordes (not as much as the turbo laser is against big stuff), it can just swing hard if you have a good hand, but I'm not exactly a fan of turning my 40k game into a gamble if you know what I mean.
You got me there, both of them are an upgrade over nothing.
Actually, the superb-AT turbo-laser is an upgrade over the mediocre-ish AP battle cannon. I guess the battle cannon has better synergy with the other guns on the Thunderhawk? With the 4 Twin HBs it can very likely wipe the 10 'stealers, especially if you buff stack the attack, tho I dunno how much return we are looking at here compared to just not trying to hold an objective with Eliminators vs Tyranids and then betting an entire Thunderhawk to make it work.
Unit1126PLL wrote: People miss that the reason anti-tank weapons were expensive (when points were a thing) was because you didn't need anti-infantry weapons as badly since you had basic guns.
Adding a better anti-infantry gun to an army is a difference of degrees.
Adding a better anti-tank gun to an army is a difference in kind.
Simply saying "well, one is anti-tank and the other is anti-infantry, therefore they are balanced and equivalent in cost" misses that tanks and infantry THEMSELVES are not the same cost.
A Vindicator is 205 points. 5 Terminators is about 205 Points. Sounds pretty close to me. Few guns are the optimal gun for both, especially with the plateau around S/T 9 or 10.
Vs Terminators, the T-hawk with Heavy Cannon gets:
11 shots, approximately 7 hits, 6 wounds, and kills 3, earning you a 125 point return into a 205 point terminator squad
Vs Vindicator, the T-hawk with TLD gets:
3 shots, 2 hits, very little chance to save either, 19 damage, earning you a 205 point return.
TLD is a better choice if both weapons fire at their preferred targets.
The opposite:
TLD will kill 1 terminator for a 41 point return
Heavy Cannon will neither kill nor cripple a vindicator (10 shots, 6 hits, 2 wounds, 1 save, 3 damage) for a 0 pt return, effectively. (Damage isn't exactly worth nothing, but you haven't even made him pull out a tech marine for fear yet).
Yes, you could in fact do poorly shooting an anti-tank weapon at infantry. But that doesn't matter, because you have a million and one other ways to slap infantry. Vaporizing a tank, though, in a single shot is an extremely rare capability, that bypasses the toughness that someone buying a tank has themselves paid for.
The only times you won't get value out of a heavy AT weapon is:
1) you have some kind of spongy, damaged brain and decided to ignore the heavy enemy assets and only shoot it at infantry
2) the enemy hasn't brought any heavy assets
If 1, that's on you.
If 2? You should be dancing for joy. Sure, this one expensive gun is less effective, but you have efficiently suppressed/deterred some of the most powerful capabilities available to his army. Losing value on the AT gun is a small price to pay for your enemy losing access to anything with more than 4 wounds in his book.
S10 -2 D3D isn't heavy anti-tank anymore - its aimed at light vehicles and heavy infantry.
Correct, that's my point. The AT gun should be the more expensive of the two.
More armies are likely to bring tanks/monsters than heavy infantry; I can't wait for the IG Ogryn spam list....
Correct, that's my point. The AT gun should be the more expensive of the two.
More armies are likely to bring tanks/monsters than heavy infantry; I can't wait for the IG Ogryn spam list....
Why? Because it can kill 1 Terminator, MANZ, Warrior, Carnifex, Jackal, Venom, etc per turn? Its overkill for most things in most armies, optimal for few things - meanwhile the other version is more likely to be in the "optimal" range for far more units. One makes for bigger numbers, the other has more uses. They're tradeoffs. Blowing up a Terminator with 15 extra but discarded wounds doesn't make the gun an upgrade. Having to spend all day shooting that big giant Knight to death doesn't make the other gun an upgrade either. You pick the role you need to fill, and they balance out to a side grade.
Unit1126PLL wrote: People miss that the reason anti-tank weapons were expensive (when points were a thing) was because you didn't need anti-infantry weapons as badly since you had basic guns.
Adding a better anti-infantry gun to an army is a difference of degrees.
Adding a better anti-tank gun to an army is a difference in kind.
Simply saying "well, one is anti-tank and the other is anti-infantry, therefore they are balanced and equivalent in cost" misses that tanks and infantry THEMSELVES are not the same cost.
A Vindicator is 205 points. 5 Terminators is about 205 Points. Sounds pretty close to me. Few guns are the optimal gun for both, especially with the plateau around S/T 9 or 10.
Vs Terminators, the T-hawk with Heavy Cannon gets:
11 shots, approximately 7 hits, 6 wounds, and kills 3, earning you a 125 point return into a 205 point terminator squad
Vs Vindicator, the T-hawk with TLD gets:
3 shots, 2 hits, very little chance to save either, 19 damage, earning you a 205 point return.
TLD is a better choice if both weapons fire at their preferred targets.
The opposite:
TLD will kill 1 terminator for a 41 point return
Heavy Cannon will neither kill nor cripple a vindicator (10 shots, 6 hits, 2 wounds, 1 save, 3 damage) for a 0 pt return, effectively. (Damage isn't exactly worth nothing, but you haven't even made him pull out a tech marine for fear yet).
Yes, you could in fact do poorly shooting an anti-tank weapon at infantry. But that doesn't matter, because you have a million and one other ways to slap infantry. Vaporizing a tank, though, in a single shot is an extremely rare capability, that bypasses the toughness that someone buying a tank has themselves paid for.
The only times you won't get value out of a heavy AT weapon is:
1) you have some kind of spongy, damaged brain and decided to ignore the heavy enemy assets and only shoot it at infantry
2) the enemy hasn't brought any heavy assets
If 1, that's on you.
If 2? You should be dancing for joy. Sure, this one expensive gun is less effective, but you have efficiently suppressed/deterred some of the most powerful capabilities available to his army. Losing value on the AT gun is a small price to pay for your enemy losing access to anything with more than 4 wounds in his book.
S10 -2 D3D isn't heavy anti-tank anymore - its aimed at light vehicles and heavy infantry.
Correct, that's my point. The AT gun should be the more expensive of the two.
More armies are likely to bring tanks/monsters than heavy infantry; I can't wait for the IG Ogryn spam list....
How are you deciding that 3 wounds off a vindicator is worth a total return of 0?
Correct, that's my point. The AT gun should be the more expensive of the two.
More armies are likely to bring tanks/monsters than heavy infantry; I can't wait for the IG Ogryn spam list....
Why? Because it can kill 1 Terminator, MANZ, Warrior, Carnifex, Jackal, Venom, etc per turn? Its overkill for most things in most armies, optimal for few things - meanwhile the other version is more likely to be in the "optimal" range for far more units. One makes for bigger numbers, the other has more uses. They're tradeoffs. Blowing up a Terminator with 15 extra but discarded wounds doesn't make the gun an upgrade. Having to spend all day shooting that big giant Knight to death doesn't make the other gun an upgrade either. You pick the role you need to fill, and they balance out to a side grade.
Let me reply to you with a quote of something I already said, since you didn't read it:
The only times you won't get value out of a heavy AT weapon is:
1) you have some kind of spongy, damaged brain and decided to ignore the heavy enemy assets and only shoot it at infantry
2) the enemy hasn't brought any heavy assets
If 1, that's on you.
If 2? You should be dancing for joy. Sure, this one expensive gun is less effective, but you have efficiently suppressed/deterred some of the most powerful capabilities available to his army. Losing value on the AT gun is a small price to pay for your enemy losing access to anything with more than 4 wounds in his book.
Unit1126PLL wrote: People miss that the reason anti-tank weapons were expensive (when points were a thing) was because you didn't need anti-infantry weapons as badly since you had basic guns.
Adding a better anti-infantry gun to an army is a difference of degrees.
Adding a better anti-tank gun to an army is a difference in kind.
Simply saying "well, one is anti-tank and the other is anti-infantry, therefore they are balanced and equivalent in cost" misses that tanks and infantry THEMSELVES are not the same cost.
A Vindicator is 205 points. 5 Terminators is about 205 Points. Sounds pretty close to me. Few guns are the optimal gun for both, especially with the plateau around S/T 9 or 10.
Vs Terminators, the T-hawk with Heavy Cannon gets:
11 shots, approximately 7 hits, 6 wounds, and kills 3, earning you a 125 point return into a 205 point terminator squad
Vs Vindicator, the T-hawk with TLD gets:
3 shots, 2 hits, very little chance to save either, 19 damage, earning you a 205 point return.
TLD is a better choice if both weapons fire at their preferred targets.
The opposite:
TLD will kill 1 terminator for a 41 point return
Heavy Cannon will neither kill nor cripple a vindicator (10 shots, 6 hits, 2 wounds, 1 save, 3 damage) for a 0 pt return, effectively. (Damage isn't exactly worth nothing, but you haven't even made him pull out a tech marine for fear yet).
Yes, you could in fact do poorly shooting an anti-tank weapon at infantry. But that doesn't matter, because you have a million and one other ways to slap infantry. Vaporizing a tank, though, in a single shot is an extremely rare capability, that bypasses the toughness that someone buying a tank has themselves paid for.
The only times you won't get value out of a heavy AT weapon is:
1) you have some kind of spongy, damaged brain and decided to ignore the heavy enemy assets and only shoot it at infantry
2) the enemy hasn't brought any heavy assets
If 1, that's on you.
If 2? You should be dancing for joy. Sure, this one expensive gun is less effective, but you have efficiently suppressed/deterred some of the most powerful capabilities available to his army. Losing value on the AT gun is a small price to pay for your enemy losing access to anything with more than 4 wounds in his book.
S10 -2 D3D isn't heavy anti-tank anymore - its aimed at light vehicles and heavy infantry.
Correct, that's my point. The AT gun should be the more expensive of the two.
More armies are likely to bring tanks/monsters than heavy infantry; I can't wait for the IG Ogryn spam list....
How are you deciding that 3 wounds off a vindicator is worth a total return of 0?
Since GW decided that doing the remaining 8 wounds to it (and actually killing the tank) was worth 0 points, relatively, I extrapolated.
Cheeky answer, I know, but it feels unfair for me to be asked to assess how much 3 wounds on a single vindicator affects the game state (and therefore what they are worth) when the professional game designers of the game can't be troubled to assess anything of the sort...
ccs wrote: Other than killing time, why are you debating the effectiveness of the Thundrrhawks guns?
Have any of you ever even seen a Thundrrhawk played??
.
It is a case study on free upgrades (the thread topic).
The only times you won't get value out of a heavy AT weapon is:
1) you have some kind of spongy, damaged brain and decided to ignore the heavy enemy assets and only shoot it at infantry
2) the enemy hasn't brought any heavy assets
If 1, that's on you.
If 2? You should be dancing for joy. Sure, this one expensive gun is less effective, but you have efficiently suppressed/deterred some of the most powerful capabilities available to his army. Losing value on the AT gun is a small price to pay for your enemy losing access to anything with more than 4 wounds in his book.
I read it. I just don't buy it. ATV's are T5 W8. Storm Speeders are T9 W11, Screamer Killers are T9 W8, Tyrannocytes are T9, W10, Anhilation Barges are T8, W9, Canoptek Spiders are T7 W6, Venoms are T6 W6, DeffKoptas are T6 W4, Mek Gunz are T5 W6, Dragstas are T7 W9, Crisis Suits are T5 W4, Ghostkeel is T8 W12, Broadsides are T6 W8, Sentinels are T7, W7 or T8 W7, Field Ordnance Batteries are T5 W6, Armiger/War Dogs are T10 W 10 and probably at the very top of this sort of bracket. The point is there are a LOT of these Heavy Infantry -> Light Vehicle - Medium Vehicle targets that don't need S14+ D6+X damage weapons aimed at them - and truth be told they're where you want your Krak Missiles, Multi Meltas, Battle Cannon, etc. - that bracket became much more populated this time around.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs wrote: Other than killing time, why are you debating the effectiveness of the Thundrrhawks guns?
