Slipspace wrote: The problem with a lot of indirect fire isn't just the points. It's the sheer number of them that ignore the indirect penalties that GW introduced late on in 9th and continue to use in 10th. It's idiotic to me that they carried those restrictions forward, then gave the majority of indirect fire weapons ways around it.
I like some methods, like scout sentinels. An 18" spotting unit to negate indirect penalties has some counterplay. Desolations marines that just need to stand still to negate seem a lot less interesting mechanically.
Slipspace wrote: The problem with a lot of indirect fire isn't just the points. It's the sheer number of them that ignore the indirect penalties that GW introduced late on in 9th and continue to use in 10th. It's idiotic to me that they carried those restrictions forward, then gave the majority of indirect fire weapons ways around it.
Desolation Marines are especially egregious because of Indirect Fire on large squads, with Blast so bucket of dice, then they get mitigation for Indirect Fire and then their faction skills and character skills on top of that for lots of rerolls. It's a degenerate combo all in all.
Slipspace wrote: The problem with a lot of indirect fire isn't just the points. It's the sheer number of them that ignore the indirect penalties that GW introduced late on in 9th and continue to use in 10th. It's idiotic to me that they carried those restrictions forward, then gave the majority of indirect fire weapons ways around it.
Desolation Marines are especially egregious because of Indirect Fire on large squads, with Blast so bucket of dice, then they get mitigation for Indirect Fire and then their faction skills and character skills on top of that for lots of rerolls. It's a degenerate combo all in all.
Maybe swap them to fixed units of 5 as a possible part solution?
Slipspace wrote: The problem with a lot of indirect fire isn't just the points. It's the sheer number of them that ignore the indirect penalties that GW introduced late on in 9th and continue to use in 10th. It's idiotic to me that they carried those restrictions forward, then gave the majority of indirect fire weapons ways around it.
Desolation Marines are especially egregious because of Indirect Fire on large squads, with Blast so bucket of dice, then they get mitigation for Indirect Fire and then their faction skills and character skills on top of that for lots of rerolls. It's a degenerate combo all in all.
Maybe swap them to fixed units of 5 as a possible part solution?
Or swap Superfrag from D6+1 shots to D3, and the Castellan to plain 1, they still get enough shots off at large mobs but become less of a one-size-fits-all tool. There are several ways how you could go about nerfing them, but it probably needs to be something they can't work around with faction/leader abilities.
nekooni wrote: Or the points system could be designed in a way not to feth over everyone that didn't pimp out their squads and rides.
If people have a bunch of models with no upgrades then it would seem the old system wasn't working very well.
I imagine the vast majority of people here likely have a collection broad enough to accommodate these issues.
This is giving me "dont you guys have phones?!" vibes, to be honest.
The old system allowed units with and without upgrades to be viable choice, and the new one does not.
I have close to 20k pts of Salamanders, and quite a few models are now basically unusable. Sure, i can "accommodate", but thats not the average collection size, and the new system benches a ton of my models for absolutely no good reason. Thats a failure of the new system, not the old one.
They're still a viable choice, it's a decision you can come to and legally field them with rules. If you mean your unit of bolters and nothing else isn't competitively viable, then yeah sure.
I'm being pedantic but there's some people who will literally think their units aren't field able now because of the changes, which isn't true.
"not being able to field them" is clearly not what I meant by writing "viable",
Please show us doubters one of these units you have that you claim aren't viable now.
Then tell us the last time it was viable & why.
18 naked Wraiths. 6 Canoptek Spyders missing guns. 25 Tomb Blades missing shields. They were all viable 2 weeks ago.
18 naked Wraiths. 6 Canoptek Spyders missing guns. 25 Tomb Blades missing shields. They were all viable 2 weeks ago.
I couldn't tell you what the shields look like on a tomb blade to not know they have it. That aside, no qualms from me if you wanted to run any of those with optional pistols or whatever.
Even if you didn't, for the vast majority of friendly games you could use them without feeling stung too much, but I'd wager your opponent has to do the same.
nekooni wrote: Or the points system could be designed in a way not to feth over everyone that didn't pimp out their squads and rides.
If people have a bunch of models with no upgrades then it would seem the old system wasn't working very well.
I imagine the vast majority of people here likely have a collection broad enough to accommodate these issues.
This is giving me "dont you guys have phones?!" vibes, to be honest.
The old system allowed units with and without upgrades to be viable choice, and the new one does not.
I have close to 20k pts of Salamanders, and quite a few models are now basically unusable. Sure, i can "accommodate", but thats not the average collection size, and the new system benches a ton of my models for absolutely no good reason. Thats a failure of the new system, not the old one.
I obviously can't speak to anyone's collection, but I think people over emphasize putting minor upgrades in units that don't make use of them often and worrying about paying for that cost. The Devastator sarge can take a bunch of stuff, but you definitely aren't paying for that at 120. And them not having those upgrades isn't going to significantly change your game. If you're aiming for top tables at LVO then maybe you'll need them, but I suspect no one here has such ambitions.
I take issue with the term 'viable choice'. There were very clear non-viable options, which is why there's so many potential naked squads. You certainly had choices, but when the same choice keeps getting made over and over again...is it really a choice?
In 8th edition this forum went back and forth a ton about Guardsmen. We did a bunch of efficiency calculations and we compared them to what marines could do at the time. I recall Kan being stalwart on people being crazy that IS were too good for their points. And now that I reflect on it they may have been correct ( but perhaps not in approach ). IS are a wet noodle with just lasguns. They reason they got so much play is that orders made them super flexible for MMM and the whole Loyal 32 CP debacle.
What I'm working on is an app where you can plug in units and weapons and then it will give a sweeping calculation of their performance under all variety of conditions and a large array of targets. There's still a lot of work to go ( including a UI ), but this gives the general sense of what that looks like. Right now it gives an average number of kills over 10,000 rounds.
** NOTE : these figures aren't fully QA'd so this is just an example ( lethal hits seem wonky and the sarge's bolter seems to be overperforming a little, too ) ***
In this particular scenario Intercessors do 0.57 and 0.45 ( 1.02 ) into Marines for 95 points. IS do 0.5, 0.22, and 0.12 ( 0.84 ) on the move and at long for 65. Their max is 0.51 + 0.42 + 0.16 ( 1.09 ), but it'd be quite hard to get a full squad standing still in RF range. All conditions with cover in effect. If all cases the upgrades contributed a large part to the efficiency of that unit and it's intended effect on the battlefield.
So marines are 20% efficient into MEQ and IS are 25%. Now take out those upgrades and their effectiveness plummets. So how do you point IS without an upgrade? They're not surviving much, which is why they can be resurrected. Without an upgrade their efficiency is ~10%. Dropping their cost according to the new efficiency would make then 25 points. 35 points would get them to 20%. Is that GL worth 30? Or 5 or 10?
Obviously there's a lot more to it than that, but that's the core of what I'm driving at.
Tyel wrote: Desolators either need a complete rewrite or need to go up around 50%.
Rewrite would be nice. They're just too many dice full stop. They'll probably get hit by the indirect nerf ( whatever that is ) so hopefully they'll be harder to use tucked in a corner.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: GW writing rules and then immediately making those rules pointless as everything ignores them is an iconic duo at this point.
At least we didn't have to wait for codexes this time!
nekooni wrote: Or the points system could be designed in a way not to feth over everyone that didn't pimp out their squads and rides.
If people have a bunch of models with no upgrades then it would seem the old system wasn't working very well.
I imagine the vast majority of people here likely have a collection broad enough to accommodate these issues.
This is giving me "dont you guys have phones?!" vibes, to be honest.
The old system allowed units with and without upgrades to be viable choice, and the new one does not.
I have close to 20k pts of Salamanders, and quite a few models are now basically unusable. Sure, i can "accommodate", but thats not the average collection size, and the new system benches a ton of my models for absolutely no good reason. Thats a failure of the new system, not the old one.
They're still a viable choice, it's a decision you can come to and legally field them with rules. If you mean your unit of bolters and nothing else isn't competitively viable, then yeah sure.
I'm being pedantic but there's some people who will literally think their units aren't field able now because of the changes, which isn't true.
"not being able to field them" is clearly not what I meant by writing "viable",
Please show us doubters one of these units you have that you claim aren't viable now.
Then tell us the last time it was viable & why.
18 naked Wraiths. 6 Canoptek Spyders missing guns. 25 Tomb Blades missing shields. They were all viable 2 weeks ago.
Ok, 18 naked wraiths would be 3 units of Wraiths... but whatever.
SO:
●in 9th you could take 6 wraiths with no upgrades for 210 pts.
●here in 10th those same 6 wraiths with or without any upgrades costs you 220 pts.
Tell me how an increase of 1.6666666667 pts per wraith suddenly rendered them non-viable if you choose to forgo any upgrsdes.
nekooni wrote: Or the points system could be designed in a way not to feth over everyone that didn't pimp out their squads and rides.
If people have a bunch of models with no upgrades then it would seem the old system wasn't working very well.
I imagine the vast majority of people here likely have a collection broad enough to accommodate these issues.
This is giving me "dont you guys have phones?!" vibes, to be honest.
The old system allowed units with and without upgrades to be viable choice, and the new one does not.
I have close to 20k pts of Salamanders, and quite a few models are now basically unusable. Sure, i can "accommodate", but thats not the average collection size, and the new system benches a ton of my models for absolutely no good reason. Thats a failure of the new system, not the old one.
They're still a viable choice, it's a decision you can come to and legally field them with rules. If you mean your unit of bolters and nothing else isn't competitively viable, then yeah sure.
I'm being pedantic but there's some people who will literally think their units aren't field able now because of the changes, which isn't true.
"not being able to field them" is clearly not what I meant by writing "viable",
Please show us doubters one of these units you have that you claim aren't viable now.
Then tell us the last time it was viable & why.
18 naked Wraiths. 6 Canoptek Spyders missing guns. 25 Tomb Blades missing shields. They were all viable 2 weeks ago.
Ok, 18 naked wraiths would be 3 units of Wraiths... but whatever.
SO:
●in 9th you could take 6 wraiths with no upgrades for 210 pts.
●here in 10th those same 6 wraiths with or without any upgrades costs you 220 pts.
Tell me how an increase of 1.6666666667 pts per wraith suddenly rendered them non-viable if you choose to forgo any upgrsdes.
You could just say you don't know what the guns for Wraiths do and that would've been less embarrassing than your current post. The guns that Wraiths have access to are NOT inconsequential.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: Also lol 9th and 10th are different games, simply comparing points between the two of them is really stupid ccs
bs.
10th is an evolution of 9th. While some #s have shifted & many units have gained bespoke rules?
Things are not so different that your using your wraiths (with or without upgrades - especially without upgrades) any differently than you were two weeks ago.
Or your SMs, etc etc etc.
So how did that 6 strong wraith unit go from viable to unviable?
Gene St. Ealer wrote: Also lol 9th and 10th are different games, simply comparing points between the two of them is really stupid ccs
bs.
10th is an evolution of 9th. While some #s have shifted & many units have gained bespoke rules?
Things are not so different that your using your wraiths (with or without upgrades - especially without upgrades) any differently than you were two weeks ago.
Or your SMs, etc etc etc.
So how did that 6 strong wraith unit go from viable to unviable?
Lost a point of AP on both melee weapons.
Lost Fallback and Shoot/Charge.
Lost various stratagems that could help, like adding AP or attacks, Fight on Death, +1 Strength...
Went up in points despite all that.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: Also lol 9th and 10th are different games, simply comparing points between the two of them is really stupid ccs
bs.
10th is an evolution of 9th. While some #s have shifted & many units have gained bespoke rules?
Things are not so different that your using your wraiths (with or without upgrades - especially without upgrades) any differently than you were two weeks ago.
Or your SMs, etc etc etc.
So how did that 6 strong wraith unit go from viable to unviable?
Seeing as you ignored my post, do you know what guns the Wraiths have access to, yes or no?
ccs wrote: So how did that 6 strong wraith unit go from viable to unviable?
Just going with the old point values for argument's sake... every unit of 6 Wraiths is "giving up" 50 points in upgrades. So a theoretical opponent with 3 units of 6 Wraiths each with the most expensive upgrade plays with +150 points for these units alone.
JNAProductions wrote: Lost a point of AP on both melee weapons.
Lost Fallback and Shoot/Charge.
Lost various stratagems that could help, like adding AP or attacks, Fight on Death, +1 Strength...
Went up in points despite all that.
Also picked up T6 and MW moving over units.
Particle Caster gained a shot, DW, and BS2 ( up from BS4 ).
Beamer lost Assault.
I also think reanimate is useful on them? Not sure haven't tried them out yet, but it was near impossible to reanimate them before.
Strats weren't really baked in before.
Definitely a unit that got quite a few changes though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote: Just going with the old point values for argument's sake... every unit of 6 Wraiths is "giving up" 50 points in upgrades. So a theoretical opponent with 3 units of 6 Wraiths each with the most expensive upgrade plays with +150 points for these units alone.
Wraiths are certainly not something you want to run without the gun - especially if you're maxing them. I never glued guns on mine, because magnetizing those was near impossible. I'm not gluing anything on until I see where the point system goes and I'll just run counts as with all the same ( except for the guys I have with coils ).
and 9th is an evolution of 3rd, so we can compare units from 3rd and 10th
10th is a new game, and not just an evolution, same as 8th was a new game and 3rd
if 7th was a new game or an evolution or not is debatable, but no this is not a continuous series of upgrades but we are looking at 4 very different versions of 40k over those 10 Editions that you cannot compare 1:1
The issue surely is whether Wraith pistols were worth 10 points a model or whatever. If you didn't take them because no, you can't claim to be "out" of that many points.
But seriously don't get this Wysiwyg or death view on units most people don't know have options. Imperials suffer because a flamer isn't a lascannon. Xenos can basically do whatever and have people nod along.
In 8th GW were far more willing to use values other than multiples of 5, that's why the wargear options in 9th were borked.
ccs wrote: ●in 9th you could take 6 wraiths with no upgrades for 210 pts. ●here in 10th those same 6 wraiths with or without any upgrades costs you 220 pts.
Tell me how an increase of 1.6666666667 pts per wraith suddenly rendered them non-viable if you choose to forgo any upgrsdes.
By your logic they're casually viable, but the ones with particle casters are going to take over tournaments, because for 1,67 pts they have gained a weapon that will get at least 5 pts back if it shoots once.
Tyel wrote: The issue surely is whether Wraith pistols were worth 10 points a model or whatever. If you didn't take them because no, you can't claim to be "out" of that many points.
But seriously don't get this Wysiwyg or death view on units most people don't know have options. Imperials suffer because a flamer isn't a lascannon. Xenos can basically do whatever and have people nod along.
vict0988 says that their Wraiths are without upgrades. If an opponent brings the same units with upgrades, there is an estimated difference of 150pts. The fact that there isn't a difference in point costs in the actual game is the core of the issue here.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: Also lol 9th and 10th are different games, simply comparing points between the two of them is really stupid ccs
bs.
10th is an evolution of 9th. While some #s have shifted & many units have gained bespoke rules?
Things are not so different that your using your wraiths (with or without upgrades - especially without upgrades) any differently than you were two weeks ago.
Or your SMs, etc etc etc.
So how did that 6 strong wraith unit go from viable to unviable?
Even if the cost increase is a pittance, the new cost is significantly lower than what a fully-equipped squad of Wraiths cost in 9th. So the most charitable thing you can say about naked Wraith is that they got a small nerf rather than the significant buff given to kitted-out Wraiths. If the naked Wraiths are still worthwhile at the new points level, then the fully-equipped ones are overpowered.
I mean, the points cost cannot simultaneously be an accurate representation of value for both a naked and a fully-geared-out squad unless the options are so minor as to be irrelevant- and this is not one of those cases.
Trickstick wrote: So in the latest Metawatch they said: "...indirect fire is perhaps too proliferated at its current point cost."
So there is a possible increase in points costs for indirect weapons coming. However, how does this work for a unit like field ordnance batteries? Only 1 of the 3 weapon options has indirect. They don't have the proper points mechanism in place to balance a unit when some of the weapons need increasing, and some don't.
Why should a heavy lascannon go up in points because a bombast field gun needs to?
I have said it before, I will say it again and again:
Mortars should not be fieldable outside of Heavy Weapon Squads.
An Astra Militarum army can contain 6 Infantry Squads with 12 Mortars (Blast, Heavy, Indirect Fire, 36", A d6, BS 5+, S 5, AP 0, D 1) for 780 Points.
A Space Marine army can contain 3 Desolation Squads with 30 Castellen Launchers (Blast, Indirect Fire, 36", A d3, BS 3+, S 4, AP 0, D 1) and 3 Vengor Launchers (Blast, Indirect Fire, 48", A d6, BS 2+, S 7, AP -1, D 2) that Ignore the -1 Hit for Indirect Fire if they Remain Stationary for 720 Points.
An Aeldari Army can contain 3 D-Cannon Support Weapons (Blast, Devastating Wounds, Heavy, Indirect Fire, 24", A d3, BS 3+, S 16, AP -4, D d6+2) for 255 points. Aeldari have Fate Dice that make a 6 to Wound turn that d6+2 damage to one model into d6+2 Mortal Wounds to a unit.
I think we can tell that Mortars in Infantry Squads are not the Indirect Fire problem people are speaking about.
Well mortars are not where the Guard indirect power really lies. It is the scout sentinel combining with basilisks, manticores, earthshakers, and medusas.
Slipspace wrote: The problem with a lot of indirect fire isn't just the points. It's the sheer number of them that ignore the indirect penalties that GW introduced late on in 9th and continue to use in 10th. It's idiotic to me that they carried those restrictions forward, then gave the majority of indirect fire weapons ways around it.
I like some methods, like scout sentinels. An 18" spotting unit to negate indirect penalties has some counterplay.
And it helps in the suspension of disbelief. You feel like your models are working together as a team/Army fighting together when one of them makes a different one better.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trickstick wrote: Well mortars are not where the Guard indirect power really lies. It is the scout sentinel combining with basilisks, manticores, earthshakers, and medusas.
Which is a lot of units, but that's also likely why they're not looking there. Its a lot of units. Even if you hit the rule of 3 with 3 out of the 4 there - 9 Indirect Fire units with an average half dozen or so shots per - Meh. Its a lot, but its also a lot of your army, and isn't a significant "pause". Desolation Squads are going to get hammered for two reasons. People who hate Marines will whine about them, and they have one really stupid design flaw. Rolling a 10D3 and potentially 10D6 on top of that just to determine how many attacks they have - or worse 9D3, 10D6+10, 1D6 hits that can then reroll to hit, and reroll to wound. Most people probably wouldn't care about the rerolls, but two sets of PRE-ROLLS will drive just about anyone nuts. Give em fixed shots per model and they'll get a lot less anoying. 2 Castellan Shots (Average of D3) and 1 Krak Muniution or 3/4 Frag Munition (change the name for consistency preservation, but basically same statline just fixed average shots) No unit should have to roll 10 let alone 20 dice to find out how many times 10 models will shoot
Slipspace wrote: The problem with a lot of indirect fire isn't just the points. It's the sheer number of them that ignore the indirect penalties that GW introduced late on in 9th and continue to use in 10th. It's idiotic to me that they carried those restrictions forward, then gave the majority of indirect fire weapons ways around it.
Desolation Marines are especially egregious because of Indirect Fire on large squads, with Blast so bucket of dice, then they get mitigation for Indirect Fire and then their faction skills and character skills on top of that for lots of rerolls. It's a degenerate combo all in all.
Maybe swap them to fixed units of 5 as a possible part solution?
Nah, just take the Pre-Rolls out. Aside from the people who just hate Marines, its the Pre-Rolls. Roll 9D3. Now roll 1D6. Now roll 10D6 more. Now roll that results for your attacks to generate hits...
Rolling a Large Bucket of Dice - especially from a one-off unit - isn't that big of a deal. Orks do it for all their big blocks of Boyz. Each block of 20 boys are going to drop 40ish dice. The likely one, maybe two blocks of Desolation Marines are going to drop 30-60ish for 10 guys - Except that's after they dropped 2 fistfuls of 10 dice to get to the 30/60 number.
You'd run into similar frustration from Killa Kans - especially if you could take 10 of em in a unit. First roll 10D3, now roll a different 10D3, and roll 10D6. Now roll 110 or so dice to hit. Even at the current top Unit Size of 6, you're looking at 6D3, a differend 6D3, and 6D6 to then roll the 63 or so result dice to hit.
PenitentJake wrote: There was nothing toxic about PL advocacy, because unlike Points advocacy, almost none of us ever suggest eliminating points. (According to HBMC, there was one poster who did).
There was more than one of you. Fezzik and Blindmage, at least. And probably you but I don't remember.
PenitentJake wrote: Toxicity consists not in advocating for what you want, but in advocating for what you want at someone else's expense.
No, it also consists in advocating for things which are objectively bad, lying about the downsides, and refusing to admit it when you're called out on it.
I don't believe you. What would you do if someone rolled up with a parking lot of voidweavers in 9e? Tell their opponent sorry, part of good sportsmanship is giving your opponent unearned victories because we like this unbalanced points system?
Sure, and it'd be even better if it was just points and not PL.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slipspace wrote: The problem with a lot of indirect fire isn't just the points. It's the sheer number of them that ignore the indirect penalties that GW introduced late on in 9th and continue to use in 10th. It's idiotic to me that they carried those restrictions forward, then gave the majority of indirect fire weapons ways around it.
It's clear that a number of the index writers disagreed with the way the core rules were written in 10th and tried to make workaround for their favorite factions to "cheat."
Sure, and it'd be even better if it was just points and not PL.
Its not toxic when I do it!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slipspace wrote: The problem with a lot of indirect fire isn't just the points. It's the sheer number of them that ignore the indirect penalties that GW introduced late on in 9th and continue to use in 10th. It's idiotic to me that they carried those restrictions forward, then gave the majority of indirect fire weapons ways around it.
It's clear that a number of the index writers disagreed with the way the core rules were written in 10th and tried to make workaround for their favorite factions to "cheat."
I'd say it was more likely that they all worked in a vaccuum except for possibly a Push These Kits list.
