Breton wrote: Have you seen the points costs for 5/10 Marine units in Power Armor?
I thought points are bad or something?
Points per unit = ok, points for every doodad they have on them needing to be differentiated = bad I think is the oversimplification.
The reasoning for that difference completely eludes me. Probably because my glory days with the hobby were with the Imperial Guard where the "doodads" were more important than the units .
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?
been there, done that
was called Age of Sigmar 1st Edition, was a nice idea but did not work well as GW only provided rules to play for 2 factions with the core box models and said "figure out yourself" to everyone else
and yes, if every unit should be equal you give them advantages/disadvantages to handle that, it is not like it does not work it is just the same amount of work as giving points to upgrades
there is no easy solution to this and no matter what system is chosen, be it points for upgrades, be it equal units without points, or be it that unit upgrades are split into different datasheets, the results are the same if done well
the problem is always the same, GW does not want to spend the time and the money to do it well because people are buying and defending it no matter what (so there is no reason to invest anything into it specially as it is only valid for 3 years anyway)
we see how the current system can work with Landspeeders. If it is an upgrade it gets a new Datasheet with different points, if it is a sidegrade it is an option on that Datasheet.
but there are 2 problems, first it is a lot of work to split all the units up, and the more important one, we would get much more units for Xenos and most factions would be on a Marine level of unit numbers
Breton wrote: Have you seen the points costs for 5/10 Marine units in Power Armor?
I thought points are bad or something?
Points are good - but mostly I was pointing out that they maybe shouldn't have tried to suggest making all the units cost the same as an equivalent swap-out while almost all the 5/10 Marine units are 90/180 points as that's probably a little too true right now to be a joke.
How much extra movement will my Hammerhead get for not taking Seeker Missiles?
And does it gain that extra movement after I fire said seeker missiles in the game? After all, it is no longer slowed down by the weight of the missiles any more.
A Town Called Malus wrote: How much extra movement will my Hammerhead get for not taking Seeker Missiles?
And does it gain that extra movement after I fire said seeker missiles in the game? After all, it is no longer slowed down by the weight of the missiles any more.
Have them for free, base equipment. You're welcome.
A Town Called Malus wrote: How much extra movement will my Hammerhead get for not taking Seeker Missiles?
And does it gain that extra movement after I fire said seeker missiles in the game? After all, it is no longer slowed down by the weight of the missiles any more.
Have them for free, base equipment. You're welcome.
Okay, so does that also apply to my Devilfish, Skyrays, Piranhas and Broadsides? Doesn't altering the base equipment of those units require the same amount of changes as just adding a points cost to the wargear?
What about if I swap the twin pulse carbines on my Devilfish, Skyrays, Hammerheads for Burst Cannons or SMS? Do I get any bonus for not swapping to the superior weapons?
I like pointing units in blocks of models, I think this is a good change.
However, unit wargear (not necessarily weapon options), but optional unit wargear that grant an ability or whole unit enhancement should have a points cost associated with it.
I think it's important to keep in mind, despite anything GW may have already said, this can change. Us vets who have lived through a few editions know full well that GW can and will (because they have so many times before) shift design direction during an edition.
Breton wrote: 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.
That just shows how you don't understand why you're wrong. Points are not rules.
A Town Called Malus wrote: How much extra movement will my Hammerhead get for not taking Seeker Missiles?
And does it gain that extra movement after I fire said seeker missiles in the game? After all, it is no longer slowed down by the weight of the missiles any more.
Have them for free, base equipment. You're welcome.
Okay, so does that also apply to my Devilfish, Skyrays, Piranhas and Broadsides? Doesn't altering the base equipment of those units require the same amount of changes as just adding a points cost to the wargear?
What about if I swap the twin pulse carbines on my Devilfish, Skyrays, Hammerheads for Burst Cannons or SMS? Do I get any bonus for not swapping to the superior weapons?
Of course it can apply to all of them it's A. no different from how it is today, B. removed the need for WYSIWYG modelling of said missiles and C. comes backed into the cost then.
With regards the other options, yes. I'm not sure if the drones still detach? That was the added value previously to the pulse rifles. Otherwise the weapons shouldn't be obviously superior to one another potentially. They can cost points and still have an obviously superior option regardless.
Breton wrote: 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.
That just shows how you don't understand why you're wrong. Points are not rules.
Honestly I don't get how this is even a discussion. No points for options can work *if you (re)design the game around it*. Points for options can work *if you (re)design the game around it*. Gw did neither, that's on them. There's no point in arguing with eachother over it.
This is one of those threads where I start to think that Breton is a troll but he keeps going and makes it clear that he's serious and he breaks my brain by the end of it. It's like post-modernist philosophy.
But unlike post-modern philosophy, it's so fascinating, I just can't look away...
Gene St. Ealer wrote: This is one of those threads where I start to think that Breton is a troll but he keeps going and makes it clear that he's serious and he breaks my brain by the end of it. It's like post-modernist philosophy.
But unlike post-modern philosophy, it's so fascinating, I just can't look away...
Yeah if you think the guy saying a bullet point allowing you to buy sponsons is not a rule, but another bullet point saying free sponsons or add movement is a rule isn't the troll, I can't help you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague wrote: I think it's even more hilarious Breton thinks 2" of movement is "equal" in cost to 2 Heavy Bolters or 2 Lascannons LMAO
Could be movement - that was someone else's idea - Personally I'd go with an invuln or a FNP and frequently said faster/tougher/something - the power that would have gone to the sponson weapons now powers an impulsor shield dome nicked from Cawl or something. Honesty must not be your thing.
The point is a SOMETHING for no sponsons should have been a thing. GW should have caught it. They didn't. They should fix it now and quickly.
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.
Adding rules to make up for differences in ability isn't the same as having different points costs. Points aren't rules.
The one line rule on the data sheet that lets you take two sponsons for 25 points is points!
The one line rule that lets you add 2" to MV for not taking a sponson is rules!
1-2 Canoptek Spyders equipped with: automaton claws 70 pts/model. Any number of models can each be equipped with 2 particle beamers. Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 fabricator claw array. Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 gloom prism.
1-2 Canoptek Spyders equipped with: automaton claws 70 pts/model. Any number of models can each be equipped with 2 particle beamers. Add 2" to the Movement characteristic of models without this. Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 fabricator claw array. Add 1 to the Toughness characteristic of models without this. Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 gloom prism. Add 1 to the Attacks characteristic of models without this.
1-2 Canoptek Spyders equipped with: automaton claws 60 pts/model. Any number of models can each be equipped with 2 particle beamers 5 pts/model. Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 fabricator claw array 5 pts/model. Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 gloom prism 5 pts/model.
The second puts strain on both players during the game, the first and third do not factor into the game after the list is made. The first punishes people for not taking all the upgrades. The third is the best option and I would say has the same number of rules as number 1 while number 2 has 3 extra rules.
leopard wrote: *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
I care because the game becomes unwieldy when it has too many rules. How am I supposed to remember all the different benefits of not having sponsons? Obviously making sense isn't exactly the biggest concern of the proponents of PL either. Keeping PL around is the biggest concern.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: This is one of those threads where I start to think that Breton is a troll but he keeps going and makes it clear that he's serious and he breaks my brain by the end of it. It's like post-modernist philosophy.
But unlike post-modern philosophy, it's so fascinating, I just can't look away...
Yeah if you think the guy saying a bullet point allowing you to buy sponsons is not a rule, but another bullet point saying free sponsons or add movement is a rule isn't the troll, I can't help you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague wrote: I think it's even more hilarious Breton thinks 2" of movement is "equal" in cost to 2 Heavy Bolters or 2 Lascannons LMAO
Could be movement - that was someone else's idea - Personally I'd go with an invuln or a FNP and frequently said faster/tougher/something - the power that would have gone to the sponson weapons now powers an impulsor shield dome nicked from Cawl or something. Honesty must not be your thing.
Maybe "not a rule" isn't the correct term.
Turning every wargear option into an "either get the upgrade, or get some other rules that benefit you" adds massive amounts of complexity to the game in terms of balancing, especially when you have multiple upgrade combinations on a unit.
Simply saying "you get this thing, OR you get X free points" is simpler, and (by comparison) much easier to balance. You don't have to rewrite and rebalance an entire (active or passive) ability, you just adjust a single number.
Breton wrote:The point is a SOMETHING for no sponsons should have been a thing. GW should have caught it. They didn't. They should fix it now and quickly.
1-2 Canoptek Spyders equipped with: automaton claws 70 pts/model. Any number of models can each be equipped with 2 particle beamers. Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 fabricator claw array. Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 gloom prism.
1-2 Canoptek Spyders equipped with: automaton claws 70 pts/model. Any number of models can each be equipped with 2 particle beamers. Add 2" to the Movement characteristic of models without this. Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 fabricator claw array. Add 1 to the Toughness characteristic of models without this. Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 gloom prism. Add 1 to the Attacks characteristic of models without this.
1-2 Canoptek Spyders equipped with: automaton claws 60 pts/model. Any number of models can each be equipped with 2 particle beamers 5 pts/model. Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 fabricator claw array 5 pts/model. Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 gloom prism 5 pts/model.
The second puts strain on both players during the game, the first and third do not factor into the game after the list is made. The first punishes people for not taking all the upgrades. The third is the best option and I would say has the same number of rules as number 1 while number 2 has 3 extra rules.
You missed a fourth option:
"1-2 Canoptek Spiders each equipped with automaton claws, 2 particle beamers, 1 fabricator claw array and 1 gloom prism. 70pts/model"
If the gear doesn't have points and there's no downside to taking it, just assume each physical model representing the unit has it, whether or not the upgrade is there on a particular individual model.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: This is one of those threads where I start to think that Breton is a troll but he keeps going and makes it clear that he's serious and he breaks my brain by the end of it. It's like post-modernist philosophy.
But unlike post-modern philosophy, it's so fascinating, I just can't look away...
Yeah if you think the guy saying a bullet point allowing you to buy sponsons is not a rule, but another bullet point saying free sponsons or add movement is a rule isn't the troll, I can't help you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague wrote: I think it's even more hilarious Breton thinks 2" of movement is "equal" in cost to 2 Heavy Bolters or 2 Lascannons LMAO
Could be movement - that was someone else's idea - Personally I'd go with an invuln or a FNP and frequently said faster/tougher/something - the power that would have gone to the sponson weapons now powers an impulsor shield dome nicked from Cawl or something. Honesty must not be your thing.
The point is a SOMETHING for no sponsons should have been a thing. GW should have caught it. They didn't. They should fix it now and quickly.
Okay, but WHY should the Russ get those benefits? They're already 2+, and have a high T value. You realize how much more of a benefit would need to be added to that in order to weigh close to two extra guns?
1-2 Canoptek Spyders equipped with: automaton claws 70 pts/model.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 2 particle beamers.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 fabricator claw array.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 gloom prism.
1-2 Canoptek Spyders equipped with: automaton claws 70 pts/model.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 2 particle beamers. Add 2" to the Movement characteristic of models without this.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 fabricator claw array. Add 1 to the Toughness characteristic of models without this.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 gloom prism. Add 1 to the Attacks characteristic of models without this.
1-2 Canoptek Spyders equipped with: automaton claws 60 pts/model.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 2 particle beamers 5 pts/model.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 fabricator claw array 5 pts/model.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 gloom prism 5 pts/model.
The second puts strain on both players during the game, the first and third do not factor into the game after the list is made. The first punishes people for not taking all the upgrades. The third is the best option and I would say has the same number of rules as number 1 while number 2 has 3 extra rules.
You missed a fourth option:
"1-2 Canoptek Spiders each equipped with automaton claws, 2 particle beamers, 1 fabricator claw array and 1 gloom prism. 70pts/model"
If the gear doesn't have points and there's no downside to taking it, just assume each physical model representing the unit has it, whether or not the upgrade is there on a particular individual model.
Good point, I forgot that option was mentioned previously in the thread. Tomb Blades have to choose between ignores cover and a 5++ in terms of wargear upgrades, which one do they have if the models don't have either? Isn't it a failure if in the fluff not all Canoptek Spyders have particle beamers, but in the crunch they all do?
Putting points on a piece of equipment requires heuristically assessing its value.
Adding a new ability as a sidegrade to the equipment requires designing a novel ability or characteristic change, heuristically assessing its value against that of the equipment, and tweaking the new ability until it presents comparable value.
They're both valid approaches, but the first requires a lot less design overhead, avoids situations where turning straight upgrades into sidegrades has undesirable implications (see: the four-shot laspistol), and most importantly is going to be a lot easier to implement after the fact.
vipoid wrote: And those four flamers together kill . . . a whole Marine.
Flamers OP. GW please nerf.
Well, yea, but that's why you generally don't point heavy bolters at tanks. Measuring against only MEQ doesn't give you the whole story. If every gun was equally efficient against all targets it'd be sort of pointless.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: 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 not that clear to me. One is very good into heavy infantry and the other is very good into vehicles. You're not going to think the turbo laser is an "upgrade" squaring off against an all termie force are you?
This isn't an edition where taking a bunch of S8 weapons solves all your problems.
Breton wrote: 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.
That just shows how you don't understand why you're wrong. Points are not rules.
One thing we need to get straight here is the following are all rules:
A unit statistic
A unit or wargear ability
The unit composition
A unit option
The units points value
They are all things published by GW that are used to play the game, aka rules.
Unit1126PLL wrote: 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.
This assumes armies are not functional without bigger models. Missions matter.
The Heavy Cannon is 15% efficient into terminators ( 410 ) -- turbo laser is 5%. The turbo laser is 16% efficient into a ( also 410 ) Knight -- the heavy cannon is 6%. Weird, right? ( not sarcastically )
You are wrong on that.
1st, & most importantly, is that the rules say X thing costs Y pts.
It's a rule that my SM atv costs 80/model. If I just decide to spend 75 pts on it? Then I'm cheating.
2nd, pts often lead to having more rules written about them. Ex: how many pts worth of stuff could be placed in reserve, what % can be spent on various types/amounts of units/allies, how many terrain features, victoy conditions, hell even the recommend size of your table. All those & more are rules related to pts that frequently show up in GWs games.
Rules for list construction =/= rules for playing the game. I don't need to know your points costs, I need to know your stats and abilities. If GW adds more stats and abilities to the game then the game becomes more complicated for me, if sponsons cost points nothing changes for me. The only time I would have to care about points is when I am building my list.
alextroy wrote: [They are all things published by GW that are used to play the game, aka rules.
no, some of those are used to build a list and not used to play the game
if you use points to play you are doing something very different while playing the game than most of us
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.
We have yet to classify the units and how weapons interact in each class. The number of different profiles and "what weapon goes where" is much more broad.
You obviously don't build your list with a weapon for each profile in mind. You'll have high AP weapons to take on models with no invuln. Then you have high volume to tackle more plentiful units. From there it's special rules, but DW throws a wrench in the whole thing.
After a few games in the past week I have to say I'm quite happy with the change. Units are just more interesting not having to strip out all their interesting gear to fit more stuff. It's a little complicated, particularly given the apps lack of a good play mode, but I found the armies themselves to be drastically more interesting than I'm used to.
Daedalus81 wrote: The Heavy Cannon is 15% efficient into terminators ( 410 ) -- turbo laser is 5%. The turbo laser is 16% efficient into a ( also 410 ) Knight -- the heavy cannon is 6%. Weird, right? ( not sarcastically )
It kinda is, actually, because the Terminators are the best target for the cannon (T5 vs S10, 2+/4++ save vs -2 AP, W3 vs D3) while the turbo-laser does not exactly like targeting that Knight (especially the 5++ cutting its effectiveness by a third). And you need THAT, a perfect target vs sub-optimal target scenario for the cannon to break even. If anything, this is the perfect example of why the turbo-laser should cost something.
alextroy wrote: [They are all things published by GW that are used to play the game, aka rules.
no, some of those are used to build a list and not used to play the game
if you use points to play you are doing something very different while playing the game than most of us
I hate to be the smug "both sides" guy but this disagreement may be the most touch grass thing I've seen...well today but thats still a lot!
alextroy wrote: [They are all things published by GW that are used to play the game, aka rules.
no, some of those are used to build a list and not used to play the game
if you use points to play you are doing something very different while playing the game than most of us
You have to use the rules for list construction to write the list to play the game. So points are rules.
Now if you want to say, I’d rather have more variable points than unit Abilities, say what you mean. Don’t say “points are not rules”.
Wyzilla wrote: 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 once had a Wraith one-shot Celestine on overwatch with a Particle Caster.
Breton wrote:The point is a SOMETHING for no sponsons should have been a thing. GW should have caught it. They didn't. They should fix it now and quickly.
We keep coming back to this. Anyone with half a brain can see what the obvious solution is, and it begins with ‘p’
alextroy wrote: [They are all things published by GW that are used to play the game, aka rules.
no, some of those are used to build a list and not used to play the game
if you use points to play you are doing something very different while playing the game than most of us
You have to use the rules for list construction to write the list to play the game. So points are rules.
Now if you want to say, I’d rather have more variable points than unit Abilities, say what you mean. Don’t say “points are not rules”.
well points are not part of the rules, but come in a dedicated points document, so I don't need the rules for the points
than list building comes before playing the game, so you don't need the points to play as the parts were you need them comes before you start playing the game
and you don't even need points at all to play as narrative and combat patrol don't need points at all
the point that matched play points are part of the rules and if we add more points or remove points we add and remove points, is pointless as this is just 1 rule anyway
you either have points and need to clarify how they work with a rule, or you don't have them and that rule
as soon as there are points, just by having some parts of the game having them but not all does not change the amount of rules
same as USR is only needed once, no matter how many units use them, saying you reduce the amount of rules by having only 1 unit using each USR is just not true
Hypothetically I'm making a unit for a game, I give it two options, but find that both options are not equal in practice. I have lots of options to solve this. I can increase the value of the weaker option. I can lower the power of the other option, I can add a tradeoff to the better option. Or, I can add a cost to the better option. I could even split the option into two distinct units and value them independently.
Hypothetically, If I did none of these....I would be 10th Edition 40K
Edit: We could get into a heated discussion about which of these is the best or easiest to implement, but the point is none seam to have been consistently applied.
Daedalus81 wrote: The Heavy Cannon is 15% efficient into terminators ( 410 ) -- turbo laser is 5%. The turbo laser is 16% efficient into a ( also 410 ) Knight -- the heavy cannon is 6%. Weird, right? ( not sarcastically )
It kinda is, actually, because the Terminators are the best target for the cannon (T5 vs S10, 2+/4++ save vs -2 AP, W3 vs D3) while the turbo-laser does not exactly like targeting that Knight (especially the 5++ cutting its effectiveness by a third). And you need THAT, a perfect target vs sub-optimal target scenario for the cannon to break even. If anything, this is the perfect example of why the turbo-laser should cost something.
Sure, there's a whole range of targets and that AP4 works much better when it's unimpeded. Guns that are AP2 or 3 will rarely ever be wasted. AP4 into 3+/5++ loses a lot of it's luster, which is why it looks to be strong into Sentinels. There's also dealing with wound counts - a Wave Serpent totally dodges two Prism wounds. Even the turbo laser will need two wounds through ( and the cannon needs 5 ). Generally, it seems like anything D3 and down is an anti-infantry weapon that can flex up if it's stats are ok.
I'm making a tool to calculate weapons into an array of targets to try and pick out the bad and the good as well as getting a sense for the real net effect of USRs.
alextroy wrote: [They are all things published by GW that are used to play the game, aka rules.
no, some of those are used to build a list and not used to play the game
if you use points to play you are doing something very different while playing the game than most of us
You have to use the rules for list construction to write the list to play the game. So points are rules.
Now if you want to say, I’d rather have more variable points than unit Abilities, say what you mean. Don’t say “points are not rules”.
well points are not part of the rules, but come in a dedicated points document, so I don't need the rules for the points
than list building comes before playing the game, so you don't need the points to play as the parts were you need them comes before you start playing the game
and you don't even need points at all to play as narrative and combat patrol don't need points at all
the point that matched play points are part of the rules and if we add more points or remove points we add and remove points, is pointless as this is just 1 rule anyway
you either have points and need to clarify how they work with a rule, or you don't have them and that rule
as soon as there are points, just by having some parts of the game having them but not all does not change the amount of rules
same as USR is only needed once, no matter how many units use them, saying you reduce the amount of rules by having only 1 unit using each USR is just not true
So those rules in the Core Rules that talk about how to setup a battle and talk about points multiple times are not rules? Or the part of Strategic Reserves that talk about points are not rules?
I like how it simplifies army list point calculations; but I'd appreciate a little more flavor then all units being maxed out on wargear... Let me spam a couple sword and board Wraithlord and save pts w/ no flamers or bright lances please!
Breton wrote:The point is a SOMETHING for no sponsons should have been a thing. GW should have caught it. They didn't. They should fix it now and quickly.
We keep coming back to this. Anyone with half a brain can see what the obvious solution is, and it begins with ‘p’
Proportionate rules compensation to the value of upgrade lost :3
CaulynDarr wrote: We could get into a heated discussion about which of these is the best or easiest to implement, but the point is none seam to have been consistently applied.
No, the point is power level fans should have kept their mouths shut about liking their terrible system and people should have rioted when SM and Guard got free wargear upgrades in 9th and everyone should have joined me and others in deriding PL as a silly and terrible pts system. I knew 10ths balance was going to be a mess, I'm only mad that I can't do my Charge/Fight phase shenanigans, I want a turn-based strategy game, not Autochess.
No, the point is power level fans should have kept their mouths shut about liking their terrible system and people should have rioted when SM and Guard got free wargear upgrades in 9th and everyone should have joined me and others in deriding PL as a silly and terrible pts system. I knew 10ths balance was going to be a mess, I'm only mad that I can't do my Charge/Fight phase shenanigans, I want a turn-based strategy game, not Autochess.
alextroy wrote: [They are all things published by GW that are used to play the game, aka rules.
no, some of those are used to build a list and not used to play the game
if you use points to play you are doing something very different while playing the game than most of us
I hate to be the smug "both sides" guy but this disagreement may be the most touch grass thing I've seen...well today but thats still a lot!
Breton wrote:The point is a SOMETHING for no sponsons should have been a thing. GW should have caught it. They didn't. They should fix it now and quickly.
We keep coming back to this. Anyone with half a brain can see what the obvious solution is, and it begins with ‘p’
Proportionate rules compensation to the value of upgrade lost :3
CaulynDarr wrote: We could get into a heated discussion about which of these is the best or easiest to implement, but the point is none seam to have been consistently applied.
No, the point is power level fans should have kept their mouths shut about liking their terrible system and people should have rioted when SM and Guard got free wargear upgrades in 9th and everyone should have joined me and others in deriding PL as a silly and terrible pts system. I knew 10ths balance was going to be a mess, I'm only mad that I can't do my Charge/Fight phase shenanigans, I want a turn-based strategy game, not Autochess.
It's going to be a tedious 3 years reading your angry rants.
Breton wrote:The point is a SOMETHING for no sponsons should have been a thing. GW should have caught it. They didn't. They should fix it now and quickly.
We keep coming back to this. Anyone with half a brain can see what the obvious solution is, and it begins with ‘p’
Proportionate rules compensation to the value of upgrade lost :3
CaulynDarr wrote: We could get into a heated discussion about which of these is the best or easiest to implement, but the point is none seam to have been consistently applied.
No, the point is power level fans should have kept their mouths shut about liking their terrible system and people should have rioted when SM and Guard got free wargear upgrades in 9th and everyone should have joined me and others in deriding PL as a silly and terrible pts system. I knew 10ths balance was going to be a mess, I'm only mad that I can't do my Charge/Fight phase shenanigans, I want a turn-based strategy game, not Autochess.
It's going to be a tedious 3 years reading your angry rants.
What leads you to the belief that it's going to get better after 3 years? That sort of overly self-confident bitterness can go on for decades easily, have you seen a proper family feud or conflict among neighbors, preferably over absolute trivialities?
alextroy wrote: So I am free to change the WS, Attacks, and Points values of my units since those are not rules?
In a game of monopoly, the rule is that you move a number of spaces equal to the sum of the values rolled on 2 six sided dice.
The results of the dice themselves are not rules as they are not instructions on how to play the game, they are a mechanism used to play the game.
"To make a melee attack, you must roll above or equal to your Weapon Skill value, after accounting for any and all modifiers, on a six sided die" is a rule. The text describing how to identify a units weapon skill is a rule.
3+ is not a rule. 3+ does not tell you how to play a game. 8 is not a rule, nor is 7.
Those are values, which are set by the game designer, that the rules of the game tell you how to use.
If numbers themselves are rules, then tell me, how do I 5?
I disagree. The statistics of a unit are the rules for using that unit in the game. The units BS 3+ is no less a rule than it’s Abilities. If they were not rules, you could play the game without them.
alextroy wrote: I disagree. The statistics of a unit are the rules for using that unit in the game. The units BS 3+ is no less a rule than it’s Abilities. If they were not rules, you could play the game without them.
Then answer, how do I 5? A rule instructs you how to play a game. How does 5 do that?
Bear in mind you can write the entire instructions on how to play the game without ever referring to any specific number. You point to the game mechanic or variable, instead. "Compare the Strength characteristic to the Toughness characteristic. If the Strength is the same as the Toughness then X etc." You can understand how to play 40K without ever needing to see an actual number assigned to a units characteristic anywhere in the written rules. That's a bit of a hint that the numbers themselves are not the rules, but just a variable that is used by the player, as instructed to do so by the rules.
No, the point is power level fans should have kept their mouths shut about liking their terrible system and people should have rioted when SM and Guard got free wargear upgrades in 9th and everyone should have joined me and others in deriding PL as a silly and terrible pts system. I knew 10ths balance was going to be a mess, I'm only mad that I can't do my Charge/Fight phase shenanigans, I want a turn-based strategy game, not Autochess.
And douche of the day award goes tooo.....
Nobody, because vict was nowhere near incorrect, and we should've made Cruddace feel worse about his dumb ideas.
alextroy wrote: I disagree. The statistics of a unit are the rules for using that unit in the game. The units BS 3+ is no less a rule than it’s Abilities. If they were not rules, you could play the game without them.
Then answer, how do I 5? A rule instructs you how to play a game. How does 5 do that?
Bear in mind you can write the entire instructions on how to play the game without ever referring to any specific number. You point to the game mechanic or variable, instead. "Compare the Strength characteristic to the Toughness characteristic. If the Strength is the same as the Toughness then X etc." You can understand how to play 40K without ever needing to see an actual number assigned to a units characteristic anywhere in the written rules. That's a bit of a hint that the numbers themselves are not the rules, but just a variable that is used by the player, as instructed to do so by the rules.
Nah man, numbers are rules.
17 may be a prime number and a two-digit number in the tens, but it is also a wargame rule.
Breton wrote:The point is a SOMETHING for no sponsons should have been a thing. GW should have caught it. They didn't. They should fix it now and quickly.
We keep coming back to this. Anyone with half a brain can see what the obvious solution is, and it begins with ‘p’
Proportionate rules compensation to the value of upgrade lost :3
CaulynDarr wrote: We could get into a heated discussion about which of these is the best or easiest to implement, but the point is none seam to have been consistently applied.