Have any of you ever even seen a Thundrrhawk played??
1) Because it's fairly representational of the Free Upgrades/Sidegrades issue - and naturally already taken to extremes to prove the point.
2) No, but I bought one when you could still fit it in 2K at something like 600 in the back of the Space Marine codex and every body was celebrating the imminent release of plastic Thunderhawks.
The only times you won't get value out of a heavy AT weapon is:
1) you have some kind of spongy, damaged brain and decided to ignore the heavy enemy assets and only shoot it at infantry
2) the enemy hasn't brought any heavy assets
If 1, that's on you.
If 2? You should be dancing for joy. Sure, this one expensive gun is less effective, but you have efficiently suppressed/deterred some of the most powerful capabilities available to his army. Losing value on the AT gun is a small price to pay for your enemy losing access to anything with more than 4 wounds in his book.
I read it. I just don't buy it. ATV's are T5 W8. Storm Speeders are T9 W11, Screamer Killers are T9 W8, Tyrannocytes are T9, W10, Anhilation Barges are T8, W9, Canoptek Spiders are T7 W6, Venoms are T6 W6, DeffKoptas are T6 W4, Mek Gunz are T5 W6, Dragstas are T7 W9, Crisis Suits are T5 W4, Ghostkeel is T8 W12, Broadsides are T6 W8, Sentinels are T7, W7 or T8 W7, Field Ordnance Batteries are T5 W6, Armiger/War Dogs are T10 W 10 and probably at the very top of this sort of bracket. The point is there are a LOT of these Heavy Infantry -> Light Vehicle - Medium Vehicle targets that don't need S14+ D6+X damage weapons aimed at them - and truth be told they're where you want your Krak Missiles, Multi Meltas, Battle Cannon, etc. - that bracket became much more populated this time around.
Yes, and I think if you instantly vaporized most of those units (no more than than 3 models in any, and the ones with 3 get blasted by d3+2 shots or more from the big gun) you would be setting your opponent back pretty significantly.
That Thunderhawk gun (the big one) will kill a squadron of 3 Sentinels far more effectively than the littler gun, for example. Far, far more effectively. To the point where it is probably the better gun for it. (Just to choose one of your examples)
Yes, and I think if you instantly vaporized most of those units (no more than than 3 models in any, and the ones with 3 get blasted by d3+2 shots or more from the big gun) you would be setting your opponent back pretty significantly.
That Thunderhawk gun (the big one) will kill a squadron of 3 Sentinels far more effectively than the littler gun, for example. Far, far more effectively. To the point where it is probably the better gun for it. (Just to choose one of your examples)
Not really, with D3+1 shots you're likely to flubb the hit or wound roll on the last one still alive. And you really won't have enough shots for all the Deffkoptas. There's a role for the Laser there's a role for the Canon. Neither of them are replaced by 7 Tactical Marines with Bolters. Neither of them are an upgrade over the other.
ccs wrote: Other than killing time, why are you debating the effectiveness of the Thundrrhawks guns?
Have any of you ever even seen a Thundrrhawk played??
.
It is a case study on free upgrades (the thread topic).
Here, let me save you some time.
Your discussion will end with some of you maintaining that one of its guns should cost more pts (because some math vs arbitrary units).
The whole exercise won't matter however as it's focused on a $900 model that costs 840 pts (for SM) + all the time/effort to build & paint to put one on the table.
Believe me, no matter what math you use , or how often & loudly you claim upgrades sould cost pts, if youre bringing this to a game, you've paid for that upgrade....
ccs wrote: Other than killing time, why are you debating the effectiveness of the Thundrrhawks guns?
Have any of you ever even seen a Thundrrhawk played??
.
It is a case study on free upgrades (the thread topic).
Here, let me save you some time.
Your discussion will end with some of you maintaining that one of its guns should cost more pts (because some math vs arbitrary units).
The whole exercise won't matter however as it's focused on a $900 model that costs 840 pts (for SM) + all the time/effort to build & paint to put one on the table.
Believe me, no matter what math you use , or how often & loudly you claim upgrades sould cost pts, if youre bringing this to a game, you've paid for that upgrade....
Like someone said pages ago: if you're having Thunderhawks et al. on the table, you've left the land of balanced pitched battles and are either deep into narrative gaming or playing something that should be apocalypse-level.
ccs wrote: Other than killing time, why are you debating the effectiveness of the Thundrrhawks guns?
Have any of you ever even seen a Thundrrhawk played??
.
It is a case study on free upgrades (the thread topic).
Here, let me save you some time.
Your discussion will end with some of you maintaining that one of its guns should cost more pts (because some math vs arbitrary units).
The whole exercise won't matter however as it's focused on a $900 model that costs 840 pts (for SM) + all the time/effort to build & paint to put one on the table.
Believe me, no matter what math you use , or how often & loudly you claim upgrades sould cost pts, if youre bringing this to a game, you've paid for that upgrade....
Consider it the opposite end of the "Sargent with Plasma Pistol" example. It's still an argument of "free upgrades" vs "sane rules writing". We've just switched from "so small that it doesn't matter", to "so expensive that it doesn't matter" .
In the end, I imagine that we'll find an example that hits home. But, right now, we've got the two extremes covered. Don't we?
ccs wrote: Other than killing time, why are you debating the effectiveness of the Thundrrhawks guns?
Have any of you ever even seen a Thundrrhawk played??
.
It is a case study on free upgrades (the thread topic).
Here, let me save you some time.
Your discussion will end with some of you maintaining that one of its guns should cost more pts (because some math vs arbitrary units).
The whole exercise won't matter however as it's focused on a $900 model that costs 840 pts (for SM) + all the time/effort to build & paint to put one on the table.
Believe me, no matter what math you use , or how often & loudly you claim upgrades sould cost pts, if youre bringing this to a game, you've paid for that upgrade....
Consider it the opposite end of the "Sargent with Plasma Pistol" example. It's still an argument of "free upgrades" vs "sane rules writing". We've just switched from "so small that it doesn't matter", to "so expensive that it doesn't matter" .
In the end, I imagine that we'll find an example that hits home. But, right now, we've got the two extremes covered. Don't we?
IMHO it's a classical example of a certain type of problem: you can definitely argue that the points value of e.g. pistol variants on a given low-level character rarely matter or are close to zero anyway, and you can definitely argue that upgrades and additional stuff on rarely-seen, absurdly expensive collector's models don't matter in practice because any game they show up in is probably going to be a special occasion anyway. The middle ground, where free upgrades with no downside are important enough to matter in most games, yet the models are ubiquitous and relevant lies with stuff like free Sponsons on Leman Russes, or with Battlewagon upgrades and the like.
ccs wrote: Other than killing time, why are you debating the effectiveness of the Thundrrhawks guns?
Have any of you ever even seen a Thundrrhawk played??
.
It is a case study on free upgrades (the thread topic).
Here, let me save you some time.
Your discussion will end with some of you maintaining that one of its guns should cost more pts (because some math vs arbitrary units).
The whole exercise won't matter however as it's focused on a $900 model that costs 840 pts (for SM) + all the time/effort to build & paint to put one on the table.
Believe me, no matter what math you use , or how often & loudly you claim upgrades sould cost pts, if youre bringing this to a game, you've paid for that upgrade....
Consider it the opposite end of the "Sargent with Plasma Pistol" example. It's still an argument of "free upgrades" vs "sane rules writing". We've just switched from "so small that it doesn't matter", to "so expensive that it doesn't matter" .
In the end, I imagine that we'll find an example that hits home. But, right now, we've got the two extremes covered. Don't we?
IMHO it's a classical example of a certain type of problem: you can definitely argue that the points value of e.g. pistol variants on a given low-level character rarely matter or are close to zero anyway, and you can definitely argue that upgrades and additional stuff on rarely-seen, absurdly expensive collector's models don't matter in practice because any game they show up in is probably going to be a special occasion anyway. The middle ground, where free upgrades with no downside are important enough to matter in most games, yet the models are ubiquitous and relevant lies with stuff like free Sponsons on Leman Russes, or with Battlewagon upgrades and the like.
. Sooooo....basically what I said. Kudos on making the issue more clear, however.
ccs wrote: Other than killing time, why are you debating the effectiveness of the Thundrrhawks guns?
Have any of you ever even seen a Thundrrhawk played??
.
It is a case study on free upgrades (the thread topic).
Here, let me save you some time.
Your discussion will end with some of you maintaining that one of its guns should cost more pts (because some math vs arbitrary units).
The whole exercise won't matter however as it's focused on a $900 model that costs 840 pts (for SM) + all the time/effort to build & paint to put one on the table.
Believe me, no matter what math you use , or how often & loudly you claim upgrades sould cost pts, if youre bringing this to a game, you've paid for that upgrade....
Consider it the opposite end of the "Sargent with Plasma Pistol" example. It's still an argument of "free upgrades" vs "sane rules writing". We've just switched from "so small that it doesn't matter", to "so expensive that it doesn't matter" .
In the end, I imagine that we'll find an example that hits home. But, right now, we've got the two extremes covered. Don't we?
IMHO it's a classical example of a certain type of problem: you can definitely argue that the points value of e.g. pistol variants on a given low-level character rarely matter or are close to zero anyway, and you can definitely argue that upgrades and additional stuff on rarely-seen, absurdly expensive collector's models don't matter in practice because any game they show up in is probably going to be a special occasion anyway. The middle ground, where free upgrades with no downside are important enough to matter in most games, yet the models are ubiquitous and relevant lies with stuff like free Sponsons on Leman Russes, or with Battlewagon upgrades and the like.
. Sooooo....basically what I said. Kudos on making the issue more clear, however.
Yeah, the discussion is kind of circling itself already, and has been doing that for a couple of pages. It's probably because nobody has a good argument to justify all options being free, so most of the discussion is actually people broadly agreeing, and either discussing the details of what 'most' means, or not realizing that they agree because they got lost in wordiness
ccs wrote: The whole exercise won't matter however as it's focused on a $900 model that costs 840 pts (for SM) + all the time/effort to build & paint to put one on the table. Believe me, no matter what math you use , or how often & loudly you claim upgrades sould cost pts, if youre bringing this to a game, you've paid for that upgrade....
The big gun with 4-5 shots, hitting on 3s and wounding on 2s, guaranteeing a kill, only needs 3 to get past to annihilate the entire sentinel squadron.
The little gun with 10-11 shots, hitting on 3s and wounding on 3s, needs 9 shots to get through to guarantee a kill on the whole squadron AND that is ignoring the 5+ save that the sentinels will get.
If I was shooting at Sentinels, I know which of the "equally useful" guns I would want, and your argument falls apart, Breton.
EDIT:
As for the people arguing about "it's irrelevant because it's imbalanced" then...Well, yes, that's the point, innit?
The game could suck, or not suck, based on the skill of the designer. "The game sucks so stop asking the designers to make it better!" Is not the strong argument you think it is.
All things should be able to be balanced, 840 points, 1000 points, or 15 points.
All things should be able to be balanced, 840 points, 1000 points, or 15 points.
Yeah, ideally that would be so, but if you have to chose it's a legitimate strategy to accept stuff 'fraying at the edges' to get the core of most people's gaming experience down pat. In my opinion, getting e.g. Leman Russes etc. right is more important that pricing individual pistols or Thunderhawk upgrades. A good system should allow for all three, but the middle of the road is the most important.
