Switch Theme:

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

Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/23 22:48:50


Post by: generalchaos34


With a new edition looming its time to get our finkin' caps on and get our hopes up before they are summarily dashed.

One of my fervent hopes for the future is that they scale up the point values of games to add more granularity in list building. By this I mean I want to see us go from 2000pts for a big game to 3-4 thousand. This way we wont have an arms race for the bottom spot for guardsman and cultists and give more flexibility to troops in the mid tier like sisters and hearthkyn with their point values instead of being defined by a VERY narrow band before they are competing with space marines and losing.

I'd also like to continue the trend of free upgrades outside of a chosen few like with the latest space marines. It makes sense and will generally make list building much easier (if only they would make special weapons more....specialized to be mission specific instead of a clear winner like plasma).

What would you like to see happen to point values?


Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/23 23:50:50


Post by: JohnnyHell


You don’t need to double the game limit if they just used increments of 1 instead of 5 for things.

They’ll likely bake in upgrades/sidegrades into a unit cost anyway.


Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 00:19:07


Post by: Apple fox


I would be happy if they up the Points on things for more granular balance.
As well as use that with units themselves taking some thought to the battlefield role.
Units that are very similar, shouldn’t be that far off from each other.
And basic weapons shouldn’t be effectively useless.
But I don’t want bigger games, I want them to shrink them a bit, I just don’t like the standard being so huge as a default. Especially as we run out of space on smaller boards.


Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 03:47:08


Post by: ccs


Apple fox wrote:

But I don’t want bigger games, I want them to shrink them a bit, I just don’t like the standard being so huge as a default. Especially as we run out of space on smaller boards.


1) So you want the company who makes its $ selling minis to encourage its customers to buy less of those minis....
I don't think they're going to do that.

2) just play on larger boards?


Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 04:21:58


Post by: alextroy


I hope:
  • They start assigning points to units rather than models
  • They use the new datasheets to even out special weapons choices and thereby reduce the amount of point costing upgrades


  • Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 04:31:48


    Post by: Wyldhunt


    Upping points values to increase granularity is fine in theory, but it sort of assumes that GW is good enough at assigning points values for the extra granularity to matter. I'm pretty bad at painting harlequin diamonds. Regardless of whether you give me a Walmart brush or a teeny tiny high-end detail brush, my harlequins' "diamond" pattern isn't going to look very geometric in nature.

    A few wishlist items from me:
    * Get rid of some of the "layers" of rules. Juggling purity bonuses, subfaction bonuses, stratagems, unit rules, and psychic powers all at once is a bit draining.
    * Fewer "kill better" rules; more rules to allow and reward maneuvering.
    * I want subfaction/army style rules that make your army play *differently* instead of just making it more killy.
    * Reduce the number of objectives at play in a given mission. A primary and 3 secondaries per player is 7 objectives to keep in mind at once. That's too many for my poor brain to juggle, and too many to build much of a narrative around.
    * Kind of want a to-wound table closer to the old one. The current one is quirky in a bad way.
    * Generally, I'd like the game to encourage play with fewer units at a time. The current 2,000 point games are too big for my taste. Give me something closer to 1,000 or 1,500.
    * Kind of done with stratagems, to be honest. I'd be fine with them going away entirely and/or replacing them with something closer to Sigmar command abilities.
    * I miss the variety of cool wargear options we used to have. Bring back customizable characters.
    * Get rid of psychic tests, or at least deny the witch tests. Come up with an alternative mechanic for activating them that doesn't randomly fail, or just power down psychic abilities to be balanced going off every turn.
    * Probably ditch relics. Just give us back cool wargear (with a 0-1 limit as necessary).
    * Support for thematic/narrative-centric games. Crusade was great, but it could be improved.
    * Get rid of the force org chart/detachments (seems like they are?).
    * Some sort of cumulative penalty for taking difficult shots. Doesn't necessarily have to be a stacking modifier to the to-hit roll; could be reduced range if the target is too hard to hit, a penalty to the to-hit roll reflect the difficulty of placing a significant shot, a reduction in the number of shots you get, etc. Just something so that a devastator has a reason to hold still if he's shooting at something wearing camouflage.



    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 07:03:35


    Post by: Lord Damocles


    Upping points values to increase granularity, while simultaneously removing the majority of weapon costs is some major cognitive dissonance.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 09:02:19


    Post by: Dudeface


     Lord Damocles wrote:
    Upping points values to increase granularity, while simultaneously removing the majority of weapon costs is some major cognitive dissonance.


    Yes and no, we all saw the issues with the fact the 5-7 point models vary in ability wildly beyond the ability to point them really. Some gears costs could afford to be binned if the incentive to a special weapon guy is having the worst option for free, but I'm not sure it's necessary. I would however say that a 16pt guardsman would make the 1pt bolt pistol worth actually having a value.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 10:55:09


    Post by: BomBomHotdog


    Since they are seemingly moving closer to AoS style of game design I would not be surprised if they went with that for points and units as well. Buying units in "blocks" (boxes) as opposed to individual models. Wargear is free but you are limited to what how many you can bring in a unit. Reason I think this is because 1) GW already has imposed Wargear restrictions on units and 2) its an easy was to expand the new Combat Patrol (new player) game into a bigger normal game. The real question would be if they go all in with Reinforcements rule from AoS as well


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 11:07:44


    Post by: Tyel


    I guess you start off with the idea of "how big should a 40k army be" and determine points from there.

    I don't really mind free points for wargear. It might offer balance issues - but hopefully the game/missions will focus on other things than "well I have a melta gun and you have a grenade launcher so I'm gonna win". Arks of Omen has been remarkably balanced despite fears over free wargear. Aesthetically I like that you can bling out champions without feeling this is a waste. (And yes, clearly not all special weapons were a waste in every edition - but many upgrades have been.)

    GW has already begun pricing certain units on a squad basis rather than a model basis. And for that reason I'm not really sure granularity adds much. Granularity comes into place when you look at something like a Grot and go "this would be OP at 3 points, but sucks at 4" or something similar. But I'm not really clear that applies. Nothing stops GW going "10 Grots=35 points, 20=70" etc. "But I want to take 14" - well sucks to be you I guess.

    Would a world where a Marine was say 40 points, a Sister was 22, and a Guardsman 13 but we play at 4k points make a huge difference? What are really haggling over? You think Sisters should be half a point less? So if you had 50 in a list, you'd save 25 points? I don't think the game is tight enough for that to be the reason of over or under performance.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 11:52:50


    Post by: vict0988


     generalchaos34 wrote:
    With a new edition looming its time to get our finkin' caps on and get our hopes up before they are summarily dashed.

    One of my fervent hopes for the future is that they scale up the point values of games to add more granularity in list building. By this I mean I want to see us go from 2000pts for a big game to 3-4 thousand. This way we wont have an arms race for the bottom spot for guardsman and cultists and give more flexibility to troops in the mid tier like sisters and hearthkyn with their point values instead of being defined by a VERY narrow band before they are competing with space marines and losing.

    I'd also like to continue the trend of free upgrades outside of a chosen few like with the latest space marines. It makes sense and will generally make list building much easier (if only they would make special weapons more....specialized to be mission specific instead of a clear winner like plasma).

    What would you like to see happen to point values?

    Going from 2000 to 2300 by increasing pts by 15% only made things worse in 9th. Just go straight to 40000. 20x and nobody will be able to claim 1 point is too much for anything because it'll be so tiny it's basically irrelevant. Obviously most things will still cost 20 or more pts, but if something needs to cost what would currently be 0,25 pts then that'd be an option.

    Free upgrades are a terrible idea. If a Guardsman with a plasma gun should cost the same as a Guardsman with lasgun then why should he cost something different from a Space Marine or a Carnifex? It makes no sense, if plasma was free then why wouldn't you just equip companies with plasma instead of lasguns? It encourages nonsensical equipment choices like thunder hammers for Devastator units and punishes players that have models from old editions where thunder hammers weren't automatically the best choice. Special weapons should be as specialized as the fluff dictates, only in the absence of fluff should gameplay be taken into consideration.

    Free wargear is first and foremost an internal balance issue, only when one player goes all out while the other does the opposite does the gak smell. For tournament and pick-up games you shouldn't have to negotiate hostages, you should just be able to play and have fun, that means codexes that have internally balanced wargear options and codexes that are externally balanced against each other.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 11:55:23


    Post by: PenitentJake


    Tyel wrote:
    I guess you start off with the idea of "how big should a 40k army be" and determine points from there.



    Hard for a narrative player, because my current answer would be: "Anywhere from 500-3000 depending on what the story demands."

    It should be noted that while I describe myself as a Narrative Escalation Campaign Player, escalation isn't all in one direction; we frequently use small armies for "side quest" missions even after our rosters have grown. An army might grow from 500-1200 over the course of five or six games, but if you're stationing detachments to hold territory as you go, the retrieval mission for a Relic may only be worth sending 500 points or even less.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 11:57:07


    Post by: Kanluwen


    Points taking a flying leap off a skyscraper for one thing.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 12:04:55


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


     JohnnyHell wrote:
    You don’t need to double the game limit if they just used increments of 1 instead of 5 for things.
    And stop making wargear free...


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 12:07:58


    Post by: Asmodai


    - Easy multiples of at least 25 or 50 if 2000 points are still a baseline game - e.g. 5 Tactical Marines are 100 points, 10 are 200. Assault Squads might be 150 and 300. Cost per unit rather than per model.
    - No separate points for upgrades unless they reach the 25 point threshold.

    That would address most of the problems with points and make it easier to switch units in and out between games.

    Players shouldn't need an app or calculator to build an army.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 12:15:57


    Post by: vict0988


     Asmodai wrote:
    - Easy multiples of at least 25 or 50 if 2000 points are still a baseline game - e.g. 5 Tactical Marines are 100 points, 10 are 200. Assault Squads might be 150 and 300. Cost per unit rather than per model.
    - No separate points for upgrades unless they reach the 25 point threshold.

    That would address most of the problems with points and make it easier to switch units in and out between games.

    Players shouldn't need an app or calculator to build an army.

    Why does pts have to be ruined? You already have PL.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 12:54:21


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     Asmodai wrote:
    - Easy multiples of at least 25 or 50 if 2000 points are still a baseline game - e.g. 5 Tactical Marines are 100 points, 10 are 200. Assault Squads might be 150 and 300. Cost per unit rather than per model.
    - No separate points for upgrades unless they reach the 25 point threshold.

    That would address most of the problems with points and make it easier to switch units in and out between games.

    Players shouldn't need an app or calculator to build an army.


    oh so lets say a lascannon costs 24pts in a tactical squad, it should be free?

    Then you wouldn't mind me bringing 10 tactical squads and getting an extra free 240pts in my list?

    2000 vs 2240 seems fair


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 13:25:32


    Post by: Asmodai


     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Asmodai wrote:
    - Easy multiples of at least 25 or 50 if 2000 points are still a baseline game - e.g. 5 Tactical Marines are 100 points, 10 are 200. Assault Squads might be 150 and 300. Cost per unit rather than per model.
    - No separate points for upgrades unless they reach the 25 point threshold.

    That would address most of the problems with points and make it easier to switch units in and out between games.

    Players shouldn't need an app or calculator to build an army.


    oh so lets say a lascannon costs 24pts in a tactical squad, it should be free?

    Then you wouldn't mind me bringing 10 tactical squads and getting an extra free 240pts in my list?

    2000 vs 2240 seems fair


    It's not an extra 240 free points, the heavy weapons option is already built into the base cost of the unit, same as it is now for most Marine units.

    It's like arguing that Europeans don't pay sales tax because the VAT is included on the price on the shelf instead of only being added at the register on checkout.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 13:42:09


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     Asmodai wrote:


    It's not an extra 240 free points, the heavy weapons option is already built into the base cost of the unit, same as it is now for most Marine units.

    It's like arguing that Europeans don't pay sales tax because the VAT is included on the price on the shelf instead of only being added at the register on checkout.


    so then if i want to bring a squad of boltgun tacticals, i can't.

    or if i chose to bring a flamer instead of a lascannon.

    these guns cannot have the same value and cannot be abstracted out.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 13:50:53


    Post by: tneva82


     JohnnyHell wrote:
    You don’t need to double the game limit if they just used increments of 1 instead of 5 for things.

    They’ll likely bake in upgrades/sidegrades into a unit cost anyway.


    So if marines are say 11 how you get IG, tau, necron, ork, grot all fit into 5-10 well? Below 5 pts/model it starts to break game in itself and you would need to have super weird rules(can't hold objectives etc) as disadvantage to not be too bad.

    Give me 2pts/model and I don't particularly care if he has S1 T1 and no gun.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 13:53:49


    Post by: ccs


     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Asmodai wrote:


    It's not an extra 240 free points, the heavy weapons option is already built into the base cost of the unit, same as it is now for most Marine units.

    It's like arguing that Europeans don't pay sales tax because the VAT is included on the price on the shelf instead of only being added at the register on checkout.


    so then if i want to bring a squad of boltgun tacticals, i can't.

    or if i chose to bring a flamer instead of a lascannon.

    these guns cannot have the same value and cannot be abstracted out.


    You can bring those options if that's what youd prefer instead of a lascannon.

    And yes, a boltgun, flamer, & lascannon can (and already do) cost the same pts. And they've always costed the same PL since the dawn of 9e.
    Works fine.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 14:07:25


    Post by: oni


    I like the idea of going back to full unit points and the wargear still be extra. Bake in the cost of the units standard equipment, but still have to pay for heavy weapons, special weapons, upgrades, etc.

    Ditch this points per model nonsense that allows for weird unit sizes. For example a SM Tactical quad should only ever be 5 or 10 models. Pay X points for 5, pay another X points for 5 more.

    Basically how 5th edition did it.



    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 15:02:08


    Post by: generalchaos34


    tneva82 wrote:
     JohnnyHell wrote:
    You don’t need to double the game limit if they just used increments of 1 instead of 5 for things.

    They’ll likely bake in upgrades/sidegrades into a unit cost anyway.


    So if marines are say 11 how you get IG, tau, necron, ork, grot all fit into 5-10 well? Below 5 pts/model it starts to break game in itself and you would need to have super weird rules(can't hold objectives etc) as disadvantage to not be too bad.

    Give me 2pts/model and I don't particularly care if he has S1 T1 and no gun.


    Thats where my thoughts lie on it too. Doubling the points on everything would allow a bit more sliding up and down to make your Scions and Necrons and other in between units feel more appropriately costed. Right now they both cost the same but offer a vastly different experience for what you get. maybe it would be better if a Necron Warrior was 20 points and a scion would be 22 just to make costs feel more real for what the unit does.

    As for free wargear. I like it from a list building stand point. Especially when I can be like "man, I wish I had more anti tank in that last game, lets swap those in". BUT I think this only means something when each special weapon has some sort of specialist task. From a guardsman perspective you have your plasma/melta/sniper/flamer/grenade launcher. Right now plasma and melta are pretty much your only decent choice outside of some niche things. What I would like to see would be plasma works best against heavy infantry but not much else, melta is the tank hunting option, sniper adds some real character killing versatility, flamers will greatly boost either anti horde or negate cover in a meaningful way, and grenade launchers will get a mechanic that pins, forces leadership, or ignores LoS. That way your weapon choice reflects what you want to do with the unit, not just "take plasma and call it a day" because its good at everything. Otherwise if they are going to keep the weapons as is we need to have point costs per weapon so you can decided for the good option and pay for it or take the cheap/free option in your grenade or flamer option.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 15:43:39


    Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


    I would like 10th to institute a rule that if you pay money on the app, you get to increase your army size. So instead of 2k, you get 2250.

    I just want GW to dive headfirst into pay to win.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 16:16:30


    Post by: catbarf


    tneva82 wrote:
     JohnnyHell wrote:
    You don’t need to double the game limit if they just used increments of 1 instead of 5 for things.

    They’ll likely bake in upgrades/sidegrades into a unit cost anyway.


    So if marines are say 11 how you get IG, tau, necron, ork, grot all fit into 5-10 well? Below 5 pts/model it starts to break game in itself and you would need to have super weird rules(can't hold objectives etc) as disadvantage to not be too bad.

    Give me 2pts/model and I don't particularly care if he has S1 T1 and no gun.


    Start with Marines at 15pts and Grots at 5pts and you have plenty of room for scaling cost.

    Besides, I really, really doubt that having Fire Warriors and Shoota Boyz both at 8pts would make them feel identical, or that bumping one or the other to effectively 8.5pts would be the solution.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 16:27:31


    Post by: Vankraken


    Kinda sorta related to point values but I would want them to bring back template weapons and more importantly proper cover saves. Both of these can really disrupt how units play out on the table top because they change the performance of weapons and units from tactical factors. It becomes less about doing the mathhammer to calculate cost effectiveness and more about how players adapt to the battle in progress.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 16:31:24


    Post by: Dudeface


     Vankraken wrote:
    Kinda sorta related to point values but I would want them to bring back template weapons and more importantly proper cover saves. Both of these can really disrupt how units play out on the table top because they change the performance of weapons and units from tactical factors. It becomes less about doing the mathhammer to calculate cost effectiveness and more about how players adapt to the battle in progress.


    We recently hashed out the template thing and there's a proposed rules thread for it, tl;dr some people love the immersive side and enjoy people being punished for poor model placement, other people hate the game being about forcing precise model placement (max coherency at all times) and movement taking forever as a result. Cover does need work though.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 17:17:52


    Post by: vict0988


     generalchaos34 wrote:
    As for free wargear. I like it from a list building stand point. Especially when I can be like "man, I wish I had more anti tank in that last game, lets swap those in". BUT I think this only means something when each special weapon has some sort of specialist task. From a guardsman perspective you have your plasma/melta/sniper/flamer/grenade launcher. Right now plasma and melta are pretty much your only decent choice outside of some niche things. What I would like to see would be plasma works best against heavy infantry but not much else, melta is the tank hunting option, sniper adds some real character killing versatility, flamers will greatly boost either anti horde or negate cover in a meaningful way, and grenade launchers will get a mechanic that pins, forces leadership, or ignores LoS. That way your weapon choice reflects what you want to do with the unit, not just "take plasma and call it a day" because its good at everything. Otherwise if they are going to keep the weapons as is we need to have point costs per weapon so you can decided for the good option and pay for it or take the cheap/free option in your grenade or flamer option.

    All of this is ignoring the multitudes of people that don't have all that wargear ready because "oops all boltguns" is ok fluff-wise and the most competitive option in some editions and was only super silly in 7th, but then you ran naked Sergeants. It's a slap in the face of old fans of the game. Plasma guns don't grow on trees, you shouldn't just "take plasma and call it a day", if you don't need a special weapon you should "take boltgun and call it a day".


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 19:15:42


    Post by: alextroy


    I know it is a bit of dream, but GW can make the special/heavy weapons of near equal value if they take advantage of the way of writing weapons to make that happen.

    Do you want an AM Infantry Squad to equally value Flamers, Grenade Launchers, Meltaguns, and Plasma Guns? This is the big chance by adjusting the attacks, accuracy, and special rule of the four weapons to make them all advantageous in different, common-enough circumstances.

    Do that successfully and you can just fold the cost of the special weapon(s) into the base cost of the squad. You can do similar things with the sergeant weapon choices. Bolt Pistols hit harder while you get more shots with a LasPistol and can shoot it on the run (presumedly assault). Plasma Pistols may cost more or they may always have a chance to kill you and be less accurate.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 21:32:27


    Post by: generalchaos34


     alextroy wrote:
    I know it is a bit of dream, but GW can make the special/heavy weapons of near equal value if they take advantage of the way of writing weapons to make that happen.

    Do you want an AM Infantry Squad to equally value Flamers, Grenade Launchers, Meltaguns, and Plasma Guns? This is the big chance by adjusting the attacks, accuracy, and special rule of the four weapons to make them all advantageous in different, common-enough circumstances.

    Do that successfully and you can just fold the cost of the special weapon(s) into the base cost of the squad. You can do similar things with the sergeant weapon choices. Bolt Pistols hit harder while you get more shots with a LasPistol and can shoot it on the run (presumedly assault). Plasma Pistols may cost more or they may always have a chance to kill you and be less accurate.


    Thats my thoughts. The choices need to be sidegrades of some kind in order for it to work. I think the varying BS will go a long way to help. Plus you can attach special rules to modify it. Maybe plasma has a 5+ to hit because its so volatile on guard. It should all be according to what the unit is supposed to be doing. An anti tank squad should be really good at anti tank and thats it. Anti infantry squads should be blending infantry and not doing well against high armor values. Theres a LOT of potential here and it will add depth to the game. Maybe ill like the versatility and unique abilities of a grenade launcher for my squad because I need a take all comers or maybe it can cause a pinning/ld check, or maybe I need dedicated anti infantry support and take a flamer.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 21:51:59


    Post by: warhead01


    I'd be happy with something resembling what I remember of when AoS first adopted points or using power levels. Throw out the granular army building and open up a rules legal means for a sideboard in the form of unit weapons swaps and wargear. I feel this would turn more armies into tac lists. Blocks on 100 "points' and so on for unit costs or keep it single and double digits, what ever.
    I no longer see the point to points as we knew them.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 22:04:30


    Post by: Wayniac


    The only thing I'm hoping for is a return to 1500 as the standard not 2000.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/24 23:35:45


    Post by: dominuschao


    We play 1.5k currently. I notice my lists are about the same size as 2k from 7th.


    Anyway my quick wishlist for 10th:

    Reduce heavy weapon spam.
    Reduce invulns and availability.
    Limit invulns to 4++.
    Nerf storm shields similarly and limit access.
    Reduce mortal wound access.
    Cap cover saves for heavily armoured model (no 1+ save equivalents).
    Make anti infantry weapons more meaningful (which some of the above might do).
    Basically dial back the polar ends of lethality and durability.
    And don't fuk it up again.
    Thats my list.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/25 05:19:30


    Post by: vict0988


    dominuschao wrote:
    Limit invulns to 4++.

    GW have largely already done this, I'd actually like GW to revert some of the changes, like to storm shields and Canoptek Wraiths, why don't you like 3++?


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/25 06:37:25


    Post by: Lord Damocles


     oni wrote:

    Ditch this points per model nonsense that allows for weird unit sizes. For example a SM Tactical quad should only ever be 5 or 10 models. Pay X points for 5, pay another X points for 5 more.


    Because Marine units never take casualties in groups of less than five. And never break squads to crew Landspeeders etc...

    Also every other race organises their units along the same lines as Marines. 'Well no, Timmy, you can't take twelve Ork Boyz. Because that's not divisible by five!'


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/25 07:16:10


    Post by: Apple fox


     warhead01 wrote:
    I'd be happy with something resembling what I remember of when AoS first adopted points or using power levels. Throw out the granular army building and open up a rules legal means for a sideboard in the form of unit weapons swaps and wargear. I feel this would turn more armies into tac lists. Blocks on 100 "points' and so on for unit costs or keep it single and double digits, what ever.
    I no longer see the point to points as we knew them.


    I would like to see this as well, and have suggested it in other places.
    It really is where GW seems to want to go, and even half says it with how you just put down what you think is best for the game.
    It’s actually weird how often they seem to get close and not get it!
    May actually force them to work out what flamers and such are often dead upgrades outside of specific things.
    But I do think special and heavy should be a upgrade, you pay to have a side board of options.
    Since I actually like my all bolter marine units, they are neat!
    And it’s supposed to be a competent weapon choice for a unit, we should try and keep that.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/25 07:59:36


    Post by: Lord Damocles


     warhead01 wrote:
    I'd be happy with something resembling what I remember of when AoS first adopted points or using power levels. Throw out the granular army building and open up a rules legal means for a sideboard in the form of unit weapons swaps and wargear. I feel this would turn more armies into tac lists.

    Weapons tailoring is the very antonym of a take all comers list.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/25 08:19:44


    Post by: Apple fox


     Lord Damocles wrote:
     warhead01 wrote:
    I'd be happy with something resembling what I remember of when AoS first adopted points or using power levels. Throw out the granular army building and open up a rules legal means for a sideboard in the form of unit weapons swaps and wargear. I feel this would turn more armies into tac lists.

    Weapons tailoring is the very antonym of a take all comers list.


    When limited and designed with mission and factions in mind it opens the game up a lot, and allows a lot design wise.
    Neche weapons like grav can be more specific and interesting for player to choose based on table set up and possible opportunities the opponent may choose.
    It can also be limited in a number of ways, so can be used well and other games have shown it isn’t really a issue.
    It also pushes the game away from more skew lists as players can respond into a hard skew list with a counter better.
    The only question is if GW can meet the bare minimum of design issues they tend to have.

    Also it would naturally allow players to utilise growing collections without GW having to push for more sales.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/25 10:16:38


    Post by: vict0988


    Apple fox wrote:
     Lord Damocles wrote:
     warhead01 wrote:
    I'd be happy with something resembling what I remember of when AoS first adopted points or using power levels. Throw out the granular army building and open up a rules legal means for a sideboard in the form of unit weapons swaps and wargear. I feel this would turn more armies into tac lists.

    Weapons tailoring is the very antonym of a take all comers list.


    When limited and designed with mission and factions in mind it opens the game up a lot, and allows a lot design wise.
    Neche weapons like grav can be more specific and interesting for player to choose based on table set up and possible opportunities the opponent may choose.
    It can also be limited in a number of ways, so can be used well and other games have shown it isn’t really a issue.
    It also pushes the game away from more skew lists as players can respond into a hard skew list with a counter better.
    The only question is if GW can meet the bare minimum of design issues they tend to have.

    Also it would naturally allow players to utilise growing collections without GW having to push for more sales.

    What you mean to say is that players without every option magnetised from previous editions would have their collections instantly become much worse because they wouldn't get any benefit. Feth that.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/25 10:50:00


    Post by: Apple fox


     vict0988 wrote:
    Apple fox wrote:
     Lord Damocles wrote:
     warhead01 wrote:
    I'd be happy with something resembling what I remember of when AoS first adopted points or using power levels. Throw out the granular army building and open up a rules legal means for a sideboard in the form of unit weapons swaps and wargear. I feel this would turn more armies into tac lists.

    Weapons tailoring is the very antonym of a take all comers list.


    When limited and designed with mission and factions in mind it opens the game up a lot, and allows a lot design wise.
    Neche weapons like grav can be more specific and interesting for player to choose based on table set up and possible opportunities the opponent may choose.
    It can also be limited in a number of ways, so can be used well and other games have shown it isn’t really a issue.
    It also pushes the game away from more skew lists as players can respond into a hard skew list with a counter better.
    The only question is if GW can meet the bare minimum of design issues they tend to have.

    Also it would naturally allow players to utilise growing collections without GW having to push for more sales.

    What you mean to say is that players without every option magnetised from previous editions would have their collections instantly become much worse because they wouldn't get any benefit. Feth that.


    So normal, and we still have issues with GW invalidated collections outside of casual play all the time!

    But, we don’t have to abide strict model to rules. Special weapon can just be special weapon, heavy can represent as well.
    Other games manage this just fine, tournament and strict play can be a exception.
    We do have to concede a little that this hobby does have a bit of a progressive costs, and expanding a collection a little shouldn’t be outside of the hobby.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/25 11:27:06


    Post by: warhead01


     vict0988 wrote:
    Apple fox wrote:
     Lord Damocles wrote:
     warhead01 wrote:
    I'd be happy with something resembling what I remember of when AoS first adopted points or using power levels. Throw out the granular army building and open up a rules legal means for a sideboard in the form of unit weapons swaps and wargear. I feel this would turn more armies into tac lists.

    Weapons tailoring is the very antonym of a take all comers list.


    When limited and designed with mission and factions in mind it opens the game up a lot, and allows a lot design wise.
    Neche weapons like grav can be more specific and interesting for player to choose based on table set up and possible opportunities the opponent may choose.
    It can also be limited in a number of ways, so can be used well and other games have shown it isn’t really a issue.
    It also pushes the game away from more skew lists as players can respond into a hard skew list with a counter better.
    The only question is if GW can meet the bare minimum of design issues they tend to have.

    Also it would naturally allow players to utilise growing collections without GW having to push for more sales.

    What you mean to say is that players without every option magnetised from previous editions would have their collections instantly become much worse because they wouldn't get any benefit. Feth that.


    No, I think that's an overreaction. A sideboard like that as either counts as or physical models should give new players a slightly better game experience against stronger players or tougher armies. But I am assuming that having a fighting chance will give a new player the warm and fuzzies and less anxiety about building their models "the wrong way".
    So I feel like this is a small leg up at best for new players but less meaning full as it gets into competitive play circles. Top level players who win on skill alone would probably still win over a poorly played tailored list. But you're of course free to disagree.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/25 17:19:13


    Post by: JNAProductions


    The issue with that occurs once you look outside the Marines Dex.

    If I take Plaguebearers, that's it. No options to change their offensive profile.
    If I take Fire Dragons, that's pretty much it. The Sergeant can swap a Melta for a Flamer, but the rest of the squad is Melta.

    Admittedly, not ALL Codecs are that dissimilar. Crisis Suits, for instance, can swap weapons well. But a lot of units cannot.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/25 17:31:53


    Post by: Apple fox


     JNAProductions wrote:
    The issue with that occurs once you look outside the Marines Dex.

    If I take Plaguebearers, that's it. No options to change their offensive profile.
    If I take Fire Dragons, that's pretty much it. The Sergeant can swap a Melta for a Flamer, but the rest of the squad is Melta.

    Admittedly, not ALL Codecs are that dissimilar. Crisis Suits, for instance, can swap weapons well. But a lot of units cannot.


    You can also do different side boarding rules if needed.
    Demons are already a weird case, but they could expand heralds design space on the battlefield.
    And the demons troops need upgrades anyway, give em some cool stuff!


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/25 19:08:24


    Post by: Karol


     warhead01 wrote:


    No, I think that's an overreaction. A sideboard like that as either counts as or physical models should give new players a slightly better game experience against stronger players or tougher armies. But I am assuming that having a fighting chance will give a new player the warm and fuzzies and less anxiety about building their models "the wrong way".
    So I feel like this is a small leg up at best for new players but less meaning full as it gets into competitive play circles. Top level players who win on skill alone would probably still win over a poorly played tailored list. But you're of course free to disagree.


    It is not much a leg up unless GW decides to give you side board options you want to take. If GW designs the codex to be played in one specific way, but you like other models, then you get double tapped. Once by GW for not playing the army the right way and the other, with not really having a sideboard options, when your opponent may very much have. This way even without an optimised build he will be able to tailor against you, while you can't do a thing about it. And for armies without actual unit options or unit options worth taking this becomes a downgrade straight out.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/25 23:43:30


    Post by: warhead01


    Karol wrote:
     warhead01 wrote:


    No, I think that's an overreaction. A sideboard like that as either counts as or physical models should give new players a slightly better game experience against stronger players or tougher armies. But I am assuming that having a fighting chance will give a new player the warm and fuzzies and less anxiety about building their models "the wrong way".
    So I feel like this is a small leg up at best for new players but less meaning full as it gets into competitive play circles. Top level players who win on skill alone would probably still win over a poorly played tailored list. But you're of course free to disagree.


    It is not much a leg up unless GW decides to give you side board options you want to take. If GW designs the codex to be played in one specific way, but you like other models, then you get double tapped. Once by GW for not playing the army the right way and the other, with not really having a sideboard options, when your opponent may very much have. This way even without an optimised build he will be able to tailor against you, while you can't do a thing about it. And for armies without actual unit options or unit options worth taking this becomes a downgrade straight out.


    It's not much of a leg up is right. It's more about having the choice as much as deciding to use it. And there will be layers to that based on the player, their collection size and their faction.
    But the goal is less about winning and more about having a better time and or a better showing. A player who just shows up and gets their face wrecked every time is not likely to keep playing. I guess in a way this would create an illusion of a fighting chance but who can really say. And it will vary from player to player how they use such an option. Sideboards could be governed and not a free for all if need be but that might be largely irrelevant based on how it's presented. As you say the game tells you what you should be doing and in some editions it basically tells you which units to field.
    On your other point about unit options and which factions have them to choose or choose from, well that's a fair point and several people have said the same. That said I also think it's more of an opportunity for GW to make more models with more options for those factions. More daemons with new and more exotic daemon weapon stuffs and unit champions ect.
    I realize GW is fairly lazy now days so I would keep my expectation low but they could surprise us with something very cool. Never know.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/25 23:46:02


    Post by: vipoid


     Wyldhunt wrote:
    Upping points values to increase granularity is fine in theory, but it sort of assumes that GW is good enough at assigning points values for the extra granularity to matter. I'm pretty bad at painting harlequin diamonds. Regardless of whether you give me a Walmart brush or a teeny tiny high-end detail brush, my harlequins' "diamond" pattern isn't going to look very geometric in nature.

    A few wishlist items from me:
    * Get rid of some of the "layers" of rules. Juggling purity bonuses, subfaction bonuses, stratagems, unit rules, and psychic powers all at once is a bit draining.
    * Fewer "kill better" rules; more rules to allow and reward maneuvering.
    * I want subfaction/army style rules that make your army play *differently* instead of just making it more killy.
    * Reduce the number of objectives at play in a given mission. A primary and 3 secondaries per player is 7 objectives to keep in mind at once. That's too many for my poor brain to juggle, and too many to build much of a narrative around.
    * Kind of want a to-wound table closer to the old one. The current one is quirky in a bad way.
    * Generally, I'd like the game to encourage play with fewer units at a time. The current 2,000 point games are too big for my taste. Give me something closer to 1,000 or 1,500.
    * Kind of done with stratagems, to be honest. I'd be fine with them going away entirely and/or replacing them with something closer to Sigmar command abilities.
    * I miss the variety of cool wargear options we used to have. Bring back customizable characters.
    * Get rid of psychic tests, or at least deny the witch tests. Come up with an alternative mechanic for activating them that doesn't randomly fail, or just power down psychic abilities to be balanced going off every turn.
    * Probably ditch relics. Just give us back cool wargear (with a 0-1 limit as necessary).
    * Support for thematic/narrative-centric games. Crusade was great, but it could be improved.
    * Get rid of the force org chart/detachments (seems like they are?).
    * Some sort of cumulative penalty for taking difficult shots. Doesn't necessarily have to be a stacking modifier to the to-hit roll; could be reduced range if the target is too hard to hit, a penalty to the to-hit roll reflect the difficulty of placing a significant shot, a reduction in the number of shots you get, etc. Just something so that a devastator has a reason to hold still if he's shooting at something wearing camouflage.


    ^Pretty much what he said.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 02:59:51


    Post by: dominuschao


     vict0988 wrote:
    dominuschao wrote:
    Limit invulns to 4++.

    GW have largely already done this, I'd actually like GW to revert some of the changes, like to storm shields and Canoptek Wraiths, why don't you like 3++?

    I believe that type of save is bad for balance and promotes mortal wounds which are also bad in a similar way. 3++ limited to hammernators though ya maybe.
    And then there is the fact that CSM won't ever get them.

    Honestly after playing with pretty much every chapter for so many years I finally moved on for good. My opinion is marines are bad for the game. Vital in some sense maybe but still bad. Our best metas have been without any loyalists.

    And no offense to anyone just my experiences..


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 03:14:08


    Post by: PenitentJake


    I can get behind most of Wyldhunt's list, but there are a few points worth discussing.

     Wyldhunt wrote:

    * Reduce the number of objectives at play in a given mission. A primary and 3 secondaries per player is 7 objectives to keep in mind at once. That's too many for my poor brain to juggle, and too many to build much of a narrative around.