No, the point is power level fans should have kept their mouths shut about liking their terrible system and people should have rioted when SM and Guard got free wargear upgrades in 9th and everyone should have joined me and others in deriding PL as a silly and terrible pts system. I knew 10ths balance was going to be a mess, I'm only mad that I can't do my Charge/Fight phase shenanigans, I want a turn-based strategy game, not Autochess.
It's going to be a tedious 3 years reading your angry rants.
Maybe you'd see less rants if less people kept supporting awful rules and ideas. We literally just had someone suggest Laspistols go to 4 shots to make the Plasma Pistol a side grade in order to fit this paradigm, and you see NOTHING wrong with that?
alextroy wrote: I disagree. The statistics of a unit are the rules for using that unit in the game. The units BS 3+ is no less a rule than it’s Abilities. If they were not rules, you could play the game without them.
Then answer, how do I 5? A rule instructs you how to play a game. How does 5 do that?
How do you know when to fight if you don't known any of the units I score?
Bear in mind you can write the entire instructions on how to play the game without ever referring to any specific number. You point to the game mechanic or variable, instead. "Compare the Strength characteristic to the Toughness characteristic. If the Strength is the same as the Toughness then X etc." You can understand how to play 40K without ever needing to see an actual number assigned to a units characteristic anywhere in the written rules. That's a bit of a hint that the numbers themselves are not the rules, but just a variable that is used by the player, as instructed to do so by the rules.
Unit datasheets and the statistics on them are rules just as much as the Core Rules. Without the unit statistics, all you can do is randomly move models around the board, make pew pew sounds, and argue about whether the unit you fired at is dead or not.
Also nice if you to see note the Core Rules are actually the instructions, which are combined with the unit datasheets to get the full Rules.
I can play this game too: Strength is a rule. I see it in the Core Rules. How do you resolve Strength?
The answer, obviously, is you don't because Strength is a Characteristic, which may very well be 5.
When making an attack you roll a d6 and compare the result of the roll to the Strength Characteristic of the Weapon from the datasheet of the model making the attack to the Toughness Characteristic of the datasheet of the unit it is attacking.
All those italics above are rules (or shorthand for a process). If you don't have any of those, you can't play the game.
Exactly. A number is not a rule as it tells you nothing with regards to how to play.
Strength is the name of a defined variable in the ruleset. The ruleset tells you when to use that variable and how to use it.
The actual value of that variable tells you none of that. Therefore the value of the variable is not a rule. It is just that, a value.
Exactly. A number is not a rule as it tells you nothing with regards to how to play.
Strength is the name of a defined variable in the ruleset. The ruleset tells you when to use that variable and how to use it.
The actual value of that variable tells you none of that. Therefore the value of the variable is not a rule. It is just that, a value.
And your point is?
My point is you cannot play the game without the Datasheets and the Statistics and Abilities they tell you that models and units have. The may not be instructions, but they are still rules.
Remember, all of this came about because of Breton's attempt to say that adding additional special rules was no more or less "adding rules" than adding more granular points.
It's a flawed argument from the start because numerical values aren't rules, as Malus just conclusively and comprehensively demonstrated. They are values that work without an existing rules system or framework.
Exactly. A number is not a rule as it tells you nothing with regards to how to play.
Strength is the name of a defined variable in the ruleset. The ruleset tells you when to use that variable and how to use it.
The actual value of that variable tells you none of that. Therefore the value of the variable is not a rule. It is just that, a value.
And your point is?
My point is you cannot play the game without the Datasheets and the Statistics and Abilities they tell you that models and units have. The may not be instructions, but they are still rules.
You also can't play the game without models, are models rules? You cannot play the game without dice or a dice equivalent, are dice rules? You cannot play without a means of measuring physical distance, are rulers rules?
Not everything required to play a game is rules. You need a ball to play football, is a ball a rule? You cannot play 40k without players, are players rules?
No, the point is power level fans should have kept their mouths shut about liking their terrible system .
Balance-at-all-cost tourney types also should have kept THEIR mouths shut about wanting only a single system when having two systems wasn't affecting them at all. But they assumed that their system would be the one GW picked if they ever decided to pay attention to all the whining about "Mental Load" and the development time devoted to maintaining two system.
NO ONE who liked PL EVER advocated that only PL should exist- we were always more than happy to have two systems, and if someone who liked PL ever did say points shouldn't exist, I certainly didn't see it.
And to be fair, many tourney "points-or-death" balance-at-all-cost types were okay with two systems. But there were a whole lot of other points people who absolutely insisted that the game should only have one system.
I betcha they'd take it all back and live and let live now if they could. The object lesson here is that the next time GW tries to give us an "everyone wins" solution to a problem, we should take it, instead of insisting that "our way" should be the only way.
PenitentJake wrote: NO ONE who liked PL EVER advocated that only PL should exist- we were always more than happy to have two systems, and if someone who liked PL ever did say points shouldn't exist, I certainly didn't see it.
Kan did.
And I can't say I've ever heard "balance-at-all-costs" before.
PenitentJake wrote: NO ONE who liked PL EVER advocated that only PL should exist- we were always more than happy to have two systems, and if someone who liked PL ever did say points shouldn't exist, I certainly didn't see it.
Kan did.
And I can't say I've ever heard "balance-at-all-costs" before.
Kan was and is very much an outlier.
Speaking as someone who prefers points to PL, I definitely heard way more "PL shouldn't exist, points only!" than "PL only, points shouldn't exist!"
And, as I said before, I don't care if PL exists. Some people like it, even if not myself, so let them enjoy it.
I do care if PL and points are merged into PL with three digits. And I hate it.
I'm just not super happy they did half the work necessary to get to power level with 3 digits. Take this from a player who likes more aspects of unit selection being baked into the basic cost of the unit.
I can accept and even like every Infantry Squad should include a Vox Caster and a special weapon. I don't agree with every Leman Russ must have Sponsons.
PenitentJake wrote: NO ONE who liked PL EVER advocated that only PL should exist- we were always more than happy to have two systems, and if someone who liked PL ever did say points shouldn't exist, I certainly didn't see it.
Kan did.
And I can't say I've ever heard "balance-at-all-costs" before.
Kan was and is very much an outlier.
Speaking as someone who prefers points to PL, I definitely heard way more "PL shouldn't exist, points only!" than "PL only, points shouldn't exist!"
Yeah, because the 5 second effort put into PL gives secondhand embarrassment on behalf of the rules writers as you read it.
It's legit as bad as AoS 1.0. You can proclaim all you want about "nooooo it does offer structure!!!1!" but at least AoS 1.0 borders on being so bad it's good with no structure and getting bonuses for literally having a beard. 40kPL doesn't even have that honor.
Breton wrote:The point is a SOMETHING for no sponsons should have been a thing. GW should have caught it. They didn't. They should fix it now and quickly.
We keep coming back to this. Anyone with half a brain can see what the obvious solution is, and it begins with ‘p’
Proportionate rules compensation to the value of upgrade lost :3
CaulynDarr wrote: We could get into a heated discussion about which of these is the best or easiest to implement, but the point is none seam to have been consistently applied.
No, the point is power level fans should have kept their mouths shut about liking their terrible system and people should have rioted when SM and Guard got free wargear upgrades in 9th and everyone should have joined me and others in deriding PL as a silly and terrible pts system. I knew 10ths balance was going to be a mess, I'm only mad that I can't do my Charge/Fight phase shenanigans, I want a turn-based strategy game, not Autochess.
It's going to be a tedious 3 years reading your angry rants.
What leads you to the belief that it's going to get better after 3 years? That sort of overly self-confident bitterness can go on for decades easily,
Well there's always the possibility that 11e will go back to full pts use.
We'll know this time 3 years from now.
Breton wrote:The point is a SOMETHING for no sponsons should have been a thing. GW should have caught it. They didn't. They should fix it now and quickly.
We keep coming back to this. Anyone with half a brain can see what the obvious solution is, and it begins with ‘p’
Proportionate rules compensation to the value of upgrade lost :3
CaulynDarr wrote: We could get into a heated discussion about which of these is the best or easiest to implement, but the point is none seam to have been consistently applied.
No, the point is power level fans should have kept their mouths shut about liking their terrible system and people should have rioted when SM and Guard got free wargear upgrades in 9th and everyone should have joined me and others in deriding PL as a silly and terrible pts system. I knew 10ths balance was going to be a mess, I'm only mad that I can't do my Charge/Fight phase shenanigans, I want a turn-based strategy game, not Autochess.
It's going to be a tedious 3 years reading your angry rants.
Alright, I'll stop. I just need to get a post-it note to add to my monitor "no angry rants on Dakka" I'll put it next to my "don't mention the knife-ears outside the private message group" post-it note.
No, the point is power level fans should have kept their mouths shut about liking their terrible system and people should have rioted when SM and Guard got free wargear upgrades in 9th and everyone should have joined me and others in deriding PL as a silly and terrible pts system. I knew 10ths balance was going to be a mess, I'm only mad that I can't do my Charge/Fight phase shenanigans, I want a turn-based strategy game, not Autochess.
And douche of the day award goes tooo.....
Nobody, because vict was nowhere near incorrect, and we should've made Cruddace feel worse about his dumb ideas.
No, the point is power level fans should have kept their mouths shut about liking their terrible system .
Balance-at-all-cost tourney types also should have kept THEIR mouths shut about wanting only a single system when having two systems wasn't affecting them at all. But they assumed that their system would be the one GW picked if they ever decided to pay attention to all the whining about "Mental Load" and the development time devoted to maintaining two system.
NO ONE who liked PL EVER advocated that only PL should exist- we were always more than happy to have two systems, and if someone who liked PL ever did say points shouldn't exist, I certainly didn't see it.
And to be fair, many tourney "points-or-death" balance-at-all-cost types were okay with two systems. But there were a whole lot of other points people who absolutely insisted that the game should only have one system.
I betcha they'd take it all back and live and let live now if they could. The object lesson here is that the next time GW tries to give us an "everyone wins" solution to a problem, we should take it, instead of insisting that "our way" should be the only way.
I did not assume GW would favour pts over PL, that was my exact argument for getting rid of PL in 9th, so that GW would not have the option to choose the easy way. I have maintained that GW are lazy and incompetent rather than malevolent for the past at least 3 years, probably 6. People did argue pts should be removed so that balance at all costs people would leave the game, this was a thing, don't deny it. Tournament players are going to take plasma pistols on/off if either is more pts-effective, but casual people are going to feel pressured by the game rules to bling out their squads. How many of the people who say they like the new system do you think are competitive? I'd wager that at least some of them are Timmy casuals that are just happy that their bling isn't utter trash like it has been in many editions (GW are bad at everything so some options were mandatory, some were awful and some were balanced, same as today, now a lot fewer upgrades are awful so it's great to be a Timmy). On the other hand there are plenty of the 60% of people who want pts that are casuals as well, they just don't like spamming hunter-killer missiles.
PenitentJake wrote: NO ONE who liked PL EVER advocated that only PL should exist- we were always more than happy to have two systems, and if someone who liked PL ever did say points shouldn't exist, I certainly didn't see it.
Kan did.
And I can't say I've ever heard "balance-at-all-costs" before.
Kan was and is very much an outlier.
Speaking as someone who prefers points to PL, I definitely heard way more "PL shouldn't exist, points only!" than "PL only, points shouldn't exist!"
Yeah, because the 5 second effort put into PL gives secondhand embarrassment on behalf of the rules writers as you read it.
It's legit as bad as AoS 1.0. You can proclaim all you want about "nooooo it does offer structure!!!1!" but at least AoS 1.0 borders on being so bad it's good with no structure and getting bonuses for literally having a beard. 40kPL doesn't even have that honor.
Ignore Legacy Factions for AoS, that was meant as a joke and nothing more, GW just did not expect that people actually want to play with Legacy Models and still does not understand that
AoS worked with scenarios, just that those were only available for the starter factions and if you only played those it was a fun game (same as 10th 40k is a fun game as long as you do not insist on playing the legacy army list from past editions but buy new stuff and play the first wave armies)
and we have the same problem now, Powerlevel work, but GW did not put in the afford to update all units of all factions to PL but just some of them
Which let me to believe this was a rushed release as the designers themselves believed the marketing speech that it will be easier and simpler and after Marines a Necrons found out that it is the same amount of work to get things done and just literally gave up and copy&paste the rest
so there is the option that PL are not here to stay but we are going back to points within this Edition after the first Codex wave is out
I did not assume GW would favour pts over PL, that was my exact argument for getting rid of PL in 9th, so that GW would not have the option to choose the easy way.
???
A) Once upon a time there was no such thing as PL. Then they dreamed it up and implemented it.
B) They saw it work well enough in casual play & Crusade. Despite people like you complaining about it.
C) Then it was introduced into AoS as a generally a 2-3 digit pts system along side the buying of units in set blocks of models vs one at a time. People complained, but overall they have seen these things work well enough.
D) And finally? They gave you all a preview of what was to come with the WE Codex, the pts balance sheet with it's no-cost upgrades, & the AoO detachment system. And they saw, despite complaints, that all work well enough. (of course at that point it was already set in stone for 10e, you just didn't know it/more likely want to admit it.) So how exactly were you aiming to block their design options??
vict0988 wrote: Tournament players are going to take plasma pistols on/off if either is more pts-effective,
Yep, tourney players will do whatever they think will win them more games.
vict0988 wrote: but casual people are going to feel pressured by the game rules to bling out their squads.
Plenty already do that. They've been blinging out squads as long as the games been around.
vict0988 wrote: How many of the people who say they like the new system do you think are competitive?
Quite a few I'd imagine as I've never met a competitive type who'd turn down cheaper upgrades.
vict0988 wrote: On the other hand there are plenty of the 60% of people who want pts that are casuals as well, they just don't like spamming hunter-killer missiles.
Well good news for them! They don't have to. And since they already weren't using the HK Missile option? Nothing changes for them. Didn't have it then (because they didn't like spamming it & thus wouldn't spend the extra pts), don't have it now (because they don't want to spam it). Same effect - only now it's officially day #4 of an all new edition.
The WE codex? Working well? Boy the WE codex worked so well because the points upgrades weren't an issue since it was SOO BOTCHED from a roster perspective that free upgrades for most veteran WE players didn't matter at all. Or even new players since the codex can't be described as beeing a full army tactically speaking , especially after all the shooting available to it just got put into the "forbidden to use bin".
That'd be like complaining about a scratch on your ellbow, whilest your whole other arm is missing.
My Russian friend says that lascannon sponsons were 40 pts in 9th edition for World Eaters.
I tried to change opinions on whether PL was an acceptable pts system. Saying you don't have to spam hunter-killer missiles does not make sense, it's a free upgrade, so you're forced to do it the same way you are forced to pay taxes, even if you can technically avoid paying taxes by doing tax fraud or not having a job and not paying tariffs or value added tax by having other people pay those for you.
You are not forced to add salt to your ice cream in a restaurant even though there is salt at the table because salt will not undeniably improve the ice cream, like a hunter-killer missile will improve a Chimera.
@OP I don't like it because GW straight up deleted all weapon options for wulfen and many many other units to make it fit in this system. Unit upgrades worked good for many editions and i don't see a reason to do it like this other then using power levels instead of points.
This system is power level but they call it points.
The unit sizes are another bad design choice but thats a topic for another thread.
nordsturmking wrote: @OP I don't like it because GW straight up deleted all weapon options for wulfen and many many other units to make it fit in this system. Unit upgrades worked good for many editions and i don't see a reason to do it like this other then using power levels instead of points.
This system is power level but they call it points.
The unit sizes are another bad design choice but thats a topic for another thread.
The last few editions: "omg gw are incompetent and can't point things for balance and there are too many wargear options"
This edition: "omg GW didn't include all those wargear options or include the points they can't balance, I liked it better before"
It's a duality of man situation and ultimately people whined before, they whine now. They didn't like that points weren't correct, they don't like that points aren't there.
It doesn't matter what they did, someone somewhere would be complaining. As is the nature of humanity and the wider Internet.
On second thoughts I now see GW as dealing with a difficult young child, they did their best to get the right mix of food on the plate but it was always wrong, the brand of sauce was wrong, the knive/fork too big or too small, not facing a window etc. and they got bored of trying to placate the noise so just did the "you get what you're given" routine as they've had enough.
nordsturmking wrote: @OP I don't like it because GW straight up deleted all weapon options for wulfen and many many other units to make it fit in this system. Unit upgrades worked good for many editions and i don't see a reason to do it like this other then using power levels instead of points.
This system is power level but they call it points.
The unit sizes are another bad design choice but thats a topic for another thread.
The last few editions: "omg gw are incompetent and can't point things for balance and there are too many wargear options"
This edition: "omg GW didn't include all those wargear options or include the points they can't balance, I liked it better before"
It's a duality of man situation and ultimately people whined before, they whine now. They didn't like that points weren't correct, they don't like that points aren't there.
It doesn't matter what they did, someone somewhere would be complaining. As is the nature of humanity and the wider Internet.
On second thoughts I now see GW as dealing with a difficult young child, they did their best to get the right mix of food on the plate but it was always wrong, the brand of sauce was wrong, the knive/fork too big or too small, not facing a window etc. and they got bored of trying to placate the noise so just did the "you get what you're given" routine as they've had enough.
I think some of the complaints are merited - in my opinion, 'free upgrades' is mostly fine for most of the ranges, but some examples should still have an associated points cost, mostly because it's effectively a free add-on that does not replace anything. Examples include sponson weapons, hunter-killer missiles, straight add-ons like on the Battlewagon, and such. Some extraordinary good weapons like Assault Cannons in Terminator Squads and such probably should also have additional costs, but that's debatable. I think the changes would have been received much better, and people would complain less about pistols and whatever, if these obvious cases were handled in a more sensible way.
nordsturmking wrote: @OP I don't like it because GW straight up deleted all weapon options for wulfen and many many other units to make it fit in this system. Unit upgrades worked good for many editions and i don't see a reason to do it like this other then using power levels instead of points.
This system is power level but they call it points.
The unit sizes are another bad design choice but thats a topic for another thread.
The last few editions: "omg gw are incompetent and can't point things for balance and there are too many wargear options"
This edition: "omg GW didn't include all those wargear options or include the points they can't balance, I liked it better before"
It's a duality of man situation and ultimately people whined before, they whine now. They didn't like that points weren't correct, they don't like that points aren't there.
It doesn't matter what they did, someone somewhere would be complaining. As is the nature of humanity and the wider Internet.
On second thoughts I now see GW as dealing with a difficult young child, they did their best to get the right mix of food on the plate but it was always wrong, the brand of sauce was wrong, the knive/fork too big or too small, not facing a window etc. and they got bored of trying to placate the noise so just did the "you get what you're given" routine as they've had enough.
I think some of the complaints are merited - in my opinion, 'free upgrades' is mostly fine for most of the ranges, but some examples should still have an associated points cost, mostly because it's effectively a free add-on that does not replace anything. Examples include sponson weapons, hunter-killer missiles, straight add-ons like on the Battlewagon, and such. Some extraordinary good weapons like Assault Cannons in Terminator Squads and such probably should also have additional costs, but that's debatable. I think the changes would have been received much better, and people would complain less about pistols and whatever, if these obvious cases were handled in a more sensible way.
Oh I 100% agree, but the level of emotional response from some is telling as to why GW do things like this.
EviscerationPlague wrote: It's legit as bad as AoS 1.0. You can proclaim all you want about "nooooo it does offer structure!!!1!" but at least AoS 1.0 borders on being so bad it's good with no structure and getting bonuses for literally having a beard. 40kPL doesn't even have that honor.
I always find these comments strange. AoS 1.0 had points and General's Handbook.
I assume you are referring to AoS 0.0 which did not have points.
AoS 0.0 - Release AoS with no points and silly rules. Released at the height of the Kirby era where he believed you bought GW models only for the models and that rules were unnecessary.
AoS 1.0 - The start of the General's Handbook era and all units got points. Don't remember completely but I think it was around the same time Roundtree became CEO. This is the real start of AoS as an actual game.
AoS 2.0 - New edition. Dubbed second edition and had Stormcast vs. Nighthaunt. Very competitive edition building on what was started in 1.0.
AoS 3.0 - New edition. Dubbed Third edition and had Stormcast vs. Krule Boyz. Very competitive, but decided to add seasonal changes to the tournament mode.
AoS 4.0 - New edition. Rumored to drop in the summer of 2024.
nordsturmking wrote: @OP I don't like it because GW straight up deleted all weapon options for wulfen and many many other units to make it fit in this system. Unit upgrades worked good for many editions and i don't see a reason to do it like this other then using power levels instead of points.
This system is power level but they call it points.
The unit sizes are another bad design choice but thats a topic for another thread.
The last few editions: "omg gw are incompetent and can't point things for balance and there are too many wargear options"
This edition: "omg GW didn't include all those wargear options or include the points they can't balance, I liked it better before"
The difference is in one system you can potentially make adjustments fairly easily in an attempt to arrive at something approaching balance. In the other, you can't because you either have to change a whole bunch of rules, delete options or consolidate options. GW could have done this with the 10th edition reset, but they failed. It's almost like it's not a binary situation with two equal and competing systems.
I'd argue the end of 9th was approaching pretty good balance, so I don't think it's fair to say GW can't balance using points. It just takes them a while to get it right.
Dudeface wrote: The last few editions: "omg gw are incompetent and can't point things for balance and there are too many wargear options"
This edition: "omg GW didn't include all those wargear options or include the points they can't balance, I liked it better before"
It's a duality of man situation and ultimately people whined before, they whine now. They didn't like that points weren't correct, they don't like that points aren't there.
It doesn't matter what they did, someone somewhere would be complaining. As is the nature of humanity and the wider Internet.
On second thoughts I now see GW as dealing with a difficult young child, they did their best to get the right mix of food on the plate but it was always wrong, the brand of sauce was wrong, the knive/fork too big or too small, not facing a window etc. and they got bored of trying to placate the noise so just did the "you get what you're given" routine as they've had enough.
GW could get less criticism for their rules if they would stop changing things for change's sake. The last meta of 9th seemed to be pretty healthy, going by tournament results. You could take that as a base and look at the complaints:
- Implementation of Stratagems
- Lethality
- Internal balance
- Inconsistent and unwanted consolidation in some places, while inconsistent and unwanted expansion in others
... and then go from there. You don't have to reinvent the wheel every 3 years in order to keep your audience. But GW wants to do it anyway. I don't think there is a single person in the universe thinking "man, I HATE that every character model can be near my Hellblasters, it would be SO MUCH BETTER if only Captains with a Plasma pistol could join them.". And look at the mess we got with characters joining units. Why? This isn't a smart decision or some 3d chess GW is playing. It is a design guideline somebody came up with and it now gets implemented without any logic or reason to it.
It is similar with other changes, where points/PL is one of them.
Tsagualsa wrote: I think some of the complaints are merited - in my opinion, 'free upgrades' is mostly fine for most of the ranges, but some examples should still have an associated points cost, mostly because it's effectively a free add-on that does not replace anything. Examples include sponson weapons, hunter-killer missiles, straight add-ons like on the Battlewagon, and such. Some extraordinary good weapons like Assault Cannons in Terminator Squads and such probably should also have additional costs, but that's debatable. I think the changes would have been received much better, and people would complain less about pistols and whatever, if these obvious cases were handled in a more sensible way.
I am actually horrified people bought Leman Russes and did not attach sponsons. It kind of illustrates that the old system was somewhat barbaric in its approach. People went with the lowest cost because of efficiency for 9 editions.
Hunter-Killer missiles were one shot "maybe" hits and people all skipped them as you could probably either get more bodies on the floor or buy a multi-use weapon on another vehicle or person.
Which illustrates a point I have probably repeated in the past: If people didn't buy the upgrade/weapon for 9 editions, then it was always worth 0 points.Thinking that some master game designer will finally succeed in pointing things correctly in the 10th iteration of the game is just insanity.
Eldarsif wrote: I am actually horrified people bought Leman Russes and did not attach sponsons. It kind of illustrates that the old system was somewhat barbaric in its approach. People went with the lowest cost because of efficiency for 9 editions.
Hunter-Killer missiles were one shot "maybe" hits and people all skipped them as you could probably either get more bodies on the floor or buy a multi-use weapon on another vehicle or person.
Which illustrates a point I have probably repeated in the past: If people didn't buy the upgrade/weapon for 9 editions, then it was always worth 0 points.Thinking that some master game designer will finally succeed in pointing things correctly in the 10th iteration of the game is just insanity.
I don't think this is true. Wether you want to take sponsons or not is not a simple question about points, unless they are ridiculously cheap. Over the years, the things I took into consideration where:
- The general rules for vehicles -> How durable is this unit? How likely am I going to use the sponson profile? Can I shoot the sponsons after moving? Can I split my fire? Do they mesh well with my main weapon?
- The point costs of the sponsons -> Regardless of everything else, do I think the cost is worth the upgrade?
- The point costs of the rest of the army -> Do I rather have some additional heavy bolter shots or do I hand out special weapons to my Shock troopers?
Local anecdote: In my homebrew a Hunter killer missile costs 5pts. It has the chance to kill a regular Marine, which costs 40pts, or go against vehicles up to AV12 with moderate chance of doing something. Most players take them on their vehicles. For comparison, a quad Lascannon Predator hovers around 450pts.
Eldarsif wrote: Which illustrates a point I have probably repeated in the past: If people didn't buy the upgrade/weapon for 9 editions, then it was always worth 0 points.
I think it is a pretty funny implication that just dropping the points to 0 because it sucks anyways (literally a push of a button during rules development) is somehow as good as making the item worth its assigned cost (much more than a push of a button during rules development).
I would agree with that if all those upgrades that were not taken in the past and therefore are worth 0 points, would still have the same rules
people not paying points for a one use 5+/5+ weapon is something different than adding a 2+/2+ weapon for free
if we have a reset, it is not possible to use experience from the past to "balance" the new version
so we have not 9 Editions to look back at but 0 for everything in 10th
for everything at the end of 9th there were 2 Editions to look back at why things were taken or how many points they were worth
and for 7th there are 5 Editions
saying HK Missiles must cost 0 points because no one used them in 3rd is a stupid argument because this is a different game now
maybe we should look at Kill Team and Horus Heresy, what people use there and base the point cost on units on those games
makes as much sense as arguing with any pre-reset edition of 40k
This thread has now had the claim that everybody took sponsons on their Russes, and any evidence to the contrary is a deepfake AND the claim that nobody took sponsons.
Tsagualsa wrote: I think some of the complaints are merited - in my opinion, 'free upgrades' is mostly fine for most of the ranges, but some examples should still have an associated points cost, mostly because it's effectively a free add-on that does not replace anything. Examples include sponson weapons, hunter-killer missiles, straight add-ons like on the Battlewagon, and such. Some extraordinary good weapons like Assault Cannons in Terminator Squads and such probably should also have additional costs, but that's debatable. I think the changes would have been received much better, and people would complain less about pistols and whatever, if these obvious cases were handled in a more sensible way.
