Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 13:47:32


Post by: G00fySmiley


I know, I know, but hear me out here.

currently it seems silly to me that so many squads go in with no upgrades, or if they do it is because a weapon is just that much better for the points. like... i could give this guard squad a plasma gun but it hits on 4's and they don't have a great leadership, ditto the power sword on the sarg. do i bother with a power sword or axe on a WS4+ S3 T3 5+ save model?

As an example lets look at the 5 man space marine tactical squad

currently you have the options of 1 heavy or special weapon, that heavy weapon can cost between 8 and 28 points (flamer vs grav cannon w/ amp)

what is instead of just saying one weapon cost more you brought more of a parity in the weapons. Also imagine where in say a tournament you bring your list saying tactical squad and then choose the special or heavy weapon upon deploying, it would bring the concept of a sideboard a lot of game systems already use in where you get to react to the opponents army but by only so much.

Just spit balling here, but say profiles for weapons were in some cases increased and others decreased a bit to make them more on the same level for example

flamer - assault 4 auto hits within 8" str 4 ap0 D1
grav cannon with grav amp heavy 3 str 5 ap-2 d1 , when target has a 3+ or better save increase Ap by 1

basically make every weapons option have about the same "power" but a more defined role, then let the general choose said weapon upon deployment to lessen paper rocks sissors matches. Currently if i bring a green tide list with my orks and you can ready to fight imperial knight spam you probably lost, but this would let a person keep the same list but deploy with some anti horde to maybe stand a chance.





Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 13:57:05


Post by: Martel732


Or, they could just point the weapons appropriately.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 14:03:20


Post by: Ratius


I personally prefer the granularity of points and agree with Martel that they could just spend some time balancing them across the board.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 14:04:23


Post by: G00fySmiley


Martel732 wrote:
Or, they could just point the weapons appropriately.


sure, but that still doesn't change that if you decide to bring a bunch of las cannons vs a horde its going to be a pretty one sided game

and there would be very little insentive to bring a power sword on a tac squad with a heavy weapon, But if its already baked in the points then why not add it, or maybe you see the opponent has a deep strikeing squad of custodes terminators. maybe a powerfist on the sarg is a better idea to punch through that 2+ if needed rather than the extra attack of a chainsword.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 14:05:01


Post by: Martel732


"sure, but that still doesn't change that if you decide to bring a bunch of las cannons vs a horde its going to be a pretty one sided game"

How does power level fix this?


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 14:05:24


Post by: Bharring


I can take a DA Exarch with 1 ASC or a DA Exarch with 2 ASCs.

The 2xASC DA Exarch is clearly more powerful. But costs more points.

I want to see both in the game.

PL means you'll only see the fully-blinged-out characters. Optional upgrades become mandatory.

In theory, you could make everything a sidegrade. But making a Plasma Gun, Combi-PG, and Boltgun all be sidegrades - worth the same total value - gets really silly.

"PL instead of Points" means that, instead of too little variety because people often don't take upgrades, you get 0 variety as people always take upgrades.

Points aren't magical; they're just more granular. So you can say "This upgrade is worth taking half of another trooper" vs "This upgrade is worth taking a whole other squad" or "This upgrade isn't as good as the others, but is easier to get ahold of".

This game needs more of that granularity, not less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(It's like when GW decided 10 Empire Spearmen were worth the same as 10 High Elf Spearmen. Or the same as 1 Dragon-riding Archmage. Sure, it meant you were "free" to take Spearmen, but in practice you never would.)


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 14:09:30


Post by: G00fySmiley


Martel732 wrote:
"sure, but that still doesn't change that if you decide to bring a bunch of las cannons vs a horde its going to be a pretty one sided game"

How does power level fix this?


did you read the post attached?

your list would just be "tactical squad, __ power level"

then at deployment (so you have some idea what you are facing as units are put down) you declare what gear that unit has as it hits the table.

so facing my orks you might decide instead of that lascannon that tac squad with heavy weapon has a heavy bolter instead and that tac squad you wanted out front now has a flamer instead of a melta gun.

likewise i might as the ork player realise you are doign mostly power armor and deploy with rokits instead of useless big shootas because hey at least if i hit i will probably take out a marine.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 14:10:50


Post by: Tyranid Horde


Power level works brilliantly for armies with a lot of options, but if we take a squad with few options then the imbalance is massive by letting some armies toolbox to beat another army when the other can't do anything.

40k needs points and there is no avoiding that.



Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 14:11:41


Post by: Martel732


 G00fySmiley wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
"sure, but that still doesn't change that if you decide to bring a bunch of las cannons vs a horde its going to be a pretty one sided game"

How does power level fix this?


did you read the post attached?

your list would just be "tactical squad, __ power level"

then at deployment (so you have some idea what you are facing as units are put down) you declare what gear that unit has as it hits the table.

so facing my orks you might decide instead of that lascannon that tac squad with heavy weapon has a heavy bolter instead and that tac squad you wanted out front now has a flamer instead of a melta gun.

likewise i might as the ork player realise you are doign mostly power armor and deploy with rokits instead of useless big shootas because hey at least if i hit i will probably take out a marine.


Yeah, no list tailoring. That's right out. No choices made after lists are revealed.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 14:11:58


Post by: Stormonu


I don’t trust GW - or the community, for that matter - to ever rely on the likes of PL. If GW were more reliable in creating a balanced game in the first place, I’d be willing to look at PL as a game currency for 40K.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 14:14:24


Post by: p5freak


Its impossible to put the "power" of a unit in one number. SM Company veterans have 14 (!) different weapons where i can choose from. How do you balance all of them in one number ? If you do it for each weapon individually you may as well use points as usual.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 14:15:07


Post by: A Town Called Malus


Power level is points. It is just worse at doing the job of measuring a units ability.

3 crisis suits with a single burst cannon each are the same power level as 3 crisis suits with 3 burst cannons each, despite having one third the firepower.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 14:24:30


Post by: p5freak


Power level is ridiculous. 2 company vets have PL3, add one model, and their PL goes to 8 (!). Thats almost 300% increase in PL for 50% more models. 3 company vets with basic weapons have a higher PL than a dreadnought with basic weapons, which has PL7


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 14:56:42


Post by: G00fySmiley


Martel732 wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
"sure, but that still doesn't change that if you decide to bring a bunch of las cannons vs a horde its going to be a pretty one sided game"

How does power level fix this?


did you read the post attached?

your list would just be "tactical squad, __ power level"

then at deployment (so you have some idea what you are facing as units are put down) you declare what gear that unit has as it hits the table.

so facing my orks you might decide instead of that lascannon that tac squad with heavy weapon has a heavy bolter instead and that tac squad you wanted out front now has a flamer instead of a melta gun.

likewise i might as the ork player realise you are doign mostly power armor and deploy with rokits instead of useless big shootas because hey at least if i hit i will probably take out a marine.


Yeah, no list tailoring. That's right out. No choices made after lists are revealed.


i never said you tailor a whole list, just declare at drop reacting to the other opponents drops so far (first is a gamble of course) I do like sideboards some games have where you can adjust based on each others drops its a whole other element in there.

as for other PL vs points i agree that as it stands in 8th PL and points are needed to be different mostly due to the extremes of weapons profiles. but if they were brought more in lien then I don't think it would need to be so. A flamer as it stands needs to cost less than a Lascannon, no argument from me there. but set the number of hits higher for the flamer, and give a set lower damage to the lascannon and maybe we have something. again just spit balling but say 2 or 3 set damage for the lascannon and the flamer has 4-5 hits at its profile.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 15:03:24


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


So, how do I tell which models have the HBs and which have the LCs when I am looking at your models that physically have MLs?

I agree that power levels fix certain issues, but models are still models, and if you are deciding what a model "has" before you plop it down, you better have a damn good way of pointing that out, otherwise you are actively attempting to cause confusion on the board.

I can see this getting downright SILLY with deathwatch, where every single troop model can take a different load out.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 15:05:30


Post by: auticus


You'll never get competitive listbuilders to agree to power level. Part of the enjoyment listbuilders get out of the game is the granular points and spreadsheeting different loadouts.

Powerlevel removes that.

Some will decry lack of balance, but of course granular points are just as bad at balance as power level. 40k is a listbuilding game, where the aim is to win the game in the listbuilding phase.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 15:14:16


Post by: Galef


Personally I like the idea of a single system that is somewhere in between Points and Power Levels

While the ideal would be for the current system to have "better" points for things, there is just too much and even with CA stuff gets ignored that clearly should get adjusted.

So what I propose is a PL system that also integrates cost for wargear.
For Example:
5 Tactical Marines would cost 10PL
1 Marine my swap his Bolter for any 1 Special or any 1 Heavy for +2PL
Sgt may take weapons as now for +2PL
+2PL per model to add up to 5 more Marines
If the units numbers 10 models, you can add a 2nd Special or Heavy for free.

For comparison, I'd probably have 5 Intercessors cost 15PL and all their options as free swaps. +3PL per model to add up to 5 more Intercessors

So you could still have a "vanilla" unit that costs less, but all Wargear costs the same. Still not perfect, but it's better than the current PL and makes units cost the same regardless of they the "it" weapon is at the time.

It wouldn't have the granularity of Points, but wouldn't have the "take everything for free" of PLs either. It's somewhere in between and allows players to take the weapons they want instead of what's most "cost effective" in the meta
For this to work, weapons would need a clear purpose, so some rules change might be needed (buff Flamers and Melta, maybe nerf Plasma for example)

-


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 15:16:42


Post by: Strg Alt


PL is only good when you are way too lazy to add up points. Points just offer a better fine-tuning overall.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 15:20:29


Post by: G00fySmiley


 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, how do I tell which models have the HBs and which have the LCs when I am looking at your models that physically have MLs?

I agree that power levels fix certain issues, but models are still models, and if you are deciding what a model "has" before you plop it down, you better have a damn good way of pointing that out, otherwise you are actively attempting to cause confusion on the board.

I can see this getting downright SILLY with deathwatch, where every single troop model can take a different load out.


wysiwyg still applies. If i want my 30 man unit or orks to have the option of 3 rokkits or 3 big shootas I need to have 33 models available to make that 30 man unit when it hits the board (or have magnitized to swap weapons)

likewise if I want a tactical squad to have a melta gun, missile launcher, heavy bolter, or flamer options then that is either, and if i want the sarg to have options for a power fist or power sword I am bringing 10 models (2 sarg options 1 with power fist, 1 with power sword, 4 bolter marines, and either 1 magnetized body and 4 weapons options, or 4 models with different weapons options.)

realistically I think most people will just end up magnetising weapons options for a quick swap out of bits. I already have my nobs magnetized to have either a power claw or big choppa, it takes just a few min between drillign with a pin vise and setting 3 magnets, 1 in the arm, 1 in big choppa, 1 in pk. both fit into the same slot as the model in my foam tray


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 15:28:05


Post by: edwardmyst


Agree on the Points needed side, for all the reasons above. I also like the build before style of points. The give and take in that brings a whole different level to the game. Do i take on all comers? Plan for vehicles? Plan for horde? Plan for mobility, etc etc etc. This still needs to stay in the game. A giant part of the game is the anxiety over do I arm these guys with 2 lascannons, or plasma guns, or whatever. Please never eliminate that, it is 80% of the actual strategy left in this rule set of Herohammer. PL with the "sideboard" option as you explain it will mean everyone finds the most versatile units, takes them, then sideboards exactly what they need. For me it will decrease variety. Armies will be copies of :generic troops x3, Devastator equivs x2, etc. And just pick weapons by opponent. Specialist troops will disappear (or only be auto takes because their options far outweigh other choices).


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 15:33:37


Post by: JNAProductions


Points please.

What you say works for, say, Space Marines-if I take a Tactical Squad and a Devastator Squad, I can tailor to my opponent.

Now, what if I'm Necrons? I take a squad of Warriors-they have no options.
Tyranids? I take a squad of Hormagaunts. That's a melee unit, no matter what upgrades they get. Termagants? All flavors of small-arms fire.
Daemons? Each unit is specialized, with upgrades that can make them better at their job, but pretty much NOTHING to change their role.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 15:34:02


Post by: Overread


 G00fySmiley wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
"sure, but that still doesn't change that if you decide to bring a bunch of las cannons vs a horde its going to be a pretty one sided game"

How does power level fix this?


did you read the post attached?

your list would just be "tactical squad, __ power level"

then at deployment (so you have some idea what you are facing as units are put down) you declare what gear that unit has as it hits the table.

so facing my orks you might decide instead of that lascannon that tac squad with heavy weapon has a heavy bolter instead and that tac squad you wanted out front now has a flamer instead of a melta gun.

likewise i might as the ork player realise you are doign mostly power armor and deploy with rokits instead of useless big shootas because hey at least if i hit i will probably take out a marine.


Yeah, no list tailoring. That's right out. No choices made after lists are revealed.


i never said you tailor a whole list, just declare at drop reacting to the other opponents drops so far (first is a gamble of course) I do like sideboards some games have where you can adjust based on each others drops its a whole other element in there.



Thing is this would work fantastic for Tyranids who basically have very modular models for most of their unit slots. Warriors, hive tyrants, carnifex all three are powerful multi-role models depending on what weapons they take being able to go from artillery platforms to anti tank, anti infantry, close combat, even winged or ground for the tyrant. Even their bigger models have a lot of options and even down to the humble gaunt.

Basically they'd be VERY adaptable to whatever went on the table.

However an army like Eldar who have more single weapon elite units in their army would be basically stuck with what they brought most of the time. They can't change those 2 units of firedragons into 1 firedragon and 1 warpsider. They are stuck with the 2 firedragons.


I like the idea of a sideboard concept, but this application would be horribly unfair for some armies. Also it would be horribly broken for those who use magnets. A Tyranid player with magnetized army would have 100% freedom to tailor their weapon loadout; whilst one without magnets or with limited magnets would be far more limited; if not just because of what they can afford to buy, but also the simple logistical aspect that they likely couldn't carry every model they own to every game. So even if they had loads of warriors and fex to pick and choose, chances are they'd have enough trouble just getting a standard 2K or 3K worth of models to the game centre.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 15:42:24


Post by: G00fySmiley


 Overread wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
"sure, but that still doesn't change that if you decide to bring a bunch of las cannons vs a horde its going to be a pretty one sided game"

How does power level fix this?


did you read the post attached?

your list would just be "tactical squad, __ power level"

then at deployment (so you have some idea what you are facing as units are put down) you declare what gear that unit has as it hits the table.

so facing my orks you might decide instead of that lascannon that tac squad with heavy weapon has a heavy bolter instead and that tac squad you wanted out front now has a flamer instead of a melta gun.

likewise i might as the ork player realise you are doign mostly power armor and deploy with rokits instead of useless big shootas because hey at least if i hit i will probably take out a marine.


Yeah, no list tailoring. That's right out. No choices made after lists are revealed.


i never said you tailor a whole list, just declare at drop reacting to the other opponents drops so far (first is a gamble of course) I do like sideboards some games have where you can adjust based on each others drops its a whole other element in there.



Thing is this would work fantastic for Tyranids who basically have very modular models for most of their unit slots. Warriors, hive tyrants, carnifex all three are powerful multi-role models depending on what weapons they take being able to go from artillery platforms to anti tank, anti infantry, close combat, even winged or ground for the tyrant. Even their bigger models have a lot of options and even down to the humble gaunt.

Basically they'd be VERY adaptable to whatever went on the table.

However an army like Eldar who have more single weapon elite units in their army would be basically stuck with what they brought most of the time. They can't change those 2 units of firedragons into 1 firedragon and 1 warpsider. They are stuck with the 2 firedragons.


I like the idea of a sideboard concept, but this application would be horribly unfair for some armies. Also it would be horribly broken for those who use magnets. A Tyranid player with magnetized army would have 100% freedom to tailor their weapon loadout; whilst one without magnets or with limited magnets would be far more limited; if not just because of what they can afford to buy, but also the simple logistical aspect that they likely couldn't carry every model they own to every game. So even if they had loads of warriors and fex to pick and choose, chances are they'd have enough trouble just getting a standard 2K or 3K worth of models to the game centre.


Eldar have plenty of adaptability it is just usually in the exarch's weapon loadout and it might mean people bring more units like wraithlords, vipers, war walkers, and falcons where they can change weaposn loadouts appropriatly. guardians could change weaposn platforms, wraithguard can choose between flamers and single shot with more range etc.

but that said I doo think it would be a case where all weapons options need to be substantially different but not to far out of scope for power from eachother. it the wraithgun is 18" heavy 1 S 8 ap-3 D3 then the flamer needs to be balance aroudn there for say 8" assault 2 str 5 ap-2 D2

also think of it this way a unit without as much adaptability would by vitrte of the change need to have points changes so aspect might go down in cost due to thier dedicated role. fire dragons, striking scorpions etc.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 15:49:57


Post by: JNAProductions


And Daemons?


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 15:53:22


Post by: Overread


Honestly I think this idea just won't work without changing the actual model designs for a lot of armies. Even so it would shift magnetic customising of models from an optional element into an almost mandatory one if you wanted a chance to win. Remembering that thus far only a few models for adpeticus Titanicus are made with magnet slots and many many models have arms and joints that are just not suitable for magnets.


This idea could work but it would take completely new armies and a total redesign from the ground up. Models would have to be made with magnets in mind from design, magnets put in the box, models given multiple weapons, etc....

As it stands the game just would not benefit this type of play and it would fast be abandoned by anyone who wanted to play any army that wasn't high on diversity.



Also what's the point of playing Eldar if you have to limit yourself to a very small pool of models and ignore all the elite troop options? Why would you take fire-dragons when you can't adapt


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 15:55:38


Post by: Grimtuff


Uh oh, OP has lit the Perri beacon.

Time to pull up a chair...



Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 16:01:10


Post by: Overread


 Grimtuff wrote:
Uh oh, OP has lit the Perri beacon.


I now have the air-raid siren sound going in my head!


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 16:03:58


Post by: Bharring


 G00fySmiley wrote:
 Overread wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
"sure, but that still doesn't change that if you decide to bring a bunch of las cannons vs a horde its going to be a pretty one sided game"

How does power level fix this?


did you read the post attached?

your list would just be "tactical squad, __ power level"

then at deployment (so you have some idea what you are facing as units are put down) you declare what gear that unit has as it hits the table.

so facing my orks you might decide instead of that lascannon that tac squad with heavy weapon has a heavy bolter instead and that tac squad you wanted out front now has a flamer instead of a melta gun.

likewise i might as the ork player realise you are doign mostly power armor and deploy with rokits instead of useless big shootas because hey at least if i hit i will probably take out a marine.


Yeah, no list tailoring. That's right out. No choices made after lists are revealed.


i never said you tailor a whole list, just declare at drop reacting to the other opponents drops so far (first is a gamble of course) I do like sideboards some games have where you can adjust based on each others drops its a whole other element in there.



Thing is this would work fantastic for Tyranids who basically have very modular models for most of their unit slots. Warriors, hive tyrants, carnifex all three are powerful multi-role models depending on what weapons they take being able to go from artillery platforms to anti tank, anti infantry, close combat, even winged or ground for the tyrant. Even their bigger models have a lot of options and even down to the humble gaunt.

Basically they'd be VERY adaptable to whatever went on the table.

However an army like Eldar who have more single weapon elite units in their army would be basically stuck with what they brought most of the time. They can't change those 2 units of firedragons into 1 firedragon and 1 warpsider. They are stuck with the 2 firedragons.


I like the idea of a sideboard concept, but this application would be horribly unfair for some armies. Also it would be horribly broken for those who use magnets. A Tyranid player with magnetized army would have 100% freedom to tailor their weapon loadout; whilst one without magnets or with limited magnets would be far more limited; if not just because of what they can afford to buy, but also the simple logistical aspect that they likely couldn't carry every model they own to every game. So even if they had loads of warriors and fex to pick and choose, chances are they'd have enough trouble just getting a standard 2K or 3K worth of models to the game centre.


Eldar have plenty of adaptability it is just usually in the exarch's weapon loadout and it might mean people bring more units like wraithlords, vipers, war walkers, and falcons where they can change weaposn loadouts appropriatly. guardians could change weaposn platforms, wraithguard can choose between flamers and single shot with more range etc.

but that said I doo think it would be a case where all weapons options need to be substantially different but not to far out of scope for power from eachother. it the wraithgun is 18" heavy 1 S 8 ap-3 D3 then the flamer needs to be balance aroudn there for say 8" assault 2 str 5 ap-2 D2

Eldar have adaptability in that their Melta squad can swap a *single* Melta for a Flamer. They're still paying for the other 4 MGs. They can't take small arms in that squad; that's another unit. They can't give it a single Lascannon; that's another unit. They can't give it melee weapons; that's another unit.

The WarWalkers/Vipers/Serpents (but not Falcons) get versatility, though - like Dev squads.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 16:05:38


Post by: edwardmyst


The OP did start their first post with a disclaimer of sorts (I know...I know..). And there has been some bit of decent discussion, so worthwhile. The game would need a drastic redo of units for PL to work.
I also am stuck with the air raid siren noise, or worse because I'm old, the Berzerk game robot voice warning...Raise a hand of you played Berzerk as a stand up arcade game...then take your Geritol.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 16:05:41


Post by: Bharring


This idea also demands that tons of current models just get thrown out. Any Sarge without upgrades is trash. Or even just an inferior option.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you want upgrades to see more use, change their points cost. If you think Sarges don't take weapons often enough, drop their points.

This doesn't work well with A La Carte pricing. Whatever points value is the breakeven to mean that sometimes a Captain takes a powersword, sometimes he does not; that pricepoint means a Squad Sarge never takes it.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 16:09:37


Post by: Kaiyanwang


 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Power level is points. It is just worse at doing the job of measuring a units ability.

This.
You need to precisely cut something. PL is an axe, points a knife. What do you want?
Obviously, it's years that we are asking GW for a scalpel, but that's another story entirely.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 16:14:42


Post by: G00fySmiley


Bharring wrote:
This idea also demands that tons of current models just get thrown out. Any Sarge without upgrades is trash. Or even just an inferior option.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you want upgrades to see more use, change their points cost. If you think Sarges don't take weapons often enough, drop their points.