    As a Crusader, I've never bothered looking at Secondaries, though I'm sure Agendas are somewhat similar. In Crusade, they're decoupled from victory conditions, so choosing to pursue them rather than the victory conditions is VERY narrative. And some of the Agendas are quite fluffy. Some of the BRB secondaries that I looked at early in the game where fluffy too. I think the problem with linking them to victory is that you pick the ones that are easy to achieve in order to win, so even if there are cool ones, you never pick them.

    Also, remember secondaries are based on game size, so if you drop below 2k, it becomes two secondaries.... But again, you have to play in an environment where this is possible.

     Wyldhunt wrote:

    The current 2,000 point games are too big for my taste. Give me something closer to 1,000 or 1,500.


    Why is this a wishlist item? Even Matched Play missions are designed to work at 1k - 2k, and Boarding Patrol is 500?

    If your store insists on only running 2k, or your friends only play 2k, GW can give it to you in the next edition, but if you didn't play it this edition, you probably won't play it next edition either.

     Wyldhunt wrote:

    * Get rid of psychic tests, or at least deny the witch tests. Come up with an alternative mechanic for activating them that doesn't randomly fail, or just power down psychic abilities to be balanced going off every turn.


    GW is messing with psychic powers in the new ed in a big way, and it's got me nervous. In some ways it's likely to be more boring- much of what has been said about it leads me to believe psychic abilities are on the datacard, which would mean they're assigned to the unit rather than chosen by the player. At the same time, some elements of the new system sound more dynamic- there is no psychic phase, so different abilities are used in different phases.

    To address your suggestions though:

    Psychic tests carry with them the potential for Perils. Now I know, usually Perils is just mortal wounds, but I think there are other abilities that key off Perils or modify it. We use it in narrative ways- against GK if the Nemesis Daemon unit was excluded from the game, we let the player reroll every time there's a perils roll to see if it gates in. We've also had players add Daemon units to their Crusades post battle after Perils Attacks to represent the Manifested Daemon remaining behind.

    As for Deny the Witch, it's a big part of the game for Sisters, Inquisition scenarios, SoS.

    And keep in mind that for some factions, Ksons, GK, some Eldar builds.... Psychic abilities ARE their fluff.... Their ability to play their army the way they want.

     Wyldhunt wrote:

    * Probably ditch relics. Just give us back cool wargear (with a 0-1 limit as necessary).


    Relics too are great narrative hooks. They don't cost points, so we sometimes key relics to take-and-hold mission primary objectives: control it in the last turn, and the relic is won. In Crusade, relics are even cooler because they are keyed to experience levels. Finding a Legendary relic with a fresh Crusade is a sick narrative hook- in Chaos armies, champions compete to be worthy of it, leading to a nice twist for the Leadership Challenge Mechanics. In other armies, you'd struggle to maintain possession of the item without the ability to wield it- especially good for map based campaigns.

    Many relics also have histories too, which provides insight for designing historical battles.

     Wyldhunt wrote:

    * Get rid of the force org chart/detachments (seems like they are?).


    Detachments too are excellent narrative tools. An army's detachment structure is like a unit's battlefield role (something else that may be going). These things are meant to provide an identity, and the various detachments are designed for specific purposes. In a raid our pursuit scenario, I'm taking Outriders every time. If I'm laying siege to something, it's going to be a Spearhead.

    I've seen people praise earlier editions because Planet Strike gave attackers an extra elite choice and defenders an extra heavy choice or whatever... When we've got detachments sitting right there and people don't use them to their full potential.

    Other thing narrative hooks include matching the commander to the detachment- not an option for every faction, but the Chaplain on the Bike is getting Outriders every time, while a spearhead might take Gravis armour. In my sisters army, Celestine hasn't shown up yet- I tend to not use named characters except in very special circumstances- but there will be a time when she drops with an entire detachment composed entirely of Seraphim and Zephyrim.

    Also, in large armies, detachments offer even more. My supreme command unit is always in a Patrol or Battalion or Brigade, whereas other detachment types are lead by more niche HQ's, and some are simply formed from the larger roster for specific missions- which is a story in itself. And finally, in allied forces, detachments are great tools.

    I don't play AoS, but I've seen people talk about how picking characters determines your subfaction, Lots of people like this, but it sounds like that as a core mechanic limits the capacity for allied forces. Matched players may be used to sub-faction purity, but Crusaders continue to be free to mix subfactions. In our campaign's star system, each of the Schola Progenium Facilities have been defended and maintained by a Mission of the Order of the Sacred Rose for millennia. But on the system's Shrine world, there is a Chapel dedicated to Saint Katherine, and it is defended by an OoOML Commandery. Combining those two armies with each Order in its own detachment works in a way that picking the faction based on the warlord doesn't seem to work.

     Wyldhunt wrote:

    * Support for thematic/narrative-centric games. Crusade was great, but it could be improved.


    While I am a frequent and outspoken defender and promoter of Crusade, I agree that there's plenty of room for improvement... But it does seem like you're advocating for the removal of a whole lot of core rules that interact with Crusade in very narrative ways. I think maybe GW could have provided better frameworks for people to understand how some of these moving parts support Crusade and are augmented by it... But for me it kinda jumped off the page.



    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 04:31:41


    Post by: Heafstaag


     alextroy wrote:
    I hope:
  • They start assigning points to units rather than models
  • They use the new datasheets to even out special weapons choices and thereby reduce the amount of point costing upgrades


  • Gross, dude!

    That is like the complete opposite of what should happen!


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 09:03:12


    Post by: nordsturmking


    1. The strats, buffs, and rules layering combos that can for example triple the dmg output of units need to be gone. I would like to be able to look at data sheet and be able to tell from the information on the data sheet on how much dmg a unit can take and how much it can do.
    At the start of 8th when GW got rid of the armor values on vehicles and made a LR have T 8 and 16 wound with a 2+ save it was almost impossible to kill it with a normal weapon on a troops unit like a bolt gun on rubric marine. Now in 9th two units of 10 rubric marines can be buffed so much that they can kill it in one round of shooting.

    2. I want a reset of the statsline, to where we have a statsline like we used to have at the start of 8th like this




    3. The deadliness of the game needs to be toned down, now often one player gets tabled and the other one has a 1/8 to 1/4 is army left. Games regularly ending with people getting tabled should not be a thing IMO.

    4. MW should be a rare thing.

    This is all I can think of at the moment but there is probably more.



    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 09:11:38


    Post by: vipoid


    PenitentJake wrote:

     Wyldhunt wrote:

    * Get rid of psychic tests, or at least deny the witch tests. Come up with an alternative mechanic for activating them that doesn't randomly fail, or just power down psychic abilities to be balanced going off every turn.


    GW is messing with psychic powers in the new ed in a big way, and it's got me nervous. In some ways it's likely to be more boring- much of what has been said about it leads me to believe psychic abilities are on the datacard, which would mean they're assigned to the unit rather than chosen by the player. At the same time, some elements of the new system sound more dynamic- there is no psychic phase, so different abilities are used in different phases.

    To address your suggestions though:

    Psychic tests carry with them the potential for Perils. Now I know, usually Perils is just mortal wounds, but I think there are other abilities that key off Perils or modify it. We use it in narrative ways- against GK if the Nemesis Daemon unit was excluded from the game, we let the player reroll every time there's a perils roll to see if it gates in. We've also had players add Daemon units to their Crusades post battle after Perils Attacks to represent the Manifested Daemon remaining behind.

    As for Deny the Witch, it's a big part of the game for Sisters, Inquisition scenarios, SoS.

    And keep in mind that for some factions, Ksons, GK, some Eldar builds.... Psychic abilities ARE their fluff.... Their ability to play their army the way they want.


    Without wishing to speak for Wyldhunt, I suspect his point is that the current psychic phase is just throwing dice for the sake of it. Generally, there's no way to modify the dice roll (you can't throw more dice at a particular power, like you could in 7th), nor to change the casting value. Likewise, there's generally no way to modify Deny the Witch.

    Put simply, it's a phase that gives the illusion of control and involvement, but since it's all an illusion. To all intents and purposes, you might as well pause the game and play Yahtzee for 10 minutes. It amounts to the same thing.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 09:49:36


    Post by: Tyel


     vipoid wrote:
    Without wishing to speak for Wyldhunt, I suspect his point is that the current psychic phase is just throwing dice for the sake of it. Generally, there's no way to modify the dice roll (you can't throw more dice at a particular power, like you could in 7th), nor to change the casting value. Likewise, there's generally no way to modify Deny the Witch.

    Put simply, it's a phase that gives the illusion of control and involvement, but since it's all an illusion. To all intents and purposes, you might as well pause the game and play Yahtzee for 10 minutes. It amounts to the same thing.


    Hmmm. There are ways to modify the phase though - lots of relics, WLTs, stratagems etc.
    To a degree I think getting rid of the dice wouldn't exactly hurt. It could be rebalanced/redesigned so you just go "I'm doing this" - "okay". But GW seem to dislike that. In a game where almost every action beyond basic movement comes down to dice, why shouldn't Psychic Powers? If I have to roll to shoot a gun, shouldn't I have to roll to fire mind bullets etc?

    There's a lot of stuff in the list that I just don't feel helps much.

    I guess at its core I don't think there can be that much manoeuvring in an IGOUGO game where you have 5 turns. (Obviously you could argue there's more to it due to charges, pile ins, consolidations etc).

    It just feels like "I want a game all about movement" - okay. But in practice that means "I move down a flank". "They counter-move my move down a flank". "I counter-counter their move down the flank". "Oh wait, its turn 5, the game is almost over and we've just been running around rather than fighting". In practice what seems to happen is just "positioning for advantage" - which is a thing to learn rather than something you really execute.

    It would be interesting for example if shooting was generally nerfed hard - but then to compensate everyone got the GSC Crossfire rules. I.E. +1 to hit if they have a Crossfire token, +1 to wound and no cover bonuses if Exposed. Theoretically this would mean positioning was more important.

    But in practice you still have the above view that this is just about positioning rather than movement. It just brings to mind the whole 7th edition "I'm a tactical genius because I deepstrike in melta and shoot the rear of your tank - or more likely the side because the tank's rear is against a terrain piece". You haven't carefully lured me into an ambush over 2 turns so you can have a flanking shot - you've just gone "yeah, my model is here now, give bonuses." Just as say using fast units to set up Crossfire/Exposed in your movement phase, so you immediately benefit from it in your shooting phase, doesn't seem overly skillful. But it might be more fun, I guess it would require testing etc.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 10:31:14


    Post by: Apple fox


    Tyel wrote:
     vipoid wrote:
    Without wishing to speak for Wyldhunt, I suspect his point is that the current psychic phase is just throwing dice for the sake of it. Generally, there's no way to modify the dice roll (you can't throw more dice at a particular power, like you could in 7th), nor to change the casting value. Likewise, there's generally no way to modify Deny the Witch.

    Put simply, it's a phase that gives the illusion of control and involvement, but since it's all an illusion. To all intents and purposes, you might as well pause the game and play Yahtzee for 10 minutes. It amounts to the same thing.


    Hmmm. There are ways to modify the phase though - lots of relics, WLTs, stratagems etc.
    To a degree I think getting rid of the dice wouldn't exactly hurt. It could be rebalanced/redesigned so you just go "I'm doing this" - "okay". But GW seem to dislike that. In a game where almost every action beyond basic movement comes down to dice, why shouldn't Psychic Powers? If I have to roll to shoot a gun, shouldn't I have to roll to fire mind bullets etc?

    There's a lot of stuff in the list that I just don't feel helps much.

    I guess at its core I don't think there can be that much manoeuvring in an IGOUGO game where you have 5 turns. (Obviously you could argue there's more to it due to charges, pile ins, consolidations etc).

    It just feels like "I want a game all about movement" - okay. But in practice that means "I move down a flank". "They counter-move my move down a flank". "I counter-counter their move down the flank". "Oh wait, its turn 5, the game is almost over and we've just been running around rather than fighting". In practice what seems to happen is just "positioning for advantage" - which is a thing to learn rather than something you really execute.

    It would be interesting for example if shooting was generally nerfed hard - but then to compensate everyone got the GSC Crossfire rules. I.E. +1 to hit if they have a Crossfire token, +1 to wound and no cover bonuses if Exposed. Theoretically this would mean positioning was more important.

    But in practice you still have the above view that this is just about positioning rather than movement. It just brings to mind the whole 7th edition "I'm a tactical genius because I deepstrike in melta and shoot the rear of your tank - or more likely the side because the tank's rear is against a terrain piece". You haven't carefully lured me into an ambush over 2 turns so you can have a flanking shot - you've just gone "yeah, my model is here now, give bonuses." Just as say using fast units to set up Crossfire/Exposed in your movement phase, so you immediately benefit from it in your shooting phase, doesn't seem overly skillful. But it might be more fun, I guess it would require testing etc.


    I mean a lot of this comes off as “in a better game, this is what we could have!” A bit mean, but reading though it’s a bit like that.
    But I think one issue with psychic in 40k is often the risk vs reward is all over the place. You often have safe choices that you do, or need a huge reward for a huge risk.

    Something like warmachine used a more tier system, buffing your stuff was often easy(with some expectations) targeting enemy needed a roll often, then defences to magic was a active thing that needed player choice to both use and position for best defence, and then dispelling could be simple removing or even harming the caster.
    You also rarely had a caster who could use every choice they had a turn without putting more risk in, or very specific circumstances.
    With a lot of spells on top being utility or specific.
    Someone like Morvahna was actively encouraged to hurt herself, and her units to get a edge from her powerful magic.
    In a game where her death means you lose, the player agency goes a long way to make even a fairly simple system interesting to utilise.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 12:04:50


    Post by: vipoid


    Tyel wrote:
    Hmmm. There are ways to modify the phase though - lots of relics, WLTs, stratagems etc.


    To my mind, this is exactly the problem. And one of the reasons 8th/9th turned into such a bloated mess.

    The core rules are paper-thin. The phase itself is just throwing dice for the sake of throwing dice, with as much strategy and depth as a game of Ludo.

    Thus, you have to add bloat in the form of stratagems, relics, WLTs, army rules etc. if you want to add any sort of interactivity to the psychic phase (and even this is extremely generous, given that many of these are just flat buffs, which don't address the fundamental flaws).

    The point I'm making is that the core mechanics of the phase need to have tactics/options built into them.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 12:08:20


    Post by: SemperMortis


     alextroy wrote:
    I hope:
  • They start assigning points to units rather than models
  • They use the new datasheets to even out special weapons choices and thereby reduce the amount of point costing upgrades

  • No, and this is why,

     JNAProductions wrote:
    The issue with that occurs once you look outside the Marines Dex.

    If I take Plaguebearers, that's it. No options to change their offensive profile.
    If I take Fire Dragons, that's pretty much it. The Sergeant can swap a Melta for a Flamer, but the rest of the squad is Melta.

    Admittedly, not ALL Codecs are that dissimilar. Crisis Suits, for instance, can swap weapons well. But a lot of units cannot.


    exactly this. Most armies aren't as rich in options as space Marines. A single Tac Marine squad can choose between around 25 different weapon upgrades (Sgt, Heavy/Special)

    A boys squad can choose about 8, and 6 of them are different weapons for the Nob.
    Beast snagga boyz can take 1 5pt Thump gun per 10 models
    Grots...they don't get upgrades.

    Its a bit silly to suggest this as a viable alternative when there is no comparison between weapon upgrades. A unit of 10 boyz can realistically get a free rokkit and a Nob with a pair of killsaws (over priced atm) for 25pts of free stuff. As was already covered under the AoO shenanigans, a Tac squad can (currently) take 50-60pts of free stuff.

    Realistically this would only benefit a few armies, most notably as mentioned; Space Marines, Tau, and a couple others. Other factions like Orkz, Demons, Nidz etc would get boned by this hard. Another flaw is that if you are going to bake weapon upgrades into the unit cost than you are running into a situation where a unit is penalized for not taking a weapon upgrade, either because they don't have the model or because its just not something they want to take. A great example would be a Marine player running multiple Lascannon models and meeting an Ork Horde list in a battle where those lascannons are free but functionally no better than a Bolter.

    I know someone suggested the sideboard thing but at the same time I'm not a fan of that because again, if your army doesn't have as many tools as Marines your sideboard isn't going to be as useful as theirs, and being able to swap from Anti-Vehicle to Anti-Horde in the blink of an eye while the opponents options aren't as beneficial is a bit of a downer. Realistically the Sideboard would allow for more skew lists against opponents. Game 1 you run into an Ork Horde, swap out those Meltas/lascannons for flamers and Heavy bolters. Game 2 you run into a Knights list, better bring those Meltas and lascannons back!

    Where is the challenge? where is the skill in list building? You go from TAC lists to variations of skew lists.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 12:39:17


    Post by: Wayniac


    PenitentJake wrote:
    Why is this a wishlist item? Even Matched Play missions are designed to work at 1k - 2k, and Boarding Patrol is 500?

    If your store insists on only running 2k, or your friends only play 2k, GW can give it to you in the next edition, but if you didn't play it this edition, you probably won't play it next edition either.

    You are correct, but I assume they meant "as tournament standard" since if 1500 was the norm for tournaments it would be the norm everywhere.

    People only focus on playing 2k because that's what is used in the majority of tournaments (yes 1k point exists as a GT option but it's barely used). So I'm guessing the wishlist part, which I agree with, is that 1500 becomes the recommended tournament size once again.

    I'll add, despite them doing the opposite by essentially making Unbound/AOO the default, the wish for emphasizing balanced TAC armies over skew list.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 13:00:56


    Post by: Kanluwen


    SemperMortis wrote:

     JNAProductions wrote:
    The issue with that occurs once you look outside the Marines Dex.

    If I take Plaguebearers, that's it. No options to change their offensive profile.
    If I take Fire Dragons, that's pretty much it. The Sergeant can swap a Melta for a Flamer, but the rest of the squad is Melta.

    Admittedly, not ALL Codecs are that dissimilar. Crisis Suits, for instance, can swap weapons well. But a lot of units cannot.


    exactly this. Most armies aren't as rich in options as space Marines. A single Tac Marine squad can choose between around 25 different weapon upgrades (Sgt, Heavy/Special)

    A single Tac Marine Squad starting at 5 models gets to take the Sgt and a single Heavy OR Special. That isn't new.

    And why are we still using Tac Marines as the "baseline"? Look at Intercessors of the normal and Heavy variety. It's 1 special pick per 5, same as Ork Boyz with their 1 per 10.

    A boys squad can choose about 8, and 6 of them are different weapons for the Nob.
    Beast snagga boyz can take 1 5pt Thump gun per 10 models
    Grots...they don't get upgrades.

    Its a bit silly to suggest this as a viable alternative when there is no comparison between weapon upgrades. A unit of 10 boyz can realistically get a free rokkit and a Nob with a pair of killsaws (over priced atm) for 25pts of free stuff. As was already covered under the AoO shenanigans, a Tac squad can (currently) take 50-60pts of free stuff.

    Now go look at Kommandos, Nobs, and Meganobs.

    You're cherrypicking. Ork Boyz have box locked loadouts. Congrats, you're screwed like everyone else.

    Realistically this would only benefit a few armies, most notably as mentioned; Space Marines, Tau, and a couple others. Other factions like Orkz, Demons, Nidz etc would get boned by this hard.

    The problem is that what JNA cherrypicked out is factions that have specialized units. Plaguebearers don't have alternate profiles because Daemons, as a faction, have multiple units that can just be swapped out for Plaguebearers.
    Aeldari Aspect Warriors were a crazy disingenuous bit to throw out as an example. They're specialized units where the unit leader tends to be the one that has options and the remainder of the squad has their signature weapon.

    Complaining that they don't get to change out their weapon is like complaining that you can't run a Terminator Squad in Scout Armour.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 13:50:45


    Post by: IwinUlose


    I like if it will finally be more balance but if so for how long. They will once again start increasing things.

    The biggest issue is that ALL of the Chapter/Legion Traits will be changed. And what will it be?


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 14:59:37


    Post by: alextroy


    SemperMortis wrote:
     alextroy wrote:
    I hope:
  • They start assigning points to units rather than models
  • They use the new datasheets to even out special weapons choices and thereby reduce the amount of point costing upgrades

  • No, and this is why,
     JNAProductions wrote:
    The issue with that occurs once you look outside the Marines Dex.

    If I take Plaguebearers, that's it. No options to change their offensive profile.
    If I take Fire Dragons, that's pretty much it. The Sergeant can swap a Melta for a Flamer, but the rest of the squad is Melta.

    Admittedly, not ALL Codecs are that dissimilar. Crisis Suits, for instance, can swap weapons well. But a lot of units cannot.


    exactly this. Most armies aren't as rich in options as space Marines. A single Tac Marine squad can choose between around 25 different weapon upgrades (Sgt, Heavy/Special)

    A boys squad can choose about 8, and 6 of them are different weapons for the Nob.
    Beast snagga boyz can take 1 5pt Thump gun per 10 models
    Grots...they don't get upgrades.

    Its a bit silly to suggest this as a viable alternative when there is no comparison between weapon upgrades. A unit of 10 boyz can realistically get a free rokkit and a Nob with a pair of killsaws (over priced atm) for 25pts of free stuff. As was already covered under the AoO shenanigans, a Tac squad can (currently) take 50-60pts of free stuff.

    Realistically this would only benefit a few armies, most notably as mentioned; Space Marines, Tau, and a couple others. Other factions like Orkz, Demons, Nidz etc would get boned by this hard. Another flaw is that if you are going to bake weapon upgrades into the unit cost than you are running into a situation where a unit is penalized for not taking a weapon upgrade, either because they don't have the model or because its just not something they want to take. A great example would be a Marine player running multiple Lascannon models and meeting an Ork Horde list in a battle where those lascannons are free but functionally no better than a Bolter.
    This is all interesting, but not really relevant to my thoughts.

    First, charging point for units instead of models allows GW to better adjust the cost of units between each other. You don't have the problem of trying to decide if a single model is 15 or 16 points if you have the option of making the 5-model unit worth anywhere from 75 to 90 points. And while it might be APITA to deal with proscripted unit sizes, you once again lose that same issue of optimal per/model cost and optimal unit model count. You ever notice that Troops squads are normally always minimal strength, but people will carefully calibrate just how many models their good units should have? Wipe that balancing problem away if the unit is either size X, Y, or Z as far as points are concerned.

    On the side of unit upgrades, I don't know about you, but I want to see that lovely lore compliant army across the field from me. Why don't you get that? Because the rules actively discourage that in favor of the most efficient choices. Don't upgrade that unit at all because the upgrades aren't worth the points. Don't use that upgrade because the other one is a more efficient choice. The way to battle these problems are:

  • Ensure the upgrade options are roughly equal across different targets to encourage diversity
  • Encourage upgrades in general by baking many into the cost of the unit

  • Note that free upgrades doesn't make unit Tactical Marines magically better than Ork Boyz because the Tacticals have more upgrade options. Some options should still have an upgrade cost associated with them and there is no reason that can't be adjusted base on unit size.

    For example:
    Tactical Squad (5 Models) 90 Points
  • Heavy Weapon +5 points, +10 if Multi-Melta
  • Grav Pistol or Plasma Pistol +2 points
  • Power Fist or Thunder Hammer + 4 points

  • Tactical Squad (10 Models) 185 Points
  • +5 Multi-Melta
  • Grav Pistol or Plasma Pistol +2 points
  • Power Fist or Thunder Hammer + 4 points


  • Ork Boyz (10/20/30 Models) 70/140/210 points
  • Kombi-Rocket, Kombi-skorcha +3 points
  • Big Choppa, Power Stabba +2 Points
  • Killsaw, Power klaw +5 points


  • Note that making this work requires GW to first even out the in-game value of the no cost upgrade options. It is meaningless for Ork Boyz to be able to take a free Big Shoota or Rokkit launcha if they are not equally useful to each other and actually desirable over another shoota or slugga boy.
    I know someone suggested the sideboard thing but at the same time I'm not a fan of that because again, if your army doesn't have as many tools as Marines your sideboard isn't going to be as useful as theirs, and being able to swap from Anti-Vehicle to Anti-Horde in the blink of an eye while the opponents options aren't as beneficial is a bit of a downer. Realistically the Sideboard would allow for more skew lists against opponents. Game 1 you run into an Ork Horde, swap out those Meltas/lascannons for flamers and Heavy bolters. Game 2 you run into a Knights list, better bring those Meltas and lascannons back!

    Where is the challenge? where is the skill in list building? You go from TAC lists to variations of skew lists.
    I said nothing about a sideboard just for swapping out specific weapons. As you noted, many armies lack that ability in any meaningful sense if not completely. Tournament sideboarding would have to reflect that fact by allowing complete unit swaps, which can be very messing indeed.

    That being said, if upgrade sideboards are to be a thing, that needs to be baked into the cost of the unit. Tactical Maines have more sideboard options than Ork Boyz? I guess Tactical Squads have to cost more to pay for the utility.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 15:59:41


    Post by: Heafstaag


    Alex....just no.

    Having the flexibility in list building to make your squads actually YOUR squads is part of what makes 40k fun.

    LIST BUILDING!

    Being able to take odd numbers in squads is great when you have a small amount of points left over, or fitting in a squad plus a character in a transport. Having to actual decide and think about which types of upgrades to give your units as they all have pros and cons is great.

    It makes you think about your list and how you want to run it.

    What you are proposing and just as bland is age of sigmar!

    In the words of the great Michael Jordan:
    Stop it, Get some help!


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 16:03:06


    Post by: Kanluwen


    Cool, so how do I get to play these variable sized squads as Guard?

    Because mine are mostly locked in size.

    The suggestion of having units bought in 5s wouldn't affect your weird obsession with listbuilding. You can do odd sized units if you want, you just pay based on the 5s.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 17:00:15


    Post by: Tawnis


    Okay, so there's probably a few things I'm gunna miss, but off the top of my head:

    - Limits Strats: Seems like they are already going this route from the leaks. The ones we do get should be tactical decisions like diving for cover, rather than "focus hard to turn on my transhuman".

    - Balance Weapon Options Properly: Weapons should only be free for equivalency. If a Space Marine's gun is free it should be close in stats to a Boltgun, like how Intercessors can take 3 types of Boltguns, they are different but similar in power. Things like Plasma that are straight upgrades need to cost points so they are not auto includes. If this can't be done squad by squad, have an army points value and an equipment points value, maybe 10% or something, then you can have flexibility in how you kit out your armies without all the best options being auto includes.

    - Expand the Crusade System: It's a good skeleton, but put some meat on those bones.

    - Rules for Legends Models: Please don't leave the Legends units in the dust of 8th/9th. Also units from sets like Blackstone Fortress should be rolled into this.

    - More Dynamic Missions: I know it would be tough to balance in competitive, but I'm sick of every mission being hold x objectives. Some like that are fine, but give us different primary situations that force us to be flexible and adapt on the fly. One army shouldn't be able to dominate as easily if no army can be the best in every situation.

    - Expand some of the smaller armies: Genestealer Cults, Auxiliaries (for the Tau), Inquisition. Tangentially related to this, finish updating the Aeldari line. (I'm still not playing that army until we get plastic Warp Spiders, I said that over 20 years ago and I'm not breaking first GW!)

    - More focus on games not at 2000 points: I know that's the tournament level, but 500pt, 1000pt, and 3000pts are all well played too. 500 has gotten some love with Boarding Action and the new Combat Patrol mode which is something, but I'd like to see a bit more focus on other options too.

    - Models with more poseability: For a company trying to sell lots of models, all these mono-pose minis really make me not want to buy multiples of the same unit. I would have gotten a whole bunch of Accursed Cultists if they didn't all look identical. Don't get me wrong, the sculpts are really cool, but for some armies, especially Chaos, things should be unique.

    I'm sure I'll think of more later, but that's what I've got for the moment.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 17:54:00


    Post by: vict0988


     Kanluwen wrote:
    Realistically this would only benefit a few armies, most notably as mentioned; Space Marines, Tau, and a couple others. Other factions like Orkz, Demons, Nidz etc would get boned by this hard.

    The problem is that what JNA cherrypicked out is factions that have specialized units. Plaguebearers don't have alternate profiles because Daemons, as a faction, have multiple units that can just be swapped out for Plaguebearers.
    Aeldari Aspect Warriors were a crazy disingenuous bit to throw out as an example. They're specialized units where the unit leader tends to be the one that has options and the remainder of the squad has their signature weapon.

    Complaining that they don't get to change out their weapon is like complaining that you can't run a Terminator Squad in Scout Armour.

    It's not cherry-picking you silly goose, that's just an example of a unit that does not benefit like other units do. If every example that shows an idea is bad is cherry-picking then how can you ever use an example? The idea you are defending is just bad, so instead of arguing in bad faith just accept the loss and stop asking for the game to become a MOBA where you buy items at the shop after seeing what enemy you are facing. Then there are the obvious things like replacing bolters with combi-plasma, it cannot and should not be a fair trade without pts. Just go play PL in your Hobbit holes and stop commenting in threads about points.
     Kanluwen wrote:
    Cool, so how do I get to play these variable sized squads as Guard?

    Because mine are mostly locked in size.

    The suggestion of having units bought in 5s wouldn't affect your weird obsession with listbuilding. You can do odd sized units if you want, you just pay based on the 5s.

    You can take units of 8 Guardsmen as well. You just pay for the full 10. Bet you never tried that, probably because it'd be silly. Funny that you mention not having access to variable squad sizes as a reason to get rid of them, while dismissing arguments about MOBA wargear as cherry-picking because they're cherry-picked NPC factions. Get a grip.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 17:54:05


    Post by: alextroy


    Heafstaag wrote:
    Alex....just no.

    Having the flexibility in list building to make your squads actually YOUR squads is part of what makes 40k fun.

    LIST BUILDING!

    Being able to take odd numbers in squads is great when you have a small amount of points left over, or fitting in a squad plus a character in a transport. Having to actual decide and think about which types of upgrades to give your units as they all have pros and cons is great.

    It makes you think about your list and how you want to run it.

    What you are proposing and just as bland is age of sigmar!
    I see a lot of false equivalencies, but not a lot of actual problems here.

    Odd squads don't do much other than allow you to fill every last point and fit into arbitrary transportation limits.

    Making your squads YOUR squads has nothing to do with how many models are in it. Nobody decides to bring 9 models in a unit because MY squad is down a member and its not like you can choose to go over or under the limits set in the rules. Nobody decides to not upgrade a squad because in MY squad the Plasmagun exploded killing Jenkins and the quartermaster refuses to give us a new special weapon. No that is all about the points. If it isn't an option, you will find other ways to the squad YOUR squad. Probably with nice paint jobs and cool conversions or bits.

    As for transport size, many transports for many factions have space for a full squad and a character (or two). Drukhari Raiders used to have a transport capacity of 10 models. They now can hold 11 models. There was a time when GW allowed a 12 model capacity in Rhinos. Heck, they do that today in Horus Heresy.

    So, I'll leave you with your quote
    In the words of the great Michael Jordan:
    Stop it, Get some help!




    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 18:40:55


    Post by: Heafstaag


    Making the squads and army my army rather than one that everyone takes is what I mean. The different upgrades all costing different points, with pros and cons to each option, is what I'm talking about.

    The thing about AoS is that for most unit, from what I've seen, you have at most one option-sometimes spears instead of swords, for example, or maybe you can take shields too.Ok, that's fine...but they there's no point cost to it. Its bland- it doesn't affect the list.

    The choice of taking a flamer of a melta should have pros- killing more light infantry, and being cheap (as of now), but also cons- not doing much against heavy monsters and vehicles (though you do save a few points, so maybe you can get another flamer somewhere else!)

    Its these types of choices that have been in 40k since I started in 5th edition, and were around in Fantasy when I played in 7th. And what do you know, they are in warhammer ancient battles as well! You can pay to make unit have better saves, better weapons,etc, but it costs points- which means you can't take something else in the list.

    That is what i'm trying to convey, and maybe I'm doing a poor job of it?

    What you are proposing SEEMS to be taking alot of the fun and choice and planning from list building and playing.



    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 18:50:46


    Post by: Kanluwen


    And what "choice" are you realistically making?

    You're not getting capped at the number of units you double the size of(Reinforced Units in AoS have a cap), you're not getting dinged the full points cost of a unit by taking MSUs.

    This "Making my army my army" only seems to matter when it affects number-crunchers. Where the hell was this outrage for the various factions that have had things locked to match boxes?


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 18:52:25


    Post by: JNAProductions


     Kanluwen wrote:
    And what "choice" are you realistically making?

    You're not getting capped at the number of units you double the size of(Reinforced Units in AoS have a cap), you're not getting dinged the full points cost of a unit by taking MSUs.

    This "Making my army my army" only seems to matter when it affects number-crunchers. Where the hell was this outrage for the various factions that have had things locked to match boxes?
    All over the place. People HATE that. Seriously-there's been multiple threads on how garbage that is.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 18:57:21


    Post by: Insectum7


     Kanluwen wrote:
    And what "choice" are you realistically making?
    The choice to luxuriously upgrade a unit for multidisciplinary maximum effectiveness vs. minimal upgrades for a specific supporting role, for example.

    But I don't expect you to understand.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 18:58:43


    Post by: Heafstaag


     Kanluwen wrote:
    And what "choice" are you realistically making?

    You're not getting capped at the number of units you double the size of(Reinforced Units in AoS have a cap), you're not getting dinged the full points cost of a unit by taking MSUs.

    This "Making my army my army" only seems to matter when it affects number-crunchers. Where the hell was this outrage for the various factions that have had things locked to match boxes?


    I don't like that about AoS. I think most people are fine with unit caps, but adding models to a unit should be on a per model basis

    I don't what you mean by match boxes.

    If you are referring to options being taken away over the past couple of years to only what is in the box then I would say I totally disagree with that. Taking options away from units that have had them for ages is lame! More options and granularity, please.

    Also, not sure what you are referring to as number crunchers? Tournament players? Math hammer?


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 18:59:58


    Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


    I just want a very straight forward list building process.

    Stratagems put me off, as given how much they could boost your performance I found myself self-limiting choices in a way I don’t like.

    For me, a lot of the fun comes from trying out unusual lists. Sometimes themed, sometimes “internet says these units are crap, but I’ll find away” self challenges.

    Yes I could do that with Stratagems existing, but if you came up against someone really familiar with how to play to Stratagems, the game just stopped being fun as you’d get stomped.

    That’s not to say “therefore stratagems should never have existed”. Just I don’t particularly enjoy the game mechanics punishing me for not being an expert list maker.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 19:17:14


    Post by: SemperMortis


     Kanluwen wrote:

    A single Tac Marine Squad starting at 5 models gets to take the Sgt and a single Heavy OR Special. That isn't new.

    And why are we still using Tac Marines as the "baseline"? Look at Intercessors of the normal and Heavy variety. It's 1 special pick per 5, same as Ork Boyz with their 1 per 10.
    Never said it was new, I was pointing out that the difference in value is heavy! Even if you stay at 5models for tac Marines its still upwards of 40pts or more savings (Lascannon/MM and Sgt with Kombi or Plasma/Powerfist) As far as why I use Tacs as the Baseline, because i've used them as a Baseline unit for decades?

     Kanluwen wrote:
    A boys squad can choose about 8, and 6 of them are different weapons for the Nob.
    Beast snagga boyz can take 1 5pt Thump gun per 10 models
    Grots...they don't get upgrades.

    Its a bit silly to suggest this as a viable alternative when there is no comparison between weapon upgrades. A unit of 10 boyz can realistically get a free rokkit and a Nob with a pair of killsaws (over priced atm) for 25pts of free stuff. As was already covered under the AoO shenanigans, a Tac squad can (currently) take 50-60pts of free stuff.