There are way too many infantry units that have to preroll too many dice for the number of hits. That should/would have been caught in playtesting and feedback meetings. But Desolation Squads are just about due for their debut release. Fate/Miracle dice are another example, as is the Sisters anti-tank/monster issues.
Sure, and it'd be even better if it was just points and not PL.
Its not toxic when I do it!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slipspace wrote: The problem with a lot of indirect fire isn't just the points. It's the sheer number of them that ignore the indirect penalties that GW introduced late on in 9th and continue to use in 10th. It's idiotic to me that they carried those restrictions forward, then gave the majority of indirect fire weapons ways around it.
It's clear that a number of the index writers disagreed with the way the core rules were written in 10th and tried to make workaround for their favorite factions to "cheat."
I'd say it was more likely that they all worked in a vaccuum except for possibly a Push These Kits list.
There are way too many infantry units that have to preroll too many dice for the number of hits. That should/would have been caught in playtesting and feedback meetings. But Desolation Squads are just about due for their debut release. Fate/Miracle dice are another example, as is the Sisters anti-tank/monster issues.
Yeah, true. Especially at larger squad sizes, 10D3 or 20D3 is barely random anymore anyway, and it get's put through the blender of the whole attack sequence afterwards. Just give these D3 shot weapons 2 shots per, nobody is going to complain. Or re-introduce rapid fire dice, where you do just one attack, but that can generate 1-3 hits afterwards. That option would be useful from a couple of other perspectives as well, and preferable to that 'random number of shot' nonsense.
Tsagualsa wrote: [
Yeah, true. Especially at larger squad sizes, 10D3 or 20D3 is barely random anymore anyway, and it get's put through the blender of the whole attack sequence afterwards. Just give these D3 shot weapons 2 shots per, nobody is going to complain. Or re-introduce rapid fire dice, where you do just one attack, but that can generate 1-3 hits afterwards. That option would be useful from a couple of other perspectives as well, and preferable to that 'random number of shot' nonsense.
Meh, not Rapid Fire, that just places the Pre-Roll after the Hit Roll instead of eliminating it - and reintroducing JAM is also to be avoided.
Is a Tactical Squad with 2 Grav Guns equal to a Tactical Squad with 1 Grav Gun and 1 Grav Cannon, yes or no?
I expect them all to strictly ignore that question LOL
What's the point? I mean if the russ/pred sponsons argument doesn't work then neither will this. They'll ignore it, dance around it or come up with some farfetched explanation about why it's actually ok/the only possible way. It's always the same.
How can we be sure some of these accounts aren't just the gw social media team and/or cruddace himself? It'd explain a lot.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I mean they already deflected to the players on the sponson issue:
"It's your fault for being unwilling to add magnets/sponsons/social contract relitigation to every game. GW is faultless."
But they also deflected via "give them rules if they don't have sponsons". This example is about strictly superior loadouts and how they would handle it.
Queue the responses of "don't let Tacticals take Grav Cannons" LMAO
Unit1126PLL wrote: I mean they already deflected to the players on the sponson issue:
"It's your fault for being unwilling to add magnets/sponsons/social contract relitigation to every game. GW is faultless."
But they also deflected via "give them rules if they don't have sponsons". This example is about strictly superior loadouts and how they would handle it.
Queue the responses of "don't let Tacticals take Grav Cannons" LMAO
On the contrary, don't let them take 2 grav guns, 1 special, 1 heavy.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I mean they already deflected to the players on the sponson issue:
"It's your fault for being unwilling to add magnets/sponsons/social contract relitigation to every game. GW is faultless."
But they also deflected via "give them rules if they don't have sponsons". This example is about strictly superior loadouts and how they would handle it.
Queue the responses of "don't let Tacticals take Grav Cannons" LMAO
On the contrary, don't let them take 2 grav guns, 1 special, 1 heavy.
But they could in 9th, and it was fine. I'm not surprised you'd want to take that option though.
Is a Tactical Squad with 2 Grav Guns equal to a Tactical Squad with 1 Grav Gun and 1 Grav Cannon, yes or no?
I expect them all to strictly ignore that question LOL
A Tactical Squad with a Grav Cannon and Grav-gun is more effective than one with 2 Grav-guns. Depending on the unit usage, the increase in effectiveness varies given that a Grav Cannon is most effective Stationary, but still averages slightly more hits than the Grav-gun even on the move.
That being said, a Multi-melta is better than a Grav Cannon within 1/2 range and is much better when firing at a tough Monster rather than a Vehicle.
Which leads us back to how many more points are weapon X versus weapon Y and at what point does that marginal points difference matter over an entire army?
Is a Tactical Squad with 2 Grav Guns equal to a Tactical Squad with 1 Grav Gun and 1 Grav Cannon, yes or no?
I expect them all to strictly ignore that question LOL
A Tactical Squad with a Grav Cannon and Grav-gun is more effective than one with 2 Grav-guns. Depending on the unit usage, the increase in effectiveness varies given that a Grav Cannon is most effective Stationary, but still averages slightly more hits than the Grav-gun even on the move.
That being said, a Multi-melta is better than a Grav Cannon within 1/2 range and is much better when firing at a tough Monster rather than a Vehicle.
Which leads us back to how many more points are weapon X versus weapon Y and at what point does that marginal points difference matter over an entire army?
The marginal points differences can matter very quickly when you're talking about the potential amounts to upgrade from one unit to another. A Razorback at 100 is only 30 points shy of a Predator Annihilator at 130. If pulling a few Powerfists and downgrading a Heavy Weapon a touch can open up those 30 extra points to get that Predator, it can be a very meaningful deal.
I think the overall approach GW used which is what's at fault. They could have done this slowly over time(and technically were doing with recent kits), but decided to take the "shock therapy" approach which will get more lashback than otherwise.
I mean, they could have redone the Leman Russ kit so it couldn't be without sponsons. If they had done that they would have gotten some outrage, but it would have been far less.
On the other hand I must give credit where credit is due. It takes some big courage to do the "shock therapy" method. Will be interesting to see how this all turns out in the coming year.
Eldarsif wrote: I think the overall approach GW used which is what's at fault. They could have done this slowly over time(and technically were doing with recent kits), but decided to take the "shock therapy" approach which will get more lashback than otherwise.
I mean, they could have redone the Leman Russ kit so it couldn't be without sponsons. If they had done that they would have gotten some outrage, but it would have been far less.
On the other hand I must give credit where credit is due. It takes some big courage to do the "shock therapy" method. Will be interesting to see how this all turns out in the coming year.
This sounds and feels like the Warhammer equivalent of a guy telling me that "I just don't get it" when I say that "this is just a stupid banana on a white canvas and has nothing to do with art.".
Hecaton wrote: Is a Tactical Squad with 2 Grav Guns equal to a Tactical Squad with 1 Grav Gun and 1 Grav Cannon, yes or no?
One is made to be on the move and the other isn't. A unit that hopes to stand still may not be ranging the GG alongside the GC.
They're effectively not at the same tactical level even if they have the same rules. A squad that wants to stand still should be PG and GC. A squad that wants to run and gun could be 2 GG.
Hecaton wrote: Is a Tactical Squad with 2 Grav Guns equal to a Tactical Squad with 1 Grav Gun and 1 Grav Cannon, yes or no?
One is made to be on the move and the other isn't. A unit that hopes to stand still may not be ranging the GG alongside the GC.
They're effectively not at the same tactical level even if they have the same rules. A squad that wants to stand still should be PG and GC. A squad that wants to run and gun could be 2 GG.
A Grav Cannon scores more hits on the move than a Grav Gun, though.
It’s a straight upgrade.
This thread is weird. The title is asking whether one likes how GW handled weapon upgrades, and yet there’s a bunch of posts defending the new approach because non-existent mechanics could make it work?
Presumably GW could create some kind of trade off system for weapons (that isn’t points) but they didn’t even try to.
And regarding whether upgrades should be optional, the rogal dorn has promo art without sponsons, and the new mini Russes also don’t have sponsons, so clearly the intent is for them to be optional. And if we look at the new combat patrol, the skitarii do not have 3 special weapons even though the rules allow it, so clearly not taking max weapons is intended to be an option.
Hecaton wrote: Is a Tactical Squad with 2 Grav Guns equal to a Tactical Squad with 1 Grav Gun and 1 Grav Cannon, yes or no?
One is made to be on the move and the other isn't. A unit that hopes to stand still may not be ranging the GG alongside the GC.
They're effectively not at the same tactical level even if they have the same rules. A squad that wants to stand still should be PG and GC. A squad that wants to run and gun could be 2 GG.
Holy gak you really didn't read the datasheets did you?
Dandelion wrote: and yet there’s a bunch of posts defending the new approach because non-existent mechanics could make it work?
Can you believe the people who disagree with you are just making stuff up out of thin air while the people who agree with you describe universal thruths like an 9 inch square board that prevent knights from charging?
Dandelion wrote: and yet there’s a bunch of posts defending the new approach because non-existent mechanics could make it work?
Can you believe the people who disagree with you are just making stuff up out of thin air while the people who agree with you describe universal thruths like an 9 inch square board that prevent knights from charging?
JNAProductions wrote: A Grav Cannon scores more hits on the move than a Grav Gun, though.
It’s a straight upgrade.
Totally, but if you only have GG I don't imagine you'd suffer greatly missing out on maybe one wound from a single squad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dandelion wrote: This thread is weird. The title is asking whether one likes how GW handled weapon upgrades, and yet there’s a bunch of posts defending the new approach because non-existent mechanics could make it work?
Presumably GW could create some kind of trade off system for weapons (that isn’t points) but they didn’t even try to.
And regarding whether upgrades should be optional, the rogal dorn has promo art without sponsons, and the new mini Russes also don’t have sponsons, so clearly the intent is for them to be optional. And if we look at the new combat patrol, the skitarii do not have 3 special weapons even though the rules allow it, so clearly not taking max weapons is intended to be an option.
I don't think we can really infer intent from promo images - especially for models that were probably painted over a year ago.
They have certainly modified some weapons to make trade-offs more palatable. Some don't get there though. Not talking about sponsons here though.
The difference is one of the point systems is objectively better.
Breton wrote: I'd say it was more likely that they all worked in a vaccuum except for possibly a Push These Kits list.
Nah, it's like Skorne in Mk3 Warhamhordes - certain factions (Like Death Guard) don't have advocates on the design team, and so nobody cares if they're underpowered or uninteresting.
Hecaton wrote: Is a Tactical Squad with 2 Grav Guns equal to a Tactical Squad with 1 Grav Gun and 1 Grav Cannon, yes or no?
One is made to be on the move and the other isn't. A unit that hopes to stand still may not be ranging the GG alongside the GC.
They're effectively not at the same tactical level even if they have the same rules. A squad that wants to stand still should be PG and GC. A squad that wants to run and gun could be 2 GG.
Do the math for how effective they are on the move vs. stationary.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: Totally, but if you only have GG I don't imagine you'd suffer greatly missing out on maybe one wound from a single squad.
Well why should those options be pointed the same if they're different?
Eldarsif wrote: I think the overall approach GW used which is what's at fault. They could have done this slowly over time(and technically were doing with recent kits), but decided to take the "shock therapy" approach which will get more lashback than otherwise.
I mean, they could have redone the Leman Russ kit so it couldn't be without sponsons. If they had done that they would have gotten some outrage, but it would have been far less.
On the other hand I must give credit where credit is due. It takes some big courage to do the "shock therapy" method. Will be interesting to see how this all turns out in the coming year.
This sounds and feels like the Warhammer equivalent of a guy telling me that "I just don't get it" when I say that "this is just a stupid banana on a white canvas and has nothing to do with art.".
Quite. Nothing like someone patronising the peons to tell them about GW's genius that only they can see...
JNAProductions wrote: A Grav Cannon scores more hits on the move than a Grav Gun, though.
It’s a straight upgrade.
Totally, but if you only have GG I don't imagine you'd suffer greatly missing out on maybe one wound from a single squad.
You're not really going to miss 30 pts either, so why shouldn't it be 30 pts? Across 2k pts 30 pts really isn't a lot, it's not going to change the winner anyway. Grav cannons should be 30 instead of 0 then right?
The difference is one of the point systems is objectively better.
No, the difference is you like one of the systems better - OR - you just really hate change. Both have strengths and weaknesses.
PL has no strengths, it has flaws that make it unable to function properly as a balance mechanism, therefore it is worse. We are not asking for a binomial quadratic lateral equation puzzle that takes every unit and option in your list to create a unique hash that can be compared to other list hashes to create perfectly balanced games in every scenario. Better options just ought to cost more points to make the game balanced and to give players a reason for each kind of loadout, even if the reasons for one kind of loadout will always be superior, the margin by which should be minimized. If you don't want balanced games just count wounds and stop defending GW for being and PL.
No, the difference is you like one of the systems better - OR - you just really hate change. Both have strengths and weaknesses.
PL has no strengths, it has flaws that make it unable to function properly as a balance mechanism, therefore it is worse. We are not asking for a binomial quadratic lateral equation puzzle that takes every unit and option in your list to create a unique hash that can be compared to other list hashes to create perfectly balanced games in every scenario. Better options just ought to cost more points to make the game balanced and to give players a reason for each kind of loadout, even if the reasons for one kind of loadout will always be superior, the margin by which should be minimized. If you don't want balanced games just count wounds and stop defending GW for being and PL.
Sure it does. PL with sidegrade options allows more roads to get to the same destination. It provides the capacity for far more variety than taking the 2,000 best points of the best options with the best upgrades.
The difference is one of the point systems is objectively better.
No, the difference is you like one of the systems better - OR - you just really hate change. Both have strengths and weaknesses.
Both have strengths and weaknesses, just like weapon options. And if one is better (overall, not just in pure stats) than the other, it's what'll mostly be used if you leave the choice to the players.
Examples:
Grav cannon vs grav gun in 10th
PL vs PTS in 9th
5 more minutes to calculate my 2k pts list is absolutely worth it to me, especially since after building a few lists in 10th I get the feeling that the time I'm saving on not having to calculate weapon option prices (really not that hard) is wasted on trying to play tetris with the fixed unit sizes and inability to fine-tune so I'm not sitting at 1950pts without any usable options left to fill those last 50 pts.
Especially using a List Builder made the calculations an absolute non-issue (not that it's hard to begin with) anyway, so what's left is "PL removed an important option for balancing the hours of gameplay in order to (maybe) save a few minutes during list building".
Breton wrote: Sure it does. PL with sidegrade options allows more roads to get to the same destination. It provides the capacity for far more variety than taking the 2,000 best points of the best options with the best upgrades.
But we don't have PL with sidegrades. We have PL with straight up upgrades. With points you had to make a decision on where to spend them on which upgrades. 30 points left after you covered everything you wanted? Then give your Russ some sponsons for example. Or get a couple extra bodies to make some squads more resilient.
Now? Objectively speaking, there is no in game reason on why you shouldn't bling out everybody and everything. So on an "ideal" tabletop where both players have all the model variants, you would see less of it.
No, the difference is you like one of the systems better - OR - you just really hate change. Both have strengths and weaknesses.
PL has no strengths, it has flaws that make it unable to function properly as a balance mechanism, therefore it is worse. We are not asking for a binomial quadratic lateral equation puzzle that takes every unit and option in your list to create a unique hash that can be compared to other list hashes to create perfectly balanced games in every scenario. Better options just ought to cost more points to make the game balanced and to give players a reason for each kind of loadout, even if the reasons for one kind of loadout will always be superior, the margin by which should be minimized. If you don't want balanced games just count wounds and stop defending GW for being and PL.
Sure it does. PL with sidegrade options allows more roads to get to the same destination. It provides the capacity for far more variety than taking the 2,000 best points of the best options with the best upgrades.
The problem is we don't have sidegrades, for the most part. People seem to be really keen to talk about some mythical system where all the options are equal in value, but that's not the system we have and it's pretty clear GW have fethed this up massively. Given the sheer amount of weapons and other options in 40k I don't think it can ever work without throwing out the well-established lore of the setting in many places.
In the current system you'll only ever see the absolute best option because there's no reason not to take it. In a points system you can see more variety because there is an extra variable that determines what is best, and it can change depending on the cost of an item and the make-up of your army. The constraint of points may mean you can't always afford the absolute best options so you have to trim points somewhere, leading to more variety. You also get more granularity, enabling little changes to get closer to the points limit. Take Death Company as an example. Right now there's no reason to take BP/CS as an option. The plasma pistol and power weapon are just better. In 9th you generally gave them hammers, but one or two would get the basic BP/CS loadout to give you some sacrificial wounds and to allow you to string out the unit to get crucial buffs. My larger unit if DC was equipped with a bunch of THs and a load of guys with BP/CS. I had one guy with a power axe. Why? Because I had some points left over and there was a small value in having one DC with a slightly better attack because I'd often find myself in a situation where I needed to do 1 extra wound to allow the TH to swing more effectively and not waste their 3 damage attacks.
These kind of edge cases existed in lots of places, often more than once or twice per list. The loss of even the possibility of making that sort of choice is a huge weakness of the current system, on top of the really, really obvious one that it completely eliminates a huge number of builds unless you enjoy taking units that are just objectively worse. Even if you do want to do that, the possibility still existed in the old system, but with the added advantage of the additional flexibility for both players and designers.
Sure it does. PL with sidegrade options allows more roads to get to the same destination. It provides the capacity for far more variety than taking the 2,000 best points of the best options with the best upgrades.
But what we have now is PL without sidegrade options. Therefore we get less variety as people taking anything other than the best options are not compensated by paying fewer points like they were previously.
No, the difference is you like one of the systems better - OR - you just really hate change. Both have strengths and weaknesses.
PL has no strengths, it has flaws that make it unable to function properly as a balance mechanism, therefore it is worse. We are not asking for a binomial quadratic lateral equation puzzle that takes every unit and option in your list to create a unique hash that can be compared to other list hashes to create perfectly balanced games in every scenario. Better options just ought to cost more points to make the game balanced and to give players a reason for each kind of loadout, even if the reasons for one kind of loadout will always be superior, the margin by which should be minimized. If you don't want balanced games just count wounds and stop defending GW for being and PL.
Sure it does. PL with sidegrade options allows more roads to get to the same destination. It provides the capacity for far more variety than taking the 2,000 best points of the best options with the best upgrades.
Pts can have sidegrades, so PL does not offer something better here.
The problem is we don't have sidegrades, for the most part. People seem to be really keen to talk about some mythical system where all the options are equal in value, but that's not the system we have and it's pretty clear GW have fethed this up massively. Given the sheer amount of weapons and other options in 40k I don't think it can ever work without throwing out the well-established lore of the setting in many places.
Except we do: Not all of them, but most of them. And in either system there are GW failures. Powerfist, Chainfist, Thunder Hammer are all pretty equivalent with thematic/strategic changeups. Same with Grav, Melta and Lascannon. Superfrag and Superkrak. Chaplains with +1 to wound, Librarians with a 4++, Captains with a free strat - all the various Dreads with their different Bespokes, Tanks getting far more involved in a Take All Comers List as Tanks are often more capable vs other Tanks. Wings vs No Wings and an extra wound. And so on.
In the current system you'll only ever see the absolute best option because there's no reason not to take it. In a points system you can see more variety because there is an extra variable that determines what is best, and it can change depending on the cost of an item and the make-up of your army. The constraint of points may mean you can't always afford the absolute best options so you have to trim points somewhere, leading to more variety. You also get more granularity, enabling little changes to get closer to the points limit.
Thus why so many of those Tournament lists were never just iterations of the same list.
Take Death Company as an example. Right now there's no reason to take BP/CS as an option. The plasma pistol and power weapon are just better. In 9th you generally gave them hammers, but one or two would get the basic BP/CS loadout to give you some sacrificial wounds and to allow you to string out the unit to get crucial buffs. My larger unit if DC was equipped with a bunch of THs and a load of guys with BP/CS. I had one guy with a power axe. Why? Because I had some points left over and there was a small value in having one DC with a slightly better attack because I'd often find myself in a situation where I needed to do 1 extra wound to allow the TH to swing more effectively and not waste their 3 damage attacks.
These kind of edge cases existed in lots of places, often more than once or twice per list. The loss of even the possibility of making that sort of choice is a huge weakness of the current system,
Pretty sure the new system still allows for wasted wounds from D3 weapons.
on top of the really, really obvious one that it completely eliminates a huge number of builds unless you enjoy taking units that are just objectively worse. Even if you do want to do that, the possibility still existed in the old system, but with the added advantage of the additional flexibility for both players and designers.
Which unit is objectively worse? Phobos Librarian and Infiltrators? Captain with Intercessors? 5TH/SS Terminators or 6 Bladeguard Vets?
Sure it does. PL with sidegrade options allows more roads to get to the same destination. It provides the capacity for far more variety than taking the 2,000 best points of the best options with the best upgrades.
But what we have now is PL without sidegrade options. Therefore we get less variety as people taking anything other than the best options are not compensated by paying fewer points like they were previously.
I wonder why you clipped the part where I said we had a lot of sidegrades, but some were flubbed....
Pts can have sidegrades, so PL does not offer something better here.
So what you're saying is, if we continue to pay points.. say 100 points for 3 Eliminators with Sniper Rifles or 3 Eliminators with Las Fusil as a sidegrade, that's points? Like 5 Terminators with TH/SS or 5 Terminators with Double Lightning Claws? Or Devastators for 120 with 4 of anything?
I found use for both power level and points previously. Pl was good for quickly knocking together an army or potential army that i might want to collect. Making lists with more granularity with points i just find a fun thing to do, whether for a game or not.
The problem is we don't have sidegrades, for the most part. People seem to be really keen to talk about some mythical system where all the options are equal in value, but that's not the system we have and it's pretty clear GW have fethed this up massively. Given the sheer amount of weapons and other options in 40k I don't think it can ever work without throwing out the well-established lore of the setting in many places.
Except we do: Not all of them, but most of them. And in either system there are GW failures. Powerfist, Chainfist, Thunder Hammer are all pretty equivalent with thematic/strategic changeups. Same with Grav, Melta and Lascannon. Superfrag and Superkrak. Chaplains with +1 to wound, Librarians with a 4++, Captains with a free strat - all the various Dreads with their different Bespokes, Tanks getting far more involved in a Take All Comers List as Tanks are often more capable vs other Tanks. Wings vs No Wings and an extra wound. And so on.