I am actually horrified people bought Leman Russes and did not attach sponsons. It kind of illustrates that the old system was somewhat barbaric in its approach. People went with the lowest cost because of efficiency for 9 editions.
Hunter-Killer missiles were one shot "maybe" hits and people all skipped them as you could probably either get more bodies on the floor or buy a multi-use weapon on another vehicle or person.
Which illustrates a point I have probably repeated in the past: If people didn't buy the upgrade/weapon for 9 editions, then it was always worth 0 points.Thinking that some master game designer will finally succeed in pointing things correctly in the 10th iteration of the game is just insanity.
Your conclusion does not follow your premise, a logical conclusion would be that the points cost was too high, you cannot make a conclusion about the exact right points value based on people not taking something, like you said it'd be folly to expect a game designer to suddenly get things exactly right, so why is assuming the worth to be exactly 0 different from assuming it is worth exactly 5 or 10? Points aren't correct or wrong, it's a spectrum or curve and the goal is perfect imbalance, not perfect balance. Flamers being good against hordes in jungles, plasma sponsons being good against MEQ if the tank isn't blown up too quickly, melta being good against vehicles if the unit can get in range.
Lord Damocles wrote: This thread has now had the claim that everybody took sponsons on their Russes, and any evidence to the contrary is a deepfake AND the claim that nobody took sponsons.
We have always been at war with Eurasia
GW has never given costs to wargear
Lord Damocles wrote: This thread has now had the claim that everybody took sponsons on their Russes, and any evidence to the contrary is a deepfake AND the claim that nobody took sponsons.
the two I built had magnets for the sponsons, clumsy but it worked nicely, they got used with and without, same as how the weapons loadout varied, the only thing they didn't get a magnet for was the HK missile, because I didn't have any spare as they were magnetised to everything that came with them.
if a HK costs 10 points and its not used that doesn't mean its worth 0 points, it means either its not worth 10 points, or that the 10 points may be worth it situationally but 10 points elsewhere is generally better. maybe its worth 8 points or something
personally I thought one of them is a hiding to nothing but a first turn barrage of them was worth a decent amount
there is perhaps an alternative though for such things, ditto pintle weapon upgrades
have them as a separate thing, literally have another card "Hunter Killer Missile Upgrade", which provides a cost per missile on a BS3 platform and a cost per missile on BS4, maybe BS5 platforms - you buy them as part of your force, however many you want, up to one per vehicle that notes it can carry them - and then distribute them as you see fit. Same with pintle weapons, give them a cost but separate from the vehicle
sponsons could be considered the same though it is likely better to have a profile with and a profile without as the idea of the profile without being faster is good.
its flipping it around a bit, but would fit with the current system reasonably well as a sort of bolt on
Lord Damocles wrote: This thread has now had the claim that everybody took sponsons on their Russes, and any evidence to the contrary is a deepfake AND the claim that nobody took sponsons.
I had sponsons on about half of my Russes. I went through my bits pile to add them to the ones that didn't have them last week. (The sponson top is a convenient place to put the Hunter-Killer Missile so it doesn't interfere with turret rotation - so I did both upgrades at the same time.)
alextroy wrote: [They are all things published by GW that are used to play the game, aka rules.
no, some of those are used to build a list and not used to play the game
if you use points to play you are doing something very different while playing the game than most of us
I hate to be the smug "both sides" guy but this disagreement may be the most touch grass thing I've seen...well today but thats still a lot!
Based!
Well my natural response to that is "old school goblin green". I know its something the kids say, synonymous for "cool"?
alextroy wrote: So I am free to change the WS, Attacks, and Points values of my units since those are not rules?
Why are people arguing semantics?
It comes down to which is better game design that which GW did in the past or that which GW could adopt in the future to make PL more workable. Adding rules for no reason is generally bad, so you either have to prove that the rules are thematic, fun or that adding back pts is adding back as many rules as creating new rules for not taking various upgrades like sponsons.
The last few editions: "omg gw are incompetent and can't point things for balance and there are too many wargear options"
This edition: "omg GW didn't include all those wargear options or include the points they can't balance, I liked it better before"
It's a duality of man situation and ultimately people whined before, they whine now. They didn't like that points weren't correct, they don't like that points aren't there.
It doesn't matter what they did, someone somewhere would be complaining. As is the nature of humanity and the wider Internet.
On second thoughts I now see GW as dealing with a difficult young child, they did their best to get the right mix of food on the plate but it was always wrong, the brand of sauce was wrong, the knive/fork too big or too small, not facing a window etc. and they got bored of trying to placate the noise so just did the "you get what you're given" routine as they've had enough.
?!?
You realise those are not mutually exclusive as premises. Hence your conclusion is illogical but here:
Let's go take a look at the Plas Pistol argument again. There were some editions where it was nearly as expensive or just as expensive as the Plasma gun. The profile being basically equivalent beyond Rapid fire vs pistol and range.
Obviously the gun with more range and the chance of double the firepower should not be costed the same when cost is there to facilitate a parity of arms employed to facilitate a close pitched battle that can swing only by skill, which is the aim for the balance and points agreements beforehand about the maximum forces deployed.
That however doesn't mean that a squad that get's all it's cost pre-dictated by full pts is the solution. When the problem before was a lack of accurate assessment and therefore some things being too cheap others too expensive to consider fielding, making only a maximal worth assessment and forcing everyone to pay for that maximal worth of a unit then the issue is that we have even less of an accurate assessment unless we all play with maximum equipment.
Further it doesn't actually resolve the issue above, f.e. upgrades that are underpriced in the added up form, will still dominate other equipment and potentially even push units.
nordsturmking wrote: @OP I don't like it because GW straight up deleted all weapon options for wulfen and many many other units to make it fit in this system. Unit upgrades worked good for many editions and i don't see a reason to do it like this other then using power levels instead of points.
This system is power level but they call it points.
The unit sizes are another bad design choice but thats a topic for another thread.
The last few editions: "omg gw are incompetent and can't point things for balance and there are too many wargear options"
This edition: "omg GW didn't include all those wargear options or include the points they can't balance, I liked it better before"
It's a duality of man situation and ultimately people whined before, they whine now. They didn't like that points weren't correct, they don't like that points aren't there.
It doesn't matter what they did, someone somewhere would be complaining. As is the nature of humanity and the wider Internet.
On second thoughts I now see GW as dealing with a difficult young child, they did their best to get the right mix of food on the plate but it was always wrong, the brand of sauce was wrong, the knive/fork too big or too small, not facing a window etc. and they got bored of trying to placate the noise so just did the "you get what you're given" routine as they've had enough.
Tell me you're posting in bad faith without telling me you're posting in bad faith. :/
Yes, there will always be complaints. But GW isn't even f***ing trying with the indexes. "GW did their best". . . Yeah, right.
Which illustrates a point I have probably repeated in the past: If people didn't buy the upgrade/weapon for 9 editions, then it was always worth 0 points.
No, it means it wasn't worth the point cost GW kept giving it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude Plasma Pistols and Power Weapons weren't worth 15 points on Sergeants, and yet GW kept it that way for decades. I think that first change literally came with 7th edition codices.
nordsturmking wrote: @OP I don't like it because GW straight up deleted all weapon options for wulfen and many many other units to make it fit in this system. Unit upgrades worked good for many editions and i don't see a reason to do it like this other then using power levels instead of points.
This system is power level but they call it points.
The unit sizes are another bad design choice but thats a topic for another thread.
The last few editions: "omg gw are incompetent and can't point things for balance and there are too many wargear options"
This edition: "omg GW didn't include all those wargear options or include the points they can't balance, I liked it better before"
It's a duality of man situation and ultimately people whined before, they whine now. They didn't like that points weren't correct, they don't like that points aren't there.
It doesn't matter what they did, someone somewhere would be complaining. As is the nature of humanity and the wider Internet.
On second thoughts I now see GW as dealing with a difficult young child, they did their best to get the right mix of food on the plate but it was always wrong, the brand of sauce was wrong, the knive/fork too big or too small, not facing a window etc. and they got bored of trying to placate the noise so just did the "you get what you're given" routine as they've had enough.
Tell me you're posting in bad faith without telling me you're posting in bad faith. :/
Yes, there will always be complaints. But GW isn't even f***ing trying with the indexes. "GW did their best". . . Yeah, right.
Tell me you're posting in bad faith, where did I say they tried their best with this rules set?
Sorry with these points* given that they're not rules hence can't be in the rules set.
You realise those are not mutually exclusive as premises. Hence your conclusion is illogical but here:
Let's go take a look at the Plas Pistol argument again. There were some editions where it was nearly as expensive or just as expensive as the Plasma gun. The profile being basically equivalent beyond Rapid fire vs pistol and range.
Obviously the gun with more range and the chance of double the firepower should not be costed the same when cost is there to facilitate a parity of arms employed to facilitate a close pitched battle that can swing only by skill, which is the aim for the balance and points agreements beforehand about the maximum forces deployed.
That however doesn't mean that a squad that get's all it's cost pre-dictated by full pts is the solution. When the problem before was a lack of accurate assessment and therefore some things being too cheap others too expensive to consider fielding, making only a maximal worth assessment and forcing everyone to pay for that maximal worth of a unit then the issue is that we have even less of an accurate assessment unless we all play with maximum equipment.
Further it doesn't actually resolve the issue above, f.e. upgrades that are underpriced in the added up form, will still dominate other equipment and potentially even push units.
The part in red -- so a Plasmagun is not worth 10 points. It could be worth 5 points. What's the cost of a plasma pistol? It's basically useless in the context of a squad of PG users. It should effectively be 0 points. You could be fiddly and make it 1 or 2 points to make people feel like they're making a choice. The only time a plasma pistol is valuable is when you have it on fast moving melee units, which is part of why Death Company went from 115 to 155.
This is just talking costs - not the upgrade selection issues themselves.
Daedalus81 wrote: The part in red -- so a Plasmagun is not worth 10 points. It could be worth 5 points.
You know your game has serious issues when one of the classic BFGs goes down to nothingburger points because "it is just not good enough for that cost."
Daedalus81 wrote: The part in red -- so a Plasmagun is not worth 10 points. It could be worth 5 points.
You know your game has serious issues when one of the classic BFGs goes down to nothingburger points because "it is just not good enough for that cost."
That's kind of the problem with having a plethora of options in a game this scale. And you can't make it better, because you suddenly have to scale everything else accordingly ( and then it just winds up worse again ).
Lord Damocles wrote: This thread has now had the claim that everybody took sponsons on their Russes, and any evidence to the contrary is a deepfake AND the claim that nobody took sponsons.
To be fair, I just looked at my Russes last night, and the sponsons were in a quantum superposition of all possible sponson states.
Daedalus81 wrote: And you can't make it better, because you suddenly have to scale everything else accordingly
Yeah, I'm starting to see a pattern here: "this sucks but fixing it would take work and that sucks even more so let's just leave it alone." Free to add some kind of cheap excuse like "it would only turn out worse anyway" and the like.
Daedalus81 wrote: And you can't make it better, because you suddenly have to scale everything else accordingly
Yeah, I'm starting to see a pattern here: "this sucks but fixing it would take work and that sucks even more so let's just leave it alone." Free to add some kind of cheap excuse like "it would only turn out worse anyway" and the like.
Don't forget the Dudeface "fixing it means making it perfect, and it's obviously impossible to make it perfect".
BTW, I still can't believe we spent like a day and several pages on Breton's hilarious points=rules claim. This thread needs to go down in dakka history.
I think in reality there were upgrades that didn't linearly scale. A plasma pistol on one sergeantsis a rounding error, and you could just hand wave that away. A plasma pistol on all your sergeants probably was worth something, but not what it was when added all together. I.E. plasma guns on all my sergeants, or sponsons on a couple of Russes.
So an list wide, add plasma pistols to all my sergeants for X points, where X was fixed. Then you got more value with the more sergeants you took.
Anyway. There should be a cost. The cost doesn't always work on a per model basis. Giving things for free, is just sidestepping the work on figuring out the proper cost.
Daedalus81 wrote: And you can't make it better, because you suddenly have to scale everything else accordingly
Yeah, I'm starting to see a pattern here: "this sucks but fixing it would take work and that sucks even more so let's just leave it alone." Free to add some kind of cheap excuse like "it would only turn out worse anyway" and the like.
Don't forget the Dudeface "fixing it means making it perfect, and it's obviously impossible to make it perfect".
BTW, I still can't believe we spent like a day and several pages on Breton's hilarious points=rules claim. This thread needs to go down in dakka history.
Daedalus81 wrote: And you can't make it better, because you suddenly have to scale everything else accordingly
Yeah, I'm starting to see a pattern here: "this sucks but fixing it would take work and that sucks even more so let's just leave it alone." Free to add some kind of cheap excuse like "it would only turn out worse anyway" and the like.
Don't forget the Dudeface "fixing it means making it perfect, and it's obviously impossible to make it perfect".
alextroy wrote: A unit statistic
A unit or wargear ability
The unit composition
A unit option
The units points value
They are all things published by GW that are used to play the game, aka rules.
OK if this is a semantic argument, what's the difference you're defining between a game rule, a game mechanic, and the mechanics of a game component?
I'm going to pretend that this whole discussion was in good faith, and bring up something that seems to have only been tangentially referenced. The importance of when cognitive load occurs. Adding a bunch of fiddly list building rules adds to cognitive load when you're at home putting together a list with all of the many, many tools available to help keep track of everything. When the game is actually happening, the type of thinking that needs to be done is different. The more difference there is between otherwise identical models, the more difficult it is to keep things straight. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily. But points are the easiest kind of cost to quantify. A speed cost is still a cost. A stat cost is still a cost. And it's a lot harder to keep track of all of those while in the middle of the game than it is to balance 5 points plus or minus before you get to the table.
List building has been made easier at the expense of making each unit more complicated. Fast rolling is harder because now every unit has one or two free upgrades. As has been said many times in the thread about different things, once or twice is no big deal, but across an entire army, it adds up.
Daedalus81 wrote: And you can't make it better, because you suddenly have to scale everything else accordingly
Yeah, I'm starting to see a pattern here: "this sucks but fixing it would take work and that sucks even more so let's just leave it alone." Free to add some kind of cheap excuse like "it would only turn out worse anyway" and the like.
Don't forget the Dudeface "fixing it means making it perfect, and it's obviously impossible to make it perfect".
Why is striving for perfection bad?
I didn't say that, but that's the strawman and cop out many here use. GW absolutely has room to improve without hitting the some theoretical asymptote. And moving to PL is absolutely a step in the wrong direction, don't get my position wrong.
Daedalus81 wrote: And you can't make it better, because you suddenly have to scale everything else accordingly
Yeah, I'm starting to see a pattern here: "this sucks but fixing it would take work and that sucks even more so let's just leave it alone." Free to add some kind of cheap excuse like "it would only turn out worse anyway" and the like.
Don't forget the Dudeface "fixing it means making it perfect, and it's obviously impossible to make it perfect".
Why is striving for perfection bad?
I didn't say that, but that's the strawman and cop out many here use. GW absolutely has room to improve without hitting the some theoretical asymptote. And moving to PL is absolutely a step in the wrong direction, don't get my position wrong.
It was a general reply to the thought, not to you.
Daedalus81 wrote: And you can't make it better, because you suddenly have to scale everything else accordingly
Yeah, I'm starting to see a pattern here: "this sucks but fixing it would take work and that sucks even more so let's just leave it alone." Free to add some kind of cheap excuse like "it would only turn out worse anyway" and the like.
Don't forget the Dudeface "fixing it means making it perfect, and it's obviously impossible to make it perfect".
Why is striving for perfection bad?
I didn't say that, but that's the strawman and cop out many here use. GW absolutely has room to improve without hitting the some theoretical asymptote. And moving to PL is absolutely a step in the wrong direction, don't get my position wrong.
Whilst we're on the tune of misrepresenting people. I voted no on the OP, I prefer points but do see merit in the consolidation/sidegrade choices as well, they just ballsed up both.
To add to that, the points you're seemingly trying to paint me in a bad light with is that people, moaned about granular pointing going away. People (usually the same people) also moaned about them not being good at granular pointing. From GWs perspective people are going to moan either way, so they just put less effort in for same net outcome in their eyes.
They absolutely can and should do better, I just doubt they will.
I also finding it interesting there are a few praises for the state of the game and balance at the tail of 9th. That same meta with multiple units or armies with free upgrades included.
Daedalus81 wrote: And you can't make it better, because you suddenly have to scale everything else accordingly
Yeah, I'm starting to see a pattern here: "this sucks but fixing it would take work and that sucks even more so let's just leave it alone." Free to add some kind of cheap excuse like "it would only turn out worse anyway" and the like.
This is a super lazy argument that tries the to make the dichotomy something that it isn't.
This isn't a problem that has to be solved. You don't actually need to pay points for the plasma pistol. I can't think of any game that has units with model to model weapon options like 40K does ( except OPR ) and also charges points for them.
Infinity? You don't have options.
Warmachine? Nope.
Any fantasy system? Nope.
Model agnostics? Nope.
WW2 systems? None of them cost points.
Starwars? Nope.
Dust? Nope.
One Page Rules? Plasma rifle, 1 shot 24" : 5 points. Plasma pistol, 1 shot 12" : 5 points. You won't find plasma pistols on "Devastators".
The reality is GW spoiled us and now we're facing a contraction, because it's literally not worth the effort to try and make these pistols balanced in all scenarios.
And again I will state this post isn't dealing with modeling issues created as a result or other more crucial upgrades.
Daedalus81 wrote: And you can't make it better, because you suddenly have to scale everything else accordingly
Yeah, I'm starting to see a pattern here: "this sucks but fixing it would take work and that sucks even more so let's just leave it alone." Free to add some kind of cheap excuse like "it would only turn out worse anyway" and the like.
This is a super lazy argument that tries the to make the dichotomy something that it isn't.
This isn't a problem that has to be solved.
I was referring to the ending point of these arguments rather than the actual problem they are about. Somehow, we always end up with "Sure, GW could do that, but it would take effort and we can't expect that!" and then some faint reasoning for why we can't expect that:
Daedalus81 wrote: I can't think of any game that has units with model to model weapon options like 40K does
...like this one.
I don't really have much of an issue here (I'm not so delusional to expect people to work when they don't have to), just noticing the pattern.
any Fantasy System? the Mantic ones (Kings of War and Vanguard) you pay points if you take the better weapon option, Warlord of Erehwon as well
WW2? Bolt Action you pay points for upgrades
StarWars? depends which one but those that have options, yes
Model Agnostic?, most of them you pay points for upgrades
I cannot think of any game that as the similar option to upgrade from normal Pistol to something more powerful without paying points for it
Either you don't have the options or you pay for it
so it is actually only 40k that does it that way, not the other way around
Daedalus81 wrote: I can't think of any game that has units with model to model weapon options like 40K does ( except OPR ) and also charges points for them.
Infinity? You don't have options.
Warmachine? Nope.
Any fantasy system? Nope.
Model agnostics? Nope.
WW2 systems? None of them cost points.
Starwars? Nope.
Dust? Nope.
Battletech.
There are preconfigured units, and there's an entire unit building system (technically more than one, as every basic unit category has their own construction rules, but they share most equipment / weapon rules) that is way more complicated.
Dropfleet Commander
Only for one faction but there's still a unit building process available that uses points for weapon and wargear options.
Horus Heresy
7th edition 40k on steroids when it comes to wargear / weapon options
Black Seas
has wargear options for points
X-Wing / Armada
both have wargear and weapon upgrades / bolt on weapons (not sure if i am remembering this correctly) for points
Bolt Action 2.0
has wargear and weapon upgrades for points
Flames of War
has wargear and weapon upgrades / swaps for points
Just because you can't think of any of these games does not mean they don't exist.
And honestly, I can't think of a game where choices that increase a units power are NOT paid for, outside of 40k 10th and AoS - but I am certainly biased by prefering games that allow customization of units, so that's probably not saying too much.
Daedalus81 wrote: I can't think of any game that has units with model to model weapon options like 40K does ( except OPR ) and also charges points for them.
Infinity? You don't have options.
Warmachine? Nope.
Any fantasy system? Nope.
Model agnostics? Nope.
WW2 systems? None of them cost points.
Starwars? Nope.
Dust? Nope.
Battletech.
There are preconfigured units, and there's an entire unit building system (technically more than one, as every basic unit category has their own construction rules, but they share most equipment / weapon rules) that is way more complicated.
Dropfleet Commander
Only for one faction but there's still a unit building process available that uses points for weapon and wargear options.
Horus Heresy
7th edition 40k on steroids when it comes to wargear / weapon options
Black Seas
has wargear options for points
X-Wing / Armada
both have wargear and weapon upgrades / bolt on weapons (not sure if i am remembering this correctly) for points
Bolt Action 2.0
has wargear and weapon upgrades for points
Flames of War
has wargear and weapon upgrades / swaps for points
Just because you can't think of any of these games does not mean they don't exist.
And honestly, I can't think of a game where choices that increase a units power are NOT paid for, outside of 40k 10th and AoS - but I am certainly biased by prefering games that allow customization of units, so that's probably not saying too much.
Marvel Crisis Protocol has team tactics cards that can make individual models absurdly powerful. You're only allowed 5 total cards per game and they're only usable once per game; but they don't cost anything.
alextroy wrote: A unit statistic
A unit or wargear ability
The unit composition
A unit option
The units points value
They are all things published by GW that are used to play the game, aka rules.
OK if this is a semantic argument, what's the difference you're defining between a game rule, a game mechanic, and the mechanics of a game component?
I'm going to pretend that this whole discussion was in good faith, and bring up something that seems to have only been tangentially referenced. The importance of when cognitive load occurs. Adding a bunch of fiddly list building rules adds to cognitive load when you're at home putting together a list with all of the many, many tools available to help keep track of everything. When the game is actually happening, the type of thinking that needs to be done is different. The more difference there is between otherwise identical models, the more difficult it is to keep things straight. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily. But points are the easiest kind of cost to quantify. A speed cost is still a cost. A stat cost is still a cost. And it's a lot harder to keep track of all of those while in the middle of the game than it is to balance 5 points plus or minus before you get to the table.
List building has been made easier at the expense of making each unit more complicated. Fast rolling is harder because now every unit has one or two free upgrades. As has been said many times in the thread about different things, once or twice is no big deal, but across an entire army, it adds up.
It was 100% a good faith statement on my side. And I don’t disagree with you. There are parts of the No Upgrade cost paradigm that have fallen flat because GW failed to implement. If you go back far enough in this thread you will see my D grade to the Design Studio for their implementation of this.
But I also stand by unit statistics and points cost being rules. If it isn’t a physical thing you need to play the game, it is almost certainly rules.
Yes, the subset of values and statistics is contained by the super-set "rules", I just think that the whole side argument is kinda missing the point.
A good example of actual side grade options in the indexes is the Canoness. If she takes the weaker weapons, she gets access to different wargear. She can't take the Blessed Blade if she also wants the Rod of Office. I don't like this because I like to be able have the choice to take more things and just pay for it, but from a balance perspective, I think it is a decent way of having some variance that isn't just free stuff.
Paimon wrote: Yes, the subset of values and statistics is contained by the super-set "rules", I just think that the whole side argument is kinda missing the point.
A good example of actual side grade options in the indexes is the Canoness. If she takes the weaker weapons, she gets access to different wargear. She can't take the Blessed Blade if she also wants the Rod of Office. I don't like this because I like to be able have the choice to take more things and just pay for it, but from a balance perspective, I think it is a decent way of having some variance that isn't just free stuff.
But of course, isn't that restriction some inane model-based restriction anyways? Unless GW wrote the rules from the ground up to reflect that balance (which I doubt), it is simply reflecting the model assembly choices, and there's the happy accident that each buildable config is somewhat balanced against the other.
ERJAK wrote: Marvel Crisis Protocol has team tactics cards that can make individual models absurdly powerful. You're only allowed 5 total cards per game and they're only usable once per game; but they don't cost anything.
so stratagems in MCP do not cost points, be it command points or during list building, but therefore are limited to 5 and one use only
this would also work for 40k, though with only 5 and one use only you don't really need command points to balance them
As someone who defended power levels in 8th, I can’t defend this new system. I liked having both systems since it meant I could use one or the other based on how I feel that day, and having the option never hurts IMO.
First, while it may be possible to have sidegrades for all options, the fact is that GW has not made the options as such, and secondly there are too many legacy units that depend on the upgrade system, such as sponsons. If points are too complicated then so too will be fixing those units.
Secondly, simplifying list building may be good for new players, but it has little value to experienced players. It also doesn’t help the actual flow of gameplay either. So why not keep both systems?
I’m also seeing opinions that the new system is nice since you don’t have to worry about every little detail, and can just take the units you want. Except, you were always allowed to do that. If you were burnt out from min maxing your upgrades that’s on you. Just take the grenade launcher or whatever and pay whatever points it is. And you were never forced to fill the last 20 odd points of a list; if redoing the list is too hard just leave it.
Daedalus81 wrote: And you can't make it better, because you suddenly have to scale everything else accordingly
Yeah, I'm starting to see a pattern here: "this sucks but fixing it would take work and that sucks even more so let's just leave it alone." Free to add some kind of cheap excuse like "it would only turn out worse anyway" and the like.
This is a super lazy argument that tries the to make the dichotomy something that it isn't.
This isn't a problem that has to be solved. You don't actually need to pay points for the plasma pistol. I can't think of any game that has units with model to model weapon options like 40K does ( except OPR ) and also charges points for them.
Infinity? You don't have options.
Warmachine? Nope.
Any fantasy system? Nope.
Speaking to the ones I know OK,
Infinity has both weapon and upgrade options, and you pay for them, and has certainly used otherwise identical units with different loadouts to sell more toy soldiers.
Warmachine has definitely had, encouraged, and sold cosmetic changes, and has had both unit upgrades and additions, which have had costs.
Malifaux at least since their early plastics has had cosmetic options, upgrades, alternates, etc.
Daedalus81 wrote: I can't think of any game that has units with model to model weapon options like 40K does ( except OPR ) and also charges points for them.
Infinity? You don't have options.
Warmachine? Nope.
Any fantasy system? Nope.
Model agnostics? Nope.
WW2 systems? None of them cost points.
Starwars? Nope.
Dust? Nope.
Battletech.
There are preconfigured units, and there's an entire unit building system (technically more than one, as every basic unit category has their own construction rules, but they share most equipment / weapon rules) that is way more complicated.
Dropfleet Commander
Only for one faction but there's still a unit building process available that uses points for weapon and wargear options.
Horus Heresy
7th edition 40k on steroids when it comes to wargear / weapon options
Black Seas
has wargear options for points
X-Wing / Armada
both have wargear and weapon upgrades / bolt on weapons (not sure if i am remembering this correctly) for points
Bolt Action 2.0
has wargear and weapon upgrades for points
Flames of War
has wargear and weapon upgrades / swaps for points
Just because you can't think of any of these games does not mean they don't exist.
And honestly, I can't think of a game where choices that increase a units power are NOT paid for, outside of 40k 10th and AoS - but I am certainly biased by prefering games that allow customization of units, so that's probably not saying too much.