    Now go look at Kommandos, Nobs, and Meganobs.

    You're cherrypicking. Ork Boyz have box locked loadouts. Congrats, you're screwed like everyone else.
    yes, that must be it, i'm cherry picking by comparing two troops choices that have been compared against one another for decades...the same two troops choices that I myself have compared against one another on these very forums for years....

    Kommandos: 8 possible upgrades including Nob. Unless you are counting the Bomb Squig and Distraction grot, then its 9.
    Nobz: Choice of 7 upgrades as well.
    Meganobz: 3 upgrades, 4 if you count the 2nd killsaw.

    So, I compared a troops choice, or actually ALL my orkish troops choices to Tac Marines, you compared those troops choices to 3 elite choices. Ok well i better throw out an elite choice as well then I guess. How bout...

    Sternguard Veterans: 26ish options? Grav Cannon, Heavy Bolter, lascannon, Multi-Melta, Missile Launcher, Plasma Cannon, Flamer, Grav Gun, Meltagun, Plasma Gun, Heavy Flamer, Lightning Claw, Poweraxe, power fist, power maul, power sword, combi flamer, combi grav, combi melta, combi plasma, stormbolter, bolt pistol, grav pistol, plasma pistol, Chainsword, special issue boltgun? Sound about right? So that 1 unit has 1 fewer option than all my troops and the 3 elite choices you picked put together.

     Kanluwen wrote:

    Realistically this would only benefit a few armies, most notably as mentioned; Space Marines, Tau, and a couple others. Other factions like Orkz, Demons, Nidz etc would get boned by this hard.

    The problem is that what JNA cherrypicked out is factions that have specialized units. Plaguebearers don't have alternate profiles because Daemons, as a faction, have multiple units that can just be swapped out for Plaguebearers.
    Aeldari Aspect Warriors were a crazy disingenuous bit to throw out as an example. They're specialized units where the unit leader tends to be the one that has options and the remainder of the squad has their signature weapon.

    Complaining that they don't get to change out their weapon is like complaining that you can't run a Terminator Squad in Scout Armour.

    Its not the fact that those units are "specialize" its the fact that those "Specialized" factions immediately lose out unless GW drastically changes their points value. Giving all upgrades for free but not adjusting units without upgrades just makes that unit worse. I'm not going to even guess at the motive for why you think this is a good idea but from someone who plays competitively I can say it would be a bad idea.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     alextroy wrote:


    First, charging point for units instead of models allows GW to better adjust the cost of units between each other. You don't have the problem of trying to decide if a single model is 15 or 16 points if you have the option of making the 5-model unit worth anywhere from 75 to 90 points. And while it might be APITA to deal with proscripted unit sizes, you once again lose that same issue of optimal per/model cost and optimal unit model count. You ever notice that Troops squads are normally always minimal strength, but people will carefully calibrate just how many models their good units should have? Wipe that balancing problem away if the unit is either size X, Y, or Z as far as points are concerned.


    charging points for units instead of models does not allow for better cost adjustments between units, in fact it does the exact opposite. All it does is give a singular cost to a single unit that can't be modified. You suggested still having some upgrades cost points....but why the hell do that in the first place if the entire premise was getting rid of costed upgrades? You can't say get rid of them and its better for the game while simultaneously saying "but the upgrades will be paid for but not as much".

    As far as troops choices always being minimal...um yeah, GW actively killed large units this edition. Just last edition you had Ork lists showing up with HORDES of boyz all in mobz of 30. GW wrote so many rules to kill Horde factions and then nerfed horde play style at the codex level that there is literally no reason to run hordes, GW killed them.

     alextroy wrote:
    On the side of unit upgrades, I don't know about you, but I want to see that lovely lore compliant army across the field from me. Why don't you get that? Because the rules actively discourage that in favor of the most efficient choices. Don't upgrade that unit at all because the upgrades aren't worth the points. Don't use that upgrade because the other one is a more efficient choice. The way to battle these problems are:


    This reads like you want fluffy games which I understand, go for it. But at the competitive level your suggestions would be terrible and lead to ridiculous levels of imbalance.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Kanluwen wrote:

    This "Making my army my army" only seems to matter when it affects number-crunchers. Where the hell was this outrage for the various factions that have had things locked to match boxes?


    Hi, my name is Sempermortis and I've been against units being locked to whats in the box from the start Please read my comments on Lootas/Burnas to your hearts content


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 20:03:54


    Post by: Kanluwen


     JNAProductions wrote:
     Kanluwen wrote:
    And what "choice" are you realistically making?

    You're not getting capped at the number of units you double the size of(Reinforced Units in AoS have a cap), you're not getting dinged the full points cost of a unit by taking MSUs.

    This "Making my army my army" only seems to matter when it affects number-crunchers. Where the hell was this outrage for the various factions that have had things locked to match boxes?
    All over the place. People HATE that. Seriously-there's been multiple threads on how garbage that is.

    Sure, but that poster wasn't griping about it there. Just whining about how it's unfair that for whatever reason they would have to buy units based on increments of the unit's minimum size rather than anything else.

    I hope every single one of you get locked into what a Guard Infantry Squad is going forward. I hope 40k becomes Age of the Emprah. AND that you lot have to deal with the silly rules too! Bwhahaha!


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 20:19:55


    Post by: Insectum7


    I hope for the comeback of Platoons. Neener neener


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 20:22:39


    Post by: Siegfriedfr


     generalchaos34 wrote:
    With a new edition looming its time to get our finkin' caps on and get our hopes up before they are summarily dashed.

    One of my fervent hopes for the future is that they scale up the point values of games to add more granularity in list building. By this I mean I want to see us go from 2000pts for a big game to 3-4 thousand. This way we wont have an arms race for the bottom spot for guardsman and cultists and give more flexibility to troops in the mid tier like sisters and hearthkyn with their point values instead of being defined by a VERY narrow band before they are competing with space marines and losing.

    I'd also like to continue the trend of free upgrades outside of a chosen few like with the latest space marines. It makes sense and will generally make list building much easier (if only they would make special weapons more....specialized to be mission specific instead of a clear winner like plasma).

    What would you like to see happen to point values?


    I do hope that point value are phased out by 11th in favor of Power Levels, and that 40k cease to be a customization nightmare.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 20:47:52


    Post by: Kanluwen


     Insectum7 wrote:
    I hope for the comeback of Platoons. Neener neener

    How.
    Dare.
    You.



    Frankly, 40k is long overdue to go to "Squads are bought in multiples of base unit size" for points. It works far, far better than people seem to want to pretend it does.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 20:51:53


    Post by: JNAProductions


     Kanluwen wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    I hope for the comeback of Platoons. Neener neener

    How.
    Dare.
    You.



    Frankly, 40k is long overdue to go to "Squads are bought in multiples of base unit size" for points. It works far, far better than people seem to want to pretend it does.
    Why not play PL if that's what you're looking for? That's how it works there.
    I don't like PL, and would like to keep Points much more granular.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 21:06:24


    Post by: alextroy


    SemperMortis wrote:
     alextroy wrote:
    On the side of unit upgrades, I don't know about you, but I want to see that lovely lore compliant army across the field from me. Why don't you get that? Because the rules actively discourage that in favor of the most efficient choices. Don't upgrade that unit at all because the upgrades aren't worth the points. Don't use that upgrade because the other one is a more efficient choice. The way to battle these problems are:


    This reads like you want fluffy games which I understand, go for it. But at the competitive level your suggestions would be terrible and lead to ridiculous levels of imbalance.
    Yes. I want a fluffier game. There is no reason a game cannot be both fluffy and competitive. That is a matter of structure. GW has failed to make fluffy armies competitive because it is too easy to leech efficiency out of being non-fluffy.

    Now explain to me how does free upgrades lead to ridiculous levels of imbalance, assuming the upgrades are of equal value and the units are valued with the upgrades in their cost?


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 21:19:09


    Post by: Tyel


    Its just the same arguments as PL.
    "But what if I want 10 guys with no special weapons" - well you don't.
    "But what if that's how I built the squad 10+ years ago".
    "Then buy another one"
    "REEEE."

    If GW can write rules such that special weapons are broadly speaking equal in power - or the gap is incidental - and/or the few are significantly better have a points cost while the others don't - then it won't matter.

    And yes - if GW priced things up as unit sizes based on the boxes they sell, then again, I'm not sure it will matter. There will be complaining but people will quickly adjust and I suspect the vast majority of people's collections would match said boxes anyway.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 21:32:22


    Post by: Insectum7


     alextroy wrote:

    Now explain to me how does free upgrades lead to ridiculous levels of imbalance, assuming the upgrades are of equal value and the units are valued with the upgrades in their cost?
    Because to be fluff accurate, different weapons should be worth more than others. Fluff-wise, a Powerfist is more powerful than a Chainsword. Therefore, for both options to be both competetive AND fluff accurate, they should have different costs.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 21:58:30


    Post by: alextroy


    If weapons are background imbalanced and cost different points, then nobody uses them because GW can't get the points right. Wouldn't it be better to balance the weapons against each other and thereby make the job of finding the correct cost easier?

    It doesn't matter if the cost ends up being 0 points, 2 points, 5 points, or 10 points, if most options are of the same relative value (on a per unit basis) to makes finding the proper cost easier. And this can be easier in a system where you have more variables in the weapons themselves. A Powerfist will always be stronger than a Chainsword, but that doesn't mean a Chainsword and a Power Weapon (not Powerfist) can't be roughly equal, with the Chainsword better for killing light infantry and the Power Weapon better against medium/heavy infantry.

    Just because most upgrades can be of relative value doesn't mean all of them need be. But it would be great if there were only a few ranges with cost that make them worth using, not the mess we have today.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 22:03:12


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


     alextroy wrote:
    Now explain to me how does free upgrades lead to ridiculous levels of imbalance, assuming the upgrades are of equal value and the units are valued with the upgrades in their cost?
    Because something that makes you better than the baseline shouldn't be free. If something is better than something else, then there should be a cost associated with it, as if it's free why would you ever not take it? It doesn't matter whether all the upgrades are balanced against one another, they are an upgrade to the baseline, and thus need to have an associated cost.

     Kanluwen wrote:
    ... weird obsession with listbuilding.
    Building lists, and points systems, have been part of this game since Rogue Trader. I know you hate this, but the only "obsession" here is your continual fight against these systems.



    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 22:43:07


    Post by: Wayniac


     Insectum7 wrote:
     alextroy wrote:

    Now explain to me how does free upgrades lead to ridiculous levels of imbalance, assuming the upgrades are of equal value and the units are valued with the upgrades in their cost?
    Because to be fluff accurate, different weapons should be worth more than others. Fluff-wise, a Powerfist is more powerful than a Chainsword. Therefore, for both options to be both competetive AND fluff accurate, they should have different costs.
    you are correct however the double edged sword here is that with all the myriad options that you have it comes down to this choice is good This choice is situational at best and the other five are useless crap that aren't worth acknowledging at all. At least if it's all free then you're not as punished for taking a flamer instead of a meltagun Because the former is pretty much useless and isn't worth the points in the first place.

    Maybe they should go back to having a default loadout which is free and then points are to swap it out So for example flamer and missile launcher are the baseline for a tactical squad and don't cost you anything but if you want it let's say a meltagun and lascannon then it costs points


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 22:48:45


    Post by: Insectum7


     alextroy wrote:
    If weapons are background imbalanced and cost different points, then nobody uses them because GW can't get the points right.

    Well that's quite a stretch. "Nobody" is a pretty absolutist position to take.

    Wouldn't it be better to balance the weapons against each other and thereby make the job of finding the correct cost easier?
    If your claim is that GW can't balance weapons with points, why would they then suddenly find the skill to balance them without points?

    Also, are you suggesting that a chainsword should be as effective as a power fist? Because that would be quite unfluffy.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/26 23:59:02


    Post by: Kanluwen


     Insectum7 wrote:
     alextroy wrote:
    If weapons are background imbalanced and cost different points, then nobody uses them because GW can't get the points right.

    Well that's quite a stretch. "Nobody" is a pretty absolutist position to take.

    If you really want to get into this silliness, then maybe we just need to start removing some weapons from some units.

    I'm 100% game for Guard to lose things like Plasma Guns, Volley Guns, and Mortars in basic squads and locking them into specific, purpose built units.

    Wouldn't it be better to balance the weapons against each other and thereby make the job of finding the correct cost easier?
    If your claim is that GW can't balance weapons with points, why would they then suddenly find the skill to balance them without points?

    Also, are you suggesting that a chainsword should be as effective as a power fist? Because that would be quite unfluffy.

    You know that while chainswords are free, the Power Fist costs points in many cases right?


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 00:10:24


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


     Kanluwen wrote:
    I'm 100% game for Guard to lose things like Plasma Guns, Volley Guns, and Mortars in basic squads and locking them into specific, purpose built units.
    Why?

    How would that improve anything other than invalidating existing units/armies/models? Why are you so insistent in removing options?


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 00:18:07


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


     Kanluwen wrote:

    Where the hell was this outrage for the various factions that have had things locked to match boxes?

    Have you been anywhere on the internet ever? Hell, have you even been here?


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 01:09:22


    Post by: Insectum7



     Kanluwen wrote:

    Wouldn't it be better to balance the weapons against each other and thereby make the job of finding the correct cost easier?
    If your claim is that GW can't balance weapons with points, why would they then suddenly find the skill to balance them without points?

    Also, are you suggesting that a chainsword should be as effective as a power fist? Because that would be quite unfluffy.

    You know that while chainswords are free, the Power Fist costs points in many cases right?
    You understand the proposal I was responding to was removing differentiating points values for wargear, right?


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 01:44:23


    Post by: Kanluwen




    If certain weapons are such a difficult bit to balance when able to be fielded en masse?
    Don't let them be. Infantry Squads, for example, have zero reason to be running around with a Plasma Gun and a Mortar. Mortars are specialist tools that should be locked to the Heavy Weapons Team and Plasma Guns are supposed to be relatively rare weapons.

    Excising them from Troops choices ain't a bad move, no matter what you lot seem to think.

     Kanluwen wrote:

    Wouldn't it be better to balance the weapons against each other and thereby make the job of finding the correct cost easier?
    If your claim is that GW can't balance weapons with points, why would they then suddenly find the skill to balance them without points?

    Also, are you suggesting that a chainsword should be as effective as a power fist? Because that would be quite unfluffy.

    You know that while chainswords are free, the Power Fist costs points in many cases right?
    You understand the proposal I was responding to was removing differentiating points values for wargear, right?

    We interpreted Alex's quote vastly differently, I guess.

    I read it not as "removing differentiating points values for wargear" but rather as "accepting that certain items cannot accurately be pointed unless actually balanced against each other".


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 01:55:47


    Post by: Wayniac


    Kan does have a point. If certain options are imbalanced not due to existing but being readily available in spammable units, it makes sense to "balance" that by removing them from the spammable unit and out them exclusively in more controlled units.

    For instance if plasma is being spammed all over by 5-man Troop squads, disallow them to be taken in Troops entirely, but can be taken by the more expensive and limited Veterans.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 02:18:10


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


    Wayniac wrote:
    Kan does have a point. If certain options are imbalanced not due to existing but being readily available in spammable units, it makes sense to "balance" that by removing them from the spammable unit and out them exclusively in more controlled units.

    For instance if plasma is being spammed all over by 5-man Troop squads, disallow them to be taken in Troops entirely, but can be taken by the more expensive and limited Veterans.

    Kan has zero point.
    Make the Plasma slightly more expensive. This isn't rocket science.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 03:48:23


    Post by: alextroy


    Insectum7 wrote:
     alextroy wrote:
    If weapons are background imbalanced and cost different points, then nobody uses them because GW can't get the points right.

    Well that's quite a stretch. "Nobody" is a pretty absolutist position to take.
    The phrase you are looking for is rhetorical flourish.

    Wouldn't it be better to balance the weapons against each other and thereby make the job of finding the correct cost easier?
    If your claim is that GW can't balance weapons with points, why would they then suddenly find the skill to balance them without points?

    Also, are you suggesting that a chainsword should be as effective as a power fist? Because that would be quite unfluffy.
    It's like you actually aren't reading my post for any purpose but looking for reasons to criticize it. Go back and read the full post and you will actually see I suggested no such thing.

    Kanluwen wrote:If certain weapons are such a difficult bit to balance when able to be fielded en masse?
    Don't let them be. Infantry Squads, for example, have zero reason to be running around with a Plasma Gun and a Mortar. Mortars are specialist tools that should be locked to the Heavy Weapons Team and Plasma Guns are supposed to be relatively rare weapons.

    Excising them from Troops choices ain't a bad move, no matter what you lot seem to think.

     Kanluwen wrote:
    Spoiler:

    Wouldn't it be better to balance the weapons against each other and thereby make the job of finding the correct cost easier?
    If your claim is that GW can't balance weapons with points, why would they then suddenly find the skill to balance them without points?

    Also, are you suggesting that a chainsword should be as effective as a power fist? Because that would be quite unfluffy.

    You know that while chainswords are free, the Power Fist costs points in many cases right?
    You understand the proposal I was responding to was removing differentiating points values for wargear, right?

    We interpreted Alex's quote vastly differently, I guess.

    I read it not as "removing differentiating points values for wargear" but rather as "accepting that certain items cannot accurately be pointed unless actually balanced against each other".Bingo. Balance the weapons once, then they can iterate on what is the proper point level to make taking any of them viable.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 05:07:43


    Post by: vict0988


    What you always ignore is that GW cannot get the rules right to balance options against each other either, why do you think Chapters have different win rates? They don't cost points so it should be easy right?


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 06:10:27


    Post by: Dudeface


     vict0988 wrote:
    What you always ignore is that GW cannot get the rules right to balance options against each other either, why do you think Chapters have different win rates? They don't cost points so it should be easy right?


    I'd also argue a lot of the playerbase lack the willingness or imagination to make balancing the options closer together work.

    To use powerfist vs chainsword, for a Sargent in a unit why is 2 harder hitting attacks with a lower ws, that far apart from say a more accurate weapon with 4 attacks? You're giving both a niche that they're both potentially equally good at.

    Ws 4+ s8 ap-2 d2 2A
    Ws 3+ s4 ap- d1 4A

    One is clearly better into chaff, the other clearly better into big things, both are game legacy and fluff accurate to some degree.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 08:05:00


    Post by: vict0988


    Dudeface wrote:
     vict0988 wrote:
    What you always ignore is that GW cannot get the rules right to balance options against each other either, why do you think Chapters have different win rates? They don't cost points so it should be easy right?


    I'd also argue a lot of the playerbase lack the willingness or imagination to make balancing the options closer together work.

    To use powerfist vs chainsword, for a Sargent in a unit why is 2 harder hitting attacks with a lower ws, that far apart from say a more accurate weapon with 4 attacks? You're giving both a niche that they're both potentially equally good at.

    Ws 4+ s8 ap-2 d2 2A
    Ws 3+ s4 ap- d1 4A

    One is clearly better into chaff, the other clearly better into big things, both are game legacy and fluff accurate to some degree.

    Now do the same for for a vehicle with nothing vs with 2 hurricane bolters, do you lose speed from the extra weight on the hull? How much Movement is 2 hurricane bolters worth? Is that a realistic amount of Movement to lose for having 2 hurricane bolters, halving your maximum speed is probably balanced, but not fluffy, losing 5" of Movement might be fluffy but it'd be an auto-include like it is currently at 0 cost. Is that imaginitive enough? Whether we are imaginitive or not, it doesn't change the fact that it's a bad idea to get rid of points. There is a reason a lot of people want points costs for relics.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 08:18:07


    Post by: Dudeface


     vict0988 wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
     vict0988 wrote:
    What you always ignore is that GW cannot get the rules right to balance options against each other either, why do you think Chapters have different win rates? They don't cost points so it should be easy right?


    I'd also argue a lot of the playerbase lack the willingness or imagination to make balancing the options closer together work.

    To use powerfist vs chainsword, for a Sargent in a unit why is 2 harder hitting attacks with a lower ws, that far apart from say a more accurate weapon with 4 attacks? You're giving both a niche that they're both potentially equally good at.

    Ws 4+ s8 ap-2 d2 2A
    Ws 3+ s4 ap- d1 4A

    One is clearly better into chaff, the other clearly better into big things, both are game legacy and fluff accurate to some degree.

    Now do the same for for a vehicle with nothing vs with 2 hurricane bolters, do you lose speed from the extra weight on the hull? How much Movement is 2 hurricane bolters worth? Is that a realistic amount of Movement to lose for having 2 hurricane bolters, halving your maximum speed is probably balanced, but not fluffy, losing 5" of Movement might be fluffy but it'd be an auto-include like it is currently at 0 cost. Is that imaginitive enough? Whether we are imaginitive or not, it doesn't change the fact that it's a bad idea to get rid of points. There is a reason a lot of people want points costs for relics.


    Or... make them part of the standard wargear given the only reason not to take them before was to save points. It's not a good idea to get rid of points but it doesn't mean you have to try and force everything to be so bespoke it requires a different points cost.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 08:25:10


    Post by: kodos


    there is a difference between upgrades and options

    You must take A or B can be balanced without points of both have a dedicated role
    You make take C in addition cannot be balanced without points
    take C but lose D might be, but this depends on the type of upgrade

    a transport losing speed to gain smoke launchers is something is something different than put guns that are useless as an option there

    and yes, more weapons on a battle tank would mean less speed, space and armour, and not just more points


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 09:11:10


    Post by: Dudeface


     kodos wrote:
    there is a difference between upgrades and options

    You must take A or B can be balanced without points of both have a dedicated role
    You make take C in addition cannot be balanced without points
    take C but lose D might be, but this depends on the type of upgrade

    a transport losing speed to gain smoke launchers is something is something different than put guns that are useless as an option there

    and yes, more weapons on a battle tank would mean less speed, space and armour, and not just more points


    That's all true but sadly 40k isn't enough of a simulation to consider these things, but the example in question was the storm bolters on the stormraven. The weapon was considered useless and would only be taken if it was free. You can argue either make it not useless which likely involves a bespoke hurricane bolter for the raven, or you just bake it into the base loadout since in it's current iteration you either consider it dead weight that would never be paid for or slap it on anyway because it's free.

    If you wanted to start altering other stats based on loadout that could be cool, I'm not against weapon upgrades etc costing points, but it doesn't have to nor does the gear need to be an optional extra necessarily.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 09:46:36


    Post by: vict0988


     kodos wrote:
    there is a difference between upgrades and options

    You must take A or B can be balanced without points of both have a dedicated role
    You make take C in addition cannot be balanced without points
    take C but lose D might be, but this depends on the type of upgrade

    a transport losing speed to gain smoke launchers is something is something different than put guns that are useless as an option there

    and yes, more weapons on a battle tank would mean less speed, space and armour, and not just more points

    Even if GW tries to balance every option and makes all previously optional wargear mandatory you'd still need points to make up for any mistakes because a changed points cost is easier to deal with than changing rules, like imagine if bolters had different profiles on Rhinos vs Razorbacks to make up for some kind imbalance that'd otherwise be there. Getting rid of pts is a terrible idea, especially when you already have PL, but PL players are greedy and selfish, they should have never been given that inch, let them eat sand and make pew pew sounds in games without any balancing mechanisms like AoS 1. /sarcasm

    Making options mandatory is a terrible idea because many people haven't modelled it on their old miniatures and don't have the leftover bits for it, there are also sometimes different versions of kits, with only the new one coming with optional bonus equipment.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 10:27:57


    Post by: Altruizine


    I think they should make you roll for your upgrades, rather than picking or paying for them (which is unrealistic). You should also have to roll for the size of your army, because a pitched battle against an opponent of precisely equivalent size is also (which is unrealistic). If you find yourself going BUT MY DUDES, MY PRECIOUS DUDES then maybe you should be writing fanfic instead, you disgusting little punk, and leave the grim sim War to the grownups.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 10:31:10


    Post by: kodos


    legacy models is a bad argument

    non of my Space Wolves models is going to fit the new game anyway
    no matter what there is, how options are balanced and if there are points in whatever granularity

    so going by that argument I am only allowed to play 5th Edition anyway, so I don't really care if the new rules fit my old models, because they won't no matter what, therefore at least trying to get a working game is the better option


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 11:13:20


    Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Wayniac wrote:
    Kan does have a point. If certain options are imbalanced not due to existing but being readily available in spammable units, it makes sense to "balance" that by removing them from the spammable unit and out them exclusively in more controlled units.

    For instance if plasma is being spammed all over by 5-man Troop squads, disallow them to be taken in Troops entirely, but can be taken by the more expensive and limited Veterans.

    Kan has zero point.
    Make the Plasma slightly more expensive. This isn't rocket science.


    Politely disagreeing with you both.

    The issue isn’t spam as such. The issue isn’t a weapon being too cheap.

    It’s certain options just being more ubiquitous compared to others. Let’s consider the Tactical Trinity, from 3rd-7th.

    Flamer. Super short ranged, but had its uses depending on what you were fighting against. Also cheap.

    Meltagun. Again super short ranged. Might only get a couple of worthwhile shots a game. Low rate of fire and low opportunities outweighed it’s deadliness overall.

    Plasmagun. Same range and ROF as the rest of the squad. Can, in a pinch, also pose a threat to medium vehicles. Really really good against Heavy Infantry.

    Plasma just didn’t have quite the right downside. Not to say it was Too Powerful. It was just the obvious choice for tactical flexibility. Thanks to its range, it could plink away alongside the rest of its squad - if you wanted. The choice not to risk baking its bearer was always an option. For rear or side armour shots, it was in some senses superior to the Meltagun, because you didn’t need to get within 12”, and if you were, you got double the shots making it less likely to miss entirely.

    That is the problem. That is what leads to spam. That is what makes folk feel upping its points would fix it.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 11:37:57


    Post by: Dudeface


     Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Wayniac wrote:
    Kan does have a point. If certain options are imbalanced not due to existing but being readily available in spammable units, it makes sense to "balance" that by removing them from the spammable unit and out them exclusively in more controlled units.

    For instance if plasma is being spammed all over by 5-man Troop squads, disallow them to be taken in Troops entirely, but can be taken by the more expensive and limited Veterans.

    Kan has zero point.
    Make the Plasma slightly more expensive. This isn't rocket science.


    Politely disagreeing with you both.

    The issue isn’t spam as such. The issue isn’t a weapon being too cheap.

    It’s certain options just being more ubiquitous compared to others. Let’s consider the Tactical Trinity, from 3rd-7th.

    Flamer. Super short ranged, but had its uses depending on what you were fighting against. Also cheap.

    Meltagun. Again super short ranged. Might only get a couple of worthwhile shots a game. Low rate of fire and low opportunities outweighed it’s deadliness overall.

    Plasmagun. Same range and ROF as the rest of the squad. Can, in a pinch, also pose a threat to medium vehicles. Really really good against Heavy Infantry.

    Plasma just didn’t have quite the right downside. Not to say it was Too Powerful. It was just the obvious choice for tactical flexibility. Thanks to its range, it could plink away alongside the rest of its squad - if you wanted. The choice not to risk baking its bearer was always an option. For rear or side armour shots, it was in some senses superior to the Meltagun, because you didn’t need to get within 12”, and if you were, you got double the shots making it less likely to miss entirely.

    That is the problem. That is what leads to spam. That is what makes folk feel upping its points would fix it.


    Well said, I'd argue that the missing step here is as you add points it doesn't actually resolve that ubiquity, so it continues to be a better default choice until such time as it's so expensive that the maths shifts to melta/nothing. It needs a rules adjustment, not points, which is a recurring issue across multiple options in multiple books.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 12:36:33


    Post by: vict0988


    Funny post Altruizine

    The idea that balance is on a knife edge is silly, if plasma guns are trash at 11 they're not OP at 10. There'll be a range of pts where plasma is an auto-include, a range where it is extremely good unless (insert edge case), a range where it is good sometimes and bad sometimes, a range where it is bad unless (insert edge case) and then anything over that is total pass because it is too expensive. You're not jumping from 2/5 to a 4/5 with 1 pt, let alone a 1/5 to a 5/5. If a melta gun is equal to a plasma gun at 0 vs 0 then there'll still be plenty of reasons to take a 10 pt plasma vs an 11 pt melta or vise versa. The idea that you'll be able to find the perfect statline that makes weapons equal to each other is silly, you'll hit it one in three times on accident and then fantastic you can have your free wargear, the points need there to be there for the 60% of the time where GW fails. GW will then fail at getting the right pts costs for options 50% of the time, too bad, still better than PL. Ubeiqutous plasma is not problematic, only if it gives an unfair advantage is it a problem, but if a list with 20 plasma guns is tier 1, then it is not going to become tier 2 by going up 20 pts.
     kodos wrote:
    legacy models is a bad argument

    non of my Space Wolves models is going to fit the new game anyway
    no matter what there is, how options are balanced and if there are points in whatever granularity

    so going by that argument I am only allowed to play 5th Edition anyway, so I don't really care if the new rules fit my old models, because they won't no matter what, therefore at least trying to get a working game is the better option

    When did a Greyclaw with wolfbolter become unplayable?

    Removing pts does not a working game make.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 12:37:19


    Post by: warhead01


     Altruizine wrote:
    I think they should make you roll for your upgrades, rather than picking or paying for them (which is unrealistic). You should also have to roll for the size of your army, because a pitched battle against an opponent of precisely equivalent size is also (which is unrealistic). If you find yourself going BUT MY DUDES, MY PRECIOUS DUDES then maybe you should be writing fanfic instead, you disgusting little punk, and leave the grim sim War to the grownups.


    I kinda like that but it would be better, imop, in a video game or in a different scale of model. I'd love to see a good system for rolling up an army outside of campaigns. Sounds engaging.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 12:48:11


    Post by: kodos


     vict0988 wrote:
    When did a Greyclaw with wolfbolter become unplayable?.
    by the time that Bolter + Chainsword was not an option any more
    and if you now say that does not matter, your sentence
    Making options mandatory is a terrible idea because many people haven't modelled it on their old miniatures and don't have the leftover bits for it, there are also sometimes different versions of kits, with only the new one coming with optional bonus equipment.

    as either legacy equipment is important for rules or it is not


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 14:08:04


    Post by: SemperMortis


     alextroy wrote:
    Yes. I want a fluffier game. There is no reason a game cannot be both fluffy and competitive. That is a matter of structure. GW has failed to make fluffy armies competitive because it is too easy to leech efficiency out of being non-fluffy.

    Now explain to me how does free upgrades lead to ridiculous levels of imbalance, assuming the upgrades are of equal value and the units are valued with the upgrades in their cost?


    So to update my original comment, you want a fluffy game, but you also want the fluffy lists to be competitive. GW has successfully made Fluffy lists competitive this very edition. For my orkz you had the Speed Freak Army of Renown. So congrats your request has been granted! sadly its no longer allowed, but that doesn't mean you can't just use the older rules in a game. Or are you a tournament player who is getting rickrolled at matches when you bring out your fluffy list? If you aren't a tournament player than to quote everyone's favorite game company "Forge the narrative harder!" If you aren't playing a tournament you can justify any rules you want with your opponent ahead of time. Hell, I had a good friend of mine beg me to bring the most utterly ridiculous ork list I could think of so we could have a massive mek battle! Brought out my 15 Killakanz, Deffdreadz, morkanauts and my buggies for fun, he brought out hellbrutes and other assorted chaosy vehicles. Hilarity ensued. And guess what? A few weeks later we both went to a GT where we brought out hardcore tournament lists. This game isn't zero sum, if you want fluffy lists to be good than you need to work with your opponent, if you want them to be tournament level good and to go to tournaments...well sorry, but from this forum we can see that hte vast majority don't want that.

    As far as how "free upgrades lead to ridiculous levels of imbalance assuming the upgrades are of equal value"...Well for starters your assumption is massive and likely not going to happen. You will never be able to balance FREE upgrades across multiple units. The scale of this problem seems to elude you, you are asking for a company which notoriously can't balance its game very well to redo every single unit in every single army and than balance each unit with multiple free upgrade options against one another using a single points scale and have that reflect equal outcomes at the competitive level? Flat out , won't happen. But we don't even have to guess if this is correct because we already have PL as an option for people to play; And guess what? I refuse to play PL because every single time i've tried to do so I add up the lists afterwards and lo and behold, my opponents usually have 200-600pts more than me thanks to free upgrades and the fact that my army doesn't have many upgrades and the ones we do have are mostly useless. "oh wow! I can take a FREE rokkit on my boyz squad!" sucks it will statistically only hit 1.6x the entire game and only if the unit survives 5 turns. "Awesome! My lootas get a free KMB!" again, won't be used much and has about the same chance of killing itself as its target. Compare that to a SM unit getting free lascannons, meltas, etc or a veteran squad taking combi weapons for free because why not?

     alextroy wrote:
    If weapons are background imbalanced and cost different points, then nobody uses them because GW can't get the points right. Wouldn't it be better to balance the weapons against each other and thereby make the job of finding the correct cost easier?

    It doesn't matter if the cost ends up being 0 points, 2 points, 5 points, or 10 points, if most options are of the same relative value (on a per unit basis) to makes finding the proper cost easier. And this can be easier in a system where you have more variables in the weapons themselves. A Powerfist will always be stronger than a Chainsword, but that doesn't mean a Chainsword and a Power Weapon (not Powerfist) can't be roughly equal, with the Chainsword better for killing light infantry and the Power Weapon better against medium/heavy infantry.

    Just because most upgrades can be of relative value doesn't mean all of them need be. But it would be great if there were only a few ranges with cost that make them worth using, not the mess we have today.


    And the problem is....there aren't equal targets. What do I mean by this? Someone was comparing a Bolter, Plasmagun, Flamer and Melta gun a bit ago. You want these options to be balanced against one another so people are more enticed to take a mixed list rather than just grabbing 10 plasma guns or 10 melta guns. Here is the problem, the last BIG 40k Tournament was the Rock Mountain GT with 144 people playing in it. Guess how many lists featured Power Armor or similar type armor (Dwarves, SoB, custards, etc)...83 And now include Knight lists and likely the Tau lists since they almost universally take Battlesuits, congrats you are north of 100 out of 144, or basically more than 2/3rds. Why on gods green earth would you take a flamer which is 12' range and averages 0.58dmg to a Marine when you could just take a Plasma gun which averages 0.74dmg at twice the range and can Supercharge to inflict 1.85dmg. if your response is "What about hordes!" they don't exist anymore. If your answer is "What about light infantry!" they barely exist anymore. And realistically nobody is having a hard time atm shifting 10 guardsmen or firewarriors off an objective, its usually a tanky unit with 3+ armor or 4+ with -1AP sitting on that objective and for that you want the plasma not the flamer or bolter. This same problem is seen in the CCWs as well

    Siegfriedfr wrote:


    I do hope that point value are phased out by 11th in favor of Power Levels, and that 40k cease to be a customization nightmare.


    I just never understand players who say this stuff. The vast majority of the game wants Points and balance, but you also have a very vocal minority who wants PL to become the norm and used universally...why? Do you play tournaments? if so do you want them switched to PL? Why? And if you don't play tournaments why are you trying to force your version of the game onto those who do play tournaments? PL is garbage and has been from its inception, its a balance nightmare with a few factions cashing in on massive benefits while a bunch of other factions are left with the aforementioned bad upgrades that are now free...yay.