In the current system you'll only ever see the absolute best option because there's no reason not to take it. In a points system you can see more variety because there is an extra variable that determines what is best, and it can change depending on the cost of an item and the make-up of your army. The constraint of points may mean you can't always afford the absolute best options so you have to trim points somewhere, leading to more variety. You also get more granularity, enabling little changes to get closer to the points limit.
Thus why so many of those Tournament lists were never just iterations of the same list.
Take Death Company as an example. Right now there's no reason to take BP/CS as an option. The plasma pistol and power weapon are just better. In 9th you generally gave them hammers, but one or two would get the basic BP/CS loadout to give you some sacrificial wounds and to allow you to string out the unit to get crucial buffs. My larger unit if DC was equipped with a bunch of THs and a load of guys with BP/CS. I had one guy with a power axe. Why? Because I had some points left over and there was a small value in having one DC with a slightly better attack because I'd often find myself in a situation where I needed to do 1 extra wound to allow the TH to swing more effectively and not waste their 3 damage attacks.
These kind of edge cases existed in lots of places, often more than once or twice per list. The loss of even the possibility of making that sort of choice is a huge weakness of the current system,
Pretty sure the new system still allows for wasted wounds from D3 weapons.
on top of the really, really obvious one that it completely eliminates a huge number of builds unless you enjoy taking units that are just objectively worse. Even if you do want to do that, the possibility still existed in the old system, but with the added advantage of the additional flexibility for both players and designers.
Which unit is objectively worse? Phobos Librarian and Infiltrators? Captain with Intercessors? 5TH/SS Terminators or 6 Bladeguard Vets?
I can't tell if you're being deliberately disingenuous or just not understanding what people are saying. Nobody has said there aren't sidegrades in the new system. The problem is there are far too many situations where there are obviously better choices and we're not paying for them. Death Company are the perfect example - there's no situation where BP/CS is the right choice. That applies to many, many units across the entire game. You can't point to a handful of examples that are sidegrades and then just declare the whole system as implemented by GW works. In addition, if the points system was more granular there is at least the opportunity to make things more balanced by adjusting the points. The PL approach doesn't allow for that.
The example of the power weapon in the DC unit wasn't about wasting wounds with D3 weapons, so I don't know why you've brought it up. The point was, there were situations where spending a few extra points for an upgrade had real value. We don't see that now because the system is stupid.
As for your question about which unit is objectively worse out of your list, the answer is I don't know. It's not really relevant since it completely misses the point. I'm not an Ork player, but I can tell you a Battlewagon with no upgrades is objectively worse than one with all the upgrades. The problem is there are far too many of these situations in the new system. There are far too many units that either have "options" that are pure upgrades (Battlewagons, Tomb Blades, DC) or upgrades that should cost points because they're better than the alternative, but don't. How do you justify that? And I mean how do you justify it under the current system, not some mythical other system that doesn't actually exist at the moment.
Sure it does. PL with sidegrade options allows more roads to get to the same destination. It provides the capacity for far more variety than taking the 2,000 best points of the best options with the best upgrades.
But what we have now is PL without sidegrade options. Therefore we get less variety as people taking anything other than the best options are not compensated by paying fewer points like they were previously.
I wonder why you clipped the part where I said we had a lot of sidegrades, but some were flubbed....
Slipspace wrote: [spoiler]
I can't tell if you're being deliberately disingenuous or just not understanding what people are saying. Nobody has said there aren't sidegrades in the new system. The problem is there are far too many situations where there are obviously better choices and we're not paying for them. Death Company are the perfect example - there's no situation where BP/CS is the right choice. That applies to many, many units across the entire game. You can't point to a handful of examples that are sidegrades and then just declare the whole system as implemented by GW works.
You mean like the people pointing to a handful of examples where GW failed the Sidegrade test then just declaring it doesn't work?
In addition, if the points system was more granular there is at least the opportunity to make things more balanced by adjusting the points. The PL approach doesn't allow for that.
The example of the power weapon in the DC unit wasn't about wasting wounds with D3 weapons, so I don't know why you've brought it up. The point was, there were situations where spending a few extra points for an upgrade had real value. We don't see that now because the system is stupid.
It wasn't? Who brought it up?
I had one guy with a power axe. Why? Because I had some points left over and there was a small value in having one DC with a slightly better attack because I'd often find myself in a situation where I needed to do 1 extra wound to allow the TH to swing more effectively and not waste their 3 damage attacks.
That was you, right?
You took the 1 Axe so you could not waste D3 damage. You said that.
As for your question about which unit is objectively worse out of your list, the answer is I don't know. It's not really relevant since it completely misses the point.
Sidegrades that actually are sidegrades proving the system can work isn't relevant to a discussion about whether the system works or not?
I'm not an Ork player, but I can tell you a Battlewagon with no upgrades is objectively worse than one with all the upgrades.
Oh. We're back to picking a handful of examples to prove our point?
The problem is there are far too many of these situations in the new system. There are far too many units that either have "options" that are pure upgrades (Battlewagons, Tomb Blades, DC) or upgrades that should cost points because they're better than the alternative, but don't. How do you justify that? And I mean how do you justify it under the current system, not some mythical other system that doesn't actually exist at the moment.
How do you justify shoddy work under the current system without fixing the work or the system?! You can't fix obvious problems in the first iteration of the system! Because you never saw worse options for higher points, or even entire units so bad they weren't worth their points in the old system. It was perfect and didn't need fixing. Its just this new system that ever has issues. Come on, Man.
there are more examples of were the new system does not were, compared to were it works
there are really just a handful datacards from identical units were they really cared and while the rest is off either because the different bases are not split into different cards or there is just no basic equipment
while looking at the previous point system, there were just a handful units were the points were off and that needed adjustment
this does not mean the new system cannot work in general, but also not that it is better than the previous by default
yet the main advantage of the new system is that it is easier to maintain over time but once done right
but much harder to get right in the first place because to get the sidegrade options you must either remove options or split units into different cards
Slipspace wrote: [spoiler]
I can't tell if you're being deliberately disingenuous or just not understanding what people are saying. Nobody has said there aren't sidegrades in the new system. The problem is there are far too many situations where there are obviously better choices and we're not paying for them. Death Company are the perfect example - there's no situation where BP/CS is the right choice. That applies to many, many units across the entire game. You can't point to a handful of examples that are sidegrades and then just declare the whole system as implemented by GW works.
You mean like the people pointing to a handful of examples where GW failed the Sidegrade test then just declaring it doesn't work?
In addition, if the points system was more granular there is at least the opportunity to make things more balanced by adjusting the points. The PL approach doesn't allow for that.
The example of the power weapon in the DC unit wasn't about wasting wounds with D3 weapons, so I don't know why you've brought it up. The point was, there were situations where spending a few extra points for an upgrade had real value. We don't see that now because the system is stupid.
It wasn't? Who brought it up?
I had one guy with a power axe. Why? Because I had some points left over and there was a small value in having one DC with a slightly better attack because I'd often find myself in a situation where I needed to do 1 extra wound to allow the TH to swing more effectively and not waste their 3 damage attacks.
That was you, right?
You took the 1 Axe so you could not waste D3 damage. You said that.
Yes, and you've missed the point of the example. I'm talking about how the old system allows for what many people would have thought of as sub-optimal options to actually play a role.
As for your question about which unit is objectively worse out of your list, the answer is I don't know. It's not really relevant since it completely misses the point.
Sidegrades that actually are sidegrades proving the system can work isn't relevant to a discussion about whether the system works or not?
Not when there are dozens, more likely hundreds, of examples where there aren't sidegrades, just pure upgrades. Again, nobody is saying a system of sidegrades with fixed points can't work. We're saying that's not the system we have and it's not a system we're ever going to have unless GW does some serious pruning of options or rewrites swatches of rules and statlines for weapons.
I'm not an Ork player, but I can tell you a Battlewagon with no upgrades is objectively worse than one with all the upgrades.
Oh. We're back to picking a handful of examples to prove our point?
How many do we need to list before you see that the current system is fundamentally flawed in its execution? It's an example, not the totality of the argument. But it's an example that in itself proves the flaws of the system, which is different to an example that shows the system working as intended because you don't need to show many examples of failure before the whole system is called into question.
The problem is there are far too many of these situations in the new system. There are far too many units that either have "options" that are pure upgrades (Battlewagons, Tomb Blades, DC) or upgrades that should cost points because they're better than the alternative, but don't. How do you justify that? And I mean how do you justify it under the current system, not some mythical other system that doesn't actually exist at the moment.
How do you justify shoddy work under the current system without fixing the work or the system?! You can't fix obvious problems in the first iteration of the system! Because you never saw worse options for higher points, or even entire units so bad they weren't worth their points in the old system. It was perfect and didn't need fixing. Its just this new system that ever has issues. Come on, Man.
I never said the old system didn't have issues. The difference is it had the possibility to be corrected using that same system and those corrections were very simple to implement since you were just adjusting some points values. GW never got it entirely correct, of course, but the PL system doesn't include the possibility for that sort of correction. Furthermore, the presence of obvious screw-ups like the aforementioned Battlewagon upgrades, or Tomb Blades, or sponsons on Russes, or hunter killer missiles, or Havoc launchers (I could go on if you really want, but hopefully you get the point now)shows GW have no clue what they're doing with this new system and haven't given it any thought at all, which somewhat reduces the likelihood they'll fix it.
Last night I played my Slaanesh Daemons. I was 40 points down after the enhancement (960), and on top of that...
My keeper of secrets didn't have an upgrade. There used to be an upgrade called Sinistrous Hand, giving a total of 4. Having modeled her with the hand, GW has inexplicably removed the wargear so the only options are the shield, whip, and knife.
Graciously, my opponent let me run her with a shield as a Proxy (yay social contract)...
..but on top of being 40 pts down because the lack of granularity (there are no 55/40 point Slaanesh Daemon units and the enhancement is 15 pts), It felt like I was basically 75/1000 points down or more, until my.opponent graciously let me proxy my model as something it isn't.
(In B4 "it's not a problem because all your opponents should let you do this"/"it is your fault for not butchering your models to do surgery")
Sure it does. PL with sidegrade options allows more roads to get to the same destination. It provides the capacity for far more variety than taking the 2,000 best points of the best options with the best upgrades.
Nobody was discussing the merits of PL *with sidegrades*, that's something you added. They were discussing PL vs points.
You don't even need PL for sidegrades; if you can make sidegrades work in PL then you can by definition make them work in points. So that leaves us with "PL with sidegrades vs Points with sidegrades". The two "with sidegrades" cancel each other out, resulting in "PL vs Points" once again
**mandatory "yes perfect balance is impossible, nobody is asking for that" disclaimer (not aimed at you Breton. Just trying to pre-empt that annoying strawman. Someone always manages to whip it out when balance is being discussed)**
kodos wrote: there are more examples of were the new system does not were, compared to were it works
I wouldn't agree with that, there are a lot more "competitively viable" units - as it was coined on here a little while ago - out there now than there were in the last edition. How many Ultramarine Lists are going to have Guilliman and a crapton of Desolation Squads, Devastator Squads, Aggressor Squads, BGV squads, and a handful of cheap objective camper chaff? Now you're seeing tank heavy lists, you're seeing Sniper Scouts, you're seeing Librarians. I myself am working on "Invisibility" Guilliman with a Phobos Libby and Infiltrators. I just opened the most recent 5 Ultramarine Lists from Blood of Kittens. Most of them were some version of 3x Relic Contemptors, 3x Desolation, Guilliman, or 3X Aggressors/Terminators, 3X Bladeguard, Guilliman - and some Infiltrators for objective camping - the only difference between them were a couple hundred points of extras. Now sure, you may still see people beating the Rule of Three like a dead horse in a glue factory, but I think you'll see more and different threes - especially if the meta ends up containing more T12 Monsters and Tanks.
there are really just a handful datacards from identical units were they really cared and while the rest is off either because the different bases are not split into different cards or there is just no basic equipment
while looking at the previous point system, there were just a handful units were the points were off and that needed adjustment
I would disagree here too: If they weren't being taken their points were off: Librarians, Chaplains, more Phobos than a couple units of phobos consisting of Incursors as the roughly cheapest Troop-tax, (Plain) intercessors, Assault intercessors, Reivers, Assault Squads, Outriders, Inceptors, Vehicles that weren't New Dreads or Old Speeders, Hellblasters, TF Cannon, Firestrikes - all not very popular. And that's before we get into Heavy Bolters vs Grav Cannon, or Missile Launchers vs anything else, Plasma Cannon vs anything else, Lascannon over Melta... and so on. Rhinos could be free, and I'm not sure people would take them.
this does not mean the new system cannot work in general, but also not that it is better than the previous by default
yet the main advantage of the new system is that it is easier to maintain over time but once done right
but much harder to get right in the first place because to get the sidegrade options you must either remove options or split units into different cards
I don't know if it's going to be easier to maintain. I have little faith in GW when it comes to maintenance. But I also keep in mind that 9th was basically 8th Version 2.0 with multiple codex releases per most factions, while we're in Freebie PDF territory after the first balance pass. Some of the things they missed was pretty boneheaded, some of the things I can't blame them for because I wouldn't have done any better. The stats for Chainswords vs Power weapons and the stats for 2 Lightning Claws vs anything feels off - like they have too many CCW on the "ground floor" so there wasn't room for differentiation. But at the same time I would have totally missed the Sponson thing. I haven't played with a vehicle for years.
Sure it does. PL with sidegrade options allows more roads to get to the same destination. It provides the capacity for far more variety than taking the 2,000 best points of the best options with the best upgrades.
Nobody was discussing the merits of PL *with sidegrades*, that's something you added. They were discussing PL vs points.
Sidegrades have been part of the discussion since pretty much Page 1.
You don't even need PL for sidegrades; if you can make sidegrades work in PL then you can by definition make them work in points. So that leaves us with "PL with sidegrades vs Points with sidegrades". The two "with sidegrades" cancel each other out, resulting in "PL vs Points" once again
That's what they did/aimed for now. Some people are calling Points with freebie options - generally called "sidegrades" here - PL. We could argue the semantics or just let people call the system PL or Points whichever the difference between PL and Points with Freebie Sidegrades is pretty minimal. Some of us even figured this out with the last 9th MFM when freebie upgrades were introduced.
**mandatory "yes perfect balance is impossible, nobody is asking for that" disclaimer (not aimed at you Breton. Just trying to pre-empt that annoying strawman. Someone always manages to whip it out when balance is being discussed)**
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: Last night I played my Slaanesh Daemons. I was 40 points down after the enhancement (960), and on top of that...
My keeper of secrets didn't have an upgrade. There used to be an upgrade called Sinistrous Hand, giving a total of 4. Having modeled her with the hand, GW has inexplicably removed the wargear so the only options are the shield, whip, and knife.
Graciously, my opponent let me run her with a shield as a Proxy (yay social contract)...
..but on top of being 40 pts down because the lack of granularity (there are no 55/40 point Slaanesh Daemon units and the enhancement is 15 pts), It felt like I was basically 75/1000 points down or more, until my.opponent graciously let me proxy my model as something it isn't.
(In B4 "it's not a problem because all your opponents should let you do this"/"it is your fault for not butchering your models to do surgery")
About two years ago I had a game, but I felt like I was 200-300 points down because my Intercessors weren't in Gravis Armor, and Heavy Intercessors just released. About 6 years ago I could fit an entire company of 100 marines and company command and more in 2000 points. Now it costs closer to 2500. Does it suck that your options - available or preferred - have changed from that edition to this edition? Yes. Is that the fault of the switch from the old price system to this one? No. Does it happen to pretty much every faction pretty much every edition? Yes. No, I'm not saying its your fault for not changing your model, I'm saying its part of the hobby, happens to everyone, and isn't caused by the pricing switch despite the attempt to conflate the two.
About two years ago I had a game, but I felt like I was 200-300 points down because my Intercessors weren't in Gravis Armor, and Heavy Intercessors just released. About 6 years ago I could fit an entire company of 100 marines and company command and more in 2000 points. Now it costs closer to 2500. Does it suck that your options - available or preferred - have changed from that edition to this edition? Yes. Is that the fault of the switch from the old price system to this one? No. Does it happen to pretty much every faction pretty much every edition? Yes. No, I'm not saying its your fault for not changing your model, I'm saying its part of the hobby, happens to everyone, and isn't caused by the pricing switch despite the attempt to conflate the two.
"GW has fethed up in the past, therefore, fethups should be expected. In fact, they should be tolerated! Nay, even encouraged! Shut up and eat your gak sandwich, because it's your fault for being upset about these fethups!
It is this way as it always has been and ever shall be, GW without end, amen."
About two years ago I had a game, but I felt like I was 200-300 points down because my Intercessors weren't in Gravis Armor, and Heavy Intercessors just released. About 6 years ago I could fit an entire company of 100 marines and company command and more in 2000 points. Now it costs closer to 2500. Does it suck that your options - available or preferred - have changed from that edition to this edition? Yes. Is that the fault of the switch from the old price system to this one? No. Does it happen to pretty much every faction pretty much every edition? Yes. No, I'm not saying its your fault for not changing your model, I'm saying its part of the hobby, happens to everyone, and isn't caused by the pricing switch despite the attempt to conflate the two.
"GW has fethed up in the past, therefore, fethups should be expected. In fact, they should be tolerated! Nay, even encouraged! Shut up and eat your gak sandwich, because it's your fault for being upset about these fethups!
It is this way as it always has been and ever shall be, GW without end, amen."
"I make up what I wish other people would have said after they catch me blaming something that existed before the pricing switch on the pricing switch.".
About two years ago I had a game, but I felt like I was 200-300 points down because my Intercessors weren't in Gravis Armor, and Heavy Intercessors just released. About 6 years ago I could fit an entire company of 100 marines and company command and more in 2000 points. Now it costs closer to 2500. Does it suck that your options - available or preferred - have changed from that edition to this edition? Yes. Is that the fault of the switch from the old price system to this one? No. Does it happen to pretty much every faction pretty much every edition? Yes. No, I'm not saying its your fault for not changing your model, I'm saying its part of the hobby, happens to everyone, and isn't caused by the pricing switch despite the attempt to conflate the two.
"GW has fethed up in the past, therefore, fethups should be expected. In fact, they should be tolerated! Nay, even encouraged! Shut up and eat your gak sandwich, because it's your fault for being upset about these fethups!
It is this way as it always has been and ever shall be, GW without end, amen."
"I make up what I wish other people would have said after they catch me blaming something that existed before the pricing switch on the pricing switch.".
What *did* you say then, other than "this has happened in the past so get over it"?
What *did* you say then, other than "this has happened in the past so get over it"?
Could you actually use the quote feature where I said "get over it"?
And what I said was it didn't happen because the price structure changed. I didn't say it outright, but you could also conclude that I meant yes points costs change between the one of edition and the beginning of the next edition and this isn't a bug.
kodos wrote: there are more examples of were the new system does not were, compared to were it works
I wouldn't agree with that, there are a lot more "competitively viable" units
we are not talking about competitive viable units, but units were the new point system works as all option to the basic layout are sidegrades, compared to those units were those are upgrades
this has nothing to do with competitive viable or not
there are really just a handful datacards from identical units were they really cared and while the rest is off either because the different bases are not split into different cards or there is just no basic equipment
while looking at the previous point system, there were just a handful units were the points were off and that needed adjustment
I would disagree here too: If they weren't being taken their points were off: Librarians, Chaplains, more Phobos than a couple units of phobos consisting of Incursors as the roughly cheapest Troop-tax, (Plain) intercessors, Assault intercessors, Reivers, Assault Squads, Outriders, Inceptors, Vehicles that weren't New Dreads or Old Speeders, Hellblasters, TF Cannon, Firestrikes - all not very popular. And that's before we get into Heavy Bolters vs Grav Cannon, or Missile Launchers vs anything else, Plasma Cannon vs anything else, Lascannon over Melta... and so on. Rhinos could be free, and I'm not sure people would take them.
so among several hundred units you only find those were the points are off with the old system
and only manage to get a hundful were the points are right with the new system
I see a basic flaw in the system here and not an upgrade from the previous one
What *did* you say then, other than "this has happened in the past so get over it"?
Could you actually use the quote feature where I said "get over it"?
And what I said was it didn't happen because the price structure changed. I didn't say it outright, but you could also conclude that I meant yes points costs change between the one of edition and the beginning of the next edition and this isn't a bug.
Points costs isn't what I am talking about though.
It's the outright changing of a model. The Sinistrous Hand used to do something, and now it does not. There is no reason to build your keeper with a Sinistrous Hand. It didn't cost points in the past, either - I think most of the upgrades since the release of the latest Keeper kit have been attempts at GW's PL-style sidegrading and it mostly worked. There was usually one clear best, but you still got something (some rule or another) for the alternatives.
Now? It still is as "free" relative to the others or not. The old rules it used to have simply don't exist anymore.
Breton wrote: That's what they did/aimed for now. Some people are calling Points with freebie options - generally called "sidegrades" here - PL. We could argue the semantics or just let people call the system PL or Points whichever the difference between PL and Points with Freebie Sidegrades is pretty minimal. Some of us even figured this out with the last 9th MFM when freebie upgrades were introduced.
Let us assume the following values:
Boltgun: 0 pts
Heavy bolter: 10 pts
Plasma cannon: 10 pts
this is pts because an obvious upgrade costs pts wrote:Upgrade from boltgun to plasma cannon 10 pts.
this is PL because an obvious upgrade is free wrote:Upgrade from boltgun to plasma cannon 0 PL.
sidegrade so it could be either pts or PL wrote:Upgrade from heavy bolter to plasma cannon 0 pts/0 PL.
Both can have balanced sidegrades at 0 pts/0 PL but PL cannot handle upgrades, that is the whole problem with PL. The execution as you mentioned isn't important, but we have issues that cannot be logically solved without massively bloating the game rules or ignoring the fluff. So why should we ignore fluff and massively bloat game rules to make PL work? It cannot be because of sidegrades because as explained, sidegrades have always existed with pts and could be expanded on in a system using pts.