This doesn't work well with A La Carte pricing. Whatever points value is the breakeven to mean that sometimes a Captain takes a powersword, sometimes he does not; that pricepoint means a Squad Sarge never takes it.


it may take some modeling changes, but I would not say an unupgraded model needs to be thrown out. maybe one needs to add a plasma pistol bit or a powersword but that can easily be done by replacing hands on a model not the whole thing.

your second point is kind of one of the reasons I want PL or barring that points to make sense.

a power sword on a space marine captain or a power claw on an ork warboss is a no brainer. but when it costs the same points for that wargear on a worse platform it does not. nobz for example are good as an elite unit but you would never put power fists on them as they cost to much for a 2w 4+ save model.

The most extreme example i can think of here is the Imperial guard codex. how is a lascannon suppossed to cost the same on a heavy weapons team as it does on the hull of a Leman russ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grimtuff wrote:
Uh oh, OP has lit the Perri beacon.

Time to pull up a chair...



not sure i have a peril beacon, just wanting to see people's opinions on my thoughts on the matter. mostly responding when an actual question exists or a ___ might not work so thinking on how it might be made to work. I am quite enjoying reading people's thoughts.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 16:41:20


Post by: redboi


No. PL is the exact same as points, just on a less refined scale. GW really needs to do the opposite if anything. Increase the points of everything across the board to allow more gradations in balance

Ie how do you adjust balance on a 4pt guardsman when a single single point in either direction is a 25% cost change? If they were base 10pts or even 20pts you could make smaller adjustments as needed


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 16:47:18


Post by: Togusa


 G00fySmiley wrote:
I know, I know, but hear me out here.

currently it seems silly to me that so many squads go in with no upgrades, or if they do it is because a weapon is just that much better for the points. like... i could give this guard squad a plasma gun but it hits on 4's and they don't have a great leadership, ditto the power sword on the sarg. do i bother with a power sword or axe on a WS4+ S3 T3 5+ save model?

As an example lets look at the 5 man space marine tactical squad

currently you have the options of 1 heavy or special weapon, that heavy weapon can cost between 8 and 28 points (flamer vs grav cannon w/ amp)

what is instead of just saying one weapon cost more you brought more of a parity in the weapons. Also imagine where in say a tournament you bring your list saying tactical squad and then choose the special or heavy weapon upon deploying, it would bring the concept of a sideboard a lot of game systems already use in where you get to react to the opponents army but by only so much.

Just spit balling here, but say profiles for weapons were in some cases increased and others decreased a bit to make them more on the same level for example

flamer - assault 4 auto hits within 8" str 4 ap0 D1
grav cannon with grav amp heavy 3 str 5 ap-2 d1 , when target has a 3+ or better save increase Ap by 1

basically make every weapons option have about the same "power" but a more defined role, then let the general choose said weapon upon deployment to lessen paper rocks sissors matches. Currently if i bring a green tide list with my orks and you can ready to fight imperial knight spam you probably lost, but this would let a person keep the same list but deploy with some anti horde to maybe stand a chance.


I think this is a fantastic idea. I have been playing some PL games lately, and aside from some minor balance issues, I find it to be quite superior to points in every way. Adding in the option to basically build half your list table side, and giving your opponenet to ability to do the same is brilliant!


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 16:56:03


Post by: Galef


How about this:

Keep the "points" the same, but make the cost of wargear relatively the same. I mean, most weapons are pretty close already with only a 2-3ppm difference.

If 5 Bolter Marines cost 65pts, add 10pts to give 1 model any Special or 15pts for any Heavy (buffing the Heavy Bolter & Flamers a bit to match those points).
X will ALWAYS be better than Y, so why bother trying to make the points matter that much?
You want a "vanilla" unit? Pay 65pts.
You want some uprades? Pay 10 pts for a Special or 15pts for a Heavy.
But deciding which upgrades to take no longer needs to account for points. Take the best weapon for your needs. Isn't that what people are already doing?

And none of this biz about "but you could list tailor". Yeah, people do that now anyway, and to avoid it, you should have a premade list ready to go rather than thrown together on the fly once you know your opponent's faction.
This change would not change that at all.

-


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 16:59:21


Post by: Bharring


So now a Boltgun is just as good as a Plasma Gun or Heavy bolter; just better in different ways.

It gets even worse; a Shuriken Catapault needs to be as good as a Melta Gun, Flamer, Fire Pike, or even an Avenger Shuriken Catapault.

And then we get silly. A Power Sword needs to be as good as a Shuriken Catapault. Or an Avenger Shuriken Catapault.

And then we just get dumb. That ASC, that's just as good as a Power Sword? Well, it also needs to be just as good as *two* ASCs. How do you make an ASC as good as two ASCs?


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 17:00:22


Post by: wuestenfux


In view of the simplification of the game further and further, having only PL available is an option.
I'm sure that GW will think about this seriously.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 17:02:29


Post by: Overread


Bharring wrote:
So now a Boltgun is just as good as a Plasma Gun or Heavy bolter; just better in different ways.

It gets even worse; a Shuriken Catapault needs to be as good as a Melta Gun, Flamer, Fire Pike, or even an Avenger Shuriken Catapault.

And then we get silly. A Power Sword needs to be as good as a Shuriken Catapault. Or an Avenger Shuriken Catapault.

And then we just get dumb. That ASC, that's just as good as a Power Sword? Well, it also needs to be just as good as *two* ASCs. How do you make an ASC as good as two ASCs?



It basically means that you're moving toward a game where the variation between armies isn't based on stats but upon visuals. That's not a bad thing, in fact it (in theory) makes balance a lot easier because there are far fewer variables flying around. However for Warhammer it would be a very bad approach because of the decades that we've had it as it currently is. Rock the boat too much and it can backfire hard and 40K has decades of a very popular build type. Changing all that on the fly can be a huge risk.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 17:07:21


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


 G00fySmiley wrote:
 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, how do I tell which models have the HBs and which have the LCs when I am looking at your models that physically have MLs?

I agree that power levels fix certain issues, but models are still models, and if you are deciding what a model "has" before you plop it down, you better have a damn good way of pointing that out, otherwise you are actively attempting to cause confusion on the board.

I can see this getting downright SILLY with deathwatch, where every single troop model can take a different load out.


wysiwyg still applies. If i want my 30 man unit or orks to have the option of 3 rokkits or 3 big shootas I need to have 33 models available to make that 30 man unit when it hits the board (or have magnitized to swap weapons)

likewise if I want a tactical squad to have a melta gun, missile launcher, heavy bolter, or flamer options then that is either, and if i want the sarg to have options for a power fist or power sword I am bringing 10 models (2 sarg options 1 with power fist, 1 with power sword, 4 bolter marines, and either 1 magnetized body and 4 weapons options, or 4 models with different weapons options.)

realistically I think most people will just end up magnetising weapons options for a quick swap out of bits. I already have my nobs magnetized to have either a power claw or big choppa, it takes just a few min between drillign with a pin vise and setting 3 magnets, 1 in the arm, 1 in big choppa, 1 in pk. both fit into the same slot as the model in my foam tray


I don't think it's fair to expect new players to suddenly learn to magnetize their models. It's difficult on things like tanks, it's tedious and stupid to expect players to do it for all 120 of their gaunts or Infantry.

Point is, magnetizing is an advanced technique that hardcore people use to better suit adaptability in high level games. Which is like 10% of the hobby.

How does PL only benefit the other 90%?


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 17:15:02


Post by: G00fySmiley


Bharring wrote:
So now a Boltgun is just as good as a Plasma Gun or Heavy bolter; just better in different ways.

It gets even worse; a Shuriken Catapault needs to be as good as a Melta Gun, Flamer, Fire Pike, or even an Avenger Shuriken Catapault.

And then we get silly. A Power Sword needs to be as good as a Shuriken Catapault. Or an Avenger Shuriken Catapault.

And then we just get dumb. That ASC, that's just as good as a Power Sword? Well, it also needs to be just as good as *two* ASCs. How do you make an ASC as good as two ASCs?


bolter would not be as good as a plasma or heavy bolter, in a tactical squad those 4 bolters are the same, ditto for Avenger shuri catipults, shootas, lasguns etc. only thing that would be reworked is special weapons beign taken in said unit. The only thing affected in a guardian squad would be the heavy weapons platform option. storm guardians would just be storm guardians that choose flamer or melta gun as its already baked in the cost

on the exarchs for say avengers you could have the dual catipult, diresword, and catipult or shimmer shield and power sword options

your choice is double the shots, a good cc weapon and a gun, or a inv save for the whole unit and a ok close combat weapon. that is my thoughts anyway.

its all jsut fun herory crafting anyway, i do doubt GW will actually do this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:
 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, how do I tell which models have the HBs and which have the LCs when I am looking at your models that physically have MLs?

I agree that power levels fix certain issues, but models are still models, and if you are deciding what a model "has" before you plop it down, you better have a damn good way of pointing that out, otherwise you are actively attempting to cause confusion on the board.

I can see this getting downright SILLY with deathwatch, where every single troop model can take a different load out.


wysiwyg still applies. If i want my 30 man unit or orks to have the option of 3 rokkits or 3 big shootas I need to have 33 models available to make that 30 man unit when it hits the board (or have magnitized to swap weapons)

likewise if I want a tactical squad to have a melta gun, missile launcher, heavy bolter, or flamer options then that is either, and if i want the sarg to have options for a power fist or power sword I am bringing 10 models (2 sarg options 1 with power fist, 1 with power sword, 4 bolter marines, and either 1 magnetized body and 4 weapons options, or 4 models with different weapons options.)

realistically I think most people will just end up magnetising weapons options for a quick swap out of bits. I already have my nobs magnetized to have either a power claw or big choppa, it takes just a few min between drillign with a pin vise and setting 3 magnets, 1 in the arm, 1 in big choppa, 1 in pk. both fit into the same slot as the model in my foam tray


I don't think it's fair to expect new players to suddenly learn to magnetize their models. It's difficult on things like tanks, it's tedious and stupid to expect players to do it for all 120 of their gaunts or Infantry.

Point is, magnetizing is an advanced technique that hardcore people use to better suit adaptability in high level games. Which is like 10% of the hobby.

How does PL only benefit the other 90%?


I think in this case more people would magnitize, but yes I doubt everybody would. That said for new players and the other players they might just pack a few extra weapons options they like. say for each tac squad they bring a lascannon and a flamer, or whatever they prefer as a few types. and heck mos tplayers would probably be cool with "ok all my special weapons are plasma guns" or "all my heavy weapons are missile launchers"


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 17:25:25


Post by: Drudge Dreadnought


Is this another episode of my favorite warhammer show "It worked for decades but it doesn't work in 8th so throw it all out"?


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 17:25:32


Post by: Lemondish


 Ratius wrote:
I personally prefer the granularity of points and agree with Martel that they could just spend some time balancing them across the board.


You know, I think I actually kind of liked the idea the OP brought up about the special and heavy options in certain units acting like a mini sideboard. That seems fun and I'd love to explore that a bit more. As if the units are tooling up for the fight at hand rather than always being the 'flamer guy'. I think that would allow a bit more specialization of weapon purposes above and beyond what we have now.

Compelling idea.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 17:36:50


Post by: G00fySmiley


Lemondish wrote:
 Ratius wrote:
I personally prefer the granularity of points and agree with Martel that they could just spend some time balancing them across the board.


You know, I think I actually kind of liked the idea the OP brought up about the special and heavy options in certain units acting like a mini sideboard. That seems fun and I'd love to explore that a bit more. As if the units are tooling up for the fight at hand rather than always being the 'flamer guy'. I think that would allow a bit more specialization of weapon purposes above and beyond what we have now.

Compelling idea.


thanks not my idea though many games use sideboards or reserves that can change.

heck we have demon summoning with reserves so there is that too.

it does seem odd to me though that you build a list then just show up with that list. like the army is not changing a single piece of equipment or adapting at all based on the opponent.

tac marine to captain "sir we are engaging the ork green tide on planet ____ are you sure dropping in with my lascannon is a good plan, likewise the devistators have 3 multimeltas, and the stormraven is loaded up with a multtmeltas, lascannons and no sponsons attached"
captian to tac marine "damn it we arrive in 2 weeks there is no time to stop by the armory and change weapons now" and changing the guns on the stormraven will take days, the empiror will just protect"


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 17:53:05


Post by: Grimtuff


 G00fySmiley wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grimtuff wrote:
Uh oh, OP has lit the Perri beacon.

Time to pull up a chair...



not sure i have a peril beacon, just wanting to see people's opinions on my thoughts on the matter. mostly responding when an actual question exists or a ___ might not work so thinking on how it might be made to work. I am quite enjoying reading people's thoughts.


PERRI beacon. Keep that final sentence in mind when Peregrine is drawn to this thread like a moth to a flame.

Don't say I didn't warn you.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 18:09:48


Post by: G00fySmiley


 Grimtuff wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grimtuff wrote:
Uh oh, OP has lit the Perri beacon.

Time to pull up a chair...



not sure i have a peril beacon, just wanting to see people's opinions on my thoughts on the matter. mostly responding when an actual question exists or a ___ might not work so thinking on how it might be made to work. I am quite enjoying reading people's thoughts.


PERRI beacon. Keep that final sentence in mind when Peregrine is drawn to this thread like a moth to a flame.

Don't say I didn't warn you.


i didn't know perri was a user >_< i thought it was a reference to the .gif that i didn't understand


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 18:42:00


Post by: Bharring


 G00fySmiley wrote:
Bharring wrote:
So now a Boltgun is just as good as a Plasma Gun or Heavy bolter; just better in different ways.

It gets even worse; a Shuriken Catapault needs to be as good as a Melta Gun, Flamer, Fire Pike, or even an Avenger Shuriken Catapault.

And then we get silly. A Power Sword needs to be as good as a Shuriken Catapault. Or an Avenger Shuriken Catapault.

And then we just get dumb. That ASC, that's just as good as a Power Sword? Well, it also needs to be just as good as *two* ASCs. How do you make an ASC as good as two ASCs?


bolter would not be as good as a plasma or heavy bolter, in a tactical squad those 4 bolters are the same, ditto for Avenger shuri catipults, shootas, lasguns etc. only thing that would be reworked is special weapons beign taken in said unit. The only thing affected in a guardian squad would be the heavy weapons platform option. storm guardians would just be storm guardians that choose flamer or melta gun as its already baked in the cost

But then every single squad must take a Special/Heavy. No Captain/Sarge/other HQ with a Boltgun is viable. Every Vet/Command Squad with a boltgun is garbage (or must be remodelled/repainted).


on the exarchs for say avengers you could have the dual catipult, diresword, and catipult or shimmer shield and power sword options

your choice is double the shots, a good cc weapon and a gun, or a inv save for the whole unit and a ok close combat weapon. that is my thoughts anyway.

While that sounds good, the current rules give you more and more comparable options. Maybe you want to save the points by taking a single ASC. Maybe taking a sword and pistol over 2xASC is worth the points saved (note: they can't take a CCW and a Catapult, just a pistol).

You lose cost effectiveness as an additional balancing axis.


its all jsut fun herory crafting anyway, i do doubt GW will actually do this.

It'd be almost as crazy as 10 basic dudes with spears being the same number of "points" as a Greater Demon or a giant Dragon or a Carnesaur. I'm sure they'll *never* do that....


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 19:46:12


Post by: LunarSol


I'd prefer PL as long as they change how unit loadouts work.

It'd even be interesting if a unit has a set PL, but then one of their stats is some kind of "Equipment Allowance" that lets you spend up to a certain number of "Equipment Points" on the unit.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 19:53:00


Post by: Galef


 LunarSol wrote:
I'd prefer PL as long as they change how unit loadouts work.

It'd even be interesting if a unit has a set PL, but then one of their stats is some kind of "Equipment Allowance" that lets you spend up to a certain number of "Equipment Points" on the unit.
Yeah, this is basically what I'm getting at. "Vaniila" units costs XxPL, upgrades cost YPL. But it doesn't matter what equipment

-


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 21:44:56


Post by: TheFleshIsWeak


 G00fySmiley wrote:

currently it seems silly to me that so many squads go in with no upgrades, or if they do it is because a weapon is just that much better for the points. like... i could give this guard squad a plasma gun but it hits on 4's and they don't have a great leadership, ditto the power sword on the sarg. do i bother with a power sword or axe on a WS4+ S3 T3 5+ save model?


I really do understand where you're coming from here. I find it kinda sad that a lot of weapons never see play because they're just not worth it (even for a few points) on ranged units with just 1 or 2 attacks.

However, I don't think Power Level is the answer. It just means going from one extreme to the other - rather than seeing most units with no/minimal upgrades, you instead see every unit taking ALL the upgrades because there's no reason not to.

I've got a couple of alternative ideas but I'm not sure they're any good either.

I'm wondering if it's possible to give each army a number of 'Upgrade Points'. These are basically just extra points but they can only ever be spent on upgrades. Would that help at all, or would they just be eaten by Lascannons and such?

Alternatively, perhaps the point cost of melee weapons could be looked at again? It seems silly that a WS2+ 70pt character with 5 attacks pays as much for an Agoniser as a WS3+ 6pt squad sergeant with 2 attacks. The former is paying a little under 6% of his base cost, whilst the latter is paying ~67% of his base cost.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/28 22:21:56


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


I often wonder if a Power Level with a sideboard would improve balance over straight points. The Power Level being there largely to make calculating the agreed upon max total a little easier after determining which units will be fielded. The sideboard being used after determining the opposing faction, mission and table terrain layout.

I think for this to work units with weapon load out options should probably be better defined in the role they are intended with a reduction of just better weapons. Take the weapon options a tactical squad can equip. Most of those weapons have pretty obvious roles that I don't think are as well defined on the tabletop. I think for this to work, that would have to be sorted out a little better without using points as a system to try and fine tune.

I also think this wouldn't affect factions with less options since they still have the same sideboard but can use that to also tailor for this mission. The bigger issue would probably be that even after decades I don't know if every faction has the tools to adjust.

Ultimately, I think it would just shift issues to somewhere else. I have seen sideboards used for pretty good effect in Kill Team especially with the inclusion of Elites which has players picking a roster for both 100 and 125 points if the missions in Elites are included. At the same time, I still encounter many Kill Team players locked into lists to the point I feel like I have an unfavorable advantage with a roster. And that is a small game where it is easy to have that side board. In 40k, I am still working on my Primaris space marine army just cracking 1,000 points of painted. It might be sometime before I have have enough for a sideboard in addition to full army at the size I think most gamers play.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/29 00:01:03


Post by: PenitentJake


The side boarding concept is interesting... though I do still stand with those opposed- if you can get the perfect tool for any situation, it does take a lot of the fun, strategy and challenge out of list building.

But where this really falls apart for me is the cost.

Buy one devastator squad for every tactical squad in order to be able to sideboard every load out?

Buy four devastors for every devastator squad you actually want to field?

Now I know, that's an extreme, and you say nobody would ever do it. You might be right. But if even one person did it, in your group or at your store or in your tourney, they would never lose to anyone who wasn't prepared to do the same thing.

Broken.

Furthermore, if you leave the game as it is, you can still play pl. So what you actually want isn't to play PL; it's to prevent everyone else from playing points.

This game is more flexible in this edition than it has ever been. Too many of those eager for a 9th edition can already get exactly what they want out of this one, but they want EVERYONE to be forced to play their way so badly that they're willing to buy their codices of choice for the ninth time rather than just chilling and letting GW break even more new ground than they already have this time around.

Personally, I hope there never is a ninth edition. I can go 8.5- minor changes that fix some of the weak spots- I'm not denying the game has them, nor am I saying they shouldn't be addressed. Some codices do need to be redone, but many are fine as they are.I want at least 3 years to play the crap outta my new sisters dex.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/29 06:49:06


Post by: ccs


 G00fySmiley wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
"sure, but that still doesn't change that if you decide to bring a bunch of las cannons vs a horde its going to be a pretty one sided game"

How does power level fix this?


did you read the post attached?

your list would just be "tactical squad, __ power level"

then at deployment (so you have some idea what you are facing as units are put down) you declare what gear that unit has as it hits the table.

so facing my orks you might decide instead of that lascannon that tac squad with heavy weapon has a heavy bolter instead and that tac squad you wanted out front now has a flamer instead of a melta gun.

likewise i might as the ork player realise you are doign mostly power armor and deploy with rokits instead of useless big shootas because hey at least if i hit i will probably take out a marine.


Yeah, no list tailoring. That's right out. No choices made after lists are revealed.


i never said you tailor a whole list, just declare at drop reacting to the other opponents drops so far (first is a gamble of course) I do like sideboards some games have where you can adjust based on each others drops its a whole other element in there.


Ok, if this is the environment you want, then I'll make sure to include a bunch of really cheap units to deploy early so as to run you out of drops & then list tailor against you with impunity with the serious stuff.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/29 07:18:16


Post by: Ice_can


Except your not talking about sideboarding 5 or 10% of your list your taking about sideboarding your entire list.

Take repulsors and dev squads, fighting russ spam everything gets a lascannon or lastalon army wide, hope you enjoy taking lascannon shots from an entire list.

Fighting orks well everyones gettibg HB or Onslaught Cannons, enjoy shovelling up units.

Side boarding 1 or 2 units allows adaptability, what your talking about is list tailoring during deployment that a WAAC guy thing and having played against it casually it's a guaranteed way to have people quitting as it's no fun playing ever game against your hard counter choices.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/29 10:12:27


Post by: hilty26


Do the opposite. Increase points by a factor of 10. Guardsmen are now 40 points. This will allow actual balancing of points.
I’d also recommend going to a D12 for everything. This will allow actual balancing of BS, WS, SVs, etc.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/29 10:14:50


Post by: Breton


Martel732 wrote:
"sure, but that still doesn't change that if you decide to bring a bunch of las cannons vs a horde its going to be a pretty one sided game"

How does power level fix this?