    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 14:28:43


    Post by: vict0988


     kodos wrote:
     vict0988 wrote:
    When did a Greyclaw with wolfbolter become unplayable?.
    by the time that Bolter + Chainsword was not an option any more
    and if you now say that does not matter, your sentence
    Making options mandatory is a terrible idea because many people haven't modelled it on their old miniatures and don't have the leftover bits for it, there are also sometimes different versions of kits, with only the new one coming with optional bonus equipment.

    as either legacy equipment is important for rules or it is not

    "Every other model is equipped with: bolt pistol; boltgun; frag grenades; krak grenades."
    "Any number of Grey Hunters can each be equipped with 1 Astartes chainsword."'

    If GW actually had removed the option, like they have removed many options in the past, I'd be outraged and in support of bringing it back. I think Chosen on Juggernauts need to be brought back. Exceptions? Models that are too small and give an unfair advantage. Obviously, Astartes chainswords shouldn't be free though.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 15:02:57


    Post by: catbarf


    warhead01 wrote:
     Altruizine wrote:
    I think they should make you roll for your upgrades, rather than picking or paying for them (which is unrealistic). You should also have to roll for the size of your army, because a pitched battle against an opponent of precisely equivalent size is also (which is unrealistic). If you find yourself going BUT MY DUDES, MY PRECIOUS DUDES then maybe you should be writing fanfic instead, you disgusting little punk, and leave the grim sim War to the grownups.


    I kinda like that but it would be better, imop, in a video game or in a different scale of model. I'd love to see a good system for rolling up an army outside of campaigns. Sounds engaging.


    AK-47 Republic was a game basically written around that idea. You don't know what forces you'll have available, what kind of events might occur between battles (oops! UN intervention, your opponent has heavy armor), or whether your troops will be reliable on the field.

    It's great fun- if you approach it with the right mindset and don't take it too seriously. Competitive 40K players would scream bloody fething murder.

    Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:The issue isn’t spam as such. The issue isn’t a weapon being too cheap.

    It’s certain options just being more ubiquitous compared to others. Let’s consider the Tactical Trinity, from 3rd-7th.


    Agreed. Plasma has always been the utility choice in a game dominated by 3+ saves- good range, multiple shots, useful AP, high Strength. Every army had something plasma guns would be useful against. Even when they were made incredibly expensive, players often gritted their teeth and took them anyways, because they were the most useful option.

    This is part of why I've long been interested in a sideboard mechanic for choosing things like special weapons before a game. The need to pick weapons in a total vacuum makes it hard to appropriately cost niche weapons against more generalist (or meta-appropriate) ones. If you could just pick whatever weapons you wanted after knowing the composition of the other army, it would be okay if plasma was the 'generally best' choice, because you'd still have the option to take melta when facing tanks or flamers when facing hordes. You wouldn't need every weapon to be perfectly balanced against each other, just ensure that each weapon has a matchup where you might want to take it.

    It would require a relaxed attitude towards WYSIWYG of course. And that alone probably makes it a non-starter for GW.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 17:13:57


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


    Dudeface wrote:
     vict0988 wrote:
    What you always ignore is that GW cannot get the rules right to balance options against each other either, why do you think Chapters have different win rates? They don't cost points so it should be easy right?


    I'd also argue a lot of the playerbase lack the willingness or imagination to make balancing the options closer together work.

    To use powerfist vs chainsword, for a Sargent in a unit why is 2 harder hitting attacks with a lower ws, that far apart from say a more accurate weapon with 4 attacks? You're giving both a niche that they're both potentially equally good at.

    Ws 4+ s8 ap-2 d2 2A
    Ws 3+ s4 ap- d1 4A

    One is clearly better into chaff, the other clearly better into big things, both are game legacy and fluff accurate to some degree.

    Why is the Chainsword at 2 more attacks? It's 1 attack granted.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Wayniac wrote:
    Kan does have a point. If certain options are imbalanced not due to existing but being readily available in spammable units, it makes sense to "balance" that by removing them from the spammable unit and out them exclusively in more controlled units.

    For instance if plasma is being spammed all over by 5-man Troop squads, disallow them to be taken in Troops entirely, but can be taken by the more expensive and limited Veterans.

    Kan has zero point.
    Make the Plasma slightly more expensive. This isn't rocket science.


    Politely disagreeing with you both.

    The issue isn’t spam as such. The issue isn’t a weapon being too cheap.

    It’s certain options just being more ubiquitous compared to others. Let’s consider the Tactical Trinity, from 3rd-7th.

    Flamer. Super short ranged, but had its uses depending on what you were fighting against. Also cheap.

    Meltagun. Again super short ranged. Might only get a couple of worthwhile shots a game. Low rate of fire and low opportunities outweighed it’s deadliness overall.

    Plasmagun. Same range and ROF as the rest of the squad. Can, in a pinch, also pose a threat to medium vehicles. Really really good against Heavy Infantry.

    Plasma just didn’t have quite the right downside. Not to say it was Too Powerful. It was just the obvious choice for tactical flexibility. Thanks to its range, it could plink away alongside the rest of its squad - if you wanted. The choice not to risk baking its bearer was always an option. For rear or side armour shots, it was in some senses superior to the Meltagun, because you didn’t need to get within 12”, and if you were, you got double the shots making it less likely to miss entirely.

    That is the problem. That is what leads to spam. That is what makes folk feel upping its points would fix it.

    Plasma can literally kill the model outright when using the non-safe firing mode. That's why just upping the points is fine even with rerolls available (fun fact, if you have full rerolls instead of just rerolling 1s, you're more likely to kill your model)


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 17:30:41


    Post by: Dudeface


    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
     vict0988 wrote:
    What you always ignore is that GW cannot get the rules right to balance options against each other either, why do you think Chapters have different win rates? They don't cost points so it should be easy right?


    I'd also argue a lot of the playerbase lack the willingness or imagination to make balancing the options closer together work.

    To use powerfist vs chainsword, for a Sargent in a unit why is 2 harder hitting attacks with a lower ws, that far apart from say a more accurate weapon with 4 attacks? You're giving both a niche that they're both potentially equally good at.

    Ws 4+ s8 ap-2 d2 2A
    Ws 3+ s4 ap- d1 4A

    One is clearly better into chaff, the other clearly better into big things, both are game legacy and fluff accurate to some degree.

    Why is the Chainsword at 2 more attacks? It's 1 attack granted.


    Balancing the options. If you want a fluff snippet: "chainswords are comparatively flexible duelling weapons, the user is able to parry and riposte deftly".

    Failing that, same logic they get +1 now.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 19:15:32


    Post by: Insectum7


     alextroy wrote:
    Insectum7 wrote:
     alextroy wrote:
    If weapons are background imbalanced and cost different points, then nobody uses them because GW can't get the points right.

    Well that's quite a stretch. "Nobody" is a pretty absolutist position to take.
    The phrase you are looking for is rhetorical flourish.

    I might use "hyperbole" instead.

    You're asserting two things at the same time.
    1: GW can't get points right.
    and 2: "Nobody" takes the "bad" options.

    And I disagree with both!

    I think GW can manage (and has in the past) to get points "right enough". There's no "absolute right" point value for them to hit, because tactics, local metas, and list contextualization will always play into what any given weapon is actually worth. Ballpark points values are good enough.

    Because of those variables, "nobody" is often still "somebody". While a weapon may not be an assumed go-to, there are often still people who find value in them for their particular armies and communities. I took Flamers on my Tactical Squads all the time back in the day, because my local Meta included Orks, Dark Eldar and Tyranids, and the Flamer was cheaper than the alternatives at 5 points (maybe 6?).

     alextroy wrote:
    Wouldn't it be better to balance the weapons against each other and thereby make the job of finding the correct cost easier?
    If your claim is that GW can't balance weapons with points, why would they then suddenly find the skill to balance them without points?

    Also, are you suggesting that a chainsword should be as effective as a power fist? Because that would be quite unfluffy.
    It's like you actually aren't reading my post for any purpose but looking for reasons to criticize it. Go back and read the full post and you will actually see I suggested no such thing.

    The post:
    Spoiler:

     alextroy wrote:
    If weapons are background imbalanced and cost different points, then nobody uses them because GW can't get the points right. Wouldn't it be better to balance the weapons against each other and thereby make the job of finding the correct cost easier?

    It doesn't matter if the cost ends up being 0 points, 2 points, 5 points, or 10 points, if most options are of the same relative value (on a per unit basis) to makes finding the proper cost easier. And this can be easier in a system where you have more variables in the weapons themselves. A Powerfist will always be stronger than a Chainsword, but that doesn't mean a Chainsword and a Power Weapon (not Powerfist) can't be roughly equal, with the Chainsword better for killing light infantry and the Power Weapon better against medium/heavy infantry.

    Just because most upgrades can be of relative value doesn't mean all of them need be. But it would be great if there were only a few ranges with cost that make them worth using, not the mess we have today.

    You are still needlessly compressing values into "sameness". You CAN make some of them the same value, balance-wise, but I see no particular value in that endeavor. Imo it's fine to have a paradigm where a Chainsword is worth 2 points, a Power Sword worth 8, and a Power Fist worth 15.

     alextroy wrote:

    Bingo. Balance the weapons once, then they can iterate on what is the proper point level to make taking any of them viable.
    :shrug: But again, if your claim is GW can't get the points right. . . why would this yield any different result?


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Dudeface wrote:
     vict0988 wrote:
    What you always ignore is that GW cannot get the rules right to balance options against each other either, why do you think Chapters have different win rates? They don't cost points so it should be easy right?

    I'd also argue a lot of the playerbase lack the willingness or imagination to make balancing the options closer together work.

    To use powerfist vs chainsword, for a Sargent in a unit why is 2 harder hitting attacks with a lower ws, that far apart from say a more accurate weapon with 4 attacks? You're giving both a niche that they're both potentially equally good at.

    Ws 4+ s8 ap-2 d2 2A
    Ws 3+ s4 ap- d1 4A

    One is clearly better into chaff, the other clearly better into big things, both are game legacy and fluff accurate to some degree.
    It's not a lack of willingness or imagination here. It's simply a lack of desire for the outcome that it achieves. By shoehorning options into "same-value" you're at once being lore-inaccurate, and also removing design space.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 20:19:13


    Post by: ccs


     Insectum7 wrote:
     alextroy wrote:
    Insectum7 wrote:
     alextroy wrote:
    If weapons are background imbalanced and cost different points, then nobody uses them because GW can't get the points right.

    Well that's quite a stretch. "Nobody" is a pretty absolutist position to take.
    The phrase you are looking for is rhetorical flourish.

    I might use "hyperbole" instead.

    You're asserting two things at the same time.
    1: GW can't get points right.
    and 2: "Nobody" takes the "bad" options.

    And I disagree with both!

    I think GW can manage (and has in the past) to get points "right enough". There's no "absolute right" point value for them to hit, because tactics, local metas, and list contextualization will always play into what any given weapon is actually worth. Ballpark points values are good enough.

    Because of those variables, "nobody" is often still "somebody". While a weapon may not be an assumed go-to, there are often still people who find value in them for their particular armies and communities. I took Flamers on my Tactical Squads all the time back in the day, because my local Meta included Orks, Dark Eldar and Tyranids, and the Flamer was cheaper than the alternatives at 5 points (maybe 6?).

     alextroy wrote:
    Wouldn't it be better to balance the weapons against each other and thereby make the job of finding the correct cost easier?
    If your claim is that GW can't balance weapons with points, why would they then suddenly find the skill to balance them without points?

    Also, are you suggesting that a chainsword should be as effective as a power fist? Because that would be quite unfluffy.
    It's like you actually aren't reading my post for any purpose but looking for reasons to criticize it. Go back and read the full post and you will actually see I suggested no such thing.

    The post:
    Spoiler:

     alextroy wrote:
    If weapons are background imbalanced and cost different points, then nobody uses them because GW can't get the points right. Wouldn't it be better to balance the weapons against each other and thereby make the job of finding the correct cost easier?

    It doesn't matter if the cost ends up being 0 points, 2 points, 5 points, or 10 points, if most options are of the same relative value (on a per unit basis) to makes finding the proper cost easier. And this can be easier in a system where you have more variables in the weapons themselves. A Powerfist will always be stronger than a Chainsword, but that doesn't mean a Chainsword and a Power Weapon (not Powerfist) can't be roughly equal, with the Chainsword better for killing light infantry and the Power Weapon better against medium/heavy infantry.

    Just because most upgrades can be of relative value doesn't mean all of them need be. But it would be great if there were only a few ranges with cost that make them worth using, not the mess we have today.

    You are still needlessly compressing values into "sameness". You CAN make some of them the same value, balance-wise, but I see no particular value in that endeavor. Imo it's fine to have a paradigm where a Chainsword is worth 2 points, a Power Sword worth 8, and a Power Fist worth 15.

     alextroy wrote:

    Bingo. Balance the weapons once, then they can iterate on what is the proper point level to make taking any of them viable.
    :shrug: But again, if your claim is GW can't get the points right. . . why would this yield any different result?


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Dudeface wrote:
     vict0988 wrote:
    What you always ignore is that GW cannot get the rules right to balance options against each other either, why do you think Chapters have different win rates? They don't cost points so it should be easy right?

    I'd also argue a lot of the playerbase lack the willingness or imagination to make balancing the options closer together work.

    To use powerfist vs chainsword, for a Sargent in a unit why is 2 harder hitting attacks with a lower ws, that far apart from say a more accurate weapon with 4 attacks? You're giving both a niche that they're both potentially equally good at.

    Ws 4+ s8 ap-2 d2 2A
    Ws 3+ s4 ap- d1 4A

    One is clearly better into chaff, the other clearly better into big things, both are game legacy and fluff accurate to some degree.
    It's not a lack of willingness or imagination here. It's simply a lack of desire for the outcome that it achieves. By shoehorning options into "same-value" you're at once being lore-inaccurate, and also removing design space.


    Lack of design space is not a worry on GWs end.
    When they need more? They'll just print more/different rules. Or make any other changes as they need.
    You'll all scream about "BLOAT!!" But 1) GW doesn't (really) care. 2) it won't stop most of you from buying the new thing/continuing to play.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 20:27:53


    Post by: Dudeface


     Insectum7 wrote:

    Dudeface wrote:
     vict0988 wrote:
    What you always ignore is that GW cannot get the rules right to balance options against each other either, why do you think Chapters have different win rates? They don't cost points so it should be easy right?

    I'd also argue a lot of the playerbase lack the willingness or imagination to make balancing the options closer together work.

    To use powerfist vs chainsword, for a Sargent in a unit why is 2 harder hitting attacks with a lower ws, that far apart from say a more accurate weapon with 4 attacks? You're giving both a niche that they're both potentially equally good at.

    Ws 4+ s8 ap-2 d2 2A
    Ws 3+ s4 ap- d1 4A

    One is clearly better into chaff, the other clearly better into big things, both are game legacy and fluff accurate to some degree.
    It's not a lack of willingness or imagination here. It's simply a lack of desire for the outcome that it achieves. By shoehorning options into "same-value" you're at once being lore-inaccurate, and also removing design space.


    I'm not sure I agree entirely, a powerfist being slower and harder to land hits with isn't exactly inaccurate to the lore. The only design space removed is paying more for an item that's flatly superior for a cost.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 21:13:10


    Post by: Insectum7


    Dudeface wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:

    Dudeface wrote:
     vict0988 wrote:
    What you always ignore is that GW cannot get the rules right to balance options against each other either, why do you think Chapters have different win rates? They don't cost points so it should be easy right?

    I'd also argue a lot of the playerbase lack the willingness or imagination to make balancing the options closer together work.

    To use powerfist vs chainsword, for a Sargent in a unit why is 2 harder hitting attacks with a lower ws, that far apart from say a more accurate weapon with 4 attacks? You're giving both a niche that they're both potentially equally good at.

    Ws 4+ s8 ap-2 d2 2A
    Ws 3+ s4 ap- d1 4A

    One is clearly better into chaff, the other clearly better into big things, both are game legacy and fluff accurate to some degree.
    It's not a lack of willingness or imagination here. It's simply a lack of desire for the outcome that it achieves. By shoehorning options into "same-value" you're at once being lore-inaccurate, and also removing design space.

    I'm not sure I agree entirely, a powerfist being slower and harder to land hits with isn't exactly inaccurate to the lore. The only design space removed is paying more for an item that's flatly superior for a cost.

    Ok then. . . so lorewise no weapon is better than any other weapon? You're removing design space from the lore at this point. The Veteran Sergeant of a unit, as befitting a warrior of his rank and skill, gets access to weapons that are worth the same as the weapons already wielded by his squad mates. . . how inspiring.

    This should be a really simple concept to grasp: As units, also wargear. You pay more points for better units. You also pay more points for better wargear. Neither lore nor game-balance should be artificially constrained into "same value" just because people want to convert points into Power Level.


    Edit: This whole "Wargear Equity Movement" is so f***ing bizarre.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 21:52:42


    Post by: Kanluwen


    It's no less bizarre than pretending that certain options are outright ignored in favor of others, no matter the points costs.

    I think part of the issue is that you seem to be conflating wanting a flat cost to be no cost.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 22:04:12


    Post by: Platuan4th


     Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
    The choice not to risk baking its bearer was always an option.


    No, it wasn't. At least for 3rd-5th, there was only a single stat line for Plasma with Gets Hot on every shot. I'd have to double check 6th and 7th,


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 22:11:42


    Post by: alextroy


    When it comes down to it, I have no faith in the GW Design Teams ability to balance the point values of too many variables. Every variable we can remove from the balancing equation should provide us with a better balanced game. I am willing to give up some lore accuracy on rarer, better equipment in pursuit of a better balanced and more lore accurate looking army on the battlefield.

    In short, I would rather see 6 Tactical Squads with a mix of non-additional cost special weapons because they are all equally valid power-wise across different function then see 6 Tactical Squads with no upgrades because "why spend 5 points upgrading a 18 point marine, the upgrades aren't worth the points anyway"?

    You are welcome to disagree, but that doesn't mean it will result in a unbalanced, dumpster fire of a game.

    And don't even bring up the red herrings of balancing something against nothing or a special weapon against a basic weapon. We all know that a question designed to win points rather than have an honest discussion.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 22:15:13


    Post by: Insectum7


     Kanluwen wrote:
    It's no less bizarre than pretending that certain options aren't(I assume you meant) outright ignored in favor of others, no matter the points costs.
    According to who? The mighty Kanluwen and his projectionist claims? Ha!

    I think part of the issue is that you seem to be conflating wanting a flat cost to be no cost.
    Uhhhh. . . Nope! I don't see flat cost as no cost. I see it as

    1: A reduction in available design space, since you remove the option to have variable-value gear.

    2: A reduction in solo-engagement with the hobby, because some of us really enjoy the nitty-gritty of listbuilding.

    3: A reduction in options, because you can't take a minimal cost unit for a backfield task vs. a tooled out one for a "main line" unit. You save no "value" by taking a "min" squad. You just shoot yourself in the foot even harder than you project others do by taking Flamers instead of Plasma. At least folks who take Flamers might save on points and get a little extra kick against hordes.




    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     alextroy wrote:
    When it comes down to it, I have no faith in the GW Design Teams ability to balance the point values of too many variables. Every variable we can remove from the balancing equation should provide us with a better balanced game. I am willing to give up some lore accuracy on rarer, better equipment in pursuit of a better balanced and more lore accurate looking army on the battlefield.

    In short, I would rather see 6 Tactical Squads with a mix of non-additional cost special weapons because they are all equally valid power-wise across different function then see 6 Tactical Squads with no upgrades because "why spend 5 points upgrading a 18 point marine, the upgrades aren't worth the points anyway"?

    You are welcome to disagree, but that doesn't mean it will result in a unbalanced, dumpster fire of a game.
    Great, so you have no faith in GWs ability to balance, but then propose they're going to balance it by shifting weapon stats around. Their skill at balancing will suddenly improve? The assumptions you make here are like tantamount to utopian dellusion. "If we do this one thing everything will be solved!"

    But also . . . If points were no issue I'd probably spam certain weapons even harder. Points have absolutely driven me to more army diversity in my builds throughout the editions. Because of the varying costs, I had to make compromises and take other gear than just the best or most optimal for intended deployment.


    And don't even bring up the red herrings of balancing something against nothing or a special weapon against a basic weapon. We all know that a question designed to win points rather than have an honest discussion.
    Pffft! It's a perfectly valid point for two reasons.

    1: Part of seeing loadout diversity on the table is including both "haves" and "have nots".

    2: The second is that it removes the option of making those compromises in favor of other options elsewhere.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 22:38:11


    Post by: Totalwar1402


    OP

    I want to see them massively drop the killing power of units. They should move away from this idea that to make the game exciting every time you act you get a unit kill. It massively unbalances the game, you can even with an innocent list all but table your opponent from a single good turn of shooting and it results in weird things like MSU, avoiding any movement across open ground.

    I prefer the game to be troop heavy and to be more about movement and having to focus your units to push people off objectives. More of a shoving match and less like wack a mole. In practice it doesn’t make the game quicker because there’s that much math and strats to get these crazy kills off. When it would be be quicker to have simpler less buffed units moving around.

    Specifically with Sisters of Battle to go on a tangent. Apart from repentia they shouldn’t be a glass cannon but I went from playing Guard to them and they didn’t seem any different. You can have your 2 plus armour and 4 up inv but it just doesn’t matter against the kind of firepower. Where failing a single charge can throw a game because you will not survive that counterfire and if you had got the charge you’d annihilate the unit. It’s all or nothing. This is just friendly games BTW. This ain’t tooling up lists.

    For individual units. I’d like them to incentivise you to take big blocks of Sisters of Battle. Right now, they’re just objective counters and bolters play too small a role so you go for retributors and dominions. Either make the unit more tanky point for point or make the bolters better. I think the weapon skill should go up as well. Like I want to see them be the absolute core of the army and not just a vehicle for taking meltaguns.

    I also think Paragon Warsuits need a major look at. Either make them a little worse but troops and more of a budget Dreadnought; 3 up armour and worse weapons. Like you could take an army of them cheap. But they’re a relatively cheap line unit that’s not a big deal if they die. Or make them a serious elite combat unit where it’s a huge premium to take them but they are just all round good. Basically give them a reasonable invulnerable save and an extra wound so they’re less likely to be one shot.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 22:51:40


    Post by: Kanluwen


     Insectum7 wrote:
     Kanluwen wrote:
    It's no less bizarre than pretending that certain options aren't(I assume you meant) outright ignored in favor of others, no matter the points costs.
    According to who? The mighty Kanluwen and his projectionist claims? Ha!

    I meant "are". Because certain options are ignored in favor of others or outright just not opted to upgrade.

    I think part of the issue is that you seem to be conflating wanting a flat cost to be no cost.
    Uhhhh. . . Nope! I don't see flat cost as no cost. I see it as

    1: A reduction in available design space, since you remove the option to have variable-value gear.

    "Free" is a variable-value, FYI.
    A Guard Officer should not be paying for a Power Sword, Chainsword, Bolt Pistol, or Laspistol--and they don't. They do pay for a Power Fist or Plasma Pistol though.


    2: A reduction in solo-engagement with the hobby, because some of us really enjoy the nitty-gritty of listbuilding.

    Weapons actually being balanced across their profiles would shift that "nitty-gritty" from simple number-crunching to actual, meaningful decisions. I would think that people wanting the "nitty-gritty of listbuilding" would want factors other than simple number-crunching to be the reason listbuilding becomes challenging, right?

    Part of why I liked the Cadian and Death Korps squads being able to double up on weapons is that it allowed for a meaningful choice, alongside of letting me throw a bit more customization to the unit in lieu of that HWT.

    A double plasma squad, with medical pouches scattered across the gear of the other squad members for Cadians? A double-flamer squad, with everyone modeled with gas-masks and running poses? Krieg with sharpshooters modeled to look more like a "security team" for a rear echelon?

    That's where my engagement comes from. Truly making a force mine. I don't give one flipping feth about the "nitty-gritty of listbuilding" when people pretend that there is some kind of secret knowledge in it. By and large it comes down to either "I like the look of item X/Y/Z" or "Numbercrunchers showed that A/B/C is the best, so I take that".

    3: A reduction in options, because you can't take a minimal cost unit for a backfield task vs. a tooled out one for a "main line" unit. You save no "value" by taking a "min" squad.

    You're speaking to a Guard player. I can't take a "min squad" anyways, unless I run Scions, Ogryn, Rough Riders, or various vehicles. All of my squads are locked at 5 or 10 models.

    The most I could do prior to the free wargear was simply not take upgrades, which still locked me in at 9 Lasguns and a Laspistol...in which case I should have just taken Conscripts and gotten 11 more Lasguns for around the same price.
    You just shoot yourself in the foot even harder than you project others do by taking Flamers instead of Plasma. At least folks who take Flamers might save on points and get a little extra kick against hordes.

    The problem with this argument is that the actual lists written back when Guard paid points for upgrades shows this wasn't the case.

    Plasma was basically an ever-present item in the lists. Usually with autocannons in the same squad. Then there were the trusty alternates of Grenade Launchers and Mortars in the same squad, letting you ignore LOS while camping on an objective out of LOS and chip away hoping for a lucky wound....


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 23:04:05


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


     Kanluwen wrote:
    A Guard Officer should not be paying for a Power Sword, Chainsword, Bolt Pistol, or Laspistol--...
    Why? Anything that is better than the default wargear should cost more. A Guard Officer with a power sword is better than one with a chainsword. A Bolt Pistol is better than a Laspistol. The cost should reflect this increased power, even if this "power" is minimal in the context of the unit or army. If they are free, then why wouldn't you always take the best free options for everything?

    Upgrades should never be free. And putting a flat cost on upgrades (ie. all special weapons in a Guard Squad cost +X points, all Heavy Weapons in a Tactical Squad cost +Y points) doesn't take into account the inherent differences between weapons, the roles they play, and how effective the weapons are at their roles. Some weapons are straight upgrades over others, some are side-grades, some do similar things but in a vastly different fashion.

    By making weapons have the same cost you're essentially saying that all weapons are equally good at whatever they're meant to do. And they should never be free.

    The current Guard Codex is a travesty.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 23:10:49


    Post by: alextroy


     Insectum7 wrote:

     alextroy wrote:
    When it comes down to it, I have no faith in the GW Design Teams ability to balance the point values of too many variables. Every variable we can remove from the balancing equation should provide us with a better balanced game. I am willing to give up some lore accuracy on rarer, better equipment in pursuit of a better balanced and more lore accurate looking army on the battlefield.

    In short, I would rather see 6 Tactical Squads with a mix of non-additional cost special weapons because they are all equally valid power-wise across different function then see 6 Tactical Squads with no upgrades because "why spend 5 points upgrading a 18 point marine, the upgrades aren't worth the points anyway"?

    You are welcome to disagree, but that doesn't mean it will result in a unbalanced, dumpster fire of a game.
    Great, so you have no faith in GWs ability to balance, but then propose they're going to balance it by shifting weapon stats around. Their skill at balancing will suddenly improve? The assumptions you make here are like tantamount to utopian dellusion. "If we do this one thing everything will be solved!"

    But also . . . If points were no issue I'd probably spam certain weapons even harder. Points have absolutely driven me to more army diversity in my builds throughout the editions. Because of the varying costs, I had to make compromises and take other gear than just the best or most optimal for intended deployment.
    Wow. Couldn't even make it through the entire sentence before trying to score a point. Look at the red text above. Note the bold part you completely ignored. I want GW to have less to think about when balancing the points and I think balancing the weapons once allows them to then not think about that issue when balancing the units. If 8 out of 10 options don't need to cost points because they are even, that is 8 things you don't need to consider. Do that over the few thousand units in the game and they just might be less likely to make bad cost balance mistakes in the future.


    And don't even bring up the red herrings of balancing something against nothing or a special weapon against a basic weapon. We all know that a question designed to win points rather than have an honest discussion.
    Pffft! It's a perfectly valid point for two reasons.

    1: Part of seeing loadout diversity on the table is including both "haves" and "have nots".

    2: The second is that it removes the option of making those compromises in favor of other options elsewhere.
    They are false questions because:
    1. Any item that is an additional item (as opposed to a swap) must either cost points or should become not optional. Simple as that. If a Leman Russ has optional sponsons, they must have a cost. Otherwise, they are not really optional and should be an assumed part of the unit composition.

    2. False choice. If something isn't optional, you don't have to worry about not taking it to allow you the option to take something else. If you go to a restaurant and purchase a meal, you aren't being penalized because the meal includes two sides. You can choose not to eat them, but it doing so doesn't allow you to purchase a dessert.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 23:28:27


    Post by: Insectum7


     Kanluwen wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
     Kanluwen wrote:
    It's no less bizarre than pretending that certain options aren't(I assume you meant) outright ignored in favor of others, no matter the points costs.
    According to who? The mighty Kanluwen and his projectionist claims? Ha!

    I meant "are". Because certain options are ignored in favor of others or outright just not opted to upgrade.
    Then you're the one pretending? The idea of weapons being ignored is your talking point.

     Kanluwen wrote:


    I think part of the issue is that you seem to be conflating wanting a flat cost to be no cost.
    Uhhhh. . . Nope! I don't see flat cost as no cost. I see it as

    1: A reduction in available design space, since you remove the option to have variable-value gear.

    "Free" is a variable-value, FYI.
    A Guard Officer should not be paying for a Power Sword, Chainsword, Bolt Pistol, or Laspistol--and they don't. They do pay for a Power Fist or Plasma Pistol though.
    Why should they not pay for a Power Sword if it is an upgrade?

     Kanluwen wrote:


    2: A reduction in solo-engagement with the hobby, because some of us really enjoy the nitty-gritty of listbuilding.

    Weapons actually being balanced across their profiles would shift that "nitty-gritty" from simple number-crunching to actual, meaningful decisions. I would think that people wanting the "nitty-gritty of listbuilding" would want factors other than simple number-crunching to be the reason listbuilding becomes challenging, right?
    Points for different gear does not exclude challenging decision making.

     Kanluwen wrote:

    Part of why I liked the Cadian and Death Korps squads being able to double up on weapons is that it allowed for a meaningful choice, alongside of letting me throw a bit more customization to the unit in lieu of that HWT.

    A double plasma squad, with medical pouches scattered across the gear of the other squad members for Cadians? A double-flamer squad, with everyone modeled with gas-masks and running poses? Krieg with sharpshooters modeled to look more like a "security team" for a rear echelon?

    That's where my engagement comes from. Truly making a force mine. I don't give one flipping feth about the "nitty-gritty of listbuilding" when people pretend that there is some kind of secret knowledge in it. By and large it comes down to either "I like the look of item X/Y/Z" or "Numbercrunchers showed that A/B/C is the best, so I take that".

    That's nice that you engage that way. Do you understand that other people might engage differently? Do you understand that points allow for both kinds of engagement?

     Kanluwen wrote:

    3: A reduction in options, because you can't take a minimal cost unit for a backfield task vs. a tooled out one for a "main line" unit. You save no "value" by taking a "min" squad.

    You're speaking to a Guard player. I can't take a "min squad" anyways, unless I run Scions, Ogryn, Rough Riders, or various vehicles. All of my squads are locked at 5 or 10 models.

    The most I could do prior to the free wargear was simply not take upgrades, which still locked me in at 9 Lasguns and a Laspistol...in which case I should have just taken Conscripts and gotten 11 more Lasguns for around the same price.
    The "min" here is "minimal expenditure". You could buy the bodies with basic gear, and choose to spend more points to give them better gear. The "not take upgrades".


     Kanluwen wrote:

    You just shoot yourself in the foot even harder than you project others do by taking Flamers instead of Plasma. At least folks who take Flamers might save on points and get a little extra kick against hordes.

    The problem with this argument is that the actual lists written back when Guard paid points for upgrades shows this wasn't the case.

    Plasma was basically an ever-present item in the lists. Usually with autocannons in the same squad. Then there were the trusty alternates of Grenade Launchers and Mortars in the same squad, letting you ignore LOS while camping on an objective out of LOS and chip away hoping for a lucky wound....
    Then GW should make each of those upgrade options more viable within the framework of the game. Not simply remove point costs. You can achieve weapon option viability without throwing points under the bus. You can still have "decent AT weapon" for one price, and "super AT weapon" for a different, higher price, and have both be viable options.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 23:30:07


    Post by: Heafstaag


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Kanluwen wrote:
    A Guard Officer should not be paying for a Power Sword, Chainsword, Bolt Pistol, or Laspistol--...
    Why? Anything that is better than the default wargear should cost more. A Guard Officer with a power sword is better than one with a chainsword. A Bolt Pistol is better than a Laspistol. The cost should reflect this increased power, even if this "power" is minimal in the context of the unit or army. If they are free, then why wouldn't you always take the best free options for everything?

    Upgrades should never be free. And putting a flat cost on upgrades (ie. all special weapons in a Guard Squad cost +X points, all Heavy Weapons in a Tactical Squad cost +Y points) doesn't take into account the inherent differences between weapons, the roles they play, and how effective the weapons are at their roles. Some weapons are straight upgrades over others, some are side-grades, some do similar things but in a vastly different fashion.

    By making weapons have the same cost you're essentially saying that all weapons are equally good at whatever they're meant to do. And they should never be free.

    The current Guard Codex is a travesty.


    Exactly!


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 23:33:39


    Post by: Insectum7


     alextroy wrote:

    2. False choice. If something isn't optional, you don't have to worry about not taking it to allow you the option to take something else. If you go to a restaurant and purchase a meal, you aren't being penalized because the meal includes two sides. You can choose not to eat them, but it doing so doesn't allow you to purchase a dessert.

    Bruh. I can go to a fast Carls Jr. right now and buy a Combo Meal (Sandwich, fries and soda) or just buy the sandwich and have money left over for dessert. Ta daaa!

    I can even choose to spend an extra dollar on cheese for the sandwich, and then buy a less expensive dessert because of it!


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 23:35:59


    Post by: Kanluwen


     Insectum7 wrote:
    Then you're the one pretending? The idea of weapons being ignored is your talking point.

    Correct. And yet you're the one who has repeatedly pretended that it's the "no points" element that makes those weapons being ignored.

    Why should they not pay for a Power Sword if it is an upgrade?

    Explain how it's an upgrade. What does throwing a Power Sword on an officer realistically do? Make it so he might hurt someone in CC?

    Points for different gear does not exclude challenging decision making.

    The simple existence of cookie-cutter netlists begs to differ.


    That's nice that you engage that way. Do you understand that other people might engage differently? Do you understand that points allow for both kinds of engagement?

    They really don't though. Points are why we keep having options stripped away.


    The "min" here is "minimal expenditure". You could buy the bodies with basic gear, and choose to spend more points to give them better gear. The "not take upgrades".

    Actually the choice was "do I waste points upgrading speed bumps or do I use the more efficient method of spamming the same bodies".


    ]Then GW should make each of those upgrade options more viable within the framework of the game. Not simply remove point costs. You can achieve weapon option viability without throwing points under the bus. You can still have "decent AT weapon" for one price, and "super AT weapon" for a different, higher price, and have both be viable options.

    No actually, you can't.

    Because there's this magical thing called MATHHAMMER that is a cancerous blight across this game. Unless you want to play pretend and insinuate that there is not concerted calls about items being "trash" the minute leaks hit with their rules?


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 23:37:13


    Post by: Insectum7


     alextroy wrote:
    Wow. Couldn't even make it through the entire sentence before trying to score a point. Look at the red text above. Note the bold part you completely ignored. I want GW to have less to think about when balancing the points and I think balancing the weapons once allows them to then not think about that issue when balancing the units. If 8 out of 10 options don't need to cost points because they are even, that is 8 things you don't need to consider. Do that over the few thousand units in the game and they just might be less likely to make bad cost balance mistakes in the future.
    All you've done is shift the point of balance from points to stats, while removing the tool which is easiest for GW to adjust (points). I'll keep my "scored point"!