Battletech definitely has dud weapons. One shots are a waste of tonnage and the AC2 leaves a lot to be desired. Same vein as heresy where a PG is 10 and a PP is 10. I'd be curious to see if anyone bothers to take PP on non-CQC squads. Any upgrades in Bolt Action are well and clearly better guns and otherwise the only thing different about the guns there are the range or the # of shots as opposed to range, bs, s, ap, damage, and special rules.
And this steers a bit away into upgrades in general as opposed to upgrades that don't may not need to be points, because of their net effect. The former comes with a whole host of other discussion points.
nordsturmking wrote: @OP I don't like it because GW straight up deleted all weapon options for wulfen and many many other units to make it fit in this system. Unit upgrades worked good for many editions and i don't see a reason to do it like this other then using power levels instead of points.
This system is power level but they call it points.
The unit sizes are another bad design choice but thats a topic for another thread.
The last few editions: "omg gw are incompetent and can't point things for balance and there are too many wargear options"
This edition: "omg GW didn't include all those wargear options or include the points they can't balance, I liked it better before"
It's a duality of man situation and ultimately people whined before, they whine now. They didn't like that points weren't correct, they don't like that points aren't there.
It doesn't matter what they did, someone somewhere would be complaining. As is the nature of humanity and the wider Internet.
On second thoughts I now see GW as dealing with a difficult young child, they did their best to get the right mix of food on the plate but it was always wrong, the brand of sauce was wrong, the knive/fork too big or too small, not facing a window etc. and they got bored of trying to placate the noise so just did the "you get what you're given" routine as they've had enough.
Tell me you're posting in bad faith without telling me you're posting in bad faith. :/
Yes, there will always be complaints. But GW isn't even f***ing trying with the indexes. "GW did their best". . . Yeah, right.
Tell me you're posting in bad faith, where did I say they tried their best with this rules set?
Dudeface wrote: I also finding it interesting there are a few praises for the state of the game and balance at the tail of 9th. That same meta with multiple units or armies with free upgrades included.
It was a fluke. Otherwise 10th would have been halfway balanced. 9th at launch was GW serving children hard boiled eggs covered in gravy and then being flabbergasted that that the kids want chicken nuggets instead, now they try to serve mussels and clams to children because that's what the adults want, but us kids still want our chicken nuggets. We'll settle for chicken with a side of vegetables, so it's not like we're impossible.
CaulynDarr wrote: The cost doesn't always work on a per model basis. Giving things for free, is just sidestepping the work on figuring out the proper cost.
It absolutely does. If taking 10 plasma pistols has an impact, then taking 5 plasma pistols will also have an impact, although it will be a smaller one. Maybe it's not linearly smaller, maybe it's relatively larger or relatively smaller, but pts/model doesn't create any problems. Plasma pistols costing 3 pts doesn't hurt anyone. The price is proportionate to the impact, just like a plasma pistol doesn't win or lose you games, neither does 3 pts. This silly notion that you have to reach a threshold before things stop being free only makes sense if one option isn't strictly better, like if you have an anti-infantry and an anti-tank weapon to choose between then the anti-tank weapon should only cost points if it actually helps you win games otherwise they're just options. Upgrading from S3 to S7 is a strict upgrade, it should cost points no matter what.
Daedalus81 wrote: I can't think of any game that has units with model to model weapon options like 40K does ( except OPR ) and also charges points for them.
Infinity? You don't have options.
Warmachine? Nope.
Any fantasy system? Nope.
Model agnostics? Nope.
WW2 systems? None of them cost points.
Starwars? Nope.
Dust? Nope.
Battletech.
There are preconfigured units, and there's an entire unit building system (technically more than one, as every basic unit category has their own construction rules, but they share most equipment / weapon rules) that is way more complicated.
Dropfleet Commander
Only for one faction but there's still a unit building process available that uses points for weapon and wargear options.
Horus Heresy
7th edition 40k on steroids when it comes to wargear / weapon options
Black Seas
has wargear options for points
X-Wing / Armada
both have wargear and weapon upgrades / bolt on weapons (not sure if i am remembering this correctly) for points
Bolt Action 2.0
has wargear and weapon upgrades for points
Flames of War
has wargear and weapon upgrades / swaps for points
Just because you can't think of any of these games does not mean they don't exist.
And honestly, I can't think of a game where choices that increase a units power are NOT paid for, outside of 40k 10th and AoS - but I am certainly biased by prefering games that allow customization of units, so that's probably not saying too much.
Battletech definitely has dud weapons. One shots are a waste of tonnage and the AC2 leaves a lot to be desired. Same vein as heresy where a PG is 10 and a PP is 10. I'd be curious to see if anyone bothers to take PP on non-CQC squads. Any upgrades in Bolt Action are well and clearly better guns and otherwise the only thing different about the guns there are the range or the # of shots as opposed to range, bs, s, ap, damage, and special rules.
And this steers a bit away into upgrades in general as opposed to upgrades that don't may not need to be points, because of their net effect. The former comes with a whole host of other discussion points.
Okay but dude do those games have upgrades that cost points or not?? That was the question and you claimed the answer was "no", but now here you're saying it's "yes but upgrades aren't balanced!"
Maybe I'm the one taking crazy pills and should back out of this thread, but the cognitive dissonance that just continues to proliferate and grow like Nurgle's Gift is something else.
kodos wrote: so just ignoring everything around and say it does not exist for the sake of the argument that no game uses points that way
yeah....
I think you're missing a key piece that my argument is focused on a particular piece and not the entire system.
There's three issues as I see them ( which may not match the head space of others ) :
1) Minor upgrades that aren't always relevant or used
2) Sponsons
3) Units with swaps that aren't all comparable ( e.g. Death Company )
Across all three of these some people want to save points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gene St. Ealer wrote: Okay but dude do those games have upgrades that cost points or not?? That was the question and you claimed the answer was "no", but now here you're saying it's "yes but upgrades aren't balanced!"
Maybe I'm the one taking crazy pills and should back out of this thread, but the cognitive dissonance that just continues to proliferate and grow like Nurgle's Gift is something else.
It came up like that, because I wasn't very precise with my language and I keep trying to add caveats at the end of posts, but people still seem to miss them. Yes, other games have upgrades for points, but rarely in the quantity and variety of 40K. Battletech and Horus Heresy are perhaps the only ones with upgrades similar to 40K and both of those have balance issues - Battletech less so, because you're not playing with a lot of models.
Paimon wrote: Yes, the subset of values and statistics is contained by the super-set "rules", I just think that the whole side argument is kinda missing the point.
A good example of actual side grade options in the indexes is the Canoness. If she takes the weaker weapons, she gets access to different wargear. She can't take the Blessed Blade if she also wants the Rod of Office. I don't like this because I like to be able have the choice to take more things and just pay for it, but from a balance perspective, I think it is a decent way of having some variance that isn't just free stuff.
But of course, isn't that restriction some inane model-based restriction anyways? Unless GW wrote the rules from the ground up to reflect that balance (which I doubt), it is simply reflecting the model assembly choices, and there's the happy accident that each buildable config is somewhat balanced against the other.
I think you're probably right, though the Blessed Blade and the Power Sword are identical parts as far as I'm aware.
Daedalus81 wrote: This is a super lazy argument that tries the to make the dichotomy something that it isn't.
But it's the type or argument you've been making here for years. That's why AtoMaki mentioned it as recognising a 'pattern'.
Daedalus81 wrote: There's three issues as I see them ( which may not match the head space of others ) :
1) Minor upgrades that aren't always relevant or used 2) Sponsons 3) Units with swaps that aren't all comparable ( e.g. Death Company )
Much like points are not rules, but simply values within a rules system, these three items are not the issues but rather they are examples of the issue.
They are indicative of the issue regarding points and upgrades. You don't solve this by working out how to make Death Company with Plasma Pistols/Power Weapons and Russ Sponsons work, because all that does is fix those two parts of the issue.
Daedalus81 wrote: Yes, other games have upgrades for points, but rarely in the quantity and variety of 40K.
And? So? But? Therefore?
Figuring out that things that make you better should come with an associated cost isn't some revelatory new idea that we've yet to encounter. It's literally been part of 40k since the days when it was a semi-RPG. Why are people suddenly acting like what GW is done is not only the best way, but also that going back to upgrade costs is some impossible or unnecessary task?
The simple answer to this is development time. Power level was left to languish in 10th with (afaik) only a single update, presumably the development team didn't have or didn't want to allocate the time to it.
Plus at the end of the day whatever the competetive 'points' system, it will end up being the default to most people, which makes spending development time on a second system mostly a waste. It makes more sense to pick and stick with a single system.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: Okay but dude do those games have upgrades that cost points or not?? That was the question and you claimed the answer was "no", but now here you're saying it's "yes but upgrades aren't balanced!"
Maybe I'm the one taking crazy pills and should back out of this thread, but the cognitive dissonance that just continues to proliferate and grow like Nurgle's Gift is something else.
It came up like that, because I wasn't very precise with my language and I keep trying to add caveats at the end of posts, but people still seem to miss them. Yes, other games have upgrades for points, but rarely in the quantity and variety of 40K. Battletech and Horus Heresy are perhaps the only ones with upgrades similar to 40K and both of those have balance issues - Battletech less so, because you're not playing with a lot of models.
You want a more precise example? Star wars legion. Most units have multiple upgrades, even if it's just "add a dude" and "Add a special weapon". As an example, lets use one of the most basic, spammable grunts in the game, the humble B1 battle droid squad.
A single squad of B1 battledroids is 5 B1s and a sergeant. The are all armed with Bludgeon, and the E-5 blaster rifle stock. The unit has 4 upgrade slots, in their case each with a specific upgrade though some other units can have more, and doubles. (BX-Command droids come to mind, which, among other slots have two Training slots like most "commando" units).
The first of these slots is Heavy weapons, of which there are four (2 in the box, 2 as part of a dedicated B1 upgrade set). The E-5C (SMG, 16pts), E-5S (Sniper rifle, 18pts), E-60R (rocket launcher, 18pts), and the Radiation Cannon (cancer gun for killing multi-wound models or units with damage mitigation, 16pts), and all of these add a unit bearing them to the unit, bringing the squad to 7 droids.
The next slot is personnel, which is for attaching specialists and such to the unit. There are 8 options, an extra B1(4pts), EV-Series Medical Droid(Organics healer droid, 14pts), OOM-series battle droid (basically like upgrading to a veteran sergeant, allows the unit to spread it's activation tokens further, 8pts), Pk-series worker droid (Vehicle/droid repair droid, 12 pts), Security droid (allows the unit to ignore their automated attacking protocol, 6pts), T-series tactical droid (like attaching a Lieutenant too a squad, does the same as the security droid but also gives buffs, 18pts), and finally the viper droid(gives out observe tokens, 6pts).
Next is the Comms, of which there are 7, I won't go through them all but basically they give certain buffs centering around the activation and order systems.
Finally, a slot they technically don't have, which is Gear. Basically there are two gear upgrades that B1 droids can take, even though they have no slots, namely the Electrobinoculars, and the Portable Scanner, both of which call droids out on the sheet.
All of this to say, is that here is a system, which in a full 800pt game is generally on a model count level of 1000pts in 40k, that not only has wargear, has a lot of it, and they all cost points. and, most of them barring a couple are regularly used by various units,with a couple being only niche takes, and any "squad" or vehicle units usually have a few that are unique to it.
I don't think you even need to compare to other rulesets. Even within 40K itself, the approach is inconsistent.
Want to take a pair of plasma cannon sponsons on your tank? Plasma pistol and power fist for your character? Upgrade literally 2/3 of your Tyranid Warriors squad to heavy weapons? Throw a lascannon on every squad that can take one? Sure, go ahead, it's free.
Want a slightly different main gun on your Leman Russ? Fancier armor for your Captain? Melee weapons instead of ranged weapons on your Tyranid Warriors? WHOAH BUCKO, you can't just have that for free- you gotta pay a different points cost for it.
The distinction between free upgrades on the same datasheet versus upgrades represented as different datasheets with different costs is completely arbitrary. You can't tell me with a straight face that giving Jump Packs to a squad of VanVets is so important that it warrants a 10pt cost increase, but giving out 10+ plasma pistols and a half-dozen hunter-killer missiles and tank sponsons across an Astra Militarum army isn't impactful enough to be worth accounting for.
oni wrote: I'm a little late to the party, but whatever...
I like pointing units in blocks of models, I think this is a good change.
I don't mind it, but it runs into an OCD thing for me because many of the Primaris units are 3/6 or 3 and only 3 - and 3 does not divide into 100 - which drives me bonkers on the fluff aspect. If those units jumped to 5/10 or 5 only I'd be much more on board.
Daedalus81 wrote: I can't think of any game that has units with model to model weapon options like 40K does ( except OPR ) and also charges points for them.
Infinity? You don't have options.
Warmachine? Nope.
Any fantasy system? Nope.
Model agnostics? Nope.
WW2 systems? None of them cost points.
Starwars? Nope.
Dust? Nope.
Battletech.
There are preconfigured units, and there's an entire unit building system (technically more than one, as every basic unit category has their own construction rules, but they share most equipment / weapon rules) that is way more complicated.
Dropfleet Commander
Only for one faction but there's still a unit building process available that uses points for weapon and wargear options.
Horus Heresy
7th edition 40k on steroids when it comes to wargear / weapon options
Black Seas
has wargear options for points
X-Wing / Armada
both have wargear and weapon upgrades / bolt on weapons (not sure if i am remembering this correctly) for points
Bolt Action 2.0
has wargear and weapon upgrades for points
Flames of War
has wargear and weapon upgrades / swaps for points
Just because you can't think of any of these games does not mean they don't exist.
And honestly, I can't think of a game where choices that increase a units power are NOT paid for, outside of 40k 10th and AoS - but I am certainly biased by prefering games that allow customization of units, so that's probably not saying too much.
Battletech definitely has dud weapons. One shots are a waste of tonnage and the AC2 leaves a lot to be desired. Same vein as heresy where a PG is 10 and a PP is 10. I'd be curious to see if anyone bothers to take PP on non-CQC squads. Any upgrades in Bolt Action are well and clearly better guns and otherwise the only thing different about the guns there are the range or the # of shots as opposed to range, bs, s, ap, damage, and special rules.
And this steers a bit away into upgrades in general as opposed to upgrades that don't may not need to be points, because of their net effect. The former comes with a whole host of other discussion points.
I struggle to see your point, to be honest. These games have exactly what you claimed to not exist, and youre clearly familiar with some of them. BT is out because its not perfectly balanced, and BA is out because it is well balanced?
oni wrote: I'm a little late to the party, but whatever...
I like pointing units in blocks of models, I think this is a good change.
I don't mind it, but it runs into an OCD thing for me because many of the Primaris units are 3/6 or 3 and only 3 - and 3 does not divide into 100 - which drives me bonkers on the fluff aspect. If those units jumped to 5/10 or 5 only I'd be much more on board.
Over 500 votes and clearly the people that like the change are a minority. What's more games workshop knew people wouldn't like the change that's why you saw no news about it untill the edition droped. So the real question is what monetary reason drove them to piss of most thier players and will the players allow them to get away with it.
catbarf wrote: I don't think you even need to compare to other rulesets. Even within 40K itself, the approach is inconsistent.
Want to take a pair of plasma cannon sponsons on your tank? Plasma pistol and power fist for your character? Upgrade literally 2/3 of your Tyranid Warriors squad to heavy weapons? Throw a lascannon on every squad that can take one? Sure, go ahead, it's free.
Want a slightly different main gun on your Leman Russ? Fancier armor for your Captain? Melee weapons instead of ranged weapons on your Tyranid Warriors? WHOAH BUCKO, you can't just have that for free- you gotta pay a different points cost for it.
The distinction between free upgrades on the same datasheet versus upgrades represented as different datasheets with different costs is completely arbitrary. You can't tell me with a straight face that giving Jump Packs to a squad of VanVets is so important that it warrants a 10pt cost increase, but giving out 10+ plasma pistols and a half-dozen hunter-killer missiles and tank sponsons across an Astra Militarum army isn't impactful enough to be worth accounting for.
While there are many free upgrades that need something to balance not taking them (such as points), you have a bunch of bad examples here:
Vanguard Veterans have Scout 6" while Vanguard Veterans with Jump Packs have Deep Strike and a 12" move. I think that is worth a points difference.
Melee Warriors have a different ability and much improved melee weapon when compared to Ranged Warriors. So they have different datasheets and unit cost.
Did the divisions have to be made that way? No. But in these cases the different datasheets are actually different.
But LR Sponson and Ork Battlewagon upgrades are just too much free stuff on too little models.
Boosykes wrote: Over 500 votes and clearly the people that like the change are a minority. What's more games workshop knew people wouldn't like the change that's why you saw no news about it untill the edition droped. So the real question is what monetary reason drove them to piss of most thier players and will the players allow them to get away with it.
Time will tell.
The primary reason probably isn't directly monetary. They wanted to make this switch. They tried to entice us into it with Power Level as a parallel system. They tried to cajole us into it by making it the default system for Crusades. They tried to pretty much force us into it with the last MFM from 9th. Now they're just trying to replace points with it and hope we didn't notice it was PL with another name. 3 digit PL is probably better than 2 Digit PL, so I guess that's a plus. A secondary or tertiary reason may have been monetary in that people will buy new/replacement/etc models to have units with more options - not everything is magnetizable.
alextroy wrote: Melee Warriors have a different ability and much improved melee weapon when compared to Ranged Warriors. So they have different datasheets and unit cost.
They also have greatly inferior ranged attacks (ie. none) to the Ranged Warriors... so... why is one worth more than the other?
alextroy wrote: Melee Warriors have a different ability and much improved melee weapon when compared to Ranged Warriors. So they have different datasheets and unit cost.
They also have greatly inferior ranged attacks (ie. none) to the Ranged Warriors... so... why is one worth more than the other?
Usually an opportunity cost - Ranged units can attack more often than most melee units. Its part of what boned melee units so hard in the beginning of 8th when they lost the bonus attacks for charging, multiple weapons and so on.
Not a fan of limited unit sizes.. A block of 6 crisis suits costs 390, and the cheapest commander costs 110. There is no way to deep strike a full unit of crisis and a commander with enhancements or the enforcer/coldstar suit. A unit of 4 or 5 would have been perfect. I'm sure other armies have similar problems with transports or reserves.
DominayTrix wrote: Not a fan of limited unit sizes.. A block of 6 crisis suits costs 390, and the cheapest commander costs 110. There is no way to deep strike a full unit of crisis and a commander with enhancements or the enforcer/coldstar suit. A unit of 4 or 5 would have been perfect. I'm sure other armies have similar problems with transports or reserves.
I'm confused, both the commanders and crisis suits have deep strike. Can't the commander just be attached and they all get to deep strike together or am I missing something?
Thankfully they increased the transport capacity on lots of vehicle to accomodate a character attached to a unit so I don't believe this is a huge issue.
DominayTrix wrote: Not a fan of limited unit sizes.. A block of 6 crisis suits costs 390, and the cheapest commander costs 110. There is no way to deep strike a full unit of crisis and a commander with enhancements or the enforcer/coldstar suit. A unit of 4 or 5 would have been perfect. I'm sure other armies have similar problems with transports or reserves.
Some of them - which I suspect is intentional by GW in most cases. Land Raiders went from Transport:10 to Transport:12 as they made room for a 10+2 or 5+1 units+Leader(s), the Crusader stayed 16 (And the Crusader Squad can only be 5, 10, or 20 in size) - the Redeemer went from 12 to 14 but the Drop Pod stayed at 10. The Impulsor stayed 6 - probably to prevent 6 Bladeguard + 2 Leaders unless you use a Land Raider or Repulsor. Land Speeder Storms went from 5 to 6 for the Phobos Captain or Sergeant Telion. The Stormraven was already 12 + a Dread, for 10+2 or 5+1 - it lost the Dread Wound cap/requirement but still hasn't included DREADNAUGHT or MONSTER for Guilliman or Johnson to get a ride. Additionally the Land Raiders and Storm Raven can now carry Centurions - meaning 3 + a something(that can't attach) will fit in all three, but a full six will fit in none.
I'm guessing they were as.. lets say "meticulous" about what can fit in a transport as they were about what characters can join what units.
nekooni wrote: I struggle to see your point, to be honest. These games have exactly what you claimed to not exist, and youre clearly familiar with some of them. BT is out because its not perfectly balanced, and BA is out because it is well balanced?
His point is that no other game is like 40k and therefore no other game can be an example of how things are done because those are so much different
his first claim was that no other game has options like 40k that cost points, we named some (by far not all), it was ignored and goalpost moved to "but as many as 40k" and "not like sponsons on tanks"
he has no argument except for "GW can do nothing wrong and 40k is so unique among games with so many units that it cannot be perfect no matter how much GW tries"
with the problem actual being that GW does not even try at all
Breton wrote: Usually an opportunity cost - Ranged units can attack more often than most melee units. Its part of what boned melee units so hard in the beginning of 8th when they lost the bonus attacks for charging, multiple weapons and so on.
Which I could almost see as being reasonable if the two units had set weapons, but they don't. The ranged ones have upgrades to heavy weapons (which you don't pay for), and in a unit of 6 you can have more with heavy weapon upgrades than those without, so why are they somehow cheaper than a unit of Melee Warriors?
Ultimately however, before we get too deep into the stupidity of that situation, the bigger issue is the sheer idiocy of the Tyranid Warrior rules in the first place. Reducing them back down to BS4+, merging 4 different types of melee weapon into a single generic profile whilst simultaneously keeping 4 distinct ranged weapons. The whole thing is a complete joke.
Breton wrote: I'm guessing they were as.. lets say "meticulous" about what can fit in a transport as they were about what characters can join what units.
You're giving them too much credit. It's all based on box sizes, and nothing more than that. It's why we have the hair-pullingly asinine unit sizes for things like Custodes (2, 3, 5 or 6 for Allarus Terminators or Jetbikes, 4, 5, 9 or 10 for regular Custodes, but always 5 for Sagittarum because the conversion kit comes with exactly 5 guns!), 2 Spawn, Carnifexes in units of 1 to 2, and so on.
And it's also wildly inconsistent, with units that can't be in squadrons anymore (War Walkers) whilst others still can (Sentinels) for no reason. Custodian Wardens can't be in units of 5 despite coming 5 to a box.
The whole system is stupid, and I see people's frustration with that and no points for upgrades repeated time and time again, even amongst the most GW-friendly places.
nordsturmking wrote: @OP I don't like it because GW straight up deleted all weapon options for wulfen and many many other units to make it fit in this system. Unit upgrades worked good for many editions and i don't see a reason to do it like this other then using power levels instead of points.
This system is power level but they call it points.
The unit sizes are another bad design choice but thats a topic for another thread.
The last few editions: "omg gw are incompetent and can't point things for balance and there are too many wargear options"
This edition: "omg GW didn't include all those wargear options or include the points they can't balance, I liked it better before"
It's a duality of man situation and ultimately people whined before, they whine now. They didn't like that points weren't correct, they don't like that points aren't there.
It doesn't matter what they did, someone somewhere would be complaining. As is the nature of humanity and the wider Internet.
On second thoughts I now see GW as dealing with a difficult young child, they did their best to get the right mix of food on the plate but it was always wrong, the brand of sauce was wrong, the knive/fork too big or too small, not facing a window etc. and they got bored of trying to placate the noise so just did the "you get what you're given" routine as they've had enough.
Tell me you're posting in bad faith without telling me you're posting in bad faith. :/
Yes, there will always be complaints. But GW isn't even f***ing trying with the indexes. "GW did their best". . . Yeah, right.
Tell me you're posting in bad faith, where did I say they tried their best with this rules set?
I'm sorry you've forced me to break a simple statement down like you have 0 reading comprehension but here we are. I was very obviously referring to their previous behaviour of making efforts to please people via tweaking the game (8th/9th ed) in red. This is a reference to historically having tried their best to appease people. The green section indicates current behaviour where I clearly state they're fed up of the crap so just did what they want. I very clearly claimed they'd been trying their best historically, then got fed up producing todays content and not caring what people thought.
On second thoughts I now see GW as dealing with a difficult young child, they did their best to get the right mix of food on the plate but it was always wrong, the brand of sauce was wrong, the knive/fork too big or too small, not facing a window etc. and they got bored of trying to placate the noise so just did the "you get what you're given" routine as they've had enough.
The rebuttal you're trying to prove is:
Yes, there will always be complaints. But GW isn't even f***ing trying with the indexes. "GW did their best". . . Yeah, right.
Which as you will note is joining a red statement to a green one, displaying a lack of understanding or reading comprehension. At no point have I said they did their best with the indexes.
Dudeface wrote: I also finding it interesting there are a few praises for the state of the game and balance at the tail of 9th. That same meta with multiple units or armies with free upgrades included.
It was a fluke. Otherwise 10th would have been halfway balanced. 9th at launch was GW serving children hard boiled eggs covered in gravy and then being flabbergasted that that the kids want chicken nuggets instead, now they try to serve mussels and clams to children because that's what the adults want, but us kids still want our chicken nuggets. We'll settle for chicken with a side of vegetables, so it's not like we're impossible.
The tail end of 8th and 9th were both claimed to be very balanced and well maintained, so is it a fluke if the end of every edition is well balanced at that point? You also managed to use the same fething analogy I did to make the same point I did in a post calling me an idiot for it.
the whole system screams that they started of thinking about how to handle stuff and what to do but gave up because it was too much work and could not be done in the given time frame
it is not just stupid, because it shows some good ideas
but I guess the designer just faced the problem that there are too many units and too many different models to and they just gave up on it
and Tyranid Warriors are a good example of that
because it would make sense to split ranged and melee Warriors, split them for the weapons, 2 melee and 2 ranged units each with 2 options to chose from
they wrote the 4 ranged weapons, thought about needing to design 4 melee weapons, and that they need to do that for so many other units as well and just gave up
Breton wrote: Usually an opportunity cost - Ranged units can attack more often than most melee units. Its part of what boned melee units so hard in the beginning of 8th when they lost the bonus attacks for charging, multiple weapons and so on.
Which I could almost see as being reasonable if the two units had set weapons, but they don't. The ranged ones have upgrades to heavy weapons (which you don't pay for), and in a unit of 6 you can have more with heavy weapon upgrades than those without, so why are they somehow cheaper than a unit of Melee Warriors?
Well you've got hits on 4's vs hits on 3's with their primary attack, plus the specials are of different value.
Ultimately however, before we get too deep into the stupidity of that situation, the bigger issue is the sheer idiocy of the Tyranid Warrior rules in the first place. Reducing them back down to BS4+, merging 4 different types of melee weapon into a single generic profile whilst simultaneously keeping 4 distinct ranged weapons. The whole thing is a complete joke.
On the bright side, at least with all those merged weapons they've reduced some bloat and rules. That's what you wanted right?
Objectively speaking Melee and Ranged Warriors are probably backwards on pricing. The Ranged warriors should be more expensive than the melee - They'll be able to shoot far more often than the melee warriors can punch: especially after adding in that the ranged Warriors have almost the same melee output at the melee warriors.