GW, however, has given up, or does not even try, and that is a criticism that can be levelled at them fairly. Doubly so because they're probably going to fold soon anyway, and adding points cost at least for major upgrades back in (again, in my opinion) at least for GTs.
ccs wrote: Other than killing time, why are you debating the effectiveness of the Thundrrhawks guns?
Have any of you ever even seen a Thundrrhawk played??
Have you ever seen that tree you're looking for? Or is the forest in the way again?
The big gun with 4-5 shots, hitting on 3s and wounding on 2s, guaranteeing a kill, only needs 3 to get past to annihilate the entire sentinel squadron.
The little gun with 10-11 shots, hitting on 3s and wounding on 3s, needs 9 shots to get through to guarantee a kill on the whole squadron AND that is ignoring the 5+ save that the sentinels will get.
If I was shooting at Sentinels, I know which of the "equally useful" guns I would want, and your argument falls apart, Breton.
EDIT:
As for the people arguing about "it's irrelevant because it's imbalanced" then...Well, yes, that's the point, innit?
The game could suck, or not suck, based on the skill of the designer. "The game sucks so stop asking the designers to make it better!" Is not the strong argument you think it is.
All things should be able to be balanced, 840 points, 1000 points, or 15 points.
A gun can be "equally useful" based on the target, because one target is preferable for one weapon doesn't mean it's preferable for all weapons. That's the point. If the cannon is better enough into infantry/elite infantry where the Destructor is wasted on it, then a balance is achieved.
There is a degree of scarcity to apply to anti-vehicle weapons though as otherwise mentioned, that is a valid point as well. I'm not sure you should have to pay more for the chance to be better into an infrequent profile.
BertBert wrote: One I remember is that PL is more accessible to handicapped people who have an easier time dealing with less granular systems.
No it's not. There was one poster arguing for it, but they literally didn't play with anyone else and didn't want to. Physical disabilities don't make someone incapable of doing addition and subtraction or thinking critically about the benefits of different unit options.
BertBert wrote: One I remember is that PL is more accessible to handicapped people who have an easier time dealing with less granular systems.
No it's not. There was one poster arguing for it, but they literally didn't play with anyone else and didn't want to. Physical disabilities don't make someone incapable of doing addition and subtraction or thinking critically about the benefits of different unit options.
PL, as a separate system from points, is fine. It's not as granular or as balanced, but for those who prefer it, no harm done.
Or at least, that was true in 8th and 9th. In 10th, it's PL with bigger numbers for everyone, which IS an issue.
BertBert wrote: One I remember is that PL is more accessible to handicapped people who have an easier time dealing with less granular systems.
No it's not. There was one poster arguing for it, but they literally didn't play with anyone else and didn't want to. Physical disabilities don't make someone incapable of doing addition and subtraction or thinking critically about the benefits of different unit options.
PL, as a separate system from points, is fine. It's not as granular or as balanced, but for those who prefer it, no harm done.
Or at least, that was true in 8th and 9th. In 10th, it's PL with bigger numbers for everyone, which IS an issue.
Well, we just experienced the harm. Because PL exists, lazy, egotistical, and incompetent designers (Cruddace and his ilk) kludged it into the entire game system.
BertBert wrote: One I remember is that PL is more accessible to handicapped people who have an easier time dealing with less granular systems.
No it's not. There was one poster arguing for it, but they literally didn't play with anyone else and didn't want to. Physical disabilities don't make someone incapable of doing addition and subtraction or thinking critically about the benefits of different unit options.
PL, as a separate system from points, is fine. It's not as granular or as balanced, but for those who prefer it, no harm done.
Or at least, that was true in 8th and 9th. In 10th, it's PL with bigger numbers for everyone, which IS an issue.
Well, we just experienced the harm. Because PL exists, lazy, egotistical, and incompetent designers (Cruddace and his ilk) kludged it into the entire game system.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Would not be shocked if the points guy thought Rets were set at Squad Size 10 like basic Sisters and Doms were, instead of having the 5 extra girls cut from the squad completely
Lol, this would make perfect sense!
130 for 10 actually is a reasonable cost.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Would not be shocked if the points guy thought Rets were set at Squad Size 10 like basic Sisters and Doms were, instead of having the 5 extra girls cut from the squad completely
Lol, this would make perfect sense!
130 for 10 actually is a reasonable cost.
Still bad at their job though - and still not worth taking anything but the 'most expensive' Multi-meltas.
GW has to make money somehow. Let's run through their options:
- Create new units that are must-haves based on point values/awesome sculpts.
-Charge more money for the books for each new edition.
-Convince people to buy more models from the same old kits.
Given those options, the first unbalances the game and leads to ever-expanding codices, which make the game unwieldy and harder to balance (can't playtest all ten zillion combos). The second is intellectual property and can be circumvented.
So what do these new rules do? Rewards casual hobbyists who put power fists on their devastator sergeants (if you made that decision, you need a leg up in tournaments anyway), and gives competitive players a reason to buy more models from the same kits, decked out with different loadouts than before.
In terms of money making schemes for a company that has to keep selling models and books, I like it better than any alternative I've seen or seen suggested.
I like it, but as mentioned earlier they need to stick with it long enough to shake out the bugs -
Things like Leman Russ without Sponsons need somesort of boost for the tradeoff of no Sponsons like more movement, or an invuln or something that would be a performance improvement based on the absence of a bit as opposed to the presence of it. If it's got Sponsons it's MV5, if not it's MV7 or some such.
Breton wrote: Things like Leman Russ without Sponsons need somesort of boost for the tradeoff of no Sponsons like more movement, or an invuln or something that would be a performance improvement based on the absence of a bit as opposed to the presence of it. If it's got Sponsons it's MV5, if not it's MV7 or some such.
No, we don't need More Rules™. That won't solve anything.
Just put costs in for upgrades. It's the easiest option to take.
Breton wrote: Things like Leman Russ without Sponsons need somesort of boost for the tradeoff of no Sponsons like more movement, or an invuln or something that would be a performance improvement based on the absence of a bit as opposed to the presence of it. If it's got Sponsons it's MV5, if not it's MV7 or some such.
No, we don't need More Rules™. That won't solve anything.
Just put costs in for upgrades. It's the easiest option to take.
No we don't need More Points For Upgrades™ That won't solve anything. Just put in boosts for "negative" upgrades. Its the easiest option to take.
Obviously a sponsonless russ has a smaller front profile, making it easier to get the benefits of cover which results in a precisely equal increase of effectiveness as that of taking two extra heavy weapons would yield
Breton wrote: No we don't need More Points For Upgrades™ That won't solve anything. Just put in boosts for "negative" upgrades. Its the easiest option to take.
Nice try, but no.
Your suggestion was to bolt on further special rules to the game. How is that ever a good solution? How is that a solution in this edition of the game?
Breton wrote: No we don't need More Points For Upgrades™ That won't solve anything. Just put in boosts for "negative" upgrades. Its the easiest option to take.
Nice try, but no.
Your suggestion was to bolt on further special rules to the game. How is that ever a good solution? How is that a solution in this edition of the game?
You've convinced me. Lets just really cut out the rules.
The board will be divided into 64 squares in an 8x8 pattern
You can only move units diagonally to open squares.
2. All moves should be made across the dark squares.
3. Each unit can move only a Single Square at a time.
4. If the unit can make it to the farthest row from its initial place, it is considered “Emperored”, and another piece is placed on top of it.
5. The Emperor unit is also limited to move only one square at a time. However, as per Warhammer rules, a player can move backward to prevent Battleshock.
Breton wrote: Things like Leman Russ without Sponsons need somesort of boost for the tradeoff of no Sponsons like more movement, or an invuln or something that would be a performance improvement based on the absence of a bit as opposed to the presence of it. If it's got Sponsons it's MV5, if not it's MV7 or some such.
No, we don't need More Rules™. That won't solve anything.
Just put costs in for upgrades. It's the easiest option to take.
I'd gladly take either approach; reintroduce points for (obviously) unequal options, or eliminate upgrade points and make all options equal (as in actual viable choices/tradeoffs). The issue is we ended up with a little bit of both, which is just a mess.
Breton wrote: Things like Leman Russ without Sponsons need somesort of boost for the tradeoff of no Sponsons like more movement, or an invuln or something that would be a performance improvement based on the absence of a bit as opposed to the presence of it. If it's got Sponsons it's MV5, if not it's MV7 or some such.
No, we don't need More Rules™. That won't solve anything.
Just put costs in for upgrades. It's the easiest option to take.
No we don't need More Points For Upgrades™ That won't solve anything. Just put in boosts for "negative" upgrades. Its the easiest option to take.
Uh no thanks, a las pistol should be inferior to a plasma pistol
Breton wrote: Things like Leman Russ without Sponsons need somesort of boost for the tradeoff of no Sponsons like more movement, or an invuln or something that would be a performance improvement based on the absence of a bit as opposed to the presence of it. If it's got Sponsons it's MV5, if not it's MV7 or some such.
No, we don't need More Rules™. That won't solve anything.
Just put costs in for upgrades. It's the easiest option to take.
So not those rules , but [/i]these[i] rules.....
Either way you're adding Rules. And if so I'd rather have something fun/interesting vs +x points.
Breton wrote: No we don't need More Points For Upgrades™ That won't solve anything. Just put in boosts for "negative" upgrades. Its the easiest option to take.
Nice try, but no.
Your suggestion was to bolt on further special rules to the game. How is that ever a good solution? How is that a solution in this edition of the game?
You've convinced me. Lets just really cut out the rules.
The board will be divided into 64 squares in an 8x8 pattern
You can only move units diagonally to open squares.
2. All moves should be made across the dark squares.
3. Each unit can move only a Single Square at a time.
4. If the unit can make it to the farthest row from its initial place, it is considered “Emperored”, and another piece is placed on top of it.
5. The Emperor unit is also limited to move only one square at a time. However, as per Warhammer rules, a player can move backward to prevent Battleshock.
Bruh, this is the exact thing your rules that need to be equal to sponsons, it does not make a lick of sense for anyone except those with a third grade level of math who can do the math for 3 figure numbers only if the final digit ends in 0 or 5 and no more than 20 numbers in total. Just use a spreadsheet or an app for making your list, this is madness. You have never suggested previously that sponsons ought to slow a vehicle down have you? Isn't that proof that you don't think it's something the game needs to represent on the table, just like we don't need to represent whether Sergeant Harker has a bad hairday?
Breton wrote: Things like Leman Russ without Sponsons need somesort of boost for the tradeoff of no Sponsons like more movement, or an invuln or something that would be a performance improvement based on the absence of a bit as opposed to the presence of it. If it's got Sponsons it's MV5, if not it's MV7 or some such.
No, we don't need More Rules™. That won't solve anything.
Just put costs in for upgrades. It's the easiest option to take.
So not those rules , but these rules.....
Either way you're adding Rules. And if so I'd rather have something fun/interesting vs +x points.
It's also not acknowledging that getting +X points right isn't trivial either, it adds another burden to the writing process for good or ill.
Breton wrote: Things like Leman Russ without Sponsons need somesort of boost for the tradeoff of no Sponsons like more movement, or an invuln or something that would be a performance improvement based on the absence of a bit as opposed to the presence of it. If it's got Sponsons it's MV5, if not it's MV7 or some such.
No, we don't need More Rules™. That won't solve anything.
Just put costs in for upgrades. It's the easiest option to take.
So not those rules , but these rules.....
Either way you're adding Rules. And if so I'd rather have something fun/interesting vs +x points.
It's also not acknowledging that getting +X points right isn't trivial either, it adds another burden to the writing process for good or ill.