The problem is we don't have sidegrades, for the most part. People seem to be really keen to talk about some mythical system where all the options are equal in value, but that's not the system we have and it's pretty clear GW have fethed this up massively. Given the sheer amount of weapons and other options in 40k I don't think it can ever work without throwing out the well-established lore of the setting in many places.
Except we do: Not all of them, but most of them. And in either system there are GW failures. Powerfist, Chainfist, Thunder Hammer are all pretty equivalent with thematic/strategic changeups. Same with Grav, Melta and Lascannon. Superfrag and Superkrak. Chaplains with +1 to wound, Librarians with a 4++, Captains with a free strat - all the various Dreads with their different Bespokes,
I stopped around here.
The melee weapons for Terminators are not equal. Thunder Hammers are luck reliant (and it arguably makes them worse than basic Power Fists). Chainfists are also not a sidegrade since, if you want that extra capability vs vehicles, you need to pay for it like it worked before with zero issues.
Superfrag and Superkrak are not worth the same amount of points because Desolators already have anti-infantry capabilities. You should pay for less vs the Superkrak.
Your HQ example is even more bizarre since they don't even cost the same points.
Also clearly you haven't payed attention to any of the math here when you bring up Grav vs Melta vs Lascannon.
I have to disagree with your terminator weapon assessment.
Chainfist and Power fist are very close in effectiveness. Power fist are better against everything except Vehicles, which is where Chainfist are vastly superior in damage output.
Power fist versus Thunderhammer is a matter of trading more reliable hits for the chance to do Mortal Wounds, math that I haven't run to see if one is really better than the other. But that only matters for characters because only they have the choice. Thunderhammers really need to be compared to Twin Lightning Claws, where you are trading power and a chance for Mortal Wounds for more attacks that produce less but more reliable wounds to weaker targets than a Thunderhammer.
But this is the side grade versus points debate written small. If GW doesn't want to assign points to options, they need to a better job balancing the options against each other. They also need to come up with an acceptable solution to the Sponson Issue. It is one thing to say "take special and heavy weapons in all your squads", but quite another to say "you should always take a sponson, but we are making it optional because your model might not have one".
Power fist versus Thunderhammer is a matter of trading more reliable hits for the chance to do Mortal Wounds, math that I haven't run to see if one is really better than the other.
Unless it's the Oath target, Thunder Hammer is drastically worse.
A Thunder hammer is no worst than a Chainfist going into a non-vehicle. It is worst than a Powerfist, expecting 80% the output of a Powerfist for a Terminator Captain before you factor in Devastating Wounds. That 1-in-6 Hits that produces Mortal Wounds gets to bypass the targets Toughness, Armor, and Invulnerable Save. That has output value depending on the target. It is luck based, but it is there.
alextroy wrote: A Thunder hammer is no worst than a Chainfist going into a non-vehicle. It is worst than a Powerfist, expecting 80% the output of a Powerfist for a Terminator Captain before you factor in Devastating Wounds. That 1-in-6 Hits that produces Mortal Wounds gets to bypass the targets Toughness, Armor, and Invulnerable Save. That has output value depending on the target. It is luck based, but it is there.
And mathematically, unless it's the Oath target, it's worse. Saying "but you could get lucky" isn't some plus side.
I don't think we can really infer intent from promo images - especially for models that were probably painted over a year ago.
Of course we can. The index rules present certain weapons as optional, and promo pictures support those options and are crucial for new players to see what is allowed.
Meanwhile the guard combat patrol has a sentinel without the chainsaw, even though that is objectively worse than the light. Why is that? Because it’s what’s shown on the box. The same goes for the every combat patrol. Locking new players into bad load outs seems like a sure fire way to upset people in the long run.
If you want to argue that certain weapons are sidegrades, that’s fine and reasonable, however going from a lasgun to plasma gun is not a sidegrade and can never be one. Some things are just inherently upgrades and that’s fine. Just make them cost a little extra, it’s not complicated. Even GW gave every variant of the leman Russ a different price, so clearly some weapons are better than others.
Dandelion wrote: Even GW gave every variant of the leman Russ a different price, so clearly some weapons are better than others.
Which makes the tank commander a bit of a slap in the face.
The unique special rules make it hard to do a direct points comparison between different guns, but we can use them for a ballpark figure. If we assume the TC is priced for the most expensive variant, the demolisher, then we can assume that a vanquisher tank command should get around a 30 point discount over the current TC price of 240. That is a pretty significant discount, and would definitely open up some of the alternative guns for TC.
Hell, people may even use an eradicator or punisher TC if it was only 200 points.
Well, reading this thread is quite the experience, I must say
I hope that GW will release updated, preferably more granular points costs that take into account obvious upgrades and additional equipment soon-ish. I really hope so.
I welcome or tolerate most of the aspects of the 10th Edition, but their current approach to points costs and wargear is not one of them.
Sure it does. PL with sidegrade options allows more roads to get to the same destination. It provides the capacity for far more variety than taking the 2,000 best points of the best options with the best upgrades.
No it does not. Optimization within PL (i.e. picking the best options because they're all the same cost) is the same as optimization within points. You don't know what you're talking about, or more likely, are lying because you have reasons other than its efficacy for supporting PL.
Dandelion wrote: Even GW gave every variant of the leman Russ a different price, so clearly some weapons are better than others.
Which makes the tank commander a bit of a slap in the face.
The unique special rules make it hard to do a direct points comparison between different guns, but we can use them for a ballpark figure. If we assume the TC is priced for the most expensive variant, the demolisher, then we can assume that a vanquisher tank command should get around a 30 point discount over the current TC price of 240. That is a pretty significant discount, and would definitely open up some of the alternative guns for TC.
Hell, people may even use an eradicator or punisher TC if it was only 200 points.
That is debatable. The TC does have the choice of Turret Weapons, but he doesn't benefit from any of the bespoke rules of the various Leman Russ tanks that make them individually better at their specific jobs. No firing the Demolisher Cannon at targets in Engagement Range of itself. No Devastating Hits for the Punisher Gatling Cannon. Etc and so on.
alextroy wrote: That is debatable. The TC does have the choice of Turret Weapons, but he doesn't benefit from any of the bespoke rules of the various Leman Russ tanks that make them individually better at their specific jobs. No firing the Demolisher Cannon at targets in Engagement Range of itself. No Devastating Hits for the Punisher Gatling Cannon. Etc and so on.
I guess then we just fall back on the argument of "is an eradicator worth the same as a demolisher?".
alextroy wrote: That is debatable. The TC does have the choice of Turret Weapons, but he doesn't benefit from any of the bespoke rules of the various Leman Russ tanks that make them individually better at their specific jobs. No firing the Demolisher Cannon at targets in Engagement Range of itself. No Devastating Hits for the Punisher Gatling Cannon. Etc and so on.
I guess then we just fall back on the argument of "is an eradicator worth the same as a demolisher?".
The answer is no.
Is the demolisher 5 points better? 15 points better? 50 points better?
You argued that based on the LR tank points that a Demolisher is 30 points better than a Vanquisher is on a TC. I just said that is debatable.
alextroy wrote: Is the demolisher 5 points better? 15 points better? 50 points better?
You argued that based on the LR tank points that a Demolisher is 30 points better than a Vanquisher is on a TC. I just said that is debatable.
Sorry, I guess my phrasing was more dismissive than I intended it to be.
There is definitely debate over the points costs, although I was more using 30 points as starting point, based on the points that we have from the design team. The different abilites will definitely skew that.
And I think there are far more problems with the TC unit than just wargear points. I would make more sweeping changes, like giving them more orders in trade for their last gasp. It really is just a unit that has not done well in 10th, from their rather overperforming position in the past.
Now can anyone tell me why they thought giving the LM Vanquisher a special run to Re-Roll the Wound Roll? I have 1 BS 4+ S 18 Attack. I don't think I'm worried about wounding a Monster or Vehicle. I'm worried about my ability to miss the broadside of a barn.
Now can anyone tell me why they thought giving the LM Vanquisher a special run to Re-Roll the Wound Roll? I have 1 BS 4+ S 18 Attack. I don't think I'm worried about wounding a Monster or Vehicle. I'm worried about my ability to miss the broadside of a barn.
Well you can get 2+ reroll to hit with a scout sentinel and an order, buffing a 3+ to wound is harder.
kodos wrote: there are more examples of were the new system does not were, compared to were it works
I wouldn't agree with that, there are a lot more "competitively viable" units
we are not talking about competitive viable units, but units were the new point system works as all option to the basic layout are sidegrades, compared to those units were those are upgrades
this has nothing to do with competitive viable or not
So your plan is to dismiss any points about variety, and balance unless it directly supports your position?
there are really just a handful datacards from identical units were they really cared and while the rest is off either because the different bases are not split into different cards or there is just no basic equipment
while looking at the previous point system, there were just a handful units were the points were off and that needed adjustment
I would disagree here too: If they weren't being taken their points were off: Librarians, Chaplains, more Phobos than a couple units of phobos consisting of Incursors as the roughly cheapest Troop-tax, (Plain) intercessors, Assault intercessors, Reivers, Assault Squads, Outriders, Inceptors, Vehicles that weren't New Dreads or Old Speeders, Hellblasters, TF Cannon, Firestrikes - all not very popular. And that's before we get into Heavy Bolters vs Grav Cannon, or Missile Launchers vs anything else, Plasma Cannon vs anything else, Lascannon over Melta... and so on. Rhinos could be free, and I'm not sure people would take them.
so among several hundred units you only find those were the points are off with the old system
and only manage to get a hundful were the points are right with the new system
I see a basic flaw in the system here and not an upgrade from the previous one
Codex Space Marines don't have hundreds of units - this new PDF has 252 pages, 2 pages per unit and some rules pages, its probably about a hundred or so units, some special characters and some rules.. How many units do you think are covered by the Librarian or Chaplain keyword, the category "Vehicles that aren't new Dreads or old Speeders" or the category "Non-Infiltrator Phobos"? Out of that hundred or so units only about 20 different units showed up in the last 5 winning Ultramarines lists with about 70 units between them - that's 4 or 5 Guillimans, 4 or so Dreads, 6 or so Speeders, 8-10 Incursors, 6 or so Eradicators, and 12 or so Desolation Squads.
What *did* you say then, other than "this has happened in the past so get over it"?
Could you actually use the quote feature where I said "get over it"?
And what I said was it didn't happen because the price structure changed. I didn't say it outright, but you could also conclude that I meant yes points costs change between the one of edition and the beginning of the next edition and this isn't a bug.
Points costs isn't what I am talking about though.
In the thread about the changing points cost system? While including a line about how you were 40 points short of 2,000 exactly? What exactly was your off-topic point then that must have had nothing to do with the 10th edition specific changes?
Now can anyone tell me why they thought giving the LM Vanquisher a special run to Re-Roll the Wound Roll? I have 1 BS 4+ S 18 Attack. I don't think I'm worried about wounding a Monster or Vehicle. I'm worried about my ability to miss the broadside of a barn.
Well you can get 2+ reroll to hit with a scout sentinel and an order, buffing a 3+ to wound is harder.
That and - What is more deflating in a FML kind of way?
A) Rolling a 2 to miss your shot on a BS 4+
B) Rolling a 1 to wound on a S18 vs T8 2+?
People expect to miss a 50/50 roll. When you miss an Anything-But-A-One it sticks with you, and that's harder on satisfaction than missing a 50/50.
Sure it does. PL with sidegrade options allows more roads to get to the same destination. It provides the capacity for far more variety than taking the 2,000 best points of the best options with the best upgrades.
No it does not. Optimization within PL (i.e. picking the best options because they're all the same cost) is the same as optimization within points. You don't know what you're talking about, or more likely, are lying because you have reasons other than its efficacy for supporting PL.
PLwith Sidegrade. Sidegrade means optimization is thematic not mathematic. Tell me more about this lying thing.
Breton wrote: So your plan is to dismiss any points about variety, and balance unless it directly supports your position?
No, I just don't acknowledge that GW has done a good job here and created the superior system
this kind of points system can work well, if done right, same as the old point system
yet GW has given up in between and created a system that combines the worst of both worlds, this is not the problem of Powerlevel but what have has done with it
and until GW starts solving this by either splitting up units or adds points for upgrades, this will be a problem
and if a unit is competitive viable has nothing to do with the point system, this is simply a problem of the amount of units GW added to the game
if there are 20 units for the same job, they will be either the same (and than you can just merge them into 3 different ones) or one will be the competitive choice, no matter the point system.
kodos wrote: there are more examples of were the new system does not were, compared to were it works
I wouldn't agree with that, there are a lot more "competitively viable" units
we are not talking about competitive viable units, but units were the new point system works as all option to the basic layout are sidegrades, compared to those units were those are upgrades
this has nothing to do with competitive viable or not
So your plan is to dismiss any points about variety, and balance unless it directly supports your position?
Because variety isn't a point. There's no downside to taking a chaos icon, so anyone that didn't build one in the first place is behind, yes or no?
kodos wrote: Edition change is something good and needed to evolve the story line
GW has no other option than to release a new one every 3 years to have a progressive storyline /s
Battletech with largely unchanged rules longer then you've proably been alive and a progressive storyline better then anything GW's done says hello.
kodos wrote: Edition change is something good and needed to evolve the story line
GW has no other option than to release a new one every 3 years to have a progressive storyline /s
Battletech with largely unchanged rules longer then you've proably been alive and a progressive storyline better then anything GW's done says hello.
in case you don't know, /s means sarcasm
and not only Battletech, nearly all other games as well and if you compare what an Edition change means for other games and what changes we see here, the changes of 40k are like a new game with each
PLwith Sidegrade. Sidegrade means optimization is thematic not mathematic. Tell me more about this lying thing.
No, it's still mathematic. Even if the different options for a given unit were of exactly the same efficacy... points could support that too, *and* support upgrades of different efficacy at the same time that cost more points. It's just better and can do more.
Your idea that PL is some kind of shangri-la of no-stress thematic gameplay is just wrong; in 9th it was consistently less balanced than points, and you insist it was better despite that. And it's looking to have similar problems in 10th.
You can design for sidegrades and then any cases that fall outside of being sidegrades on accident you can fix with points. You can design for sidegrades and then any cases that fall outside of being sidegrades on accident are garbage because PL cannot fix option imbalance.
What does PL with sidegrades do that points with sidegrades doesn't?
Sidegrades means a unit's options are of equal value to their other options, nothing more. There's no dependency on power levels there, if options are sidegrades then they'll be sidegrades whether the unit costs points or PL.
Again: this turns into "pts with sidegrades vs PL with sidegrades". Meaning we can drop the "with sidegrades" and just look at "points vs PL".
Breton wrote: So your plan is to dismiss any points about variety, and balance unless it directly supports your position?
No, I just don't acknowledge that GW has done a good job here and created the superior system
I didn't say it was a superior system. Or an Inferior system. Its just a different one with different strengths and weaknesses. Its also the system we've got now and for the duration. They're not going to scrap 10th straight into 11th just to change the system, and I really hope they're not going to swap systems 1 codex at a time for the next year and a half.
this kind of points system can work well, if done right, same as the old point system
[/spoiler] So we get to hypothesize the points system as "if done right" but this new system cannot be?
[spoiler]
yet GW has given up in between and created a system that combines the worst of both worlds, this is not the problem of Powerlevel but what have has done with it
I think the new system is better than power level was. Power Level did not try and side-grade the upgrades. They HAVE tried to do that here. They missed a ton most of us would have caught, and they missed a few things most of us would have missed too. But that's a function of the old GW not the new system. Blame where the blame belongs.
and until GW starts solving this by either splitting up units or adds points for upgrades, this will be a problem
and if a unit is competitive viable has nothing to do with the point system, this is simply a problem of the amount of units GW added to the game
And if an upgrade is competitively viable has nothing to do with the point system, this is simply a problem of the ammount of uprades GW has added to the game. You can see these double standards right?
if there are 20 units for the same job, they will be either the same (and than you can just merge them into 3 different ones) or one will be the competitive choice, no matter the point system.
Except there aren't 20 units for the same job. Those 20 units were pretty much the same 2(3) jobs over and over - Camper, Hitter,( Warlord). Incursors are not heavy hitters, they are (or were) objective campers with infitrate. And they were the cheapest. Now you've got thematic choices between the infiltrators with a force multiplier that cost the same (or nearly so) as the Sticky Cappers, as the Deep Strike Preventers, as the punchy objective sword guys, (sort of) as the tried and true Tactical Squad, as the Terror Troops that (may) no longer suck. You've got a somewhat less equivalently priced choice between a Land Raider that lets your punchy guys charge from average ~20 inches away to a Repulsor that lets the shooty guys climb back in if enemy punchy guys get too close.
One of the best things about this new edition isn't specifically points/PL related - but is part of the balanced sidegrade thing - is how many units have their same primary role (troop tax units), and a different "claim to fame"(their bespoke addon rule) that can be tailored around the various themes/holes in the rest of your list. Running a big death star? Put Ventris in some Sticky Capping Intercessors to Deepstrike and Sticky Cap behind them after they've laid waste to whatever your opponent had in the area. Running a midfield bloodbath? Stick some HINTS up there to soak the D1 bolter equivalents. Want to infiltrate one of those Deep Field hard to reach objectives? Do you want to do it with a unit that's almost impossible to shoot at, or a unit that's almost impossible to deep strike into? Or as a third option, do you want to spend a little more for a combined unit that's almost impossible to shoot at AND almost impossible to deep strike into? As I pointed out this works with points (few of these units had any significant upgrade/sidegrade choices at all) and it wasn't a direct result of the change to PL with a third digit - but it was brought about by working this Sidegrade phiolosphy that is the ground work for 3 Digit PL.
Its not perfect, no system will be. Especially not one run by GW. But there are some aspects everyone should like. And this is just the first pass. Revision 2 and 3 should be better. Version 2.0 (AKA 11th) may turn out pretty good, and then probably by 12th, we'll go back to points and Armor Value. If GW is anything they're cyclical. I wonder if by 20th Edition we'll have seen so many combinations/iterations it'll just be pick Option A or Option B on some 40 point Checklist to mix and match the system you like. Do you like Points or Power Level? USR or Bespoke? Armor Value or Vehicle Toughness? Grenades for Damage, or Fights First?
Breton wrote: I think the new system is better than power level was. Power Level did not try and side-grade the upgrades. They HAVE tried to do that here. They missed a ton most of us would have caught, and they missed a few things most of us would have missed too. But that's a function of the old GW not the new system. Blame where the blame belongs.
You are confusing the balancing system with datasheet design. The fewer strict upgrades the game has the less terrible PL is, that doesn't change that PL is just pts with fewer abilities and you can have datasheets with sidegrades in both balancing systems. As we saw in 8th and 9th, PL has nothing to do with sidegrades, the greater amount of sidegrades in 10th has nothing to do with PL, GW could have made the exact same changes and still gave us pts.
A seemingly better internal balance right now is no argument in favor of PL or points. Datasheets have been altered across the board and while they are currently paid for with PL in disguise, they could be the exact same profile with points.
Revision 2 and 3 should be better he says... NVM that the release now patch later attitude is fething asinine from a multi-billion dollar company operating internationally and is so for far smaller games studios in the videogame industry where that practice stems from too. GW taking over worst practices from that industry isn't something we should accept but considering how much GW has developped a cult following that sucks up everything gw tells it it is no wonder nothing will happen.
We talk GW here, no revsion of an edition is going to help it because ultimatly revision 4 will inevitably be an whole new edition and GW doesn't do iteration, it does reinventing the wheel as H.B.M.C pointed out.
For the record, i have no issue with GW handing out the rules in an open beta before an edition release for free, so that it can actually get worked on, preferably with a designer commentary to allow feedback to be accurate. But GW don't do that. I am fairly sure GW don't playtest at all considering wraithknight D-cannon shenanigans with the core rules.
Breton wrote: I think the new system is better than power level was. Power Level did not try and side-grade the upgrades. They HAVE tried to do that here. They missed a ton most of us would have caught, and they missed a few things most of us would have missed too. But that's a function of the old GW not the new system. Blame where the blame belongs.
You are confusing the balancing system with datasheet design. The fewer strict upgrades the game has the less terrible PL is, that doesn't change that PL is just pts with fewer abilities and you can have datasheets with sidegrades in both balancing systems. As we saw in 8th and 9th, PL has nothing to do with sidegrades, the greater amount of sidegrades in 10th has nothing to do with PL, GW could have made the exact same changes and still gave us pts.
They go hand in hand. You even make the point yourself while trying to argue against it. More Sidegrades makes PL style systems more functional. They know it. The last MFM in 9th was a step in that direction. I wish I could call it the Alpha Test, but it feels like we just bought the Alpha Test.
It continued into 10th and even went from the upgrades inside the unit to the various units themselves. Vanguard Vets went from paying for upgrades, to some upgrades like TH/SS, to everybody gets a bolt pistol and an "heirloom weapon". Sure sounds like a pretty easily connected set of dots: Options for points, a few options for points, all options the same price. Now, I'm not particularly fond of the result in this case, but the dots are there. You can see it in the Command Squad too, going from Company Vets who pay for everything, to company vets that pay for a few things - again Stormshields and Thunderhammers being a common theme in that MFM - to now the return of the three specialists with gear and bespokes, plus two guys with a smorgasbord of free choices for some tailoring.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote: A seemingly better internal balance right now is no argument in favor of PL or points. Datasheets have been altered across the board and while they are currently paid for with PL in disguise, they could be the exact same profile with points.
History says they wouldn't have been.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote: Revision 2 and 3 should be better he says... NVM that the release now patch later attitude is fething asinine from a multi-billion dollar company operating internationally and is so for far smaller games studios in the videogame industry where that practice stems from too. GW taking over worst practices from that industry isn't something we should accept but considering how much GW has developped a cult following that sucks up everything gw tells it it is no wonder nothing will happen.
They've been making FAQs, Errata, Balance Dataslates, and MFM PDFs for quite some time now.