Breton wrote: I'm guessing they were as.. lets say "meticulous" about what can fit in a transport as they were about what characters can join what units.
You're giving them too much credit. It's all based on box sizes, and nothing more than that. It's why we have the hair-pullingly asinine unit sizes for things like Custodes (2, 3, 5 or 6 for Allarus Terminators or Jetbikes, 4, 5, 9 or 10 for regular Custodes, but always 5 for Sagittarum because the conversion kit comes with exactly 5 guns!), 2 Spawn, Carnifexes in units of 1 to 2, and so on.
And it's also wildly inconsistent, with units that can't be in squadrons anymore (War Walkers) whilst others still can (Sentinels) for no reason. Custodian Wardens can't be in units of 5 despite coming 5 to a box.
The whole system is stupid, and I see people's frustration with that and no points for upgrades repeated time and time again, even amongst the most GW-friendly places.
They need to fix it, pronto.
I'm pretty sure increasing the transport capacity of a Land Raider had nothing to do with the box size of any of the Land Raider, Terminator, Terminator (Character) Intercessor etc boxes beyond they're in the fairly standard 5/10 unit/box sizes and can add up to two characters. Especially since 5 Terminators and 2 characters don't fit, nor do two boxes of Terminators. I'm also pretty sure none of the transports I mentioned can transport War Walkers or Sentinels whether they're squadroned or not. I'm almost as sure no character can join War Walkers or Sentinels whether they're squadroned or not. I'm even more sure no wargear upgrade - free or not - changes how many models can fit in most transports. But at least you got to mention it again. To summarize, nothing about what you're complaining about relates to whether they gave a little or a lot of thought to the transport capabilities of Transports in this edition.
Conversely, I'm not sure what the point of preventing 5 Terminators and two characters (Say Belial, a Deathwing Strikemaster and 5x Deathwing Command Squad) from riding in a Land Raider (But they can ride in a Crusader or Redeemer which ALSO allows them to hop out and charge) while they still have Deep Strike. The Transport Capacity between Land Raider variant to Land Raider variant itself may be an artefact of previous editions they didn't really do a deep enough dive on.
I fail to see why you keep bringing up transport amounts. That has nothing to do with unit size limitations. Bladeguard were not locked at 6 to prevent them from joining a character in a Repulsor. They are max 6 to a unit because they come 3 to a box.
Breton wrote: On the bright side, at least with all those merged weapons they've reduced some bloat and rules. That's what you wanted right?
Bloat was having 30+ Strats, two pages of relics, and then strats and relics and Warlord traits and psychic powers for a further 6 sub-factions. And then Synaptic Imperatives on top of that. And then unit-specific abilities on top of that.
A Bonesword being different to a set of Rending Claws was not 'bloat'.
DominayTrix wrote: Not a fan of limited unit sizes.. A block of 6 crisis suits costs 390, and the cheapest commander costs 110. There is no way to deep strike a full unit of crisis and a commander with enhancements or the enforcer/coldstar suit. A unit of 4 or 5 would have been perfect. I'm sure other armies have similar problems with transports or reserves.
I'm confused, both the commanders and crisis suits have deep strike. Can't the commander just be attached and they all get to deep strike together or am I missing something?
Thankfully they increased the transport capacity on lots of vehicle to accomodate a character attached to a unit so I don't believe this is a huge issue.
The maximum amount of points you can place in reserves in a 2k game is 500 points. Crisis Commander+Full Strength Crisis Suits is exactly 500 points. Coldstars/Enforcers/Crisis Commanders with Enhancements push the unit over the limit.
DominayTrix wrote: Not a fan of limited unit sizes.. A block of 6 crisis suits costs 390, and the cheapest commander costs 110. There is no way to deep strike a full unit of crisis and a commander with enhancements or the enforcer/coldstar suit. A unit of 4 or 5 would have been perfect. I'm sure other armies have similar problems with transports or reserves.
I'm confused, both the commanders and crisis suits have deep strike. Can't the commander just be attached and they all get to deep strike together or am I missing something?
Thankfully they increased the transport capacity on lots of vehicle to accomodate a character attached to a unit so I don't believe this is a huge issue.
The maximum amount of points you can place in reserves in a 2k game is 500 points. Crisis Commander+Full Strength Crisis Suits is exactly 500 points. Coldstars/Enforcers/Crisis Commanders with Enhancements push the unit over the limit.
The point limit is only for strategic reserves, it doesn't apply to deep striking units.
Boosykes wrote: So the real question is what monetary reason drove them to piss of most thier players and will the players allow them to get away with it.
Time will tell.
It's monetary for squad sizes and upgrades. It's spiteful because a lot of us made it known to Cruddace his ideas are fething garbage, and he wants to keep pushing his ideas regardless of the consequences.
DominayTrix wrote: Not a fan of limited unit sizes.. A block of 6 crisis suits costs 390, and the cheapest commander costs 110. There is no way to deep strike a full unit of crisis and a commander with enhancements or the enforcer/coldstar suit. A unit of 4 or 5 would have been perfect. I'm sure other armies have similar problems with transports or reserves.
I'm confused, both the commanders and crisis suits have deep strike. Can't the commander just be attached and they all get to deep strike together or am I missing something?
Thankfully they increased the transport capacity on lots of vehicle to accomodate a character attached to a unit so I don't believe this is a huge issue.
The maximum amount of points you can place in reserves in a 2k game is 500 points. Crisis Commander+Full Strength Crisis Suits is exactly 500 points. Coldstars/Enforcers/Crisis Commanders with Enhancements push the unit over the limit.
The point limit is only for strategic reserves, it doesn't apply to deep striking units.
Huh, so it does. Well, that is a lot better than I thought it was. Thank you
Boosykes wrote: So the real question is what monetary reason drove them to piss of most thier players and will the players allow them to get away with it.
Time will tell.
It's monetary for squad sizes and upgrades. It's spiteful because a lot of us made it known to Cruddace his ideas are fething garbage, and he wants to keep pushing his ideas regardless of the consequences.
1) Cruddace, however bad his ideas are in your opinion, doesn't answer to you. So long as his bosses are happy.....
2) Speaking of his bosses being happy..... Well, here you are. Still buying & playing his stuff.
So you must not be too unhappy.
Boosykes wrote: So the real question is what monetary reason drove them to piss of most thier players and will the players allow them to get away with it.
Time will tell.
It's monetary for squad sizes and upgrades. It's spiteful because a lot of us made it known to Cruddace his ideas are fething garbage, and he wants to keep pushing his ideas regardless of the consequences.
1) Cruddace, however bad his ideas are in your opinion, doesn't answer to you. So long as his bosses are happy.....
2) Speaking of his bosses being happy..... Well, here you are. Still buying & playing his stuff.
So you must not be too unhappy.
I'm not buying his stuff, haven't for years now, and I've been encouraging other people to do the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post: That was literally the worst attempt at a "Gotcha!" I've seen here so far.
Boosykes wrote: So the real question is what monetary reason drove them to piss of most thier players and will the players allow them to get away with it.
Time will tell.
It's monetary for squad sizes and upgrades. It's spiteful because a lot of us made it known to Cruddace his ideas are fething garbage, and he wants to keep pushing his ideas regardless of the consequences.
1) Cruddace, however bad his ideas are in your opinion, doesn't answer to you. So long as his bosses are happy.....
2) Speaking of his bosses being happy..... Well, here you are. Still buying & playing his stuff.
So you must not be too unhappy.
I'm not buying his stuff, haven't for years now, and I've been encouraging other people to do the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post: That was literally the worst attempt at a "Gotcha!" I've seen here so far.
Sales and profits stay high despite whatever Cruddace does, so obviously plenty of people aren't that upset, commercially he's a success for them.
Boosykes wrote: So the real question is what monetary reason drove them to piss of most thier players and will the players allow them to get away with it.
Time will tell.
It's monetary for squad sizes and upgrades. It's spiteful because a lot of us made it known to Cruddace his ideas are fething garbage, and he wants to keep pushing his ideas regardless of the consequences.
1) Cruddace, however bad his ideas are in your opinion, doesn't answer to you. So long as his bosses are happy.....
2) Speaking of his bosses being happy..... Well, here you are. Still buying & playing his stuff.
So you must not be too unhappy.
I'm not buying his stuff, haven't for years now, and I've been encouraging other people to do the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post: That was literally the worst attempt at a "Gotcha!" I've seen here so far.
Sales and profits stay high despite whatever Cruddace does, so obviously plenty of people aren't that upset, commercially he's a success for them.
And Gucci makes TONS of profit just by selling 2 overpriced purses. Your point?
Boosykes wrote: So the real question is what monetary reason drove them to piss of most thier players and will the players allow them to get away with it.
Time will tell.
It's monetary for squad sizes and upgrades. It's spiteful because a lot of us made it known to Cruddace his ideas are fething garbage, and he wants to keep pushing his ideas regardless of the consequences.
1) Cruddace, however bad his ideas are in your opinion, doesn't answer to you. So long as his bosses are happy.....
2) Speaking of his bosses being happy..... Well, here you are. Still buying & playing his stuff.
So you must not be too unhappy.
I'm not buying his stuff, haven't for years now, and I've been encouraging other people to do the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post: That was literally the worst attempt at a "Gotcha!" I've seen here so far.
Sales and profits stay high despite whatever Cruddace does, so obviously plenty of people aren't that upset, commercially he's a success for them.
And Gucci makes TONS of profit just by selling 2 overpriced purses. Your point?
Because:
It's spiteful because a lot of us made it known to Cruddace his ideas are fething garbage, and he wants to keep pushing his ideas regardless of the consequences.
First of all how did you make it known directly to him? Alongside that the "consequences" are that GW continues to make bank, so I don't think you've really dissuaded them of his viability. Same way Gucci stay very profitable by selling their product to people that like it.
Dudeface wrote: You also managed to use the same fething analogy I did to make the same point I did in a post calling me an idiot for it.
I don't think I called you an idiot. All I did was highlight where I understood Insectum to be coming from. I suppose you either mistook me for someone else or took my red text to be more aggressive than I meant it, red is just a high contrast colour, I could have bolded or made it green. But you're right, they're not the same thing and I missed that. As far as the end of 8th being balanced? I don't remember that, it must have been less than 6 months before the release of 9th because SM were still broken in January. 9th had terrible internal balance at the end of 9th as GW tried to ease us into PL, Flying Transports were garbage because of the new starts in reserve rule.
Dudeface wrote: Sales and profits stay high despite whatever Cruddace does, so obviously plenty of people aren't that upset, commercially he's a success for them.
Sales fell in 7th, if GW messes up badly enough people will stop playing and paying.
Dudeface wrote: You also managed to use the same fething analogy I did to make the same point I did in a post calling me an idiot for it.
I don't think I called you an idiot. All I did was highlight where I understood Insectum to be coming from. I suppose you either mistook me for someone else or took my red text to be more aggressive than I meant it, red is just a high contrast colour, I could have bolded or made it green. But you're right, they're not the same thing and I missed that. As far as the end of 8th being balanced? I don't remember that, it must have been less than 6 months before the release of 9th because SM were still broken in January. 9th had terrible internal balance at the end of 9th as GW tried to ease us into PL, Flying Transports were garbage because of the new starts in reserve rule.
Dudeface wrote: Sales and profits stay high despite whatever Cruddace does, so obviously plenty of people aren't that upset, commercially he's a success for them.
Sales fell in 7th, if GW messes up badly enough people will stop playing and paying.
Fair, apologies then if the tone was misunderstood
I suspect we might see the sales slow down this edition to be honest as they've dug themselves into a hole with the unit loadouts I can't see a nice way out of and I suspect it'll impact the community image a little.
Boosykes wrote: So the real question is what monetary reason drove them to piss of most thier players and will the players allow them to get away with it.
Time will tell.
It's monetary for squad sizes and upgrades. It's spiteful because a lot of us made it known to Cruddace his ideas are fething garbage, and he wants to keep pushing his ideas regardless of the consequences.
1) Cruddace, however bad his ideas are in your opinion, doesn't answer to you. So long as his bosses are happy.....
2) Speaking of his bosses being happy..... Well, here you are. Still buying & playing his stuff.
So you must not be too unhappy.
I'm not buying his stuff, haven't for years now, and I've been encouraging other people to do the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post: That was literally the worst attempt at a "Gotcha!" I've seen here so far.
Then you're on a fools errand as most players dont give a crap who the designer of a game is. Or what their design sins (real or imagined) are - so long as theyre currently having fun with it.
And despite all the complaining you & others are doing? There's still plenty of fun to be had with 40k.
for now I don't see a reason why sales should go down
we already have big tournaments running, and a lot of people who started painting in 9th that are now going to play the game and buying the models to do so
until the Codex drops there won't be a big change as this is still the "marketing told us this is the best game ever" phase and it is still free.
things that might have an impact are no free access to the rules and a list builder, but the russian archives are still there and an alternative to BS is worked on
as well as Codizes making things worse and not better, but therefore we need several books released and by the time people are upset enough in large enough numbers to impact sales, 11th will be announced
there are reasons why the cycle is kept short, and one is to keep the hype going and offer a "solution" to the problem if people are unhappy
I wouldn't call BA well balanced. It's definitely infantry heavy, you need recce, and flamers are quite good. It's just played in a manner where people do tournaments, but just for the opportunity to play games and not to be competitive in the same sense as 40K.
But a lot of these other games call into question the differences between systems. I doubt most people here would want their weapons to look like historical systems, right? Every army has essentially the same stats.
I wouldn't call BA well balanced. It's definitely infantry heavy, you need recce, and flamers are quite good. It's just played in a manner where people do tournaments, but just for the opportunity to play games and not to be competitive in the same sense as 40K.
But a lot of these other games call into question the differences between systems. I doubt most people here would want their weapons to look like historical systems, right? Every army has essentially the same stats.
I wouldn't mind assuming the fluff is represented, I'd rather gauss and bolt weapons share the same profile than bolt weapons having re-roll 1s to hit because of exploding bolts and gauss having exploding 6s because of reasons. Abilities are for when stats alone cannot convey a narrative.
Boosykes wrote: So the real question is what monetary reason drove them to piss of most thier players and will the players allow them to get away with it.
Time will tell.
It's monetary for squad sizes and upgrades. It's spiteful because a lot of us made it known to Cruddace his ideas are fething garbage, and he wants to keep pushing his ideas regardless of the consequences.
1) Cruddace, however bad his ideas are in your opinion, doesn't answer to you. So long as his bosses are happy.....
2) Speaking of his bosses being happy..... Well, here you are. Still buying & playing his stuff.
So you must not be too unhappy.
I'm not buying his stuff, haven't for years now, and I've been encouraging other people to do the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post: That was literally the worst attempt at a "Gotcha!" I've seen here so far.
Then you're on a fools errand as most players dont give a crap who the designer of a game is. Or what their design sins (real or imagined) are - so long as theyre currently having fun with it.
And despite all the complaining you & others are doing? There's still plenty of fun to be had with 40k.
People have fun spending money on terrible products all the time. How is this a defense for you?
Boosykes wrote: Over 500 votes and clearly the people that like the change are a minority. What's more games workshop knew people wouldn't like the change that's why you saw no news about it untill the edition droped. So the real question is what monetary reason drove them to piss of most thier players and will the players allow them to get away with it.
Time will tell.
I'm a new player so the simplicity is nice, but even I'm surprised they would alter the system so drastically. My guess is it's an Overton Window shift to foreshadow a more moderate change later. "Look we fixed that awful simplification (that we made in the first place). See we're the good guys!" But I can't think of anything that wouldn't have been better just implementing immediately. Maybe to formally kill off WYSIWYG?
Boosykes wrote: Over 500 votes and clearly the people that like the change are a minority. What's more games workshop knew people wouldn't like the change that's why you saw no news about it untill the edition droped. So the real question is what monetary reason drove them to piss of most thier players and will the players allow them to get away with it.
Time will tell.
As much as we want to believe it, Dakkadakka does not represent the community at large. In short, there is no data of who likes and who hates the new design, except maybe when GW does their next questionnaire and even then I am not sure if they reveal the outcome(especially if it is damning for them).
So the correct assumption is:
62% are against the change of people on Dakka.
20% like the change of people on Dakka.
18% is mixed/neutral of people on Dakka.
Which means that 62% on Dakka are absolutely against the change, and although a majority it is not a by a large margin of all players on dakka. A follow up question would be: Do these 62% still buy models and are their opinions actually affecting GW sales, and so on and so on. Endless factors that are hard to parse out of a rather simple online poll.
I think it would be more telling whether people like/hate it when it comes to overall sales, but that will take time to gather/mount up. I'll probably follow up with my FLGS over the coming months to see the trends over time.
So true. One question pool are good for getting the mood, but rarely answer anything. 62% of Dakka poll respondents don’t like the change but will they play 10th? Will they buy Leviathan? Will they buy any GW product related to 10th?
That’s just a handful of follow up questions. At the risk of bring up politics, US Voters hated Obamacare in polls, but they loved the individual elements of Obamacare in those same polls. The overall mood was not the whole story.
Boosykes wrote: Over 500 votes and clearly the people that like the change are a minority. What's more games workshop knew people wouldn't like the change that's why you saw no news about it untill the edition droped. So the real question is what monetary reason drove them to piss of most thier players and will the players allow them to get away with it.
Time will tell.
I'm a new player so the simplicity is nice, but even I'm surprised they would alter the system so drastically. My guess is it's an Overton Window shift to foreshadow a more moderate change later. "Look we fixed that awful simplification (that we made in the first place). See we're the good guys!" But I can't think of anything that wouldn't have been better just implementing immediately. Maybe to formally kill off WYSIWYG?
Boosykes wrote: Over 500 votes and clearly the people that like the change are a minority. What's more games workshop knew people wouldn't like the change that's why you saw no news about it untill the edition droped. So the real question is what monetary reason drove them to piss of most thier players and will the players allow them to get away with it.
Time will tell.
I'm a new player so the simplicity is nice, but even I'm surprised they would alter the system so drastically. My guess is it's an Overton Window shift to foreshadow a more moderate change later. "Look we fixed that awful simplification (that we made in the first place). See we're the good guys!" But I can't think of anything that wouldn't have been better just implementing immediately. Maybe to formally kill off WYSIWYG?
WYSIWYG is no longer theirs to kill or feed. They gave birth to it, but it now belongs to the players and their zeitgeist will keep it pretty much exactly where its at. Smaller than absolute, yet big enough to keep people "honest". Even when it was in the rulebook, it was not absolute - few people demanded to see the grenades on your model at a time when Tactical Squads actually had optional grenade bits on the sprue and in the rules. Most people expect to see a Plasma Cannon where a Plasma Cannon should be, but a holstered pistol can be bolt, plasma, grav, flame, melta, or even potentially invisible.
They also telegraphed this paradigm shift mutliple times. One of the first times was when Hellblasters got zero point weapon swaps vs smaller assault plasma, medium rapid plasma, and big heavy plasma. That one may even predate/release simultaneous with Power Level, I'd have to look. Hard to see then, easier now. The obvious one of course was the last MFM of 9th where most of the Marine armies got the same treatment across 90% of their swaps - with one of the few exclusions being Thunderhammers on a Vanguard Vets squad that has been absolutely bent over by this Index, or multi-meltas on a handful of units but that went away.
This is a general reply to the myriad posts. I have lots going on at work and I'm still tool building for analysis on this edition so I don't have enough time to dive in to things directly.
This isn't a battle between whether or not GW will go back. It's a battle to comprehend the changes and effects and whether or not it produces a better game. So far plasma pistols, missing sponsons, and thrifting points have failed to convince me that that system was better at tackling issues and there's potentially significant issues as a result of breaking those boundaries. I'm speaking in general terms and not trying to ignore or dismiss niche issues that sit outside of those terms.
Allowing people to take 8 models to dodge both blast and a half strength value of 3 instead of 4 has material impact on the value of blast weapons and battleshock. Allowing Death Company to be cheaper with chainswords opens up an opportunity for Lemartes to run around with really cheap bodies with plentiful attacks granting both -1D and Lethal Hits for less points than a standard unit might be.
Taking the position that GW should just change everything to comport with each person's sensibilities...isn't sensible or practical. I don't find it to be a useful argument.
Also, I find it way more compelling to take a unit and decide that I'm taking melta over plasma, because my army supports delivering them before they die and the meta has lots of good targets rather than me saying, 'oh, well I guess I'll take melta, because it's cheaper and I might as well fill the rest of my points gap with them'.
Daedalus81 wrote: This is a general reply to the myriad posts. I have lots going on at work and I'm still tool building for analysis on this edition so I don't have enough time to dive in to things directly.
This isn't a battle between whether or not GW will go back. It's a battle to comprehend the changes and effects and whether or not it produces a better game. So far plasma pistols, missing sponsons, and thrifting points have failed to convince me that that system was better at tackling issues and there's potentially significant issues as a result of breaking those boundaries. I'm speaking in general terms and not trying to ignore or dismiss niche issues that sit outside of those terms.
Allowing people to take 8 models to dodge both blast and a half strength value of 3 instead of 4 has material impact on the value of blast weapons and battleshock. Allowing Death Company to be cheaper with chainswords opens up an opportunity for Lemartes to run around with really cheap bodies with plentiful attacks granting both -1D and Lethal Hits for less points than a standard unit might be.
Taking the position that GW should just change everything to comport with each person's sensibilities...isn't sensible or practical. I don't find it to be useful.
Also, I find it way more compelling to take a unit and decide that I'm taking melta over plasma, because my army supports delivering them before they die and the meta has lots of good targets rather than me saying, 'oh, well I guess I'll take melta, because it's cheaper and I might as well fill the rest of my points gap with them'.
I totally hated Power Level. This isn't that.
Can you explain the difference between this and PL?
PL was an average of the available upgrades. That created really huge gaps in very specialized units like VV, Deathwatch, etc. The whole gutting of Combis, options, and so on was an effort to cut out the huge variability that PL had. Enforcing sizes minimizes gamification of the rules themselves and an open FOC makes it so people with winners in required selections don't come out ahead.
It still HAS the elements of 'well what if I don't take sponsons', but this absolutely seems designed to use this setup and there's a lot of coming to terms with the consequences of that. And it's still messed up in other ways, but I don't think points contributes to that as much as other stuff - or, if you will, the lack of points addressing too strong detachment rules.
Daedalus81 wrote: This is a general reply to the myriad posts. I have lots going on at work and I'm still tool building for analysis on this edition so I don't have enough time to dive in to things directly.
This isn't a battle between whether or not GW will go back. It's a battle to comprehend the changes and effects and whether or not it produces a better game. So far plasma pistols, missing sponsons, and thrifting points have failed to convince me that that system was better at tackling issues and there's potentially significant issues as a result of breaking those boundaries. I'm speaking in general terms and not trying to ignore or dismiss niche issues that sit outside of those terms.
Allowing people to take 8 models to dodge both blast and a half strength value of 3 instead of 4 has material impact on the value of blast weapons and battleshock. Allowing Death Company to be cheaper with chainswords opens up an opportunity for Lemartes to run around with really cheap bodies with plentiful attacks granting both -1D and Lethal Hits for less points than a standard unit might be.
Taking the position that GW should just change everything to comport with each person's sensibilities...isn't sensible or practical. I don't find it to be useful.
Also, I find it way more compelling to take a unit and decide that I'm taking melta over plasma, because my army supports delivering them before they die and the meta has lots of good targets rather than me saying, 'oh, well I guess I'll take melta, because it's cheaper and I might as well fill the rest of my points gap with them'.
I totally hated Power Level. This isn't that.
Can you explain the difference between this and PL?
I think it’s pretty clear that spending time on a revised point system was pretty much at the bottom of the heap for two reasons:
A) we’re giving it away for free
B) we’ll change it in six months with a pay-for points guide or in the codexes anyway
So they half-assed something to throw out with the new edition to give people at least something to play with, and might be arsed to put some thought into it down the road.
Frankly, I don’t expect the current point situation without upgrade costs will last very long at all.
The 5/10 squad thing? That’ll probably stick around.
Daedalus81 wrote: This is a general reply to the myriad posts. I have lots going on at work and I'm still tool building for analysis on this edition so I don't have enough time to dive in to things directly.
This isn't a battle between whether or not GW will go back. It's a battle to comprehend the changes and effects and whether or not it produces a better game. So far plasma pistols, missing sponsons, and thrifting points have failed to convince me that that system was better at tackling issues and there's potentially significant issues as a result of breaking those boundaries. I'm speaking in general terms and not trying to ignore or dismiss niche issues that sit outside of those terms.
Allowing people to take 8 models to dodge both blast and a half strength value of 3 instead of 4 has material impact on the value of blast weapons and battleshock. Allowing Death Company to be cheaper with chainswords opens up an opportunity for Lemartes to run around with really cheap bodies with plentiful attacks granting both -1D and Lethal Hits for less points than a standard unit might be.
Taking the position that GW should just change everything to comport with each person's sensibilities...isn't sensible or practical. I don't find it to be a useful argument.
Also, I find it way more compelling to take a unit and decide that I'm taking melta over plasma, because my army supports delivering them before they die and the meta has lots of good targets rather than me saying, 'oh, well I guess I'll take melta, because it's cheaper and I might as well fill the rest of my points gap with them'.
Daedalus81 wrote: This is a general reply to the myriad posts. I have lots going on at work and I'm still tool building for analysis on this edition so I don't have enough time to dive in to things directly.
This isn't a battle between whether or not GW will go back. It's a battle to comprehend the changes and effects and whether or not it produces a better game. So far plasma pistols, missing sponsons, and thrifting points have failed to convince me that that system was better at tackling issues and there's potentially significant issues as a result of breaking those boundaries. I'm speaking in general terms and not trying to ignore or dismiss niche issues that sit outside of those terms.
Allowing people to take 8 models to dodge both blast and a half strength value of 3 instead of 4 has material impact on the value of blast weapons and battleshock. Allowing Death Company to be cheaper with chainswords opens up an opportunity for Lemartes to run around with really cheap bodies with plentiful attacks granting both -1D and Lethal Hits for less points than a standard unit might be.
Taking the position that GW should just change everything to comport with each person's sensibilities...isn't sensible or practical. I don't find it to be a useful argument.
Also, I find it way more compelling to take a unit and decide that I'm taking melta over plasma, because my army supports delivering them before they die and the meta has lots of good targets rather than me saying, 'oh, well I guess I'll take melta, because it's cheaper and I might as well fill the rest of my points gap with them'.
I totally hated Power Level. This isn't that.
How is this not powerlevel?
Well, you see, GW did this free-upgrades thing as the sole cost mechanism for army building in Tenth. Since GW can do no wrong, this free upgrades thing must not be wrong. Since PL was wrong, then that cannot be what GW is doing.
In theory, GW has balanced the either/or options and included most of the optionals in the cost. You therefore do not get cases of purely better units from the same points cost.