We're not asking GW to get +X points right, we are asking them to give a single solitary gak about the balance in the game. GW didn't get the cost between units and factions right, so clearly they didn't spend the time saved on not implementing pts costs for options into balancing the game in other ways.
Breton wrote: Things like Leman Russ without Sponsons need somesort of boost for the tradeoff of no Sponsons like more movement, or an invuln or something that would be a performance improvement based on the absence of a bit as opposed to the presence of it. If it's got Sponsons it's MV5, if not it's MV7 or some such.
No, we don't need More Rules™. That won't solve anything.
Just put costs in for upgrades. It's the easiest option to take.
So not those rules , but these rules.....
Either way you're adding Rules. And if so I'd rather have something fun/interesting vs +x points.
It's also not acknowledging that getting +X points right isn't trivial either, it adds another burden to the writing process for good or ill.
We're not asking GW to get +X points right, we are asking them to give a single solitary gak about the balance in the game. GW didn't get the cost between units and factions right, so clearly they didn't spend the time saved on not implementing pts costs for options into balancing the game in other ways.
Nobody is arguing that, but there are definitely people who want points over rules/option parity because it comes without the burden of balancing them against one another and weirdly some people love the option of simply having a series of things that exist but are betterer than each other.
Breton wrote: Things like Leman Russ without Sponsons need somesort of boost for the tradeoff of no Sponsons like more movement, or an invuln or something that would be a performance improvement based on the absence of a bit as opposed to the presence of it. If it's got Sponsons it's MV5, if not it's MV7 or some such.
No, we don't need More Rules™. That won't solve anything.
Just put costs in for upgrades. It's the easiest option to take.
So not those rules , but these rules.....
Either way you're adding Rules. And if so I'd rather have something fun/interesting vs +x points.
It's also not acknowledging that getting +X points right isn't trivial either, it adds another burden to the writing process for good or ill.
We're not asking GW to get +X points right, we are asking them to give a single solitary gak about the balance in the game. GW didn't get the cost between units and factions right, so clearly they didn't spend the time saved on not implementing pts costs for options into balancing the game in other ways.
Nobody is arguing that, but there are definitely people who want points over rules/option parity because it comes without the burden of balancing them against one another and weirdly some people love the option of simply having a series of things that exist but are betterer than each other.
Some things you can reasonably balance against each other-a Heavy Bolter, an Autocannon, and a Lascannon can (in theory) all be made worth the same points cost fairly.
But if you take a Devastator Squad with one Heavy Weapon, it should be cheaper than one with four.
As for why you'd want to take a Dev Squad with only one Heavy, the Signum. An old five-strong Tactical Squad with one Heavy Weapon isn't legal as a Tactical Squad anymore, but it IS as a Devastator Squad. And even if they revert Tac Squads to be 5-10, for a backfield objective holder, the Signum is better than the Tactical Marine's special rule.
Arachnofiend wrote: And the basic guys with no gear have been superior for most of that time because they cost less points.
Is that so? IIRC even when troops were seen as a tax under the old FOC, people still gave them upgrades. For example the infamous 5 man LasPlas squads of old. Upgrades to a bigger HQ were more or less always taken too, just to give another example.
Dudeface 810334 11556023 wrote:
Nobody is arguing that, but there are definitely people who want points over rules/option parity because it comes without the burden of balancing them against one another and weirdly some people love the option of simply having a series of things that exist but are betterer than each other.
Both points and unit composition problems are the buy product of how GW designed the boxes. Why are DG taken in 5s or 10s, but the box comes with 7 dudes? Can't take 9 sword brethern to fit in a character, but the concept of smaller units to fit a character is something GW can imagine, because they let 2 custodes bike be take. And they do it only because there is an option to make a shield captin out of one. So GW does know that in order to be played armies like Votan or SoB, should be MSU, but they just don't let regular troops do it. Now retributors, who probably would want to have 2-3 extra bodies, can't do it. And votan infantry can combat squad, but only if the person buy , and I am talking money here, a transport option for them. Often the stuff gets really bizzar. GK termis and paladins are made out of the same box. The termintors get an "option" to take an ancient and apothecary, but paladins can only take the ancient? What happened, also the idea of 20% of all GK being librarians and apothecaries is mind blowing. There is also copy paste errors or things we wished were ones, but probably are just GW being serious. And all of this wouldn't be such a gigantic problem, if the different between the have and have nots in w40k wasn't gigantic. The low or mid tier army just can't afford to take the less optimal options, especialy if the player in case doesn't have access to limitless supply of hobby money.
Arachnofiend wrote: And the basic guys with no gear have been superior for most of that time because they cost less points.
Is that so? IIRC even when troops were seen as a tax under the old FOC, people still gave them upgrades. For example the infamous 5 man LasPlas squads of old. Upgrades to a bigger HQ were more or less always taken too, just to give another example.
Yeah, the idea that naked squads have usually been better is bogus. LasPlas was a thing and Tacticals were rarely all-bolter. Imperial Guard Leafblower (chock-full of triple-plasma Veterans in Chimeras) was a thing. Scions have spent most of their existence toting as many special weapons as they can. Find me the Drukhari player who said 'no thanks, I don't want more Blasters, just Splinter Rifles is fine'. As-cheap-as-possible Spinefist Termagants were a thing in 5th but Devourer Termagants (doubling their cost) was a thing in 8th. Every single game-breaking deathstar that has ever existed in the history of 40K has been contingent on stacking upgrades and add-ons.
Even if the premise were true, you can always find a cost where the heavy weapons are worth taking. Would Astra Militarum players really ditch all their special and heavy weapons if they cost 1pt apiece? There is a cost level where an upgrade is a real consideration rather than a must-take or never-take, and that's the appropriate cost.
In any case I'm still pretty fine with special and heavy weapons being free if appropriately balanced so that they're actually sidegrades and there aren't clear winners or losers. I just don't see how you can balance chainsword+laspistol against power sword+plasma pistol without either points or something significantly more complicated.
Breton wrote: Things like Leman Russ without Sponsons need somesort of boost for the tradeoff of no Sponsons like more movement, or an invuln or something that would be a performance improvement based on the absence of a bit as opposed to the presence of it. If it's got Sponsons it's MV5, if not it's MV7 or some such.
No, we don't need More Rules™. That won't solve anything.
Just put costs in for upgrades. It's the easiest option to take.
No we don't need More Points For Upgrades™ That won't solve anything. Just put in boosts for "negative" upgrades. Its the easiest option to take.
Uh no thanks, a las pistol should be inferior to a plasma pistol
A las pistol should be different from, but not inferior to.
Bruh, this is the exact thing your rules that need to be equal to sponsons, it does not make a lick of sense for anyone except those with a third grade level of math who can do the math for 3 figure numbers only if the final digit ends in 0 or 5 and no more than 20 numbers in total. Just use a spreadsheet or an app for making your list, this is madness. You have never suggested previously that sponsons ought to slow a vehicle down have you? Isn't that proof that you don't think it's something the game needs to represent on the table, just like we don't need to represent whether Sergeant Harker has a bad hairday?
Nope in the past they used a different design theory. Recently I didn't play Guard so it didn't occur to me, when someone else pointed out this fell through the cracks, I immediately agreed there should be a balance path for those models.
Uh no thanks, a las pistol should be inferior to a plasma pistol
A las pistol should be different from, but not inferior to.
Negative. The Plasma Pistol is canonically a superior weapon, and has been for the life of the game. Games really, as it exists in Necromunda and the RPGs as well. It is an upgrade.
Making it not an upgrade is over-design for the sake of artificial constraints which are completely unnesessary. It's the sacrifice of lore for junk design.
Breton wrote: Things like Leman Russ without Sponsons need somesort of boost for the tradeoff of no Sponsons like more movement, or an invuln or something that would be a performance improvement based on the absence of a bit as opposed to the presence of it. If it's got Sponsons it's MV5, if not it's MV7 or some such.
No, we don't need More Rules™. That won't solve anything.
Just put costs in for upgrades. It's the easiest option to take.
No we don't need More Points For Upgrades™ That won't solve anything. Just put in boosts for "negative" upgrades. Its the easiest option to take.
Uh no thanks, a las pistol should be inferior to a plasma pistol
A las pistol should be different from, but not inferior to.
You should apply for a job at GW immediately, you’re perfect for the sort of nonsense they come up with
No, no, Breton's right. A laspistol shouldn't be inferior to a plasma pistol, just different - say, by making the laspistol free and requiring that the plasma pistol be purchased with points. This is a great way to represent the relative rarity of plasma weapons in-universe, and it also gives the plasma pistol an out-of-game downside that doesn't mess with its stats at all. I'm actually kind of shocked that GW didn't think of that one, it seems fairly obvious to me (but then, what do I know - I'm not a game dev).
waefre_1 wrote: No, no, Breton's right. A laspistol shouldn't be inferior to a plasma pistol, just different - say, by making the laspistol free and requiring that the plasma pistol be purchased with points. This is a great way to represent the relative rarity of plasma weapons in-universe, and it also gives the plasma pistol an out-of-game downside that doesn't mess with its stats at all. I'm actually kind of shocked that GW didn't think of that one, it seems fairly obvious to me (but then, what do I know - I'm not a game dev).
Uh no thanks, a las pistol should be inferior to a plasma pistol
A las pistol should be different from, but not inferior to.
Negative. The Plasma Pistol is canonically a superior weapon, and has been for the life of the game. Games really, as it exists in Necromunda and the RPGs as well. It is an upgrade.
Making it not an upgrade is over-design for the sake of artificial constraints which are completely unnesessary. It's the sacrifice of lore for junk design.
Its a canonically stronger weapon, not better. The better pistol in the lore is the one in the hands of the character with the most plot armor. Again, the 1 Shot S30 -4 D6+20 Damage gun is not superior to the 10 Shot S8 -3 Damae 3 gun its just different. Its better at this thing, and worse at that thing.
A laspistol that absolutely murders multiple gaunts and guardsmen is not worse than a plasma pistol that'll cook off 1 space marine, its different
I think it could be an issue of finding enough difference in effectiveness to have effective points cost differences for a single pistol in a 10-model unit that is 65 points fully loaded.
Just how many points is that Plasma Pistol that has to be within 12" to fire and has a 1/6 chance of killing the user and only a 50% chance of hitting the target when used at it's most effective setting? Don't pretend you won't want to overcharge it for the +1 S, +1 AP, and +1 Damage.
And how many points for that Bolt Pistol that only increases the strength of the Las Pistol from 3 to 4?
A single pistol isn’t usually worth arguing over or niggling over.
But the difference between a Guard squad with heavy, special, and an up armed Sarge IS something that deserves to cost more than a barebones squad.
Uh no thanks, a las pistol should be inferior to a plasma pistol
A las pistol should be different from, but not inferior to.
Negative. The Plasma Pistol is canonically a superior weapon, and has been for the life of the game. Games really, as it exists in Necromunda and the RPGs as well. It is an upgrade.
Making it not an upgrade is over-design for the sake of artificial constraints which are completely unnesessary. It's the sacrifice of lore for junk design.
Its a canonically stronger weapon, not better. The better pistol in the lore is the one in the hands of the character with the most plot armor. Again, the 1 Shot S30 -4 D6+20 Damage gun is not superior to the 10 Shot S8 -3 Damae 3 gun its just different. Its better at this thing, and worse at that thing.
A laspistol that absolutely murders multiple gaunts and guardsmen is not worse than a plasma pistol that'll cook off 1 space marine, its different
Soooo.....make them more expensive for characters? Whose "plot armour" is reflected by their superior BS? But still reflect their superior stats through price for non-character models? That's what I'm getting from your "plot armour" argument.