We talk GW here, no revsion of an edition is going to help it because ultimatly revision 4 will inevitably be an whole new edition and GW doesn't do iteration, it does reinventing the wheel as H.B.M.C pointed out.
Sure they do. GW rarely comes up with new. They come up with something they tried four editions ago and couldn't get to work right. We're back to characters in units instead of Look Out Sir!, but this time we're trying it while they're locked into those units. (Battle-Shock optional-)Fall Back-Desperate Escape is a clunkier, less extreme return of the old Chase Down mechanic. USRs itself pretty much went away and are now coming back. Firing Deck - Firing Ports/Open Topped with a little borrowing from the Chimera bespoke. My current favorite is Grenades are all but ignored -> Grenades negate Cover in Fights First -> 1 model can throw 1 grenade for damage -> One unit (even a one model unit) that hasn't shot yet can trigger a 1CP strat for 6D6/4+ for Mortals.
And then shoot.
For the record, i have no issue with GW handing out the rules in an open beta before an edition release for free, so that it can actually get worked on, preferably with a designer commentary to allow feedback to be accurate. But GW don't do that. I am fairly sure GW don't playtest at all considering wraithknight D-cannon shenanigans with the core rules.
They sort of did. Not by far enough considering the rulebooks and datacards were almost certainly printed out before they released the first PDF, but there have been at least a few things from the "Errata" (to use a polite category for the boneheaded and bonkers things that made it thorugh) thread on here get changed on the datacards without comment from GW. One of the first things I do lately when I sit down is refresh the PDF Download in case its been revised again.
Not Online!!! wrote: Revision 2 and 3 should be better he says... NVM that the release now patch later attitude is fething asinine from a multi-billion dollar company operating internationally and is so for far smaller games studios in the videogame industry where that practice stems from too. GW taking over worst practices from that industry isn't something we should accept but considering how much GW has developped a cult following that sucks up everything gw tells it it is no wonder nothing will happen.
They've been making FAQs, Errata, Balance Dataslates, and MFM PDFs for quite some time now.
We talk GW here, no revsion of an edition is going to help it because ultimatly revision 4 will inevitably be an whole new edition and GW doesn't do iteration, it does reinventing the wheel as H.B.M.C pointed out.
Sure they do. GW rarely comes up with new. They come up with something they tried four editions ago and couldn't get to work right. We're back to characters in units instead of Look Out Sir!, but this time we're trying it while they're locked into those units. (Battle-Shock optional-)Fall Back-Desperate Escape is a clunkier, less extreme return of the old Chase Down mechanic. USRs itself pretty much went away and are now coming back. Firing Deck - Firing Ports/Open Topped with a little borrowing from the Chimera bespoke. My current favorite is Grenades are all but ignored -> Grenades negate Cover in Fights First -> 1 model can throw 1 grenade for damage -> One unit (even a one model unit) that hasn't shot yet can trigger a 1CP strat for 6D6/4+ for Mortals.
And then shoot.
For the record, i have no issue with GW handing out the rules in an open beta before an edition release for free, so that it can actually get worked on, preferably with a designer commentary to allow feedback to be accurate. But GW don't do that. I am fairly sure GW don't playtest at all considering wraithknight D-cannon shenanigans with the core rules.
They sort of did. Not by far enough considering the rulebooks and datacards were almost certainly printed out before they released the first PDF, but there have been at least a few things from the "Errata" (to use a polite category for the boneheaded and bonkers things that made it thorugh) thread on here get changed on the datacards without comment from GW. One of the first things I do lately when I sit down is refresh the PDF Download in case its been revised again.
Reimplementing an old system is NOT iteration, it's reimplementing as you pointed out the same nonsense that made it problematic.
Iteration is f.e. splitting up Rending into rending and breaching in HH and making it actually granular.
And on the later. That isn't acurate Gametesting.
Frankly the preferential access of certain youtubers and the NDA / preaccess and monetary incentivies from how youtube works will lead to falsified feedback that is largely worthless due to the special connection prohibiting honest criticism of them torwards GW.
Hence if gw were actually interested in betatesting and playtesting they'd release a free beta for everyone.
Reimplementing an old system is NOT iteration, it's reimplementing as you pointed out the same nonsense that made it problematic.
Iteration is f.e. splitting up Rending into rending and breaching in HH and making it actually granular.
The Free Dictionary.com wrote:it·er·a·tion (ĭt′ə-rā′shən)
n.
1. The act or an instance of iterating; repetition.
2. A form, adaption, or version of something: the latest iteration of a popular app.
The Grenade Strat is the latest iteration of GW's attempt to make grenades work as a special rule.
The new USR's are the latest iteration of GW's stab at a USR system.
Open Topped is a previous iteration of Firing Deck
GW has concepts they love but can't make work and/or lose favor for an edition or two. These concepts keep coming back in different iterations.
And on the later. That isn't acurate Gametesting.
Frankly the preferential access of certain youtubers and the NDA / preaccess and monetary incentivies from how youtube works will lead to falsified feedback that is largely worthless due to the special connection prohibiting honest criticism of them torwards GW.
Hence if gw were actually interested in betatesting and playtesting they'd release a free beta for everyone.
GW does iterate. GW does recycle (ideas). This does not mean they do it well - in fact most often the reason they're iterating is because it failed.
If we want them to listen to us as beta testers, we need to do better than GW sucks and so does this new thing - for example:
Cent Devs have been in an awkward spot since the creation of CORE. Twin Linking their Lascannon and Heavy Bolter instead of giving them two Unlinked (or one bespoke named equivalency with 2 Lascannon shots) has probably continued that as Cent Devs lose a Rate Of Fire race to regular Devs.
Librarians that give a 4++ to their entire unit, unless they're no longer leading a unit feels pretty weird - as does many of the "While leading a unit" abilities that stop when the unit is gone.
Why can't Lieutenants attach behind Chaplains as well? It'd be kinda fluffy while Lethal Hits and +1 to Wound will work together, but not compound each other, almost certainly not in a game breaking way.
the trouble GW has with grenades is they either make them useful, and then have to work out a way to give Nids a counter thats also useful, but then everyone has them so whats the point?
or they make them borderline useless for everyone
at this point I'd honestly get rid of them and just say the effect of such and the training to use them is baked into the stat lines and be done with it
Breton wrote: I think the new system is better than power level was. Power Level did not try and side-grade the upgrades. They HAVE tried to do that here. They missed a ton most of us would have caught, and they missed a few things most of us would have missed too. But that's a function of the old GW not the new system. Blame where the blame belongs.
You are confusing the balancing system with datasheet design. The fewer strict upgrades the game has the less terrible PL is, that doesn't change that PL is just pts with fewer abilities and you can have datasheets with sidegrades in both balancing systems. As we saw in 8th and 9th, PL has nothing to do with sidegrades, the greater amount of sidegrades in 10th has nothing to do with PL, GW could have made the exact same changes and still gave us pts.
They go hand in hand. You even make the point yourself while trying to argue against it. More Sidegrades makes PL style systems more functional. They know it. The last MFM in 9th was a step in that direction.
The last MFM in 9th did not increase the number of sidegrades, it just replaced pts with PL for some units. The only time when PL is good is when it is pts, when all options are sidegrades and would therefore cost 0 pts, PL is perfect as well because there is no upgrades to cost pts.
It continued into 10th and even went from the upgrades inside the unit to the various units themselves. Vanguard Vets went from paying for upgrades, to some upgrades like TH/SS, to everybody gets a bolt pistol and an "heirloom weapon". Sure sounds like a pretty easily connected set of dots: Options for points, a few options for points, all options the same price. Now, I'm not particularly fond of the result in this case, but the dots are there. You can see it in the Command Squad too, going from Company Vets who pay for everything, to company vets that pay for a few things - again Stormshields and Thunderhammers being a common theme in that MFM - to now the return of the three specialists with gear and bespokes, plus two guys with a smorgasbord of free choices for some tailoring.
What if GW had pts in 10th, what would you then have said about these changes? GW are trying to make sidegrades, not just to make PL as tolerable as possible, but because sidegrades are more interesting to them and some players such as yourself.
Not Online!!! wrote: Hence if gw were actually interested in betatesting and playtesting they'd release a free beta for everyone.
leopard wrote: the trouble GW has with grenades is they either make them useful, and then have to work out a way to give Nids a counter thats also useful, but then everyone has them so whats the point?
or they make them borderline useless for everyone
at this point I'd honestly get rid of them and just say the effect of such and the training to use them is baked into the stat lines and be done with it
Suicidal spore mine grenade symbiotes 3+ Major Hive Mind Invasion Fleets into the narrative wouldn't be too hard to work in. And it would be good to work it in as an anti-tank option for the "troops" like the Gants, Gaunts, and Assault Intercessors and such.
leopard wrote: the trouble GW has with grenades is they either make them useful, and then have to work out a way to give Nids a counter thats also useful, but then everyone has them so whats the point?
or they make them borderline useless for everyone
at this point I'd honestly get rid of them and just say the effect of such and the training to use them is baked into the stat lines and be done with it
I've been an advocate of this for years and completely agree. Before 8E they were essentially a 'feth Tyranids & Daemons' rule, and ever since they've been bloat.
They deserve the same level of rules representation as ammo reloads or wearing shoes, which is to say none.
Meltabombs can have a free pass by virtue of being a specialist upgrade rather than basic kit.
Absolutely despised grenade rules ever since I lost some WYSIWYG points in a local tournament for not having 2 sets on every single model and I'venever gotten over it.
Breton wrote: I think the new system is better than power level was. Power Level did not try and side-grade the upgrades. They HAVE tried to do that here. They missed a ton most of us would have caught, and they missed a few things most of us would have missed too. But that's a function of the old GW not the new system. Blame where the blame belongs.
You are confusing the balancing system with datasheet design. The fewer strict upgrades the game has the less terrible PL is, that doesn't change that PL is just pts with fewer abilities and you can have datasheets with sidegrades in both balancing systems. As we saw in 8th and 9th, PL has nothing to do with sidegrades, the greater amount of sidegrades in 10th has nothing to do with PL, GW could have made the exact same changes and still gave us pts.
They go hand in hand. You even make the point yourself while trying to argue against it. More Sidegrades makes PL style systems more functional. They know it. The last MFM in 9th was a step in that direction.
The last MFM in 9th did not increase the number of sidegrades, it just replaced pts with PL for some units.
Thus step in that direction, not finished product.
The only time when PL is good is when it is pts, when all options are sidegrades and would therefore cost 0 pts, PL is perfect as well because there is no upgrades to cost pts.
It continued into 10th and even went from the upgrades inside the unit to the various units themselves. Vanguard Vets went from paying for upgrades, to some upgrades like TH/SS, to everybody gets a bolt pistol and an "heirloom weapon". Sure sounds like a pretty easily connected set of dots: Options for points, a few options for points, all options the same price. Now, I'm not particularly fond of the result in this case, but the dots are there. You can see it in the Command Squad too, going from Company Vets who pay for everything, to company vets that pay for a few things - again Stormshields and Thunderhammers being a common theme in that MFM - to now the return of the three specialists with gear and bespokes, plus two guys with a smorgasbord of free choices for some tailoring.
What if GW had pts in 10th, what would you then have said about these changes? GW are trying to make sidegrades, not just to make PL as tolerable as possible, but because sidegrades are more interesting to them and some players such as yourself.
I don't think they would have made these datasheet changes without the system change. Their standard operating procedure under points was to shuffle the flavors of the month.
Not Online!!! wrote: Hence if gw were actually interested in betatesting and playtesting they'd release a free beta for everyone.
How is what we got different from a free beta?
It wasn't long enough, and it didn't include any meaningful feedback loop that would have ended early enough for any feedback to make it into changes to the printed material. The Points MFM released on 6/23. Leviathan delivered on what 6/24?
Not Online!!! wrote: Hence if gw were actually interested in betatesting and playtesting they'd release a free beta for everyone.
How is what we got different from a free beta?
It wasn't long enough, and it didn't include any meaningful feedback loop that would have ended early enough for any feedback to make it into changes to the printed material. The Points MFM released on 6/23. Leviathan delivered on what 6/24?
You need the points for the beta, the beta started 24th June. The first revision is coming next month, so it seems to be going according to plan and there's 2 months before a codex at this point?
Not Online!!! wrote: Hence if gw were actually interested in betatesting and playtesting they'd release a free beta for everyone.
How is what we got different from a free beta?
It wasn't long enough, and it didn't include any meaningful feedback loop that would have ended early enough for any feedback to make it into changes to the printed material. The Points MFM released on 6/23. Leviathan delivered on what 6/24?
You need the points for the beta, the beta started 24th June. The first revision is coming next month, so it seems to be going according to plan and there's 2 months before a codex at this point?
Its already too late, the Beta is over. The rulebooks are in Leviathan, and printed already.
Not Online!!! wrote: Hence if gw were actually interested in betatesting and playtesting they'd release a free beta for everyone.
How is what we got different from a free beta?
It wasn't long enough, and it didn't include any meaningful feedback loop that would have ended early enough for any feedback to make it into changes to the printed material. The Points MFM released on 6/23. Leviathan delivered on what 6/24?
You need the points for the beta, the beta started 24th June. The first revision is coming next month, so it seems to be going according to plan and there's 2 months before a codex at this point?
Its already too late, the Beta is over. The rulebooks are in Leviathan, and printed already.
Yes, but they have to start somewhere and that book purchase is entirely optional.
They like being in denial about how fethed up their game has gotten.
Sunk cost fallacy in full display.
It's ok, instead I could just skulk around forums for games I don't like and have no investment in to insult people, that's a great look right?
You could, but I prefer to head to forums for games I want to like and have too much investment in, to try to convince people to advocate for change because the current state of affairs isn't something I enjoy; there are parts of the hobby I really like but the game itself needs to catch up to them.
They like being in denial about how fethed up their game has gotten.
Sunk cost fallacy in full display.
It's ok, instead I could just skulk around forums for games I don't like and have no investment in to insult people, that's a great look right?
You could, but I prefer to head to forums for games I want to like and have too much investment in, to try to convince people to advocate for change because the current state of affairs isn't something I enjoy; there are parts of the hobby I really like but the game itself needs to catch up to them.
Which is an admirable intent, so I'd argue you've been as targeted by the above sunk fallacy shade as anyone else who cares.
They like being in denial about how fethed up their game has gotten.
Sunk cost fallacy in full display.
It's ok, instead I could just skulk around forums for games I don't like and have no investment in to insult people, that's a great look right?
You could, but I prefer to head to forums for games I want to like and have too much investment in, to try to convince people to advocate for change because the current state of affairs isn't something I enjoy; there are parts of the hobby I really like but the game itself needs to catch up to them.
Which is an admirable intent, so I'd argue you've been as targeted by the above sunk fallacy shade as anyone else who cares.
I didn't feel targeted by it; it seems to be addressed at people who won't acknowledge the flaws in the modern GW rules sets, rather than at people who are invested enough to want to fix them.
They like being in denial about how fethed up their game has gotten.
Sunk cost fallacy in full display.
It's ok, instead I could just skulk around forums for games I don't like and have no investment in to insult people, that's a great look right?
You could, but I prefer to head to forums for games I want to like and have too much investment in, to try to convince people to advocate for change because the current state of affairs isn't something I enjoy; there are parts of the hobby I really like but the game itself needs to catch up to them.
Which is an admirable intent, so I'd argue you've been as targeted by the above sunk fallacy shade as anyone else who cares.
I didn't feel targeted by it; it seems to be addressed at people who won't acknowledge the flaws in the modern GW rules sets, rather than at people who are invested enough to want to fix them.
It was aimed at me directly but I'm on record in this thread repeatedly saying the current direction isn't great, I'm not in any state of sunken fallacy or denial at the state of the game by saying that they will re-balance points and potentially rules post-codex production however! Again, flow of messages and responses is convoluted now, I know you didn't state that.
Hecaton wrote: The problem is that there are a number of posters with parasocial relationships with GW who defend them past all reason.
Again, you've historically tied me with that brush to the point of violating rule #1 in the past.
There's also a group who just exist to dump on everything and never once have anything positive to discuss, even in a corrective manner.
The point is if people feedback on the state of the game, no it won't change the printed books, that's obvious. But it might allow them to make better balance slates and faster updates.
That means constructive feedback, into the GW inbox or onto their social media. gaking on people or things on Dakka is not doing that, draining people boycott products or whatever is another aggressive "look at me" type response that's on here far too often.
Not everything is for everyone, but just taking endless potshots at other posters and dumping random spite into a forum with every single post archives feth all but making "the community" more divided and worsening reputations of the people, the site and the game to anyone who sees it.
If you're pissed, go email GW. If someone else isn't, don't take your pissed state out on them, let them enjoy what they enjoy.
Not aimed at you specifically Hecaton, general thought dump.
Hecaton wrote: The problem is that there are a number of posters with parasocial relationships with GW who defend them past all reason.
There's also a number of people that's just as trapped in the same sort of parasocial relationship, but needs to constantly belabour how they are above it all and could quit at any time Their fundamental argument is a variant of 'everything sucks, and you suck for caring about anything' (aka Rick-and-Morty-style edgelordism) and is imho mostly coming from a bad and dark place - yes, things often suck, but wallowing in irony- and sarcasm-flavoured self-pity is just giving up with extra steps. If you want things to get better, the least you can do is complaining in a constructive, polite way - seething on forums and constant pity parties does nothing for the state of the hobby and turns the community into a miserable place full of people you don't want to deal with, and that's just something nobody needs. If you feel like you need to leave or things are no longer working out for you voicing that is fine and healthy, but some people seem to literally be trapped in some sort of cycle of abuse or addicted behaviour.
Hecaton wrote: The problem is that there are a number of posters with parasocial relationships with GW who defend them past all reason.
Again, you've historically tied me with that brush to the point of violating rule #1 in the past.
There's also a group who just exist to dump on everything and never once have anything positive to discuss, even in a corrective manner.
The point is if people feedback on the state of the game, no it won't change the printed books, that's obvious. But it might allow them to make better balance slates and faster updates.
That means constructive feedback, into the GW inbox or onto their social media. gaking on people or things on Dakka is not doing that, draining people boycott products or whatever is another aggressive "look at me" type response that's on here far too often.
Not everything is for everyone, but just taking endless potshots at other posters and dumping random spite into a forum with every single post archives feth all but making "the community" more divided and worsening reputations of the people, the site and the game to anyone who sees it.
If you're pissed, go email GW. If someone else isn't, don't take your pissed state out on them, let them enjoy what they enjoy.
Not aimed at you specifically Hecaton, general thought dump.
The problem is I doubt you send that much feedback to GW, and they definitely don't listen to it enough unless they're afraid it'll bomb their sales.
Not everything is for everyone, but just taking endless potshots at other posters and dumping random spite into a forum with every single post archives feth all but making "the community" more divided and worsening reputations of the people, the site and the game to anyone who sees it.
Hecaton wrote: Well why should those options be pointed the same if they're different?
Sorry - I'm not ignoring posts. Just super busy atm and camping this week.
Knight lists typically have ~126 wounds at the moment. Two GG remove 2.2 or 1.7%. GG and GC removes 3, which is 2.3%. That extra 0.5% is an additional 10 points off the knights list. And that's if you roll average, but average is very forgiving of the very binary nature of outcomes ( either you wound or you don't - there is no such thing as 0.33 wounds in reality ).
Here's 50 rounds of shooting ( this is likely more rounds than you might shoot with them over the next 6 months -- if you play frequently ) from 2 GG and 1 GG and 1 GC using a dice roller.
Spoiler:
The GC and GG managed to score more into Armigers ( 2.16 vs 3.32 ) than into the Knights ( 2.64 vs 2.56 ). This streakiness is that mental event that shapes how we might look at weapons - a traditional pitfall of D6 weapons ( e.g. the old Lascannon ).
That aside you have one setup removing an extra 20 or 30 points before they die. So let's say it's worth 10 and the GG is 5.
Below is a run on most of the tactical marine weapons ( long range, cover, on the move, 10,000 iterations -- still needs more QA as some stuff doesn't seem to be obeying wound breakpoints ). I put the LC, ML, and PC at 3s to hit, because their ranges are most likely to allow Heavy to be a factor without getting killed. Now we just valued the GC at 10 when facing into Knights. If we value a PG at 5 the PC feels pretty good at 10 in marines.
But then what's the value of the PC when facing all knights? It was worth 10, but now it should probably be 5. The converse should certainly be true with Grav into terminators. If those guns are worth 5 under certain considerations then their small arms should definitely get valued at less than 5. And in the circumstance of GG and GC into non-optimal targets the value is pretty close as to not warrant a point differential so then the GC is kind of worth 0 comparatively, isn't it?
How are you costing weapons? Just into their preferred targets? What happens if they face a mixed force - what is their value then? What about PG or Melta in half range? Cover? Stationary? What if it's hazardous?
GC into termies is ~.1% of an all termie army ( 2 points ). GG is ~.05% ( 1 point ). With the GC worth 5 and GG worth 0 under best conditions and worth basically nada under poor conditions the average cost is almost a rounding error.
So maybe you just don't sweat the small differentials that streaky dice might make irrelevant and let players pick the weapons they think fit their army's plan.
Or maybe you just don't like the various switches and want to use raw average math with no considerations at all ( the table below is a fraction of potential outcomes ). I don't that's a good approach to points, because it's a very basic tool to understanding game interactions. If you'd prefer to stick to that -- it's fine -- we just simply disagree.
Why is everything about Knights?!?!?!? Why why WHY? I don't even think you did this with an outcome in mind, you just did it and I don't understand it. Even if the sims/mathhammer didn't take you that long (though I could see coding the sims being a bit time consuming), writing it all up probably did. Why spend such time justifying a scenario that was incredibly skewed from the start? All this shows me is... against a particular (skewed) target, different weapons do have different values, which seems like it defeats your point?
I really don't get it, please explain your priors better.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: Why is everything about Knights?!?!?!? Why why WHY? I don't even think you did this with an outcome in mind, you just did it and I don't understand it. Even if the sims/mathhammer didn't take you that long (though I could see coding the sims being a bit time consuming), writing it all up probably did. Why spend such time justifying a scenario that was incredibly skewed from the start? All this shows me is... against a particular (skewed) target, different weapons do have different values, which seems like it defeats your point?