Power Level creates a different kind of headache. While it's certainly arguable the - for example - smash captain is going to become less popular when he has to try and smash three squads of guard with power swords behind 9 ablative wounds each - He's not going away entirely. And the Sergeant with a chainsword is going to become the rarity not the norm (that you'd see from the fluff) unless they rework the chainsword to do two A for every 1A on the profile or some such.

Going straight power level (with the current 40K upgrades cost not the PL Apoc system) is (theoretically) most likely to:
entice people to kit out troops squads as its all but free.
overly benefit squads with multiple upgrade options on multiple upgrade trees - making many options all but standard equipment. Who would take a scout withOUT a free Camo Cloak?
Result in some pretty ridiculous Elite units - 10 man Vanguard Vets with 1Relic Blade/SS, 4 TH/SS and 5 Dual LC
Possibly still see these super units get spanked by horde mobs likewise fully kitted out.
Drastically change the calculation on ablative wounds. The power level cost for 5 bolter Devastator marine ablative wounds, and a 5 man Devastator group with four more heavy weapons will be the same.
Give me a twitch above my right eye as I think about being forced to take 3 or 6 Interceptors when I really want to take 5 to satisfy my 100 Marines, groups of 5 or 10 Obsessive Compulsive tendencies.

Going full PL isn't a BAD idea. It isn't a good idea either. Take the Camo Cloaks I mentioned above: In PowerLevel only, who wouldn't take a camo cloak? It's free, there's no drawback to having a cloak, and it doesn't cost you another choice you could be making. If they go full Power Level they'll have to rewrite all of those unit entries to either include a cost for every upgrade Apocalypse style, or turn every upgrade into an either/or proposition, or a combination of both - i.e. you may take Camo Cloaks and sniper rifles, or bolters and a heavy weapon, or shotguns and a heavy weapon - with an optional for sniper rifles and camo cloaks at 2PL per 5, for bolters and such, at 1PL per 5, for Shotguns and a heavy, that's the basic PL Price - Or Some such.

They'll also have to get much better at balancing those choices for their role. A Heavy Bolter against T3 horde isn't even as good as, let alone better than, a plasma cannon once you factor in ~2 shots wounding on 2's vs 3 shots wounding on 3's with a potential armor save. Few marine players will take auto hit flamers over plasma or melta even with the points difference right now. Even fewer will do so when they're all 0 points. It gets even more complex when you're talking about a unit like Sternguard, why take their special issue bolter? The basic pre-option gear has to be as good as, just different from, their optional gear with the possible exception of 1-2 per squad like special/heavy weapons in a tac squad. To give an example:
The Intercessor squad has both of these types of options:

Auxiliary GL's are 0 points, and limited to 1 per 5 i.e. 1 or 2 per squad. Once all options for a given squad are toss ups, this can and should be points free, like the GL is.

The Auto/Stalker/Generic Bolt Rifle are neither different enough, nor similar enough, even at Price:Free to prevent an overwhelming player preference. Especially after the Beta Bolter Rules next to nobody was taking Auto Bolt Rifles. Few were going to take the Stalker though it has some appeal, +6 inches, and an extra -1AP for one fewer shots on a backfield objective camper is attractive enough to make that a toss-up to me. And now I need another box of intercessors now that I'm putting that together with Infiltrators. 1 extra shot, only in a 9 inch window, only if I moved and 1 less AP is not a toss up. It needs more shots more often.

Going full Power Level, or either/or options for the same price with different effect such that changing options doesn't change your Points/Power Level does allow for a sideboard, and that's not a bad thing at all, especially given how much list spam there is now. But the side board should also be somewhat double blind. Set up rules to evaluate your own army - if X% of your power level is deep striking, if your model count is Y, and so on. If your list is more than Z% vehicles - The dust cloud our air reconnaissance has followed strongly suggests the approaching army is mechanized. The scoutcraft flyover reports a teeming horde of greenskins massed so tightly together it's impossible to count. Intelligence reports hordes of creatures the size of a tiger from Ancient Terran Myth, or lumbering behemoths drooling on the carapace of their monstrous toes, screaming as they kil, or combined and balanced force (A little bit of everything) . Observers report the force approaching is too small to justify the confidence they're advancing with, be prepared for sudden reinforcements (Heavy Deep Strike) A hint, not 20 minutes with your list to min/max.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 p5freak wrote:
Its impossible to put the "power" of a unit in one number. SM Company veterans have 14 (!) different weapons where i can choose from. How do you balance all of them in one number ? If you do it for each weapon individually you may as well use points as usual.


You balance the weapons, not the choices. A power lance, power maul, and power sword are all pretty balanced. Start there, pull the TH/SS and Power Fist etc, then move on to the pistols. Then the rest. The trick is to make the Purpose defined weapons that much better at their purpose and that much worse at anything else than the hybrids/multi-role choices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, how do I tell which models have the HBs and which have the LCs when I am looking at your models that physically have MLs?

I agree that power levels fix certain issues, but models are still models, and if you are deciding what a model "has" before you plop it down, you better have a damn good way of pointing that out, otherwise you are actively attempting to cause confusion on the board.

I can see this getting downright SILLY with deathwatch, where every single troop model can take a different load out.


I'm assuming sideboard was meant literally, dragging the entire concept from other games. You could have one devastator squad with 16 different Heavy Weapon Devastator models. 4 on the table, and 12 on your sideboard carrying lascannons, heavy bolters, plasma, and so on. And if you decided - through whatever mechanism - that you needed more dakka less AT, you'd put your Devs down with 4 HBs and PC's (from your sideboard) instead of placing some LC and ML Devs (which models then go to your sideboard instead of on the table)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote:
This idea also demands that tons of current models just get thrown out. Any Sarge without upgrades is trash. Or even just an inferior option.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you want upgrades to see more use, change their points cost. If you think Sarges don't take weapons often enough, drop their points.

This doesn't work well with A La Carte pricing. Whatever points value is the breakeven to mean that sometimes a Captain takes a powersword, sometimes he does not; that pricepoint means a Squad Sarge never takes it.


Nah, it demands all the options - including the default option - be equally attractive. The bolter/lasgun/whatever has to put out enough shots at enough range to perform about as well as a bolt pistol and power whatever for the less average time it will be in close combat range.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/29 18:03:57


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


 G00fySmiley wrote:
do i bother with a power sword or axe on a WS4+ S3 T3 5+ save model?

MAYBE, just MAYBE, you shouldn't. If it's free because of PL, what's your incentive not to take it?


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/29 18:29:46


Post by: spiralingcadaver


I think it would be perfectly reasonable to try to abstract things to maybe 5 point increments (in a 2k point game, it's got to be near-impossible to identify a 1-point difference in power) or something like that, but there are just so many roles removed by doing power levels as they stand. Jump packs might add 1 PL cost, while a heavy weapon might not add any cost. I like running stripped down units, esp. for troops, and throw my points where I think they'll be most effective; I'd really rather not have the equivalent of building in the price of upgrades and then getting to pick them, rather than the option to take them or not, to begin with.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/29 19:34:06


Post by: Peregrine


A few points:

* PL is an idiotic concept. It's just a less-accurate point system that makes balance even worse in exchange for, at best, a trivial savings in time require to write a list. The primary use for it seems to be as a means of virtue signalling for CAAC players, deliberately using a less-balanced rule to prove to everyone how little they care about competitive play. PL should be removed entirely as a waste of what little development time GW is willing to spend on creating rules.

* Pseudo-PL with points for upgrades is even worse. It throws out the simplicity of PL, its one possible minor advantage, and ends up with the same list-building work of conventional points. All it does is take away a very useful design tool: the ability to make options that are more powerful but also more expensive. It's extremely difficult to make several options of equal value, especially in a very shallow system like 40k where there is little difference between unit types and the best ways of killing them. It is much easier to make options that have different purposes and then assign them an appropriate point cost, greatly reducing the chances that you end up with one obvious auto-take option and a bunch of irrelevant rules bloat that nobody will ever use.

* Sideboarding is bad. It drives the game further in the direction of a rock/paper/scissors CCG and it excessively rewards players who have more money to spend on bringing extra models to tailor their list for each opponent. The game should encourage TAC lists, preferably enforced by going back to single-codex armies that must fit a single 5th edition FOC (with a single LoW slot added, since those didn't exist at the time).

I think that about covers it?


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/29 19:46:33


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Peregrine wrote:
A few points:

* PL is an idiotic concept. It's just a less-accurate point system that makes balance even worse in exchange for, at best, a trivial savings in time require to write a list. The primary use for it seems to be as a means of virtue signalling for CAAC players, deliberately using a less-balanced rule to prove to everyone how little they care about competitive play. PL should be removed entirely as a waste of what little development time GW is willing to spend on creating rules.

* Pseudo-PL with points for upgrades is even worse. It throws out the simplicity of PL, its one possible minor advantage, and ends up with the same list-building work of conventional points. All it does is take away a very useful design tool: the ability to make options that are more powerful but also more expensive. It's extremely difficult to make several options of equal value, especially in a very shallow system like 40k where there is little difference between unit types and the best ways of killing them. It is much easier to make options that have different purposes and then assign them an appropriate point cost, greatly reducing the chances that you end up with one obvious auto-take option and a bunch of irrelevant rules bloat that nobody will ever use.

* Sideboarding is bad. It drives the game further in the direction of a rock/paper/scissors CCG and it excessively rewards players who have more money to spend on bringing extra models to tailor their list for each opponent. The game should encourage TAC lists, preferably enforced by going back to single-codex armies that must fit a single 5th edition FOC (with a single LoW slot added, since those didn't exist at the time).

I think that about covers it?
One of the few times I 100% agree with someones post without any qualifiers. Good show.

There is a rumour that GW wanted to drop points for 8th entirely, and that the Playtest group threatened to cause an internet storm about it, so GW shoehorned in Matched Play and points. If 9th scraps points GW are going to lose a lot of their undeserved good will.

While I would love to go back to single FoC games that realistically won't happen, thus I wish they would instead harshly "punish" soup and "encourage" mono armies. A complete rework of how CP, Stratagems and Detachments work is needed.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/29 21:52:14


Post by: alextroy


I think the key to getting "competitive" armies to look more like "fluffy" armies is to revise how points are done rather than toss them overboard for Power Level. If some of the value of upgrades was baked into the base cost of the unit and then the upgrade cost were reduced, you would be incentivized to take more upgrades.

For example, let's take a Astra Militarum Infantry Squad. They are 4 points a model for 10 models, so 40 points. They are often fielded barebones or with just a Mortar (5 points). You never see a Vox Caster and rarely a special weapon.

Now change the points cost of the unit to 50 for 10 models. Reduce the cost of the voxcaster, special weapons, and heavy weapons by 5 points each (except for Sargent weapons). I bet you will see a lot more special and heavy weapons and voxcasters under such a point schedule.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/29 22:23:34


Post by: HoundsofDemos


I would be opposed to any kind of side board or ability to change your list once you've seen your opponents. Even as an IOM player I'm not a big fan of being able to pick which assassin I want popping up and I don't like the idea of that expanding.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/29 22:47:22


Post by: TheFleshIsWeak


 BaconCatBug wrote:

There is a rumour that GW wanted to drop points for 8th entirely, and that the Playtest group threatened to cause an internet storm about it, so GW shoehorned in Matched Play and points. If 9th scraps points GW are going to lose a lot of their undeserved good will.


I mean, this would explain an awful lot.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/29 23:11:20


Post by: Trickstick


It's hard enough carrying a 2k Guard army as it is. Add in sideboarding and I think I would turn into a packhorse. Also, I can only imagine how much extra time it would add to a game. HAve you ever played against an indecisive person trying to write a list before a game? Not an experience to encourage.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/29 23:18:58


Post by: BrianDavion


 alextroy wrote:
I think the key to getting "competitive" armies to look more like "fluffy" armies is to revise how points are done rather than toss them overboard for Power Level. If some of the value of upgrades was baked into the base cost of the unit and then the upgrade cost were reduced, you would be incentivized to take more upgrades.

For example, let's take a Astra Militarum Infantry Squad. They are 4 points a model for 10 models, so 40 points. They are often fielded barebones or with just a Mortar (5 points). You never see a Vox Caster and rarely a special weapon.

Now change the points cost of the unit to 50 for 10 models. Reduce the cost of the voxcaster, special weapons, and heavy weapons by 5 points each (except for Sargent weapons). I bet you will see a lot more special and heavy weapons and voxcasters under such a point schedule.


I suspect you'd still see people cutting corners, thing with the guard is at their level of price point even saving a point per squad can add up quickly.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/30 00:10:54


Post by: ERJAK


Allowing you to change loadouts between games will never happen. The administration necessary to police that, let alone how much extra storage that would require is frankly mind boggling. A single space marine Dev squad would require you to bring AT LEAST 13 models.

Also, coming from Sigmar, all that happens is you take the best upgrades every time. It works and it's fine, but that's all it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrianDavion wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
I think the key to getting "competitive" armies to look more like "fluffy" armies is to revise how points are done rather than toss them overboard for Power Level. If some of the value of upgrades was baked into the base cost of the unit and then the upgrade cost were reduced, you would be incentivized to take more upgrades.

For example, let's take a Astra Militarum Infantry Squad. They are 4 points a model for 10 models, so 40 points. They are often fielded barebones or with just a Mortar (5 points). You never see a Vox Caster and rarely a special weapon.

Now change the points cost of the unit to 50 for 10 models. Reduce the cost of the voxcaster, special weapons, and heavy weapons by 5 points each (except for Sargent weapons). I bet you will see a lot more special and heavy weapons and voxcasters under such a point schedule.


I suspect you'd still see people cutting corners, thing with the guard is at their level of price point even saving a point per squad can add up quickly.


The greater likelyhood is that either the unit is dropped altogether, or even MORE upgrades get cut to pay for the actual valuable part of a guardsman (the body).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:

There is a rumour that GW wanted to drop points for 8th entirely, and that the Playtest group threatened to cause an internet storm about it, so GW shoehorned in Matched Play and points. If 9th scraps points GW are going to lose a lot of their undeserved good will.


I mean, this would explain an awful lot.


No it wouldn't. They learned what happens when you try to take out points from the launch of Sigmar.

This is just someone with a grudge trying to convince the gullible to demonize the playtesters.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/30 00:17:33


Post by: Peregrine


ERJAK wrote:
This is just someone with a grudge trying to convince the gullible to demonize the playtesters.


How is that demonizing the playtesters? GW wanted to do something idiotic and potentially catastrophic, the playtesters used their available leverage to make GW do the right thing. The playtesters are the heroes of this (alleged) story!


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/30 05:56:39


Post by: Breton


 spiralingcadaver wrote:
I think it would be perfectly reasonable to try to abstract things to maybe 5 point increments (in a 2k point game, it's got to be near-impossible to identify a 1-point difference in power) or something like that, but there are just so many roles removed by doing power levels as they stand. Jump packs might add 1 PL cost, while a heavy weapon might not add any cost. I like running stripped down units, esp. for troops, and throw my points where I think they'll be most effective; I'd really rather not have the equivalent of building in the price of upgrades and then getting to pick them, rather than the option to take them or not, to begin with.


And I'd rather not look across the table at 3 5 man scout squads somebody took so they could dump all their points in the same "uber" units. In a perfect world, I'd prefer they fix power level which would require balancing all the units and options- meaning the points you scrimped on Troops with would be just as viable and useful in the troops slot now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 alextroy wrote:
I think the key to getting "competitive" armies to look more like "fluffy" armies is to revise how points are done rather than toss them overboard for Power Level. If some of the value of upgrades was baked into the base cost of the unit and then the upgrade cost were reduced, you would be incentivized to take more upgrades.

For example, let's take a Astra Militarum Infantry Squad. They are 4 points a model for 10 models, so 40 points. They are often fielded barebones or with just a Mortar (5 points). You never see a Vox Caster and rarely a special weapon.

Now change the points cost of the unit to 50 for 10 models. Reduce the cost of the voxcaster, special weapons, and heavy weapons by 5 points each (except for Sargent weapons). I bet you will see a lot more special and heavy weapons and voxcasters under such a point schedule.


What makes you think upgrades are fluffy? For example lets take the Astra Militarum Squad. How often do you read about a Sergeant with a power sword in the books? Of course, some upgrades are fluffier than others. Also people keep trying to conflate fluffy and stereotypical Battalion Force Org. I can make a very fairly fluffy 2000 point list with Chronus, 2 techmarines, 2 landraiders, 3 predators, 4 razorbacks, 2 Land speeders, and 3 Whirlwinds. In fact I had to make it less fluffy because of the rule of three introduced for balance, I had to swap predators for Whirlwinds and Landspeeders. The only two infrantry models are the Techmarines, but it's fluffy. Ravenwing and Deathwing lists will also be fluffy but not particularly Battalion-ish. The "point" of going power level over points is to try and reduce disparity between various units. and options so taking something different doesn't mean taking something worse.

As for seeing more special and heavy weapons, I doubt it. Players will still look down their nose at the troop slot. They'll still prefer to spend those 5 points in the elite, fast, or heavy slots. In some cases it's justified, in some cases its just silly prejudice.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/30 10:50:05


Post by: Deadnight


I'm generally quite happy with less granular points systems, like what you see in warmachine/hordes. A squad of x is 5pts for min size, 8pts for max size. I generally prefer less granular systems, we deal with rough systems, I don't think increased granularity adds much.

It worked in WMH, and could potentially work in 40k but there are caveats. In WMH, squad options are fixed. An iron fang is an iron fang, and always has a blasting pike. There is no swapping it for x, or upgrading to y for z points. Closest thing you have to these kinds of upgrades is Some squads have 'attachment' options for officers (more in game abilities to the squad' or weapon attachments ('special weapons' e.g. Winter guard rocketeer is a wa for the winter guard infantry squad).
Secondly, there are sideboard options in WMH, or there were, in some formats back in mk2. Some tournaments had a thing where you had 20% of your points as a side board that you could swap out. It added a lot of tactical flexibility and did help alleviate those 'gotcha!' Match ups and hard counters. Still, it was far easier to manage with WMH's less granular points system and lack of upgrades.

Also multiple-list tournaments are the norm in WMH.

Now, here's the thing. I probably prefer power levels over points in gw games for several reasons. Gw points are not balanced either. And never will be. For me, for either, you need to have the 'communication phase' an work out with the guy across the table what you both want out of the game to make it fair. So for me, if I am going to be doing that anyway, I'd rather les granular accounting than more granular accounting, because that's simply what I prefer, based on my years of WMH.

Now that said, is 'power level' a straight 'port' from the list-building and options you see in WMH. No it is not. It's different. It could work, but it would require a lot of core changes to the game and how you can build your army and would in a lot of ways, change the nature of 40k. In the end, it wouldn't be 'power level'. And I don't know if it should worth it.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/30 16:48:50


Post by: catbarf


Deadnight wrote:
I'm generally quite happy with less granular points systems, like what you see in warmachine/hordes. A squad of x is 5pts for min size, 8pts for max size. I generally prefer less granular systems, we deal with rough systems, I don't think increased granularity adds much.


Yeah, Warmachine used to (back in Mk1) be much more granular, with 40K-like unit costs. They switched to a less granular system, and I don't think there was anything lost. Granted, Warmachine doesn't have the plethora of upgrades to units that 40K does.

Granular points systems can work if the granularity actually leads to more balance. As it stands now, it really doesn't in 40K. Plenty of weapon options are overcosted or undercosted, so a reduction in granularity wouldn't change all that much. There are lots of no-brainer 1pt upgrades that you might as well make free.

Power level was a good idea, but the lack of representation of any options just kills it as a balancing mechanism. Using power level, there is no reason for me to take Termagants with Fleshborers over Devourers, as the Devourers are better in every single way, but under the points system double the cost of the unit. I'm not looking to min-max the system, but the whole point of a balancing mechanism like points or power level or whatever is to represent the relative power of units, and without taking upgrades into account it doesn't work. Two 50PL armies can be radically different in effectiveness if one is full of upgrades and the other isn't.

Apocalypse is trying a hybrid approach and I suspect it might be what GW does in 9th Ed. It has the '10 models/20 models/30 models' scaling from the power level system, but heavy weapons and unit upgrades have additional costs. Combine this with some baked-in minor upgrades and I think it'd work for 40K.

Or, more simply: I suspect that you could divide all point costs by 5, using the fixed unit sizes a la AoS/Apoc/PL to account for fractions, and rounding all weapon upgrades/options to the nearest whole number, without significantly impacting balance.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/30 17:02:28


Post by: Melissia


 G00fySmiley wrote:
currently it seems silly to me that so many squads go in with no upgrades, or if they do it is because a weapon is just that much better for the points.
As opposed to power-levels, which gives us a situation where there's no reason to take a lot of upgrades because their main advantage was being cheap. Instead, just pick the best most expensive upgrades because under the power-level system they both cost the exact same anyway.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/30 17:06:47


Post by: Elbows


I can see it happening, personally. Maybe not in 8.5/9th, but absolutely it's where the game is headed.

GW is headed in the "less options" direction in their kits, and a lot of "monopose" style builds, squads, etc. I keep joking to my buddies who don't play WYSIWYG....that we'll all be playing that way soon. Once GW gets to the "buy this box...they have this" level on more kits and army, points will become less important.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/30 17:08:35


Post by: Melissia


That'd be quite the sad day for the hobby tbh.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/30 17:10:27


Post by: Elbows


Oh I concur, I'm not actually following GW forward with their new production style/plan. I have my armies and I'm done....but it's very clear the emphasis is on less options, easier and more straight forward, etc.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/30 18:30:05


Post by: TheFleshIsWeak


ERJAK wrote:
No it wouldn't. They learned what happens when you try to take out points from the launch of Sigmar.


Er . . . you are aware that Power Level in 40k is basically identical to Points in Age of Sigmar, right?


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/30 19:06:06


Post by: catbarf


 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
No it wouldn't. They learned what happens when you try to take out points from the launch of Sigmar.


Er . . . you are aware that Power Level in 40k is basically identical to Points in Age of Sigmar, right?