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 23:37:31


    Post by: Kanluwen


    Heafstaag wrote:

    The current Guard Codex is a travesty.


    Exactly!

    The only correct part is that bit. And it's not even for the reason insinuated.

    It's for the continual, incessant overlooking of options literally available in the damn kits sold.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 23:40:28


    Post by: Insectum7


     Kanluwen wrote:
    Spoiler:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    Then you're the one pretending? The idea of weapons being ignored is your talking point.

    Correct. And yet you're the one who has repeatedly pretended that it's the "no points" element that makes those weapons being ignored.

    Why should they not pay for a Power Sword if it is an upgrade?

    Explain how it's an upgrade. What does throwing a Power Sword on an officer realistically do? Make it so he might hurt someone in CC?

    Points for different gear does not exclude challenging decision making.

    The simple existence of cookie-cutter netlists begs to differ.


    That's nice that you engage that way. Do you understand that other people might engage differently? Do you understand that points allow for both kinds of engagement?

    They really don't though. Points are why we keep having options stripped away.


    The "min" here is "minimal expenditure". You could buy the bodies with basic gear, and choose to spend more points to give them better gear. The "not take upgrades".

    Actually the choice was "do I waste points upgrading speed bumps or do I use the more efficient method of spamming the same bodies".


    ]Then GW should make each of those upgrade options more viable within the framework of the game. Not simply remove point costs. You can achieve weapon option viability without throwing points under the bus. You can still have "decent AT weapon" for one price, and "super AT weapon" for a different, higher price, and have both be viable options.

    No actually, you can't.

    Because there's this magical thing called MATHHAMMER that is a cancerous blight across this game. Unless you want to play pretend and insinuate that there is not concerted calls about items being "trash" the minute leaks hit with their rules?
    This entire post is projection. "Everybody plays like this, no exceptions!"


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/27 23:44:33


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    The Guard Codex is horrific for exactly the reasons I insinuated, and far, far more beyond. It's a track-wreck from start to finish.

    It makes the Chaos Codex look like a measured work of art.

     Insectum7 wrote:
    This entire post is projection. "Everybody plays like this, no exceptions!"
    Are you at all surprised, given who's making the argument?



    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 00:04:59


    Post by: Insectum7


     H.B.M.C. wrote:

     Insectum7 wrote:
    This entire post is projection. "Everybody plays like this, no exceptions!"
    Are you at all surprised, given who's making the argument?

    Nope!


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 00:09:23


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


    Kanluwen 809420 11510415 wrote:
    Why should they not pay for a Power Sword if it is an upgrade?

    Explain how it's an upgrade. What does throwing a Power Sword on an officer realistically do? Make it so he might hurt someone in CC?

    Well yeah. Why else did you buy it? We can always just remove that actual option and just count all Commander weapons as Chainswords in terms of stats if that's what you want.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 00:11:30


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


     Kanluwen wrote:
    Explain how it's an upgrade. What does throwing a Power Sword on an officer realistically do? Make it so he might hurt someone in CC?
    It causes more damage than his default weapon. It is better than his default weapon. It is not a side-grade. It is an upgrade.

    A Plasma Pistol does more than a Laspistol, but also might just kill the guy using it, so it might not do anything, yet you're apparently fine with that costing more. This is no different.

    How do you not get this concept?






    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 00:40:54


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Kanluwen wrote:
    Explain how it's an upgrade. What does throwing a Power Sword on an officer realistically do? Make it so he might hurt someone in CC?
    It causes more damage than his default weapon. It is better than his default weapon. It is not a side-grade. It is an upgrade.

    A Plasma Pistol does more than a Laspistol, but also might just kill the guy using it, so it might not do anything, yet you're apparently fine with that costing more. This is no different.

    How do you not get this concept?





    Actually, Plasma Pistol won't kill the user by default, so even the D1 profile is still a straight upgrade.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 00:57:25


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    My point was that a plasma pistol might only not do nothing, but might kill the user, putting paid to Kan's attempt at an argument where he said "so he might hurt something".

    He doesn't seem to understand that nothing is a sure thing in a game like this, and that you are often paying points for the potential of doing something. A Guard Officer with a power sword has the potential to do more with it than the same officer with a Chainsword, thus, its cost should be reflected appropriately.

    If I pay points to upgrade my Russ so it has sponsons, but make the conscious choice to never use them during the game, then that doesn't mean that they should have been free as they didn't do anything.



    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 04:03:53


    Post by: alextroy


     Insectum7 wrote:
     alextroy wrote:

    2. False choice. If something isn't optional, you don't have to worry about not taking it to allow you the option to take something else. If you go to a restaurant and purchase a meal, you aren't being penalized because the meal includes two sides. You can choose not to eat them, but it doing so doesn't allow you to purchase a dessert.

    Bruh. I can go to a fast Carls Jr. right now and buy a Combo Meal (Sandwich, fries and soda) or just buy the sandwich and have money left over for dessert. Ta daaa!

    I can even choose to spend an extra dollar on cheese for the sandwich, and then buy a less expensive dessert because of it!
    Nice job intentionally reading the analogy. I said a restaurant, not some fast food joint. If you go to Olive Garden and purchase a spaghetti with meat sauce, you don't save any money by forgoing the salad and breadsticks.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 04:33:18


    Post by: vict0988


     Kanluwen wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
     Kanluwen wrote:
    It's no less bizarre than pretending that certain options aren't(I assume you meant) outright ignored in favor of others, no matter the points costs.
    According to who? The mighty Kanluwen and his projectionist claims? Ha!

    I meant "are". Because certain options are ignored in favor of others or outright just not opted to upgrade.

    Does the same happen in AOS?
     Kanluwen wrote:
    You just shoot yourself in the foot even harder than you project others do by taking Flamers instead of Plasma. At least folks who take Flamers might save on points and get a little extra kick against hordes.

    The problem with this argument is that the actual lists written back when Guard paid points for upgrades shows this wasn't the case.

    Plasma was basically an ever-present item in the lists. Usually with autocannons in the same squad. Then there were the trusty alternates of Grenade Launchers and Mortars in the same squad, letting you ignore LOS while camping on an objective out of LOS and chip away hoping for a lucky wound....

    Just because points can increase internal balance doesn't mean they always will. Like you could have a grenade launcher cost more than a plasma gun despite the grenade launcher being worth less. But you'll always end up with lots of options that have the best rules on their individual datasheet by a good enough margin that people consider them auto-include unless they have an appropriate points cost or a too high points cost. Options being given too high points costs is still better than everything being free because the alternative is having the "option" of keeping a strictly worse lasgun instead of a plasma gun and the hoops you'd have to jump through to balance the options without points is just silly when we already have points.
     alextroy wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
     alextroy wrote:

    2. False choice. If something isn't optional, you don't have to worry about not taking it to allow you the option to take something else. If you go to a restaurant and purchase a meal, you aren't being penalized because the meal includes two sides. You can choose not to eat them, but it doing so doesn't allow you to purchase a dessert.

    Bruh. I can go to a fast Carls Jr. right now and buy a Combo Meal (Sandwich, fries and soda) or just buy the sandwich and have money left over for dessert. Ta daaa!

    I can even choose to spend an extra dollar on cheese for the sandwich, and then buy a less expensive dessert because of it!
    Nice job intentionally reading the analogy. I said a restaurant, not some fast food joint. If you go to Olive Garden and purchase a spaghetti with meat sauce, you don't save any money by forgoing the salad and breadsticks.

    They're called fast-food restaurants and many countries don't have free sides like bread or free water. You still haven't proven that GW has an easier time balancing simpler systems than more complicated ones. External balance is as good as it's been possibly forever, the game is a bloated mess and there is no unified points balancing design, it's all just a bungled mess and somehow it works out to pretty fair win rates and most factions getting one or more top 4s at a GT. If GW cannot balance the points on a datasheet then how are they going to balance the stats? Look at the Necrons codex when it came out, Triarch Praetorians and Immortals switched around which weapon option was the superior one, both only have one option that works on the entire unit, both failed to be balanced, one swap was free, the other cost points. GW just got it wrong which one should have cost points and which one should have been free.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 05:18:09


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


     alextroy wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
     alextroy wrote:

    2. False choice. If something isn't optional, you don't have to worry about not taking it to allow you the option to take something else. If you go to a restaurant and purchase a meal, you aren't being penalized because the meal includes two sides. You can choose not to eat them, but it doing so doesn't allow you to purchase a dessert.

    Bruh. I can go to a fast Carls Jr. right now and buy a Combo Meal (Sandwich, fries and soda) or just buy the sandwich and have money left over for dessert. Ta daaa!

    I can even choose to spend an extra dollar on cheese for the sandwich, and then buy a less expensive dessert because of it!
    Nice job intentionally reading the analogy. I said a restaurant, not some fast food joint. If you go to Olive Garden and purchase a spaghetti with meat sauce, you don't save any money by forgoing the salad and breadsticks.

    Are fast food restaurants not restaurants?


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 05:37:54


    Post by: Insectum7


     alextroy wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
     alextroy wrote:

    2. False choice. If something isn't optional, you don't have to worry about not taking it to allow you the option to take something else. If you go to a restaurant and purchase a meal, you aren't being penalized because the meal includes two sides. You can choose not to eat them, but it doing so doesn't allow you to purchase a dessert.

    Bruh. I can go to a fast Carls Jr. right now and buy a Combo Meal (Sandwich, fries and soda) or just buy the sandwich and have money left over for dessert. Ta daaa!

    I can even choose to spend an extra dollar on cheese for the sandwich, and then buy a less expensive dessert because of it!
    Nice job intentionally reading the analogy. I said a restaurant, not some fast food joint. If you go to Olive Garden and purchase a spaghetti with meat sauce, you don't save any money by forgoing the salad and breadsticks.
    It doesn't matter. It's like you don't understand how numbers work.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 06:26:08


    Post by: Dudeface


    I think the issue being lost here is that having the differentiated weapon profiles as they are now allows more parity than before. Whereas a lot of the talk is very much "things are as they as they are and must always be".

    Having to choose between a horde or meq or anti-armour weapon without the latter being the best and by default the most expensive is possible now because its not based off a static profile for all 3. Whether you like that or not is subjective but there's a reason they're pulling the options onto the unit with stats associated, just like sigmar where common options are usually straight swaps.

    For reference yes, a plasma pistol is currently a straight up upgrade worth points. I've debated the fact that imo a guard officers bolt pistol can't be reasonably priced atm enough times to not be bothered again.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 06:54:47


    Post by: Cyel


    The only thing that could convince me to go back would be a radical switch to much more interesting gameplay (non-obvious, impactful decisions, complex problems requiring creative solutions) and much less upkeep and resolution where players are bored, passive observers (watching all those dice being rolled for hours on end).


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 07:08:59


    Post by: Dolnikan


    Dudeface wrote:
    I think the issue being lost here is that having the differentiated weapon profiles as they are now allows more parity than before. Whereas a lot of the talk is very much "things are as they as they are and must always be".

    Having to choose between a horde or meq or anti-armour weapon without the latter being the best and by default the most expensive is possible now because its not based off a static profile for all 3. Whether you like that or not is subjective but there's a reason they're pulling the options onto the unit with stats associated, just like sigmar where common options are usually straight swaps.

    For reference yes, a plasma pistol is currently a straight up upgrade worth points. I've debated the fact that imo a guard officers bolt pistol can't be reasonably priced atm enough times to not be bothered again.


    Indeed. A bolt pistol and laspistol are currently so close in performance that even a single point difference is too much. Of course, it doesn't help that right now small arms aren't great anyways and a single small arms shot isn't going to have any sort of impact. So the best approach is to allow both and just make them both have the same cost (free) because no one is willing to pay even a single point for them.

    With melee weapons it's the same. Sure, a power sword comes with some advantages over a chainsword but for guard officers the difference is so small that it practically doesn't exist and very few people are willing to spend more on a guard officer just to make them a little bit more effective in melee. You generally won't be charging with them and if you get charged, well, chances are that you're dead anyways.

    With special weapons it's the same. There is very little to actually differentiate them as things are now and that means that there will generally be a best option. Perhaps points could be used to balance them theoretically but with the skill demonstrated by GW that's not something I would ever expect to see. That incidentally also is why I'm leaning more and more towards power level because it admits that such fine granular balance is completely beyond what GW is capable of.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 07:41:27


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


     Dolnikan wrote:

    With melee weapons it's the same. Sure, a power sword comes with some advantages over a chainsword but for guard officers the difference is so small that it practically doesn't exist and very few people are willing to spend more on a guard officer just to make them a little bit more effective in melee. You generally won't be charging with them and if you get charged, well, chances are that you're dead anyways.

    Then don't pay for the Power Sword if you feel that way. It's that easy.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 07:53:42


    Post by: Dudeface


    EviscerationPlague wrote:
     Dolnikan wrote:

    With melee weapons it's the same. Sure, a power sword comes with some advantages over a chainsword but for guard officers the difference is so small that it practically doesn't exist and very few people are willing to spend more on a guard officer just to make them a little bit more effective in melee. You generally won't be charging with them and if you get charged, well, chances are that you're dead anyways.

    Then don't pay for the Power Sword if you feel that way. It's that easy.


    Which is exactly the problem with just "paying for obviously better" either you don't need/want it and it might as well not exist. Or you want/need it and it comes down to points where you simply work out the likely return for point investment and it is a flat yes/no.

    There is no niche to a power sword, its flat better than their stock melee weapon. Do you expect your infantry squads to get into melee? No? Might as well not exist and taking it is handicapping yourself. Do you expect a bit of fisticuffs? Is it priced at such a level it will make a notable enough difference over the chainsword? Either no brainer or might as well not exist again.

    You could argue these factor into wider list building, but only so far as they result ultimately in the above: do I need the points? If not will I get into melee? Etc.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 08:56:16


    Post by: vict0988


    What reason do I have to take a las pistol on a Sergeant?

    I can give you a reason to upgrade to a bolt pistol even at 1 pt, +1 S. You don't have an argument for why 0 pt bolt pistols are better for the game.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 09:06:34


    Post by: Dudeface


     vict0988 wrote:
    What reason do I have to take a las pistol on a Sergeant?

    I can give you a reason to upgrade to a bolt pistol even at 1 pt, +1 S. You don't have an argument for why 0 pt bolt pistols are better for the game.


    I'm not rehashing this, it's not worth 1 point, arguably it's worth more than 0, good luck.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 09:33:55


    Post by: Apple fox


    Dudeface wrote:
     vict0988 wrote:
    What reason do I have to take a las pistol on a Sergeant?

    I can give you a reason to upgrade to a bolt pistol even at 1 pt, +1 S. You don't have an argument for why 0 pt bolt pistols are better for the game.


    I'm not rehashing this, it's not worth 1 point, arguably it's worth more than 0, good luck.


    Can also give Sargent and commander models extra shots with las weapons, small but fun thing.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 10:15:36


    Post by: Tyel


    Apple fox wrote:
    Can also give Sargent and commander models extra shots with las weapons, small but fun thing.


    But that would just make the laspistol the auto-choice over the bolt pistol. (2 S3 AP- shots always being as good or better than 1 S4 AP- shot).

    I think the issue is chicken and egg. Dudeface may be tired of it - but I'll bite.
    From where we are, its impossible to give guard sergeant bolt pistols a meaningful points cost. I guess you could say 0.1-0.2 points or something - but at this level you can clearly round it down to zero with essentially zero impact on game balance. No one will win a game of 40k because they had a tiny number of S4 shots over S3 ones.

    Its unlikely frankly that a game would be won or lost on a bunch of guard sergeants all having free plasma pistols - but this feels like a bigger jump. They probably should be a point or two (certainly not 5). But then we are left going "aha, you got 10 free plasma pistols across your army, you should have paid 10 points for them." But would the Guard player really have performed dramatically worse if he'd left 1.5 guard models at home? It seems unlikely.

    Same with power swords. A Guard Sergeant swinning into a Marine with a power sword expects to do about 2.25 points worth of damage more than swinging with a chainsword. (Before any other rules.)
    What's the "average" number of assault phases a Guard Sergeant gets to be in during a game? I suspect quite a bit less than 1.
    So how many points is expecting to do 2.25~ points of additional damage if you get to swing worth? Given the amount of time the Guardsmen squad will get wiped without ever swinging at all (due to being either shot or charged), its certainly not worth 5. 1-2 points maybe?
    Well we are back to "If the Guard player is getting 10 free points with his 10 free power swords, its hard to believe that's the reason he would win the game."

    The thing is this logic applies throughout the game. Even having say 10 free melta guns vs lasguns doesn't necesarilly translate into as much of an uplift as you might think. And this is why Marines getting free points has made them good - but hasn't produced a 70% win rate as might have perhaps been expected.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 10:28:39


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


     Dolnikan wrote:
    With melee weapons it's the same. Sure, a power sword comes with some advantages over a chainsword but for guard officers the difference is so small that it practically doesn't exist and very few people are willing to spend more on a guard officer just to make them a little bit more effective in melee. You generally won't be charging with them and if you get charged, well, chances are that you're dead anyways.
    You are paying for the potential. If the cost is free, you always take it because having it is always better than not having it.

     Dolnikan wrote:
    With special weapons it's the same. There is very little to actually differentiate them as things are now and that means that there will generally be a best option.
    Flamers and Meltaguns have too little difference to differentiate them? The differences are even more stark with special weapons, and they sure as hell shouldn't be free.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 10:52:59


    Post by: Dudeface


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Dolnikan wrote:
    With melee weapons it's the same. Sure, a power sword comes with some advantages over a chainsword but for guard officers the difference is so small that it practically doesn't exist and very few people are willing to spend more on a guard officer just to make them a little bit more effective in melee. You generally won't be charging with them and if you get charged, well, chances are that you're dead anyways.
    You are paying for the potential. If the cost is free, you always take it because having it is always better than not having it.


    If it's not free it boils down to intent and efficiency as to whether it's worth existing or not as above.

     Dolnikan wrote:
    With special weapons it's the same. There is very little to actually differentiate them as things are now and that means that there will generally be a best option.
    Flamers and Meltaguns have too little difference to differentiate them? The differences are even more stark with special weapons, and they sure as hell shouldn't be free.


    Fully agree here, but what I find funny is that traditionally there has been more reason/need to differentiate ranged weapon by points as they're allowed to have more variance (range, shots, strength, AP, damage) whereas because Melee was tied to the model carrying it, it was harder to differentiate as heavily resulting in the lovely "better or no point" stance we have now (strength, ap, damage generally). They can move away form that and people seem to want to push against it.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 11:28:26


    Post by: Apple fox


    Tyel wrote:
    Apple fox wrote:
    Can also give Sargent and commander models extra shots with las weapons, small but fun thing.


    But that would just make the laspistol the auto-choice over the bolt pistol. (2 S3 AP- shots always being as good or better than 1 S4 AP- shot).

    I think the issue is chicken and egg. Dudeface may be tired of it - but I'll bite.
    From where we are, its impossible to give guard sergeant bolt pistols a meaningful points cost. I guess you could say 0.1-0.2 points or something - but at this level you can clearly round it down to zero with essentially zero impact on game balance. No one will win a game of 40k because they had a tiny number of S4 shots over S3 ones.

    Its unlikely frankly that a game would be won or lost on a bunch of guard sergeants all having free plasma pistols - but this feels like a bigger jump. They probably should be a point or two (certainly not 5). But then we are left going "aha, you got 10 free plasma pistols across your army, you should have paid 10 points for them." But would the Guard player really have performed dramatically worse if he'd left 1.5 guard models at home? It seems unlikely.

    Same with power swords. A Guard Sergeant swinning into a Marine with a power sword expects to do about 2.25 points worth of damage more than swinging with a chainsword. (Before any other rules.)
    What's the "average" number of assault phases a Guard Sergeant gets to be in during a game? I suspect quite a bit less than 1.
    So how many points is expecting to do 2.25~ points of additional damage if you get to swing worth? Given the amount of time the Guardsmen squad will get wiped without ever swinging at all (due to being either shot or charged), its certainly not worth 5. 1-2 points maybe?
    Well we are back to "If the Guard player is getting 10 free points with his 10 free power swords, its hard to believe that's the reason he would win the game."

    The thing is this logic applies throughout the game. Even having say 10 free melta guns vs lasguns doesn't necesarilly translate into as much of an uplift as you might think. And this is why Marines getting free points has made them good - but hasn't produced a 70% win rate as might have perhaps been expected.


    Yes, but I also mention it for Sargent and commander only, so bolt pistol can be the iconic or standard sidearm for other command models. A flavour difference for players to decide on.
    You could also have it be only when they don’t move, so it’s a option not a Garanty.
    There are little fun options that can be pulled to ad little bits of flavour!
    And if other parts of the game changes around it, then these become more valuable choices as well.

    The issue with a lot of these discussions will always be it’s hard to discuss things in isolation, and with GW sucking at game design it’s even harder since something could swing even a small thing in a huge weird way.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 13:08:32


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     vict0988 wrote:

    Does the same happen in AOS?


    yes, at least in the armies i play that have upgrade options.

    Kairic Acolytes with dual blades are a meme because their damage output is gak anyway, so giving them a shield so they sometimes arent wiped when theyre targeted is the better option.

    Taking horrors that do mortal wounds on death are also a total meme (because GW costs them the same as the ones that split). Like any sane person would pay 250pts for 10 wounds with a 5+ save that will do an average of 5 mortal wounds on death lol (VS 50 wounds if you take them as splits)


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 14:38:00


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


    Dudeface wrote:
     vict0988 wrote:
    What reason do I have to take a las pistol on a Sergeant?

    I can give you a reason to upgrade to a bolt pistol even at 1 pt, +1 S. You don't have an argument for why 0 pt bolt pistols are better for the game.


    I'm not rehashing this, it's not worth 1 point, arguably it's worth more than 0, good luck.

    Why is S4 over S3 not worth 1 point?


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
     Dolnikan wrote:

    With melee weapons it's the same. Sure, a power sword comes with some advantages over a chainsword but for guard officers the difference is so small that it practically doesn't exist and very few people are willing to spend more on a guard officer just to make them a little bit more effective in melee. You generally won't be charging with them and if you get charged, well, chances are that you're dead anyways.

    Then don't pay for the Power Sword if you feel that way. It's that easy.

    You could argue these factor into wider list building, but only so far as they result ultimately in the above: do I need the points? If not will I get into melee? Etc.

    Oh hey you're approaching the point. It's not my problem if you or Kan don't want to put a thought into list building. If the option is better than the default, it should cost more.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 14:46:07


    Post by: vipoid


    I feel you could solve the guardsmen bolt pistol vs. laspistol dilemma forever by allowing them to take lasguns.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 15:00:04


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


     vipoid wrote:
    I feel you could solve the guardsmen bolt pistol vs. laspistol dilemma forever by allowing them to take lasguns.

    Doesn't the sarge get some Rapid 2 weapon now anyway?


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 15:19:30


    Post by: Tyel


    EviscerationPlague wrote:

    Why is S4 over S3 not worth 1 point?


    A las pistol vs a bolt pistol into Marines:
    1*1/2*1/3*1/3=0.05555.
    1*1/2*1/2*1/3=0.83333.
    Therefore the bolt pistol does 0.02777 more wounds. At 9 points a wound, that translates to doing 0.25 points worth of damage for each time you fire.

    How often does a guard sergeant get to fire their pistol? Keeping in mind the limited range band - as if you are in range for a grenade, that is preferable.
    Somewhere between zero and one?

    Even if we said they always get to fire once, paying 1 point to do an average of 0.25 points more damage would be irrational. You are giving the opponent an extra point when they wipe the guard squad (as will likely happen, often without the pistol ever being fired at all).
    Since I don't think on average you even get to fire once, 0.25 points is probably pushing it.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 15:45:36


    Post by: Kanluwen


    EviscerationPlague wrote:
     vipoid wrote:
    I feel you could solve the guardsmen bolt pistol vs. laspistol dilemma forever by allowing them to take lasguns.

    Doesn't the sarge get some Rapid 2 weapon now anyway?

    The Cadian Shock Troops Sergeant gets a "Drum-Fed Autogun".
    DKoK get a Boltgun.
    Infantry Squad Sergeants get the usual pistol options and a Boltgun option.

    The jankiness of it all is that the various kits(or in the case of the Cadian Upgrade Frame) let you build a lasgun sergeant/watchmaster with no hefty conversion required. Same for the Scions and Kasrkin(who actually get hellguns as an option in KT and the instructions).


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 15:49:01


    Post by: Dudeface


    Tyel wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:

    Why is S4 over S3 not worth 1 point?


    A las pistol vs a bolt pistol into Marines:
    1*1/2*1/3*1/3=0.05555.
    1*1/2*1/2*1/3=0.83333.
    Therefore the bolt pistol does 0.02777 more wounds. At 9 points a wound, that translates to doing 0.25 points worth of damage for each time you fire.

    How often does a guard sergeant get to fire their pistol? Keeping in mind the limited range band - as if you are in range for a grenade, that is preferable.
    Somewhere between zero and one?

    Even if we said they always get to fire once, paying 1 point to do an average of 0.25 points more damage would be irrational. You are giving the opponent an extra point when they wipe the guard squad (as will likely happen, often without the pistol ever being fired at all).
    Since I don't think on average you even get to fire once, 0.25 points is probably pushing it.


    Thank you for doing the maths there, summed it up well. The other factor: is that bolt pistol worth 1/5(ish) of an extra body?


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 15:54:27


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


    Tyel wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:

    Why is S4 over S3 not worth 1 point?


    A las pistol vs a bolt pistol into Marines:
    1*1/2*1/3*1/3=0.05555.
    1*1/2*1/2*1/3=0.83333.
    Therefore the bolt pistol does 0.02777 more wounds. At 9 points a wound, that translates to doing 0.25 points worth of damage for each time you fire.

    How often does a guard sergeant get to fire their pistol? Keeping in mind the limited range band - as if you are in range for a grenade, that is preferable.
    Somewhere between zero and one?

    Even if we said they always get to fire once, paying 1 point to do an average of 0.25 points more damage would be irrational. You are giving the opponent an extra point when they wipe the guard squad (as will likely happen, often without the pistol ever being fired at all).
    Since I don't think on average you even get to fire once, 0.25 points is probably pushing it.

    Marines aren't your only target.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 15:56:07


    Post by: ccs


    Tyel wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:

    Why is S4 over S3 not worth 1 point?


    A las pistol vs a bolt pistol into Marines:
    1*1/2*1/3*1/3=0.05555.
    1*1/2*1/2*1/3=0.83333.
    Therefore the bolt pistol does 0.02777 more wounds. At 9 points a wound, that translates to doing 0.25 points worth of damage for each time you fire.

    How often does a guard sergeant get to fire their pistol? Keeping in mind the limited range band - as if you are in range for a grenade, that is preferable.
    Somewhere between zero and one?

    Even if we said they always get to fire once, paying 1 point to do an average of 0.25 points more damage would be irrational. You are giving the opponent an extra point when they wipe the guard squad (as will likely happen, often without the pistol ever being fired at all).


    Well then I guess it's a good thing victory is rarely measured by the values of slain squads.

    Seriously, as long as unit survival isn't a victory condition? So long as I end up with more VP than the other guy, they can table me for all I care.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 16:03:31


    Post by: Dudeface


    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Tyel wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:

    Why is S4 over S3 not worth 1 point?


    A las pistol vs a bolt pistol into Marines:
    1*1/2*1/3*1/3=0.05555.
    1*1/2*1/2*1/3=0.83333.
    Therefore the bolt pistol does 0.02777 more wounds. At 9 points a wound, that translates to doing 0.25 points worth of damage for each time you fire.

    How often does a guard sergeant get to fire their pistol? Keeping in mind the limited range band - as if you are in range for a grenade, that is preferable.
    Somewhere between zero and one?

    Even if we said they always get to fire once, paying 1 point to do an average of 0.25 points more damage would be irrational. You are giving the opponent an extra point when they wipe the guard squad (as will likely happen, often without the pistol ever being fired at all).
    Since I don't think on average you even get to fire once, 0.25 points is probably pushing it.

    Marines aren't your only target.


    What else would you like the numbers for?


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 16:13:56


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Tyel wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:

    Why is S4 over S3 not worth 1 point?


    A las pistol vs a bolt pistol into Marines:
    1*1/2*1/3*1/3=0.05555.
    1*1/2*1/2*1/3=0.83333.
    Therefore the bolt pistol does 0.02777 more wounds. At 9 points a wound, that translates to doing 0.25 points worth of damage for each time you fire.

    How often does a guard sergeant get to fire their pistol? Keeping in mind the limited range band - as if you are in range for a grenade, that is preferable.
    Somewhere between zero and one?

    Even if we said they always get to fire once, paying 1 point to do an average of 0.25 points more damage would be irrational. You are giving the opponent an extra point when they wipe the guard squad (as will likely happen, often without the pistol ever being fired at all).
    Since I don't think on average you even get to fire once, 0.25 points is probably pushing it.

    Marines aren't your only target.


    What else would you like the numbers for?

    You could go after any T3 target, really. Your argument makes no sense and is the equivalent of saying Flamers should be free for Marines because they don't help you against Imperial Knights. No gak they don't.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Oh and don't forget any target that's T6-7, because that doubles your damage vs using the Laspistol


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 16:21:26


    Post by: Insectum7


    Dudeface wrote:

    What else would you like the numbers for?

    Against a Genestealer I get a .9 point return using the Bolt Pistol per shot. Neener neener.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 16:28:11


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


     Insectum7 wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:

    What else would you like the numbers for?

    Against a Genestealer I get a .9 point return using the Bolt Pistol per shot. Neener neener.

    Yeah I just told him that Marines weren't the only target, so let's see how they like the math on that.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 16:52:47


    Post by: Dudeface


    EviscerationPlague wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:

    What else would you like the numbers for?

    Against a Genestealer I get a .9 point return using the Bolt Pistol per shot. Neener neener.

    Yeah I just told him that Marines weren't the only target, so let's see how they like the math on that.


    Lets follow that nids theme:
    - gaunt (fleshborer) - 0.388889 points to the BP
    - stealer - 0.88889 to the BP
    - tyrant guard - 0.625 to the BP

    So the ideal target for a bolt pistol on a guard squad leader is a highish (16+ point) T4 5+ save model, where if it gets to fire once it's nearly worth 1 point. I also can't actually think of any single model that will bring that level of return outside of the stealer off the top of my head.

    Now we've had the pre-programmed gak flinging contest where you've got to try and find something to prove a 1 point upgrade can be justifiable in an incredibly narrow niche environment that somehow justifies it not being worth it into pretty much every other target in the game can we now agree that the level of needless bs granularity given by these upgrades and points scales shows they're not worth having if they exist purely for the sakes of having them?


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 17:00:58


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:

    What else would you like the numbers for?

    Against a Genestealer I get a .9 point return using the Bolt Pistol per shot. Neener neener.

    Yeah I just told him that Marines weren't the only target, so let's see how they like the math on that.


    Lets follow that nids theme:
    - gaunt (fleshborer) - 0.388889 points to the BP
    - stealer - 0.88889 to the BP
    - tyrant guard - 0.625 to the BP

    Wow, look at that. So if you're playing aggressive and putting your infantry at the front, the Bolt Pistol is worth that point instead of being free!


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:

    What else would you like the numbers for?

    Against a Genestealer I get a .9 point return using the Bolt Pistol per shot. Neener neener.

    Yeah I just told him that Marines weren't the only target, so let's see how they like the math on that.

    Now we've had the pre-programmed gak flinging contest where you've got to try and find something to prove a 1 point upgrade can be justifiable in an incredibly narrow niche environment that somehow justifies it not being worth it into pretty much every other target in the game can we now agree that the level of needless bs granularity given by these upgrades and points scales shows they're not worth having if they exist purely for the sakes of having them?

    That's not niche though. That's just one army. Should Mortars be free because Marines aren't the preferred target?


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 17:03:16


    Post by: Dudeface


    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:

    What else would you like the numbers for?

    Against a Genestealer I get a .9 point return using the Bolt Pistol per shot. Neener neener.

    Yeah I just told him that Marines weren't the only target, so let's see how they like the math on that.


    Lets follow that nids theme:
    - gaunt (fleshborer) - 0.388889 points to the BP
    - stealer - 0.88889 to the BP
    - tyrant guard - 0.625 to the BP

    Wow, look at that. So if you're playing aggressive and putting your infantry at the front, the Bolt Pistol is worth that point instead of being free!


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:

    What else would you like the numbers for?

    Against a Genestealer I get a .9 point return using the Bolt Pistol per shot. Neener neener.

    Yeah I just told him that Marines weren't the only target, so let's see how they like the math on that.

    Now we've had the pre-programmed gak flinging contest where you've got to try and find something to prove a 1 point upgrade can be justifiable in an incredibly narrow niche environment that somehow justifies it not being worth it into pretty much every other target in the game can we now agree that the level of needless bs granularity given by these upgrades and points scales shows they're not worth having if they exist purely for the sakes of having them?

    That's not niche though. That's just one army. Should Mortars be free because Marines aren't the preferred target?


    No it is niche, 1pt bolt pistols aren't common as you note and if you specifically fire them into 5+ save 15+ point T3/4 models then yes, they have minor value. I'd also note that whatever you just got inside 12" of is going to leave a bloody smear where they stood.

    As usual you're ignoring the greater point, if something has such a negligible impact or cost that you basically use it to waste points, it should exist/cost points in the first place. This is because of poor design, of the unit, weapons, interactions and ultimately the points scale.

    Also, mortars are already free.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 17:05:49


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:

    What else would you like the numbers for?

    Against a Genestealer I get a .9 point return using the Bolt Pistol per shot. Neener neener.

    Yeah I just told him that Marines weren't the only target, so let's see how they like the math on that.


    Lets follow that nids theme:
    - gaunt (fleshborer) - 0.388889 points to the BP
    - stealer - 0.88889 to the BP
    - tyrant guard - 0.625 to the BP

    Wow, look at that. So if you're playing aggressive and putting your infantry at the front, the Bolt Pistol is worth that point instead of being free!


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:

    What else would you like the numbers for?

    Against a Genestealer I get a .9 point return using the Bolt Pistol per shot. Neener neener.

    Yeah I just told him that Marines weren't the only target, so let's see how they like the math on that.

    Now we've had the pre-programmed gak flinging contest where you've got to try and find something to prove a 1 point upgrade can be justifiable in an incredibly narrow niche environment that somehow justifies it not being worth it into pretty much every other target in the game can we now agree that the level of needless bs granularity given by these upgrades and points scales shows they're not worth having if they exist purely for the sakes of having them?

    That's not niche though. That's just one army. Should Mortars be free because Marines aren't the preferred target?


    Mortars are free.....

    You kinda missed the point there.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 17:11:31


    Post by: Dudeface


    EviscerationPlague wrote:

    You kinda missed the point there.


    Which was what? Nobody gives a feth about you trying to beat a dumb topic to death with "but what if you don't shoot marines", the same faction you endemically point as being overpopulated in the community and game environments. Mortars are currently free. Should they be? No, but it's nothing to do with marines, it's because they're obviously better than a lasgun in a multitude of ways that affect the wider game and the units capabilities. If they gave infantry squads a heavy weapon as standard, no choice, then yes, make the mortar the free one, why not.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    In short, what I want form points in 10th isn't going to happen, which is to end this pointless dick waving about points. Because they won't and can't get them right as they are now without a radical shift in design of units, profiles and scales.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 17:43:36


    Post by: Insectum7


    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:

    You kinda missed the point there.