I really don't get it, please explain your priors better.
It started as knights, but goes into more. Knights are pretty strong right now ( IK, anyway ) so it's a relevant consideration as is the inverse.
It boils down to this -- the "value" of say a heavy bolter changes based on what it shoots, right? It's more valuable into MEQ than into vehicles. It's worth some number of points against MEQ, but effectively 0 if it has to shoot tanks. Under which conditions do you value it? If you split it down the middle the points are going to be pretty negligible. Some games it will outperform it's cost and others it will not. So why sweat a couple of weapons in a squad of 10 guys? The GG and GC are close enough in non-optimal conditions to be a rounding error themselves.
So you say GC is worth 10 into skew and 0 into non-skew -- average that to 5. A GG is 5 into skew and 0 into non-skew -- average to 2.5. A tac squad already effectively pays 15 points ( 175 - ( 5 naked devs * 2 ) ) for it's 3 to 4 upgrades. So a double GG loadout is suffering by 2.5 points of "lost" upgrades.
I don't know about you, but 1% of my list isn't worth stressing about if the unit works the way I want it to.
Not everything is for everyone, but just taking endless potshots at other posters and dumping random spite into a forum with every single post archives feth all but making "the community" more divided and worsening reputations of the people, the site and the game to anyone who sees it.
So why do you do it?
Because I'm a less than perfect human so have occasional slips of judgement as anyone does. There are numerous posters who entire repertoire is slating GW and anyone who happens to not also want to slate GW in a very black and white fashion.
The problem is I doubt you send that much feedback to GW, and they definitely don't listen to it enough unless they're afraid it'll bomb their sales.
They don't even listen to their playtesters.
I've emailed them twice total about directional stuff over the last decade or so which isn't as many as some I'm sure, but likely more than most actually do. Likewise I do always give fair comment in their annual (?) Survey, I always make sure to phrase it in a constructive manner though, try and make it a gak sandwich where I can as well. They maybe never read them but if I'm that motivated it at least makes me feel I've done my bit to tackle the problem I have.
I don't know about you, but 1% of my list isn't worth stressing about if the unit works the way I want it to.
To put it bluntly, what you do here is ass-backwards sophistry. You can arrive at any conclusion you want by assigning arbitrary value to things and then obfuscating the lot of it with pseudo-accurarcy in form of lengthy calculations that serve no deeper purpose. Yes, 1% of a list is not something worth 'stressing', but these percentages are everywhere, and accumulate. Yes, you can construct extreme outlier scenarios where a loadout that is strictly better in 90-95% of cases is only as good as the lesser one, or maybe even worse, but that has no bearing on averages. I don't know if you're making these wild jumps between nitpicky tablework and 'just assume 5 here, and 10 there, and bob's your uncle' out of motivated reasoning or if you're successfully confused yourself with the enormeous amount of writing you have dedicated to this issue that is immediately obvious to most people, but the hoop-jumping and shadow-boxing you're doing here is just stunningly, utterly amazing.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: Why is everything about Knights?!?!?!? Why why WHY? I don't even think you did this with an outcome in mind, you just did it and I don't understand it. Even if the sims/mathhammer didn't take you that long (though I could see coding the sims being a bit time consuming), writing it all up probably did. Why spend such time justifying a scenario that was incredibly skewed from the start? All this shows me is... against a particular (skewed) target, different weapons do have different values, which seems like it defeats your point?
I really don't get it, please explain your priors better.
It started as knights, but goes into more. Knights are pretty strong right now ( IK, anyway ) so it's a relevant consideration as is the inverse.
It boils down to this -- the "value" of say a heavy bolter changes based on what it shoots, right? It's more valuable into MEQ than into vehicles. It's worth some number of points against MEQ, but effectively 0 if it has to shoot tanks. Under which conditions do you value it? If you split it down the middle the points are going to be pretty negligible. Some games it will outperform it's cost and others it will not. So why sweat a couple of weapons in a squad of 10 guys? The GG and GC are close enough in non-optimal conditions to be a rounding error themselves.
So you say GC is worth 10 into skew and 0 into non-skew -- average that to 5. A GG is 5 into skew and 0 into non-skew -- average to 2.5. A tac squad already effectively pays 15 points ( 175 - ( 5 naked devs * 2 ) ) for it's 3 to 4 upgrades. So a double GG loadout is suffering by 2.5 points of "lost" upgrades.
I don't know about you, but 1% of my list isn't worth stressing about if the unit works the way I want it to.
How many units do you take?
1% on one thing isn't worth worrying about.
But 1% each across ten units is. And there's still the difference between a Predator with sponsons and one without, or a naked Tac squad vs. one with bells and whistles.
There's also a group who just exist to dump on everything and never once have anything positive to discuss, even in a corrective manner.
The point is if people feedback on the state of the game, no it won't change the printed books, that's obvious. But it might allow them to make better balance slates and faster updates.
That means constructive feedback, into the GW inbox or onto their social media. gaking on people or things on Dakka is not doing that, draining people boycott products or whatever is another aggressive "look at me" type response that's on here far too often.
I do email GW or otherwise contact them. I also discuss things here, because that's what this place is for discussing. You don't get to tell me to shut up about it; that's above your station. Telling me that I don't deserve to have an opinion that goes against daddy James Workshop is very disrespectful.
The fact that you're against boycotts says a lot - you want people to express their discontent in ways that don't inconvenience GW at all tells me you just don't want the discontent expressed at all.
Dudeface wrote: Not everything is for everyone, but just taking endless potshots at other posters and dumping random spite into a forum with every single post archives feth all but making "the community" more divided and worsening reputations of the people, the site and the game to anyone who sees it.
Good. If the game is bad (as it is right now), people should avoid it. Go play a different minis game.
Dudeface wrote: If you're pissed, go email GW. If someone else isn't, don't take your pissed state out on them, let them enjoy what they enjoy.
When someone makes a thread on this site, they need to be able to handle disagreement. If you can't, you're free to log out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tsagualsa wrote: There's also a number of people that's just as trapped in the same sort of parasocial relationship, but needs to constantly belabour how they are above it all and could quit at any time Their fundamental argument is a variant of 'everything sucks, and you suck for caring about anything' (aka Rick-and-Morty-style edgelordism) and is imho mostly coming from a bad and dark place - yes, things often suck, but wallowing in irony- and sarcasm-flavoured self-pity is just giving up with extra steps. If you want things to get better, the least you can do is complaining in a constructive, polite way - seething on forums and constant pity parties does nothing for the state of the hobby and turns the community into a miserable place full of people you don't want to deal with, and that's just something nobody needs. If you feel like you need to leave or things are no longer working out for you voicing that is fine and healthy, but some people seem to literally be trapped in some sort of cycle of abuse or addicted behaviour.
I mean, I see that when someone has a well thought out and well-reasoned critique of what GW is doing and then someone responds with "who cares, it's toy soldiers."
If GW did better work these people wouldn't be in this cycle you describe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote: I don't know about you, but 1% of my list isn't worth stressing about if the unit works the way I want it to.
When it exists across multiple units, that 1% adds up to a significant power differential between two armies.
And what's more, points can handle this too; stressing about it is entirely optional. Arguing for a PL-like system is just making this problem worse.
I do email GW or otherwise contact them. I also discuss things here, because that's what this place is for discussing. You don't get to tell me to shut up about it; that's above your station. Telling me that I don't deserve to have an opinion that goes against daddy James Workshop is very disrespectful.
The fact that you're against boycotts says a lot - you want people to express their discontent in ways that don't inconvenience GW at all tells me you just don't want the discontent expressed at all.
I aren't telling people to stop discussing things, what I'm saying is people who only ever post negative critiques without any measure of a solution or constructive feedback isn't adding anything. Have an opinion against the product or the company by all means, but often there are posts with a lack of discussion at all.
Boycotts damage game stores, they don't really get any message across unless the collective community buys into it. It will hurt innocent shop owners more than it'll hurt GW without fail.
Good. If the game is bad (as it is right now), people should avoid it. Go play a different minis game.
This is what I mean, you present a negative opinion as fact and no remedial statements.
When someone makes a thread on this site, they need to be able to handle disagreement. If you can't, you're free to log out.
Again you can debate, discuss or whatever but if someone says I like X, and your simple response is "X is bad, you're an idiot". That's being an donkey-cave, not discussing.
I mean, I see that when someone has a well thought out and well-reasoned critique of what GW is doing and then someone responds with "who cares, it's toy soldiers."
Conversely we also see people making evidence based subjective statements and being met with "and you expect GW to do better, more fool you" type responses.
If GW did better work these people wouldn't be in this cycle you describe.
If GW did better, there's people here who will still be here just spouting negative drivel for the sakes of it.
The problem is I doubt you send that much feedback to GW, and they definitely don't listen to it enough unless they're afraid it'll bomb their sales.
They don't even listen to their playtesters.
I've emailed them twice total about directional stuff over the last decade or so which isn't as many as some I'm sure, but likely more than most actually do. Likewise I do always give fair comment in their annual (?) Survey, I always make sure to phrase it in a constructive manner though, try and make it a gak sandwich where I can as well. They maybe never read them but if I'm that motivated it at least makes me feel I've done my bit to tackle the problem I have.
Here's something you don't realize. Even if I don't say it every time I do it, I send a fairly polite email every time something is found to be broken or there's unintended interactions, whether I find it or this forum does or Reddit does or anyone in general.
Ultimately they don't care and only listen when they think it'll affect their pockets. You think the nerfs to Votaan were just a coincidence when there were talks of boycotting and/or banning the entire army from tournaments and stores?
That's why I find your anti-botcott mentality partly hilarious and sad. We as fans of the IP need to demand more than just mediocrity at its best or below when they release their schlock and expect us to buy it regardless. Kirby saying that the hobby = buying GW products never left as a mentality.
Dudeface wrote: I aren't telling people to stop discussing things, what I'm saying is people who only ever post negative critiques without any measure of a solution or constructive feedback isn't adding anything. Have an opinion against the product or the company by all means, but often there are posts with a lack of discussion at all.
Boycotts damage game stores, they don't really get any message across unless the collective community buys into it. It will hurt innocent shop owners more than it'll hurt GW without fail.
...except you could buy something else from the game store. If you don't have some irresistible compulsion to buy GW stuff and only GW stuff because you worship the company for some reason...
And it's very convenient for you to say that no boycott of GW is possible because it will hurt precious LGS's more than them. Almost like you don't want people to stop buying GW products, and are flailing around for a justification for it...
Dudeface wrote: This is what I mean, you present a negative opinion as fact and no remedial statements.
I've talked about "remedial statements" all over this thread. Re-implement a points-like system is one of them. You can go looking for it.
Dudeface wrote: Again you can debate, discuss or whatever but if someone says I like X, and your simple response is "X is bad, you're an idiot". That's being an donkey-cave, not discussing.
No, that's Daed and the other pro-PL crowd's argument. I gave good reasons for mine.
Conversely we also see people making evidence based subjective statements and being met with "and you expect GW to do better, more fool you" type responses.
I mean that kind of is what you suggest; you're saying no criticism, no boycotts, this state of the game being gak will continue forever and to want more is wrong.
Dudeface wrote: If GW did better, there's people here who will still be here just spouting negative drivel for the sakes of it.
There will always be some donkey-caves, but the vast majority of people are calling GW out for good reasons and would stop if GW stopped doing those things. The issue is, you don't see those good reasons because you don't approach the game for its merits. See my earlier comment about some people having a parasocial relationship with GW, not a customer/business relationship.
...except you could buy something else from the game store. If you don't have some irresistible compulsion to buy GW stuff and only GW stuff because you worship the company for some reason...
And it's very convenient for you to say that no boycott of GW is possible because it will hurt precious LGS's more than them. Almost like you don't want people to stop buying GW products, and are flailing around for a justification for it...
Not at all, you are right, they could go buy something else if they're so inclined, but a lot of people will want to play 40k even if they don't agree with GW. So yes they can boycott Votann or whatever, but they'll just play what they have. Of course they could try a different game but that's a personal choice.
I'm not flailing at all, find me an example of 1 effective GW boycott please and I'll rewind my comments. Unlike the above suggestion from EP, Votann were boycotted before they were released, which is to say, not a boycott.
It's actually a weird sociological thing in the US more than anything else, you don't tend to see other people's doing it like this.
I've talked about "remedial statements" all over this thread. Re-implement a points-like system is one of them. You can go looking for it.
Good for you, I think most have at some point, some have not. I was using that statement as an example.
No, that's Daed and the other pro-PL crowd's argument. I gave good reasons for mine.
I'm sure they feel they gave good reasons for theirs too, you don't have to just discredit them due to not agreeing, which is a point you raised.
I mean that kind of is what you suggest; you're saying no criticism, no boycotts, this state of the game being gak will continue forever and to want more is wrong.
I never said no criticisms, to want more is fine, to act towards it is fine, to just moan at the internet endlessly and gak on other people's joy isn't. Raise the complaint, discuss it as needed, move on to those other games you advocate.
There will always be some donkey-caves, but the vast majority of people are calling GW out for good reasons and would stop if GW stopped doing those things. The issue is, you don't see those good reasons because you don't approach the game for its merits. See my earlier comment about some people having a parasocial relationship with GW, not a customer/business relationship.
Not at all, it fulfills a want to a degree I find acceptable. I like to play games with my buddies and roll some dice, we like the setting, we like the minis and the rules are passable enough to play a game for a few hours. Their supply is meeting my demand. I will admit a degree of Sunken cost fallacy exists in that equation but the product as sold is, for me, up to a standard that fulfils my needs.
Not at all, you are right, they could go buy something else if they're so inclined, but a lot of people will want to play 40k even if they don't agree with GW, so yes the can boycott Votann or whatever, but they'll just ay what they have. Of course they could play a different game but that's a personal choice.
I'm not flailing at all, find me an example of 1 effective GW boycott please and I'll remind my comments. Unlike the above suggestion from EP, Votann were boycotted before they were released, which is to say, not a boycott.
It's actually a weird sociological thing in the US more than anything else, you don't tend to see other people's doing it like this.
Huh? You weren't saying a boycott isn't effective, you were saying it's morally wrong to do - so giving evidence of an effective boycott wouldn't help that. Either you're moving the goalposts or don't understand what you yourself are saying.
Dudeface wrote: Good for you, I think most have at some point, some have not. I was using that statement as an example.
It's irrelevant to the conversation; you're only using it because it's easier to argue against than what people are actually saying.
Dudeface wrote: I'm sure they feel they gave good reasons for theirs too, you don't have to just discredit them due to not agreeing, which is a point you raised.
Nah, when they avoid answering posts that discredit the points they're making, it's tantamount to saying that the evidence doesn't matter, they're right because they're right.
I never said no criticisms, to want more is fine, to act towards it is fine, to just moan at the internet endlessly and gak on other people's joy isn'traise the complaint, discuss it as needed, move on to those other games you advocate.
If someone says something blatantly incorrect ("PL is better for casual gaming!") I will correct them and explain why. And I do play those other games, and discuss them. I also advocate for 40k to be better.
Dudeface wrote: Not at all, it fulfills a want to a degree I find acceptable. I like to play games with my buddies and roll some dice, we like the setting, we like the minis and the rules are passable enough to play a game for a few hours. Their supply is meeting my demand. I will admit a degree of Sunken cost fallacy exists in that equation but the product as sold is, for me, up to a standard that fulfils my needs.
I need games where they outcome is decided at the table, not by a codex writer in Nottingham who's bad at math and who gets an erection when making their least favorite faction's codex underpowered. It's a waste of time to play games where the outcome is predetermined, or where the players need to re-balance it themselves via "discussion" before playing.
Not at all, you are right, they could go buy something else if they're so inclined, but a lot of people will want to play 40k even if they don't agree with GW, so yes the can boycott Votann or whatever, but they'll just ay what they have. Of course they could play a different game but that's a personal choice.
I'm not flailing at all, find me an example of 1 effective GW boycott please and I'll remind my comments. Unlike the above suggestion from EP, Votann were boycotted before they were released, which is to say, not a boycott.
It's actually a weird sociological thing in the US more than anything else, you don't tend to see other people's doing it like this.
Huh? You weren't saying a boycott isn't effective, you were saying it's morally wrong to do - so giving evidence of an effective boycott wouldn't help that. Either you're moving the goalposts or don't understand what you yourself are saying.
Also I fail to see how my Votaan example isn't a boycott in its own right.
Not at all, you are right, they could go buy something else if they're so inclined, but a lot of people will want to play 40k even if they don't agree with GW, so yes the can boycott Votann or whatever, but they'll just ay what they have. Of course they could play a different game but that's a personal choice.
I'm not flailing at all, find me an example of 1 effective GW boycott please and I'll remind my comments. Unlike the above suggestion from EP, Votann were boycotted before they were released, which is to say, not a boycott.
It's actually a weird sociological thing in the US more than anything else, you don't tend to see other people's doing it like this.
Huh? You weren't saying a boycott isn't effective, you were saying it's morally wrong to do - so giving evidence of an effective boycott wouldn't help that. Either you're moving the goalposts or don't understand what you yourself are saying.
Dudeface wrote: Good for you, I think most have at some point, some have not. I was using that statement as an example.
It's irrelevant to the conversation; you're only using it because it's easier to argue against than what people are actually saying.
Dudeface wrote: I'm sure they feel they gave good reasons for theirs too, you don't have to just discredit them due to not agreeing, which is a point you raised.
Nah, when they avoid answering posts that discredit the points they're making, it's tantamount to saying that the evidence doesn't matter, they're right because they're right.
I never said no criticisms, to want more is fine, to act towards it is fine, to just moan at the internet endlessly and gak on other people's joy isn'traise the complaint, discuss it as needed, move on to those other games you advocate.
If someone says something blatantly incorrect ("PL is better for casual gaming!") I will correct them and explain why. And I do play those other games, and discuss them. I also advocate for 40k to be better.
Dudeface wrote: Not at all, it fulfills a want to a degree I find acceptable. I like to play games with my buddies and roll some dice, we like the setting, we like the minis and the rules are passable enough to play a game for a few hours. Their supply is meeting my demand. I will admit a degree of Sunken cost fallacy exists in that equation but the product as sold is, for me, up to a standard that fulfils my needs.
I need games where they outcome is decided at the table, not by a codex writer in Nottingham who's bad at math and who gets an erection when making their least favorite faction's codex underpowered. It's a waste of time to play games where the outcome is predetermined, or where the players need to re-balance it themselves via "discussion" before playing.
Not very much. I play other games much more often. I'll also argue that games where the outcome isn't predetermined by imbalance are objectively better.
Not very much. I play other games much more often. I'll also argue that games where the outcome isn't predetermined by imbalance are objectively better.
Uh oh, you played once or twice. That means all criticisms are invalid!
Not very much. I play other games much more often. I'll also argue that games where the outcome isn't predetermined by imbalance are objectively better.
Uh oh, you played once or twice. That means all criticisms are invalid!
Right, it's the option select by ccs. If I play it a lot, then obviously the game is good enough despite my objections. If I don't play it, I'm not allowed to have an opinion.
I exist in this weird middle state, though, wonder how he's gonna spin it.
Not very much. I play other games much more often. I'll also argue that games where the outcome isn't predetermined by imbalance are objectively better.
Uh oh, you played once or twice. That means all criticisms are invalid!
Right, it's the option select by ccs. If I play it a lot, then obviously the game is good enough despite my objections. If I don't play it, I'm not allowed to have an opinion.
I exist in this weird middle state, though, wonder how he's gonna spin it.
Just seems strange when someone lists all the things they don't want in a game & then gives the impression/admits that they still play a game where they can get exactly the experience they don't want....
40k is one of the easiest systems to get a game in, and one where we've already invested a considerable amount of money and energy . . . So like, how dare us for wanting it to be better!?
Insectum7 wrote: 40k is one of the easiest systems to get a game in, and one where we've already invested a considerable amount of money and energy . . . So like, how dare us for wanting it to be better!?
Is that the argument?
Does that surprise you that's the basis of the argument?
I don't know about you, but 1% of my list isn't worth stressing about if the unit works the way I want it to.
To put it bluntly, what you do here is ass-backwards sophistry. You can arrive at any conclusion you want by assigning arbitrary value to things and then obfuscating the lot of it with pseudo-accurarcy in form of lengthy calculations that serve no deeper purpose. Yes, 1% of a list is not something worth 'stressing', but these percentages are everywhere, and accumulate. Yes, you can construct extreme outlier scenarios where a loadout that is strictly better in 90-95% of cases is only as good as the lesser one, or maybe even worse, but that has no bearing on averages. I don't know if you're making these wild jumps between nitpicky tablework and 'just assume 5 here, and 10 there, and bob's your uncle' out of motivated reasoning or if you're successfully confused yourself with the enormeous amount of writing you have dedicated to this issue that is immediately obvious to most people, but the hoop-jumping and shadow-boxing you're doing here is just stunningly, utterly amazing.
Okie dokie. I'm done engaging. You didn't have a perfect system then. You won't have a perfect system now, but you'll jump through your own hoops to pretend like you had something more functional then. Ring me when you've solved it.
I don't know about you, but 1% of my list isn't worth stressing about if the unit works the way I want it to.
To put it bluntly, what you do here is ass-backwards sophistry. You can arrive at any conclusion you want by assigning arbitrary value to things and then obfuscating the lot of it with pseudo-accurarcy in form of lengthy calculations that serve no deeper purpose. Yes, 1% of a list is not something worth 'stressing', but these percentages are everywhere, and accumulate. Yes, you can construct extreme outlier scenarios where a loadout that is strictly better in 90-95% of cases is only as good as the lesser one, or maybe even worse, but that has no bearing on averages. I don't know if you're making these wild jumps between nitpicky tablework and 'just assume 5 here, and 10 there, and bob's your uncle' out of motivated reasoning or if you're successfully confused yourself with the enormeous amount of writing you have dedicated to this issue that is immediately obvious to most people, but the hoop-jumping and shadow-boxing you're doing here is just stunningly, utterly amazing.