Age of Sigmar didn't have points on launch. They had a system that, no exaggeration, amounted to 'take whatever models you like, and whoever has fewer models gets a small bonus'. The backlash was incredible, and a big part of why many Fantasy players abandoned the game entirely rather than switch. GW realized pretty quickly that their fans want a balancing mechanism for the game, and added points about a year later.

The idea that GW only wanted PL for 40K, but added points due to backlash from playtesters, wouldn't surprise me one bit.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/30 19:16:48


Post by: TheFleshIsWeak


catbarf wrote:

Age of Sigmar didn't have points on launch. They had a system that, no exaggeration, amounted to 'take whatever models you like, and whoever has fewer models gets a small bonus'. The backlash was incredible, and a big part of why many Fantasy players abandoned the game entirely rather than switch. GW realized pretty quickly that their fans want a balancing mechanism for the game, and added points about a year later.


Oh, believe me, I'm well aware of AoS's complete lack of any points system when it was first released.

However, what I meant was that even the current "Points" system is basically identical to Power Level in 40k. Units are bought in bundles (you pay to add 5 or 10 extra models to a unit, rather than paying for each individual model), and all options and upgrades are completely free.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/06/30 20:20:24


Post by: catbarf


 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:
catbarf wrote:

Age of Sigmar didn't have points on launch. They had a system that, no exaggeration, amounted to 'take whatever models you like, and whoever has fewer models gets a small bonus'. The backlash was incredible, and a big part of why many Fantasy players abandoned the game entirely rather than switch. GW realized pretty quickly that their fans want a balancing mechanism for the game, and added points about a year later.


Oh, believe me, I'm well aware of AoS's complete lack of any points system when it was first released.

However, what I meant was that even the current "Points" system is basically identical to Power Level in 40k. Units are bought in bundles (you pay to add 5 or 10 extra models to a unit, rather than paying for each individual model), and all options and upgrades are completely free.


Well, I figured the person you were replying to knows how it works, since they specified the launch of Sigmar.

One thing I've noticed with AoS is that the upgrades and options tend not to have the same impact as they do in 40K. On a unit of Freeguild Guard, I can take shields, or halberds, or spears, and they're all roughly equivalent. On a unit of Astra Militarum Infantry, whether I run them bare or take a meltagun and lascannon makes a big difference. AoS's options tend to be wargear choices for the whole unit and roughly equivalent in effectiveness, while 40K's options tend to be additional capabilities and increase a unit's effectiveness at a cost. That, I think, is why the AoS-style Power Level system doesn't work for 40K, even though I think it's a great change and works really well for AoS.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/01 05:11:49


Post by: Breton


 Melissia wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:
currently it seems silly to me that so many squads go in with no upgrades, or if they do it is because a weapon is just that much better for the points.
As opposed to power-levels, which gives us a situation where there's no reason to take a lot of upgrades because their main advantage was being cheap. Instead, just pick the best most expensive upgrades because under the power-level system they both cost the exact same anyway.


Assuming, once they do switch, one same price option is universally better than the others. The trick to Power Level will be balancing the options. I did the math somewhere else but Stalker Bolt Rifles and Rapid Firing Regular Bolt Rifles work out to about the same damage output against T4 3+ MEQ's. - The Auto Bolt Rifles still suck - especially being more expensive, and not covered by the new Beta Bolter Rule.

If all the options are similar to Bolt/Stalker Bolt Rifle comparisons almost identical baseline, with a small situational divergence, or Power Level costed i.e. Jump Packs Power Level works, and I'd far prefer power level over points. In Points, if I decide I want to change up my list, I have to redo the whole thing because I'll need to steal some points from Unit A to pay for the new load on Unit B, or whatever. With Power level I can change it up, and try something different without having to write a new list and chase 5-10 points through 6 different units as I end up 20 points over and under trying to hit the magic number.

If they rebalance the options so they're all equally valuable in their given role, so they're all the same points - then power level is points, just instead of having to add and subtract 10-20 power level for a list change you'd add and subtract 150-300 points. At that stage, points are probably better for the same reason a D10 based system is better than D6. There's more room to differentiate.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/01 05:20:55


Post by: Peregrine


Breton wrote:
If all the options are similar to Bolt/Stalker Bolt Rifle comparisons almost identical baseline, with a small situational divergence, or Power Level costed i.e. Jump Packs Power Level works, and I'd far prefer power level over points. In Points, if I decide I want to change up my list, I have to redo the whole thing because I'll need to steal some points from Unit A to pay for the new load on Unit B, or whatever. With Power level I can change it up, and try something different without having to write a new list and chase 5-10 points through 6 different units as I end up 20 points over and under trying to hit the magic number.


But that's not how it would work. If everything is identical in effectiveness then it's going to have the same point cost and you can easily do a 1:1 swap. The only time you'll have to adjust your list is if the options you're swapping aren't equally powerful and you're trying to make a stronger list without paying the points for it.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/01 05:38:20


Post by: Breton


 Peregrine wrote:
Breton wrote:
If all the options are similar to Bolt/Stalker Bolt Rifle comparisons almost identical baseline, with a small situational divergence, or Power Level costed i.e. Jump Packs Power Level works, and I'd far prefer power level over points. In Points, if I decide I want to change up my list, I have to redo the whole thing because I'll need to steal some points from Unit A to pay for the new load on Unit B, or whatever. With Power level I can change it up, and try something different without having to write a new list and chase 5-10 points through 6 different units as I end up 20 points over and under trying to hit the magic number.


But that's not how it would work. If everything is identical in effectiveness then it's going to have the same point cost and you can easily do a 1:1 swap. The only time you'll have to adjust your list is if the options you're swapping aren't equally powerful and you're trying to make a stronger list without paying the points for it.


Yeah, I was editing at the same time you were posting to make a similar point, with a little more depth too. Assuming they balance the options within units - Power Level with it's smaller numbers would be nice in the way that if you wanted to replace intercessors with infiltrators - which currently have a 1 PL difference, you only have to juggle the 1 PL in your head, going from - for example - a Venerable Dread to a Regular Dread. In the current points version, you'd have to juggle 60 points, Which would be the Dread swap, plus more points in wargear. In this hypothetical points system where it's all balanced and 1 PL = X points so in this case 1 PL = 60 points and a Venerable Dread should/would be 60 points more than a regular one - you have to juggle double digit math in your head. Not that difficult for most people, but still a drawback. The plus side is the difference between the 1PL of a Dread to a Venerable Dread, and the 1PL from an Intercessor to an Infiltrator probably aren't the same power level (The measurable performance as opposed to Power Level the stat) making the points system with 1000-2000 points vs 50-150 Power Level give a much more graduated and smoother performance curve.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/01 08:54:42


Post by: Apple fox


The problem PL faces, is that not all the Army are made under that rule system. Some have loads of upgrades, other have none.
And where you point the ability to switch is a huge deal for any game where you want balance.
Space marines often have a bunch of options, Do we start accounting for that ability in PL.

Really power level is just a points system, its closer to other games. But in the GW way of not really putting the effort in.

If they went to a pure PL system, with a sideboard. I would still think they should have a two point system or the change probably would be meaningless.
Have 100PL 20UP games, where you get 20 points to upgrade.
Things like a farseer can use up 2UP and 3UP with a spear. For there high utlility, and the autarchs can use no UP with a bunch of upgrades to make them work better with there aspects. If GW was willing to work with it, and plan ahead for the system it could work.

Things like devstators could have a slight high Points cost, but a low Upgrade cost.
Why a tac squad a lower points, but its a flat full point for heavy upgrade, and 1 for 2 special.
A lot of the unit upgrades could be used a bit like mini charecters.
And only gods know how you would work out things like knight armys >.<


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/01 12:35:04


Post by: Breton


Apple fox wrote:
The problem PL faces, is that not all the Army are made under that rule system. Some have loads of upgrades, other have none.
And where you point the ability to switch is a huge deal for any game where you want balance.
Space marines often have a bunch of options, Do we start accounting for that ability in PL.

Really power level is just a points system, its closer to other games. But in the GW way of not really putting the effort in.

If they went to a pure PL system, with a sideboard. I would still think they should have a two point system or the change probably would be meaningless.
Have 100PL 20UP games, where you get 20 points to upgrade.
Things like a farseer can use up 2UP and 3UP with a spear. For there high utlility, and the autarchs can use no UP with a bunch of upgrades to make them work better with there aspects. If GW was willing to work with it, and plan ahead for the system it could work.

Things like devstators could have a slight high Points cost, but a low Upgrade cost.
Why a tac squad a lower points, but its a flat full point for heavy upgrade, and 1 for 2 special.
A lot of the unit upgrades could be used a bit like mini charecters.
And only gods know how you would work out things like knight armys >.<


Power Level is absolutely a points system. The upgrade thing you mentioned is sporadic - go back to the Intercessors. They have three options of which they will always take one. Technically they have another option- the Aux GL's but they're not really relevant (as they're free, have no drawback and more or less pre-baked-in to the squad cost already) Those three options should all be roughly equivalent. Two of them currently are. Take the Tactical Squad, they have two places (Sgt and Heavy) they can take about 8 different options, and 1 place (Special) they can take about 4 Regardless one can assume/expect/encourage/build-in-the-idea-of they will take SOME option in each of those three places. So first you balance the option choices against each other so they're of relatively equal value - and build the power level around 5 + 2 Options/10 + 3 Options.

There are two types of two types of options - Squad wide, or X per unit - and must take one of the following, or may take.

Auto/Stalker/Bolt Rifles are Must Take One Of, and Squad wide. So all three should balance against each other with no Power Level Price difference to the unit - this is ideal.Then squads can be just like lego bricks, and you just pick one up and push down another.

Jump Packs for assault marines are May Take Squad Wide. You have the option of making not taking jump packs as valid as taking them - or adding a power level price bump. Currently Jump Packs at a 1/2 Power Level bump- previous editions stressed Assault Squads who didn't take Jump Packs could take a Rhino as a Dedicated Transport. A Rhino is Power Level 4 - So either keep the Jump Packs as a 1/2 PL bump, or improve them to be worth 4PL and bake in a Rhino (Plus make them as effective jumping out of a Rhino as they are jumping around on jump packs) Keeping them as a PL1/2 increase is probably easiest and best rather than forcing someone into a two unit combo.

Devastator Squads - Up to 4 per unit, May Take - I've seen lists that didn't take the full four, but not very often. Build their Power Level and options with the assumption they will take 4 and make all options balanced as either excellent at one role, or pretty good but not great at all given roles. Devastators will be tricky in that their four options have traditionally come in the first five and the second five were a combat squad/ablative wounds. If the power level is X for 5, 2X for 10, that won't work, unless you get 2 Heavies for each 5, which will also make some people unhappy. If Tacticals are 9 - 5 then 4 Power Level - Devs might be 8 and 3.

Bike Squads are one of the examples for why Power Level is bad. The first three are 5 - because of the Sergeant and his upgrades - the next 3 are 4PL - OR - the next 5 are 6PL. - They're setting a basic 3 bikers are worth 4 PL 1.33 PL per model price point- however that middle 5 are only 6 - 1.2 PL per model. Looking at it another way - you're paying 1.33 PL for the first 6(8 total) Bikes, plus 1(Now 9 Total) PL for Sgt Upgrades (Including stats and wargear) and two specials- then you pay 1PL for TWO bikes. Discount Shopping! This is the argument for points. PL isn't fractional and doesn't have enough room to graduate choice value on units like this - if they want to break up the upgrades like this. It works if it's 2 groups of 4, at 5/4 but not as currently.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/01 13:49:40


Post by: G00fySmiley


 Melissia wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:
currently it seems silly to me that so many squads go in with no upgrades, or if they do it is because a weapon is just that much better for the points.
As opposed to power-levels, which gives us a situation where there's no reason to take a lot of upgrades because their main advantage was being cheap. Instead, just pick the best most expensive upgrades because under the power-level system they both cost the exact same anyway.


the assumption is reworking weapons to be more equal. sure currently if a heavy bolter as is vs a missile launcher you would always take the missile launcher or lascannon. but if the heavy bolter were to receive a mild power increase and the missle launcher and lascannon a decrease it would not be a case of "best weapon" rather best tool for the job,

example of possible new profiles

Missile Launcher becomes krak heavy 1 S8 AP-2 D2 frag being heavy 3 S4 AP-1 D1

Heavy Bolter becomes Heavy 4 S5 AP-1 D1

Las Cannon becomes Heavy S9 AP-3 D3

suddenly the heavy bolter is a better against troops than either the ML or Lascannon, Lascannon is better than both at tanks and the ML maintains its dual purpose. but I don't think either one sticks out as the "best" gun.



Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/01 14:04:31


Post by: Galef


 G00fySmiley wrote:

the assumption is reworking weapons to be more equal. sure currently if a heavy bolter as is vs a missile launcher you would always take the missile launcher or lascannon. but if the heavy bolter were to receive a mild power increase and the missle launcher and lascannon a decrease it would not be a case of "best weapon" rather best tool for the job,

example of possible new profiles

Missile Launcher becomes krak heavy 1 S8 AP-2 D2 frag being heavy 3 S4 AP-1 D1

Heavy Bolter becomes Heavy 4 S5 AP-1 D1

Las Cannon becomes Heavy S9 AP-3 D3

suddenly the heavy bolter is a better against troops than either the ML or Lascannon, Lascannon is better than both at tanks and the ML maintains its dual purpose. but I don't think either one sticks out as the "best" gun.

I like the ML suggestion. But I still think HBs should be RF2, for Astartes at least. It would combo well with the Bolter Discipline rule so that:
A) You get 4 shots if stationary at 36", or all the time at 18"
B) You have the option to move without suffering -1 to hit (particularly good for Attack Bikes and Land Speeders)

As to "killing the hobby", I think a PL only system could work and actually ENCOURAGE some hobby aspects.
You would basically have a PL for a minimum "vanilla" unit, then add PLs to make them upgraded.
The difference between that and Points, is that all Wargear would cost the same, so you take what you want and your list stays the same total PL.

That should open up plenty of hobby opportunities without making those options "free" as they are in the current PL system.

-


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/01 14:36:55


Post by: Bharring


 Peregrine wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
This is just someone with a grudge trying to convince the gullible to demonize the playtesters.


How is that demonizing the playtesters? GW wanted to do something idiotic and potentially catastrophic, the playtesters used their available leverage to make GW do the right thing. The playtesters are the heroes of this (alleged) story!


I'd argue GW is at least as much a hero.

GW had a theory. They committed to that theory. They started to execute.

Feedback game back: you're dumb.

Most orgs (and indiviudals) double down when called dumb.

GW pivoted away from their half-baked theory.

If the story is true, I see it as more positive on GW than negative.

That said, they still did "Power Levels" as a midground between "Play however many of whatever kits you buy" and "Sure, you can take four Lascannons in a squad of doods, but you gotta pay for them".

I think Points, Power Levels, and Open Play make a lot more sense seen as a continuum. We want to throw our toys on the table and fight.
-At it's most basic, just throw all your toys on the table, and duke it out.
-Some people will have moar/betterer toys than other people. So only bring about as much power (levels) as the opponent. Here's a quick number for each box of doods/kit. Quickly work that out, and it'll be reasonably balanced.
-Some people care enough about the relative power of LasCannon vs Boltgun or Brightlance vs Scatter Laser to find more balanced games by pointing out each choice. So here are granular per-upgrade points.

You could continually subdivide the brackets anywhere you want, to provide more ways to play to make more people happy at specific places. But it dilutes the overall "How do you play?" discussion. So going beyond 3 is too much bloat (some would argue even 3 is too much bloat).

I would further state that the problem is that their "points" bracket isn't quite right, both because some options are off in points (Tac Marines, for example), and because they aren't as granular as they should be (Captain Power Sword vs Sarge Power Sword example). The first is a flaw in execution, the second is a tradeoff with bloat. I'd like to see them both "fixed", but that's where your problem is.

Less granular "pointing" will decrease variety, not increase it. (unless it comes with complementary streamlining of the rules - if a PG and MG did exactly the same thing, no need to point them differently. But such a streamline would be terrible.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Galef wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:

the assumption is reworking weapons to be more equal. sure currently if a heavy bolter as is vs a missile launcher you would always take the missile launcher or lascannon. but if the heavy bolter were to receive a mild power increase and the missle launcher and lascannon a decrease it would not be a case of "best weapon" rather best tool for the job,

example of possible new profiles

Missile Launcher becomes krak heavy 1 S8 AP-2 D2 frag being heavy 3 S4 AP-1 D1

Heavy Bolter becomes Heavy 4 S5 AP-1 D1

Las Cannon becomes Heavy S9 AP-3 D3

suddenly the heavy bolter is a better against troops than either the ML or Lascannon, Lascannon is better than both at tanks and the ML maintains its dual purpose. but I don't think either one sticks out as the "best" gun.

I like the ML suggestion. But I still think HBs should be RF2, for Astartes at least. It would combo well with the Bolter Discipline rule so that:
A) You get 4 shots if stationary at 36", or all the time at 18"
B) You have the option to move without suffering -1 to hit (particularly good for Attack Bikes and Land Speeders)

As to "killing the hobby", I think a PL only system could work and actually ENCOURAGE some hobby aspects.
You would basically have a PL for a minimum "vanilla" unit, then add PLs to make them upgraded.
The difference between that and Points, is that all Wargear would cost the same, so you take what you want and your list stays the same total PL.

That should open up plenty of hobby opportunities without making those options "free" as they are in the current PL system.

-

IOW, all options should be worth equal points, but better in different scenarios.
That's not a "Points vs PL" debate; that's a "Do options vary in power" debate. Either system does that. However, if you get to the point where it's true across the board, PL and Points would have the same exact ratio, so would be the exact same thing just different units.

I'm still very much not sold on the "Nobody should ever decide not to upgrade". Or on the "No upgrade should ever be more powerful". I'm still smarting from the "A splinter of the legendary Anaris, used as a Sword, is no more powerful than this other random sword that catches on fire". I *want* to be able to give my Sarge or Exarch a melee weapon to *upgrade* them for points. I want the Fire Pike to be "Meltagun but better" - and cost more points for it. I *want* to be able to have two squads with different points-quality of gear.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/01 14:46:53


Post by: Nvs


There are pros and cons to both systems. The PL system is fine for more casual games at a friends house or at the store where you're playing with someone else's models. However, it simply doesn't work at a competitive level in my opinion.

At many tournaments and such you're expected to register your lists ahead of time. Players don't need to take excess models for the most part. Players are forced to take more 'balanced' lists overall because they are unsure who they will be up against thus making list building a very important aspect of the hobby.

AS many others have said, the PL system really only rewards Marine players. Some armies like Eldar in particular are at a severe disadvantage with the system. It would require players to bring alternate models for every point of variability in the PL system which could require Marine players to need to bring dozens of unnecessary models to matches. This issue would only be exacerbated with the introduction of a sideboard.

The PL system does have advantages to this though. It would remove the dreaded 'meta' that we all are tired of dealing with because people are no longer min/maxing at a granular level and instead are much more free to choose what they play with. This would be especially true with a sideboard approach. It also greatly reduces the complexity of the game because units are much more basic and easier to track as opposed to tournament play where one unit could have a grenade and another unit would have a power sword, and another unit could have a bolt pistol or something along those lines.

The amount of work it would take to make the PL system functional and fair for all armies would be a massive undertaking and nothing in my experience with GW has lead me to believe they're capable of doing it right. The power disparity between Eldar and Marines lists for example due to the fundamental design of each army with one being a specialist and the other being a generalist army would be quite complicated to resolve.

I think both systems have their place but I'd much prefer GW spent more time making the game as a whole run smoother and once the game was balanced at a macro level, if we chose to use PL or Points at a micro level can be discussed then.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/01 15:07:09


Post by: Melissia


Nvs wrote:
The PL system does have advantages to this though. It would remove the dreaded 'meta' that we all are tired of dealing with because people are no longer min/maxing at a granular level
No, it'd only change the face of min/maxing. Not the amount.

The only way to reduce min-maxing is to actually balance the game better. This can be done with or without changing the game to a PL system.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/01 15:31:53


Post by: Galef


As much as I do like PL, the only "advantage" I can see it that it is on the Datasheet. Condensed rules are always preferable to the 20+ sources/pages you currently need to reference for a single faction army (not to mention Soup)

Arguably, though, this could be achieved with Points (as was done in prior edition codices), but since points are intentionally "tacked on", I doubt GW will ever go this route again.

-


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/01 16:20:26


Post by: G00fySmiley


Spoiler:
Galef wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:

the assumption is reworking weapons to be more equal. sure currently if a heavy bolter as is vs a missile launcher you would always take the missile launcher or lascannon. but if the heavy bolter were to receive a mild power increase and the missle launcher and lascannon a decrease it would not be a case of "best weapon" rather best tool for the job,

example of possible new profiles

Missile Launcher becomes krak heavy 1 S8 AP-2 D2 frag being heavy 3 S4 AP-1 D1

Heavy Bolter becomes Heavy 4 S5 AP-1 D1

Las Cannon becomes Heavy S9 AP-3 D3

suddenly the heavy bolter is a better against troops than either the ML or Lascannon, Lascannon is better than both at tanks and the ML maintains its dual purpose. but I don't think either one sticks out as the "best" gun.

I like the ML suggestion. But I still think HBs should be RF2, for Astartes at least. It would combo well with the Bolter Discipline rule so that:
A) You get 4 shots if stationary at 36", or all the time at 18"
B) You have the option to move without suffering -1 to hit (particularly good for Attack Bikes and Land Speeders)

As to "killing the hobby", I think a PL only system could work and actually ENCOURAGE some hobby aspects.
You would basically have a PL for a minimum "vanilla" unit, then add PLs to make them upgraded.
The difference between that and Points, is that all Wargear would cost the same, so you take what you want and your list stays the same total PL.

That should open up plenty of hobby opportunities without making those options "free" as they are in the current PL system.