Let's use my favorite example, the Terminator Squad. A Terminator Squad of 5 models is 205 points. For that you get:
1 Terminator Sergeant with Powerweapon and Storm Bolter
1 Terminator with your choice of: Assault Cannon; Heavy Flamer; Storm Bolter and Cyclone Missile
3 Terminators with Storm Bolter
Any of the Terminators (excluding the Terminator Sergeant) can have either a Power Fist or a Chainfist
Every option available in this unit is a lateral move to a piece of equipment that is better against some targets and worst against others. Short of deciding you don't want a heavy weapon Terminator, this unit is roughly equivalent no matter how you outfit it. This means placing the points at 205 is Points not Power Level in disguise.
The problem is that the Terminator Squad seems to be more of an outlier than the process of determining points allows. That is a shame, because I think the game would be the better for not having a long list of upgrade cost that allow for too much cost-benefit analysis on unit composition based on points efficiency.
alextroy wrote: In theory, GW has balanced the either/or options and included most of the optionals in the cost. You therefore do not get cases of purely better units from the same points cost.
Let's use my favorite example, the Terminator Squad. A Terminator Squad of 5 models is 205 points. For that you get:
1 Terminator Sergeant with Powerweapon and Storm Bolter
1 Terminator with your choice of: Assault Cannon; Heavy Flamer; Storm Bolter and Cyclone Missile
3 Terminators with Storm Bolter
Any of the Terminators (excluding the Terminator Sergeant) can have either a Power Fist or a Chainfist
Every option available in this unit is a lateral move to a piece of equipment that is better against some targets and worst against others. Short of deciding you don't want a heavy weapon Terminator, this unit is roughly equivalent no matter how you outfit it. This means placing the points at 205 is Points not Power Level in disguise.
The problem is that the Terminator Squad seems to be more of an outlier than the process of determining points allows. That is a shame, because I think the game would be the better for not having a long list of upgrade cost that allow for too much cost-benefit analysis on unit composition based on points efficiency.
What happens if you take a Terminator Sergeant with Power Sword and 4 Terminators with Storm Bolters and Power Fists?
Is that unit roughly equivalent?
Is a Leman Russ without sponsons roughly equivalent to one with sponsons?
I our latest example of cope is "Well, actually, Dakka doesn't represent the gaming community, so... the results don't really mean anything!".
I've been reading comments in random places - Auspex Videos, Facebook, Bricky's videos - and the lamentations over these "points" and the inflexible (and nonsensical) squad size limitations are widespread and universal. This is not just a Dakka thing.
Daedalus81 wrote: It's a battle to comprehend the changes and effects and whether or not it produces a better game. So far plasma pistols, missing sponsons, and thrifting points have failed to convince me that that system was better at tackling issues and there's potentially significant issues as a result of breaking those boundaries. I'm speaking in general terms and not trying to ignore or dismiss niche issues that sit outside of those terms.
Again, you're not seeing the woods for the trees. Those are symptoms of the overall issues. Simply examples of why this new system is so flawed.
Daedalus81 wrote: Allowing people to take 8 models to dodge both blast and a half strength value of 3 instead of 4 has material impact on the value of blast weapons and battleshock.
So now you're against variable squad sizes - something that has been part of most races in the game since it started, and basically every faction in the game since 1998 - and are going to claim it's because people would use it just to avoid blast penalties? Are you for real?
We really are reaching 1984 levels of "We've always been at war with Eastasia!" when it comes to your instant and total support for whatever changes GW makes.
Daedalus81 wrote: Allowing Death Company to be cheaper with chainswords opens up an opportunity for Lemartes to run around with really cheap bodies with plentiful attacks granting both -1D and Lethal Hits for less points than a standard unit might be.
And...? That's a choice players can make for themselves. A choice these "points" take away from them.
Daedalus81 wrote: Taking the position that GW should just change everything to comport with each person's sensibilities...isn't sensible or practical. I don't find it to be a useful argument.
Who is making that argument?
Daedalus81 wrote: Also, I find it way more compelling to take a unit and decide that I'm taking melta over plasma, because my army supports delivering them before they die and the meta has lots of good targets rather than me saying, 'oh, well I guess I'll take melta, because it's cheaper and I might as well fill the rest of my points gap with them'.
I can't think of an example of ever going "Well I guess I'll take Melta because it's cheaper...". Who designed armies like that? What kind of straw-filled argument is this, Daed?
It's an inflexible system that doesn't account for options and costs everything the same regardless of what's taken. It is Power Level with the serial number filed off.
Power level was left to languish in 9th with (afaik) only a single update, presumably the development team didn't have or didn't want to allocate the time to it.
From my perspective, and the perspective of at least some other people who favoured PL, that was a FEATURE not a bug. I hate that in the new system, every little ripple that hits competitive play will hit Crusade. The idea that the value of my Crusade roster has to change 2-4 times a year is another one of my beefs with 10th; part of what I loved about Crusade and PL is that they steered free of all that constant change. Cripple air cavalry cuz one Ork flyer and one Admech flyer are broken? Not in Crusade. No dual Brotherhood GK? Not in Crusade. Change the value of your Crusade Roster every time Nick Nanavati gets hiccups? Not a chance.
But now 10th is here. Getting "updated" as regularly as Matched was in 9th is not my idea of fun; I think it's the second worst thing to happen to Crusade in 10th. Separate systems was the way to go.
Plus at the end of the day whatever the competetive 'points' system, it will end up being the default to most people, which makes spending development time on a second system mostly a waste. It makes more sense to pick and stick with a single system.
Agree to disagree.
I mean, objectively, in the business sense? Maybe.
But I think of Inquisitor 28, or Blanchitsu, and I think a lot is lost when you don't leave room for the storytellers to grow and breathe. Giving us a sandbox where the narrative takes priority over the futile quest for perfect balance. And to do it in a way that didn't interfere with what a larger portion of the fanbase was doing? Great strategy.
alextroy wrote: In theory, GW has balanced the either/or options and included most of the optionals in the cost. You therefore do not get cases of purely better units from the same points cost.
Let's use my favorite example, the Terminator Squad. A Terminator Squad of 5 models is 205 points. For that you get:
1 Terminator Sergeant with Powerweapon and Storm Bolter
1 Terminator with your choice of: Assault Cannon; Heavy Flamer; Storm Bolter and Cyclone Missile
3 Terminators with Storm Bolter
Any of the Terminators (excluding the Terminator Sergeant) can have either a Power Fist or a Chainfist
Every option available in this unit is a lateral move to a piece of equipment that is better against some targets and worst against others. Short of deciding you don't want a heavy weapon Terminator, this unit is roughly equivalent no matter how you outfit it. This means placing the points at 205 is Points not Power Level in disguise.
The problem is that the Terminator Squad seems to be more of an outlier than the process of determining points allows. That is a shame, because I think the game would be the better for not having a long list of upgrade cost that allow for too much cost-benefit analysis on unit composition based on points efficiency.
What happens if you take a Terminator Sergeant with Power Sword and 4 Terminators with Storm Bolters and Power Fists?
Is that unit roughly equivalent?
Is a Leman Russ without sponsons roughly equivalent to one with sponsons?
Your choice to leave the heavy weapon at home is on you. It's a one off choice in the unit that GW is basing the game on you actually taking. I mean, why would you leave it at home? The only reason I can think of is to save points, which I don't think they want you to be able to do.
As for the Leman Russ without sponsons, that is a great example of where their implementation of the concept has failed miserably. They would have been better off just saying all Leman Russ have Sponsons and leaving the players to decide what to do with the Sponsonless models than the free choice to take them. Or they could have not made 7 different datasheets for every turret weapon and given us Leman Russ and Leman Russ with Sponson datasheets. I guess they wanted the different abilities for every individual weapon to make them cool.
PL was an average of the available upgrades. That created really huge gaps in very specialized units like VV, Deathwatch, etc. The whole gutting of Combis, options, and so on was an effort to cut out the huge variability that PL had. Enforcing sizes minimizes gamification of the rules themselves and an open FOC makes it so people with winners in required selections don't come out ahead.
It still HAS the elements of 'well what if I don't take sponsons', but this absolutely seems designed to use this setup and there's a lot of coming to terms with the consequences of that. And it's still messed up in other ways, but I don't think points contributes to that as much as other stuff - or, if you will, the lack of points addressing too strong detachment rules.
You don't get bigger variability than sponsons on a Predator, there might be more cases where weapon swaps should cost 0 pts or all weapon swaps should cost the same number of pts instead of different values like 0, 3, 5, 7 and 10. Not acknowledging that those cases will still exist despite GW's best effort with the indexes is insanity and closing off the option (like GW closed off the option of 4 pt models in 9th) would be like insisting all units and upgrades should be costed in prime numbers only. GW tried to make bad profiles better and strong profiles weaker in the past, look at dark lances and multimeltas, but balancing weapon profiles is hard, making weapon profiles thematic is much easier, then problems in balance can be fixed with pts, that's what pts are for. They're tiny and easily adjustable, they love making options as balanced against each other as possible and there is no Pistol 4 laspistol nonsense involved. Whether flamers, plasma, grav, etc. are going to be viable we don't know yet, the only thing we do know is that naked units will not be viable. Considering the perception of many people was that GW heavily encouraged naked units in the rules of previous editions or for other reasons prefer naked units, that should be a viable strategy.
A unit of 8 has a starting strength of 8, half of 8 is 4, not 3.
alextroy wrote: In theory, GW has balanced the either/or options and included most of the optionals in the cost. You therefore do not get cases of purely better units from the same points cost.
Let's use my favorite example, the Terminator Squad. A Terminator Squad of 5 models is 205 points. For that you get:
1 Terminator Sergeant with Powerweapon and Storm Bolter
1 Terminator with your choice of: Assault Cannon; Heavy Flamer; Storm Bolter and Cyclone Missile
3 Terminators with Storm Bolter
Any of the Terminators (excluding the Terminator Sergeant) can have either a Power Fist or a Chainfist
Every option available in this unit is a lateral move to a piece of equipment that is better against some targets and worst against others. Short of deciding you don't want a heavy weapon Terminator, this unit is roughly equivalent no matter how you outfit it. This means placing the points at 205 is Points not Power Level in disguise.
The problem is that the Terminator Squad seems to be more of an outlier than the process of determining points allows. That is a shame, because I think the game would be the better for not having a long list of upgrade cost that allow for too much cost-benefit analysis on unit composition based on points efficiency.
What happens if you take a Terminator Sergeant with Power Sword and 4 Terminators with Storm Bolters and Power Fists?
Is that unit roughly equivalent?
Is a Leman Russ without sponsons roughly equivalent to one with sponsons?
Your choice to leave the heavy weapon at home is on you. It's a one off choice in the unit that GW is basing the game on you actually taking. I mean, why would you leave it at home? The only reason I can think of is to save points, which I don't think they want you to be able to do.
They have chosen to price the Terminator Squad in a way that includes 1 Heavy Weapon per 5 models. They leave the choice to take it or not to you, the player. If we assume it isn't a lazy choice (a stretch, I know), then it must be to get you to take that Heavy Weapon. This lets them better gauge the relative power of a Terminator Squad in the army without worrying about the relative cost of the weapons on the models.
Many don't agree with the choice, but we are not on the ones who get to make the decision.
Or we can all rebel as a gaming community and make our own points values for units the include cost for individual upgrades. GW did give us a starting point
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's a bad design choice. If you don't take an upgrade, you shouldn't have to pay for it.
Yeah, well, ya know, that's just like your opinion man.
Most of the people who responded to the poll appear to agree with you, but saying it's bad is still subjective.
There are certainly some datasheets where GW appear to have gotten this wrong, but is it so wrong on enough datasheets to warrant throwing it all out and starting again?
It's a horrifically flawed system. They abdicated their responsibility to create a points system for their new game and then gas-lit everyone with their explanations.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's a bad design choice. If you don't take an upgrade, you shouldn't have to pay for it.
Yeah, well, ya know, that's just like your opinion man.
Most of the people who responded to the poll appear to agree with you, but saying it's bad is still subjective.
There are certainly some datasheets where GW appear to have gotten this wrong, but is it so wrong on enough datasheets to warrant throwing it all out and starting again?
No, PL misses the core of what a points system is meant to do, balance games. *angry rant deleted*
It's a horrifically flawed system. They abdicated their responsibility to create a points system for their new game and then gas-lit everyone with their explanations.
Well fair enough, I can't begrudge anyone their opinon.
I'm not going to hold my breath though, I doubt the designers their going to backflip on their choice without a word from on high, and I wouldn't expect that before GW's half year results come out in January.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's a bad design choice. If you don't take an upgrade, you shouldn't have to pay for it.
Not disagreeing but it has dawned on me the opposite is true of many real world examples. Buy a big mac meal and ask not to have gherkins, you don't get a discount for using fewer ingredients. If you buy a console and don't want/need the controller, no discount for that choice. Its very normal to not get a discount for opting to take the suboptimal choice in life, mostly with food.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's a bad design choice. If you don't take an upgrade, you shouldn't have to pay for it.
Yeah, well, ya know, that's just like your opinion man.
Most of the people who responded to the poll appear to agree with you, but saying it's bad is still subjective.
There are certainly some datasheets where GW appear to have gotten this wrong, but is it so wrong on enough datasheets to warrant throwing it all out and starting again?
No, PL misses the core of what a points system is meant to do, balance games. *angry rant deleted*
So just to extrapolate your assertion is that free upgrades creates imbalanaced games? Is that correct?
I understanding that this system creates inbalance within datasheets, i.e. a no sponson Leman Russ is clearly worse than one with sponsons, but that doesn't mean that any given game is imbalanced or that most games will be imbalanced.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's a bad design choice. If you don't take an upgrade, you shouldn't have to pay for it.
Not disagreeing but it has dawned on me the opposite is true of many real world examples. Buy a big mac meal and ask not to have gherkins, you don't get a discount for using fewer ingredients. If you buy a console and don't want/need the controller, no discount for that choice. Its very normal to not get a discount for opting to take the suboptimal choice in life, mostly with food.
this is a perfect example as it proofs the point, the system is flawed as you should not pay for it
just that it happens does not change the fact that you should not pay for it
that the BigMac is not discounted if you don't want 1 ingredient but you have to pay extra if you want 1 more should not be the case
and therefore in some places you can make your own burger by paying for the single ingredient and you don't have to pay for anything you did not take
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's a horrifically flawed system. They abdicated their responsibility to create a points system for their new game and then gas-lit everyone with their explanations.
I would not call the system itself flawed, simply because other games use a similar one and it works really well
the problem is simply that GW does not want to invest enough time and money into it to make it work, maybe because it will be replaced with 11th anyway or because they saw that with that system the number of units for NPC factions would be similar to Marines and this was not allowed
The example would make more sense if the burger had 10 additional toppings one could get (bacon, extra bacon, extra cheese, extra meat, etc.), and it was costed as though it had all of them, but by default had none of them.
Dudeface wrote: Not disagreeing but it has dawned on me the opposite is true of many real world examples. Buy a big mac meal and ask not to have gherkins, you don't get a discount for using fewer ingredients. If you buy a console and don't want/need the controller, no discount for that choice. Its very normal to not get a discount for opting to take the suboptimal choice in life, mostly with food.
Excuse my french, but what kind of nonsense argument is this?
Is a PS5 without a disc drive the same price as one with it?
Have you ever bought a car and had to pay the same price no matter what configuration you wanted?
Do you live in a place where extra toppings on sandwiches and pizzas are free?
And none of this is in any way connected to tabletop gaming.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The example would make more sense if the burger had 10 additional toppings one could get (bacon, extra bacon, extra cheese, extra meat, etc.), and it was costed as though it had all of them, but by default had none of them.
there is a reason why you won't find such an example, because any other company but GW pulling something like this off will result in a shitstorm
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's a bad design choice. If you don't take an upgrade, you shouldn't have to pay for it.
Not disagreeing but it has dawned on me the opposite is true of many real world examples. Buy a big mac meal and ask not to have gherkins, you don't get a discount for using fewer ingredients. If you buy a console and don't want/need the controller, no discount for that choice. Its very normal to not get a discount for opting to take the suboptimal choice in life, mostly with food.
McDonalds are profit-maximizing, not balancing value against price, although profit-maximizing might sometimes look like a balancing act. My Necron Lord isn't trying to profit off his Tomb Blade sales by shorting me my change for getting the model without all the bells and whistles. I've engaged in similar anologies before and I think that was a mistake, it's not the same thing and should not be treated as such.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's a bad design choice. If you don't take an upgrade, you shouldn't have to pay for it.
Yeah, well, ya know, that's just like your opinion man.
Most of the people who responded to the poll appear to agree with you, but saying it's bad is still subjective.
There are certainly some datasheets where GW appear to have gotten this wrong, but is it so wrong on enough datasheets to warrant throwing it all out and starting again?
No, PL misses the core of what a points system is meant to do, balance games. *angry rant deleted*
So just to extrapolate your assertion is that free upgrades creates imbalanaced games? Is that correct?
I understanding that this system creates inbalance within datasheets, i.e. a no sponson Leman Russ is clearly worse than one with sponsons, but that doesn't mean that any given game is imbalanced or that most games will be imbalanced.
John plays his Chaos Space Marines, he has made a list specifically for 10th and between having a large collection and buying a few upgrades and doing some replacements he can field a list with all the bells and whistles at 2000 pts. Biffy plays his Space Marine list from early 9th edition, he has some upgrades, but on far from everything because that wasn't in at the time, so his 2000 pts army has an actual value of 1900. John has a leg up because PL doesn't take into account that Biffy doesn't spam upgrades, but John does. Had Biffy had another 100 pts worth of naked units the game would have been more fair.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The example would make more sense if the burger had 10 additional toppings one could get (bacon, extra bacon, extra cheese, extra meat, etc.), and it was costed as though it had all of them, but by default had none of them.
Pickles, sauce, cheese, patties, bread, lettuce etc.
You can ask to have any of those removed and it is priced to include them. Which is largely how you should view units in 10th I'd wager.
Dudeface wrote: Not disagreeing but it has dawned on me the opposite is true of many real world examples. Buy a big mac meal and ask not to have gherkins, you don't get a discount for using fewer ingredients. If you buy a console and don't want/need the controller, no discount for that choice. Its very normal to not get a discount for opting to take the suboptimal choice in life, mostly with food.
Excuse my french, but what kind of nonsense argument is this?
Is a PS5 without a disc drive the same price as one with it?
Have you ever bought a car and had to pay the same price no matter what configuration you wanted?
Do you live in a place where extra toppings on sandwiches and pizzas are free?
And none of this is in any way connected to tabletop gaming.
Not an argument, its an observation. It's partly due to the psychology of the points, GW have gone from offering you a plain burger and letting you pay for toppings, to selling you a topping laden burger and people asking why it doesn't cost less when they take them off.
Honestly I think I'm wired up differently to most poster's on here, either and quite likely I'm not communicating well, or everyone is far too literal with an inability for abstract thought. Given I'm a minority probably the former.
Allowing people to take 8 models to dodge both blast and a half strength value of 3 instead of 4 has material impact on the value of blast weapons and battleshock.
Yet many, many units are only available in sizes of either 3 or 6 models. Blast also now scales much more fairly than it did before. It's almost like this isn't the real reason at all, and is just some weak post hoc justification for a stupid change.
Allowing Death Company to be cheaper with chainswords opens up an opportunity for Lemartes to run around with really cheap bodies with plentiful attacks granting both -1D and Lethal Hits for less points than a standard unit might be.
That would be somewhat compelling if it wasn't for the fact that the current system makes BP/CS utterly pointless because it's strictly worse than the PP/PW loadout. Messing up the entire points system because one unit might be able to squeeze some synergy out of a specific loadout is not a good design approach. It also completely ignores the fact that GW were in no way compelled to give Lemartes the -1D ability they did - an ability he's never had before and is also somewhat counter-intuitive from a fluff perspective since the whole point of the Death Company is to die in battle. It's almost like this isn't the real reason at all, and is just some weak post hoc justification for a stupid change.
Taking the position that GW should just change everything to comport with each person's sensibilities...isn't sensible or practical. I don't find it to be a useful argument.
Is anyone making that argument? Of course people argue based on their opinions and perceptions, but I don't think anyone arguing against the changes has done so purely based on "I don't like it". Everyone seems to have put forward their reasoning for it, and it's mostly the same reasoning for everyone. I've not seen a compelling argument against that reasoning yet either.
Yes, it is. It's utterly indistinguishable from PL in every way.
Seriously Daedalus, your arguments are getting more and more bizarre and further and further from reality as time goes on. Has it occurred to you that the reason all your weird justifications don't make sense is because there really wasn't any thought or effort put into this change from GW?
H.B.M.C. wrote: The example would make more sense if the burger had 10 additional toppings one could get (bacon, extra bacon, extra cheese, extra meat, etc.), and it was costed as though it had all of them, but by default had none of them.
Pickles, sauce, cheese, patties, bread, lettuce etc.
You can ask to have any of those removed and it is priced to include them. Which is largely how you should view units in 10th I'd wager.
Dudeface wrote: Not disagreeing but it has dawned on me the opposite is true of many real world examples. Buy a big mac meal and ask not to have gherkins, you don't get a discount for using fewer ingredients. If you buy a console and don't want/need the controller, no discount for that choice. Its very normal to not get a discount for opting to take the suboptimal choice in life, mostly with food.
Excuse my french, but what kind of nonsense argument is this?
Is a PS5 without a disc drive the same price as one with it?
Have you ever bought a car and had to pay the same price no matter what configuration you wanted?
Do you live in a place where extra toppings on sandwiches and pizzas are free?
And none of this is in any way connected to tabletop gaming.
Not an argument, its an observation. It's partly due to the psychology of the points, GW have gone from offering you a plain burger and letting you pay for toppings, to selling you a topping laden burger and people asking why it doesn't cost less when they take them off.
Honestly I think I'm wired up differently to most poster's on here, either and quite likely I'm not communicating well, or everyone is far too literal with an inability for abstract thought. Given I'm a minority probably the former.
I would just like to add that in this McDonalds allegory Eldar are McFlurries (-machines), because they're just always broken
Pickles, sauce, cheese, patties, bread, lettuce etc.
You can ask to have any of those removed and it is priced to include them. Which is largely how you should view units in 10th I'd wager.
A key difference between 40k lists and burger toppings is that your burger doesn't have to compete with other burgers which have all the toppings in conditions where toppings make a material difference as to which burger is going to win. The idea of points isn't just to make a 40k list that is to your tastes, but to ensure that list is roughly on par in terms of strength against other lists.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I our latest example of cope is "Well, actually, Dakka doesn't represent the gaming community, so... the results don't really mean anything!".
I've been reading comments in random places - Auspex Videos, Facebook, Bricky's videos - and the lamentations over these "points" and the inflexible (and nonsensical) squad size limitations are widespread and universal. This is not just a Dakka thing.
I am also on multiple Facebook groups, reddit, and other places, and there was initial outrage threads here and there, but there was also a lot people who were really tired of the rage and did not want to engage. People who complain tend to be louder than people who move on with their lives. That's not a Warhammer thing, just real life.
The groups now are rather silent. My guess people moved on. I have also found out that a lot of competitive people and narrative people(hell, Crusade groups I played with in 9th loved PL) really don't mind upgrades being free. Hosted a RTT last week and people had a lot of fun. Some were like "They made it all free?", but no outrage.
The only real metric is how this affect sales, and that is something that takes time to gather. So in 6 months we should probably have a better picture. I fear the overpowered Desolators, Wraithknight and Fate Dice will do far more damage to the game than upgrades being free.
At least we're not getting any more nonsense about [current] edition being the competitive edition will we?
Dudeface wrote: Not an argument, its an observation. It's partly due to the psychology of the points, GW have gone from offering you a plain burger and letting you pay for toppings, to selling you a topping laden burger and people asking why it doesn't cost less when they take them off.
Honestly I think I'm wired up differently to most poster's on here, either and quite likely I'm not communicating well, or everyone is far too literal with an inability for abstract thought. Given I'm a minority probably the former.
Would you agree that changing it every 3 years is problematic? I think history has a precedent here because most people haven't been loading up 100% on upgrades, so demanding that now is a little late.
Edition change is something good and needed to evolve the story line
GW has no other option than to release a new one every 3 years to have a progressive storyline /s
H.B.M.C. wrote: Ah, so now you're the "silent majority".
I guess goal posts are lighter than I thought...
well, most of those communities are
go by the other polls you get from Reddit/FB/YT ~50% of the people hardly play games but just want a list so they have a plan on what to buy and paint
and those people don't care what the points are or even if the game itself is working, but they also cannot understand why people who play don't like the rules
so you want here anything from those groups regarding points or rules but just "what I need to buy to upgrade my Marines to 10th"
vict0988 wrote: At least we're not getting any more nonsense about [current] edition being the competitive edition will we?
Dudeface wrote: Not an argument, its an observation. It's partly due to the psychology of the points, GW have gone from offering you a plain burger and letting you pay for toppings, to selling you a topping laden burger and people asking why it doesn't cost less when they take them off.
Honestly I think I'm wired up differently to most poster's on here, either and quite likely I'm not communicating well, or everyone is far too literal with an inability for abstract thought. Given I'm a minority probably the former.
Would you agree that changing it every 3 years is problematic? I think history has a precedent here because most people haven't been loading up 100% on upgrades, so demanding that now is a little late.
It's problematic depending on the investment of time and effort. They've half asked this current environment so heavily I don't think it can be saved as such. I don't think a change every 3 years is bad by default so much as the degree of change and the relative supporting acts define if they're a good move or not.
I wouldn't say anyone is "demanding" people load up on upgrades, it's just people spent forever telling GW if upgrades are free everyone will take them, so that's what they did, they made that assumption based on communities comments.
If they'd gone the step further and made sponsors mandatory base equipment for example, the problem.is dramatically lessened.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Unless you have Russes without sponsons... then it's a whole new problem.
Sort of? As they'd be base equipment they don't necessarily need to be modelled on arguably.
What I predict will happen:
Now - total disadvantage for having sponsons
- people attach sponsons
- GW reintroduced some points for sponsons
Then - people angry at the fact they now have them on but can remove them to reduce points
H.B.M.C. wrote: Unless you have Russes without sponsons... then it's a whole new problem.
Sort of? As they'd be base equipment they don't necessarily need to be modelled on arguably.
I'd dispute that they are base equipment. I think there is a difference between base equipment that is always part of a model, and free equipment that you can add on without cost.
The turret (of whatever variant) is base equipment because there's no way to build the tank without one. Someone wanting to put a unique/third party/dioramic turret does nothing to alter that it is still a Leman Russ (variant) underneath.
It is absolutely possible to build one without sponsons however, and there are many different weapon types available.
I think the Leman Russ is a bad example to use simply because it has so many variants, so I'm going to use Chaos Marines instead. Suggesting that my Bolter-equipped guy is actually holding a (free!) Lascannon, is to me a very different situation to a Shrivetalon actually just having a Pistol and Chainsword in rules.
I'm non-competitive enough not to care and would happily give my opponent whatever leeway they wanted, but I do think it falls outside of WYSIWYG and would not be at all surprised to hear that it was enforced in a tournament setting.