Okie dokie. I'm done engaging. You didn't have a perfect system then. You won't have a perfect system now, but you'll jump through your own hoops to pretend like you had something more functional then. Ring me when you've solved it.
Ummmm ...pretty sure that the reverse is true. You're "jumping through hoops" to pretend that the current system is "functional" (it isn't, btw).
C'mon, Daed. They absolutely failed in the "sidegrade" concept. It conceptually could have been done. But they didn't do it. I'll admit that some of the theories as to why are insulting (laziness, incompetence). But they still didn't do it . For whatever reason.
C'mon, Daed. They absolutely failed in the "sidegrade" concept. It conceptually could have been done. But they didn't do it. I'll admit that some of the theories as to why are insulting (laziness, incompetence). But they still didn't do it . For whatever reason.
Incompetence isn't insulting when it's a genuine thing. Some people are just incompetent at certain tasks.
So now we're just going to act as if the previous points system didn't work? And that that the new "points" system is better?
To me it seems like people are comparing PL in its perfected form with the flawed execution of pts. Are datasheet options, codex datasheets and codexes more internally balanced, balance between codexes? Okay so execution is worse. Theoretically PL is just pts without pts for options that are superior like sponsons without an alternative Movement buff.
Building PL lists isn't much faster because using all your pts can be a tricky puzzle. So if you don't like the that puzzle you are left with nothing. Switching weapons is just as easy in pts, just pay for the most expensive option, easy to downgrade as you please, if the downgrade happens to make your list stronger you can grab an extra dude somewhere in your list.
I don't know about you, but 1% of my list isn't worth stressing about if the unit works the way I want it to.
To put it bluntly, what you do here is ass-backwards sophistry. You can arrive at any conclusion you want by assigning arbitrary value to things and then obfuscating the lot of it with pseudo-accurarcy in form of lengthy calculations that serve no deeper purpose. Yes, 1% of a list is not something worth 'stressing', but these percentages are everywhere, and accumulate. Yes, you can construct extreme outlier scenarios where a loadout that is strictly better in 90-95% of cases is only as good as the lesser one, or maybe even worse, but that has no bearing on averages. I don't know if you're making these wild jumps between nitpicky tablework and 'just assume 5 here, and 10 there, and bob's your uncle' out of motivated reasoning or if you're successfully confused yourself with the enormeous amount of writing you have dedicated to this issue that is immediately obvious to most people, but the hoop-jumping and shadow-boxing you're doing here is just stunningly, utterly amazing.
Okie dokie. I'm done engaging. You didn't have a perfect system then. You won't have a perfect system now, but you'll jump through your own hoops to pretend like you had something more functional then. Ring me when you've solved it.
They're not wrong though. You literally concocted a bunch of theoretical numbers from out of nowhere, declared the imbalance for grav weapons to equal 1% of a list without any justification, then justified your conclusion using those made-up numbers. Change the made-up numbers to 10%, or 23.6692% or any other fanciful number you want and the argument totally changes. You can't even claim this was just a rough example, because the whole point of the argument is that the value of that discrepancy matters.
For the millionth time, nobody expects a perfect system. PLis points, just with way less granularity. So any imperfection in the points system is magnified by the PL system. Even worse, the PL system has no real way to adjust for that imbalance. A points system has all the worthwhile advantages of a PL system, while also being easier to adjust to get closer to a balanced game. So if you want a "solution", it's already been invented and it's called points. It won't be perfect, but it will be much better than PL can achieve.
vict0988 wrote: Building PL lists isn't much faster because using all your pts can be a tricky puzzle.
I've built a ton of lists for 10th so far, and every single time it is an absolute chore. There's no choice. There's no give and take. No sacrifice.
I take the things I want to take (because there are virtually no restrictions now), and then I'm left going "What costs 145 points?" or "Is there anything in the list that costs 35 points?". And when the answer is no, or there is but it's a special character for an army I don't play (Marine list is really guilty of this), or its for something I don't own, I can't just reduce a squad size here and there to free up points, or downgrade Lascannons to Missile Launchers to free up points, or ditch the sponsons on something to free up 10 points.
I can't even take a Tactical Squad and a damned Razorback now because they're locked at 10, Combat Squads is gone, and despite giving the rule to other armies, the Razorback didn't get a split unit rule! The Razorback is a barely functional unit that now. I think it can only carry 5 units now (5-man Dev Squads, non-Jump Assault, non-Jump Vanguard, Command Squads and Servitors) and nothing else (as now all Sternguard are Tacticus, even if they aren't! ).
Daedalus81 wrote: How are you costing weapons? Just into their preferred targets? What happens if they face a mixed force - what is their value then? What about PG or Melta in half range? Cover? Stationary? What if it's hazardous?
I'd like to give an answer to this as I went through the same kind of questions when I did the points for my homebrew.
Weapons are costed for their raw stats and special rules*, if applicable. You can't argue for a lascannon to be worth next to nil just because the current meta is full of 5pts horde bodies. Or the other way around, that a heavy bolter shouldn't cost anything because everybody brings as many vehicles as possible.
Weapons with strength values of 7-10 pay a higher price for each point of strength than those with 1-6. The reason is twofold:
1. Spamming only high end weapons should not be a viable strategy against armies that bring a lot of cheap bodies.
2. Vehicles under these rules use the old AV system. They are immune to small arms fire and pay a relatively big cost already just for their hulls. Weapons that can counter them needed an adjustment to get closer to the goal of a 33% lethality rate of the system (as well as having more special rules than cheaper guns on average). That means 100 points invested should be able to kill 33 points when attacking their preferred target.
These values do not take into account any kind of cover. Cover is quite generous, actually. It confers +2 to your armor save and incurs a -1 to hit penalty for the attacker (if they don't use the "Stand & Shoot" order). Armor saves can be taken in addition to invulnerability saves. So a unit of Death Guard Terminators sitting on an objective in cover is quite the PITA to get rid of... as it should be.
*Special rules are most of the time too complex to translate into points. Good examples are the ones you have given: Melta, Rapid Fire, Suppression and so on. If I can't come up with a fair and logical point cost for it, I handwave them under the increased base cost for a weapon with the respective strength value.
If the game's meta is full of a specific type of unit, it needs to be looked at what is the reason for it. Maybe the missions favour it, maybe the rules are too good, or other units not interesting enough. Sometimes its just real life cost (f.e. Flayed Ones) that skews how often a unit is seen on the table. Some of the reasons need adjustment, somes do not.
Edit:
What I want to say is: There is an absolute value of a weapon. It can't be relative, as then you won't be able to cost anything at all, since "relative" is changing all the time.
I don't know about you, but 1% of my list isn't worth stressing about if the unit works the way I want it to.
1% of a 2k army is 20 points. 1% over 10 units is 200 points.
There's plenty of room for sub 1% granularity. And there's plenty of space to create lots wiggle room for squeezing extra efficiencies or units into an army.
I don't know about you, but 1% of my list isn't worth stressing about if the unit works the way I want it to.
1% of a 2k army is 20 points. 1% over 10 units is 200 points.
There's plenty of room for sub 1% granularity. And there's plenty of space to create lots wiggle room for squeezing extra efficiencies or units into an army.
1 point is 0.05% of 2000 points. 1 point times 400 models is 400 points. There's plenty of room to go back to charging 1PPM for grenades. But I'd rather not.
Breton wrote: 1 point is 0.05% of 2000 points. 1 point times 400 models is 400 points. There's plenty of room to go back to charging 1PPM for grenades. But I'd rather not.
"Sub 1% granularity" is anything between 0 and 20 points. I don't know what you are getting at with 1 point grenades.
Breton wrote: 1 point is 0.05% of 2000 points. 1 point times 400 models is 400 points. There's plenty of room to go back to charging 1PPM for grenades. But I'd rather not.
"Sub 1% granularity" is anything between 0 and 20 points. I don't know what you are getting at with 1 point grenades.
The bait and switch in the original post. 1% of points, then 1% of X units as if they're sharing a common denominator.
1PPM grenades is a poor or perhaps misleading example.
Let's look at some actual upgrades from 9th, specifically Tyranid Warriors.
They came in units of 3-9. If you had a unit of 3, Adrenalin Glands cost 15 points for the whole unit. If you had a unit of 9 however, that same upgrade ended up costing you... also 15 points.
People commented at the time that this was a bad way to do upgrades, as it meant that a minimum-sized squad paid 5 points per model for the same upgrade that a maximum-sized squad paid 1.67 points per model for.
This is a small example of why upgrades should cost points, and should scale to the unit they're with, rather than being blanket one-size fits all costs. This was a small example of this nonsense (and there were others), that 10th takes and makes into a "writ large" situation, where everything is the same regardless of what you take or how many you take.
In summary: Grenades were 1 point per model because you might take 5 guys in a squad, and you might take 8 guys in a squad, and 8 guys with grenades should pay more for them than 5 guys. The fact that we're talking about 1 point per model rather than 10 points per model is irrelevant.
Breton wrote: 1 point is 0.05% of 2000 points. 1 point times 400 models is 400 points. There's plenty of room to go back to charging 1PPM for grenades. But I'd rather not.
"Sub 1% granularity" is anything between 0 and 20 points. I don't know what you are getting at with 1 point grenades.
In a system where everything works out in increments of 5 points and most units are bought in block of 5 or 10 grenades at one point per model are not exactly a difficult math problem. Idk, 5 points for frag (for the whole unit) and 10 for krack does not seem like an entirely outlandish cost.
Breton wrote: 1 point is 0.05% of 2000 points. 1 point times 400 models is 400 points. There's plenty of room to go back to charging 1PPM for grenades. But I'd rather not.
"Sub 1% granularity" is anything between 0 and 20 points. I don't know what you are getting at with 1 point grenades.
In a system where everything works out in increments of 5 points and most units are bought in block of 5 or 10 grenades at one point per model are not exactly a difficult math problem. Idk, 5 points for frag (for the whole unit) and 10 for krack does not seem like an entirely outlandish cost.
Well again, it wasn't literally about the grenades, it was about the 1% of Points turning into the 1% of X units, as if X units and Y points are related in any meaningful way.
H.B.M.C. wrote: 1PPM grenades is a poor or perhaps misleading example.
Let's look at some actual upgrades from 9th, specifically Tyranid Warriors.
They came in units of 3-9. If you had a unit of 3, Adrenalin Glands cost 15 points for the whole unit. If you had a unit of 9 however, that same upgrade ended up costing you... also 15 points.
People commented at the time that this was a bad way to do upgrades, as it meant that a minimum-sized squad paid 5 points per model for the same upgrade that a maximum-sized squad paid 1.67 points per model for.
This is a small example of why upgrades should cost points, and should scale to the unit they're with, rather than being blanket one-size fits all costs. This was a small example of this nonsense (and there were others), that 10th takes and makes into a "writ large" situation, where everything is the same regardless of what you take or how many you take.
In summary: Grenades were 1 point per model because you might take 5 guys in a squad, and you might take 8 guys in a squad, and 8 guys with grenades should pay more for them than 5 guys. The fact that we're talking about 1 point per model rather than 10 points per model is irrelevant.
Upgrades. Should. Cost. Points.
and this is also why fractional costs should be at least possible, it makes scaling by unit size a lot easier, its also why the trend some games have jumped on but thankfully GW resisted to "simplify" things with a 0-100 point scale
There is some potential merit in having fixed upgrade costs regardless of unit size: it encourages taking more than the minimum unit size.
Eg. 10 Tactical Marines with grenades are slightly discounted from 2x 5 Marines with grenades, so there's a benefit to not just taking whatever gives you access to the most special weapons.
Regardless, the upgrades should still cost SOMETHING because they're UPGRADES!
No one is going to take a tactical at 10 man, with non optimal rules, when you can run 5 man intercessors(cheaper), a. intercessors(cheaper and better) and both versions of the phobos dudes .A tactical was a potentialy good 5 wound lascanon, at 10 models it costs too much. For how much they cost one can start getting tanks with a lot more fire power, or actualy useful units.
Karol wrote: No one is going to take a tactical at 10 man, with non optimal rules, when you can run 5 man intercessors(cheaper), a. intercessors(cheaper and better) and both versions of the phobos dudes .A tactical was a potentialy good 5 wound lascanon, at 10 models it costs too much. For how much they cost one can start getting tanks with a lot more fire power, or actualy useful units.
Tactical Squads are (currently) marginally cheaper than Intercessor 10 mans - but really I'd say it comes down to the Bespoke. I've made lists where I wanted the Phobos bespokes (No Deep Strike, No Shooting inside 12 or +1 to hit vs Unit for Army From Incursors) - I've made a list that just has regular Intercessors running around behind a Deathstar sticky capping. (In theory/I hope).
There are some Shenanigans with Fall Back, Shoot, Charge to be had. But there's also a reason Tacs are just a bit cheaper than the others. If they would have swapped bespokes with Assault Intercessors (and gotten the wound reroll with shooting and fighting) I think they end up all the same. I think GW is overcharging on the regular Intercessors getting the sticky capping even though its again not much.
Why would a space marine player take 10 intercessors? At 10 man they are bad too, heck out of all the "troops" options marine players have, they are probably the last ones to be taken. A marine player will first max slots/points put in to sniper scouts, support characters, desolators, tanks etc and then look for troops as a tech or cheap options, And for those 5 phobos guys are better and cheaper.
The problem is not that the 10 man intercessor or tactical squad is bad, or even over costed. The problem, from an army design point of view, is that when other 5 man squad exist they will not be taken. We already had this in 8th. When no one run over costed intercessors or tacticals, just minimal points in to scouts. Becuase they were cheap and had infiltrate.
GW decision to make certain units certain size, or only certain size are just wierd. And that is if we want to think of GW as a fresh new company that doesn't have a few decades of expirance designing games.
Karol wrote: No one is going to take a tactical at 10 man, with non optimal rules, when you can run 5 man intercessors(cheaper), a. intercessors(cheaper and better) and both versions of the phobos dudes .A tactical was a potentialy good 5 wound lascanon, at 10 models it costs too much. For how much they cost one can start getting tanks with a lot more fire power, or actualy useful units.
While I'd never have used them, there was at least SOME merit with the 9th codex for Tacticals as you got 1 Special, 1 Heavy, and 1 extra of your choice at a 10 man squad. Theoretically that's not the worst deal in the world once you at least made them not hit like wet noodles in melee so it at least APPEARS they can do two different tasks.
In 9th tacticals were horrible, in fact after the scout nerf and move to elites, the only regular seen troop option for marines were 5 of the phobos dudes. Because they were cheap and did something. A tactical just didn't do enough for the point it costs and marines general don't have extra 200-300pts laying around to take sub part troops. That is only something either chaff armies can do or eldar.
What could a tactical melee in 9th? They couldn't reach melee unless the enemy came to them, and if he did, then it was probably some melee 9th monster, which would just clock a 10 man tactical. Nah, in order for marine troops to work, they need to be like they were at the end of 8th. Cheap, with overlaping rules, which often stacked and even then msu intercessors were prefared over everything else. I think only some RG players, before the whole faction shifted to 15 infiltrating assault centurions, used 10 man sniper intercesor as a flavour pick.
We have been having this debate for ages and nothing changes, people who like really granular points systems will find endless faults with a simple pl type system, because it doesn’t provide what they want for a game.
People who don’t care about that like a pl type system for its simplicity, because they don’t care about the added granularity of charging a few points for an upgrade. The way they play the game that doesn’t matter.
The two types of people will never agree because to them 40K is 2 different experiences. Nobody here is going to convince one side or the other that their way is better, because it isn’t, for them.
I suggest that those who want to, go and find ways to squeeze the most optimum builds out of the new system and those who want to just build pretty armies and play games go do that.
I like that all weapons are free and "equal", with different roles. It makes it a tactical choice what you bring (it just needs some balance so there is no obvious best option).
But I don't like that you have to have a fixed amount of troops pr unit. That takes away from the tactical choices.
And special/heavy/different weapon choices should always increase with the size of the squad. Looking at noisemarines, they get one blastmaster pr unit, not one pr 5 models.
Andykp wrote: We have been having this debate for ages and nothing changes, people who like really granular points systems will find endless faults with a simple pl type system, because it doesn’t provide what they want for a game.
People who don’t care about that like a pl type system for its simplicity, because they don’t care about the added granularity of charging a few points for an upgrade. The way they play the game that doesn’t matter.
One problem with this idea is it's not actually true. HBMC's experience they mentioned on the last page matches with mine on this. The new points system actually makes it more difficult to build armies, not less. Even if we put aside the annoying cross-referencing of Leader abilities with units abilities, and which units they can legally join (which aren't to do with the points system anyway), it's still annoying to build lists.
In every list I've tried to build so far I've ended up either slightly over or slightly under 2k points, and never by 5 or 10 points. It's always been 50-60 points under/over or - worse - 20 points over. With no granularity the only approach is to remove an entire unit, often costing 100 points or more, and reorganise everything to try to fit into the limit. Not being able to remove that unit upgrade to get under the limit, or add a couple of models to a unit to fill out the last 40 points is really frustrating.
This is a hard question to answer concisely but here I go, picking the top 3 from each of my games.
Superheavy Company 1) No terrain guidelines or allowance for large models. My opponent set the board with ruins such that my tanks could not make meaningful forward progress. While this could be blamed on the player, I know him pretty well and it wasn't really deliberate (he doesn't know how wide a Baneblade is and graciously offered to move the terrain when I arrived, but I declined. I wanted to test the system as-is).
The real issue here is GW failed to give terrain guidelines that allow Baneblades to maneuver - OR, perhaps a better way, would have been to adopt the 4th edition rule where Baneblades ignore terrain less than 6" (iirc) in height when moving.
2) Tank durability. As I predicted when we saw the tank article, GW nerfing anti-tank weapons did not result in people taking more anti-tank (or paying more for the "real" anti-tank). Rather, it resulted in people using wombo-combos to buff small arms and other non-AT weapons (heavy bolters, plasma) with additional AP and rerolls, etc.
A worthy note is that my Baneblade did survive into Turn 2 (with 3 wounds left) after popping smoke. But it was still badly damaged and took 0 shots from anti-tank weapons - this was achieved with weapons from Plasma on down purely. Feels weird.
3) Wombo-combos. The game felt more like a flowchart, just like 8th and 9th. "Perform X. If successful, perform Y. If not successful, play stratagem Z.". This came from a wider variety of places, moving off the stratagem traincar and spreading out into the "Enhancements, Unit Bespoke Rules, Army Rules, Detachment Rules" traincars, but I wasn't defeated by excellent tactical play. I was defeated by my opponent executing on a series of decisions made before the game (with contingencies at certain steps where he thought I could - and did - disrupt his combos).
Imperial Guard Defense Company/PDF 1) Aircraft rules. Brought a plane to this game as the "scrambled fighter" to help a beleaguered PDF force under attack at a distant outpost. My opponent brought one as well, since he also wanted to test it (this was unplanned, and hilarious). I had 3 Hydras, he had some War Walkers. BOTH of our planes died on overwatch the turn they arrived without firing a shot, because he was halfway up the board by Turn 1, and Hydras have a 72" range and reroll ALL THE THINGS against planes.
2) Actual anti-tank weapons suck now. I was also testing a Malcador, the big brutish FW tank with built-in AoC. Eventually, he was able to get a Sword-Wraithlord into it... and meh. I have never seen a more pathetic example of something that used to be scary to a tank doing nothing. He did 5 wounds to the Malcador (including some stray shooting) over five rounds of combat. Any other edition, the tank would have been zapped. Damage 1 AP0 weapons that wound on 6s are more scary than Wraithlord swords, because they can be buffed to [Lethal Hits] and the like to do far more to a tank than actual antitank weapons (lol, damn Corsairs) and the Malcador's own buffed durability is meaningless.
3) Wombo-combos. The game didn't feel much like maneuver was key. My Hydras killed his plane thanks to Ursula Creed letting them overwatch twice, and my plane died thanks to Fate Dice. There wasn't much to be done except bring the planes outside of 24" of everything that might want to shoot them, which is sort of silly because then they do nothing, anyways, and can be zapped in the opponent's turn before doing anything either way AND you haven't consumed an enemy CP. Additionally, the corsairs were very powerful because they combined all kinds of odd weapons with Lethal Hits and a Farseer providing Fate Dice buffs (the auto-6) in a very visibly pre-planned way that didn't have much tactical brilliance to execute.
Chaos Daemons Game 1) Glass cannons are more like glass featherdusters. My Daemons hit with reduced lethality (witstealer sword at Str 8 still on my 330 pt Keeper), but barely got more durable (keeper got 2 more wounds and is T10). Daemonettes are still easier to kill than guard (guard have lots of durability tools). This was especially apparent when Daemonettes get overwatched by flamers - it's unavoidable and it's extremely painful.
2) Lots of really strange shenanigans makes the army almost not want to play the game. The stratagems (pulling units off the table to redeploy them, making objectives "sticky", etc.) combined with the frailty of the units meant I could very easily and obviously win the game by not engaging my opponent for 5 turns while he slowly lumbered around the board (custodes/sisters of silence footslogging). I agreed with him I wouldn't do this because neither of us would have had much fun. Shadow of Chaos gave me his deployment zone because there were no objectives there, meaning I owned at least half of them... (Wut).
3) Wombo combos. I can explain it but at this point it is probably just repetitive.
Oh that's interesting, I hadn't noticed that you can fire overwatch based on a regular move as well as a charge move, so you can overwatch twice in a turn now...
Karol wrote: Why would a space marine player take 10 intercessors? At 10 man they are bad too, heck out of all the "troops" options marine players have, they are probably the last ones to be taken. A marine player will first max slots/points put in to sniper scouts, support characters, desolators, tanks etc and then look for troops as a tech or cheap options, And for those 5 phobos guys are better and cheaper.
The problem is not that the 10 man intercessor or tactical squad is bad, or even over costed. The problem, from an army design point of view, is that when other 5 man squad exist they will not be taken. We already had this in 8th. When no one run over costed intercessors or tacticals, just minimal points in to scouts. Becuase they were cheap and had infiltrate.
GW decision to make certain units certain size, or only certain size are just wierd. And that is if we want to think of GW as a fresh new company that doesn't have a few decades of expirance designing games.