-


I do like the rapid fire better, so 4 shots still or move in range for the 4 shots. but still can hit with the 2 on the move. its mostly just sthinking of posibilities, I am suere a professional game developr could banace it better than me though

Spoiler:
Bharring wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
This is just someone with a grudge trying to convince the gullible to demonize the playtesters.


How is that demonizing the playtesters? GW wanted to do something idiotic and potentially catastrophic, the playtesters used their available leverage to make GW do the right thing. The playtesters are the heroes of this (alleged) story!


I'd argue GW is at least as much a hero.

GW had a theory. They committed to that theory. They started to execute.

Feedback game back: you're dumb.

Most orgs (and indiviudals) double down when called dumb.

GW pivoted away from their half-baked theory.

If the story is true, I see it as more positive on GW than negative.

That said, they still did "Power Levels" as a midground between "Play however many of whatever kits you buy" and "Sure, you can take four Lascannons in a squad of doods, but you gotta pay for them".

I think Points, Power Levels, and Open Play make a lot more sense seen as a continuum. We want to throw our toys on the table and fight.
-At it's most basic, just throw all your toys on the table, and duke it out.
-Some people will have moar/betterer toys than other people. So only bring about as much power (levels) as the opponent. Here's a quick number for each box of doods/kit. Quickly work that out, and it'll be reasonably balanced.
-Some people care enough about the relative power of LasCannon vs Boltgun or Brightlance vs Scatter Laser to find more balanced games by pointing out each choice. So here are granular per-upgrade points.

You could continually subdivide the brackets anywhere you want, to provide more ways to play to make more people happy at specific places. But it dilutes the overall "How do you play?" discussion. So going beyond 3 is too much bloat (some would argue even 3 is too much bloat).

I would further state that the problem is that their "points" bracket isn't quite right, both because some options are off in points (Tac Marines, for example), and because they aren't as granular as they should be (Captain Power Sword vs Sarge Power Sword example). The first is a flaw in execution, the second is a tradeoff with bloat. I'd like to see them both "fixed", but that's where your problem is.

Less granular "pointing" will decrease variety, not increase it. (unless it comes with complementary streamlining of the rules - if a PG and MG did exactly the same thing, no need to point them differently. But such a streamline would be terrible.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Galef wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:

the assumption is reworking weapons to be more equal. sure currently if a heavy bolter as is vs a missile launcher you would always take the missile launcher or lascannon. but if the heavy bolter were to receive a mild power increase and the missle launcher and lascannon a decrease it would not be a case of "best weapon" rather best tool for the job,

example of possible new profiles

Missile Launcher becomes krak heavy 1 S8 AP-2 D2 frag being heavy 3 S4 AP-1 D1

Heavy Bolter becomes Heavy 4 S5 AP-1 D1

Las Cannon becomes Heavy S9 AP-3 D3

suddenly the heavy bolter is a better against troops than either the ML or Lascannon, Lascannon is better than both at tanks and the ML maintains its dual purpose. but I don't think either one sticks out as the "best" gun.

I like the ML suggestion. But I still think HBs should be RF2, for Astartes at least. It would combo well with the Bolter Discipline rule so that:
A) You get 4 shots if stationary at 36", or all the time at 18"
B) You have the option to move without suffering -1 to hit (particularly good for Attack Bikes and Land Speeders)

As to "killing the hobby", I think a PL only system could work and actually ENCOURAGE some hobby aspects.
You would basically have a PL for a minimum "vanilla" unit, then add PLs to make them upgraded.
The difference between that and Points, is that all Wargear would cost the same, so you take what you want and your list stays the same total PL.

That should open up plenty of hobby opportunities without making those options "free" as they are in the current PL system.

-

IOW, all options should be worth equal points, but better in different scenarios.
That's not a "Points vs PL" debate; that's a "Do options vary in power" debate. Either system does that. However, if you get to the point where it's true across the board, PL and Points would have the same exact ratio, so would be the exact same thing just different units.

I'm still very much not sold on the "Nobody should ever decide not to upgrade". Or on the "No upgrade should ever be more powerful". I'm still smarting from the "A splinter of the legendary Anaris, used as a Sword, is no more powerful than this other random sword that catches on fire". I *want* to be able to give my Sarge or Exarch a melee weapon to *upgrade* them for points. I want the Fire Pike to be "Meltagun but better" - and cost more points for it. I *want* to be able to have two squads with different points-quality of gear.


I mean in the case of fire dragons a firepike could have the longer range, but maybe the exarch has a rule for +1 to hit with a normal melta gun rule.

as for specifics like a relic though that should be definitively better as you would still theoretically pay CP or takign your 1 free relic slot for it. If my warboss can take a power claw vs da super killy claw of mork or the dead killy choppa they shoudl be better than any entry for that characters data sheet

Spoiler:
Galef wrote:As much as I do like PL, the only "advantage" I can see it that it is on the Datasheet. Condensed rules are always preferable to the 20+ sources/pages you currently need to reference for a single faction army (not to mention Soup)

Arguably, though, this could be achieved with Points (as was done in prior edition codices), but since points are intentionally "tacked on", I doubt GW will ever go this route again.

-


I actually think the simplicity they were aimign for is one of the things that ended up hurting balance and creating must have gear options

why does a lascannon on a leman russ cost the same as on a much weaper heavy weapons team? why does a warboss pay the same for a poawerclaw as a boss nob. the warboss is clearly the superior chasis for it. A power axe on a space wolf captain beats the one on a sarg but same points.

Even at the troop level why does a vertran with a better BS pay the same as the infantry squad for a plasma gun? I mean I guess it in theory is baked into the unit cost except in practice it mean nobody is going to take vetran's squads unless their whole goal was to include plasma guns.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/01 16:46:06


Post by: Bharring


"I mean in the case of fire dragons a firepike could have the longer range, but maybe the exarch has a rule [...]"
IOW:
-You want all Fire Dragon Exarchs to be identical in terms of absolute power.
-I want Fire Dragon Exarchs to vary in terms of absolute power, depending on upgrades selected.

The problem isn't that we don't understand eachother; it's that we want different things. I see the logic in your proposal, but I love the choices you want removed.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/01 19:48:22


Post by: Backspacehacker


I'm gonna tell you one reason they should not use powerlevels, actually, 2.
Rubric marines, and geneatealers


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/01 22:44:52


Post by: dosiere


Considering the number of upgrades some units have, I think the only way to make this work is something akin to the quick build cards x wing uses. Essentially you have a number of pre built units with fixed equipment and a fixed cost.

IMO they should do something like that even if they don’t drop matched play points. PL is and has been messy to use the way it works now.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/02 02:22:40


Post by: Blndmage


Honestly, I've been playing with the basic free rules, and power levels. It's a really different feeling Game, and actually not nearly as problimatic as Matched Play.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/02 02:28:21


Post by: Peregrine


 Blndmage wrote:
Honestly, I've been playing with the basic free rules, and power levels. It's a really different feeling Game, and actually not nearly as problimatic as Matched Play.


If you haven't been playing matched play how do you know that it's different and less problematic? Especially given the fact that the basic rules don't contain things like the full rules for terrain, something that is nearly universally agreed to be a bad thing? And how does using a less accurate method to add up your point costs for your units improve the game?


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/02 02:31:32


Post by: Lance845


Saying he HAS been playing open doesn't mean hes NEVER played matched. Stow away the pitch fork and torch.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/02 02:42:18


Post by: Peregrine


 Lance845 wrote:
Saying he HAS been playing open doesn't mean hes NEVER played matched. Stow away the pitch fork and torch.


Then it's a pretty simple question to answer. But I'm kind of skeptical that someone could play matched play with the full rules and then say "you know what this game needs is to remove all this pesky terrain and play on an empty field".


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/02 02:43:54


Post by: Blndmage


 Peregrine wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
Honestly, I've been playing with the basic free rules, and power levels. It's a really different feeling Game, and actually not nearly as problimatic as Matched Play.


If you haven't been playing matched play how do you know that it's different and less problematic? Especially given the fact that the basic rules don't contain things like the full rules for terrain, something that is nearly universally agreed to be a bad thing? And how does using a less accurate method to add up your point costs for your units improve the game?


I've played a lot of matched play in 8th, but due to my FLGS becoming unsafe and dangerous to attend due to treats of violence directed at me, I've been running narrative scenarios at home, etc.

The basic core rules don't have fancy terrain stuff but it's actually functional. Any terrain gives cover bonuses, nothing fancy, no extra rules, just base functionality. Which is better than nothing.

And I said nothing about "an empty field" , I play with lots of terrain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Lance845 wrote:
Saying he HAS been playing open doesn't mean hes NEVER played matched. Stow away the pitch fork and torch.


*Points at sig*
She, not he.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/02 02:54:40


Post by: Peregrine


 Blndmage wrote:
And I said nothing about "an empty field" , I play with lots of terrain.


None of which actually matters because of the poor LOS rules. 8th is pretty much unplayable without additional terrain rules to block LOS and have terrain be relevant outside of an occasional unit sitting directly on top of it. And I really don't understand why you'd want to play narrative scenarios with the most basic and stripped down version of the rules instead of adding all of those narrative features found in the full rules.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/02 03:04:38


Post by: Lance845


 Peregrine wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Saying he HAS been playing open doesn't mean hes NEVER played matched. Stow away the pitch fork and torch.


Then it's a pretty simple question to answer. But I'm kind of skeptical that someone could play matched play with the full rules and then say "you know what this game needs is to remove all this pesky terrain and play on an empty field".


Nothing about open says you can't have terrain rules.

@Bindmage - My bad. Noted.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/02 03:52:26


Post by: Peregrine


 Lance845 wrote:
Nothing about open says you can't have terrain rules.


Nothing about open, but playing only with the free basic rules sure does because terrain is not included in the free basic rules.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/02 05:33:42


Post by: Breton


 Backspacehacker wrote:
I'm gonna tell you one reason they should not use powerlevels, actually, 2.
Rubric marines, and geneatealers


You just told us the two reasons not to use Power Level with Datasheets designed for use with points. 9th Edition will, Good God I hope, have new data sheets. If the Genestealer were designed for power level, the upgrade options would be tuned for them - either optional potent upgrades coming with a power level bump like jumppacks, or turning into balanced either/or options.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/02 06:04:01


Post by: Blndmage


 Peregrine wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Nothing about open says you can't have terrain rules.


Nothing about open, but playing only with the free basic rules sure does because terrain is not included in the free basic rules.


Actually there are terrain rules, well, more accurately one rule:

Spoiler:
Terrain and Cover

The battlefields of the far future are littered with terrain features such as ruins, craters and twisted copses. Models can take shelter within such terrain features to gain protection agains tincoming weapons’ fire.

If a unit is entirely on or within any terrain feature, add 1 to its models’ saving throws against shooting attacks to represent the cover received from the terrain (invulnerable saves are unaffected). Units gain no benefit from cover in the Fight phase.


While it is very basic, it saves me looking up multiple books on terrain, and it's actually not that bad. I've based my barricade type terrain to give it a defined space for models to be while gaining benefits, same with the rest of my terrain.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/02 12:02:49


Post by: G00fySmiley


dosiere wrote:
Considering the number of upgrades some units have, I think the only way to make this work is something akin to the quick build cards x wing uses. Essentially you have a number of pre built units with fixed equipment and a fixed cost.

IMO they should do something like that even if they don’t drop matched play points. PL is and has been messy to use the way it works now.


cards would be interesting but xwing matches are very different from 40k. I have xwing, and enjoy playing it sometimes but keepign track of cards for 30 units on a field might be a bit much.

as for units with no upgrades that should be reflected in power level as part of balancing. if we are saying a 5 man tactical squad essentially can take a special or heavy weapon, a plasma pistol, and a power weapon compared to say Tzangors who get 2 blades or a pistol and a blade but no special weapons option then ... well the tzangors would need to go down in cost to reflect that. additionaly units with less equipment options than others would have to have power level reflecting this.

But by the same token you could price the equipment appropriately for a platform. A power weapon on any unit sarg equivalent is just not worth as much as it is on a character with more wounds, more attacks, bettwe WS (usually) and protection due to the character keyword. I think that is the problem now, those weapons in points are costed for better units than they are usually on.





Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/02 12:35:33


Post by: Huron black heart


I read the first page and then jumped to my response so this may be a bit late...
I believe tactical squads and the chaos equivalent should get a free special weapon at 5 man and heavy weapon at 10 man squads. This gives the base marine a bit of a lift and encourages 10 man squads once again. Of course everybody may just pick lascannons and plasma but so be it.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/02 13:24:24


Post by: Bharring


 Huron black heart wrote:
I read the first page and then jumped to my response so this may be a bit late...
I believe tactical squads and the chaos equivalent should get a free special weapon at 5 man and heavy weapon at 10 man squads. This gives the base marine a bit of a lift and encourages 10 man squads once again. Of course everybody may just pick lascannons and plasma but so be it.

Tactical Squads shouldn't be paying the same points for each weapon as other squads. I'd prefer a discount over free, but similar arguments. Discount, because some weapons will tend to be better than others.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/02 19:07:30


Post by: G00fySmiley


 Huron black heart wrote:
I read the first page and then jumped to my response so this may be a bit late...
I believe tactical squads and the chaos equivalent should get a free special weapon at 5 man and heavy weapon at 10 man squads. This gives the base marine a bit of a lift and encourages 10 man squads once again. Of course everybody may just pick lascannons and plasma but so be it.


yes, btu that is why in order for it to work weapons would need to be reworked to be better than each other at something but nothing being outright better at everything

plasma would still have overcharge as a risk, lascannon would still be the best antitank from a distance, ditto for melta guns up close, heavy bolter best infantry from afar, flamer best infantry choice up front, missile launcher most versitile but not as good as the others at any one thing etc.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/02 21:09:26


Post by: Deadnight


 Blndmage wrote:


I've played a lot of matched play in 8th, but due to my FLGS becoming unsafe and dangerous to attend due to treats of violence directed at me, I've been running narrative scenarios at home, etc.


I know you don't know me from Adam, and I don't want to be seen as a white knight swooping in to rescue someone (if anything, my wife sees me as the one who needs to be constantly rescued, and she's probably not wrong!)but I'm more than disheartened, and more than a little bit angry to hear this is your experience, for what it's worth. Our hobby should be something to enjoy, something that represents a fun day out and not something where we deal with threats of violence...

Truly, for what it's worth, I know I can't do much, and while this verges on the uselessness of 'thoughts and prayers' I'm genuinely sorry to hear this.

On topic though, playing at home (and the 'garage scene' in general ) is my preference these days, instead of the flgs. My,friend has converted his garage into a gaming space and has a twelve by six board. It's great for the simple home comforts, and for me, a more relaxed , whether we are gaming or doing a painting evening. Plus, friendly dog.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/02 22:08:58


Post by: Blndmage


Deadnight wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:


I've played a lot of matched play in 8th, but due to my FLGS becoming unsafe and dangerous to attend due to treats of violence directed at me, I've been running narrative scenarios at home, etc.


I know you don't know me from Adam, and I don't want to be seen as a white knight swooping in to rescue someone (if anything, my wife sees me as the one who needs to be constantly rescued, and she's probably not wrong!)but I'm more than disheartened, and more than a little bit angry to hear this is your experience, for what it's worth. Our hobby should be something to enjoy, something that represents a fun day out and not something where we deal with threats of violence...

Truly, for what it's worth, I know I can't do much, and while this verges on the uselessness of 'thoughts and prayers' I'm genuinely sorry to hear this.

On topic though, playing at home (and the 'garage scene' in general ) is my preference these days, instead of the flgs. My,friend has converted his garage into a gaming space and has a twelve by six board. It's great for the simple home comforts, and for me, a more relaxed , whether we are gaming or doing a painting evening. Plus, friendly dog.


Thank you, that means a lot.

We're in a small, very packed one bedroom place, so I don't have room for a board, I I've our sectional, chairs, small bridges I made. I keep te games small, so far, no more than 25PL, but even that can take time. I also have no one to play against, but I'm finding solo 40k surprisingly engrossing.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/04 19:14:02


Post by: nordsturmking


Very very bad idea.... just look at AOS. If they get rid of points and only use power lvl ill sell my GW stock. Bcause it will hurt their business really bad.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/05 06:37:51


Post by: Nibbler


 nordsturmking wrote:
Very very bad idea.... just look at AOS. If they get rid of points and only use power lvl ill sell my GW stock. Bcause it will hurt their business really bad.


I don't think this a big issue for casual, friendly, fun players. I'm doing a campaign with some friends and we're using PL instead of matched play points (that's what we used for the last 15 years) and it's working out great.

For competitive occassions I can see some "challenges", because surely everybody would be tempted to max out as far as possible. Maybe one would need some more organizational restrictions to make it work properly.

Wouldn't be that much of a big deal, to get rid of the point fiddlin'...


edit: grammar


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/05 11:34:33


Post by: G00fySmiley


 nordsturmking wrote:
Very very bad idea.... just look at AOS. If they get rid of points and only use power lvl ill sell my GW stock. Bcause it will hurt their business really bad.


Isn't AOS doing better now than it has in a long time? Locally I never saw it played and now it is everywhere. Not quite as big as 40k sure but people actually can find games. I run the local facebook miniature group and until the last year or so nobody ever posted sigmar stuff, now we have members there looking for games and doing events for it, it has even poached several warmachine/hordes players and 40k players.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/05 13:27:26


Post by: Bharring


It's doing better in large part because they added Points back into the game, after trying to move away from them.

The game was DOA when it came out without points.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/05 13:36:37


Post by: Blndmage


Bharring wrote:
It's doing better in large part because they added Points back into the game, after trying to move away from them.

The game was DOA when it came out without points.


Doesn't that simply boil down to people saying " but it's always been this way! I don't like this change, I'm not going to try it, so I'll complain until they go back to what I'm used to", and is what sounds like happened with the 8th ed playtester, they didn't like the change, caused enough issue that GW had to last minute add in points, hence why points have been off so badly this edition in many cases?


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/05 13:42:33


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


If you look at the Apokalypse dataheets you see how 40k could work with powerlevels and how weapons can be balanced against each other. Melter and flames could be the strongest weapons against tanks and light troops respectively but would be balanced by range. Plasma is the alrounder but not as specialized as other weapons and so on. What's problematic is that GW likes to put new weapons into new Kits that sometimes don't have niché left or don't really work under the current system, like the chaincannon is simply a better heavy Bolter and Grav weapons are hardly different from Plasma.

And even then some weapons will still be the best or worse choice, like a Melter isn't as useful on a tac Marine as it is on a raptor. And for that a granular System is nice to have.
But I wouldn't be opposed to points per se, it'd depend on how they pull it off and how it works with the rules set.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/05 13:45:34


Post by: Slipspace


 Blndmage wrote:
Bharring wrote:
It's doing better in large part because they added Points back into the game, after trying to move away from them.

The game was DOA when it came out without points.


Doesn't that simply boil down to people saying " but it's always been this way! I don't like this change, I'm not going to try it, so I'll complain until they go back to what I'm used to", and is what sounds like happened with the 8th ed playtester, they didn't like the change, caused enough issue that GW had to last minute add in points, hence why points have been off so badly this edition in many cases?


Not really. With AoS it really was pretty much an unplayable mess for a lot of people at launch because there was too much work required to end up with a balanced and enjoyable game. It wasn't a fear of change so much as an unworkable system. Things improved somewhat with the 3rd party points systems, then improved again (in terms of player numbers anyway) with the official release of points from GW. I think the reason points are currently not balance din 8th edition is because GW are really bad at balance. I don't think it has anything to do with the alleged decision to backtrack on their master plan and add points back in.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/05 13:56:32


Post by: Peregrine


 Blndmage wrote:
Bharring wrote:
It's doing better in large part because they added Points back into the game, after trying to move away from them.

The game was DOA when it came out without points.


Doesn't that simply boil down to people saying " but it's always been this way! I don't like this change, I'm not going to try it, so I'll complain until they go back to what I'm used to", and is what sounds like happened with the 8th ed playtester, they didn't like the change, caused enough issue that GW had to last minute add in points, hence why points have been off so badly this edition in many cases?


Lolwut? No, it isn't fear of change. It's recognizing the obvious, that PL is a really stupid idea and worse than conventional points. I don't need to try stabbing myself in the face to know that it's a bad idea, and I don't need to waste time on PL.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/05 14:00:28


Post by: Blndmage


 Peregrine wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
Bharring wrote:
It's doing better in large part because they added Points back into the game, after trying to move away from them.

The game was DOA when it came out without points.


Doesn't that simply boil down to people saying " but it's always been this way! I don't like this change, I'm not going to try it, so I'll complain until they go back to what I'm used to", and is what sounds like happened with the 8th ed playtester, they didn't like the change, caused enough issue that GW had to last minute add in points, hence why points have been off so badly this edition in many cases?


Lolwut? No, it isn't fear of change. It's recognizing the obvious, that PL is a really stupid idea and worse than conventional points. I don't need to try stabbing myself in the face to know that it's a bad idea, and I don't need to waste time on PL.


**Looks at the new Apocolypse rules**

You were saying?


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/05 14:03:50


Post by: Peregrine


 Blndmage wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
Bharring wrote:
It's doing better in large part because they added Points back into the game, after trying to move away from them.

The game was DOA when it came out without points.


Doesn't that simply boil down to people saying " but it's always been this way! I don't like this change, I'm not going to try it, so I'll complain until they go back to what I'm used to", and is what sounds like happened with the 8th ed playtester, they didn't like the change, caused enough issue that GW had to last minute add in points, hence why points have been off so badly this edition in many cases?


Lolwut? No, it isn't fear of change. It's recognizing the obvious, that PL is a really stupid idea and worse than conventional points. I don't need to try stabbing myself in the face to know that it's a bad idea, and I don't need to waste time on PL.


**Looks at the new Apocolypse rules**

You were saying?


What does Apocalypse have to do with this? You do know that the Apocalypse point system is a raging dumpster fire of failure to understand math and blatantly unbalanced options, right?


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/05 14:12:05


Post by: Lance845


 Peregrine wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
Bharring wrote:
It's doing better in large part because they added Points back into the game, after trying to move away from them.