Breton wrote: A las pistol should be different from, but not inferior to.
Do you feel there is any reason why that should be the case beyond forcing it into the current design paradigm?
It starts with the current design paradigm because it lends itself well to hammering this part out and finding the gaps - but variety and making choices matter are always better than being "forced" into picking the same options over and over. How many people complaining about sponsons on Leman Russ now being auto-take because they're the best/only choice are also the ones complaining upgrades need to cost points or people will always pick the same one?
If there's a choice between slow, lumbering Leman Russ with Sponsons or faster/tougher/whatever Leman Russ without the Sponsons that then complement different IG builds differently resulting in multiple distinctly different but viable IG builds that's a win. Say the slow lumbering ones have to partner with Sentinels doing the push forward while artillery and massed static infantry crawl along for a more World War I trench warfare approach, while the faster/tougher/whatever sponson free ones lend itself to Mechanized Infantry in Chimeras etc in a more World War II Blitzkrieg/73 Easting style.
The more options that are equivalent but different, the more options people can choose to take.
Breton wrote: Its a canonically stronger weapon, not better.
Talk about a distinction without a difference...
Breton wrote: A laspistol that absolutely murders multiple gaunts and guardsmen is not worse than a plasma pistol that'll cook off 1 space marine, its different
The Plasma Pistol is better at murdering the Gaunts and Guardsmen as well. Probably has less of a chance of a flesh- or superficial wound. Greater chance of a kill-shot, even if it might be overkill, compared to a lowly Laspistol.
The thing is, you're asking that everything either be made equal, so that everything is a side grade, or proposing a complex system of what essentially amounts to compensation (ie. Russes without sponsons are faster!) to account for differences in relative power with different kinds of weapons. And it begs the question: Why?
Why, when points account for these kinds of differences in a far quicker manner that doesn't require even More Rules™ being added to the game? Why, when a points system allows you to make choices between better or stronger weapons by spending more points, and by not making that choice you have more points to spend on other things?
Why introduce complex new systems for a problem that we already know can be solved with a far simpler, more granular points system.
And on the subject of characters, the 3.5 Chaos Codex had different points costs for unit characters and regular characters. Worked very well.
A Chimera should be different, not inferior to a Leman Russ, we should be counting wounds and get rid of points! Why should GW spend time balancing their game or trying to make the rules fit with the narrative when they could spend a decade trying to make Chimeras equal to Leman Russes with rules only!
Like if you need to get to an objective that is on an island surrounded by water, giving the Chimera amphibious instantly makes it just as good as a Leman Russ and you don't need points anymore because the Chimera will have a niche even we just count wounds. Besides points can never be perfect because something something melta vs tanks or infantry so you should use an AI GM for your balance needs.
alextroy wrote: I think it could be an issue of finding enough difference in effectiveness to have effective points cost differences for a single pistol in a 10-model unit that is 65 points fully loaded.
Just how many points is that Plasma Pistol that has to be within 12" to fire and has a 1/6 chance of killing the user and only a 50% chance of hitting the target when used at it's most effective setting? Don't pretend you won't want to overcharge it for the +1 S, +1 AP, and +1 Damage.
And how many points for that Bolt Pistol that only increases the strength of the Las Pistol from 3 to 4?
1 pt for the bolt pistol, 2 for the plasma pistol. Subtract 2 from the cost of the unit, repeat for remaining upgrades. That price a little too high or low? Still better than nothing because you have a reason for taking any of the 3 weapons. I'd need to do some math on the Predator to figure out what it's cost should be, but it'd probably be very easy to figure something out there. Would you agree that starting with the most obvious and easy cases would be a good move at the very least? Start with something like Necron resurrection orbs which represent a huge part of the Lord/Overlord's value on the table and give it a cost that is relatively small so resurrection orbs are a worthwhile upgrade in most circumstances. I don't think any of us wants to make resurrection orbs or plasma pistols overcosted and many of us would be okay with most upgrades being relatively cheap for the value they add to the unit and slowly come up to a point where 50% of units aren't blinged out.
Breton wrote: Its a canonically stronger weapon, not better.
Talk about a distinction without a difference...
OK, lets try this again - What is a better pistol vs 20 Termaguants: a melta pistol with 1 S8 -4 D6+1 shot, or a laspistol with 4 S3 -0 D1 shots?
Breton wrote: A laspistol that absolutely murders multiple gaunts and guardsmen is not worse than a plasma pistol that'll cook off 1 space marine, its different
The Plasma Pistol is better at murdering the Gaunts and Guardsmen as well. Probably has less of a chance of a flesh- or superficial wound. Greater chance of a kill-shot, even if it might be overkill, compared to a lowly Laspistol.
The thing is, you're asking that everything either be made equal,
no, I'm pointing out everything - or most everything - should be made equivalent not equal - that a pistol good at shooting gaunts should be equivalent not equal and not better or worse to one that shoots Gravis Marines so people have choices between shooting Gravis Marines (or Gaunts) with their pistols or their tanks, or their whatever.
so that everything is a side grade, or proposing a complex system of what essentially amounts to compensation (ie. Russes without sponsons are faster!) to account for differences in relative power with different kinds of weapons. And it begs the question: Why?
As opposed to nothing is a side grade and proposing a complex system of what amounts to compensation (Russes with Sponsons are Shootier) to account for duplications in relative power with different kinds of points? As for the question: Why? V-A-R-I-E-T-Y. Diversity. Variation. Multifariousness. Herterogentiy. Variegation. Multiplicity, Mélange.
Why, when points account for these kinds of differences in a far quicker manner that doesn't require even More Rules™ being added to the game?
Do you want me to make fun of you with the rules for Checkers 40,000 again for this fewer rules is always better fallacy?
By the way how exactly is:
Add 25 Points for This Sponson
Add 35 Points for That Sponson
Add 45 Points for yet A Different Sponson
Fewer rules than:
Take Any Sponson you want, or add +2 to MV for No Sponson?
Why, when a points system allows you to make choices between better or stronger weapons by spending more points, and by not making that choice you have more points to spend on other things?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: I get the feeling that the proponents of the "new system" just want to hammer every square peg into a round hole, damn the consequences.
I get the feeling everyone who tries to assign a negative motive to people that disagree with them are just poisoning the well during a temper tantrum.
Breton wrote: Its a canonically stronger weapon, not better.
Talk about a distinction without a difference...
OK, lets try this again - What is a better pistol vs 20 Termaguants: a melta pistol with 1 S8 -4 D6+1 shot, or a laspistol with 4 S3 -0 D1 shots?
Breton wrote: A laspistol that absolutely murders multiple gaunts and guardsmen is not worse than a plasma pistol that'll cook off 1 space marine, its different
The Plasma Pistol is better at murdering the Gaunts and Guardsmen as well. Probably has less of a chance of a flesh- or superficial wound. Greater chance of a kill-shot, even if it might be overkill, compared to a lowly Laspistol.
The thing is, you're asking that everything either be made equal,
no, I'm pointing out everything - or most everything - should be made equivalent not equal - that a pistol good at shooting gaunts should be equivalent not equal and not better or worse to one that shoots Gravis Marines so people have choices between shooting Gravis Marines (or Gaunts) with their pistols or their tanks, or their whatever.
so that everything is a side grade, or proposing a complex system of what essentially amounts to compensation (ie. Russes without sponsons are faster!) to account for differences in relative power with different kinds of weapons. And it begs the question: Why?
As opposed to nothing is a side grade and proposing a complex system of what amounts to compensation (Russes with Sponsons are Shootier) to account for duplications in relative power with different kinds of points? As for the question: Why? V-A-R-I-E-T-Y. Diversity. Variation. Multifariousness. Herterogentiy. Variegation. Multiplicity, Mélange.
Why, when points account for these kinds of differences in a far quicker manner that doesn't require even More Rules™ being added to the game?
Do you want me to make fun of you with the rules for Checkers 40,000 again for this fewer rules is always better fallacy?
By the way how exactly is:
Add 25 Points for This Sponson
Add 35 Points for That Sponson
Add 45 Points for yet A Different Sponson
Fewer rules than:
Take Any Sponson you want, or add +2 to MV for No Sponson?
Why, when a points system allows you to make choices between better or stronger weapons by spending more points, and by not making that choice you have more points to spend on other things?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: I get the feeling that the proponents of the "new system" just want to hammer every square peg into a round hole, damn the consequences.
I get the feeling everyone who tries to assign a negative motive to people that disagree with them are just poisoning the well during a temper tantrum.
Why does a Laspistol fire four times as fast as a Melta pistol?
Why does a Laspistol fire faster than a Lasgun?
And during list building, you should have ample time. So even if the math is tricky or complex (and for most folk, adding one to three digit numbers with a calculator if needed isn't hard) you don't need to rush it.
Breton wrote: Its a canonically stronger weapon, not better.
Talk about a distinction without a difference...
OK, lets try this again - What is a better pistol vs 20 Termaguants: a melta pistol with 1 S8 -4 D6+1 shot, or a laspistol with 4 S3 -0 D1 shots?
The trick when arguing about mathematical outcomes in a wargame wherein what is effective can be easily predicted by napkin math, is to actually be good at it. Your 'point' is DOA because the melta pistol is objectively superior to four las pistol shots. Shockingly wounding things on 2's and completely ignoring the armor save is a lot better than wounding on 4's and having a 5up.
Additionally your 'point' makes no sense because in warfare many things are in fact, objectively superior. If you have the funds available, equipping your men with NODs is in fact, completely superior to not having NODs at all (see infantry engagements in a contemporary East European theater). Likewise, having guided missiles is in fact, objectively superior in every situation to massed, imprecise missile fire. What you propose is to further strangle any bare claim 40k has to being a wargame anymore, and to replace it with participation awards wherein there are no superior guns, which makes hardly any sense. Or the argument of a Leman Russ with sponsons somehow moving slower than one with them, even though the weight difference should be negligible to the point of not mattering. Moreover moving faster isn't even an advantage for a vehicle that likely stays stationary in cover providing supporting fire for the length of a game.
Breton wrote: Its a canonically stronger weapon, not better.
Talk about a distinction without a difference...
OK, lets try this again - What is a better pistol vs 20 Termaguants: a melta pistol with 1 S8 -4 D6+1 shot, or a laspistol with 4 S3 -0 D1 shots?
The trick when arguing about mathematical outcomes in a wargame wherein what is effective can be easily predicted by napkin math, is to actually be good at it. Your 'point' is DOA because the melta pistol is objectively superior to four las pistol shots. Shockingly wounding things on 2's and completely ignoring the armor save is a lot better than wounding on 4's and having a 5up.
I mean, in this specific and contrived scenario, the Laspistol is better. Due to firing faster than a Lasgun and even a Heavy Bolter, against specifically T3 W1 5+ models, and assuming they have the same BS, it does 60% more damage.
Now, if we're dealing with, say, a Sister Of Battle (T3 W1 3+/6++) then suddenly the Melta Pistol is better.
And if we're dealing with something really out there, like, I dunno... a Space Marine (T4 W2 3+) the Melta pistol is only about 3.75 times better.
You're saying that everything should be a sidegrade, and that to ensure that this is the case a whole bevvy of additional rules need to be introduced to ensure this outcome.
What we're saying is that not everything should be equivalent or equal to everything else. Some things are better, and should be better, and this should be reflected with a cost, just like it has been over the past 30+ years of this game.
Breton wrote: Its a canonically stronger weapon, not better.
Talk about a distinction without a difference...