    Which was what? Nobody gives a feth about you trying to beat a dumb topic to death with . . .
    Reasonable arguments using the same technique you used in opposition.

    Dudeface wrote:

    In short, what I want form points in 10th isn't going to happen. .
    Good! Because it's a dumb idea! If you don't want list-building granularity, play Power Level. If you want better balance, achieve it with a combination of stats, rules and points.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 17:46:47


    Post by: Dudeface


     Insectum7 wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:

    You kinda missed the point there.


    Which was what? Nobody gives a feth about you trying to beat a dumb topic to death with . . .
    Reasonable arguments using the same technique you used in opposition.

    Dudeface wrote:

    In short, what I want form points in 10th isn't going to happen. .
    Good! Because it's a dumb idea! If you don't want list-building granularity, play Power Level. If you want better balance, achieve it with a combination of stats, rules and points.


    Well done, you're right the weapons can e balanced by any combination of stats, rules or points. It doesn’t need to be all 3 by default. I'm all for things costing points if it's a valid case and actually worth bothering with.

    If a guardsman was 100 pts a 5 pt bolt pistol, sure whatever.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 17:51:42


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:

    You kinda missed the point there.


    Which was what? Nobody gives a feth about you trying to beat a dumb topic to death with "but what if you don't shoot marines", the same faction you endemically point as being overpopulated in the community and game environments.

    I guess that just means you don't need to buy the Bolt Pistol in your particular local area. That doesn't mean it should be free just because you *only* do part a wound more to Marines.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 17:52:12


    Post by: Wayniac


     Insectum7 wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:

    You kinda missed the point there.


    Which was what? Nobody gives a feth about you trying to beat a dumb topic to death with . . .
    Reasonable arguments using the same technique you used in opposition.

    Dudeface wrote:

    In short, what I want form points in 10th isn't going to happen. .
    Good! Because it's a dumb idea! If you don't want list-building granularity, play Power Level. If you want better balance, achieve it with a combination of stats, rules and points.
    Implying any of those have ever done anything for balance. Points is as bad if not worse than PL, don't delude yourself.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 17:54:06


    Post by: JNAProductions


    Wayniac wrote:
    Implying any of those have ever done anything for balance. Points is as bad if not worse than PL, don't delude yourself.
    What would you have be a balancing mechanism?
    Bear in mind, it has to work both for veterans of the current game, people who used to play but have been away for a while, and completely new people.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 18:02:04


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


     JNAProductions wrote:
    Wayniac wrote:
    Implying any of those have ever done anything for balance. Points is as bad if not worse than PL, don't delude yourself.
    What would you have be a balancing mechanism?

    They don't have an idea, it'll just be the same rehashed "oh just don't do XYZ"


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 18:11:09


    Post by: Dudeface


    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:

    You kinda missed the point there.


    Which was what? Nobody gives a feth about you trying to beat a dumb topic to death with "but what if you don't shoot marines", the same faction you endemically point as being overpopulated in the community and game environments.

    I guess that just means you don't need to buy the Bolt Pistol in your particular local area. That doesn't mean it should be free just because you *only* do part a wound more to Marines.


    They only do a part wound to everything, they should be 0 points because the largest time their return value is significantly less than 1 per game.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 18:25:09


    Post by: JNAProductions


    Spin-off thread to discuss points alternatives, so as to avoid cluttering this one too badly.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 18:58:24


    Post by: Insectum7


    Dudeface wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:

    You kinda missed the point there.


    Which was what? Nobody gives a feth about you trying to beat a dumb topic to death with . . .
    Reasonable arguments using the same technique you used in opposition.

    Dudeface wrote:

    In short, what I want form points in 10th isn't going to happen. .
    Good! Because it's a dumb idea! If you don't want list-building granularity, play Power Level. If you want better balance, achieve it with a combination of stats, rules and points.

    Well done, you're right the weapons can e balanced by any combination of stats, rules or points. It doesn’t need to be all 3 by default.
    And the compelling argument for removing one of the three is????


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 19:00:40


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


     Insectum7 wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:

    You kinda missed the point there.


    Which was what? Nobody gives a feth about you trying to beat a dumb topic to death with . . .
    Reasonable arguments using the same technique you used in opposition.

    Dudeface wrote:

    In short, what I want form points in 10th isn't going to happen. .
    Good! Because it's a dumb idea! If you don't want list-building granularity, play Power Level. If you want better balance, achieve it with a combination of stats, rules and points.

    Well done, you're right the weapons can e balanced by any combination of stats, rules or points. It doesn’t need to be all 3 by default.
    And the compelling argument for removing one of the three is????

    They're lazy


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 19:01:55


    Post by: Insectum7


    Wayniac wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:

    You kinda missed the point there.


    Which was what? Nobody gives a feth about you trying to beat a dumb topic to death with . . .
    Reasonable arguments using the same technique you used in opposition.

    Dudeface wrote:

    In short, what I want form points in 10th isn't going to happen. .
    Good! Because it's a dumb idea! If you don't want list-building granularity, play Power Level. If you want better balance, achieve it with a combination of stats, rules and points.
    Implying any of those have ever done anything for balance. Points is as bad if not worse than PL, don't delude yourself.
    I don't have to even argue my point, because you already have power level for those of you unwilling to see the light of day.

    Also, if the combination of rules, stats and points are useless for balancing . . . What do you propose one balances with?


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 19:10:06


    Post by: Gangland


    I originally hated Power, but it has become more and more relevant now that war gear has more or less become "free." I have definitely warmed up to it thanks to crusade.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 19:25:32


    Post by: Gadzilla666


     Insectum7 wrote:
    Spoiler:
    Wayniac wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:

    You kinda missed the point there.


    Which was what? Nobody gives a feth about you trying to beat a dumb topic to death with . . .
    Reasonable arguments using the same technique you used in opposition.

    Dudeface wrote:

    In short, what I want form points in 10th isn't going to happen. .
    Good! Because it's a dumb idea! If you don't want list-building granularity, play Power Level. If you want better balance, achieve it with a combination of stats, rules and points.
    Implying any of those have ever done anything for balance. Points is as bad if not worse than PL, don't delude yourself.
    I don't have to even argue my point, because you already have power level for those of you unwilling to see the light of day.

    Also, if the combination of rules, stats and points are useless for balancing . . . What do yo
    you propose one balances with?

    ^^^^This. If you want to play using Power Level, then do it. It exists. Leave everyone else alone.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 19:29:59


    Post by: Dudeface


     Insectum7 wrote:
    Wayniac wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:

    You kinda missed the point there.


    Which was what? Nobody gives a feth about you trying to beat a dumb topic to death with . . .
    Reasonable arguments using the same technique you used in opposition.

    Dudeface wrote:

    In short, what I want form points in 10th isn't going to happen. .
    Good! Because it's a dumb idea! If you don't want list-building granularity, play Power Level. If you want better balance, achieve it with a combination of stats, rules and points.
    Implying any of those have ever done anything for balance. Points is as bad if not worse than PL, don't delude yourself.
    I don't have to even argue my point, because you already have power level for those of you unwilling to see the light of day.

    Also, if the combination of rules, stats and points are useless for balancing . . . What do you propose one balances with?


    As per usual the lack of understanding is being compensated by vague insults being lobbied. Whilst you continue to deal in absolutes for some unknown reason and suggest that anyone using the other supported army building method is a no-lifer. Options can be balanced at the same cost, even if that cost is 0. It doesn't mean that every option should be 0, but conversely it also doesn't mean that everything should have a points value if it isn't justified. It's possible to have options that fill different niches and cost 0 points, such as the various intercessor guns.

    There's another thread open if you want to continue basking in sunlight preaching the value of 1pt bolt pistols elsewhere.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 19:36:18


    Post by: Insectum7


    I never said different options couldn't cost the same amount of points. What I'm waiting for is a compelling reason why all available options should cost the same.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 19:40:03


    Post by: Dudeface


     Insectum7 wrote:
    I never said different options couldn't cost the same amount of points. What I'm waiting for is a compelling reason why all available options should cost the same.


    I'll leave you to it then, as that's pretty much you agreeing with my stance on quite a few levels.



    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 19:43:49


    Post by: Insectum7


    Dudeface wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    I never said different options couldn't cost the same amount of points. What I'm waiting for is a compelling reason why all available options should cost the same.


    I'll leave you to it then, as that's pretty much you agreeing with my stance on quite a few levels.
    So then why all the fuss bout a 1 pt Bolt Pistol?


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 19:51:40


    Post by: Dudeface


     Insectum7 wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    I never said different options couldn't cost the same amount of points. What I'm waiting for is a compelling reason why all available options should cost the same.


    I'll leave you to it then, as that's pretty much you agreeing with my stance on quite a few levels.
    So then why all the fuss bout a 1 pt Bolt Pistol?


    because it highlights the huge issues with trying to balance out the game as is using the pointing structure and scale they have now. The last time this went around people defending the 1pt bolt pistol got as far as using the word "pointless" in terms of it's output and "I use it to fill spare points in my army" as it's actual merits are negligible to the point it may as well be free given the impact on the game. If you multiplied everything's points by 10, yeah it likely has a value you can reasonably ascribe to it that's below 10 at that point.

    My other issue is making options that only serve to be cheap, or rather making things that just outright better for no reason other than to be better and cost points. I personally don't like that a power sword is undebatable as better than a chainsword. Its purpose was to allow the bearer cut through armour better, but as it's forced to be on the same model with the same attack profile as the kife/chainsword/shovel etc it is just functionally better. If you expect to be in melee you take it, because it's stupid not to. if you aren't in melee you don't take it to save points and it may as well not exist. I'd rather the melee guy has to choose between being better at something by having a chainsword other than being a meatbag.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 20:13:51


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


    Dudeface wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    I never said different options couldn't cost the same amount of points. What I'm waiting for is a compelling reason why all available options should cost the same.


    I'll leave you to it then, as that's pretty much you agreeing with my stance on quite a few levels.
    So then why all the fuss bout a 1 pt Bolt Pistol?


    I'd rather the melee guy has to choose between being better at something by having a chainsword other than being a meatbag.

    The Chainsword is not a better weapon than any Power Weapon variant and will never be. It needs to cost more. It's literally that simple.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 20:21:12


    Post by: Dudeface


    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    I never said different options couldn't cost the same amount of points. What I'm waiting for is a compelling reason why all available options should cost the same.


    I'll leave you to it then, as that's pretty much you agreeing with my stance on quite a few levels.
    So then why all the fuss bout a 1 pt Bolt Pistol?


    I'd rather the melee guy has to choose between being better at something by having a chainsword other than being a meatbag.

    The Chainsword is not a better weapon than any Power Weapon variant and will never be. It needs to cost more. It's literally that simple.


    And the fleshborer was an assault 12" bolter, look at it now.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 20:27:18


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    I never said different options couldn't cost the same amount of points. What I'm waiting for is a compelling reason why all available options should cost the same.


    I'll leave you to it then, as that's pretty much you agreeing with my stance on quite a few levels.
    So then why all the fuss bout a 1 pt Bolt Pistol?


    I'd rather the melee guy has to choose between being better at something by having a chainsword other than being a meatbag.

    The Chainsword is not a better weapon than any Power Weapon variant and will never be. It needs to cost more. It's literally that simple.


    And the fleshborer was an assault 12" bolter, look at it now.

    And that went over well with how many people again?


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 20:32:45


    Post by: Insectum7


    Dudeface wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    I never said different options couldn't cost the same amount of points. What I'm waiting for is a compelling reason why all available options should cost the same.


    I'll leave you to it then, as that's pretty much you agreeing with my stance on quite a few levels.
    So then why all the fuss bout a 1 pt Bolt Pistol?


    because it highlights the huge issues with trying to balance out the game as is using the pointing structure and scale they have now. The last time this went around people defending the 1pt bolt pistol got as far as using the word "pointless" in terms of it's output and "I use it to fill spare points in my army" as it's actual merits are negligible to the point it may as well be free given the impact on the game. If you multiplied everything's points by 10, yeah it likely has a value you can reasonably ascribe to it that's below 10 at that point.

    But by your own admission, one could also achieve a Bolt Pistol worth 1, 2, or 3 points by changing it's stats or the rules around it. A good example is the same Bolt Pistol but in the pre-8th AP paradigm, when it had AP 5 and ignored a Guardsmans armor, which made it a more impressive upgrade than it is today.

    My other issue is making options that only serve to be cheap, or rather making things that just outright better for no reason other than to be better and cost points. I personally don't like that a power sword is undebatable as better than a chainsword. Its purpose was to allow the bearer cut through armour better, but as it's forced to be on the same model with the same attack profile as the kife/chainsword/shovel etc it is just functionally better. If you expect to be in melee you take it, because it's stupid not to. if you aren't in melee you don't take it to save points and it may as well not exist. I'd rather the melee guy has to choose between being better at something by having a chainsword other than being a meatbag.
    I'm never going to agree with this, and imo it's just arbitrary. Absolutely there should be weapons at different power levels, both for the sake of lore and for the sake of the game and list building. It's perfectly acceptable to have a paradigm where a Chainsword is less powerful than a Power Sword, which is less powerful than a Power Fist, which is less powerful than a Thunder Hammer. All of them are things which can increase a units CC capability, and they can be pointed differently and according to their value. To smash items such as these together is to reduce design space and reduce the engagement of those of us who enjoy listbuilding and squeezing every bit out of our units.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 20:34:24


    Post by: Dudeface


    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    I never said different options couldn't cost the same amount of points. What I'm waiting for is a compelling reason why all available options should cost the same.


    I'll leave you to it then, as that's pretty much you agreeing with my stance on quite a few levels.
    So then why all the fuss bout a 1 pt Bolt Pistol?


    I'd rather the melee guy has to choose between being better at something by having a chainsword other than being a meatbag.

    The Chainsword is not a better weapon than any Power Weapon variant and will never be. It needs to cost more. It's literally that simple.


    And the fleshborer was an assault 12" bolter, look at it now.

    And that went over well with how many people again?


    About as well as many of the other design choices GW have made of late. But leave things as they are you'll never see dedicated melee units with chainswords on the sergeant and you'll never see dedicated shooting units with anything else. Such options. Such engagement. Such legacy preserved.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 20:39:48


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    I never said different options couldn't cost the same amount of points. What I'm waiting for is a compelling reason why all available options should cost the same.


    I'll leave you to it then, as that's pretty much you agreeing with my stance on quite a few levels.
    So then why all the fuss bout a 1 pt Bolt Pistol?


    I'd rather the melee guy has to choose between being better at something by having a chainsword other than being a meatbag.

    The Chainsword is not a better weapon than any Power Weapon variant and will never be. It needs to cost more. It's literally that simple.


    And the fleshborer was an assault 12" bolter, look at it now.

    And that went over well with how many people again?


    About as well as many of the other design choices GW have made of late. But leave things as they are you'll never see dedicated melee units with chainswords on the sergeant

    You DO see it when you're doing budget or you get weight of attacks, so you're already wrong on that front.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 20:53:37


    Post by: Dudeface


    I don't see that at any point, I'm sorry I don't see enjoyment in options being basic, better, betterer. I'd rather different weapons performed different functions. Time will tell what they'll do at this point.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 21:12:41


    Post by: Insectum7


    Dudeface wrote:

    About as well as many of the other design choices GW have made of late. But leave things as they are you'll never see dedicated melee units with chainswords on the sergeant and you'll never see dedicated shooting units with anything else. Such options. Such engagement. Such legacy preserved.
    Might I chime in here and mention that I've put Powerfists on my Tactical Sergeants, as well as Chainswords on my Assault Squad Sergeants at times in the past, back when Wargear cost points. . .


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 22:43:26


    Post by: ccs


    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:
    I never said different options couldn't cost the same amount of points. What I'm waiting for is a compelling reason why all available options should cost the same.


    I'll leave you to it then, as that's pretty much you agreeing with my stance on quite a few levels.
    So then why all the fuss bout a 1 pt Bolt Pistol?


    I'd rather the melee guy has to choose between being better at something by having a chainsword other than being a meatbag.

    The Chainsword is not a better weapon than any Power Weapon variant and will never be. It needs to cost more. It's literally that simple.


    And the fleshborer was an assault 12" bolter, look at it now.

    And that went over well with how many people again?


    About as well as many of the other design choices GW have made of late. But leave things as they are you'll never see dedicated melee units with chainswords on the sergeant and you'll never see dedicated shooting units with anything else. Such options. Such engagement. Such legacy preserved.


    Such hyperbole....
    Of course you'll see such things. Why? Because there's a very great # of people out there who don't change out what they've armed a squad with once it's built (unless new rules actually make the choice illegal).
    All they do is ask "how much does a ____ cost now?"


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/28 23:42:51


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    Why is this such a difficult concept for some people to grasp.

    If one item is objectively better than another item*, and there's no sacrifice/cost associated with taking the better item, then there is no reason to take the lesser item, so you always take the better item.

    This is why any sort of upgrade should cost points.

    *That is to say it has no inherent downsides or special rules that would make it a side-grade or lateral shift from the default piece of equipment.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/29 00:04:52


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


    Dudeface wrote:
    I don't see that at any point, I'm sorry I don't see enjoyment in options being basic, better, betterer. I'd rather different weapons performed different functions. Time will tell what they'll do at this point.

    Basic weapons DO perform other functions via their lower cost. Believe it or not, weapons are "basic, better, betterer" in real life too. Options shouldn't just be equal because you don't like that.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/29 01:34:30


    Post by: ccs


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    Why is this such a difficult concept for some people to grasp.

    If one item is objectively better than another item*, and there's no sacrifice/cost associated with taking the better item, then there is no reason to take the lesser item, so you always take the better item.

    This is why any sort of upgrade should cost points.


    That might be how it works in your little circle of the world. Or when you consider building an entirely new unit. Or just theorycrafting. Certainly when you're spewing BS online....
    But I assure you there are plenty of people out there in the real world who aren't constantly swapping the weapons of already finished models.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/29 01:51:34


    Post by: catbarf


    ccs wrote:
    That might be how it works in your little circle of the world. Or when you consider building an entirely new unit. Or just theorycrafting. Certainly when you're spewing BS online....
    But I assure you there are plenty of people out there in the real world who aren't constantly swapping the weapons of already finished models.


    That... doesn't mean it's good design, it means there are reasons wholly unrelated to the game that might dissuade someone from taking the in-game objectively better choice.

    Like yeah, maybe there are real-world practical concerns that stop you from making the most of the broken rules, but the rules are still broken. I certainly don't want to crack open a new codex and find that the models I've assembled are irredeemably inferior to other options.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/29 02:05:55


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    ccs wrote:
    Certainly when you're spewing BS online....
    You're a fun person.

    ccs wrote:
    But I assure you there are plenty of people out there in the real world who aren't constantly swapping the weapons of already finished models.
    What has that got to do with anything I just said?


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/29 03:53:16


    Post by: tneva82


     catbarf wrote:
    ccs wrote:
    That might be how it works in your little circle of the world. Or when you consider building an entirely new unit. Or just theorycrafting. Certainly when you're spewing BS online....
    But I assure you there are plenty of people out there in the real world who aren't constantly swapping the weapons of already finished models.


    That... doesn't mean it's good design, it means there are reasons wholly unrelated to the game that might dissuade someone from taking the in-game objectively better choice.

    Like yeah, maybe there are real-world practical concerns that stop you from making the most of the broken rules, but the rules are still broken. I certainly don't want to crack open a new codex and find that the models I've assembled are irredeemably inferior to other options.


    Rules are always broken. Points, power. Both are equally broken. Just what is broken varies. In points x is broken, in power y is broken.

    Iif you don't want broken ditch both. Complaining about broken while using either is just silly and shows you don't know how they work.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/29 04:04:43


    Post by: vict0988


    Dudeface wrote:
    My other issue is making options that only serve to be cheap, or rather making things that just outright better for no reason other than to be better and cost points.

    The point is to reflect the models and fluff, you should have the option to upgrade to a bolt pistol if the fluff or your kit comes with the option of a bolt pistol, it's that simple. The argument for 1 pt bolt pistols being superior to 0 pt bolt pistols is very simple. You have no argument to support keeping a laspistol in a world where bolt pistols are 0, I have an argument for upgrading to a 1 pt bolt pistol. It doesn't really matter how bad my argument is as long as I have an argument and you have none I win by definition unless you can prove that my argument is illogical and you can't because Strength 4 is inarguably better than Strength 3.
    tneva82 wrote:
     catbarf wrote:
    ccs wrote:
    That might be how it works in your little circle of the world. Or when you consider building an entirely new unit. Or just theorycrafting. Certainly when you're spewing BS online....
    But I assure you there are plenty of people out there in the real world who aren't constantly swapping the weapons of already finished models.


    That... doesn't mean it's good design, it means there are reasons wholly unrelated to the game that might dissuade someone from taking the in-game objectively better choice.

    Like yeah, maybe there are real-world practical concerns that stop you from making the most of the broken rules, but the rules are still broken. I certainly don't want to crack open a new codex and find that the models I've assembled are irredeemably inferior to other options.


    Rules are always broken. Points, power. Both are equally broken. Just what is broken varies. In points x is broken, in power y is broken.

    Iif you don't want broken ditch both. Complaining about broken while using either is just silly and shows you don't know how they work.

    In points x is broken, in power x + y is broken. It takes a concerted effort for points to be as broken as PL. I'd like an incentive to take a hyperphase sword instead of a warscythe, PL doesn't give me one. Now pts could be even more broken than PL by making hyperphase swords more expensive than warscythes, but the moment hyperphase swords cost 1 less point than a warscythe I have an incentive in points I will never have in PL.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/29 04:16:23


    Post by: Karol


    ccs 809420 11511015 wrote:

    That might be how it works in your little circle of the world. Or when you consider building an entirely new unit. Or just theorycrafting. Certainly when you're spewing BS online....
    But I assure you there are plenty of people out there in the real world who aren't constantly swapping the weapons of already finished models.


    Yes. The problems of course start when we try to judge what a little circle and plenty of people means, in regards to the world as a whole. Because anyone could just flip it and say that your weapon not changing group of plenty of people is in fact smaller, then the little circle. What I do know is that are plenty of people who are selling 3d prints, both in and outside of the country, and while it is true that all things get sold. The number of thunder hammers ordered at the end of 8th and the number of thunder hammers at the end of 9th are not the same. And no one is ordering stuff like rocket launchers or flamers.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/29 06:19:25


    Post by: Dudeface


     vict0988 wrote:
    You have no argument to support keeping a laspistol in a world where bolt pistols are 0, I have an argument for upgrading to a 1 pt bolt pistol. It doesn't really matter how bad my argument is as long as I have an argument and you have none I win by definition unless you can prove that my argument is illogical and you can't because Strength 4 is inarguably better than Strength 3.


    You're right, that upgrade which will on average return 0.2 points of value at best is definitely of significant value to your force and you will surely win games based on your ability to buy over priced 1pt bolt pistols. I surrender.

    If you want a challenge, price the grenade launcher.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/29 07:57:45


    Post by: Karol


    If he plays enough games of course. If someone plays once every quarter, then I am not even sure how they will keep up with the sesonal FoC change, because I expect GW to go full AoS sesons with the new edition, in that aspect.

    A grenade launcher if not taken, because of some extra special rule, will never be taken if melta and plasma cost the same or 0 points.
    But I can imagine GW giving lets say inquisitorial stormtroopers special grenades, and suddenly being able to shot some of them at 24" can be considered an option worth taking. It is like in 8th BAs could make power swords work, because they had +1 to wound.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/29 08:17:11


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


    Dudeface wrote:
     vict0988 wrote:
    You have no argument to support keeping a laspistol in a world where bolt pistols are 0, I have an argument for upgrading to a 1 pt bolt pistol. It doesn't really matter how bad my argument is as long as I have an argument and you have none I win by definition unless you can prove that my argument is illogical and you can't because Strength 4 is inarguably better than Strength 3.


    You're right, that upgrade which will on average return 0.2 points of value at best is definitely of significant value to your force and you will surely win games based on your ability to buy over priced 1pt bolt pistols. I surrender.

    If you want a challenge, price the grenade launcher.

    Once again, that .2 return is against only one specific opponent. Also a 20% return can be argued to be good.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/29 08:45:13


    Post by: vict0988


    Dudeface wrote:
     vict0988 wrote:
    You have no argument to support keeping a laspistol in a world where bolt pistols are 0, I have an argument for upgrading to a 1 pt bolt pistol. It doesn't really matter how bad my argument is as long as I have an argument and you have none I win by definition unless you can prove that my argument is illogical and you can't because Strength 4 is inarguably better than Strength 3.


    You're right, that upgrade which will on average return 0.2 points of value at best is definitely of significant value to your force and you will surely win games based on your ability to buy over priced 1pt bolt pistols. I surrender.

    If you want a challenge, price the grenade launcher.

    Why does something need to provide significant value to cost pts? What is significant? GW doesn't think 20 lascannons are significant or that upgrading nothing to 16 boltguns is significant. Why are Monoliths significant? Just let me take up to 3 for free, I'll pay for the weapon upgrade if I take them, anything else would be silly /sarcasm. A chainsword is superior to a power sword against Orks and Daemons, I could agree to that costing 0 on an Astra Militarum Sergeant because the power sword isn't strictly better, I'd count the advantage given as being insignificant. But strictly better needs to cost points and any non-zero improvement needs to be met with a non-zero increase in points.

    Grenade launcher is worth 0, easy. Let's say I'm wrong and it's worth 10 pts, why would that matter to the discussion? If it's worth 1 less point than a lasgun then that's possible to implement as well. I'm not pretending to know what Astra Militarum weapons are worth, it's just logic that the right value is non-zero for most of them. I already gave out values in the previous thread anyway and I think I gave some very reasonable numbers and I don't think anyone was able to point out the numbers were super out of wack.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/29 13:27:28


    Post by: catbarf


    tneva82 wrote:
     catbarf wrote:
    ccs wrote:
    That might be how it works in your little circle of the world. Or when you consider building an entirely new unit. Or just theorycrafting. Certainly when you're spewing BS online....
    But I assure you there are plenty of people out there in the real world who aren't constantly swapping the weapons of already finished models.


    That... doesn't mean it's good design, it means there are reasons wholly unrelated to the game that might dissuade someone from taking the in-game objectively better choice.

    Like yeah, maybe there are real-world practical concerns that stop you from making the most of the broken rules, but the rules are still broken. I certainly don't want to crack open a new codex and find that the models I've assembled are irredeemably inferior to other options.


    Rules are always broken. Points, power. Both are equally broken. Just what is broken varies. In points x is broken, in power y is broken.

    Iif you don't want broken ditch both. Complaining about broken while using either is just silly and shows you don't know how they work.


    'Points as a concept have issues so might as well have objectively better options cost the same as worse ones' is such a bad argument it borders on non sequitur.

     vict0988 wrote:
    Grenade launcher is worth 0, easy. Let's say I'm wrong and it's worth 10 pts, why would that matter to the discussion? If it's worth 1 less point than a lasgun then that's possible to implement as well. I'm not pretending to know what Astra Militarum weapons are worth, it's just logic that the right value is non-zero for most of them. I already gave out values in the previous thread anyway and I think I gave some very reasonable numbers and I don't think anyone was able to point out the numbers were super out of wack.


    Yeah, even if you can't get the cost perfect it's still a step in the right direction. Maybe 3pts is too much for a grenade launcher, but I still might conceivably take a 3pt grenade launcher over a 15pt plasma gun, whereas I'll never, ever take a grenade launcher if both it and the plasma gun are free. Hyperfocusing on whether a particular upgrade is worth whatever points costs you assign is missing the point.

    More importantly, it's considerably easier to tweak points costs if they're inappropriate than it is to tweak the statlines to make them equivalent. Especially when the same weapon is used by multiple units that get differing utility out of them, since it's cleaner to set per-unit costs than to have per-unit statlines.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/29 18:56:27


    Post by: Lobokai


     vipoid wrote:
     Wyldhunt wrote:
    Upping points values to increase granularity is fine in theory, but it sort of assumes that GW is good enough at assigning points values for the extra granularity to matter. I'm pretty bad at painting harlequin diamonds. Regardless of whether you give me a Walmart brush or a teeny tiny high-end detail brush, my harlequins' "diamond" pattern isn't going to look very geometric in nature.

    A few wishlist items from me:
    * Get rid of some of the "layers" of rules. Juggling purity bonuses, subfaction bonuses, stratagems, unit rules, and psychic powers all at once is a bit draining.
    * Fewer "kill better" rules; more rules to allow and reward maneuvering.
    * I want subfaction/army style rules that make your army play *differently* instead of just making it more killy.
    * Reduce the number of objectives at play in a given mission. A primary and 3 secondaries per player is 7 objectives to keep in mind at once. That's too many for my poor brain to juggle, and too many to build much of a narrative around.
    * Kind of want a to-wound table closer to the old one. The current one is quirky in a bad way.
    * Generally, I'd like the game to encourage play with fewer units at a time. The current 2,000 point games are too big for my taste. Give me something closer to 1,000 or 1,500.
    * Kind of done with stratagems, to be honest. I'd be fine with them going away entirely and/or replacing them with something closer to Sigmar command abilities.
    * I miss the variety of cool wargear options we used to have. Bring back customizable characters.
    * Get rid of psychic tests, or at least deny the witch tests. Come up with an alternative mechanic for activating them that doesn't randomly fail, or just power down psychic abilities to be balanced going off every turn.
    * Probably ditch relics. Just give us back cool wargear (with a 0-1 limit as necessary).
    * Support for thematic/narrative-centric games. Crusade was great, but it could be improved.
    * Get rid of the force org chart/detachments (seems like they are?).
    * Some sort of cumulative penalty for taking difficult shots. Doesn't necessarily have to be a stacking modifier to the to-hit roll; could be reduced range if the target is too hard to hit, a penalty to the to-hit roll reflect the difficulty of placing a significant shot, a reduction in the number of shots you get, etc. Just something so that a devastator has a reason to hold still if he's shooting at something wearing camouflage.


    ^Pretty much what he said.

    ^Tag me in too... it is soul-crushing to teach kids a wargame like BT Alpha Strike or GrimDark Future... and then have them look at me with incredulous eyes when they see the awkward wonkiness of 40k. Its just not a well written ruleset and its pretty much "gotcha" once the basics are down.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/29 19:00:45


    Post by: nou


    Dudeface wrote:
     vict0988 wrote:
    You have no argument to support keeping a laspistol in a world where bolt pistols are 0, I have an argument for upgrading to a 1 pt bolt pistol. It doesn't really matter how bad my argument is as long as I have an argument and you have none I win by definition unless you can prove that my argument is illogical and you can't because Strength 4 is inarguably better than Strength 3.


    You're right, that upgrade which will on average return 0.2 points of value at best is definitely of significant value to your force and you will surely win games based on your ability to buy over priced 1pt bolt pistols. I surrender.

    If you want a challenge, price the grenade launcher.


    To add on this - when an upgrade return 0.2 pts on average then pricing it at 0pts is actually more balanced than pricing it at 1pts. It is less undercosted at 0pts than it is overcosted at 1pts. That it is straight up upgrade over laspistol only proves, that said laspistol is irrelevant for the outcome of the game. The part of "bad game design" is that no impact elements even exist in this game in the first place and can be manipulated by false "options".


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/29 19:09:35


    Post by: Lobokai


    Also, so many levels of silly here...

    A) yes, you can have a missile launcher, heavy bolter, plasma cannon, and las cannon all cost the same and therefore be accounted for in the net cost of a tactical squad... give the missile launcher two decent options (one anti swarm and other anti armor), make the heavy bolter better than that at anti swarm and the las cannon better at anti armor... if the plasma cannon can find a way to be better at anti heavy infantry than the lascannon and the missile launcher... then all choices have an opportunity cost and do not need different points...

    this logic can extend to so many units

    but

    B) this does not mean that ALL options would be only be equipment opportunity cost and clearly a sergeant with a plasma pistol and a powerfist is better than a bolt pistol and chainsword... however... if the unit gets a "once a game" reaction or something equivalent, then you could have it be
    1- take the chain sword and bolt pistol and get to use the squad reaction x2
    2- take a powerfist and the bolt pistol
    3- get the plasma pistol AND the powersword
    so, again, no need for upgrade points

    EDIT: and yes, points are for game balance, 100%


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/29 19:10:40


    Post by: vict0988


    nou wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
     vict0988 wrote:
    You have no argument to support keeping a laspistol in a world where bolt pistols are 0, I have an argument for upgrading to a 1 pt bolt pistol. It doesn't really matter how bad my argument is as long as I have an argument and you have none I win by definition unless you can prove that my argument is illogical and you can't because Strength 4 is inarguably better than Strength 3.


    You're right, that upgrade which will on average return 0.2 points of value at best is definitely of significant value to your force and you will surely win games based on your ability to buy over priced 1pt bolt pistols. I surrender.

    If you want a challenge, price the grenade launcher.


    To add on this - when an upgrade return 0.2 pts on average then pricing it at 0pts is actually more balanced than pricing it at 1pts. It is less undercosted at 0pts than it is overcosted at 1pts. That it is straight up upgrade over laspistol only proves, that said laspistol is irrelevant for the outcome of the game. The part of "bad game design" is that no impact elements even exist in this game in the first place and can be manipulated by false "options".

    If you go to the store with a hundred dollars and buy a 20 dollar Toblerone but the store doesn't have 80 dollars in cash do you get the Toblerone for free?


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/29 19:36:53


    Post by: Dudeface


     vict0988 wrote:
    nou wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
     vict0988 wrote:
    You have no argument to support keeping a laspistol in a world where bolt pistols are 0, I have an argument for upgrading to a 1 pt bolt pistol. It doesn't really matter how bad my argument is as long as I have an argument and you have none I win by definition unless you can prove that my argument is illogical and you can't because Strength 4 is inarguably better than Strength 3.


    You're right, that upgrade which will on average return 0.2 points of value at best is definitely of significant value to your force and you will surely win games based on your ability to buy over priced 1pt bolt pistols. I surrender.

    If you want a challenge, price the grenade launcher.


    To add on this - when an upgrade return 0.2 pts on average then pricing it at 0pts is actually more balanced than pricing it at 1pts. It is less undercosted at 0pts than it is overcosted at 1pts. That it is straight up upgrade over laspistol only proves, that said laspistol is irrelevant for the outcome of the game. The part of "bad game design" is that no impact elements even exist in this game in the first place and can be manipulated by false "options".

    If you go to the store with a hundred dollars and buy a 20 dollar Toblerone but the store doesn't have 80 dollars in cash do you get the Toblerone for free?


    No, you're just not getting given any change.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/29 20:35:01


    Post by: ccs


     vict0988 wrote:
    nou wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
     vict0988 wrote:
    You have no argument to support keeping a laspistol in a world where bolt pistols are 0, I have an argument for upgrading to a 1 pt bolt pistol. It doesn't really matter how bad my argument is as long as I have an argument and you have none I win by definition unless you can prove that my argument is illogical and you can't because Strength 4 is inarguably better than Strength 3.


    You're right, that upgrade which will on average return 0.2 points of value at best is definitely of significant value to your force and you will surely win games based on your ability to buy over priced 1pt bolt pistols. I surrender.

    If you want a challenge, price the grenade launcher.


    To add on this - when an upgrade return 0.2 pts on average then pricing it at 0pts is actually more balanced than pricing it at 1pts. It is less undercosted at 0pts than it is overcosted at 1pts. That it is straight up upgrade over laspistol only proves, that said laspistol is irrelevant for the outcome of the game. The part of "bad game design" is that no impact elements even exist in this game in the first place and can be manipulated by false "options".