The game was DOA when it came out without points.


Doesn't that simply boil down to people saying " but it's always been this way! I don't like this change, I'm not going to try it, so I'll complain until they go back to what I'm used to", and is what sounds like happened with the 8th ed playtester, they didn't like the change, caused enough issue that GW had to last minute add in points, hence why points have been off so badly this edition in many cases?


Lolwut? No, it isn't fear of change. It's recognizing the obvious, that PL is a really stupid idea and worse than conventional points. I don't need to try stabbing myself in the face to know that it's a bad idea, and I don't need to waste time on PL.


**Looks at the new Apocolypse rules**

You were saying?


What does Apocalypse have to do with this? You do know that the Apocalypse point system is a raging dumpster fire of failure to understand math and blatantly unbalanced options, right?


At a glance the apoc system looks to be significantly more balanced with less options that have more clearly defined roles and costs that make sense for them in the form of Power Levels. Since none of us have played it none of us know if it's a failure or a success. But I am personally looking forward to it.


Also, bunching a bunch of the various weapon options together in apoc opens up the door for significantly more modeling options WHILE keeping things wysiwyg. "Power weapon" can be a spear sword or axe while "melee bio-weapon" can be bonesword or bonesword/lashwhip or whatever you want to kit bash. Apoc is moving entirely in the right directions. I am pretty excited to play a regular game of 40k on apocs rules.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/05 14:15:34


Post by: BaconCatBug


Apoc works with power levels because there are almost no options for those units (and the ones that do cost PL).


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/05 14:20:33


Post by: Peregrine


Apocalypse "balance":

LRBT: 1 shot at 6+/6+, 72" range

LR Executioner: 1 shot at 6+/6+, 36" range, hurts itself every time you roll a 1.

In a normal point system this is ok, the battle cannon can just be way more expensive. In PL/Apocalypse they cost the same and nobody will ever take the plasma option.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/05 15:23:02


Post by: Blndmage


 Peregrine wrote:
Apocalypse "balance":

LRBT: 1 shot at 6+/6+, 72" range

LR Executioner: 1 shot at 6+/6+, 36" range, hurts itself every time you roll a 1.

In a normal point system this is ok, the battle cannon can just be way more expensive. In PL/Apocalypse they cost the same and nobody will ever take the plasma option.


Unless they don't have a LRBT, and only have a LR Executioner.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/05 15:40:11


Post by: Bharring


 Blndmage wrote:
Bharring wrote:
It's doing better in large part because they added Points back into the game, after trying to move away from them.

The game was DOA when it came out without points.


Doesn't that simply boil down to people saying " but it's always been this way! I don't like this change, I'm not going to try it, so I'll complain until they go back to what I'm used to", and is what sounds like happened with the 8th ed playtester, they didn't like the change, caused enough issue that GW had to last minute add in points, hence why points have been off so badly this edition in many cases?

"It's always been that way" is a claim to be rejected, not an argument to reject the premise. I eat food every day. It's always been that way. The fact that it's always been that way doesn't matter; it'll continue to be that way because it's ideal, not because it always has.

Sans-points was bad. Not because it was unfamiliar, but because it was unworkable. We want raging orc savages to destroy basic human troops per guy. We want ancient dragons to laugh in the face of an overgrown eagle. But then we want to have fair fights between hordes of Ors and basic human armies. We want to see "Do I want to take an ancient dragon or a great eagle" to be an actual choice. How do you do that without points? GW didn't introduce an alternative to Points with AOS's release. They simply said "Play what you own". So if you buy a box of orcs and I buy a box of peasants, that's not going to be a fun time. If I own a dragon and you own an eagle, that's going to feel like a pointless game.

We don't hate no-points or per-box or even PL because it's different; we hate it because it's inferior. At the extreme (play-whatever), you're abandoning any attempt to help guide players to bring reasonably-balanced forces to the battlefield. And, as you move further across the spectrum from there towards Points, you further help guide players to bring reasonably-balanced forces to the battlefield. The more granular you get, the more fair disperate power between options can get *and still be fair*. This isn't because 7th ed had points; its' because that's the nature of what points are.

Now, you could make a system based on PL where every option is equally powerful (you're going to miss the mark or streamline everything to pointlessness, but it's theoretically possible). Basically, what you've done is flatten the depth of the game up to a level no more granular than PL. So that's not a Points vs PL discussion - that's a "what should options mean" discussion. You can do that with Points or PL, and there's no real difference. Even a perfect execution, though, necessarily discards facets some players like (being able to upgrade, not just sidegrade, as long as you pay for it).


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/05 15:45:12


Post by: Lance845


Where are you seeing those rules Peregrine?

The plasma canon on the datasheet is a 7+/7+ with supercharge which we currently don't know what it does in apoc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote:
 Blndmage wrote:
Bharring wrote:
It's doing better in large part because they added Points back into the game, after trying to move away from them.

The game was DOA when it came out without points.


Doesn't that simply boil down to people saying " but it's always been this way! I don't like this change, I'm not going to try it, so I'll complain until they go back to what I'm used to", and is what sounds like happened with the 8th ed playtester, they didn't like the change, caused enough issue that GW had to last minute add in points, hence why points have been off so badly this edition in many cases?

"It's always been that way" is a claim to be rejected, not an argument to reject the premise. I eat food every day. It's always been that way. The fact that it's always been that way doesn't matter; it'll continue to be that way because it's ideal, not because it always has.

Sans-points was bad. Not because it was unfamiliar, but because it was unworkable. We want raging orc savages to destroy basic human troops per guy. We want ancient dragons to laugh in the face of an overgrown eagle. But then we want to have fair fights between hordes of Ors and basic human armies. We want to see "Do I want to take an ancient dragon or a great eagle" to be an actual choice. How do you do that without points? GW didn't introduce an alternative to Points with AOS's release. They simply said "Play what you own". So if you buy a box of orcs and I buy a box of peasants, that's not going to be a fun time. If I own a dragon and you own an eagle, that's going to feel like a pointless game.

We don't hate no-points or per-box or even PL because it's different; we hate it because it's inferior. At the extreme (play-whatever), you're abandoning any attempt to help guide players to bring reasonably-balanced forces to the battlefield. And, as you move further across the spectrum from there towards Points, you further help guide players to bring reasonably-balanced forces to the battlefield. The more granular you get, the more fair disperate power between options can get *and still be fair*. This isn't because 7th ed had points; its' because that's the nature of what points are.

Now, you could make a system based on PL where every option is equally powerful (you're going to miss the mark or streamline everything to pointlessness, but it's theoretically possible). Basically, what you've done is flatten the depth of the game up to a level no more granular than PL. So that's not a Points vs PL discussion - that's a "what should options mean" discussion. You can do that with Points or PL, and there's no real difference. Even a perfect execution, though, necessarily discards facets some players like (being able to upgrade, not just sidegrade, as long as you pay for it).


The difference between power level and points is costing things on a unit level or a model level. 8th is a fethed up mess from top to bottom and their costing of PL is as messed up as everything else. That doesn't say power level is a bad system. It says GW failed to implement it well. Shock and awe. GW wrote bad rules!? unheard of.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/05 15:51:09


Post by: Blndmage


Having used both, I find the that they both provide a different feeling Whalen assembling a list, they work in different ways.

I'm not saying you can't min max Pl, but you can do the same with points, that's not what I'm talking about.

The way the system guides you to list build is different. For armies that have upgrades(I play Necrons, so I don't quite get this part), you CAN min mix wargear, but do you actually have the models for it? If you do, great, if not, why are you taking the wargear/weapon?

I've been running with PL for a bit now, having played with points only until a few months ago, and I'm finding that the lists have a different feel to them with PL. I don't do mathhammet, I try and make thematic lists, and I find that for that purpose, PL has proven to be superior to point, for me.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/05 16:06:04


Post by: Bharring


 Blndmage wrote:
PL has proven to be superior to point, for me.

That's a super important point.

It works for you. And your opponent. That's great. I've played PL games that were better because they were PL games. I find it's mostly about the individuals playing. Those who just want to put their collection on the table and play a game? PL does it faster simpler. Those who want to be choosy about which upgrades they took? Those who want to build an army where they care about the relative effectiveness of Boys vs Toys? Points are going to be better.

PL works so well when it works well because it's not concerned with the finer points of balance. And the current setup allows PL to work great for that, without wrecking the game for those who want points.

The solution to "PL vs Points" should be "Whatchya feel like playing", not "rework the game so Points mean nothing".


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/05 16:10:55


Post by: Lance845


Actually, first page of the AM datasheets for apoc says the turret options are...

Vanquisher Battle Canon: 72" 2 attacks 10+/4+
Executioner Plasma Canon: 36" 1 attack 7+/7+ supercharge


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/05 16:17:23


Post by: Peregrine


 Blndmage wrote:
Unless they don't have a LRBT, and only have a LR Executioner.


Which just demonstrates why PL is such a ing stupid idea.

In a (well designed) conventional point system you're ok. Your LR Executioner's gun is weaker, but it also has a lower point cost to make up for it. You're locked in to the "cheap cannon fodder" option and can't swap for the elite option because you only have one turret for your model, but both of them are valid choices.

In PL/Apocalypse you're screwed, sucks to be you. You have a trash unit that is just strictly worse than the better unit. Guess you'd better make better choices about how to build your model kit next time?

 Lance845 wrote:
Where are you seeing those rules Peregrine?

The plasma canon on the datasheet is a 7+/7+ with supercharge which we currently don't know what it does in apoc.


From one of the battle reports that was posted (check the N&R thread, I forget where exactly). Supercharge is the ability to add +1 to wound but take a blast marker for each 1 you roll. So a supercharged plasma cannon is literally just a shorter-ranged battle cannon that can kill your own unit, and if you don't use the supercharge rule it's even worse.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/05 16:22:04


Post by: Lance845


Peregrine wrote:
From one of the battle reports that was posted (check the N&R thread, I forget where exactly). Supercharge is the ability to add +1 to wound but take a blast marker for each 1 you roll. So a supercharged plasma cannon is literally just a shorter-ranged battle cannon that can kill your own unit, and if you don't use the supercharge rule it's even worse.


Lance845 wrote:Actually, first page of the AM datasheets for apoc says the turret options are...

Vanquisher Battle Canon: 72" 2 attacks 10+/4+
Executioner Plasma Canon: 36" 1 attack 7+/7+ supercharge


That means the EPC is a all around weapon that can be a 6+/6+ vs infantry and vehicles. A near 60% chance to wound on everything.

The VBC is better at anti tank and utter gak against everything else. 25% vs infantry 75% vs tanks.

Hurting itself on a roll of 1 on a d12 is pretty good odds.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/05 16:23:30


Post by: JNAProductions


Not the Vanquisher. Standard Russ Battlecannon.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/05 16:28:41


Post by: Lance845


Edit REDACTED

I see it all now. Gotcha. Well, thats GW's bloat of options for you.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/05 16:39:30


Post by: Peregrine


 Lance845 wrote:
The VBC is better at anti tank and utter gak against everything else. 25% vs infantry 75% vs tanks.


Remember that the vanquisher cannon gets double the shots. It only wounds infantry on a 10+, but that's still a 45% chance to wound at least once. At least it's not a case of one option having literally zero reason to ever appear on the table, like with the plasma cannon vs. battle cannon, but it's still pretty obvious that you trade a slightly worse chance of wounding infantry for a vastly higher chance of wounding tanks in a game type where tanks matter way more than most infantry.

So yeah, Apocalypse stats are a raging dumpster fire of poor balance and math failures. And it's hilarious that anyone would try to use Apocalypse as an example of PL done right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Blndmage wrote:
The way the system guides you to list build is different. For armies that have upgrades(I play Necrons, so I don't quite get this part), you CAN min mix wargear, but do you actually have the models for it? If you do, great, if not, why are you taking the wargear/weapon?


Sorry, but that's not how it works at all. PL vs. normal points changes which upgrades are best, but it doesn't in any way encourage you to care more about WYSIWYG or building cool models and then using the appropriate rules or whatever you think you're doing. That's entirely your own invention and has nothing to do with the printed rules. PL may "work" for you, but in any case where PL is working normal points would work even better.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/05 17:35:43


Post by: Bharring


 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Blndmage wrote:
The way the system guides you to list build is different. For armies that have upgrades(I play Necrons, so I don't quite get this part), you CAN min mix wargear, but do you actually have the models for it? If you do, great, if not, why are you taking the wargear/weapon?


Sorry, but that's not how it works at all. PL vs. normal points changes which upgrades are best, but it doesn't in any way encourage you to care more about WYSIWYG or building cool models and then using the appropriate rules or whatever you think you're doing. That's entirely your own invention and has nothing to do with the printed rules. PL may "work" for you, but in any case where PL is working normal points would work even better.

For certain definitions of "better". The problem is, though, there are a lot of different definitions of "better".


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/05 17:59:17


Post by: ERJAK


 Blndmage wrote:
Having used both, I find the that they both provide a different feeling Whalen assembling a list, they work in different ways.

I'm not saying you can't min max Pl, but you can do the same with points, that's not what I'm talking about.

The way the system guides you to list build is different. For armies that have upgrades(I play Necrons, so I don't quite get this part), you CAN min mix wargear, but do you actually have the models for it? If you do, great, if not, why are you taking the wargear/weapon?

I've been running with PL for a bit now, having played with points only until a few months ago, and I'm finding that the lists have a different feel to them with PL. I don't do mathhammet, I try and make thematic lists, and I find that for that purpose, PL has proven to be superior to point, for me.


Not having the model is irrelevant if you're using PL in a competitive environment. If the weapon is a large enough increase in efficiency a competitive player would cobble one together out of sprue bits and stick it to the models forehead if they had to.


I don't actually mind PL in competitive settings simply because 40k's balance is poor enough already that all PL does is make it a zany-er meta.



Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/05 20:46:14


Post by: Threeshades


I dont think you can purely through changes in the point system change the game so that there aren't some options that will always be auto-includes or excluded.
Some units have access to weapons that are just not very useful for them to fulfill their purpose so that any substantial amount of points paid for it is probably better spent elsewhere and only when you reduce the points so drastically that they are basically never missed, does the option become useful. At which point it is so cheap that you just take it automatically.

With the power level system, everything simply becomes auto-include, except for a multiple choice option, in which case there may be one or two choices out of maybe 5 that are always used. You would have to carefully balance each weapon to be equally useful against the majority of possible foes. That's just the nature of games being played competitively.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/06 01:16:08


Post by: HoundsofDemos


 Blndmage wrote:
Having used both, I find the that they both provide a different feeling Whalen assembling a list, they work in different ways.

I'm not saying you can't min max Pl, but you can do the same with points, that's not what I'm talking about.

The way the system guides you to list build is different. For armies that have upgrades(I play Necrons, so I don't quite get this part), you CAN min mix wargear, but do you actually have the models for it? If you do, great, if not, why are you taking the wargear/weapon?

I've been running with PL for a bit now, having played with points only until a few months ago, and I'm finding that the lists have a different feel to them with PL. I don't do mathhammet, I try and make thematic lists, and I find that for that purpose, PL has proven to be superior to point, for me.


This is the issue with PL though. You and your opponent(s) agree generally on what kind of game you want. With that agreement almost any system can work baring extreme divergence in army power. PL fails apart even faster than points the minute your not in complete agreement (although 40k with points is far from perfect as well).

It gives armies with a ton of options way to many ways to push the limit of the game and essentially takes away any reason to not max out every unit with all of the best options.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/06 01:29:09


Post by: Lance845


I think the biggest issue there is options bloat. Between grav plasma flamer bolt missile las you have so many ways to do things that things overlap in usefulness.

Apocs system of vs tanks vs vs infantry is a good way to give different weapons different edges until you have too many weapons to give distinct roles to.

Cut down the options and its no longer an issue. Its no surprise that this is mostly a problem for sm, csm and am. 2 of those get option after option until its insanity and the 3rd is mimicing one of the others. Trim the fat.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/06 01:30:52


Post by: Blndmage


I guess playing Necrons and Kroot, means I'm missing it on all the fuss around options.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/06 11:39:14


Post by: Wayniac


I don't mind PL. The issue with PL is that 40k has way too many options, which people always min-max, so removing the cost of those items just means there are zero drawbacks to min-maxing while with points there is (since you may not have the 15 points for Weapon A, but you have 10 points for Weapon B).

Remember, the AOS point system is essentially PL; you pay a flat, scaling cost and don't pay for individual models or upgrades. The difference is that AOS you have few if any options in a unit. Usually, a choice is unit-wide (the AOS equivalent of "bolters or bolt pistol and chainsword") and there's some 1-in-5 option for one, maybe two choices. If 40k actually consolidated its myriad of options, most of which are usually useless anyway, then PL would work for it. But when you have a bunch of options, not paying for each one just makes it worse.

The *idea* behind PL is that you'll use what your models have, regardless of if it's "good" or "bad". GW does not seem to fathom or understand the concept of extreme min-maxing and *only* taking 1 weapon (often 3d printed/third-party or scouring bitz sites) because "the maths" show it being better (which incidentally, mathhammer is one of the worst and most destructive things to ever hit this game, just like theorycrafting in online games; it completely removes any sense of aesthetic choice and tries to force everyone into min-maxing); they seem to expect that you'll build most kits with a variety of weapons for looks. I often feel they just need to go full into that mindset and only allow you to equip squads with the number of weapons in the box; i.e. if a box has 2 plasma guns but 4 guys in the squad can have a special weapon, it would be limited to only 2 plasma guns, not up to 4. However, they don't have thick enough skin to avoid the whining that would happen from all the min-maxers if they did that.

For people who actually do that (yes, they exist) then PL works fine because you aren't trying to eke out every tiny bit of performance so you don't really care about minutiae like having exactly even points, and there can be a lot of fun in doing that if both players are on the same page and neither wants to treat the game like some sort of cutthroat competition that must be won and has to be as close to perfectly balanced as possible or waaaah it's not fun he has more than me sort of gak.

Remember, discussing this sort of thing online is always a strange situation since online the only common ground is die-hard Matched Play, if not tournament situations since everyone's individual meta is often different and isn't something you can really convey in a discussion with people who aren't also a part of that meta. Thus you see things like online everyone expects you're using Matched Play, that you're min-maxing your list, that you're using all of the Organized Event rules (despite them not being matched play), and often that you're trying to build the most hardcore list available to you so you can compete in a tournament even when this isn't the case.

Also, there seem to be some people here (not naming names but we all know who it is) who seems to be on some sort of holy crusade to prove that nobody ever anywhere should ever use PL and if they even dare to say why they like it, they need to be shown the error of their ways and why PL is garbage, and who cares what they might enjoy...


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/06 13:39:43


Post by: JNAProductions


Why would you consider mathhammer so bad?

It's people using their brains and math to figure out which weapons or options are best under which circumstances. If you don't like and prefer to just field what looks cool, you're free to ignore it, but for some people, fielding the most competitive list they can is how they have fun.

Now, obviously you shouldn't go seal clubbing and own newbs with your top-tier list, nor should you insist everyone play the same way you do. But I don't see anything wrong with crunching the numbers to figure out how to make your list kick ass, and play against someone else who also wants a competitive game.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/07 14:47:53


Post by: Melissia


You're not gonna avoid people using mathhammer with power levels play anyway, Wayniac, so what's the point of bringing it up?

The mathhammer is simply applied differently with power levels. But it's no less useful.

With points, Mathhammer is "I maximize my board presence, army bonuses, and firepower per point spent". With power levels, Mathhammer is "I maximize my board presence, army bonuses, and firepower per powerlevel accumulated." Ultimately, it's still mathhammer. And when people play competitively, they're going to use it to greater or lesser extent, simply because of the nature of competition.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/07 16:28:34


Post by: Peregrine


And why are we pretending that "mathammer" is some weird and unconventional approach to the game? It's just basic math and being able to compare units/options intelligently and there was never a point before it "hit the game".


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/07 16:59:08


Post by: Grimtuff


 Peregrine wrote:
And why are we pretending that "mathammer" is some weird and unconventional approach to the game? It's just basic math and being able to compare units/options intelligently and there was never a point before it "hit the game".


There was and there wasn't though. It was there, but I remember a time when the whole concept was the sole domain of the powergamer and you got many an eye roll when discussions of what things were "more efficient" came about. Because that was simply not what wargaming was about. You were a boring numbercruncher that sucked the fun out of the game (if you have ever seen The Simpsons episode MoneyBART this is exactly how mathhammer people were approached IME) and all you were doing was boring it down to pure numbers.

I forget what thread it is in on here, but there is the post that describes how Tau are good, but not interesting. This is what mathhammer is to me. It removes all of the fun of finding these combos, which I personally love as it feths with these mathhammerers and the thrill of pulling off something that simply does not compute to them. I don't want every army to be cookie cutter and operating at the same efficiency. This, oddly; is where Blood Bowl gets it right. Imagine if you had people telling you not to play Halflings as they were a sub-par choice. That's a feature, not a bug. Some people like to play as the proverbial underdog.



Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/07 17:14:57


Post by: Wayniac


Exactly. There was a time where "mathhammer" got you quirked eyebrows as a powergamer/munchkin/cheesey/beardy etc.person who didn't care about the background or lore, and only played to win; the type of person that WAAC was coined for, and in general the sort of player people wanted to avoid because they knew it wouldn't be a fun game.

It means a different thing now and is more acceptable, but it wasn't always. It was the same vein as people who tried to theorycraft D&D and min/max everything. They got weird looks because they were largely considered to be missing the entire point of the game.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/07 17:25:43


Post by: Martel732


Using math does not make you waac.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/07 17:29:41


Post by: Wayniac


Martel732 wrote:
Using math does not make you waac.
I never said it did. I said there was a time when doing it gave you that sort of reputation, which is absolutely true (or at least was in my area for many, many years)


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/07 17:31:54


Post by: Peregrine


Sounds like a pretty miserable time TBH, if something as basic as "I need 6s to wound this thing, that doesn't seem very effective so I'll shoot at this thing I wound on 2s instead" gets you a bad reputation. Why play a game at all if you get judged and shunned for understanding how the rules work and making intelligent strategic decisions?