OK, lets try this again - What is a better pistol vs 20 Termaguants: a melta pistol with 1 S8 -4 D6+1 shot, or a laspistol with 4 S3 -0 D1 shots?
The trick when arguing about mathematical outcomes in a wargame wherein what is effective can be easily predicted by napkin math, is to actually be good at it. Your 'point' is DOA because the melta pistol is objectively superior to four las pistol shots. Shockingly wounding things on 2's and completely ignoring the armor save is a lot better than wounding on 4's and having a 5up.
I mean, in this specific and contrived scenario, the Laspistol is better. Due to firing faster than a Lasgun and even a Heavy Bolter, against specifically T3 W1 5+ models, and assuming they have the same BS, it does 60% more damage.
Now, if we're dealing with, say, a Sister Of Battle (T3 W1 3+/6++) then suddenly the Melta Pistol is better.
And if we're dealing with something really out there, like, I dunno... a Space Marine (T4 W2 3+) the Melta pistol is only about 3.75 times better.
No, it doesn't, as I already explained. A guardsmen with a melta pistol is more likely to kill a gaunt the majority of the time than the one with a multi shot las pistol. As I mentioned, wounding on 2's opposed to 4's, and completely ignoring the save, is far more efficient than multiple shots with something that has to get past a 4+ to wound and a 5+ save. There is barely any context wherein a 4 shot laspistol is superior to a 1 shot melta pistol, lasfire is quite simply, garbage at killing anything.Not a lot of toughness 2 enemies out there.
Breton wrote: Its a canonically stronger weapon, not better.
Talk about a distinction without a difference...
OK, lets try this again - What is a better pistol vs 20 Termaguants: a melta pistol with 1 S8 -4 D6+1 shot, or a laspistol with 4 S3 -0 D1 shots?
The trick when arguing about mathematical outcomes in a wargame wherein what is effective can be easily predicted by napkin math, is to actually be good at it. Your 'point' is DOA because the melta pistol is objectively superior to four las pistol shots. Shockingly wounding things on 2's and completely ignoring the armor save is a lot better than wounding on 4's and having a 5up.
I mean, in this specific and contrived scenario, the Laspistol is better. Due to firing faster than a Lasgun and even a Heavy Bolter, against specifically T3 W1 5+ models, and assuming they have the same BS, it does 60% more damage.
Now, if we're dealing with, say, a Sister Of Battle (T3 W1 3+/6++) then suddenly the Melta Pistol is better.
And if we're dealing with something really out there, like, I dunno... a Space Marine (T4 W2 3+) the Melta pistol is only about 3.75 times better.
No, it doesn't, as I already explained. A guardsmen with a melta pistol is more likely to kill a gaunt the majority of the time than the one with a multi shot las pistol. As I mentioned, wounding on 2's opposed to 4's, and completely ignoring the save, is far more efficient than multiple shots with something that has to get past a 4+ to wound and a 5+ save. There is barely any context wherein a 4 shot laspistol is superior to a 1 shot melta pistol, lasfire is quite simply, garbage at killing anything.Not a lot of toughness 2 enemies out there.
4 shots
2 wounds
4/3 failed saves
1 shot
5/6 wounds
5/6 failed saves
Look, I'm 100% against Breton's ideas here, but the math against Gaunts, at least, checks out.
If you're looking at just "Kills at least one Gaunt" then, assuming BS4+, the Laspistol with 4 shots has a just over 50% chance, while the Melta pistol has just over a 40% chance.
That doesn't answer the question of why the Laspistol has 4 shots all of a sudden.
Breton wrote: Do you want me to make fun of you with the rules for Checkers 40,000 again for this fewer rules is always better fallacy?
I don't think you're capable of that, given how untenable your position is. It'd be a bit like making fun of the kid on crutches after both your legs have been sawn off. But to your point...
Breton wrote: By the way how exactly is: Add 25 Points for This Sponson Add 35 Points for That Sponson Add 45 Points for yet A Different Sponson Fewer rules than: Take Any Sponson you want, or add +2 to MV for No Sponson?
Because those aren't rules. They are values. The actual rules for what points do are already written, and incredibly straightforward: You just add them together. Your method is adding lots of additional rules for no real gain.
vict0988 wrote: A Chimera should be different, not inferior to a Leman Russ, we should be counting wounds and get rid of points! Why should GW spend time balancing their game or trying to make the rules fit with the narrative when they could spend a decade trying to make Chimeras equal to Leman Russes with rules only!
Sarcasm without an actual arguement doesn't add much to a discussion. But let's run with it. How many models can the Leman Russ Transport? Is the Chimera better because it can Transport models? Or is it different?
What is the most off-putting part of the new Combat Patrol Rules? Every Codex Space Marine army is going to be 1 Terminator Captain, 1 Terminator Librarian, 5 Terminators, and a 5 man Infernus Squad. EVERY Deathguard Combat Patrol is going to be Typhus, a Putrefier, 7 Plaguemarines, and 30 Poxwalkers. Can you imagine a Deathguard vs Deathguard mirror match? Poor Typus is going to be exhausted. Sad Trombone for Custodes have lost what meager options they ever had. Of course, they're still in better shape than the Imperial Knights player, so silver linings and all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: That doesn't answer the question of why the Laspistol has 4 shots all of a sudden.
Breton wrote: Do you want me to make fun of you with the rules for Checkers 40,000 again for this fewer rules is always better fallacy?
I don't think you're capable of that, given how untenable your position is. It'd be a bit like making fun of the kid on crutches after both your legs have been sawn off. But to your point...
Breton wrote: By the way how exactly is:
Add 25 Points for This Sponson
Add 35 Points for That Sponson
Add 45 Points for yet A Different Sponson
Fewer rules than:
Take Any Sponson you want, or add +2 to MV for No Sponson?
Because those aren't rules. They are values. The actual rules for what points do are already written, and incredibly straightforward: You just add them together. Your method is adding lots of additional rules for no real gain.
So the 3 rules on the datasheet that allow you to pick a sponson for cost are... not rules.
But the rule on the datasheet that says take any sponson or add 2 to MV is... too many rules. Gotcha.
Simple answer "guardsman firearm" a consolidated sidearm of whatever stats you like. Or "this model is armed with a plasma pistol but choose to model freely as it has no further pistol options". Because if you want points, you end up back in that hole where its either never worth it or always worth it due to lack of granularity in their current scale.
Breton wrote: Its a canonically stronger weapon, not better.
Talk about a distinction without a difference...
OK, lets try this again - What is a better pistol vs 20 Termaguants: a melta pistol with 1 S8 -4 D6+1 shot, or a laspistol with 4 S3 -0 D1 shots?
The trick when arguing about mathematical outcomes in a wargame wherein what is effective can be easily predicted by napkin math, is to actually be good at it. Your 'point' is DOA because the melta pistol is objectively superior to four las pistol shots. Shockingly wounding things on 2's and completely ignoring the armor save is a lot better than wounding on 4's and having a 5up.
I mean, in this specific and contrived scenario, the Laspistol is better. Due to firing faster than a Lasgun and even a Heavy Bolter, against specifically T3 W1 5+ models, and assuming they have the same BS, it does 60% more damage.
Now, if we're dealing with, say, a Sister Of Battle (T3 W1 3+/6++) then suddenly the Melta Pistol is better.
And if we're dealing with something really out there, like, I dunno... a Space Marine (T4 W2 3+) the Melta pistol is only about 3.75 times better.
No, it doesn't, as I already explained. A guardsmen with a melta pistol is more likely to kill a gaunt the majority of the time than the one with a multi shot las pistol. As I mentioned, wounding on 2's opposed to 4's, and completely ignoring the save, is far more efficient than multiple shots with something that has to get past a 4+ to wound and a 5+ save. There is barely any context wherein a 4 shot laspistol is superior to a 1 shot melta pistol, lasfire is quite simply, garbage at killing anything.Not a lot of toughness 2 enemies out there.
4 shots
2 wounds
4/3 failed saves
1 shot
5/6 wounds
5/6 failed saves
Look, I'm 100% against Breton's ideas here, but the math against Gaunts, at least, checks out.
If you're looking at just "Kills at least one Gaunt" then, assuming BS4+, the Laspistol with 4 shots has a just over 50% chance, while the Melta pistol has just over a 40% chance.
And I'm not suggesting actual numbers, just the paradigm. Different preferred targets/results/etc. for different choices that end up providing a reasonably equivalent result of that choice in it's desired application. I haven't even pointed out yet the problem with reducing lethality and encouraging movement on a Leman Russ with No Sponsons is easier if you get bonus movement vs if you get unspent points to buy more guns.
Gadzilla666 wrote: I get the feeling that the proponents of the "new system" just want to hammer every square peg into a round hole, damn the consequences.
I get the feeling everyone who tries to assign a negative motive to people that disagree with them are just poisoning the well during a temper tantrum.
A.....temper tantrum?
No, no, no. I was basically done with any interest in 10th edition with the preview of the CSM rules, and al subsequent articles have only further cemented that feeling. I'm not angry about this, as I have no vested interest in it. I'm just here for the theoretical arguments about it. And those supporting the "10th edition paradigm", are absolutely hilarious, IMHO. No anger here, I assure you.
Then why did you use actual numbers? It seems pretty clear that said numbers do not work.
From a mechanics point of view? The Melta Pistol is so much better against such a wide variety of targets that the minor boost against weak targets is not worth it.
From an in-universe point of view? Why the hell is this pistol firing faster than the actual rifle? And either the sergeant is literally four times as effective as his men with his pistol, or at 12" Infantry squads put down 40 shots.
JNAProductions wrote: Then why did you use actual numbers? It seems pretty clear that said numbers do not work.
From a mechanics point of view? The Melta Pistol is so much better against such a wide variety of targets that the minor boost against weak targets is not worth it.
From an in-universe point of view? Why the hell is this pistol firing faster than the actual rifle? And either the sergeant is literally four times as effective as his men with his pistol, or at 12" Infantry squads put down 40 shots.
As an example? Plus you just pointed out the math does work. May not work enough but that's why I pointed out they were just semi-random un-playtested numbers to flesh out the the theory not as a direct drop-in replacement.
Lore wise the laspistol does have its advantages. It is easier to maintain, easier to fire, more precise, more robust and has faster projectile speed (because laser) which also in theory should mean better range and of course doesn't tend to explode.
Lore wise there should be a reason why characters like Cain go around with a laspistol instead of any other pistol weapon, but many of those reasons don't translate well to the tabletop.
JNAProductions wrote: Then why did you use actual numbers? It seems pretty clear that said numbers do not work.
From a mechanics point of view? The Melta Pistol is so much better against such a wide variety of targets that the minor boost against weak targets is not worth it.
From an in-universe point of view? Why the hell is this pistol firing faster than the actual rifle? And either the sergeant is literally four times as effective as his men with his pistol, or at 12" Infantry squads put down 40 shots.
As an example? Plus you just pointed out the math does work. May not work enough but that's why I pointed out they were just semi-random un-playtested numbers to flesh out the the theory not as a direct drop-in replacement.
...
"Somewhat better against T3 models with one wound, no FNP, and at best a 4+ armor; but vastly worse against basically everything else," is not exactly balanced against one another.
And "Every sergeant is so good with their pistol that they're twice as effective as a regular grunt with a rifle, unless the pistol is in any way special" is not the kinda thing that makes sense in the lore.