    If you go to the store with a hundred dollars and buy a 20 dollar Toblerone but the store doesn't have 80 dollars in cash do you get the Toblerone for free?


    I'd be using a debit/cc, so there'd be no need for change to begin with....


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/29 21:18:19


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


    ccs wrote:
     vict0988 wrote:
    nou wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
     vict0988 wrote:
    You have no argument to support keeping a laspistol in a world where bolt pistols are 0, I have an argument for upgrading to a 1 pt bolt pistol. It doesn't really matter how bad my argument is as long as I have an argument and you have none I win by definition unless you can prove that my argument is illogical and you can't because Strength 4 is inarguably better than Strength 3.


    You're right, that upgrade which will on average return 0.2 points of value at best is definitely of significant value to your force and you will surely win games based on your ability to buy over priced 1pt bolt pistols. I surrender.

    If you want a challenge, price the grenade launcher.


    To add on this - when an upgrade return 0.2 pts on average then pricing it at 0pts is actually more balanced than pricing it at 1pts. It is less undercosted at 0pts than it is overcosted at 1pts. That it is straight up upgrade over laspistol only proves, that said laspistol is irrelevant for the outcome of the game. The part of "bad game design" is that no impact elements even exist in this game in the first place and can be manipulated by false "options".

    If you go to the store with a hundred dollars and buy a 20 dollar Toblerone but the store doesn't have 80 dollars in cash do you get the Toblerone for free?


    I'd be using a debit/cc, so there'd be no need for change to begin with....

    People still use cash ya know


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/29 21:21:35


    Post by: Platuan4th


    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    ccs wrote:
     vict0988 wrote:
    nou wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
     vict0988 wrote:
    You have no argument to support keeping a laspistol in a world where bolt pistols are 0, I have an argument for upgrading to a 1 pt bolt pistol. It doesn't really matter how bad my argument is as long as I have an argument and you have none I win by definition unless you can prove that my argument is illogical and you can't because Strength 4 is inarguably better than Strength 3.


    You're right, that upgrade which will on average return 0.2 points of value at best is definitely of significant value to your force and you will surely win games based on your ability to buy over priced 1pt bolt pistols. I surrender.

    If you want a challenge, price the grenade launcher.


    To add on this - when an upgrade return 0.2 pts on average then pricing it at 0pts is actually more balanced than pricing it at 1pts. It is less undercosted at 0pts than it is overcosted at 1pts. That it is straight up upgrade over laspistol only proves, that said laspistol is irrelevant for the outcome of the game. The part of "bad game design" is that no impact elements even exist in this game in the first place and can be manipulated by false "options".

    If you go to the store with a hundred dollars and buy a 20 dollar Toblerone but the store doesn't have 80 dollars in cash do you get the Toblerone for free?


    I'd be using a debit/cc, so there'd be no need for change to begin with....

    People still use cash ya know


    People still use absurd false equivalences, ya know.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/29 21:23:06


    Post by: Insectum7


    nou wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
     vict0988 wrote:
    You have no argument to support keeping a laspistol in a world where bolt pistols are 0, I have an argument for upgrading to a 1 pt bolt pistol. It doesn't really matter how bad my argument is as long as I have an argument and you have none I win by definition unless you can prove that my argument is illogical and you can't because Strength 4 is inarguably better than Strength 3.


    You're right, that upgrade which will on average return 0.2 points of value at best is definitely of significant value to your force and you will surely win games based on your ability to buy over priced 1pt bolt pistols. I surrender.

    If you want a challenge, price the grenade launcher.


    To add on this - when an upgrade return 0.2 pts on average then pricing it at 0pts is actually more balanced than pricing it at 1pts. It is less undercosted at 0pts than it is overcosted at 1pts. That it is straight up upgrade over laspistol only proves, that said laspistol is irrelevant for the outcome of the game. The part of "bad game design" is that no impact elements even exist in this game in the first place and can be manipulated by false "options".

    This is just silly.

    The point is that if you make two things cost the same, and one is better than the other, then obviously there's going to be a heavy favoring towards the better option.

    But you can also just make the one better option cost a point or two, and if you feel its not worth a point or two, adjust it so that it's worth the extra price.

    Back in pre 8th, a Bolt Pistol had the AP to ignore 5+ armor, and also had a S value to hurt units that the S3 just couldn't. (T7 and AV10) It was a more meaningful upgrade.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/29 21:25:18


    Post by: Lobokai


    ...or... you make it balanced for opportunity costs... drives me nuts that when you guys get into these silly binary arguments you can't conceive that third and fourth options exist.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/29 21:32:17


    Post by: Unit1126PLL


    I find it absurd that a gun is expected to get its points back in a single shot.

    A 20% return for a non-optimal target should be the GOAL. Otherwise you end up with an absurd situation where an entire army makes up all of its weapon's worth of points in a single shooting phase....

    boy that sounds like an exciting game

    Wait no all weapons should be free, that will fix lethality for sure.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/29 21:47:13


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


     Insectum7 wrote:
    nou wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
     vict0988 wrote:
    You have no argument to support keeping a laspistol in a world where bolt pistols are 0, I have an argument for upgrading to a 1 pt bolt pistol. It doesn't really matter how bad my argument is as long as I have an argument and you have none I win by definition unless you can prove that my argument is illogical and you can't because Strength 4 is inarguably better than Strength 3.


    You're right, that upgrade which will on average return 0.2 points of value at best is definitely of significant value to your force and you will surely win games based on your ability to buy over priced 1pt bolt pistols. I surrender.

    If you want a challenge, price the grenade launcher.


    To add on this - when an upgrade return 0.2 pts on average then pricing it at 0pts is actually more balanced than pricing it at 1pts. It is less undercosted at 0pts than it is overcosted at 1pts. That it is straight up upgrade over laspistol only proves, that said laspistol is irrelevant for the outcome of the game. The part of "bad game design" is that no impact elements even exist in this game in the first place and can be manipulated by false "options".

    This is just silly.

    The point is that if you make two things cost the same, and one is better than the other, then obviously there's going to be a heavy favoring towards the better option.

    But you can also just make the one better option cost a point or two, and if you feel its not worth a point or two, adjust it so that it's worth the extra price.

    Back in pre 8th, a Bolt Pistol had the AP to ignore 5+ armor, and also had a S value to hurt units that the S3 just couldn't. (T7 and AV10) It was a more meaningful upgrade.

    It still has value via the bonus vs T3, 4, 6, and 7. Those are very common profiles. Ignoring that, .2 return is reasonable for a mere pistol.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/29 22:12:47


    Post by: Tyel


    A guard sergeant shooting a laspistol into a marine does 1/2*1/3*1/3*9=0.5 points worth of damage. Which for his 6.5 points is a return of 7.7%.

    With a bolt pistol he does 1/2*1/2*1/3*9=0.75 points. Which for his 6.5 points is a return of 11.5%. This goes down to 10% if the Guard Sergeant is now 7.5 points.

    Its worth noting how paying the point impacts things the other way. A marine shooting back would get a 21.4% return into the guard sergeant at 6.5 points - rising to 24.69% if that sergeant were 7.5 points.

    In the context of 40k - and certainly the more lethal elements of 40k - 7.7%, 10% and 11.5% returns are all awful. So awful in fact that the idea they are meaningfully impacting a game isn't credible.

    But yes - 9th has certainly suffered from lethality - and perhaps more specifically "glasshammerification". The only real solution to this is to have upgrades bring significant defensive buffs. Which, with the exception of storm shields, have been rare. If both players pay points to upgrade their offensive potential, the units will become more fragile. There is also the issue that in a game where you can get units that have say 40%+ returns into things, you would be silly to pay for a weapon upgrade that expects to produce only 20% of its value. Just spend the points on more guys - who can have said 40% returns, and also bring toughness, wounds, bodies to be on the board etc. This in turn means weapon upgrades have to boost output by more than say 40% to be attractive, which is where we spiral upwards into the lethality problem.

    There's also I think the psychological issue which explains why GW tends to undervalue damage and overvalue toughness. People like killing stuff. Its no fun to blaze your whole army at something only for everything to bounce. This is why - more than any mathematics - people hate 3++ saves and to an extent invuls, FNPs etc in general. Because if your opponent's dice are vaguely above average (and they don't have to be dramatically so with a 3++) there's nothing much you can do.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/29 22:22:26


    Post by: Unit1126PLL


    If only there were other ways units could interact with each other on the tabletop.

    Some kind of obscurant, perhaps - maybe the Space Marine Obscurant Kinematic Emitter, S.M.O.K.E.

    Or something that could force the enemy to keep their heads down, like the Precision Intimidation Neuralizer and Neutralization Instrument for Nullification of Ground-pounders (P.I.N.N.I.NG).

    Or maybe something that suppresses the enemy and covers allies - like covering fire or suppressing fire but more Sci-Fi ofc, lest we consider ourselves historical gamers.

    You could have units have different durability values from different directions, maybe the Frontal Ablative Ceramite Invulnerability Negator - Governed. (F.A.C.I.N.-G). That could restore maneuver.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/29 22:22:59


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    I think comparing points returns is silly.

    The Bolt Pistol is better than the Laspistol, therefore there should be a cost in taking it. If there isn't, what reasons are there to not take the Bolt Pistol?


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/29 23:50:35


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


    Tyel wrote:
    A guard sergeant shooting a laspistol into a marine does 1/2*1/3*1/3*9=0.5 points worth of damage. Which for his 6.5 points is a return of 7.7%.

    With a bolt pistol he does 1/2*1/2*1/3*9=0.75 points. Which for his 6.5 points is a return of 11.5%. This goes down to 10% if the Guard Sergeant is now 7.5 points.

    Its worth noting how paying the point impacts things the other way. A marine shooting back would get a 21.4% return into the guard sergeant at 6.5 points - rising to 24.69% if that sergeant were 7.5 points.

    In the context of 40k - and certainly the more lethal elements of 40k - 7.7%, 10% and 11.5% returns are all awful. So awful in fact that the idea they are meaningfully impacting a game isn't credible.


    Your percentages in regards to return are misleading for a couple of reasons:
    1. Y'all are STILL only looking at a Marine to shoot at and are avoiding everything else because it proved your point wrong. The rebuttal of "but they're the most common army" means nothing to me because not all weapons are Marine friendly. That's the nature of the game.
    2. If a Sarge was worth 1 point and the Pistol was another, the Marine is getting an extra 50% return, but you're not looking at the whole package of the squad + army entirety.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 03:07:41


    Post by: alextroy


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    I think comparing points returns is silly.

    The Bolt Pistol is better than the Laspistol, therefore there should be a cost in taking it. If there isn't, what reasons are there to not take the Bolt Pistol?
    At the same time, the value you get from the cost should be equal to the cost.

    So how do you set a cost on something that is a very marginal improvement?

    A Guardman gains 33-50% improvement in offensive firepower with a Bolt Pistol versus a Laspistol. However, that damage output over 5 rounds of shooting (good luck doing that with either pistol) is:

  • Laspistol: 0.83 Wounds versus T3 Sv 5+, 0.27 Wounds versus T4 Sv 3+
  • Bolt Pistol: 1.11 Wounds versus T3 Sv 5+, 0.42 Wounds versus T4 Sv 3+

  • So how many points is that actually worth?

    I suppose an alternative idea would be to even out the weapons in some way so that they are of equal value...


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 03:28:16


    Post by: JNAProductions


    I do think that the Laspistol vs. Bolt Pistol is something you could have just even out with statlines or not care much about.

    I don't think that Bolter vs. Plasma Gun is something that should even out or not worry about. A Plasma Gun is offensively equal or superior in every way to a Bolter, even on safe mode. That should cost points.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 03:31:03


    Post by: Saber


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    I think comparing points returns is silly.

    The Bolt Pistol is better than the Laspistol, therefore there should be a cost in taking it. If there isn't, what reasons are there to not take the Bolt Pistol?


    You take the laspistol because you think it looks cooler (at least that's what I do with my Imperial Guard), and, quite frankly, the difference in output is so small as to be insignificant.

    Make if free, make it cost a point, whatever. Granular point systems are fine, if they're not too complicated, and free upgrades are fine, if they have enough internal balance. Just don't mix and match them, which, of course, is what GW does as they vaciliate between design paradigms over the course of every edition.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 03:31:31


    Post by: catbarf


    Value is not always defined as 'points of models killed on average', though. In a game that isn't so overtuned in lethality that armies get wiped by turn 3-4, expecting less than 100% return is okay.

    And in this case, I think overpricing the bolt pistol relative to its utility in the hands of a generic Guardsman would be the right move anyways- it's not a weapon every sergeant should have; but for an officer it makes sense. So ideally, the cost should be somewhere that it's not a great idea for line squads, but a decent upgrade for officers who might get more use out of it.

    But fundamentally, there are really two options being discussed here:

    1. You make bolt pistols 0pts, and then there's no reason to take anything other than bolt pistols. Every laspistol counts-as a bolt pistol because having your models function strictly worse because of how you modeled them is silly.

    Result: Every model has bolt pistols.

    2. You make bolt pistols 1pt, and then there's little incentive to take bolt pistols as an upgrade. Maybe someone who wants a slightly more effective officer spends a point here and there, or buys a few with the last couple of points to hit 2K.

    Result: Most models have laspistols and maybe a few have bolt pistols.

    I'll take #2 any day of the week because at least there is a choice and some variety, even if nine times out of ten it isn't worth it.

    And if the difference between the two is so irrelevant that it's not worth putting even a single point on that upgrade, maybe they should just say that Guard bolt pistols count as laspistols due to the smaller caliber compared to Astartes ones and be done with it. Why bother treating them any differently if the gameplay effect is no negligible that it isn't even worth a single point?

    But this is a red herring argument anyways, because when it comes to things like power swords vs chainswords, or grenade launchers vs plasma guns, there is far more room for appropriate costing than trying to peg a bolt pistol at either zero or one.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 03:39:12


    Post by: Daedalus81


     JNAProductions wrote:
    A Plasma Gun is offensively equal or superior in every way to a Bolter, even on safe mode. That should cost points.


    Yes, it should and it would certainly be easier with more granular points.

    However, does it materially impact the game in a meaningful way? If not, then is the purpose of paying points simply a psychological pat on the back for 'making a smart choice'?


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 03:44:22


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    The idea that a weapon has to earn its points back is a false dilemma in the first place. And attempting to apply the Las/Boltpistol issue to other weapons with far more stack difference is borderline dishonest.

    No, Bolt Pistols aren't that much better than Laspistols, but they are better. Therefore they cannot just be free.

    Option 2, as described above, is the best option in this situation.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 03:46:15


    Post by: JNAProductions


     Daedalus81 wrote:
     JNAProductions wrote:
    A Plasma Gun is offensively equal or superior in every way to a Bolter, even on safe mode. That should cost points.


    Yes, it should and it would certainly be easier with more granular points.

    However, does it materially impact the game in a meaningful way? If not, then is the purpose of paying points simply a psychological pat on the back for 'making a smart choice'?
    A squad of Marines with five Bolters does (assuming no rerolls, and moving to achieve range) slightly over half a point of damage to another MEQ squad, outside of cover.
    Swap one Bolter for a Plasma gun and the Bolters now do slightly under half a point, but the Plasma does about two fifths of a point of damage on its own on safe mode, and nearly an entire point of damage on its own if Overcharged.

    Going from 5/9 (15/27) to 22/27 isn't a huge boost, but it's not nothing.
    Going from 5/9 to 35/27 is a pretty damn big boost. That's more than double damage-and you retain most of the output even as guys die, since most of it is holed up in one guy.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 04:32:10


    Post by: Insectum7


     Daedalus81 wrote:
     JNAProductions wrote:
    A Plasma Gun is offensively equal or superior in every way to a Bolter, even on safe mode. That should cost points.


    Yes, it should and it would certainly be easier with more granular points.

    However, does it materially impact the game in a meaningful way?

    Both its average and its potential impact is substantially more than a bolter, yes. Some hot rolling and it can kill two Marines a single turn, for a return of . . . 40 points for Intercessors? And its liklihood of doing that is far higher than a Bolter causing 2 wounds.

    Why GW decided Sternguard can just get them for free is beyond me . . .

    Also, what catbarf said.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 05:17:29


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    People seem to be focusing on "return on investment" and not on the potential impact.

    If I take a Dev Squad with 4 Lascannons and spend all game plinking away at a unit of Gaunts, then I'm not getting a return on investment. The weapons would be worth far less than if I had taken 4 Heavy Bolters. Against such a target, the Lascannons should be worth less, and the Heavy Bolters more.

    But that's not how things work. The potential those Lascannons have to cause damage is considerable, and you should pay for that, and you should pay more for that than something that perhaps has a similar role but not the same potential for destruction.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 06:42:10


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    People seem to be focusing on "return on investment" and not on the potential impact.

    If I take a Dev Squad with 4 Lascannons and spend all game plinking away at a unit of Gaunts, then I'm not getting a return on investment. The weapons would be worth far less than if I had taken 4 Heavy Bolters. Against such a target, the Lascannons should be worth less, and the Heavy Bolters more.

    Why do you think they keep ignoring anything but the T4 3+ profile? It doesn't fit their narrative.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 07:01:28


    Post by: Dudeface


    EviscerationPlague wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    People seem to be focusing on "return on investment" and not on the potential impact.

    If I take a Dev Squad with 4 Lascannons and spend all game plinking away at a unit of Gaunts, then I'm not getting a return on investment. The weapons would be worth far less than if I had taken 4 Heavy Bolters. Against such a target, the Lascannons should be worth less, and the Heavy Bolters more.

    Why do you think they keep ignoring anything but the T4 3+ profile? It doesn't fit their narrative.


    Because this site consistently tells you that the t4 3+ profile is what the game pivots around and is so common you plan to have to beat that first before anything else.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 07:43:31


    Post by: Afrodactyl


    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    People seem to be focusing on "return on investment" and not on the potential impact.

    If I take a Dev Squad with 4 Lascannons and spend all game plinking away at a unit of Gaunts, then I'm not getting a return on investment. The weapons would be worth far less than if I had taken 4 Heavy Bolters. Against such a target, the Lascannons should be worth less, and the Heavy Bolters more.

    Why do you think they keep ignoring anything but the T4 3+ profile? It doesn't fit their narrative.


    Because this site consistently tells you that the t4 3+ profile is what the game pivots around and is so common you plan to have to beat that first before anything else.


    It's not wrong though. The T4 3+ profile makes up half of the factions in the game, and about half of tournament entrants in larger tournaments (I've noticed from the predictions thread that smaller tournaments trend towards having more non-MEQ lists, not sure of the exact reason behind that).

    So if you can reasonably expect half of your opponents to be T4 3+ W2, why wouldn't you account for that when list building?


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 07:54:44


    Post by: Tsagualsa


     Afrodactyl wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    People seem to be focusing on "return on investment" and not on the potential impact.

    If I take a Dev Squad with 4 Lascannons and spend all game plinking away at a unit of Gaunts, then I'm not getting a return on investment. The weapons would be worth far less than if I had taken 4 Heavy Bolters. Against such a target, the Lascannons should be worth less, and the Heavy Bolters more.

    Why do you think they keep ignoring anything but the T4 3+ profile? It doesn't fit their narrative.


    Because this site consistently tells you that the t4 3+ profile is what the game pivots around and is so common you plan to have to beat that first before anything else.


    It's not wrong though. The T4 3+ profile makes up half of the factions in the game, and about half of tournament entrants in larger tournaments (I've noticed from the predictions thread that smaller tournaments trend towards having more non-MEQ lists, not sure of the exact reason behind that).

    So if you can reasonably expect half of your opponents to be T4 3+ W2, why wouldn't you account for that when list building?


    Because GW has at this point spent more than a decade on touting stuff like the mythical 'take all comers list' and people don't reflect on the fact that even if you build such a list, it's just the smarter move to weigh 'all comers' by their general frequency of appearance. It's just building to the meta, but that got its own slur in the form of 'list tailoring', 'netlisting' and whatever. Bad ruleswriting leads to stale metagames with degenerate solutions (we all know our stories about bikernob deathstars / wound alloc exploiters, smash-captains, FZORGL-princes or triple heldrakes, whatever) that need specific solutions to hack, but in general the smart move in a totally 'blind' tournament situation is to go for the most ubiquitous profile in the whole game.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 08:13:58


    Post by: Karol


     Unit1126PLL wrote:
    I find it absurd that a gun is expected to get its points back in a single shot.

    In game where stuff dies as easily as things do in w40k, a lot of things don't get to fire more then 1-2 times. This makes single shot weapons really bad, same with weapons that have random damage done. It also makes stuff that can survive to make more then 1-2 shoting runs very powerful. Open topped skimmers with invs saves and powerful melee units inside, have proven over and over again that a unit that can do something more then once is a very good one, and such a unit that can be taken multiple times, or be the litteral entire army makes the army very good.

    The rest is GW design. Lets say GW makes their most optimal IG build in a such a way that it has a 20-30 wiggle room. a 1 pts bolter on multiple sgts isn't a bad option then, as otherwise the points could be potentialy unused. But paying 15pts for a power weapon on a 20-25pts model that probably will never see melee, make the melee option a non existent one. And changing it to 10 or even 5, if the army has no free points the squeez those options in, won't change it. There had to be some serious and game impactful rules over lap to make someone consider taking such an upgrade.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 08:40:19


    Post by: vict0988


     Afrodactyl wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    People seem to be focusing on "return on investment" and not on the potential impact.

    If I take a Dev Squad with 4 Lascannons and spend all game plinking away at a unit of Gaunts, then I'm not getting a return on investment. The weapons would be worth far less than if I had taken 4 Heavy Bolters. Against such a target, the Lascannons should be worth less, and the Heavy Bolters more.

    Why do you think they keep ignoring anything but the T4 3+ profile? It doesn't fit their narrative.


    Because this site consistently tells you that the t4 3+ profile is what the game pivots around and is so common you plan to have to beat that first before anything else.


    It's not wrong though. The T4 3+ profile makes up half of the factions in the game, and about half of tournament entrants in larger tournaments (I've noticed from the predictions thread that smaller tournaments trend towards having more non-MEQ lists, not sure of the exact reason behind that).

    So if you can reasonably expect half of your opponents to be T4 3+ W2, why wouldn't you account for that when list building?

    Do you want GW to balance anti-horde weapons around being competitive against Marines? That'd be a good way to ensure that only Marines get used in tournaments, because anything without a Marine profile would get annihilated by 1Damage weapons without AP-3.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 08:44:58


    Post by: Karol


    So the game should rather be build around hard contering the marines, a type of army which is played , in its multiple variation, but majority of all players? We had that in 8th and we had that in 9th. It is not a fun expiriance for marine players, and creates this odd situation where weaker then marines armies are more resilient, because they suffer fewer losses per model from high AP high D weapon that are multi shot.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 08:46:33


    Post by: Insectum7


    It's fine to look at the T4 3+ 2w profile, you just got to look at it the right way. A Bolt Pistol is an additional 50%(!) more effective over the Las Pistol against one of the most common profiles of the game. For such a massive increase, it should cost something.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 08:55:10


    Post by: Eldarsif


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    People seem to be focusing on "return on investment" and not on the potential impact.

    If I take a Dev Squad with 4 Lascannons and spend all game plinking away at a unit of Gaunts, then I'm not getting a return on investment. The weapons would be worth far less than if I had taken 4 Heavy Bolters. Against such a target, the Lascannons should be worth less, and the Heavy Bolters more.

    But that's not how things work. The potential those Lascannons have to cause damage is considerable, and you should pay for that, and you should pay more for that than something that perhaps has a similar role but not the same potential for destruction.


    I have noticed that the entire "cost" discussion is basically just Marines arguing about Marines.

    Does feel a bit like we live in a two-tiered system. Marines playing their own little game and then the rest which is just happy to be here.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 10:24:45


    Post by: ERJAK


     Unit1126PLL wrote:
    If only there were other ways units could interact with each other on the tabletop.

    Some kind of obscurant, perhaps - maybe the Space Marine Obscurant Kinematic Emitter, S.M.O.K.E.

    Or something that could force the enemy to keep their heads down, like the Precision Intimidation Neuralizer and Neutralization Instrument for Nullification of Ground-pounders (P.I.N.N.I.NG).

    Or maybe something that suppresses the enemy and covers allies - like covering fire or suppressing fire but more Sci-Fi ofc, lest we consider ourselves historical gamers.

    You could have units have different durability values from different directions, maybe the Frontal Ablative Ceramite Invulnerability Negator - Governed. (F.A.C.I.N.-G). That could restore maneuver.


    Using more mechanics that create visual obstructions is fine.

    Pinning is and was a stupid mechanic. It's either completely worthless because of fearless or w/e, or functionally the same as killing the unit in a lot of scenarios, just in a way that's really, really irritating. Your average 40k unit gets to shoot maybe 3 times per game (deepstrike, obscuring, hiding to avoid first turn fire, being mulched by another shooting unit, combat units making it into your lines, etc.) losing one, two, or all of them to the guys just being too piss scared to shoot is really annoying. It's even worse for melee units that are well and truly just dead at that point.

    Something for covering or suppressing fire would be interesting, but it can't fall into the same trap pinning is in of 'I can just suppress your units and make them useless the whole game, so they might as well be dead.'

    Anybody still arguing for facings at this point is just taking the piss. They offered nothing in previous editions, they'd offer nothing in the future. If you truly believe they incentivized 'maneuver' then I would also like to talk to you about this super awesome crypto currency investment I just heard about.

    Facings always fall into one of 3 categories: 1. Facings make no significant difference in the difficulty of killing vehicles so they get ignored. 2. Facings make a significant difference in the difficulty of killing vehicles, so any vehicle that isn't putting it's arse against a board edge for the entire game is either completely worthless or has to be dirt cheap. 3. Facings WOULD make a difference in killing vehicles...if anybody BROUGHT any. 7th edition vehicles were so bad (only partially because of facing, but it was a contributing factor) that Space Marines could bring dozens of them FOR FREE and they STILL weren't any good.

    And all of that is ignoring problems like, exactly where is the line between 'front' and 'side' on weird shaped stuff like knights, night scythes, venomcrawlers, etc? Even if you can agree, what about conversions? Do you just ban anything that obscures the arc? And don't say 'oh this wouldn't be an issue!' They released 3 different 'official' facing arcs for knights and all three of them sent the community (and dakka especially) into seething nerd rages.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 10:59:32


    Post by: Tyel


    It depends on what you mean about potential.

    I don't think you should pay for a lascannon on the grounds that you could hit, you could wound, they could fail the save and you could roll 6 for damage. Yes all that could happen - but its the probability of it doing so - versus the probabilities of everything else in 40k - that determines relative value. In this way lascannons don't lose value just because you are playing someone running mass Termgants or gain value if someone is running lots of tanks. Balance has to be a holistic thing, not matchup to matchup (let alone unit to unit).

    I mean if MEQ comparisons upset, lets shoot guard with guard.
    1/2*1/2*2/3*6.5=1.08333
    1/2*2/3*2/3*6.5=1.44444
    So about 0.36 of a point difference. In theory.

    But in practice, what does this really mean?

    Well the odds of causing a wound with the laspistol from guard into guard are 1/6. The odds of causing a wound with the bolt pistol are 4/18.

    Which is basically saying if you got to fire your pistol 18 times into guardsmen, you'd expect to do an extra wound - 4 rather than 3.

    So lets say you have idk, 6 squads in your list (not sure that's standard in Russ meta but go with it). And of them, 3 Guard sergeants manage to even fire their pistols in anger during an average game. Well over 6 games you would expect to get those 18 shots off, and in turn that one extra wound through. For Marines you'd need 36 shots to expect to get that extra wound through - so we are talking about 12 games.

    So what value is that? Surely its close to zero. Most of the time it isn't going to add up to anything at all. And - dare I say it - most of the times it does happen, it probably doesn't matter. Its hard to believe you'd ever look back on a game and go "remember when I shot my sergeant's laspistol, but I rolled a 3 to wound. If I'd had a bolt pistol I'd have done a wound and maybe you'd have failed the save and maybe I'd have killed one extra guardsmen and then I'd have won" etc. If you have this itch that says you have to optimise for mathhammer take the bolt pistols. In practice however as observed, its scarcely going to matter. I don't think you'd ever be able to identify a Guard win being down to the fact the list had a tiny number of bolt pistols over laspistols.

    The comparison with the Plasma Gun is reasonable because it shows a gun that does matter - or at least does in a micro sense. Its stats are far better than a lasgun or boltgun - and in turn its expected return into a range of targets is much higher. If its free you are therefore moving the squad holding it up the power curve. Its clearly better than a naked squad without such equipment. Whether this is so obviously the case with other special weapons can be debated. The question you are left with is "does this push up the power curve enough to be worth worrying about/imbalance the game?" Haggling over a grenade launcher being 5 points, or 3 points, or zero may not add to very much.

    Because its the macro scale that matters. Which is tied up with the wider discussion of what balance means to you. If an upgrade is not obviously improving your chances of winning a game, why should it be worth any points? If say Marine win% is reasonable (if...) then its unclear "free stuff" is breaking the game. The "free stuff" is paid for in the price you pay for the unit itself. Sure, someone who doesn't have any special weapons in their collection is worse off - but they can just go buy some. Someone who just wants to run a carpet of naked guys would be worse off - which I think is the only fair criticism really. But there's plenty of things GW says "no, you shouldn't do this, sorry" - so I don't think this is the biggest imposition. I'm sorry your 10 man strong Dev squad is more inefficient with this change - but I'm not clear it was ever that efficient to begin with, and in terms of winning/losing games I'm not sure it matters.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 12:25:30


    Post by: Daedalus81


     JNAProductions wrote:
     Daedalus81 wrote:
     JNAProductions wrote:
    A Plasma Gun is offensively equal or superior in every way to a Bolter, even on safe mode. That should cost points.


    Yes, it should and it would certainly be easier with more granular points.

    However, does it materially impact the game in a meaningful way? If not, then is the purpose of paying points simply a psychological pat on the back for 'making a smart choice'?
    A squad of Marines with five Bolters does (assuming no rerolls, and moving to achieve range) slightly over half a point of damage to another MEQ squad, outside of cover.
    Swap one Bolter for a Plasma gun and the Bolters now do slightly under half a point, but the Plasma does about two fifths of a point of damage on its own on safe mode, and nearly an entire point of damage on its own if Overcharged.

    Going from 5/9 (15/27) to 22/27 isn't a huge boost, but it's not nothing.
    Going from 5/9 to 35/27 is a pretty damn big boost. That's more than double damage-and you retain most of the output even as guys die, since most of it is holed up in one guy.


    Sorry I thought we were on the character thing with people talking laspistol / boltgun.

    A squad is a whole different story, because you simply must take those upgrades. Sorry for the confusion.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 12:47:38


    Post by: vict0988


    Bolt pistol enjoyers would be better off in a world where plasma pistols cost more than bolt pistols, because there will be a reason to take bolt pistols. Right now there isn't. So all this gnashing of teeth about wasting less than 10 pts in a 2k list is completely silly, since you're effectively wasting at least as many pts by not taking plasma pistols currently, since upgrading a bolt pistol to a plasma pistol is worth at least a whole point, while a bolt pistol is worth at least a fraction of a point.

    @Tyel 1 is the closest whole number to 0, so when I say bolt pistols should be 1 pt I am acknowledging the value they bring as being close to 0.

    If you don't think an extra S matters why take a bolt pistol?


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 13:47:01


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


    Just fething raise the points on everything...

    make the standard game size 40000pts, keep the same number of model that we currently have now. Poof, now your "1pts bolt pistol" can actually be priced correctly because the minimum points increment isnt as big a % of your total force.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 13:59:25


    Post by: alextroy


     vict0988 wrote:
    Bolt pistol enjoyers would be better off in a world where plasma pistols cost more than bolt pistols, because there will be a reason to take bolt pistols. Right now there isn't. So all this gnashing of teeth about wasting less than 10 pts in a 2k list is completely silly, since you're effectively wasting at least as many pts by not taking plasma pistols currently, since upgrading a bolt pistol to a plasma pistol is worth at least a whole point, while a bolt pistol is worth at least a fraction of a point.

    @Tyel 1 is the closest whole number to 0, so when I say bolt pistols should be 1 pt I am acknowledging the value they bring as being close to 0.

    If you don't think an extra S matters why take a bolt pistol?
    You do know that 0 is a whole number?

    Oh, you mean the closest whole number greater than 0 is 1, because you don't want to round 0.4 to 0

    As others have said, if the Bolt Pistol has no meaningful chance of impacting the game, it shouldn't cost anything. The best thing the rules should do is account for that by making some other rules balance to make the value of the Las Pistol more comparable to that of the higher strength Bolt Pistol and then let the player choose between two equally valuable choices.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 14:10:27


    Post by: catbarf


    ERJAK wrote:
    Pinning is and was a stupid mechanic. It's either completely worthless because of fearless or w/e, or functionally the same as killing the unit in a lot of scenarios, just in a way that's really, really irritating. Your average 40k unit gets to shoot maybe 3 times per game (deepstrike, obscuring, hiding to avoid first turn fire, being mulched by another shooting unit, combat units making it into your lines, etc.) losing one, two, or all of them to the guys just being too piss scared to shoot is really annoying. It's even worse for melee units that are well and truly just dead at that point.

    Something for covering or suppressing fire would be interesting, but it can't fall into the same trap pinning is in of 'I can just suppress your units and make them useless the whole game, so they might as well be dead.'


    Pinning is an important part of HH2.0 and it works pretty well there. It's an essential support tool for preventing units from reacting, slowing an advance to maintain distance, and establishing fire superiority. Because it does take a unit out of commission (mostly- they can still move and still Snap Fire) for a full turn, it is pretty hard to pull off, but certainly easier than wiping the unit.

    It only results in a unit being useless the whole game if you keep it in such a position as to keep being shot by the same pinning weapon, and keep failing its morale checks, while making no effort to neutralize the pinning threat. At that point, that's user error.

    I would rather have a unit out of action for one turn than out of action for the rest of the game, and the current high lethality is in part a result of players expecting things to happen, but there currently being no way to interact with the enemy besides killing them. Describing it as 'irritating' or 'annoying' suggests to me that you're thinking of morale effects as some kind of irrelevant side mechanic grafted onto your game, rather than another mechanism of damage alongside actually removing models.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 14:13:48


    Post by: Slipspace


     VladimirHerzog wrote:
    Just fething raise the points on everything...

    make the standard game size 40000pts, keep the same number of model that we currently have now. Poof, now your "1pts bolt pistol" can actually be priced correctly because the minimum points increment isnt as big a % of your total force.

    The other option is to accept there are some levels of granularity we just don't need. The laspistol/bolt pistol discussion is a perfect example. The bolt pistol is clearly better, so it should really cost more to take it, otherwise it's just the default option and the las pistol has no real purpose. But the actual increase in effectiveness is miniscule, especially for a pistol weapon that realistically gets to shoot about 2-3 times per game. There's not enough of a distinction between the two weapons to justify keeping both, IMO. One approach would just be to say Guard characters have "Officer Siderams" and allow them to be modelled as las or bolt pistols as the player sees fit. Plasma pistols are clearly better again, and sufficiently impactful to require a cost to upgrade. The question then becomes, which options are impactful enough to still require pointing separately.

    Grav guns/pistols were mentioned earlier as candidates for removal from the game, and I think this wouldn't be a terrible decision for very similar reasons. They no longer have a niche that they fill. In that case, removing the weapon is probably fine, especially if nobody uses them anyway.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 14:15:20


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


    Slipspace wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
    Just fething raise the points on everything...

    make the standard game size 40000pts, keep the same number of model that we currently have now. Poof, now your "1pts bolt pistol" can actually be priced correctly because the minimum points increment isnt as big a % of your total force.