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/07 17:32:24


Post by: HoundsofDemos


I've been playing for over a decade and I don't really agree on the whole mathhammer is new trend. Every edition has had winners and losers based on core rules and how a codex is set up.

Back in 5th I loaded up on meltas and PFs because they were the best options for my line squads. By the time 7th rolled around my special weapons were a bit more varied but I always gave sarge a combi weapon to match and didn't bother with any melee options because they were a waste of points 90% of the time.

Do I crunch the numbers to the nth degree to find the bleeding each most efficient build ? No, but to completely ignore that some units or choices are just flat out better is equally silly in my eye.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/07 17:32:24


Post by: Crimson Devil


Theoryhammer and Mathhammer are just tools to win arguments on the internet. Few people use them correctly in real life.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/07 17:32:55


Post by: Grimtuff


Martel732 wrote:
Using math does not make you waac.


Care to actually elaborate rather than just posting a single sentence (barely) as per usual? Both Wayne and I have explained why in gaming circles it was seen as something to be abhorred a it was completely anathema to what this hobby is about.

So, why isn't it? Because I can tell you from experience every. Single. Mathhammer person I've met has been a powergamer borderline TFG that is a chore to play against.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/07 17:33:29


Post by: Wayniac


 Peregrine wrote:
Sounds like a pretty miserable time TBH, if something as basic as "I need 6s to wound this thing, that doesn't seem very effective so I'll shoot at this thing I wound on 2s instead" gets you a bad reputation. Why play a game at all if you get judged and shunned for understanding how the rules work and making intelligent strategic decisions?
No, the sort of thing that got you a bad reputation was "Only this unit is good in the codex, with this specific upgrade, so spam that and ignore the rest", it wasn't choices in game it was choices in what you brought and devolving everything into ignoring the staple units. This was the days just before the Dakka classic of "Mauleed Marines" came about, which was to my recollection one of the first times I ever saw that level of min/maxing in 40k.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/07 17:33:59


Post by: Grimtuff


 Peregrine wrote:
Sounds like a pretty miserable time TBH, if something as basic as "I need 6s to wound this thing, that doesn't seem very effective so I'll shoot at this thing I wound on 2s instead" gets you a bad reputation. Why play a game at all if you get judged and shunned for understanding how the rules work and making intelligent strategic decisions?


That's not what is being said and you know it. Want me to give you the correct end of the stick?


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/07 17:35:44


Post by: Peregrine


Wayniac wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Sounds like a pretty miserable time TBH, if something as basic as "I need 6s to wound this thing, that doesn't seem very effective so I'll shoot at this thing I wound on 2s instead" gets you a bad reputation. Why play a game at all if you get judged and shunned for understanding how the rules work and making intelligent strategic decisions?
No, the sort of thing that got you a bad reputation was "Only this unit is good in the codex, with this specific upgrade, so spam that and ignore the rest", it wasn't choices in game it was choices in what you brought and devolving everything into ignoring the staple units. This was the days just before the Dakka classic of "Mauleed Marines" came about, which was to my recollection one of the first times I ever saw that level of min/maxing in 40k.


But that's spamming, not "mathhammer". What people call "mathhammer" is just basic understanding of the rules and dice math.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/07 17:39:24


Post by: Grimtuff


 Peregrine wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Sounds like a pretty miserable time TBH, if something as basic as "I need 6s to wound this thing, that doesn't seem very effective so I'll shoot at this thing I wound on 2s instead" gets you a bad reputation. Why play a game at all if you get judged and shunned for understanding how the rules work and making intelligent strategic decisions?
No, the sort of thing that got you a bad reputation was "Only this unit is good in the codex, with this specific upgrade, so spam that and ignore the rest", it wasn't choices in game it was choices in what you brought and devolving everything into ignoring the staple units. This was the days just before the Dakka classic of "Mauleed Marines" came about, which was to my recollection one of the first times I ever saw that level of min/maxing in 40k.


But that's spamming, not "mathhammer". What people call "mathhammer" is just basic understanding of the rules and dice math.


Nope. Wrong again. Those are tactics and strategy.

Mathhammer is squeezing every last little bit of efficiency out of something regardless of if there are more thematic or appropriate choices and everyone else is some kind of individual with a railroad spike rammed through their head for even suggesting to take the "lesser" choice.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/07 17:43:22


Post by: Peregrine


 Grimtuff wrote:
Nope. Wrong again. Those are tactics and strategy.

Mathhammer is squeezing every last little bit of efficiency out of something regardless of if there are more thematic or appropriate choices and everyone else is some kind of individual with a railroad spike rammed through their head for even suggesting to take the "lesser" choice.


It really isn't. Over and over again I've seen "mathhammer" used to describe any evaluation of dice math, not just this supposed "math at all costs" approach. For example, "here's the mathhammer on a charge out of deep strike with a re-roll" as a guide to deciding if you should attempt it or not.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/07 18:05:00


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 Grimtuff wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Sounds like a pretty miserable time TBH, if something as basic as "I need 6s to wound this thing, that doesn't seem very effective so I'll shoot at this thing I wound on 2s instead" gets you a bad reputation. Why play a game at all if you get judged and shunned for understanding how the rules work and making intelligent strategic decisions?
No, the sort of thing that got you a bad reputation was "Only this unit is good in the codex, with this specific upgrade, so spam that and ignore the rest", it wasn't choices in game it was choices in what you brought and devolving everything into ignoring the staple units. This was the days just before the Dakka classic of "Mauleed Marines" came about, which was to my recollection one of the first times I ever saw that level of min/maxing in 40k.


But that's spamming, not "mathhammer". What people call "mathhammer" is just basic understanding of the rules and dice math.


Nope. Wrong again. Those are tactics and strategy.

Mathhammer is squeezing every last little bit of efficiency out of something regardless of if there are more thematic or appropriate choices and everyone else is some kind of individual with a railroad spike rammed through their head for even suggesting to take the "lesser" choice.


Isn't that just min-maxing? I always thought mathhammer was just a tongue in cheek term used to refer to calculating probability.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/07 18:39:32


Post by: Wayniac


 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Sounds like a pretty miserable time TBH, if something as basic as "I need 6s to wound this thing, that doesn't seem very effective so I'll shoot at this thing I wound on 2s instead" gets you a bad reputation. Why play a game at all if you get judged and shunned for understanding how the rules work and making intelligent strategic decisions?
No, the sort of thing that got you a bad reputation was "Only this unit is good in the codex, with this specific upgrade, so spam that and ignore the rest", it wasn't choices in game it was choices in what you brought and devolving everything into ignoring the staple units. This was the days just before the Dakka classic of "Mauleed Marines" came about, which was to my recollection one of the first times I ever saw that level of min/maxing in 40k.


But that's spamming, not "mathhammer". What people call "mathhammer" is just basic understanding of the rules and dice math.


Nope. Wrong again. Those are tactics and strategy.

Mathhammer is squeezing every last little bit of efficiency out of something regardless of if there are more thematic or appropriate choices and everyone else is some kind of individual with a railroad spike rammed through their head for even suggesting to take the "lesser" choice.

Isn't that just min-maxing? I always thought mathhammer was just a tongue in cheek term used to refer to calculating probability.


I've always seen mathhammer specifically be used for the whole "Unit A is statistically better than this other, equivalent unit B. Therefore, there is no reason to ever take Unit B" sort of thing, when you turn everything into an exercise in probability. This gives you a 0.03% better chance of doing something over this other choice, basically yeah what Grimtuff said. Squeezing every little bit out of something, usually without ever actually using it and just using probability and statistics, and then state unequivocally how that choice is either superior to everything and should be spammed, or inferior and is only taken by losers/CAACers/insert term here.

Mathhammer is what enables the extreme min/maxing, basically by removing the "trial and error" or "test it out and see how it works" approach from the game.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/07 19:15:01


Post by: Martel732


I sometimes attend events where everyone is "powergaming". Are they all waac tfgs?

Predictive disciplines such as probability exist to reduce trial and error.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/07 19:30:47


Post by: Luke_Prowler


Mathhammer is a tool in which some people abuse without understanding other tools they have access to or over rely on in arguments since it's much harder to describe how something like effectiveness, force concentration, range, or movement makes something useful.

Subscribing it as something inherently bad is nonsense.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/07 19:36:40


Post by: Lance845


 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Mathhammer is a tool in which some people abuse without understanding other tools they have access to or over rely on in arguments since it's much harder to describe how something like effectiveness, force concentration, range, or movement makes something useful.

Subscribing it as something inherently bad is nonsense.


This is getting close to being comparable to the war on terrorism. A tactic. You might as well be upset that people are not lining up in firing lines on oposite sides of the battlefield.

Mathhammer is a lense to use to calculate effectivness. Just that. A way to look at it. Not the only way. Not a complete picture. Only a partial picture from one direction. Relying on it entirely is as dumb as disregarding it entirely.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/07 19:55:21


Post by: Grimtuff


And once again it is quite apparent when certain people started this hobby. Both Wayne and I started playing in the mid and late nineties respectively and it is no coincidence that our experiences are the same here.



Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/07 20:15:05


Post by: Wayniac


 Grimtuff wrote:
And once again it is quite apparent when certain people started this hobby. Both Wayne and I started playing in the mid and late nineties respectively and it is no coincidence that our experiences are the same here.

Pretty much. I mean obviously you had some of that going on, but it wasn't nearly as prevalent as it is now. As I said, it was considered pretty crappy in my area to be the sort of person who picked stuff entirely to min/max rather than pick units that fit the background.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/07 20:34:52


Post by: Martel732


 Grimtuff wrote:
And once again it is quite apparent when certain people started this hobby. Both Wayne and I started playing in the mid and late nineties respectively and it is no coincidence that our experiences are the same here.



I startes in 93 and was tabled mercilessly my first few games by people who were better at the math.

Mathhammer goes back to 2nd ed easy.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/07 22:08:42


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Wayniac wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
And once again it is quite apparent when certain people started this hobby. Both Wayne and I started playing in the mid and late nineties respectively and it is no coincidence that our experiences are the same here.

Pretty much. I mean obviously you had some of that going on, but it wasn't nearly as prevalent as it is now. As I said, it was considered pretty crappy in my area to be the sort of person who picked stuff entirely to min/max rather than pick units that fit the background.

If balance is so bad though that one person filling up all on a basic troop that is broken (5th Grey Hunters) compared to the other person filling up on a troop that is bad (Tactical Marines), how is that a better experience than the Vanilla Marine player just loading up on Scouts instead?

You can't act like the Mathhammer exists but the units are all next to each other somewhat in effectiveness. This is the same game where we got the 6th edition iteration of Rubric Marines.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 12:24:14


Post by: Melissia


 Grimtuff wrote:
There was and there wasn't though. It was there, but I remember a time when the whole concept was the sole domain of the powergamer
Your memory is faulty. Discussions of what was effective against what, and what was useful in what situations, were not uncommon or relegated to powergamers. Don't don the rose-tinted glasses and complain in a hoarse voice "things were so much better back in my time". You're not that old yet.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 12:40:47


Post by: Grimtuff


 Melissia wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
There was and there wasn't though. It was there, but I remember a time when the whole concept was the sole domain of the powergamer
Your memory is faulty. Discussions of what was effective against what, and what was useful in what situations, were not uncommon or relegated to powergamers. Don't don the rose-tinted glasses and complain in a hoarse voice "things were so much better back in my time". You're not that old yet.


It's really not. Maybe the GW store I started this hobby in was full of "too cool for school" types (more than likely so, once I was asked if I was still a virgin by one of the members of staff there after geeking out over something, but I digress...) and having an kind of in depth tactical discussion beyond the norm and really getting into crunching numbers would get you an eye roll at best and berated at worst. There is a reason things like Munchkin exist, it was satirize this type of approach to the game.

I am NOT saying "tHiNgS wErE bEtTeR bAcK wHeN" because they really were not (see above. feth you Neil) but at some point there was a paradigm shift where you had to take only the best units all the time every time and you were a braindead bozo if you did not. You see it all the time on here, practically everyone assumes you are playing matched play at a tournament. Nothing else.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 13:01:23


Post by: Slipspace


I've been playing since the mid 90s and my experiences are very different to Grimtuff's and Wayniac's. Mathhammer has been a thing for as long as I've been playing, in the sense of people figuring out the probability of certain actions being successful or calculating which units/options were better than others. I don't think there was much of a stigma against it where I played and we still had plenty of fluffy armies alongside some powergaming ones too. It seems like some people's definition of mathhammer is "WAAC powergamer who uses lots of maths" but I would simplify that to "WAAC powergamer". Mathhammer is a tool, not an attitude.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 13:05:16


Post by: auticus


Largely because of the association. WAAC powergamer typically uses math to distill the game down to 5% of the units seen, so therefore all people that use math in the game are WAAC powergamer.

Because thats how people roll.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 13:20:17


Post by: SemperMortis


That is a hard no from me. As a fellow Ork player I'll explain why the PL system is garbage from the very beginning. Lets take 2 common units that are roughly comparable. A mob of boyz and a squad of space Marines. 10 boyz is 4PL and 5 Marines is 5PL. Those 10 boyz cost 70pts, give them max upgrades, like dual Saws on the Nob and a Rokkit and you can get them to 112 pts. 30 of which is a single nob with dual saws. The Space Marines on the other hand are 65pts base and with ridiculous upgrades you can get them to 129...so that sounds about right because the boyz are 1PL lower right? Nope. For starters, that Rokkit is borderline useless in a mob of 10 orkz, the Nob is ridiculously equipped and serves little purpose, even if he gets into CC since he is still just a regular nob, 30pts gets you 4 attacks at WS4+ for 2 hits, so slghtly less then 2 dead Marines on average. The reality is that these upgrades are mostly wasted and are either nice to have but not really worth paying for OR they are just flat out worse. In the case of the Space Marine tactical squad. Those 5 Marines MAX at the 129, but realistically they are more efficient/better at closer to 113pts. For that they get a Lascannon and a Sergeant with a Thunder Hammer AND a stormbolter, or for like 6pts more he can have a Combi Flamer

The gist of this is that for some units PL is WAY better because of the options they have available, for others its actually detrimental because they lack any worthwhile options at all.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 13:22:16


Post by: Grimtuff


Slipspace wrote:
I've been playing since the mid 90s and my experiences are very different to Grimtuff's and Wayniac's. Mathhammer has been a thing for as long as I've been playing, in the sense of people figuring out the probability of certain actions being successful or calculating which units/options were better than others. I don't think there was much of a stigma against it where I played and we still had plenty of fluffy armies alongside some powergaming ones too. It seems like some people's definition of mathhammer is "WAAC powergamer who uses lots of maths" but I would simplify that to "WAAC powergamer". Mathhammer is a tool, not an attitude.


Heh, the Venn diagram crosses over a lot there. I have yet to meet a hardcore mathhammerer (in any game, WMH especially) that is not an utter chore to play against.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 13:24:34


Post by: Melissia


 Grimtuff wrote:
but at some point there was a paradigm shift where you had to take only the best units all the time every time

I disagree. Almost every match I have these days are just fun matches where people bring only slightly optimized lists. Most people who want to do superdupercompetitive plays go to tournaments. And I also disagree that it was at all like that back then. In 2nd edition, the game was horrendously broken and anyone who wanted to could ruin the game easily. There were obviously better choices, obviously more powerful choices, that many people took not because of lore or fun, but so they could get that kick of having won. Just like you're saying happened today.

If anything I feel with the influx of new players, there's a lot less tendency for any particular player I run in to any given day to be TFG.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 13:27:17


Post by: Martel732


 Grimtuff wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
I've been playing since the mid 90s and my experiences are very different to Grimtuff's and Wayniac's. Mathhammer has been a thing for as long as I've been playing, in the sense of people figuring out the probability of certain actions being successful or calculating which units/options were better than others. I don't think there was much of a stigma against it where I played and we still had plenty of fluffy armies alongside some powergaming ones too. It seems like some people's definition of mathhammer is "WAAC powergamer who uses lots of maths" but I would simplify that to "WAAC powergamer". Mathhammer is a tool, not an attitude.


Heh, the Venn diagram crosses over a lot there. I have yet to meet a hardcore mathhammerer (in any game, WMH especially) that is not an utter chore to play against.


My least fun games are usually vs CAACs.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 13:29:02


Post by: Melissia


Stop trying to force that acronym, Martel.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 13:29:48


Post by: Lance845


What is it supposed to stand for?


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 13:40:54


Post by: G00fySmiley


SemperMortis wrote:
That is a hard no from me. As a fellow Ork player I'll explain why the PL system is garbage from the very beginning. Lets take 2 common units that are roughly comparable. A mob of boyz and a squad of space Marines. 10 boyz is 4PL and 5 Marines is 5PL. Those 10 boyz cost 70pts, give them max upgrades, like dual Saws on the Nob and a Rokkit and you can get them to 112 pts. 30 of which is a single nob with dual saws. The Space Marines on the other hand are 65pts base and with ridiculous upgrades you can get them to 129...so that sounds about right because the boyz are 1PL lower right? Nope. For starters, that Rokkit is borderline useless in a mob of 10 orkz, the Nob is ridiculously equipped and serves little purpose, even if he gets into CC since he is still just a regular nob, 30pts gets you 4 attacks at WS4+ for 2 hits, so slghtly less then 2 dead Marines on average. The reality is that these upgrades are mostly wasted and are either nice to have but not really worth paying for OR they are just flat out worse. In the case of the Space Marine tactical squad. Those 5 Marines MAX at the 129, but realistically they are more efficient/better at closer to 113pts. For that they get a Lascannon and a Sergeant with a Thunder Hammer AND a stormbolter, or for like 6pts more he can have a Combi Flamer

The gist of this is that for some units PL is WAY better because of the options they have available, for others its actually detrimental because they lack any worthwhile options at all.


eh i mean space marines are not a good comparison as tac squads and most of thier weapons are pretty overpriced. you will not see tac marines with lascannons in any top tournament list for a reason.

the second part of pure PL though would be balancing weaposn so there are not auto takes. instead of having that lascannon be str 9 ap-4 D d6 make it str 9 ap-3 D3 making it the better tank gun but less swingy and such


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 13:42:08


Post by: Bharring


 Lance845 wrote:
What is it supposed to stand for?

"Casual At All Costs"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grimtuff wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
I've been playing since the mid 90s and my experiences are very different to Grimtuff's and Wayniac's. Mathhammer has been a thing for as long as I've been playing, in the sense of people figuring out the probability of certain actions being successful or calculating which units/options were better than others. I don't think there was much of a stigma against it where I played and we still had plenty of fluffy armies alongside some powergaming ones too. It seems like some people's definition of mathhammer is "WAAC powergamer who uses lots of maths" but I would simplify that to "WAAC powergamer". Mathhammer is a tool, not an attitude.


Heh, the Venn diagram crosses over a lot there. I have yet to meet a hardcore mathhammerer (in any game, WMH especially) that is not an utter chore to play against.

This may be selection bias. You're more likely to consider someone a "hardcore mathhammerer" if they aren't as into other aspects of the hobby.

There are plenty of people who "get" the math, but aren't "powergamers". But they're much less likely to be telling you why your choice to use Tac Marines or Dire Avengers was bad, you're dumb for not seeing the numbers, and you should feel bad for being dumb. So they don't come across as "hardcore mathhammerers".

It's really just a subset of the TFG problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
I've been playing since the mid 90s and my experiences are very different to Grimtuff's and Wayniac's. Mathhammer has been a thing for as long as I've been playing, in the sense of people figuring out the probability of certain actions being successful or calculating which units/options were better than others. I don't think there was much of a stigma against it where I played and we still had plenty of fluffy armies alongside some powergaming ones too. It seems like some people's definition of mathhammer is "WAAC powergamer who uses lots of maths" but I would simplify that to "WAAC powergamer". Mathhammer is a tool, not an attitude.


Heh, the Venn diagram crosses over a lot there. I have yet to meet a hardcore mathhammerer (in any game, WMH especially) that is not an utter chore to play against.


My least fun games are usually vs CAACs.

My least favorite games are usually against TFGs, regardless of their interests.

There are fun people I've played that enjoy more competitive games, and fun people I've played that enjoy more casual games. The primary difference between them and TFGs has been their attitude, not their goals.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 13:54:15


Post by: Wayniac


 Lance845 wrote:
What is it supposed to stand for?
Casual At All Cost. From a previous thread asking about it, this is what my answer was:

Technically, it's someone who is a "sore loser" and blames their opponent having a cheese list for everything, usually with the implication of moral superiority for playing a fluffy list. The opposite of WAAC, where instead of arguing dubious rules that border on cheating, they instead take the moral high ground by saying things like "Well you're playing a filthy list"

Too often though, it's used by a few angry people here (not naming names, but we all know who I mean) as a pejorative against anyone who feels that 40k/GW games, in general, aren't meant for cutthroat competitive play and you do not, in fact, have to always bring the best units possible to have fun. So just like you see WAAC thrown around to mean anyone who plays competitively, even if they don't try to rules lawyer dubiously worded rules, you see CAAC thrown around to indicate anyone who doesn't always build the best list they can but actually cares about the background, lore, and tone of the game beyond treating it as a competitive e-sport in every game, tournament or not.

CAAC is basically David Sirlin's definition of the "scrub": Someone who adds their own moral code/restrictions to the game, that they expect everyone to adhere to, and then cry foul when they encounter someone who doesn't. An example might be someone who thinks that under 3000 points you shouldn't field any superheavies. No such restriction exists in the game. So this hypothetical person will pitch a fit and cry cheese if they fight a superheavy below 3000 points, even though THEY were the one who added that arbitrary rule to how the game "should" be.


Here it's used in that second paragraph; Peregrine and others use it to refer to someone who dislikes comp play and argues why comp play and min/maxing everything is bad, and it gets used to disparage anyone who doesn't think you should always be min/maxing your lists.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 14:02:06


Post by: Martel732


More than one CAAC has complained about tricornering, which is the only real way to make BA assault elements survivable.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 14:05:19


Post by: Bharring


That's like saying more than one WAAC has taken Gman to a tournament.