JNAProductions wrote: From an in-universe point of view? Why the hell is this pistol firing faster than the actual rifle? And either the sergeant is literally four times as effective as his men with his pistol, or at 12" Infantry squads put down 40 shots.
because 40k combat is modelled after WW1 to early WW2 combat
hence a pistol is full automatic while rifles are not and rifles with weak ammunition exist next to sidearms with strong ammunition (but officers needed to buy those on their own and are not standard issue equipment)
for the lasgun itself, lore wise it is more reliable and easier to maintain so as strategic advantages that are not present in the game at all (as there is no out of ammo rule or similar)
Tyran wrote: Lore wise the laspistol does have its advantages. It is easier to maintain, easier to fire, more precise, more robust and has faster projectile speed (because laser) which also in theory should mean better range and of course doesn't tend to explode.
Lore wise there should be a reason why characters like Cain go around with a laspistol instead of any other pistol weapon, but many of those reasons don't translate well to the tabletop.
Pretty sure that Cain, specifically, carries a laspistol instead of a Plasma pistol, because of self preservation. It is his #1 motivation, of course.
Look, I'm 100% against Breton's ideas here, but the math against Gaunts, at least, checks out. If you're looking at just "Kills at least one Gaunt" then, assuming BS4+, the Laspistol with 4 shots has a just over 50% chance, while the Melta pistol has just over a 40% chance.
Ah I think I figured out the issue, I was using the calculator rather than doing it manually and for some reason d6 damage is viewed by it as increasing dead models to 1.6, rather odd it does that.
Tyran wrote: Lore wise the laspistol does have its advantages. It is easier to maintain, easier to fire, more precise, more robust and has faster projectile speed (because laser) which also in theory should mean better range and of course doesn't tend to explode.
Lore wise there should be a reason why characters like Cain go around with a laspistol instead of any other pistol weapon, but many of those reasons don't translate well to the tabletop.
I would rather point out though that even just looking at IRL combat, the idea of using pistols in first place is ridiculous and pointless, and if one is going to carry a pistol at all, it makes far more sense for it to be a valuable tactical asset that can blow up a tank vs something that barely scratches the paint on most threatening enemies you'll come to face. Carrying bolt pistols or las pistols just outright doesn't make sense for Guard/Marines, arguably less sensible than melee weapons since you can't parry a Tyranid's claw to your face with a gun that well.
This also carries over to the wargame itself as I cannot think of a single time that any pistol proved worthwhile at all for me in any context.
I would rather point out though that even just looking at IRL combat, the idea of using pistols in first place is ridiculous and pointless, and if one is going to carry a pistol at all, it makes far more sense for it to be a valuable tactical asset that can blow up a tank vs something that barely scratches the paint on most threatening enemies you'll come to face. Carrying bolt pistols or las pistols just outright doesn't make sense for Guard/Marines, arguably less sensible than melee weapons since you can't parry a Tyranid's claw to your face with a gun that well.
40k isn't IRL combat. Melee combat is far more relevant than in IRL and thus having a melee weapon as the primary weapon with a pistol as a side arm makes sense in-universe.
I would rather point out though that even just looking at IRL combat, the idea of using pistols in first place is ridiculous and pointless, and if one is going to carry a pistol at all, it makes far more sense for it to be a valuable tactical asset that can blow up a tank vs something that barely scratches the paint on most threatening enemies you'll come to face. Carrying bolt pistols or las pistols just outright doesn't make sense for Guard/Marines, arguably less sensible than melee weapons since you can't parry a Tyranid's claw to your face with a gun that well.
40k isn't IRL combat. Melee combat is far more relevant than in IRL and thus having a melee weapon as the primary weapon with a pistol as a side arm makes sense in-universe.
Except even in the wargame the pistol barely ever matters given its short range and usually worthless damage potential. The melee weapon does far more heavy lifting while the pistol eats up points or is just a cost-free default taken. All of my Sergeants run around with combi weapons when available for a reason. Moreover even within the constraints of a setting, the pistol just doesn't make much sense to bother carrying compared to more ammo for a rifle, or packing a specialist pistol at least that will absolutely fry the enemy instead of tickling them.
Dudeface wrote: Simple answer "guardsman firearm" a consolidated sidearm of whatever stats you like. Or "this model is armed with a plasma pistol but choose to model freely as it has no further pistol options". Because if you want points, you end up back in that hole where its either never worth it or always worth it due to lack of granularity in their current scale.
The same is not true for sponsons or resurrection orbs.
vict0988 wrote: A Chimera should be different, not inferior to a Leman Russ, we should be counting wounds and get rid of points! Why should GW spend time balancing their game or trying to make the rules fit with the narrative when they could spend a decade trying to make Chimeras equal to Leman Russes with rules only!
How many models can the Leman Russ Transport? Is the Chimera better because it can Transport models? Or is it different?
A Chimera is very obviously much worse than a Leman Russ, even if it was aquatic (which the designer sadly forgot). You try spamming Leman Russes in a game and pay Chimera prices and then take a 4 Chimeras in the next game but pay 200 pts for each. What would it take to convince you? I'm sorry but I think you've married yourself to the idea, this is not trying to attack you, we all do it sometimes. For me to change my mind I would have to be pointed to a reason why having PL is more important than having a coherent narrative.
Wyzilla wrote: I would rather point out though that even just looking at IRL combat, the idea of using pistols in first place is ridiculous and pointless, and if one is going to carry a pistol at all, it makes far more sense for it to be a valuable tactical asset that can blow up a tank vs something that barely scratches the paint on most threatening enemies you'll come to face. Carrying bolt pistols or las pistols just outright doesn't make sense for Guard/Marines, arguably less sensible than melee weapons since you can't parry a Tyranid's claw to your face with a gun that well.
This also carries over to the wargame itself as I cannot think of a single time that any pistol proved worthwhile at all for me in any context.
I was 99% sure that all riflemen carried pistols previously, thanks for the info.
Within the constraints of the setting carrying a pistol makes sense because humans usually aren't strong enough to fire a rifle and use a sword at the same time. Even even when they are, the ergonomics are kinda awful.
And within those same constraints, plasma pistol while powerful are unreliable and fragile and explody; bolt pistols have a painful recoil and require quite heavy ammo and also prone to jamming; meanwhile laspistol is lightweight, precise, pretty much impossible to jam, robust and its ammo is plentiful. And while weak, that can be mitigated with good shot placement (Cain did kill a Warboss with a laspistol because even a Warboss' eyes are not laser prof).
Dudeface wrote: Simple answer "guardsman firearm" a consolidated sidearm of whatever stats you like. Or "this model is armed with a plasma pistol but choose to model freely as it has no further pistol options". Because if you want points, you end up back in that hole where its either never worth it or always worth it due to lack of granularity in their current scale.
The same is not true for sponsons or resurrection orbs.
"All necron over/lords come equipped with a resurrection orb"
Sponsons maybe need a point but as others suggested using it to make them faster without etc might be a solid option.
I like the idea that more wargear options are genuine role-dependent sidegrades, and it's okay to bake their costs into the unit itself.
However, if the "option" is either a straightforward upgrade to default wargear (e.g., Harlequin's special weapon vs. Troupe Master's blade) or is a piece of equipment you take in addition (e.g., all the shooty weapons on Wracks) then it should definitely cost some points.
The latter is not conducive to good game balance as it is right now. I really hope GW will fix that, which should be fairly easy with the way Munitorum Field Manual works.
Tyran wrote: Lore wise the laspistol does have its advantages. It is easier to maintain, easier to fire, more precise, more robust and has faster projectile speed (because laser) which also in theory should mean better range and of course doesn't tend to explode.
Lore wise there should be a reason why characters like Cain go around with a laspistol instead of any other pistol weapon, but many of those reasons don't translate well to the tabletop.
There is a reason - rarity and logistics. Just because a character is a protagonist doesn't mean that plasma pistols fall from the sky. You would need a great deal of pull or connections to get your hand on rare items like that.
This whole discussion is going around in circles.
GW haven't produced 4 shot laspistols as a 'balance' against a plasma pistol, so any theoreticals are pointless.
GW currently have distinctly different options that are not equivalent value that are treated as equal for points. That is a problem.
The game mechanics have not changed enough for weapon profiles to suddenly be equivalent after decades of them being differently costed. No great mystery has been revealed or discovered that forever changed game design between 9th and 10th ed. If anyone had tried to use these arguments in any previous edition to flatten all points costs no one would take it seriously.
This entire farce is a massive argument from authority fallacy.
Dudeface wrote: Simple answer "guardsman firearm" a consolidated sidearm of whatever stats you like. Or "this model is armed with a plasma pistol but choose to model freely as it has no further pistol options". Because if you want points, you end up back in that hole where its either never worth it or always worth it due to lack of granularity in their current scale.
The same is not true for sponsons or resurrection orbs.
"All necron over/lords come equipped with a resurrection orb"
Sponsons maybe need a point but as others suggested using it to make them faster without etc might be a solid option.
Solid option to achieve what? Who is winning? Why has nobody suggested units become faster without sponsons previously? Because they don't think the idea makes sense in this game. Now you guys are itching to make this silly idea work. If GW fudges some numbers to make roughly equivalent weapons on a unit be of roughly equal value and then they make both options cost the same, no problem. But the idea that sponsons are a net-neutral in terms of what value they bring to the battlefield makes no sense. Why would the Imperium equip any tanks with sponsons if they don't have value on the battlefield or do they have to spend labour to take them off to get the better mobility and smoother profile?
Hellebore wrote: This entire farce is a massive argument from authority fallacy.
How so? Nobody is saying GW done it so there PL is good. I think ChaosxOmega mentioned some of his favourite designers not liking to fiddle with points costs for upgrades, which was fallacious, but I don't think anybody as ever said that GW's design is beyond reproach. Like the example of making sponsonless vehicles faster is in itself a criticism that GW have not implemented that yet and therefore sponsons are an obvious upgrade.
Because it never entered the 40k zeitgeist until the authority did it and suddenly something no one was talking about is now being defended as entirely sensible and meaningful.
The basis for the argument is coming from the assumed authority GW gave it by publishing it in the first place.
If they had provided upgrade points costs, no one would be arguing it should be dropped in lieu of flattened squad costs.
So all I see are people taking that GW authority as a legitimacy for something that wasn't a thing until now.
So the 3 rules on the datasheet that allow you to pick a sponson for cost are... not rules.
But the rule on the datasheet that says take any sponson or add 2 to MV is... too many rules. Gotcha.
Those three rules to allow you to pick a sponson would still exist. You're not removing any "rules" from the datasheet for the unit. We still need a list of things we can and can't take. The only thing this system does is not charge appropriately for them and thereby mess up the balance of the game.
You may notice that all of your examples to try to squeeze everything into this free upgrades paradigm rely on making up numbers that bear no relation to the lore to try to justify equal costs. The answer to this "problem" is really simple and has been in use in 40k for decades. If you have to jump through so many hoops to get things to work in the new system it's the system that's at fault. The extreme end point of your approach would be to have every unit cost the same and just have them all be sidegrades of one another. That's obviously absurd, so I'm not sure why it's any less absurd to try the same thing with upgrades.
justifying what GW is doing as the only one possible and best solution to a problem that was not there before
no one asked to remove upgrade points because list building is too complicated
now it is the only option to keep things simple and it won't make a difference anyway
it is literally the same with all changes GW comes along that makes things worse or with discussing suggestions/house rules that are identical to stuff that is later changed by GW
best example is still AV/Facings as people suggested to remove it and gave everything Toughness since 4th Edition, yet there were strong arguments against and why it is the one thing that makes 40k the game it is
and now of someone thinks about adding those back, there is no way this is going to work or how it could improve it
It does not matter what the rules are about, as long as those are the official sanctioned ones from GW, those are the best possible ones and nothing is wrong with them
as soon as GW drops them and replaces them it was the worst possible option and is gone for good
PS: should save all those posts for the case this is just an Index thing and upgrade points come back with the Codizes
So the 3 rules on the datasheet that allow you to pick a sponson for cost are... not rules.