    The other option is to accept there are some levels of granularity we just don't need. The laspistol/bolt pistol discussion is a perfect example. The bolt pistol is clearly better, so it should really cost more to take it, otherwise it's just the default option and the las pistol has no real purpose. But the actual increase in effectiveness is miniscule, especially for a pistol weapon that realistically gets to shoot about 2-3 times per game. There's not enough of a distinction between the two weapons to justify keeping both, IMO. One approach would just be to say Guard characters have "Officer Siderams" and allow them to be modelled as las or bolt pistols as the player sees fit. Plasma pistols are clearly better again, and sufficiently impactful to require a cost to upgrade. The question then becomes, which options are impactful enough to still require pointing separately.

    Grav guns/pistols were mentioned earlier as candidates for removal from the game, and I think this wouldn't be a terrible decision for very similar reasons. They no longer have a niche that they fill. In that case, removing the weapon is probably fine, especially if nobody uses them anyway.


    true, GW is still treating 40k as if it was a skirmish game where individual guns need to be represented.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 14:17:57


    Post by: Strg Alt


     Eldarsif wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    People seem to be focusing on "return on investment" and not on the potential impact.

    If I take a Dev Squad with 4 Lascannons and spend all game plinking away at a unit of Gaunts, then I'm not getting a return on investment. The weapons would be worth far less than if I had taken 4 Heavy Bolters. Against such a target, the Lascannons should be worth less, and the Heavy Bolters more.

    But that's not how things work. The potential those Lascannons have to cause damage is considerable, and you should pay for that, and you should pay more for that than something that perhaps has a similar role but not the same potential for destruction.


    I have noticed that the entire "cost" discussion is basically just Marines arguing about Marines.

    Does feel a bit like we live in a two-tiered system. Marines playing their own little game and then the rest which is just happy to be here.


    The notion of NPC armies becomes stronger again.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 14:24:20


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     Strg Alt wrote:

    The notion of NPC armies becomes stronger again.


    stop with the persecution fetish..
    we're using space marines to calculate averages because theyre the most common defensive profile.
    Oh, and the bolt pistol vs las pistol debate is about infantry squads from Astra militarum, not space marines


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 14:30:32


    Post by: catbarf


     alextroy wrote:
    As others have said, if the Bolt Pistol has no meaningful chance of impacting the game, it shouldn't cost anything.


    If it's such a pointless choice that it doesn't even amount to 1/2000th of your list, not even 0.05% of your combat power, it probably shouldn't exist at all.

    I mean, can we agree that choices that have no meaningful chance of impacting the game don't add value? That if you do get to make a choice, it should have some tangible effect? I feel like that's a pretty basic expectation.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 14:37:18


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


    Tyel wrote:
    It depends on what you mean about potential.

    I don't think you should pay for a lascannon on the grounds that you could hit, you could wound, they could fail the save and you could roll 6 for damage. Yes all that could happen - but its the probability of it doing so - versus the probabilities of everything else in 40k - that determines relative value. In this way lascannons don't lose value just because you are playing someone running mass Termgants or gain value if someone is running lots of tanks. Balance has to be a holistic thing, not matchup to matchup (let alone unit to unit).

    I mean if MEQ comparisons upset, lets shoot guard with guard.
    1/2*1/2*2/3*6.5=1.08333
    1/2*2/3*2/3*6.5=1.44444
    So about 0.36 of a point difference. In theory.

    But in practice, what does this really mean?

    It means that you're getting value with that Bolt Pistol and therefore it should cost a point.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 15:09:42


    Post by: vict0988


     alextroy wrote:
     vict0988 wrote:
    Bolt pistol enjoyers would be better off in a world where plasma pistols cost more than bolt pistols, because there will be a reason to take bolt pistols. Right now there isn't. So all this gnashing of teeth about wasting less than 10 pts in a 2k list is completely silly, since you're effectively wasting at least as many pts by not taking plasma pistols currently, since upgrading a bolt pistol to a plasma pistol is worth at least a whole point, while a bolt pistol is worth at least a fraction of a point.

    @Tyel 1 is the closest whole number to 0, so when I say bolt pistols should be 1 pt I am acknowledging the value they bring as being close to 0.

    If you don't think an extra S matters why take a bolt pistol?
    You do know that 0 is a whole number?

    Oh, you mean the closest whole number greater than 0 is 1, because you don't want to round 0.4 to 0

    As others have said, if the Bolt Pistol has no meaningful chance of impacting the game, it shouldn't cost anything. The best thing the rules should do is account for that by making some other rules balance to make the value of the Las Pistol more comparable to that of the higher strength Bolt Pistol and then let the player choose between two equally valuable choices.

    I'm a 100 million year old robot, 0 isn't even MM years old, give me a break.

    You're begging the question by saying it doesn't have a meaningful chance of impacting the game. If you don't think it's a meaningful difference just take the las pistol, the points cost is irrelevant since you wouldn't take it at 0 pts or 100 pts if it provides 0 value to you either way.
    Tyel wrote:
    But in practice, what does this really mean?

    It means there's no reason to take a las pistol. Just like there's no reason to take a bolt pistol when a plasma pistol costs the same. Would the reason to take a 1 pt bolt pistol be bad when there's a 3 pt plasma pistol? Yeah, but it's better than what we have now.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 15:18:08


    Post by: Daedalus81


    Whelp - power levels are gonzo.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 15:23:08


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


     Daedalus81 wrote:
    Whelp - power levels are gonzo.
    And not a moment too soon. What a stupid system they were.

     alextroy wrote:
    As others have said, if the Bolt Pistol has no meaningful chance of impacting the game, it shouldn't cost anything.
    But it has the potential to do something - something you keep forgetting about and/or ignoring - and you pay points for the chance to do something just as much as you pay points hoping for a return on investment.



    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 15:24:18


    Post by: Kanluwen


     Daedalus81 wrote:
    Whelp - power levels are gonzo.

    Not a surprise. Unfortunate though.

    Can't wait for the wailing and gnashing of teeth for units being bought in blocks if that happens though!


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 15:32:17


    Post by: Asmodai


     Kanluwen wrote:
     Daedalus81 wrote:
    Whelp - power levels are gonzo.

    Not a surprise. Unfortunate though.

    Can't wait for the wailing and gnashing of teeth for units being bought in blocks if that happens though!


    Yeah, it remains to be seen how granular points are and whether wargear is purchased separately from the unit cost (late 9th was trending away from that even in point-based play).


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 15:35:57


    Post by: Daedalus81


     Asmodai wrote:
     Kanluwen wrote:
     Daedalus81 wrote:
    Whelp - power levels are gonzo.

    Not a surprise. Unfortunate though.

    Can't wait for the wailing and gnashing of teeth for units being bought in blocks if that happens though!


    Yeah, it remains to be seen how granular points are and whether wargear is purchased separately from the unit cost (late 9th was trending away from that even in point-based play).


    It's entirely possible GW knowing 10th is on the horizon said, 'eff it, upgrades are free - we'll fix it later'. Still could go either way.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 15:51:34


    Post by: Tyel


    This isn't meant to be a gotcha - but plasma pistols are 5 points for guardsmen. I guess the real argument could be whether this is an auto-take or a never-take. Or about right. The damage output is clearly reasonable - but equally there's a high chance the squad is wiped without ever getting to pull the trigger. And if they were too good or too bad - would making them 3 or 7 points represent meaningful impact?

    Yes, I suppose if I think there's no difference in laspistols and bolt pistols, I'm not impacted by bolt pistols being a 100 point upgrade and consequently never taken because they'd be a terrible option. But that's surely just the mirror of you not being impacted by the bolt pistol being zero - because if mathhammer dictates your decision making, you'll just always take that over the laspistol.

    At its core the "bolt pistol debate" is a stand in for "free wargear". I just don't think its a problem. Clearly it can be a problem - just as too cheap units are an issue in general. But all "PL rules" does is change the optimal loadout of a unit. In both scenarios mathhammer dictates you take the most "undercosted" option.

    If Wargear dramatically changes the purpose/output of a unit then that's different - but I don't think 40k works on that scale for a few bits. And when you have say a tank with 2 guns, the community tends to quickly identify which is "best".

    To move from Marines and Guard to my own army DE, would it be better if the wargear selection rose or fell? On characters it could certainly do with coming back - because its basically been cut to nothing. A big fear of GW's "oh we decided players don't like relics/WLT" is that its only relics/WLT that make DE characters vaguely serviceable and interesting. (And yes, brokenly powerful 2 years back). Is a "free" blast pistol on an Archon unfair (assuming we can still take one and I wouldn't bet on it)? Well maybe - but for 70~ points you think you'd get something a bit more potent than a splinter pistol.

    But lets look at Wracks. On an Acothyst I can take:
    An Agonizer
    An Electrocorrosive Whip
    Flesh Gauntlet
    Multiphase Gauntlet
    Scissor Hands
    Venom Blade
    or keep the generic Wrack Blades.

    Would this level of customisation be cool in something like Necromunda or Kill team? Sure. Maybe. Certainly for some sort of RPG. But can GW come up with 7 meaningfully different melee options for a relatively cheap unit champion in today's 40k? Not at all.

    So you just take Electrocorrosive whips because its the best option and worth the 5 points. If they all became free you'd keep on taking the Electrocorrosive whips. Okay lets make Electrocorrosive whips 15 points or something, now we move down the list to the next choice etc.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 16:30:54


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


    Tyel wrote:
    This isn't meant to be a gotcha - but plasma pistols are 5 points for guardsmen. I guess the real argument could be whether this is an auto-take or a never-take. Or about right. The damage output is clearly reasonable - but equally there's a high chance the squad is wiped without ever getting to pull the trigger. And if they were too good or too bad - would making them 3 or 7 points represent meaningful impact?

    That's the fault of being an IGOUGO game. It doesn't mean Sternguard should get their gear for free because they MIGHT die before something happens. It also doesn't mean your sarge gets a better pistol for free because he MIGHT not use it.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 16:35:07


    Post by: Insectum7


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Daedalus81 wrote:
    Whelp - power levels are gonzo.
    And not a moment too soon. What a stupid system they were.

    But does this mean that points are the new power level, simplifying points so much that they are power level in all but name?


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 16:35:31


    Post by: Siegfriedfr


    It's official, they are ditching power levels and sticking to point values.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 16:39:03


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


    Siegfriedfr wrote:
    It's official, they are ditching power levels and sticking to point values.

    And thank God. It wasn't even worth the minute they took to create it and an embarrassment to game design.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 16:39:47


    Post by: Dudeface


    Tyel wrote:

    At its core the "bolt pistol debate" is a stand in for "free wargear". I just don't think its a problem. Clearly it can be a problem - just as too cheap units are an issue in general. But all "PL rules" does is change the optimal loadout of a unit. In both scenarios mathhammer dictates you take the most "undercosted" option.


    It's more it shows the inability to balance things down within the minute brackets they give themselves + peoples needless want and need for very linear "must be better and must have cost!"


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Siegfriedfr wrote:
    It's official, they are ditching power levels and sticking to point values.

    And thank God. It wasn't even worth the minute they took to create it and an embarrassment to game design.


    Good, now they can sink that time into improving game balance now they'd removed list building options.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 16:42:13


    Post by: Kanluwen


    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Siegfriedfr wrote:
    It's official, they are ditching power levels and sticking to point values.

    And thank God. It wasn't even worth the minute they took to create it and an embarrassment to game design.

    Still better design than the current system of points.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 16:46:44


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


     Kanluwen wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Siegfriedfr wrote:
    It's official, they are ditching power levels and sticking to point values.

    And thank God. It wasn't even worth the minute they took to create it and an embarrassment to game design.

    Still better design than the current system of points.

    Ah yes, Las Pistol = Plasma Pistol in cost is a great system.

    Simping for PL is legit silly.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 16:47:11


    Post by: Not Online!!!


     Kanluwen wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Siegfriedfr wrote:
    It's official, they are ditching power levels and sticking to point values.

    And thank God. It wasn't even worth the minute they took to create it and an embarrassment to game design.

    Still better design than the current system of points.


    it won't matter at all, since we are talking about gw.

    Powerlevel design was just more stupid from the beginning which is because it is nu gw from the get go. Old points atleast came from a time where they had decent rules designer that tried... but since it's also nu gw...
    why bother, NaCl is bound to follow out of gw regardless.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 16:48:35


    Post by: Dudeface


    EviscerationPlague wrote:
     Kanluwen wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Siegfriedfr wrote:
    It's official, they are ditching power levels and sticking to point values.

    And thank God. It wasn't even worth the minute they took to create it and an embarrassment to game design.

    Still better design than the current system of points.

    Ah yes, Las Pistol = Plasma Pistol in cost is a great system.

    Simping for PL is legit silly.


    PL are just less granular points, points are not perfect either as shown in here. Both need a shot in the back of the head and starting again.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 16:49:00


    Post by: Unit1126PLL


    I hope this "meaningful impact on the game" question gets raised for more than just wargear and people can see how shallow the design is.

    What is the difference in game impact between Cadians, Kreig, and regular infantry squads?

    What is the difference in game impact between Grey Hunters and tactical marines?


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 16:49:47


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
     Kanluwen wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Siegfriedfr wrote:
    It's official, they are ditching power levels and sticking to point values.

    And thank God. It wasn't even worth the minute they took to create it and an embarrassment to game design.

    Still better design than the current system of points.

    Ah yes, Las Pistol = Plasma Pistol in cost is a great system.

    Simping for PL is legit silly.


    PL are just less granular points, points are not perfect either as shown in here. Both need a shot in the back of the head and starting again.

    "Points aren't perfect so don't bother with granularity at all" is literally the worst argument you could've used to defend the Bolt Pistol costing the same as the Las Pistol.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 16:51:08


    Post by: vict0988


    Bolt pistols < grav pistols < plasma pistols. All 0 for Tacticals.
    Tyel wrote:
    If Wargear dramatically changes the purpose/output of a unit then that's different

    Dramatic means very noticeable or surprising. Suppose you ask someone who never played before whether they'd rather upgrade their pistol or their gun to plasma, they might not always choose the gun because it won't benefit from FRF SRF and the plasma pistol would be handy in melee. But I think it's very noticeable when a weapon becomes strictly better. Obviously, I'd choose the strictly better weapon, it's dramatically better, it's straight up better rather than being sideways and upgrade that a meltagun is to a lasgun, how can I not notice that? How can I not notice that Wraiths with pistols are better than Wraiths without pistols? Why would I take Wraiths without pistols if they cost the same? You can't miss that they'd be better.



    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 16:56:32


    Post by: Kanluwen


     Unit1126PLL wrote:
    I hope this "meaningful impact on the game" question gets raised for more than just wargear and people can see how shallow the design is.

    What is the difference in game impact between Cadians, Kreig, and regular infantry squads?

    -Cadians get a Vox, 2x Special Weapons(should be able to duplicate, but c'est la vie for the moment), and the unmodded hit rolls of 6s for Lasguns/Laspistols causing an additional hit--plus army special rules.

    -Krieg get a Plasma Gun(can replace with a vox, y'know, if you want to?) plus 2x Special Weapons(again: should be able to dupe), ability to buy a medikit, and ability to shrug off Wound rolls of 1-2's--plus army special rules.

    -Infantry Squads get to take a single Special and a HWT plus the army special rules


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 17:00:48


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     Kanluwen wrote:
     Unit1126PLL wrote:
    I hope this "meaningful impact on the game" question gets raised for more than just wargear and people can see how shallow the design is.

    What is the difference in game impact between Cadians, Kreig, and regular infantry squads?

    -Cadians get a Vox, 2x Special Weapons(should be able to duplicate, but c'est la vie for the moment), and the unmodded hit rolls of 6s for Lasguns/Laspistols causing an additional hit--plus army special rules.

    -Krieg get a Plasma Gun(can replace with a vox, y'know, if you want to?) plus 2x Special Weapons(again: should be able to dupe), ability to buy a medikit, and ability to shrug off Wound rolls of 1-2's--plus army special rules.

    -Infantry Squads get to take a single Special and a HWT plus the army special rules.


    ok, so no "meaningful impact on the game" then.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 17:01:35


    Post by: Platuan4th


     VladimirHerzog wrote:


    true, GW is still treating 40k as if it was a skirmish game where individual guns need to be represented.


    Probably because that's what the players demand. Abstraction of the weapons was one of the biggest complaints about the newest version of Apocalypse using the Epic rules.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 17:01:59


    Post by: Kanluwen


    Pretty meaningful impacts, actually.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 17:03:29


    Post by: Dudeface


    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
     Kanluwen wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Siegfriedfr wrote:
    It's official, they are ditching power levels and sticking to point values.

    And thank God. It wasn't even worth the minute they took to create it and an embarrassment to game design.

    Still better design than the current system of points.

    Ah yes, Las Pistol = Plasma Pistol in cost is a great system.

    Simping for PL is legit silly.


    PL are just less granular points, points are not perfect either as shown in here. Both need a shot in the back of the head and starting again.

    "Points aren't perfect so don't bother with granularity at all" is literally the worst argument you could've used to defend the Bolt Pistol costing the same as the Las Pistol.


    If you'd bothered reading the thread, I've repeatedly advocated either shuffling rules around to balance value or increasing granularity on all levels. It's not my fault you can't envisage anything beyond the now.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 17:13:17


    Post by: EviscerationPlague


     Kanluwen wrote:
     Unit1126PLL wrote:
    I hope this "meaningful impact on the game" question gets raised for more than just wargear and people can see how shallow the design is.

    What is the difference in game impact between Cadians, Kreig, and regular infantry squads?

    -Cadians get a Vox, 2x Special Weapons(should be able to duplicate, but c'est la vie for the moment), and the unmodded hit rolls of 6s for Lasguns/Laspistols causing an additional hit--plus army special rules.

    -Krieg get a Plasma Gun(can replace with a vox, y'know, if you want to?) plus 2x Special Weapons(again: should be able to dupe), ability to buy a medikit, and ability to shrug off Wound rolls of 1-2's--plus army special rules.

    -Infantry Squads get to take a single Special and a HWT plus the army special rules

    You forgot Catachans


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 17:15:18


    Post by: catbarf


    Tyel wrote:Yes, I suppose if I think there's no difference in laspistols and bolt pistols, I'm not impacted by bolt pistols being a 100 point upgrade and consequently never taken because they'd be a terrible option. But that's surely just the mirror of you not being impacted by the bolt pistol being zero - because if mathhammer dictates your decision making, you'll just always take that over the laspistol.


    That's not a fair characterization at all.

    We're not talking about four differently statted options and complaining that one is 3.72% more effective in 16.4% of use cases and therefore clearly the best choice.

    We're talking about an option that is 'do you want to have S3 or S4?' and has literally no other impact. That's not a real choice, that's not mathhammer nerds turning a tactical game into boring statistics, that's a rhetorical question that has an obviously correct answer and an obviously incorrect answer and if someone hesitates it's because they're wondering what the catch is.

    Tyel wrote:At its core the "bolt pistol debate" is a stand in for "free wargear".


    I keep calling the 'bolt pistol debate' a red herring because the question of whether a near-worthless upgrade should be worth a point isn't at all the issue people are complaining about.

    The actual issue is that there are two very different 'upgrade types' here that are both impacted negatively by free wargear.

    One type is the ability to replace a poor weapon with a strictly better one. Upgrade your laspistol to a bolt pistol. Upgrade your chainsword to a power sword. Upgrade a tank with sponsons. If these are free, they're no-brainers. There's no real choice. You take the upgrade because there's no reason not to. The only reason this is something people are debating is because someone chose to hone in on the example of the bolt pistol, which is the weakest and most irrelevant upgrade possible and therefore hard to cost appropriately. But there's no question that you could set a price for power weapons or sponsons such that your choice isn't a binary 'obviously take it because it's free' or 'obviously don't take it because it's too expensive'.

    The other type is the ability to take one of several options, like being able to pick between a meltagun, plasma gun, and flamer. The problem here is that if they're free but one option is superior to the others, again, there's no real choice. You take the best of them. It's far harder to balance statlines than to adjust costs, particularly when that statline is on a common weapon used across the game on a variety of platforms of differing capabilities.

    Hyperfocusing on whether a bolt pistol should be free or 1pt is completely missing the forest for the trees and wasting time with an irrelevant discussion. The actual upgrades in contention, the things people are concerned with having free, are all ones that could plausibly have a cost somewhere in between 'free' and 'so high that it's never worthwhile', and the bolt pistol argument is basically reducing it to a false dichotomy of two extremes.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 17:21:19


    Post by: Insectum7


     Platuan4th wrote:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:


    true, GW is still treating 40k as if it was a skirmish game where individual guns need to be represented.


    Probably because that's what the players demand. Abstraction of the weapons was one of the biggest complaints about the newest version of Apocalypse using the Epic rules.

    This is very true. Abstraction works well in game design theory, and often in practice too, but the playerbase we're talking about is less receptive to it. The biggest lesson to be taken from 8th ed is the importance of accessibility. And "accessibility" reaches far into multiple areas of design, from mechanics, to presentation, to gear representation. If people are trying to tell stories with their models in the 40k universe, all that specific gear can be a juicy part of the storytelling.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 17:43:00


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     Insectum7 wrote:

    This is very true. Abstraction works well in game design theory, and often in practice too, but the playerbase we're talking about is less receptive to it. The biggest lesson to be taken from 8th ed is the importance of accessibility. And "accessibility" reaches far into multiple areas of design, from mechanics, to presentation, to gear representation. If people are trying to tell stories with their models in the 40k universe, all that specific gear can be a juicy part of the storytelling.


    the gear can still exist from a lore approach. Sure, your Infantry squad sergeant might only have a "pistol" in the rules, but in the fluff, you know its actually a Bolt/las pistol and can still get the same cinematic stuff you want.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/03/30 20:37:36


    Post by: Insectum7


     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     Insectum7 wrote:

    This is very true. Abstraction works well in game design theory, and often in practice too, but the playerbase we're talking about is less receptive to it. The biggest lesson to be taken from 8th ed is the importance of accessibility. And "accessibility" reaches far into multiple areas of design, from mechanics, to presentation, to gear representation. If people are trying to tell stories with their models in the 40k universe, all that specific gear can be a juicy part of the storytelling.


    the gear can still exist from a lore approach. Sure, your Infantry squad sergeant might only have a "pistol" in the rules, but in the fluff, you know its actually a Bolt/las pistol and can still get the same cinematic stuff you want.
    I understand what you're saying, believe me. But a huge array of people like their gear to have a bit more detail in the handling.

    It's also not an either/or, it's finding the compromise between naming all the potential wargear and generifying.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/04/01 11:29:30


    Post by: Afrodactyl


     vict0988 wrote:
     Afrodactyl wrote:
    Dudeface wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    People seem to be focusing on "return on investment" and not on the potential impact.

    If I take a Dev Squad with 4 Lascannons and spend all game plinking away at a unit of Gaunts, then I'm not getting a return on investment. The weapons would be worth far less than if I had taken 4 Heavy Bolters. Against such a target, the Lascannons should be worth less, and the Heavy Bolters more.

    Why do you think they keep ignoring anything but the T4 3+ profile? It doesn't fit their narrative.


    Because this site consistently tells you that the t4 3+ profile is what the game pivots around and is so common you plan to have to beat that first before anything else.


    It's not wrong though. The T4 3+ profile makes up half of the factions in the game, and about half of tournament entrants in larger tournaments (I've noticed from the predictions thread that smaller tournaments trend towards having more non-MEQ lists, not sure of the exact reason behind that).

    So if you can reasonably expect half of your opponents to be T4 3+ W2, why wouldn't you account for that when list building?

    Do you want GW to balance anti-horde weapons around being competitive against Marines? That'd be a good way to ensure that only Marines get used in tournaments, because anything without a Marine profile would get annihilated by 1Damage weapons without AP-3.


    You realise you've completely missed the point of what I was saying, right?

    I'm not saying you need to balance every single weapon and unit to be good against marines. That's silly and you may as well just flip a coin and whoever gets heads is declared winner.

    What I was saying is that if X is the most common profile in the game, both on paper and in practical tournament experience, why would you not account for that?

    So armies need to be built around dealing with marines. They also need to deal with a gorrilion termagants and Knight spam. You need to account for every opponent.

    If I were to build a list that has no way of dealing with a certain army, I shouldn't be surprised when I lose to that army. If I build a list that can't handle the T4 3+ W2 profile, IE marines, then I expect to lose to marines.

    Marines are the most common army in the game, so you should probably account for them when deciding what you're bringing to a game if you like winning.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/04/01 13:56:02


    Post by: Karol


    But being good vs marines and generaly everything else too, is what GW is doing. If something clears 5-10 man marine squads and their vehicles, then it clears everything from the table, save from super efficient chaff or stuff that is overloaded with special rules aka undercosted for what they do.

    The problem marine players face is the problem that they have to meta against marines and non marines, while non marine players can just build their armies vs marines and the list will work, even if they don't fight other marines. On top of that GW makes non marines very point efficient comparing to what marines have. Which in every edition means GW has to drop point values of marines stuff. And both times marines were made good, at the end of 8th and at the end of 9th, GW had to hand out free points to marine players. And even then aside for DA, there are no outliers for marines. At least as far as being good goes. Because even with the changes they still have DW or Imperial Fists, getting beaten with free extras and changes to doctrines.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/04/01 16:58:24


    Post by: Tyel


    I don't think the issue is list building exactly - so much as having something to make a useful standard comparison against. You could measure things in terms of "how many Genestealers do you kill" - but it feels a bit contrived. Because Genestealers are very fragile for their points. Same for using say Repentia as the standard.

    I'd argue even basic MEQ aren't that common - or at least not as common as you might think. By which I mean how often when you are facing some sort of Marine list are you trying to gun down basic "T4 3+ 2 wound guys" - as opposed to Terminators, regular guys but with Storm Shields, Sanguinary Guard have a 2+ save, Bladeguard with 3 wounds, Possessed are T5 with 3 wounds etc etc.

    But you probably still see more "standard Marines" on tables than you do Genestealers.

    Its like who in early 8th "T7 3+" was a standard monster/vehicle profile. This was therefore a good statline to compare anti-large weapons against. These days that profile isn't half as common in the wild. GW have tried to mess around with higher T, higher saves, more invuls, minus damage modifiers etc etc.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/04/02 00:37:54


    Post by: ERJAK


    Not Online!!! wrote:
     Kanluwen wrote:
    EviscerationPlague wrote:
    Siegfriedfr wrote:
    It's official, they are ditching power levels and sticking to point values.

    And thank God. It wasn't even worth the minute they took to create it and an embarrassment to game design.

    Still better design than the current system of points.


    it won't matter at all, since we are talking about gw.

    Powerlevel design was just more stupid from the beginning which is because it is nu gw from the get go. Old points atleast came from a time where they had decent rules designer that tried... but since it's also nu gw...
    why bother, NaCl is bound to follow out of gw regardless.


    In fiction this is referred to as a 'self demonstrating article.'


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/04/03 20:04:04


    Post by: Zarathustra Spake


    what do I want 10th to bring?

    A two tiered system which allows people to start at a beginner level and end at an advanced.

    Basically you have a "just the basics" version of the game that is very easily learned and lays down a foundation to learn from. Then you bring in more advanced rules which build upon the new rules and expand the game to a more balanced state.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/04/03 20:14:21


    Post by: Daedalus81


    Zarathustra Spake wrote:
    what do I want 10th to bring?

    A two tiered system which allows people to start at a beginner level and end at an advanced.

    Basically you have a "just the basics" version of the game that is very easily learned and lays down a foundation to learn from. Then you bring in more advanced rules which build upon the new rules and expand the game to a more balanced state.


    You have that with the combat patrol system, but the main game will definitely become less balanced with a wider variety of units and rules.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/04/03 20:42:26


    Post by: Platuan4th


    Zarathustra Spake wrote:
    what do I want 10th to bring?

    A two tiered system which allows people to start at a beginner level and end at an advanced.

    Basically you have a "just the basics" version of the game that is very easily learned and lays down a foundation to learn from. Then you bring in more advanced rules which build upon the new rules and expand the game to a more balanced state.


    That's the plan/idea with "Combat Patrol" and "standard 40K".


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/04/03 21:06:20


    Post by: ccs


    Zarathustra Spake wrote:
    what do I want 10th to bring?

    A two tiered system which allows people to start at a beginner level and end at an advanced.

    Basically you have a "just the basics" version of the game that is very easily learned and lays down a foundation to learn from. Then you bring in more advanced rules which build upon the new rules and expand the game to a more balanced state.


    You have that right now.
    You don't HAVE to instanly jump into play at 2k pt games involving every bell & whistle, faq, Balance sheet, tourney pack etc.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/04/03 21:45:19


    Post by: Wayniac


    ccs wrote:
    Zarathustra Spake wrote:
    what do I want 10th to bring?

    A two tiered system which allows people to start at a beginner level and end at an advanced.

    Basically you have a "just the basics" version of the game that is very easily learned and lays down a foundation to learn from. Then you bring in more advanced rules which build upon the new rules and expand the game to a more balanced state.


    You have that right now.
    You don't HAVE to instanly jump into play at 2k pt games involving every bell & whistle, faq, Balance sheet, tourney pack etc.
    unless your area thinks that's all that exists, in which case you kinda do or you play by yourself


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/04/03 21:56:57


    Post by: PenitentJake


    Wayniac wrote:
    ]unless your area thinks that's all that exists, in which case you kinda do or you play by yourself


    Neither is this the fault of the current edition, nor will a new edition change this.

    The inflexibility of other people in your play space has never been GW's fault.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/04/03 23:04:38


    Post by: catbarf


    ccs wrote:
    Zarathustra Spake wrote:
    what do I want 10th to bring?

    A two tiered system which allows people to start at a beginner level and end at an advanced.

    Basically you have a "just the basics" version of the game that is very easily learned and lays down a foundation to learn from. Then you bring in more advanced rules which build upon the new rules and expand the game to a more balanced state.


    You have that right now.
    You don't HAVE to instanly jump into play at 2k pt games involving every bell & whistle, faq, Balance sheet, tourney pack etc.


    I've tried to bring in three new players to 40K during 9th. No stratagems, no FAQs or tournament packs, no subfactions, no warlord traits, no relics. Just the main rulebook and codices. All three bounced right off. We now play Battlefleet Gothic, Grimdark Future, and Alpha Strike instead.

    It is painful watching new players hunt for the right codex entry, then have to check their army list to see what wargear option they have, then flip to the back of the codex to find the stat, then flip back to the unit entry to figure out what it hits on, then check a special rule only to be hit with some of the most obnoxious legalese I've ever seen in a tabletop game, and so on and so on.

    It's really not just the layers of rules that make it hard. It's the presentation, layout, and organization. The game was not written with new players in mind- it does not start off small, or give you turn-by-turn play examples to ease you into how the rules are supposed to work.

    Check out the Battletech Beginner Box for comparison. It's a similarly convoluted, clunky, still-rooted-in-the-80s game, but that starter box actually makes it approachable. It's all about how the rules are structured (basic vs advanced), how they're written (plain language with simple lookups, no legalese or numerical codes), how reference material is presented (all your stats on one sheet), and how the game guides you to gradually increase in scope and complexity.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/04/04 01:12:53


    Post by: ccs


    Wayniac wrote:
    ccs wrote:
    Zarathustra Spake wrote:
    what do I want 10th to bring?

    A two tiered system which allows people to start at a beginner level and end at an advanced.

    Basically you have a "just the basics" version of the game that is very easily learned and lays down a foundation to learn from. Then you bring in more advanced rules which build upon the new rules and expand the game to a more balanced state.


    You have that right now.
    You don't HAVE to instanly jump into play at 2k pt games involving every bell & whistle, faq, Balance sheet, tourney pack etc.
    unless your area thinks that's all that exists, in which case you kinda do or you play by yourself
    Wolves.

    Well that attitude is not going to change 3-4 months from now. Or a year from now. Or 2 years....
    The same people who'll only play the most complex version of the game today aren't going to change.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/04/04 01:32:51


    Post by: Karol


     catbarf wrote:


    It's really not just the layers of rules that make it hard. It's the presentation, layout, and organization. The game was not written with new players in mind- it does not start off small, or give you turn-by-turn play examples to ease you into how the rules are supposed to work.

    Check out the Battletech Beginner Box for comparison. It's a similarly convoluted, clunky, still-rooted-in-the-80s game, but that starter box actually makes it approachable. It's all about how the rules are structured (basic vs advanced), how they're written (plain language with simple lookups, no legalese or numerical codes), how reference material is presented (all your stats on one sheet), and how the game guides you to gradually increase in scope and complexity.


    It is not a question of layout or presentation. w40k is just not played with 4-12 models. If w40k was games of 20 marines and an HQ fighting vs 20 orks and a warboss, the game would be called clunky, but easy to understand too. It isn't because the basic size game, at which it is played and considered optimal is 2000pts. And we can talk a lot about playig patrol or boarding action, for which rules and boxes, in some places in the world, are impossible to get, but that it is not the core of how w40k is played. The core w40k or AoS expiriance is, sesonal rules, 2000pts, matched play. In both cases those are two systems tested by tournament gamers, giving tournament gamers feed back. When combined with the rules sell models and GW wanting people to never stop buying more models, it creates a loop, where a new player is being thrown in to a world where, unless a miracle happens, they are going to be told very fast what the regular game of w40k or AoS is.

    And 10th will not change that. People say it will streamline and make stuff easier, that index will be a thing and rules bloat will be removed. How is having detachment stratagems, faction stratagems and special stratagems for the warlord different , numericaly, from what we have now?
    And index will be streamlined, and boring to play, but codex are going to be coming out with more detachments, with more rules then the index ones, there is going to be updated unit profiles and new units will have more rules and rules interactions depending on the faction and detachment being played.

    The names will be different, and maybe some rules are going to be in different places, but the game will stay the same as GW gaming philosophy goes.


    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/04/04 01:38:02


    Post by: Daedalus81


    Karol wrote:


    And 10th will not change that. People say it will streamline and make stuff easier, that index will be a thing and rules bloat will be removed. How is having detachment stratagems, faction stratagems and special stratagems for the warlord different , numericaly, from what we have now?
    And index will be streamlined, and boring to play, but codex are going to be coming out with more detachments, with more rules then the index ones, there is going to be updated unit profiles and new units will have more rules and rules interactions depending on the faction and detachment being played.

    The names will be different, and maybe some rules are going to be in different places, but the game will stay the same as GW gaming philosophy goes.


    You and I clearly have a different understanding of how all this is unfolding.



    Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring @ 2023/04/04 01:45:22


    Post by: Karol


    How else is GW going to make people buy more stuff over and over again, on a sesonal aka quarterly schedul?

    As soon as the codex start droping the race will be on again. And when we get past the initial marines books, the game will realy take up speed.

    I remember how GW talked about index, streamlining of rules and how early 8th codex looked like, comparing to books that came out 6+ months later. Of coure now they are talking and telling people all the stuff they want to hear. New edition, buy in to it, the rules are free, but they never say the detachment rules crucial to matched play will be free. We streamline stuff, and then they list that each army will have faction stratagems, detachment stratagems and then special stratagems for the warlords and heroes. For my dudes that is more stratagems then we have right now, even if only half of them are good. And the assumption I think is that GW is not going to leave the "if you play vs eldar, and your unit of slanesh demons is within X", then you can do this one super conditional thing". and just leave and add the good stuff.