Some people feel some tactics - like tricornering - are too "gamey" and feel off. What's wrong with complaining about something you didn't like?

That's just "Casual at reasonable cost".


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 14:08:13


Post by: Peregrine


A casual player is someone who invests very little in the game. They don't play much, they don't buy large collections, they don't bother to learn tactics, they don't participate in game forums, etc. The game just isn't important to them.

A CAAC player is the person screaming BE MORE CASUAL BEER AND PRETZELS!!!! at everyone. They have their unwritten rules about how the game is "meant to be played" (many of then involving "WAAC cheese" or their personal headcanon about fluff) and you are expected to follow all of them. Only they know what fun is, anyone who enjoys something they don't like is "not playing for fun". And god help you if you beat them too often or put more effort into winning than they do. Unlike real casual players they care a lot about the game, and "casual" is just smug narcissism about how nobody else is having fun the right way.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 14:19:16


Post by: Martel732


Bharring wrote:
That's like saying more than one WAAC has taken Gman to a tournament.

Some people feel some tactics - like tricornering - are too "gamey" and feel off. What's wrong with complaining about something you didn't like?

That's just "Casual at reasonable cost".


Maybe. The same people usually complain about "superheavies", etc. I'm not sure what "all costs" is to someone who doesn't keep up on FAQs and brings almost purely rule of cool units.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 14:19:36


Post by: Wayniac


Bharring wrote:
That's like saying more than one WAAC has taken Gman to a tournament.

Some people feel some tactics - like tricornering - are too "gamey" and feel off. What's wrong with complaining about something you didn't like?

That's just "Casual at reasonable cost".
This is a big problem I have as well. I'm not sure what "tricornering" is but things like bubble wrapping or daisychaining feels incredibly gamey to me and not at all how GW expects the game to be played. I get its a thing (I saw it in Warmahordes) but in 40k it sometimes feels like it's trying to use the rules in ways that aren't intended, since I can't recall ever seeing any sort of official batrep where that sort of stuff was done.

Like I said though "CAAC" is usually what's referred to as "The Scrub": The person who injects their own moral/ethical "way to play" on others when it's not part of the actual game rules, and usually is a sore loser about the fact that not everyone is going to adhere to their own code of conduct in how to build lists/play. To quote David Sirlin's book:

The scrub would take great issue with [saying he is not playing to win] for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevents him from ever truly competing. These made-up rules vary from game to game, of course, but their character remains constant.

That's basically what Peregrine meant by CAAC. Someone who thinks, for example, "superheavies shouldn't be used" and expects everyone else to follow that unwritten rule or they are a WAAC TFG cheeseweasel etc.

Essentially it's injecting your own morality into what the game "should" be when the rules don't enforce any such thing.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 14:25:38


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


 Peregrine wrote:
A casual player is someone who invests very little in the game. They don't play much, they don't buy large collections, they don't bother to learn tactics, they don't participate in game forums, etc. The game just isn't important to them.


That's a totally different Definition of casual than I would have given and I'd have described me and my group as casual. Casual players are simply people who are more concentrated on the fluff than mathhammering. So "strong" choices aren't that important as "units I like" and an army composition that fits the fluff.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 14:27:03


Post by: Martel732


Wayniac wrote:
Bharring wrote:
That's like saying more than one WAAC has taken Gman to a tournament.

Some people feel some tactics - like tricornering - are too "gamey" and feel off. What's wrong with complaining about something you didn't like?

That's just "Casual at reasonable cost".
This is a big problem I have as well. I'm not sure what "tricornering" is but things like bubble wrapping or daisychaining feels incredibly gamey to me and not at all how GW expects the game to be played. I get its a thing (I saw it in Warmahordes) but in 40k it sometimes feels like it's trying to use the rules in ways that aren't intended, since I can't recall ever seeing any sort of official batrep where that sort of stuff was done.

Like I said though "CAAC" is usually what's referred to as "The Scrub": The person who injects their own moral/ethical "way to play" on others when it's not part of the actual game rules, and usually is a sore loser about the fact that not everyone is going to adhere to their own code of conduct in how to build lists/play. To quote David Sirlin's book:

The scrub would take great issue with [saying he is not playing to win] for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevents him from ever truly competing. These made-up rules vary from game to game, of course, but their character remains constant.

That's basically what Peregrine meant by CAAC. Someone who thinks, for example, "superheavies shouldn't be used" and expects everyone else to follow that unwritten rule or they are a WAAC TFG cheeseweasel etc.

Essentially it's injecting your own morality into what the game "should" be when the rules don't enforce any such thing.


8th ed is basically Bubblewrap: The Game. So that observation seems weird to me.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 14:27:40


Post by: Wayniac


Sgt. Cortez wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
A casual player is someone who invests very little in the game. They don't play much, they don't buy large collections, they don't bother to learn tactics, they don't participate in game forums, etc. The game just isn't important to them.


That's a totally different Definition of casual than I would have given and I'd have described me and my group as casual. Casual players are simply people who are more concentrated on the fluff than mathhammering. So "strong" choices aren't that important as "units I like" and an army composition that fits the fluff.
Casual means both. Technically Peregrine is right: A casual, by definition, doesn't put a lot of effort into whatever; it's something they do, but they don't focus on it.

What most of us mean when we say "casual" is really "non-competitive" or maybe "laid back". You aren't casual if you read about the game, read the lore, buy lots of models, etc because you are still putting a lot of investment into it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
8th ed is basically Bubblewrap: The Game. So that observation seems weird to me.


Perhaps, but it still doesn't feel like the sort of tactic that belongs in a wargame. Other than Warmahordes and now 8th (and I guess AOS), I can't think of any other tabletop wargame that has rules like that or encourages them, since they aren't rooted in any sort of actual real-world strategy or tactics, they exist solely because of game mechanics. That's what comes off as so odd. You're from the old guard, you said earlier. Surely you remember the time when wargames were more realistic simulations of combat. Bubblewrap and the like feel like incredibly gamey mechanics, rather than legit tactics.

The concepts are still largely foreign to me because they feel so out of place in a tabletop wargame.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 14:29:52


Post by: Slipspace


Wayniac wrote:
Bharring wrote:
That's like saying more than one WAAC has taken Gman to a tournament.

Some people feel some tactics - like tricornering - are too "gamey" and feel off. What's wrong with complaining about something you didn't like?

That's just "Casual at reasonable cost".
This is a big problem I have as well. I'm not sure what "tricornering" is but things like bubble wrapping or daisychaining feels incredibly gamey to me and not at all how GW expects the game to be played. I get its a thing (I saw it in Warmahordes) but in 40k it sometimes feels like it's trying to use the rules in ways that aren't intended, since I can't recall ever seeing any sort of official batrep where that sort of stuff was done.


Hold on, bubble wrapping is gamey now? Screening more valuable units with less valuable ones? That's not just non-gamey that's downright thematic in most cases. Guard screening out their tanks or Knights is about as on-theme as it gets for them. It's also a real-world tactic where infantry would be used to screen for armoured assets in close quarters or urban combat.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 14:33:13


Post by: Martel732


In 2nd ed, it was even worse, because you HAD to shoot the closest unit. It made the Nids very difficult for most lists to beat.

Daisychaining is not really new, because IG did that with 50 man squads before marines became enslaved to auras.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 14:42:04


Post by: G00fySmiley


Slipspace wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Bharring wrote:
That's like saying more than one WAAC has taken Gman to a tournament.

Some people feel some tactics - like tricornering - are too "gamey" and feel off. What's wrong with complaining about something you didn't like?

That's just "Casual at reasonable cost".
This is a big problem I have as well. I'm not sure what "tricornering" is but things like bubble wrapping or daisychaining feels incredibly gamey to me and not at all how GW expects the game to be played. I get its a thing (I saw it in Warmahordes) but in 40k it sometimes feels like it's trying to use the rules in ways that aren't intended, since I can't recall ever seeing any sort of official batrep where that sort of stuff was done.


Hold on, bubble wrapping is gamey now? Screening more valuable units with less valuable ones? That's not just non-gamey that's downright thematic in most cases. Guard screening out their tanks or Knights is about as on-theme as it gets for them. It's also a real-world tactic where infantry would be used to screen for armoured assets in close quarters or urban combat.


bubblewrap has always been a thing in 4k to an extent, but it also cut both ways. shooty armies has layers to get through,. the issue with 8th fo most assaulty armoies is that the shooty ones like tau or guard cna just walk away from combat and set up a new screen behind them This not only takes away the protection of not being able to shoot into combat, but incurs no penalty. I think fallign back should at the very least incur the opponent getting another assault phase against the unit falling back but lacking the movement. it seems silly that my orks/eldar/marines are after being fighting letting the opponent politely walk away and not getting in blows as they run away

tricornering ( surrounding one member of a squad so they cannot fall back) is necessary to not just see your elite assault unit be blasted away. I have had people insist tripointing is illegal or be butt hurt about it even as they wipe my orks off the table because they wanted to play against green tide, and had removed 1/2 my army before anythign reached thier first line. one still moved the unit despite it being against the rules to move past my model so i just said "ok well game over, i don't want to play with a cheater ignoring basic rules"


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 14:56:49


Post by: bananathug


I've had the luck of playing against Brand Grant (the guy who won the ITC the holy grail of the WAAC player according to some of you).

Affectionately referred to as a cyborg the guy mathhammers in his sleep and it was the most pleasant game of 40k I've ever played. Just a really nice guy moving around models with purpose and a plan. Some great cinematic moments happened in the game, there were some tense moments (early in the game, it was a stomp by the end...) and the game ended with a friendly hand-shake. Hell, every game that tournament was fun, engaging and challenging against an opponent I would thrilled to play again or have a beer with (preferably both!!)

On the other hand, playing against a local casual the guy basically "reeeeee'd" when I killed his captain after killing his dread because the cap was the closest. He couldn't fathom how a squad of DA inceptors could kill his redemptor dread (4 plasma inceptors have like a 95% of one shotting the dread w/ a strat and re-roll 1s) He picked-up his models saying something about how I was a WAAC a-hole (wasn't even running that competitive of a list, hell I had 2 units of terminators) and my kind of player was ruining the game. But because he didn't understand the game we had a terrible game (I even warned him about moving his dread where he did but was met with a rather rude dismissal about how I didn't understand his plan...). I've played narative games with made-up scenarios with my friends that have been amazing but against random "casual" players my games have been terrible, unfun, stressful and on several occasions tinged with weird racist undertones (and I've lived in very progressive areas).

Contrast to my game against the king of the WAAC players I know which type of player I'd rather play against any day. Hell the games I've had against other top tier players who have reps as a-holes have been better than my games against the CAAC guys I've played at random open table nights.

I started playing in the 90's as well and it seems a lot of peoples opinions on this have been shaped by their personal interactions around the gaming table. That being said, using mathhammer to figure out that assault marines offer you very little offensive/defensive utility or that 9" charges are not something you can count on has NOTHING to do with your opponent being a jerk.

If GW were to go to PL it would be a mess. The poster with the idea that weapons would come in general groups (close range anti-infantry/tank, mid-range infantry/tank and long range...) is on the right track but it would involve so many factors of the units using those weapons (speed, resiliency, special rules, deepstriking...) that, given GWs track record, there is no way they would get it right (or even close). At least with points the players can exploit the numbers equally and there's often enough options that you can find something close to efficient or at least efficient enough given the right tactics/game plan (although some things are still way out of wack).


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 15:05:46


Post by: Peregrine


Slipspace wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Bharring wrote:
That's like saying more than one WAAC has taken Gman to a tournament.

Some people feel some tactics - like tricornering - are too "gamey" and feel off. What's wrong with complaining about something you didn't like?

That's just "Casual at reasonable cost".
This is a big problem I have as well. I'm not sure what "tricornering" is but things like bubble wrapping or daisychaining feels incredibly gamey to me and not at all how GW expects the game to be played. I get its a thing (I saw it in Warmahordes) but in 40k it sometimes feels like it's trying to use the rules in ways that aren't intended, since I can't recall ever seeing any sort of official batrep where that sort of stuff was done.


Hold on, bubble wrapping is gamey now? Screening more valuable units with less valuable ones? That's not just non-gamey that's downright thematic in most cases. Guard screening out their tanks or Knights is about as on-theme as it gets for them. It's also a real-world tactic where infantry would be used to screen for armoured assets in close quarters or urban combat.


In the real world infantry screen tanks by going house to house ahead of the tanks to check for enemy anti-tank units, move from cover to cover while watching for trouble, etc. They don't stand out in the open and literally form a human wall to physically block anything from reaching the tank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
A casual player is someone who invests very little in the game. They don't play much, they don't buy large collections, they don't bother to learn tactics, they don't participate in game forums, etc. The game just isn't important to them.


That's a totally different Definition of casual than I would have given and I'd have described me and my group as casual. Casual players are simply people who are more concentrated on the fluff than mathhammering. So "strong" choices aren't that important as "units I like" and an army composition that fits the fluff.


That's because your definition is wrong. Casual means "low investment", not "cares a lot about the fluff" or "bad at winning tournaments". You are a group of narrative players, not casual players.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 19:16:17


Post by: Slipspace


 Peregrine wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Bharring wrote:
That's like saying more than one WAAC has taken Gman to a tournament.

Some people feel some tactics - like tricornering - are too "gamey" and feel off. What's wrong with complaining about something you didn't like?

That's just "Casual at reasonable cost".
This is a big problem I have as well. I'm not sure what "tricornering" is but things like bubble wrapping or daisychaining feels incredibly gamey to me and not at all how GW expects the game to be played. I get its a thing (I saw it in Warmahordes) but in 40k it sometimes feels like it's trying to use the rules in ways that aren't intended, since I can't recall ever seeing any sort of official batrep where that sort of stuff was done.


Hold on, bubble wrapping is gamey now? Screening more valuable units with less valuable ones? That's not just non-gamey that's downright thematic in most cases. Guard screening out their tanks or Knights is about as on-theme as it gets for them. It's also a real-world tactic where infantry would be used to screen for armoured assets in close quarters or urban combat.


In the real world infantry screen tanks by going house to house ahead of the tanks to check for enemy anti-tank units, move from cover to cover while watching for trouble, etc. They don't stand out in the open and literally form a human wall to physically block anything from reaching the tank.


Fair enough, but you're somewhat missing the point. Infantry may not literally form a semi-circle around a tank but they are used as screens after a fashion. Bubble wrap, which is present in many wargames, abstracts this somewhat but the fact still remains, infantry screening for armour is a thing in modern warfare Grunts running interference for more elite infantry is (or at least was) a thing too. The main point is that I can't believe someone equates using such a simplistic tactic as being some sort of WAAC play.If you're willing to label that as WAAC you're setting the bar very, very low.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 19:31:38


Post by: Grimtuff


Nowhere did he label it as WAAC. It's right there as "gamey", i.e. you're playing to the rules, but not the spirit of the game.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 19:39:50


Post by: Peregrine


 Grimtuff wrote:
Nowhere did he label it as WAAC. It's right there as "gamey", i.e. you're playing to the rules, but not the spirit of the game.


This. It's a bad mechanic from a design point of view, but from a player point of view it's an obvious move and doing it is not WAAC.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/08 19:54:59


Post by: Bharring


The extremism where everything is WAAC, just fine, or CAAC, is very much a TFG attitude.

In reality, (virtually) everyone is somewhere in between.

Those who are willing to win at the highest cost are (virtually always) not willing to die to win their game, so it's not really "at all costs".

Those who hate competitive players the most still aren't likely to burn your house down in response to you tricornering them.

WAAC and CAAC both refer to extremes we never see. Everyone is somewhere else on the continuum. But painting anyone to the left or right of you as one of those is just extremist thinking. In reality, there's a lot more nuance to that.

All that said, I've found the more WAAC-heavy players are almost never in the top quartile of players, skill-wise. Neither are the CAAC-heavy players. I find people who find a healthy balance between competitive and casual *for themselves* to be better balanced, have a better understanding of various factors, and a lot less hateful than people who cleave to either extreme.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/09 00:01:50


Post by: Wayniac


Indeed, I never said it was WAAC, but that it was a "gamey" thing to do, which to me indicates something that you do because the way the game rules are it gives you an advantage, but it doesn't seem like the intended way to play as evidenced by the fact that I've never seen a battle report from GW showing something like this. And, while I agree GW themselves are hardly an example of well-played 40k, the fact remains that I don't think bubblewrapping or daisy chaining or what have you is the way they envisioned their game being played, despite it being optimal to do so.

It's certainly not a bad tactic to do, but it feels wrong. Almost like you're playing the rules not playing the game.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/09 00:16:56


Post by: JNAProductions


But the game is made up of rules.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/09 00:51:12


Post by: Saturmorn Carvilli


 JNAProductions wrote:
But the game is made up of rules.


Yes, and some rules help paint an image in the mind's eye, some are neutral, some cause some 'creative' suspension of disbelief make them fit and others completely break immersion. Each player has their own level/tolerance to where the rules start to break this.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/09 00:54:30


Post by: Peregrine


 JNAProductions wrote:
But the game is made up of rules.


Yes, the game is mad up of rules. But IMO there's a difference between the game as it seems to be intended by the "big picture" of the rules and finding some awkward unforeseen interaction between rules and exploiting it. It's where you depart from the high level concept of "armies doing {thing} on the battlefield" and focus too much on the precise details of how much space the arbitrary 1" barrier around your bubble wrap is taking up or positioning your melee models in a perfect triangle to pin an enemy unit in place.

And, again, using strategies that result from this kind of situation is not WAAC TFG behavior, it's just basic strategy. But we can still criticize the mechanic from a design point of view and argue that it should be changed.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/09 01:18:45


Post by: JNAProductions


 Peregrine wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
But the game is made up of rules.


Yes, the game is mad up of rules. But IMO there's a difference between the game as it seems to be intended by the "big picture" of the rules and finding some awkward unforeseen interaction between rules and exploiting it. It's where you depart from the high level concept of "armies doing {thing} on the battlefield" and focus too much on the precise details of how much space the arbitrary 1" barrier around your bubble wrap is taking up or positioning your melee models in a perfect triangle to pin an enemy unit in place.

And, again, using strategies that result from this kind of situation is not WAAC TFG behavior, it's just basic strategy. But we can still criticize the mechanic from a design point of view and argue that it should be changed.
Keyword there is criticize the MECHANIC, not the player.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/09 02:36:34


Post by: Peregrine


 JNAProductions wrote:
Keyword there is criticize the MECHANIC, not the player.


Well yes, but I don't think anyone here is criticizing the player. Could you point to which person you thought was saying that?


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/09 02:41:06


Post by: JNAProductions


 Peregrine wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Keyword there is criticize the MECHANIC, not the player.


Well yes, but I don't think anyone here is criticizing the player. Could you point to which person you thought was saying that?
General sentiment I'm getting from some people that using "gamey" mechanics makes you unfun to play against.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/09 05:36:38


Post by: Breton


 Grimtuff wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
I've been playing since the mid 90s and my experiences are very different to Grimtuff's and Wayniac's. Mathhammer has been a thing for as long as I've been playing, in the sense of people figuring out the probability of certain actions being successful or calculating which units/options were better than others. I don't think there was much of a stigma against it where I played and we still had plenty of fluffy armies alongside some powergaming ones too. It seems like some people's definition of mathhammer is "WAAC powergamer who uses lots of maths" but I would simplify that to "WAAC powergamer". Mathhammer is a tool, not an attitude.


Heh, the Venn diagram crosses over a lot there. I have yet to meet a hardcore mathhammerer (in any game, WMH especially) that is not an utter chore to play against.


Then Cmon over and have a game. I mathhammer a lot. I also make fairly fluffy lists with a little bit of this and a little bit of that- My normal pre-8th lists were Calgar, Tiggy, a 10 man Tac w special and heavy, a 10 man scout with snipers, cloaks and ML, an assault squad, a Dev Squad (10 man if I had the points- sticking the Sgt and 4 bolter marines into a Razorback- again if I had the points after---) adding whatever other units struck my fancy. A drop podding Sternguard, Terminators (even though they were less than good to bad) land speeders, thunderfire cannons, or whatever. (or a points adjusted novel inspiration) And I take my cues from my opponent on play style, so if it's a chore to play me...


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/09 14:13:08


Post by: Melissia


Hell, I've seen the "hardcore mathhammerer" be the one to teach new players how to play, in the most patient, friendly manner possible. I really don't see an overlap between "people who math out probabilities" and "absolute jerks".


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/09 15:42:23


Post by: Dai


There's a hell of a of confirmation bias against "themmuns" on both sides on this thread. Maybe everyone should just chill the heck out, y'know be more casual


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/09 15:50:17


Post by: Martel732


I see what you did there.


Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points @ 2019/07/09 16:17:59


Post by: Bharring


 Peregrine wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Keyword there is criticize the MECHANIC, not the player.


Well yes, but I don't think anyone here is criticizing the player. Could you point to which person you thought was saying that?

Criticize the mechanic for leading to stupid gameplay, as appropriate.

Criticize the opponent for being an asshat, as appropriate.

Two very different categories of problems. They're easily conflated, though. Because stupid mechanics are much more frustrating when you're playing an asshat. And because asshats tend to be more focused on game mechanics / less focused on ensuring both players have fun.

This doesn't mean using stupid mechanics makes you an asshat.
Locally, my favorite opponent actually has an incredibly long "gamer's inch". And has rules understandings I find questionable. But, despite those problems, he's just fun to play against. And even without those problems, he tends to beat me.
My least favorite opponent (former - moved away) was just an asshat. He'd rules lawyer everything, but that's not what bothered me. And, despite his rules lawyering, "questionable" movements and dice rolls, and powergaming - he rarely beat me.

Neither of these people would hesitate to use a "dumb mechanic" in a competitive game. But one's TFG and the other is not.

TFG and "gamey" rules are two very different issues. The problem is they co-occur frequently, and multiply the negatives of each other.