But the rule on the datasheet that says take any sponson or add 2 to MV is... too many rules. Gotcha.
Those three rules to allow you to pick a sponson would still exist. You're not removing any "rules" from the datasheet for the unit. We still need a list of things we can and can't take.
That was my point. Add Two Sponsons with X, Y, or Z, or add 2" to MV isn't more rules than Add Sponsons X for A, Sponsons Y for B, or Sponsons Z for C isn't more rules.
Dudeface wrote: Simple answer "guardsman firearm" a consolidated sidearm of whatever stats you like. Or "this model is armed with a plasma pistol but choose to model freely as it has no further pistol options". Because if you want points, you end up back in that hole where its either never worth it or always worth it due to lack of granularity in their current scale.
The same is not true for sponsons or resurrection orbs.
"All necron over/lords come equipped with a resurrection orb"
Sponsons maybe need a point but as others suggested using it to make them faster without etc might be a solid option.
Solid option to achieve what? Who is winning? Why has nobody suggested units become faster without sponsons previously? Because they don't think the idea makes sense in this game. Now you guys are itching to make this silly idea work. If GW fudges some numbers to make roughly equivalent weapons on a unit be of roughly equal value and then they make both options cost the same, no problem. But the idea that sponsons are a net-neutral in terms of what value they bring to the battlefield makes no sense. Why would the Imperium equip any tanks with sponsons if they don't have value on the battlefield or do they have to spend labour to take them off to get the better mobility and smoother profile?
Why not, are you suggesting that having sponsons is net better overall and always should be? If so why not remove the option to not have them? Literally the only benefit to not having them in a game sense is reduced points and all that happens then is a bit of maths to find out if more chassis main cannons > than fewer chassis with extra guns which is boring AF in reality and there's rarely any incentive to take them without the sponsons in reality.
Hellebore wrote: This entire farce is a massive argument from authority fallacy.
How so? Nobody is saying GW done it so there PL is good. I think ChaosxOmega mentioned some of his favourite designers not liking to fiddle with points costs for upgrades, which was fallacious, but I don't think anybody as ever said that GW's design is beyond reproach. Like the example of making sponsonless vehicles faster is in itself a criticism that GW have not implemented that yet and therefore sponsons are an obvious upgrade.
This, nobody in here is saying outright the system is correct and GW can't do better, the average opinion seems to be "they half assed about 3 things and made it worse than the sum of its parts". The common opinion seems to want to see either the parity of options through to conclusion or to reintroduce granular points. Both will lead to imbalanced armies and games, it's just how you get there at that point.
So the 3 rules on the datasheet that allow you to pick a sponson for cost are... not rules.
But the rule on the datasheet that says take any sponson or add 2 to MV is... too many rules. Gotcha.
Those three rules to allow you to pick a sponson would still exist. You're not removing any "rules" from the datasheet for the unit. We still need a list of things we can and can't take.
That was my point. Add Two Sponsons with X, Y, or Z, or add 2" to MV isn't more rules than Add Sponsons X for A, Sponsons Y for B, or Sponsons Z for C isn't more rules.
No, your proposal has more rules because you need to add the extra rules for a different stat if you don't choose an option, but you still need to retain the list of options on the datasheet. Equating a points cost to a rule just strikes me as a dishonest attempt to justify an untenable position.
Dudeface wrote: Why not, are you suggesting that having sponsons is net better overall and always should be? If so why not remove the option to not have them? Literally the only benefit to not having them in a game sense is reduced points and all that happens then is a bit of maths to find out if more chassis main cannons > than fewer chassis with extra guns which is boring AF in reality and there's rarely any incentive to take them without the sponsons in reality.
Really? You never made a list where you ended up with a few points left or over and looked where to cut some upgrades or where to add them?
Hellebore wrote: Because it never entered the 40k zeitgeist until the authority did it and suddenly something no one was talking about is now being defended as entirely sensible and meaningful.
The basis for the argument is coming from the assumed authority GW gave it by publishing it in the first place.
If they had provided upgrade points costs, no one would be arguing it should be dropped in lieu of flattened squad costs.
So all I see are people taking that GW authority as a legitimacy for something that wasn't a thing until now.
Nailed it. Like, hard. This is just people attempting to defend the indefensible, all because gw did it. Even up to suggestions that gw didn't do. The points system has existed for decades, no reason to abandon it.
If your Leman Russ shoots all game at effective targets sponsons ought to be good, if your Leman Russ shots once before being removed sponsons ought to be bad. Depending on your meta and the rest of your list you should evaluate whether your Leman Russ is a disposable asset or something you get to keep around.
solution is easy anyway, you have a datacard without sponsons and one datacard with them
so you get different points for the naked one and the one with sponsons
Dudeface wrote: Why not, are you suggesting that having sponsons is net better overall and always should be? If so why not remove the option to not have them? Literally the only benefit to not having them in a game sense is reduced points and all that happens then is a bit of maths to find out if more chassis main cannons > than fewer chassis with extra guns which is boring AF in reality and there's rarely any incentive to take them without the sponsons in reality.
Really? You never made a list where you ended up with a few points left or over and looked where to cut some upgrades or where to add them?
Not on a model like a tank with sponsons which are usually permanently attached for me.
kodos wrote: solution is easy anyway, you have a datacard without sponsons and one datacard with them
so you get different points for the naked one and the one with sponsons
Which we can then consolidate into one datasheet that says "can be equipped with a pair of sponson weapons for +x points" to reduce the bloat
Dudeface wrote: Not on a model like a tank with sponsons which are usually permanently attached for me.
Interesting. I never glued my sponson weapons in place, so I can switch them to be WYSIWYG conform or let them at home entirely.
No, your proposal has more rules because you need to add the extra rules for a different stat if you don't choose an option, but you still need to retain the list of options on the datasheet. Equating a points cost to a rule just strikes me as a dishonest attempt to justify an untenable position.
So only the lines on the datasheet you don't like are rules? The rest are point costs?
A line is a line is a rule is a rule. Pay 25 points for sponsons, or Pay 2 MV for Sponsons isn't so drastically different, but thanks for the laugh at trying to insinuate dishonesty over it. That was even funnier than 25 points for Sponsons is a cost, 2 Movement Rating is a rule!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: solution is easy anyway, you have a datacard without sponsons and one datacard with them
so you get different points for the naked one and the one with sponsons
That can open up Leman Russ overload going around the Rule of Three - though they can just do the same thing they did with Daemon Princes. Its probably the "better" choice tho, because they tend to not allow us to modify the statline except for +1W on models that already have a 4+ when taking a Storm Shield.
*cough* who cares about more rules or fewer rules [i]when the rules are logical, consistent and make some sort of sense?
the issue here is the lack of making sense and trying to equate as equal things which are quite evidently unequal and calling it "simplicity" when actually all its doing is making trying to approximately balance two forces so its the players skill on the table, not in the "list building phase" that determines the output more
list building is obviously a skill yes and it should matter, but not be everything
as a side note the idea that a tank moves slower the more "upgrades" you add as a balance factor is one I quite like, resource management other than just points
Breton wrote: That can open up Leman Russ overload going around the Rule of Three
you mean like they do with Space Marine Captains, because instead of all being 1 Datasheet with different upgrades we get different Datasheets with different point costs, or with Landspeeders etc
but I guess we need more rules to prevent those things, something like a definition shared by all of them that takes the limit, best be a single word, maybe call it keyword and add max 3 of the same LRBT keyword?
but I fear this would be simplistic and not simple and therefore not suited for 40k
Automatically Appended Next Post:
leopard wrote: the issue here is the lack of making sense and trying to equate as equal things which are quite evidently unequal and calling it "simplicity" when actually all its doing is making trying to approximately balance two forces so its the players skill on the table, not in the "list building phase" that determines the output more
not like GW is failing on that one for several editions now
player skill only matters of both chose the right faction and the right list, if one happens to not wanting to play the right faction for whatever reason it is their choice in losing the game before it started
and fanboys will call this "narrative" or "casual" and say that playing the game is not about having a chance to win but to have fun
No, your proposal has more rules because you need to add the extra rules for a different stat if you don't choose an option, but you still need to retain the list of options on the datasheet. Equating a points cost to a rule just strikes me as a dishonest attempt to justify an untenable position.
So only the lines on the datasheet you don't like are rules? The rest are point costs?
A line is a line is a rule is a rule. Pay 25 points for sponsons, or Pay 2 MV for Sponsons isn't so drastically different, but thanks for the laugh at trying to insinuate dishonesty over it. That was even funnier than 25 points for Sponsons is a cost, 2 Movement Rating is a rule!
I don't view paying points for upgrades as a rule in the same sense as some bespoke change to a unit based on what upgrades you take, no. One is a universally applied concept that's core to army building. The other is an attempt to excuse the problems that arise when you mess up that points system by making everything free. You're adding extra stuff to the datasheet to try to "fix" a problem that's been solved literally since the 1st edition of 40k.
Honestly if you're going so far as to make every weapon or upgrade sidegrades even when that doesn't make sense (like when there's nothing it's replacing in the first place), the next logical conclusion is to go the extra mile and make ever unit a sidegrade to each other and just deleted points wholesale! That's get rid of all those "extra rules" and even delete a whole document!
I mean, if a laspistol should have 4 shots to make it equal to a plasma pistol, it's only logical that you can do the same to make a guardsman equal to a space marine and it wouldn't break immersion or the game rules or anything like that.
No, your proposal has more rules because you need to add the extra rules for a different stat if you don't choose an option, but you still need to retain the list of options on the datasheet. Equating a points cost to a rule just strikes me as a dishonest attempt to justify an untenable position.
So only the lines on the datasheet you don't like are rules? The rest are point costs?
A line is a line is a rule is a rule. Pay 25 points for sponsons, or Pay 2 MV for Sponsons isn't so drastically different, but thanks for the laugh at trying to insinuate dishonesty over it. That was even funnier than 25 points for Sponsons is a cost, 2 Movement Rating is a rule!
I don't view paying points for upgrades as a rule in the same sense as some bespoke change to a unit based on what upgrades you take, no. One is a universally applied concept that's core to army building. The other is an attempt to excuse the problems that arise when you mess up that points system by making everything free. You're adding extra stuff to the datasheet to try to "fix" a problem that's been solved literally since the 1st edition of 40k.
If its been solved since 1st edition, it can't be broke now.
I do admit I'm loving the "My way isn't a rule" line in the sand y'all are drawing. This line telling me what I can do and how to do it is not a rule because points. But adding an ELSE statement to the IF/THEN part totally makes it a rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Honestly if you're going so far as to make every weapon or upgrade sidegrades even when that doesn't make sense (like when there's nothing it's replacing in the first place), the next logical conclusion is to go the extra mile and make ever unit a sidegrade to each other and just deleted points wholesale! That's get rid of all those "extra rules" and even delete a whole document!
I mean, if a laspistol should have 4 shots to make it equal to a plasma pistol, it's only logical that you can do the same to make a guardsman equal to a space marine and it wouldn't break immersion or the game rules or anything like that.
...Do you see how ridiculous this all sounds now?
Have you seen the points costs for 5/10 Marine units in Power Armor?
Also, if you're going to go Reductio Ad Absurdum, don't go halfway, or someone else will go all the way: Why bother balancing 2,000 points vs 2,000 points? As long as we're getting rid of points, lets go whole hog. Everybody gets a quarter. First one to flip heads 10 times wins.
They already shaved the points off for you! ( slight sarcasm )