Daedalus81 wrote: This is a general reply to the myriad posts. I have lots going on at work and I'm still tool building for analysis on this edition so I don't have enough time to dive in to things directly.
This isn't a battle between whether or not GW will go back. It's a battle to comprehend the changes and effects and whether or not it produces a better game. So far plasma pistols, missing sponsons, and thrifting points have failed to convince me that that system was better at tackling issues and there's potentially significant issues as a result of breaking those boundaries. I'm speaking in general terms and not trying to ignore or dismiss niche issues that sit outside of those terms.
Allowing people to take 8 models to dodge both blast and a half strength value of 3 instead of 4 has material impact on the value of blast weapons and battleshock. Allowing Death Company to be cheaper with chainswords opens up an opportunity for Lemartes to run around with really cheap bodies with plentiful attacks granting both -1D and Lethal Hits for less points than a standard unit might be.
Taking the position that GW should just change everything to comport with each person's sensibilities...isn't sensible or practical. I don't find it to be a useful argument.
Also, I find it way more compelling to take a unit and decide that I'm taking melta over plasma, because my army supports delivering them before they die and the meta has lots of good targets rather than me saying, 'oh, well I guess I'll take melta, because it's cheaper and I might as well fill the rest of my points gap with them'.
I totally hated Power Level. This isn't that.
How is this not powerlevel?
Posted this earlier in the thread, but its a long thread:
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.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Unless you have Russes without sponsons... then it's a whole new problem.
Sort of? As they'd be base equipment they don't necessarily need to be modelled on arguably.
I'd dispute that they are base equipment. I think there is a difference between base equipment that is always part of a model, and free equipment that you can add on without cost.
The turret (of whatever variant) is base equipment because there's no way to build the tank without one. Someone wanting to put a unique/third party/dioramic turret does nothing to alter that it is still a Leman Russ (variant) underneath.
It is absolutely possible to build one without sponsons however, and there are many different weapon types available.
I think the Leman Russ is a bad example to use simply because it has so many variants, so I'm going to use Chaos Marines instead. Suggesting that my Bolter-equipped guy is actually holding a (free!) Lascannon, is to me a very different situation to a Shrivetalon actually just having a Pistol and Chainsword in rules.
I'm non-competitive enough not to care and would happily give my opponent whatever leeway they wanted, but I do think it falls outside of WYSIWYG and would not be at all surprised to hear that it was enforced in a tournament setting.
As a novelty you can build a land raider with out sponsons if you wish, but they've always been base equipment. Whether someone considers the sponsons of a russ to be mandatory ruleswise is not the same as modelling however, which ultimately is the problem.
If your chaos marines must come with a heavy weapons guy and you only have bolter armed guys, then what else are you supposed to do for example? That's likely the way this is heading.
Posted this earlier in the thread, but its a long thread:
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.
The problem with that argument is it's blatantly false. Whether that's by design, and GW are just paying lip service to redesigning the system or - more likely - through incompetence due to a lack of understanding or time, isn't really relevant. Theoretically you can design a system that exclusively uses sidegrades, which then allows fixed points for every unit. GW are nowhere near achieving that. There are so many obvious examples of where they've failed it's hard to take such an argument seriously. We still have "options" that are literally just upgrades for no points, as we see with Ork Battlewagons or Necron Tomb Blades. Or "options" that are clearly not, like Death Company plasma pistols and power weapons. Then there are the slightly more nuanced, but no less stupid, scenarios like Crisis Suits. Yes, it's not always immediately clear what the very best options are, but we can tell there are better weapons and systems among the options.
It's almost like this isn't the real reason at all,
When multimillion dollar companies make decisions, there is no "THE reason."
There is a cost benefits analysis, which list dozens, if not hundreds of reasons, and dozens, if not hundreds of "reasons not."
The two lists are compared, and if the "good" outweigh the "bad" by a wide enough margin to merrit upsetting the status quo, change is made; if not, it isn't. What's more, none of us will ever know all the "reasons" or all the "reasons not" that were in GW's list. By crowd sourcing on a forum, we'd probably hit 90-95% of them... That is, if (and only if) any of us are ever willing to admit that nobody ever does anything for just one reason, and that things are always more complicated than we make them when we're having casual discussions online.
there really wasn't any thought or effort put into this change from GW?
Really? Because it seems to me they've been planning this change and slowly implementing it for seven years across three editions. Same with Primaris implementation... though that still isn't fully implemented yet, even though Gravis can finally ride in Corvus Blackstars. GW does not think in years. They think in editions and decades.
A key difference between 40k lists and burger toppings is that your burger doesn't have to compete with other burgers which have all the toppings in conditions where toppings make a material difference as to which burger is going to win.
Really? So you don't think the Whopper and the Big Mac have been competing since 1954? You don't think there's a reason that the Whopper became the Whopper family when they added, say, the Angry Whopper or the Mushroom Swiss Whopper to the menu? These are absolutely cases where toppings were modified for the purpose of competing with other burgers. Remember the one where McDonald's put the lettuce and tomato in a separate compartment of the burger box so they could stay cold and crunchy?
No look, sorry guys... I'm on the bus and I'm bored, so I'm kinda shitposting here, because I agree with the overall point that most of you are trying to make: many, or possibly even most, upgrades probably should be pointed. I preferred PL and used it exclusively in 9th, but IMHO it only works as an optional system for the minority of us for whom balance is not the highest priority.
And let me address that too: when I say balance isn't my priority, I'm not saying it isn't important- obviously it is.
It's almost like this isn't the real reason at all,
When multimillion dollar companies make decisions, there is no "THE reason."
GW having large revenues is really tangential or even in spite of their rules decisions. And even if the rules decisions were part of what led to their large revenues... I can tell you (from working at a company with a much larger revenue), you'd be pretty unimpressed at some of the logic that is used to make decisions, let's leave it at that. There's no big brain 4D chess actually going on here; ironically, GW's behavior is pretty WYSIWYG, unlike what they've done to the game.
Posted this earlier in the thread, but its a long thread:
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.
The problem with that argument is it's blatantly false. Whether that's by design, and GW are just paying lip service to redesigning the system or - more likely - through incompetence due to a lack of understanding or time, isn't really relevant. Theoretically you can design a system that exclusively uses sidegrades, which then allows fixed points for every unit. GW are nowhere near achieving that. There are so many obvious examples of where they've failed it's hard to take such an argument seriously. We still have "options" that are literally just upgrades for no points, as we see with Ork Battlewagons or Necron Tomb Blades. Or "options" that are clearly not, like Death Company plasma pistols and power weapons. Then there are the slightly more nuanced, but no less stupid, scenarios like Crisis Suits. Yes, it's not always immediately clear what the very best options are, but we can tell there are better weapons and systems among the options.
There's definitely some weird "can takes" that I suspect entirely comes down to trying to cover people concerned that their model doesn't have that because they chose not to include it in the past. I don't think anyone is getting those upgrades for "free" though.
Really? So you don't think the Whopper and the Big Mac have been competing since 1954? You don't think there's a reason that the Whopper became the Whopper family when they added, say, the Angry Whopper or the Mushroom Swiss Whopper to the menu? These are absolutely cases where toppings were modified for the purpose of competing with other burgers. Remember the one where McDonald's put the lettuce and tomato in a separate compartment of the burger box so they could stay cold and crunchy?
I can see now that my initial post wasn't super clear in phrasing and tone. I wasn't making the comparison in terms of marketplace competition between restaurants or anything like that. I was driving at a less-than-serious point that choosing burger toppings isn't a competitive experience for consumers in the same way that unit loadouts are for 40k players, because my Whopper toppings (or lack thereof) don't potentially put me at a competitive disadvantage against your Whopper toppings if you happen to have more
How people forget that MGS posted a thread about a decade ago on how much Dakka actually represents of the community. And this was over ten years ago. I'd love to see the stats now, but for people to say the online community is just some fringe is patently false.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The example would make more sense if the burger had 10 additional toppings one could get (bacon, extra bacon, extra cheese, extra meat, etc.), and it was costed as though it had all of them, but by default had none of them.
Have you ever been to Five Guys? Do they have Five Guys in Australia? A Bacon Cheeseburger costs $9. That gets you 2 patties, bacon, and cheese. A Bacon Cheeseburger with mayo, lettuce, pickles, tomatoes, grilled onions, grilled mushrooms, ketchup, mustard, relish, onions, jalapenos, green peppers, A1 steak sauce, BBQ sauce, and hot sauce is also $9. By default, when you ask for the bacon cheeseburger, all your get is the patties, bacon, cheese, and bun. All the other stuff needs to be asked for separately, but they don't upcharge you for any of it, and you can add as much or as little as you like (and despite the fact that its all free, most people don't ask for more than a handful of those toppings added on, I usually only get the mayo, tomato, grilled onions, grilled mushrooms, and ketchup, for example - sometimes if I'm feeling spicy ill add green pepper. Thats really about it).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vict0988 wrote: At least we're not getting any more nonsense about [current] edition being the competitive edition will we?
The great irony - many of those complaining about the points system now are the same people who a month ago were complaining that 9th was too competitive. Granular points systems incentive more competitive listbuilding and play, so GW made the system less granular to reduce competitiveness... and they still get flak for it.
The leman russ without sponsons thing is probably an issue mostly with people trying to use the models for 40k and horus heresy games (where sponsons aren't an option).
locarno24 wrote: The leman russ without sponsons thing is probably an issue mostly with people trying to use the models for 40k and horus heresy games (where sponsons aren't an option).
Or for people who built their Russes without sponsons because they look better. Even Forge World's promo pics for the Mars-Alpha kit are all sponson-less.
Dunno why some people are making it out to all be about rules. I built my Russes without sponsons because I like them better that way, because the kit, lore, and rules all established it as valid, and it was a valid choice to save some points by forgoing the upgrade. Now it's just... the wrong choice, I guess. No redeeming benefits.
Casual and competitive aren't these wholly isolated extremes where every decision is made either without regard for the rules at all, or made entirely on the basis of what's competitively optimal. I'm not building my armies to try to win LVO, but I don't appreciate when I'm at a tangible disadvantage before the game even begins.
Well you see, it's $6 instead of $8. But you might not eat half the burger, or a seagull might steal it before you eat any of it, so that 25% reduction in cost actually becomes a 5% reduction in cost. And since you're buying a hundred burgers at once, and 5% on one burger is all of forty cents, that difference amounts to a rounding error and can be ignored.
How people forget that MGS posted a thread about a decade ago on how much Dakka actually represents of the community. And this was over ten years ago. I'd love to see the stats now, but for people to say the online community is just some fringe is patently false.
Depends what you mean with "online community".
People that use the internet? obviously not fringe, I expect pretty much the entire community to use the internet.
People that have visited online forums? Dakka gets hundreds of thousands of (guest) visits so definitely not fringe.
But actually engaged, registered and active members? now that is entirely fringe. See the actual poll above, a 500-600 votes is pretty much fringe.
If all weapons were supposed to be sidegrades basic weapons would need something special so you have a reason not to swap them, but then you easily end up in DoW 2/3 territory, where you could find some special bolters that exploded or gave some ability that made a heavy bolter not a straight up improvement.
Sponsons on Leman Russes would need some serious drawbacks like -8" movement or -1 BS to not be autotakes over no Sponsons.
Alas, 10th edition hardly has that so overall it just makes you feel stupid not to take everything available when there are no points which makes it pretty clear that GW didn't think it through.
there really wasn't any thought or effort put into this change from GW?
Really? Because it seems to me they've been planning this change and slowly implementing it for seven years across three editions. Same with Primaris implementation... though that still isn't fully implemented yet, even though Gravis can finally ride in Corvus Blackstars. GW does not think in years. They think in editions and decades.
Ah yes, it's all a plan so subtle and cunning we just can't see the endgame yet. Of course!
I've no doubt they have been planning this for a long time. It doesn't mean their execution is any less terrible. It's clear to anyone who spends any amount of time looking at the current system that it's poorly thought out and woefully executed.
I work for a very large organisation. We have sporadically been in the national news in recent months due to an IT system upgrade that has gone badly wrong. That upgrade was planned and mapped out in a project that lasted a few years. It doesn't make the outcome any less of a screw up. I don't care how long something has been planned or how gradually they attempt to implement it. If the end result shows a complete lack of thought or understanding I'll call that out for what it is.
Now - total disadvantage for having sponsons
- people attach sponsons
- GW reintroduced some points for sponsons
Then - people angry at the fact they now have them on but can remove them to reduce points
Don't have sponsons on? Get your sprues and add a magnet.
Points get reintroduced? A-ok.
Glued your sponsons on? Just use them as you have for all previous point systems.
I think the only edge case are people with resin models? Or people who toss their sprues ( WHY?! ).
Now - total disadvantage for having sponsons
- people attach sponsons
- GW reintroduced some points for sponsons
Then - people angry at the fact they now have them on but can remove them to reduce points
Don't have sponsons on? Get your sprues and add a magnet.
Points get reintroduced? A-ok.
Glued your sponsons on? Just use them as you have for all previous point systems.
I think the only edge case are people with resin models? Or people who toss their sprues ( WHY?! ).
My favorite thing to do with over-a-decade old, bespoke, converted, lovingly painted and preserved models is to drill a hole in the side and slap a magnet in.
I'm sure I will 100% be able to match the paint color and wear and method used in the painting after over a decade. I mean who doesn't meticulously document every step of the painting process they used in their late teens?
Holy hell, Daedalus' cope is one of the funniest things I've seen so far here.
Also a Tactical Squad with two Grav Guns is strictly inferior to a Tactical Squad with one Grav Gun and one Grav Cannon. Almost as if the latter is worth more for some reason......
Now - total disadvantage for having sponsons
- people attach sponsons
- GW reintroduced some points for sponsons
Then - people angry at the fact they now have them on but can remove them to reduce points
Don't have sponsons on? Get your sprues and add a magnet.
Points get reintroduced? A-ok.
Glued your sponsons on? Just use them as you have for all previous point systems.
I think the only edge case are people with resin models? Or people who toss their sprues ( WHY?! ).
For, like, the hundredth time, sponsons are an example, not the entirety of the problem.
Even leaving aside whether drilling finished models and magnetizing them to deal with braindead rules changes is a reasonable approach, would you seriously suggest everyone chop up and magnetize the hands of all their Sergeants, magnetize all the wargear of every member of a command squad, magnetize hunter-killer missiles onto all their vehicles, and all the other little upgrades that in aggregate make a noticeable difference?
My favorite thing to do with over-a-decade old, bespoke, converted, lovingly painted and preserved models is to drill a hole in the side and slap a magnet in.
I'm sure I will 100% be able to match the paint color and wear and method used in the painting after over a decade. I mean who doesn't meticulously document every step of the painting process they used in their late teens?
Right - that's what I called out as an edge case. I would hope it is a problem that can be solved socially.
My favorite thing to do with over-a-decade old, bespoke, converted, lovingly painted and preserved models is to drill a hole in the side and slap a magnet in.
I'm sure I will 100% be able to match the paint color and wear and method used in the painting after over a decade. I mean who doesn't meticulously document every step of the painting process they used in their late teens?
Right - that's what I called out as an edge case. I would hope it is a problem that can be solved socially.
Or the points system could be designed in a way not to feth over everyone that didn't pimp out their squads and rides.
My favorite thing to do with over-a-decade old, bespoke, converted, lovingly painted and preserved models is to drill a hole in the side and slap a magnet in.
I'm sure I will 100% be able to match the paint color and wear and method used in the painting after over a decade. I mean who doesn't meticulously document every step of the painting process they used in their late teens?
Right - that's what I called out as an edge case. I would hope it is a problem that can be solved socially.
Or the points system could be designed in a way not to feth over everyone that didn't pimp out their squads and rides.
Leave it to Daedalus to blame the players and use the social contract as the problem instead of, ya know, the rules writers themselves.
I mean, even if we want to stay with the current approach to points, the solution is quite obvious, isn't it? (And it is not to work again on long finished models)
Units have a base cost of x with all the default basic wargear and get access to all the upgrades available for another cost of y.
If GW is not able or willing to make all possible upgrades just sidegrades, then get tiers of upgrades.
Example:
For +10pts, an Infantry squad unlocks pistols and special weapons. For a total of +20pts they unlock heavy weapons. And so on.
Any rules changes that force me to alter completed models (and previously legal models) are bad. I can handle nerfs or imbalance, but it sucks when the hours I spent on the hobby are invalidated. 9th was particularly brutal to my skitarii and was a major reason why I skipped it entirely. 10th just made that worse.
chaos0xomega wrote: The great irony - many of those complaining about the points system now are the same people who a month ago were complaining that 9th was too competitive.
chaos0xomega wrote: The great irony - many of those complaining about the points system now are the same people who a month ago were complaining that 9th was too competitive.
I don’t see how the two are related?
Casual players and tournament grinders alike can both think these new rules are ridiculous.
Likewise these changes don’t necessarily make the game less competitive, they just completely feth with the balance
nekooni wrote: Or the points system could be designed in a way not to feth over everyone that didn't pimp out their squads and rides.
If people have a bunch of models with no upgrades then it would seem the old system wasn't working very well.
I imagine the vast majority of people here likely have a collection broad enough to accommodate these issues.
Why is an un-upgraded unit bad?
Does every Death Company member get a Thunder Hammer?
Every single sergeant a Power Fist?
There’s not a single squad without a heavy weapon in it?
So just to extrapolate your assertion is that free upgrades creates imbalanaced games? Is that correct?
I understanding that this system creates inbalance within datasheets, i.e. a no sponson Leman Russ is clearly worse than one with sponsons, but that doesn't mean that any given game is imbalanced or that most games will be imbalanced.
John plays his Chaos Space Marines, he has made a list specifically for 10th and between having a large collection and buying a few upgrades and doing some replacements he can field a list with all the bells and whistles at 2000 pts. Biffy plays his Space Marine list from early 9th edition, he has some upgrades, but on far from everything because that wasn't in at the time, so his 2000 pts army has an actual value of 1900. John has a leg up because PL doesn't take into account that Biffy doesn't spam upgrades, but John does. Had Biffy had another 100 pts worth of naked units the game would have been more fair.
Ok, but that is not a new problem or a unique one to 10th. People have always been able to bring a list to a game that is strictly inferior than their opponents for one reason or another, and old lists have become invalid or uncompetitive with new editions and codex releases in the past.
It seems to me that this is more a modelling issue than an issue with the 'not power level' system in general. People don't want to be 'forced' to add upgrades to old models or to build new ones in a particular way to be competitive. I can certainly sympathise with that, building and painting models is not a trivial time investment and having your work 'undone' by rules changes suck.
Is the better solution for WYSIWYG to be abandoned, then the modelling issue simply goes away regardless of what GW does with the point system in the future?
nekooni wrote: Or the points system could be designed in a way not to feth over everyone that didn't pimp out their squads and rides.
If people have a bunch of models with no upgrades then it would seem the old system wasn't working very well.
I imagine the vast majority of people here likely have a collection broad enough to accommodate these issues.
Why would people choosing not to take upgrades be a failure of the old system? Also, not everyone has that large of a collection, and no one should be penalized for not spending that much money on the hobby.
So just to extrapolate your assertion is that free upgrades creates imbalanaced games? Is that correct?
I understanding that this system creates inbalance within datasheets, i.e. a no sponson Leman Russ is clearly worse than one with sponsons, but that doesn't mean that any given game is imbalanced or that most games will be imbalanced.
John plays his Chaos Space Marines, he has made a list specifically for 10th and between having a large collection and buying a few upgrades and doing some replacements he can field a list with all the bells and whistles at 2000 pts. Biffy plays his Space Marine list from early 9th edition, he has some upgrades, but on far from everything because that wasn't in at the time, so his 2000 pts army has an actual value of 1900. John has a leg up because PL doesn't take into account that Biffy doesn't spam upgrades, but John does. Had Biffy had another 100 pts worth of naked units the game would have been more fair.
Ok, but that is not a new problem or a unique one to 10th. People have always been able to bring a list to a game that is strictly inferior than their opponents for one reason or another, and old lists have become invalid or uncompetitive with new editions and codex releases in the past.
It seems to me that this is more a modelling issue than an issue with the 'not power level' system in general. People don't want to be 'forced' to add upgrades to old models or to build new ones in a particular way to be competitive. I can certainly sympathise with that, building and painting models is not a trivial time investment and having your work 'undone' by rules changes suck.
Is the better solution for WYSIWYG to be abandoned, then the modelling issue simply goes away regardless of what GW does with the point system in the future?
No, it is not. This is a visual game. It always has been.
The models (and the details of those models) SHOULD matter.
If it doesn't? Then just go buy a box of whatever & claim they are SM, Tau, Custodes, etc as desired day-to-day.
If you want a model to be armed with a certain option? Put in the effort to represent that.
chaos0xomega wrote: The great irony - many of those complaining about the points system now are the same people who a month ago were complaining that 9th was too competitive.
I hate to be that guy, but that's not irony.
Try reading the next sentence, champ. That goes for you too nemesis.
PenitentJake wrote: From my perspective, and the perspective of at least some other people who favoured PL, that was a FEATURE not a bug. I hate that in the new system, every little ripple that hits competitive play will hit Crusade. The idea that the value of my Crusade roster has to change 2-4 times a year is another one of my beefs with 10th; part of what I loved about Crusade and PL is that they steered free of all that constant change. Cripple air cavalry cuz one Ork flyer and one Admech flyer are broken? Not in Crusade. No dual Brotherhood GK? Not in Crusade. Change the value of your Crusade Roster every time Nick Nanavati gets hiccups? Not a chance.
As someone who administered a Crusade campaign of about 20 people in 9th... nah, we used points. Voidweavers were 5 PL, that gak was busted. Points were objectively better for Crusade too. Nothing about PL made narrative play easier; the only people who were advocating for PL were toxic CAAC players who wanted to be able to avoid having to play without an unearned advantage.
Now - total disadvantage for having sponsons
- people attach sponsons
- GW reintroduced some points for sponsons
Then - people angry at the fact they now have them on but can remove them to reduce points
Don't have sponsons on? Get your sprues and add a magnet.
Points get reintroduced? A-ok.
Glued your sponsons on? Just use them as you have for all previous point systems.
I think the only edge case are people with resin models? Or people who toss their sprues ( WHY?! ).
For, like, the hundredth time, sponsons are an example, not the entirety of the problem.
Even leaving aside whether drilling finished models and magnetizing them to deal with braindead rules changes is a reasonable approach,
Pretty sure that was sarcasm.
would you seriously suggest everyone chop up and magnetize the hands of all their Sergeants, magnetize all the wargear of every member of a command squad, magnetize hunter-killer missiles onto all their vehicles, and all the other little upgrades that in aggregate make a noticeable difference?
The other thing to remember is this problem isn't going away. They just shipped out how many Terminator models that don't have chain fists or Cyclone Missile Launchers. We're actually in an edition where at least some Chainfists are desired, and we're probably an edition or two away from Cyclones being auto take vs Assault Cannons again. These Terminator models didn't come with the other bits so you can't magnetize them, and go back to your sprue. That's just the nature of the beast. Its not good, but it's what it is.
nekooni wrote: Or the points system could be designed in a way not to feth over everyone that didn't pimp out their squads and rides.
If people have a bunch of models with no upgrades then it would seem the old system wasn't working very well.
I imagine the vast majority of people here likely have a collection broad enough to accommodate these issues.
This is giving me "dont you guys have phones?!" vibes, to be honest.
The old system allowed units with and without upgrades to be viable choice, and the new one does not.
I have close to 20k pts of Salamanders, and quite a few models are now basically unusable. Sure, i can "accommodate", but thats not the average collection size, and the new system benches a ton of my models for absolutely no good reason. Thats a failure of the new system, not the old one.
So just to extrapolate your assertion is that free upgrades creates imbalanaced games? Is that correct?
I understanding that this system creates inbalance within datasheets, i.e. a no sponson Leman Russ is clearly worse than one with sponsons, but that doesn't mean that any given game is imbalanced or that most games will be imbalanced.
John plays his Chaos Space Marines, he has made a list specifically for 10th and between having a large collection and buying a few upgrades and doing some replacements he can field a list with all the bells and whistles at 2000 pts. Biffy plays his Space Marine list from early 9th edition, he has some upgrades, but on far from everything because that wasn't in at the time, so his 2000 pts army has an actual value of 1900. John has a leg up because PL doesn't take into account that Biffy doesn't spam upgrades, but John does. Had Biffy had another 100 pts worth of naked units the game would have been more fair.
Ok, but that is not a new problem or a unique one to 10th. People have always been able to bring a list to a game that is strictly inferior than their opponents for one reason or another, and old lists have become invalid or uncompetitive with new editions and codex releases in the past.
GW not having pts is an issue that is new to 10th edition. I complained when dark lances were -5 instead of +5 pts when the 9th edition Drukhari codex came out and GW made a spur of the moment change to the dark lance profile without updating the pts. I complained when Monoliths were 381 pts, when they were actually worth less than 350, making that last 1 pt over 380 completely silly. 10th has worse internal balance than most editions, using PL is not the only flaw in the system, it's clear that they haven't done the math, done the playtesting and revised things before release. But it's free and I expected GW to go in this direction so I'm not mad. I found out in 9th that I actually care more about rules and verisimilitude than I do balance and pts. Unfortunately there is probably no way that the CAAC edition is going back to simple but deep charge/fight mechanics of 8th/9th edition.
nekooni wrote: Or the points system could be designed in a way not to feth over everyone that didn't pimp out their squads and rides.
If people have a bunch of models with no upgrades then it would seem the old system wasn't working very well.
I imagine the vast majority of people here likely have a collection broad enough to accommodate these issues.
This is giving me "dont you guys have phones?!" vibes, to be honest.
The old system allowed units with and without upgrades to be viable choice, and the new one does not.
I have close to 20k pts of Salamanders, and quite a few models are now basically unusable. Sure, i can "accommodate", but thats not the average collection size, and the new system benches a ton of my models for absolutely no good reason. Thats a failure of the new system, not the old one.
They're still a viable choice, it's a decision you can come to and legally field them with rules. If you mean your unit of bolters and nothing else isn't competitively viable, then yeah sure.
I'm being pedantic but there's some people who will literally think their units aren't field able now because of the changes, which isn't true.
feel remembered to 7th edition were people claimed that playing without using the formations is still a viable choice and one could still field their army without buying new stuff to compensate (just don't expect to win any game, but you play for fun anyway and not to win)
nekooni wrote: Or the points system could be designed in a way not to feth over everyone that didn't pimp out their squads and rides.
If people have a bunch of models with no upgrades then it would seem the old system wasn't working very well.
I imagine the vast majority of people here likely have a collection broad enough to accommodate these issues.
This is giving me "dont you guys have phones?!" vibes, to be honest.
The old system allowed units with and without upgrades to be viable choice, and the new one does not.
I have close to 20k pts of Salamanders, and quite a few models are now basically unusable. Sure, i can "accommodate", but thats not the average collection size, and the new system benches a ton of my models for absolutely no good reason. Thats a failure of the new system, not the old one.
They're still a viable choice, it's a decision you can come to and legally field them with rules. If you mean your unit of bolters and nothing else isn't competitively viable, then yeah sure.
I'm being pedantic but there's some people who will literally think their units aren't field able now because of the changes, which isn't true.
And having things fade in and out of competitively viable has been a thing for quite some time with or without points.
Dudeface wrote: I'm being pedantic but there's some people who will literally think their units aren't field able now because of the changes, which isn't true.
No, nobody thinks it's literally impossible, but it is metaphorically impossible, because there's no in-game reason to do it. You can field 3 Land Raiders for 500 pts, it's not literally impossible that does not change the fact that 500 pt Land Raiders would be useless perma-shelf trash.
Breton wrote: And having things fade in and out of competitively viable has been a thing for quite some time with or without points.
Don't play dumb, we all know that not taking sponsons on your Predators does not merely preclude them from tournament viability, but from any kind of viability, just like Monoliths at the start of 8th. GW pts are usually somewhere between bad and awful and right now they're awful and we are trying to argue people should stop being white knights and ask GW to get pts to a decent place, like they've done in the past or to elevate a fan team to handle balance and just officiate the values the fan team comes to so we can have reasonable casual pick up games.
Breton wrote: And having things fade in and out of competitively viable has been a thing for quite some time with or without points.
Don't play dumb,
Who is playing dumb here, me for pointing out various units have always faded in and out of viability, or you for trying to dismiss that point for reasons. Maybe.
we all know that not taking sponsons on your Predators does not merely preclude them from tournament viability, but from any kind of viability, just like Monoliths at the start of 8th.
You mean like I JUST pointed out and you tried to dodge by calling it "playing dumb"? Things fade in and out, it has nothing to do with points vs PL vs this hybrid.
GW pts are usually somewhere between bad and awful and right now they're awful and we are trying to argue people should stop being white knights and ask GW to get pts to a decent place, like they've done in the past or to elevate a fan team to handle balance and just officiate the values the fan team comes to so we can have reasonable casual pick up games.
Should GW have seen the Negative-upgrade issue and prevented the problem? Yeah. Is this the first time some units have been bad compared to others and essentially no longer viable? No.
Dudeface wrote: I'm being pedantic but there's some people who will literally think their units aren't field able now because of the changes, which isn't true.
No, nobody thinks it's literally impossible, but it is metaphorically impossible, because there's no in-game reason to do it. You can field 3 Land Raiders for 500 pts, it's not literally impossible that does not change the fact that 500 pt Land Raiders would be useless perma-shelf trash.
Maybe those are the models they have, maybe their local meta isn't built around competitive demolition of the opponent. In that way do the points matter that much really if you consider a sub-optimal model as "perma-shelf trash", because there will always be worse or better options.
we all know that not taking sponsons on your Predators does not merely preclude them from tournament viability, but from any kind of viability, just like Monoliths at the start of 8th.
You mean like I JUST pointed out and you tried to dodge by calling it "playing dumb"?
Breton wrote: And having things fade in and out of competitively viable has been a thing for quite some time with or without points.
I believe you are playing dumb when you confuse tournament viability for casual viability. For something to be spammed in tournaments is very different from something not being an obviously pants on head option evident to a casual player just looking through their codex. Sponsonsless Predators are that right now and that is obviously terrible game design.
Things fade in and out, it has nothing to do with points vs PL vs this hybrid.
Saying that sponsonsless Predators being bad has nothing to do with PL is silly, pts is sometimes bad on accident, PL is bad on purpose. There is nothing hybrid about the PL we are currently using, wargear is free, that's PL. If the current PLs were more coarse nothing would change, the game would not be noticeably worse, fine points is first and foremost important when upgrading wargear and adding single models to a unit.
Is this the first time some units have been bad compared to others and essentially no longer viable? No.
Is this the first time GW's points have been criticized? No. So why are you white knighting this garbage now? Just admit that it's garbage and GW should give us pts. Divide all the pts by 20 and don't pay for your wargear, I don't give a rat, I just want a proper pts system to balance my games.
we all know that not taking sponsons on your Predators does not merely preclude them from tournament viability, but from any kind of viability, just like Monoliths at the start of 8th.
You mean like I JUST pointed out and you tried to dodge by calling it "playing dumb"?
Breton wrote: And having things fade in and out of competitively viable has been a thing for quite some time with or without points.
I believe you are playing dumb when you confuse tournament viability for casual viability. For something to be spammed in tournaments is very different from something not being an obviously pants on head option evident to a casual player just looking through their codex. Sponsonsless Predators are that right now and that is obviously terrible game design.
Viability is viability. Tournament players are not the only ones looking to make good/efficient lists.
Things fade in and out, it has nothing to do with points vs PL vs this hybrid.
Saying that sponsonsless Predators being bad has nothing to do with PL is silly, pts is sometimes bad on accident, PL is bad on purpose. There is nothing hybrid about the PL we are currently using, wargear is free, that's PL. If the current PLs were more coarse nothing would change, the game would not be noticeably worse, fine points is first and foremost important when upgrading wargear and adding single models to a unit.
Do you really expect to be taken seriously while claiming GW made PL bad on purpose? as justification/proof for your constant complaints about the "free wargear" system to counter/ignore the fact that this sort of thing still happened under an all points all the time time system, so while it can be GW's fault, its not a "feature" or a "bug" of the current system?
Is this the first time some units have been bad compared to others and essentially no longer viable? No.
Is this the first time GW's points have been criticized? No. So why are you white knighting this garbage now? Just admit that it's garbage and GW should give us pts. Divide all the pts by 20 and don't pay for your wargear, I don't give a rat, I just want a proper pts system to balance my games.
You just want a proper points system as determined by you? I hadn't gotten that from how you keep dragging everything back to it being the fault of this new system that I was mistakenly thinking you were in love with. There's also a difference between being honest and white knighting. I'm honest. GW made some whoppers of a boneheaded whoopsie. The new system isn't inherently bad. The Point system we used to have isn't inherently bad. They made the same general mistakes and probably intentional design decisions under both systems to rotate the Flavor Of The Month from edition to edition. I'm assuming nobody here thinks Terminators being just a little better than Aggressors for the same basic role wasn't a fluke right? I'm assuming MOST of us don't actually blame "free wargear" for Terminators being a little bit better than Aggressors?
If upgrades cost points, there's more opportunity to balance units/choices against each other, as well as not punishing players as much for assembly choices they may have made a decade ago.
The justifications in this thread for the 10th edition approach seem to go off at tangents.
Well you see, it's $6 instead of $8. But you might not eat half the burger, or a seagull might steal it before you eat any of it, so that 25% reduction in cost actually becomes a 5% reduction in cost. And since you're buying a hundred burgers at once, and 5% on one burger is all of forty cents, that difference amounts to a rounding error and can be ignored.
Well you see, you're actually looking at it from the wrong perspective. The price would be $6 instead of $8, but the business has to build in the cost of wasteage from expiring ingredients as well as losses to theft into the price, so the cost actually ends up being inflated to account for unsold and unsellable product.
Things fade in and out, it has nothing to do with points vs PL vs this hybrid.
Saying that sponsonsless Predators being bad has nothing to do with PL is silly, pts is sometimes bad on accident, PL is bad on purpose. There is nothing hybrid about the PL we are currently using, wargear is free, that's PL. If the current PLs were more coarse nothing would change, the game would not be noticeably worse, fine points is first and foremost important when upgrading wargear and adding single models to a unit.
Do you really expect to be taken seriously while claiming GW made PL bad on purpose? as justification/proof for your constant complaints about the "free wargear" system to counter/ignore the fact that this sort of thing still happened under an all points all the time time system, so while it can be GW's fault, its not a "feature" or a "bug" of the current system?
Is this the first time some units have been bad compared to others and essentially no longer viable? No.
Is this the first time GW's points have been criticized? No. So why are you white knighting this garbage now? Just admit that it's garbage and GW should give us pts. Divide all the pts by 20 and don't pay for your wargear, I don't give a rat, I just want a proper pts system to balance my games.
You just want a proper points system as determined by you? I hadn't gotten that from how you keep dragging everything back to it being the fault of this new system that I was mistakenly thinking you were in love with. There's also a difference between being honest and white knighting. I'm honest. GW made some whoppers of a boneheaded whoopsie. The new system isn't inherently bad. The Point system we used to have isn't inherently bad. They made the same general mistakes and probably intentional design decisions under both systems to rotate the Flavor Of The Month from edition to edition. I'm assuming nobody here thinks Terminators being just a little better than Aggressors for the same basic role wasn't a fluke right? I'm assuming MOST of us don't actually blame "free wargear" for Terminators being a little bit better than Aggressors?
I did not say GW is making PL bad on purpose, PL is bad regardless of what efforts you take to make it better, that was my point. Sometimes sponsons are overcosted or undercosted, sometimes they are balanced. Right now all options that aren't sidegrades are undercosted or overcosted, that's very close to the theoretically worst balance a game can have. The only thing that would be worse is having more powerful options cost less than weaker options instead of merely costing the same.
More than half of players want proper pts, this is not "as defined by me", this is as defined by GW's approach to balancing 40k for decades, PL is only 6 years old, not having pts at all is brand new.
As someone who administered a Crusade campaign of about 20 people in 9th... nah, we used points. Voidweavers were 5 PL, that gak was busted. Points were objectively better for Crusade too. Nothing about PL made narrative play easier; the only people who were advocating for PL were toxic CAAC players who wanted to be able to avoid having to play without an unearned advantage.
There was nothing toxic about PL advocacy, because unlike Points advocacy, almost none of us ever suggest eliminating points. (According to HBMC, there was one poster who did).
Toxicity consists not in advocating for what you want, but in advocating for what you want at someone else's expense. I am glad you and your crew were able to use points and improve the quality of the game for you.
What I predict will happen:
Now - total disadvantage for having sponsons
- people attach sponsons
- GW reintroduced some points for sponsons
Then - people angry at the fact they now have them on but can remove them to reduce points
Don't have sponsons on? Get your sprues and add a magnet.
Points get reintroduced? A-ok.
Glued your sponsons on? Just use them as you have for all previous point systems.
I think the only edge case are people with resin models? Or people who toss their sprues ( WHY?! ).
For, like, the hundredth time, sponsons are an example, not the entirety of the problem.
Even leaving aside whether drilling finished models and magnetizing them to deal with braindead rules changes is a reasonable approach, would you seriously suggest everyone chop up and magnetize the hands of all their Sergeants, magnetize all the wargear of every member of a command squad, magnetize hunter-killer missiles onto all their vehicles, and all the other little upgrades that in aggregate make a noticeable difference?
You haven't already done that? Wrists might not be as hard to do as you'd think.
For the sponsons, make a small hole in the underside, and poke a pre-glued magnet in through the hole, to stick to the inside where the sponson fits. Hold the magnetised sponson to the side to get it lined up. It's how I did mine (before assembly though), and there's no hole visible on the outside, as there isn't one.
As for the points issues, I am not happy that a bare-bones objective holder squad costs the same as a front-line fully-kitted squad with all the weapons. An infantry squad used to cost 1/2 more points with weapons and vox-caster, etc. 3x bare LRBTs can hold a position as well as 2 with sponsons, but now cost more.
Not having the option of PL (with toys) or points (optional) does take away prefernce on play style.
there is not much there on the Errata in the first place
if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke
kodos wrote: there is not much there on the Errata in the first place
if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke
Stuff like the un-equipable Krieger medi-pack is obviously not the intended design, this Errata is just lazy and half-assed.
kodos wrote: there is not much there on the Errata in the first place
if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke
kodos wrote: there is not much there on the Errata in the first place
if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke
It means its the first one, and the rest may be intended, or the rest may be errata'ed in round 2+. I'm amazed they released anything at all before people went in to pickup, take home and open the card packs so they can't return them.
kodos wrote: there is not much there on the Errata in the first place
if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke
Please go read the article/watch the video.
I mean it's pretty clearly spelled oot:
A few other documents were mentioned in the video that you should be aware of. The first of these contains the initial balance updates that will launch in early July, seeking to address some of the early imbalances that have emerged in the new armies. Chief among these will be changes to Fate dice used by the Aeldari, and forms of indirect fire.
These are updates made for balance purposes – to keep the game fun for all – and we plan to revisit rules in this way with quarterly points updates, and rules updates every six months.
We’re also expecting a wider errata for all the new game content later in July. With 1,000 or more units and hundreds of pages of brand-new rules across 24 factions now in the wild, and thousands of games already played globally, a few more odd typos and niche interactions have been spotted, and we’d like to get them cleared up.
If you picked up a convenient deck of printed Index cards for your army, you’ll also want a quick read of this download. It’s the errata for the decks, to bring them in line with the digital versions you can find in the 40k app and the digital Indexes, covering a handful of known errors on the cards.
kodos wrote: there is not much there on the Errata in the first place
if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke
Please go read the article/watch the video.
It's still a half-assed errata. There are still major errors here that make some units non-functional. Reivers with Bolt Carbines still have no close combat weapon, for example.
kodos wrote: there is not much there on the Errata in the first place
if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke
Please go read the article/watch the video.
no gonna watch the video, but the article indicates that the pdfs are the correct version and the physical cards are outdated with those being the only parts of the cards that are wrong
so if we don't see that the cards show other values for units like wolfscouts, it would mean the pdfs are right as there are unlikely typos on both that is not corrected by the "typo errata" for physical cards
kodos wrote: there is not much there on the Errata in the first place
if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke
Please go read the article/watch the video.
I mean it's pretty clearly spelled oot:
A few other documents were mentioned in the video that you should be aware of. The first of these contains the initial balance updates that will launch in early July, seeking to address some of the early imbalances that have emerged in the new armies. Chief among these will be changes to Fate dice used by the Aeldari, and forms of indirect fire.
These are updates made for balance purposes – to keep the game fun for all – and we plan to revisit rules in this way with quarterly points updates, and rules updates every six months.
We’re also expecting a wider errata for all the new game content later in July. With 1,000 or more units and hundreds of pages of brand-new rules across 24 factions now in the wild, and thousands of games already played globally, a few more odd typos and niche interactions have been spotted, and we’d like to get them cleared up.
If you picked up a convenient deck of printed Index cards for your army, you’ll also want a quick read of this download. It’s the errata for the decks, to bring them in line with the digital versions you can find in the 40k app and the digital Indexes, covering a handful of known errors on the cards.
Yup, but Kodos comment was vague enough I took it to mean they felt that tower/fate dice etc were all fine and working as designed, which the content clearly states are being addressed.
kodos wrote: there is not much there on the Errata in the first place
if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke
Please go read the article/watch the video.
It's still a half-assed errata. There are still major errors here that make some units non-functional. Reivers with Bolt Carbines still have no close combat weapon, for example.
It's still not clear if that's intentional or not, it's not possible to critique them not fixing something they don't see as a problem, however weird it is.
kodos wrote: there is not much there on the Errata in the first place
if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke
Please go read the article/watch the video.
no gonna watch the video, but the article indicates that the pdfs are the correct version and the physical cards are outdated with those being the only parts of the cards that are wrong
so if we don't see that the cards show other values for units like wolfscouts (so we know that there are typos which are ignored by GW) and/or we don't get a 2nd errata that updates the physical cards to match the updated pdfs, that's it
As is always the case, always has been and always will be. If it's surprising you at this point I don't think anyone can help you. Again we have no idea if the scouts is intentional or not, wolf scouts are generally firstborn veterans, whereas scouts in other chapters will be primaris at this point, which might account for the change. It might be there's a generic new scout kit coming but due tot he sapce wolf upgrade sprue they're left with the stunty old minis with lower wounds.
Because something is assumed to be unintentional doesn't mean it is and it doesn't mean they'll "fix" something that to them isn't broken.
kodos wrote: there is not much there on the Errata in the first place if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke
Please go read the article/watch the video.
It's still a half-assed errata. There are still major errors here that make some units non-functional. Reivers with Bolt Carbines still have no close combat weapon, for example.
From a brief look I had at the indexes I downloaded the moment they went live, this errata doesn't actually change anything. Seems it's for things they caught between finalising the physical cards and finalising the digital cards
kodos wrote: there is not much there on the Errata in the first place
if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke
Please go read the article/watch the video.
It's still a half-assed errata. There are still major errors here that make some units non-functional. Reivers with Bolt Carbines still have no close combat weapon, for example.
From a brief look I had at the indexes I downloaded the moment they went live, this errata doesn't actually change anything. Seems it's for things they caught between finalising the physical cards and finalising the digital cards
That's exactly what it says on the article tbh and that there's a more encompassing wave next month.
kodos wrote: there is not much there on the Errata in the first place
if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke
Please go read the article/watch the video.
It's still a half-assed errata. There are still major errors here that make some units non-functional. Reivers with Bolt Carbines still have no close combat weapon, for example.
From a brief look I had at the indexes I downloaded the moment they went live, this errata doesn't actually change anything. Seems it's for things they caught between finalising the physical cards and finalising the digital cards
That's exactly what it says on the article tbh and that there's a more encompassing wave next month.
Of course the PDF's have already been stealth updated with fixes that aren't being mentioned.
kodos wrote: there is not much there on the Errata in the first place
if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke
Please go read the article/watch the video.
It's still a half-assed errata. There are still major errors here that make some units non-functional. Reivers with Bolt Carbines still have no close combat weapon, for example.
From a brief look I had at the indexes I downloaded the moment they went live, this errata doesn't actually change anything. Seems it's for things they caught between finalising the physical cards and finalising the digital cards
That's exactly what it says on the article tbh and that there's a more encompassing wave next month.
Of course the PDF's have already been stealth updated with fixes that aren't being mentioned.
Like what? where is anything being "stealth updated"?
Saying that sponsonsless Predators being bad has nothing to do with PL is silly, pts is sometimes bad on accident, PL is bad on purpose.
PL is bad on purpose, because to fix it would be to make it into pts, by choosing PL instead of pts GW deliberately chose the bad instead of the better. I did not claim that deliberately made PL any worse than it needs to be. But it needs to be bad, because if PL was not bad, then it would not be PL. It is simply impossible for it to be good by reason. Because by reason a pts system is meant to balance, but PL deliberately does not balance wargear options or odd unit numbers.
As someone who administered a Crusade campaign of about 20 people in 9th... nah, we used points. Voidweavers were 5 PL, that gak was busted. Points were objectively better for Crusade too. Nothing about PL made narrative play easier; the only people who were advocating for PL were toxic CAAC players who wanted to be able to avoid having to play without an unearned advantage.
There was nothing toxic about PL advocacy, because unlike Points advocacy, almost none of us ever suggest eliminating points. (According to HBMC, there was one poster who did).
I think it was at least 2, there have been what 4 that said to get rid of PL?
Saying that sponsonsless Predators being bad has nothing to do with PL is silly, pts is sometimes bad on accident, PL is bad on purpose.
PL is bad on purpose, because to fix it would be to make it into pts, by choosing PL instead of pts GW deliberately chose the bad instead of the better. I did not claim that deliberately made PL any worse than it needs to be. But it needs to be bad, because if PL was not bad, then it would not be PL. It is simply impossible for it to be good by reason. Because by reason a pts system is meant to balance, but PL deliberately does not balance wargear options or odd unit numbers.
As someone who administered a Crusade campaign of about 20 people in 9th... nah, we used points. Voidweavers were 5 PL, that gak was busted. Points were objectively better for Crusade too. Nothing about PL made narrative play easier; the only people who were advocating for PL were toxic CAAC players who wanted to be able to avoid having to play without an unearned advantage.
There was nothing toxic about PL advocacy, because unlike Points advocacy, almost none of us ever suggest eliminating points. (According to HBMC, there was one poster who did).
I think it was at least 2, there have been what 4 that said to get rid of PL?
I mean to be fair the language used by those advocating the removal of PL kinda made it seem more lopsided.
So in the latest Metawatch they said: "...indirect fire is perhaps too proliferated at its current point cost."
So there is a possible increase in points costs for indirect weapons coming. However, how does this work for a unit like field ordnance batteries? Only 1 of the 3 weapon options has indirect. They don't have the proper points mechanism in place to balance a unit when some of the weapons need increasing, and some don't.
Why should a heavy lascannon go up in points because a bombast field gun needs to?
Trickstick wrote: So in the latest Metawatch they said: "...indirect fire is perhaps too proliferated at its current point cost."
So there is a possible increase in points costs for indirect weapons coming. However, how does this work for a unit like field ordnance batteries? Only 1 of the 3 weapon options has indirect. They don't have the proper points mechanism in place to balance a unit when some of the weapons need increasing, and some don't.
Why should a heavy lascannon go up in points because a bombast field gun needs to?
In all probability they'll just start putting granular point tweaks in again. They've given a baseline, see which one gets taken most/abused and tweak that variant, if all variants drop off, lower the base and so on.
nekooni wrote: Or the points system could be designed in a way not to feth over everyone that didn't pimp out their squads and rides.
If people have a bunch of models with no upgrades then it would seem the old system wasn't working very well.
I imagine the vast majority of people here likely have a collection broad enough to accommodate these issues.
This is giving me "dont you guys have phones?!" vibes, to be honest.
The old system allowed units with and without upgrades to be viable choice, and the new one does not.
I have close to 20k pts of Salamanders, and quite a few models are now basically unusable. Sure, i can "accommodate", but thats not the average collection size, and the new system benches a ton of my models for absolutely no good reason. Thats a failure of the new system, not the old one.
They're still a viable choice, it's a decision you can come to and legally field them with rules. If you mean your unit of bolters and nothing else isn't competitively viable, then yeah sure.
I'm being pedantic but there's some people who will literally think their units aren't field able now because of the changes, which isn't true.
"not being able to field them" is clearly not what I meant by writing "viable", and you once again nitpick at minor things instead of addressing the argument - great "gotcha" moment, I'm sure.
Breton wrote: And having things fade in and out of competitively viable has been a thing for quite some time with or without points.
Units and loadouts fade in and out, sure - but the issue is much worse with PL as the strongest loadout of a datasheet will have to dictate the points cost of ALL of the loadouts of that datasheet.
Trickstick wrote: So in the latest Metawatch they said: "...indirect fire is perhaps too proliferated at its current point cost."
So there is a possible increase in points costs for indirect weapons coming. However, how does this work for a unit like field ordnance batteries? Only 1 of the 3 weapon options has indirect. They don't have the proper points mechanism in place to balance a unit when some of the weapons need increasing, and some don't.
Why should a heavy lascannon go up in points because a bombast field gun needs to?
I doubt Field Ordnance Batteries will go up at all in the targeted tweak at some forms of indirect fire that have been causing problems.
Desolators were specifically called out as being "vastly underpriced", so probably them and D-Cannons (if they're not caught up in whatever larger Aeldari changes happen).
Asmodai wrote: I doubt Field Ordnance Batteries will go up at all in the targeted tweak at some forms of indirect fire that have been causing problems.
Maybe, but an across the board adjustment for indirect is also possible.
However, I posted it more to highlight the problem of balancing only certain options for units. Without wargear costs, you just don't have the ability to balance properly without causing a lot of collateral damage to weaker options. Like I don't think the ghostglaive/scattershield wraithknight is on anyone's radar for being super op, but balancing double wraithcannons through points will affect that build too.
Trickstick wrote: So in the latest Metawatch they said: "...indirect fire is perhaps too proliferated at its current point cost."
So there is a possible increase in points costs for indirect weapons coming. However, how does this work for a unit like field ordnance batteries? Only 1 of the 3 weapon options has indirect. They don't have the proper points mechanism in place to balance a unit when some of the weapons need increasing, and some don't.
Why should a heavy lascannon go up in points because a bombast field gun needs to?
There is no way around a return to granular points. Codices will fix it.
nekooni wrote: Or the points system could be designed in a way not to feth over everyone that didn't pimp out their squads and rides.
If people have a bunch of models with no upgrades then it would seem the old system wasn't working very well.
I imagine the vast majority of people here likely have a collection broad enough to accommodate these issues.
This is giving me "dont you guys have phones?!" vibes, to be honest.
The old system allowed units with and without upgrades to be viable choice, and the new one does not.
I have close to 20k pts of Salamanders, and quite a few models are now basically unusable. Sure, i can "accommodate", but thats not the average collection size, and the new system benches a ton of my models for absolutely no good reason. Thats a failure of the new system, not the old one.
They're still a viable choice, it's a decision you can come to and legally field them with rules. If you mean your unit of bolters and nothing else isn't competitively viable, then yeah sure.
I'm being pedantic but there's some people who will literally think their units aren't field able now because of the changes, which isn't true.
"not being able to field them" is clearly not what I meant by writing "viable", and you once again nitpick at minor things instead of addressing the argument - great "gotcha" moment, I'm sure.
I openly said I was nitpicking and being pedantic to highlight an overarching thought process some hobbyists go through. You know, addressing a wider topic and audience than you and your personal thoughts. Way to totally miss the point, which you then double down on.
nekooni wrote: Or the points system could be designed in a way not to feth over everyone that didn't pimp out their squads and rides.
If people have a bunch of models with no upgrades then it would seem the old system wasn't working very well.
I imagine the vast majority of people here likely have a collection broad enough to accommodate these issues.
This is giving me "dont you guys have phones?!" vibes, to be honest.
The old system allowed units with and without upgrades to be viable choice, and the new one does not.
I have close to 20k pts of Salamanders, and quite a few models are now basically unusable. Sure, i can "accommodate", but thats not the average collection size, and the new system benches a ton of my models for absolutely no good reason. Thats a failure of the new system, not the old one.
They're still a viable choice, it's a decision you can come to and legally field them with rules. If you mean your unit of bolters and nothing else isn't competitively viable, then yeah sure.
I'm being pedantic but there's some people who will literally think their units aren't field able now because of the changes, which isn't true.
"not being able to field them" is clearly not what I meant by writing "viable",
Please show us doubters one of these units you have that you claim aren't viable now.
Trickstick wrote: So in the latest Metawatch they said: "...indirect fire is perhaps too proliferated at its current point cost."
So there is a possible increase in points costs for indirect weapons coming. However, how does this work for a unit like field ordnance batteries? Only 1 of the 3 weapon options has indirect. They don't have the proper points mechanism in place to balance a unit when some of the weapons need increasing, and some don't.
Why should a heavy lascannon go up in points because a bombast field gun needs to?
My guess is 2 models with D6 each, total 2D6 Indirect shots isn't what they're talking about. Even the Malleus Rocket Launcher(s) with D6+6 a piece max 2D6+12 is probably not what they're aiming at, but its getting closer. Its probably the sticker shock of 10D3 blast Indirect that has no indirect penalty, 10D6 +10 Blast Super frag from the Desolation Marines, although they're already up there in price.
They described 240 points for desolation marines as "...probably [audio skip] by a vast amount." Could have been "too cheap"? Not sure, listen yourself at 22:00ish:
The problem with a lot of indirect fire isn't just the points. It's the sheer number of them that ignore the indirect penalties that GW introduced late on in 9th and continue to use in 10th. It's idiotic to me that they carried those restrictions forward, then gave the majority of indirect fire weapons ways around it.
.
The idea of points isn't just to make a 