10 men tactical squad is not a weird decision. If you don’t want it you want somethings else, a primaris squad they are pushing
I had 3 Hydras, he had some War Walkers. BOTH of our planes died on overwatch the turn they arrived without firing a shot, because he was halfway up the board by Turn 1, and Hydras have a 72" range and reroll ALL THE THINGS against planes.
Just want to point out how unlikely this is.
4 shots each on 2 hydras, fishing for 6s is likely 1 hit each factoring rerolls. Wounding on 3s with rerolls, sure both might wound. Ap-1 into 3+ save, 1 gets through and you did a total of 3 damage out of 12.
How on earth did you dump 12 wounds onto that plane with 2 sets of overwatch via 2 hydras without god rolling? Even if you did, that's not necessarily indicative of a problem with 10th, it's just an extremely unlikely set of rolls.
I had 3 Hydras, he had some War Walkers. BOTH of our planes died on overwatch the turn they arrived without firing a shot, because he was halfway up the board by Turn 1, and Hydras have a 72" range and reroll ALL THE THINGS against planes.
Just want to point out how unlikely this is.
4 shots each on 2 hydras, fishing for 6s is likely 1 hit each factoring rerolls. Wounding on 3s with rerolls, sure both might wound. Ap-1 into 3+ save, 1 gets through and you did a total of 3 damage out of 12.
How on earth did you dump 12 wounds onto that plane with 2 sets of overwatch via 2 hydras without god rolling? Even if you did, that's not necessarily indicative of a problem with 10th, it's just an extremely unlikely set of rolls.
This is one of those "roll 3 6s and win" spiky situations, but I calculate:
1) Hit rolls with full rerolls =about 1.5 for 4 dice, so 3 for the two Hydra autocannons and about 2 hits with full rerolls from the Heavy Bolters. I also specifically remember 1 of the 2 Hunter Killer missiles hit, because full rerolls. The Heavy Bolter hits sustained into 4 hits.
2) Hydras remained stationary so Lethal Hits means the hits wound.
3) 2 failed saves vs Hydra Autocannon hits and 2 failed saves against bolter hits is 10 wounds and not too far from average (1.5 and 2 respectively).
4) only a 6+ save against the HK missile meant I only needed a 2 for damage to declare victory.
Daedalus81 wrote: Okie dokie. I'm done engaging. You didn't have a perfect system then. You won't have a perfect system now, but you'll jump through your own hoops to pretend like you had something more functional then. Ring me when you've solved it.
I'll be honest, Daed- and this isn't directed squarely at you, because I see several people doing it- but I'm really frustrated with this argument that basically goes 'the old system wasn't perfect, the new one isn't either, you have no grounds to complain'. It's a false equivalence.
The old system was far from perfect, but in a lot of ways the new system is worse. Before we complained that certain options were too expensive or too cheap, now we complain about options that might as well not exist at all because there's either no downside or because there's an obvious correct choice and an obvious incorrect one.
I don't want or expect 'perfect', just good enough that I can field a casual army without feeling like I'm deliberately handicapping myself. It's not a big ask. GW has gotten pretty close, but in the effort to simplify things that genuinely needed simplification they've also thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
They can fix the new system to make it work. They could have fixed the old system with less effort. At this point I suspect we'll get neither.
I had 3 Hydras, he had some War Walkers. BOTH of our planes died on overwatch the turn they arrived without firing a shot, because he was halfway up the board by Turn 1, and Hydras have a 72" range and reroll ALL THE THINGS against planes.
Just want to point out how unlikely this is.
4 shots each on 2 hydras, fishing for 6s is likely 1 hit each factoring rerolls. Wounding on 3s with rerolls, sure both might wound. Ap-1 into 3+ save, 1 gets through and you did a total of 3 damage out of 12.
How on earth did you dump 12 wounds onto that plane with 2 sets of overwatch via 2 hydras without god rolling? Even if you did, that's not necessarily indicative of a problem with 10th, it's just an extremely unlikely set of rolls.
This is one of those "roll 3 6s and win" spiky situations, but I calculate:
1) Hit rolls with full rerolls =about 1.5 for 4 dice, so 3 for the two Hydra autocannons and about 2 hits with full rerolls from the Heavy Bolters. I also specifically remember 1 of the 2 Hunter Killer missiles hit, because full rerolls. The Heavy Bolter hits sustained into 4 hits.
2) Hydras remained stationary so Lethal Hits means the hits wound.
3) 2 failed saves vs Hydra Autocannon hits and 2 failed saves against bolter hits is 10 wounds and not too far from average (1.5 and 2 respectively).
4) only a 6+ save against the HK missile meant I only needed a 2 for damage to declare victory.
That's fair, I hadn't considered the HK or HBtbh as I didn't expect them to pull weight, I was also looking at the unit without the detachment, which is a lesson learned and something that could otherwise trip me up. Good points all round though.
People who don’t care about that like a pl type system for its simplicity, because they don’t care about the added granularity of charging a few points for an upgrade. The way they play the game that
No, PL is not meaningfully any simpler than points. Its supporters like it *because* it produces less balanced, less fair games, when you get down to it.
Daedalus81 wrote: Okie dokie. I'm done engaging. You didn't have a perfect system then. You won't have a perfect system now, but you'll jump through your own hoops to pretend like you had something more functional then. Ring me when you've solved it.
I'll be honest, Daed- and this isn't directed squarely at you, because I see several people doing it- but I'm really frustrated with this argument that basically goes 'the old system wasn't perfect, the new one isn't either, you have no grounds to complain'. It's a false equivalence.
The old system was far from perfect, but in a lot of ways the new system is worse. Before we complained that certain options were too expensive or too cheap, now we complain about options that might as well not exist at all because there's either no downside or because there's an obvious correct choice and an obvious incorrect one.
I don't want or expect 'perfect', just good enough that I can field a casual army without feeling like I'm deliberately handicapping myself. It's not a big ask. GW has gotten pretty close, but in the effort to simplify things that genuinely needed simplification they've also thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
They can fix the new system to make it work. They could have fixed the old system with less effort. At this point I suspect we'll get neither.
People who don’t care about that like a pl type system for its simplicity, because they don’t care about the added granularity of charging a few points for an upgrade. The way they play the game that
No, PL is not meaningfully any simpler than points. Its supporters like it *because* it produces less balanced, less fair games, when you get down to it.
Do you have any citations for people liking PL because it's unbalanced? I can certainly see how some people might want to do that, but nline I saw that usually PL users were just there to build units however they think looked cool, rock up and throw dice with a generally equivalent sum of stuff.
It's also very telling that Daed walked away from the thread - if he actually has to justify his points, and he can't get the mods to go after the people arguing against him, he can't handle it.
It's been some time since I've had to purchase a chaos rhino kit, but as far as I remember, it isn't physically possible to put a havoc missile launcher and two combi-bolters on the model. All three things go on the two turret spots on the front top of the vehicle.
Meanwhile, the parts for optional spot lights, and smoke launchers do nothing at all according to the game.
That's how I feel about how 10th has approached vehicle upgrades.
I had 3 Hydras, he had some War Walkers. BOTH of our planes died on overwatch the turn they arrived without firing a shot, because he was halfway up the board by Turn 1, and Hydras have a 72" range and reroll ALL THE THINGS against planes.
Just want to point out how unlikely this is.
4 shots each on 2 hydras, fishing for 6s is likely 1 hit each factoring rerolls. Wounding on 3s with rerolls, sure both might wound. Ap-1 into 3+ save, 1 gets through and you did a total of 3 damage out of 12.
How on earth did you dump 12 wounds onto that plane with 2 sets of overwatch via 2 hydras without god rolling? Even if you did, that's not necessarily indicative of a problem with 10th, it's just an extremely unlikely set of rolls.
This is one of those "roll 3 6s and win" spiky situations, but I calculate:
1) Hit rolls with full rerolls =about 1.5 for 4 dice, so 3 for the two Hydra autocannons and about 2 hits with full rerolls from the Heavy Bolters. I also specifically remember 1 of the 2 Hunter Killer missiles hit, because full rerolls. The Heavy Bolter hits sustained into 4 hits.
2) Hydras remained stationary so Lethal Hits means the hits wound.
3) 2 failed saves vs Hydra Autocannon hits and 2 failed saves against bolter hits is 10 wounds and not too far from average (1.5 and 2 respectively).
4) only a 6+ save against the HK missile meant I only needed a 2 for damage to declare victory.
Moral of this story is don't bring you Flyer onto the board and place it within 24" of the enemy Hydra if you want it to live.
Also, Born Soldiers only works until the End of the Turn. It therefore isn't active when you Overwatch.
Imperial Guard Defense Company/PDF 1) Aircraft rules. Brought a plane to this game as the "scrambled fighter" to help a beleaguered PDF force under attack at a distant outpost. My opponent brought one as well, since he also wanted to test it (this was unplanned, and hilarious). I had 3 Hydras, he had some War Walkers. BOTH of our planes died on overwatch the turn they arrived without firing a shot, because he was halfway up the board by Turn 1, and Hydras have a 72" range and reroll ALL THE THINGS against planes.
Overwatch itself has a 24" max range, can only be used once a turn, and Hyrdas only reroll the hit roll
2) Actual anti-tank weapons suck now. I was also testing a Malcador, the big brutish FW tank with built-in AoC. Eventually, he was able to get a Sword-Wraithlord into it... and meh. I have never seen a more pathetic example of something that used to be scary to a tank doing nothing. He did 5 wounds to the Malcador (including some stray shooting) over five rounds of combat. Any other edition, the tank would have been zapped. Damage 1 AP0 weapons that wound on 6s are more scary than Wraithlord swords, because they can be buffed to [Lethal Hits] and the like to do far more to a tank than actual antitank weapons (lol, damn Corsairs) and the Malcador's own buffed durability is meaningless.
3) Wombo-combos. The game didn't feel much like maneuver was key. My Hydras killed his plane thanks to Ursula Creed letting them overwatch twice, and my plane died thanks to Fate Dice. There wasn't much to be done except bring the planes outside of 24" of everything that might want to shoot them, which is sort of silly because then they do nothing, anyways, and can be zapped in the opponent's turn before doing anything either way AND you haven't consumed an enemy CP. Additionally, the corsairs were very powerful because they combined all kinds of odd weapons with Lethal Hits and a Farseer providing Fate Dice buffs (the auto-6) in a very visibly pre-planned way that didn't have much tactical brilliance to execute.
I get that planes are pretty bad, planes that transport are even worse - you bring them in 6" on the second turn and they just stop there, plus they're next to worthless in the corners. But they move 20+, overwatch is within 24" of the start or stop, while the plane is usually outside 24 range, and/or a "moved over" bespoke. The biggest problems with planes probably isn't overwatch - its their entry rules as Strategic Reserves required, and GW giving out Anti-Fly like candy.
People who don’t care about that like a pl type system for its simplicity, because they don’t care about the added granularity of charging a few points for an upgrade. The way they play the game that
No, PL is not meaningfully any simpler than points. Its supporters like it *because* it produces less balanced, less fair games, when you get down to it.
You know how people are always telling others not to ascribe malice to GWs actions when incompetence will suffice?
I think your guilty of doing just that concerning people liking PL/the current pts scheme.
Except you should substitute the word lazy for incometent.
Most people who like this system don't really want to, or even see value in. Micromanaging pts.
Open the book, see unit costs x. Good enough. Let's get this game going.
For ex:
While there's a few people grumbling about the loss of more granular pts at the local shops?
Most really don't care. Especially:
A) the older, established, players who've been pushing small pts back & forth for editions/years/decades.
Our existing armies are set option wise. The only times we change them are when a new edition makes some combo illegal (not less optimal. Illegal).
So if edition x says the unit will cost xx pts? That's what it costs. If the next edition. CA, errata, balance sheet says it mow costs y?? Then it costs you.
But it's the same units we've been playing with in the past & having decent games with. So it doesn't matter to any of us that the unit now costs a flat x pts for a 1/2 squad or y pts for a full size.
B) People who're joining us from Sigmar. They are perfectly used to units having a simple set cost for x modules.
The only real complaint any of us have (for either 40k or Sigmar) is that you have to buy models in blocks, vs individualy.
ccs wrote: You know how people are always telling others not to ascribe malice to GWs actions when incompetence will suffice?
I think your guilty of doing just that concerning people liking PL/the current pts scheme.
Except you should substitute the word lazy for incometent.
Most people who like this system don't really want to, or even see value in. Micromanaging pts.
Open the book, see unit costs x. Good enough. Let's get this game going.
First of all, we have some examples of actual "malice" (or something close to it) in how GW has managed balance at certain points - the pointing on the wraithknight at release, Matt Ward and Cruddace's approach to balance, etc. Second of all, when some of the pro-PL advocates broke it down, fundamentally they wanted PL because they thought it kept "competitive" players away from them, and by implication they wanted games against less skilled opponents they could farm wins against. Nobody cares more about winning, or is incapable of enjoying the game without an unearned advantage, than a CAAC player.
ccs wrote: For ex:
While there's a few people grumbling about the loss of more granular pts at the local shops?
Most really don't care. Especially:
A) the older, established, players who've been pushing small pts back & forth for editions/years/decades.
Our existing armies are set option wise. The only times we change them are when a new edition makes some combo illegal (not less optimal. Illegal).
So if edition x says the unit will cost xx pts? That's what it costs. If the next edition. CA, errata, balance sheet says it mow costs y?? Then it costs you.
But it's the same units we've been playing with in the past & having decent games with. So it doesn't matter to any of us that the unit now costs a flat x pts for a 1/2 squad or y pts for a full size.
B) People who're joining us from Sigmar. They are perfectly used to units having a simple set cost for x modules.
The only real complaint any of us have (for either 40k or Sigmar) is that you have to buy models in blocks, vs individualy.
No. There's plenty of people complaining about it.
I built a battlewagon with a kannon, deffrolla, and no shootas or extra bits. That's now basically useless. The kits were never designed with no-points options in mind, and thus it creates a situation where models are basically unplayable from an effectiveness on the table perspective. That's objectively bad; if they kept to a points-like system, they could have accomplished this. I have a Trukk without the grabba klaw on it. Gee, should I just play without the grabba klaw from now on? Purposefully nerf myself because GW can't write a good ruleset?
The problem is the unit upgrades and modeling. I get it that you're gleeful about other people's model builds being invalidated, but the rest of us actually want a positive gaming experience for the community.
Hecaton wrote: Second of all, when some of the pro-PL advocates broke it down, fundamentally they wanted PL because they thought it kept "competitive" players away from them, and by implication they wanted games against less skilled opponents they could farm wins against. Nobody cares more about winning, or is incapable of enjoying the game without an unearned advantage, than a CAAC player.
Oddly I took their take to be "we like games with weird units with odd loadouts and don't want some egoistical donkey-cave rocking up with every upgrade under the sun to dunk us repeatedly", so the exact opposite from where you're at.
Hecaton wrote: Second of all, when some of the pro-PL advocates broke it down, fundamentally they wanted PL because they thought it kept "competitive" players away from them, and by implication they wanted games against less skilled opponents they could farm wins against. Nobody cares more about winning, or is incapable of enjoying the game without an unearned advantage, than a CAAC player.
Oddly I took their take to be "we like games with weird units with odd loadouts and don't want some egoistical donkey-cave rocking up with every upgrade under the sun to dunk us repeatedly", so the exact opposite from where you're at.
Nothing stops you from taking weird units with odd loadouts under points. "Egotistical donkey-cave" doesn't describe people I know who play tournaments, but it *does* describe people who get furious that someone with a better strategy and better list beats them.
Hecaton wrote: Second of all, when some of the pro-PL advocates broke it down, fundamentally they wanted PL because they thought it kept "competitive" players away from them, and by implication they wanted games against less skilled opponents they could farm wins against. Nobody cares more about winning, or is incapable of enjoying the game without an unearned advantage, than a CAAC player.
Oddly I took their take to be "we like games with weird units with odd loadouts and don't want some egoistical donkey-cave rocking up with every upgrade under the sun to dunk us repeatedly", so the exact opposite from where you're at.
I don't understand the logic here, though, under a points system, the "odd loadouts" should have more of a chance, whereas in PL, the "every upgrade under the sun" unit now costs the same, so dunking seems MORE likely to ensue?
Hecaton wrote: Second of all, when some of the pro-PL advocates broke it down, fundamentally they wanted PL because they thought it kept "competitive" players away from them, and by implication they wanted games against less skilled opponents they could farm wins against. Nobody cares more about winning, or is incapable of enjoying the game without an unearned advantage, than a CAAC player.
Oddly I took their take to be "we like games with weird units with odd loadouts and don't want some egoistical donkey-cave rocking up with every upgrade under the sun to dunk us repeatedly", so the exact opposite from where you're at.
I don't understand the logic here, though, under a points system, the "odd loadouts" should have more of a chance, whereas in PL, the "every upgrade under the sun" unit now costs the same, so dunking seems MORE likely to ensue?
That is the key issue. See PL type systems can work for better, mechanically deeper designed wargames because the mechanics facilitate that weapons like a flamer / NL / Sniper rifle, Lascannon etc don't directly compete against each other as that isn't their job.
Since 40k nowadays lacks severly in mechanical depth they all compete with each other directly, hence when they all cost the same regardless (even against barebones equippment) it becomes a farce. E.g. when the melta is the same as the flamer and the bolter, sure it's not an anti infantry weaponry, but since you anyways pay for the AT weapon, why not just stack up on the most effective choice there?
Hecaton wrote: Second of all, when some of the pro-PL advocates broke it down, fundamentally they wanted PL because they thought it kept "competitive" players away from them, and by implication they wanted games against less skilled opponents they could farm wins against. Nobody cares more about winning, or is incapable of enjoying the game without an unearned advantage, than a CAAC player.
Oddly I took their take to be "we like games with weird units with odd loadouts and don't want some egoistical donkey-cave rocking up with every upgrade under the sun to dunk us repeatedly", so the exact opposite from where you're at.
Nothing stops you from taking weird units with odd loadouts under points. "Egotistical donkey-cave" doesn't describe people I know who play tournaments, but it *does* describe people who get furious that someone with a better strategy and better list beats them.
Brother, i have posted in this very thread that I found it useful for making a quick plan of potential armies to collect in my head. I did not really use it as a game play tool but yet it still had its uses.
I know youve had unjustified pile ons on this forum before but dont let that make you a troll poster.
Hecaton wrote: First of all, we have some examples of actual "malice" (or something close to it) in how GW has managed balance at certain points - the pointing on the wraithknight at release, Matt Ward and Cruddace's approach to balance, etc
actually the story of the original WK is about stupidity and not malice
as the designer made the rules to fit the model and gave it proper points costs, but the management wanted lower points that 3 models fit into a standard sized army without giving the designer the option to adjust the rules because "this will be fine"
(if the goal of 3 per army would have been there before the designer wrote the rules it would not have happned)
Hecaton wrote: Second of all, when some of the pro-PL advocates broke it down, fundamentally they wanted PL because they thought it kept "competitive" players away from them, and by implication they wanted games against less skilled opponents they could farm wins against. Nobody cares more about winning, or is incapable of enjoying the game without an unearned advantage, than a CAAC player.
Oddly I took their take to be "we like games with weird units with odd loadouts and don't want some egoistical donkey-cave rocking up with every upgrade under the sun to dunk us repeatedly", so the exact opposite from where you're at.
Nothing stops you from taking weird units with odd loadouts under points. "Egotistical donkey-cave" doesn't describe people I know who play tournaments, but it *does* describe people who get furious that someone with a better strategy and better list beats them.
The PL players I've known weren't looking for underhanded advantages either, the point is that malice is being assigned to someone's intent by both groups due to a misunderstanding of their motives. the PL players often aren't looking to have a "better list" that is kinda the point. They're often the type that see a climatic battle of characters in the middle of the field, despite being a poor choice strategically, as a central ideal of their game.
Hecaton wrote: Second of all, when some of the pro-PL advocates broke it down, fundamentally they wanted PL because they thought it kept "competitive" players away from them, and by implication they wanted games against less skilled opponents they could farm wins against. Nobody cares more about winning, or is incapable of enjoying the game without an unearned advantage, than a CAAC player.
Oddly I took their take to be "we like games with weird units with odd loadouts and don't want some egoistical donkey-cave rocking up with every upgrade under the sun to dunk us repeatedly", so the exact opposite from where you're at.
I don't understand the logic here, though, under a points system, the "odd loadouts" should have more of a chance, whereas in PL, the "every upgrade under the sun" unit now costs the same, so dunking seems MORE likely to ensue?
It's down to player mentality, if you're the sort of person who just builds stuff as they come in/on the box and don't want to have to juggle 15pts of upgrades or worry about efficiency that's what PL was for. To then stick the best of everything onto the unit to maximise efficiency requires a conscious choice to do so, which is ironically the issue we see in here. Give the PL system to people more competitively minded and ofc they'll look for the "best" and hit the duplicate button.
Dudeface wrote: It's down to player mentality, if you're the sort of person who just builds stuff as they come in/on the box and don't want to have to juggle 15pts of upgrades or worry about efficiency that's what PL was for. To then stick the best of everything onto the unit to maximise efficiency requires a conscious choice to do so, which is ironically the issue we see in here. Give the PL system to people more competitively minded and ofc they'll look for the "best" and hit the duplicate button.
I know it isn't your intent, but 'player mentality' always strikes me as a bit of a cop-out. Sure, you'll have a better time with PL if you aren't looking to exploit it as much as possible, but 40K is fundamentally a competitively-structured game; you don't recreate a historical order of battle, you construct a list to beat your opponent, and there's a certain level of implied optimization there. Even the most casual of casual players will recognize that the Leman Russ with sponsons is objectively in every way the superior choice and there's really no reason not to take them.
In any case, my experience with PL was that it didn't just break down when casual players take on cutthroat competitive players; it broke down when you had casual players with just different approaches to army-building. One guy's got the Enemy At The Gates style human waves of dudes with nothing more than rifles and t-shirts, the other's got his sci-fi grunts armed to the teeth with special and heavy weapons and upgrades, and the rules treat these as equally powerful when that is very clearly not the case.
As I've said before, I think the real schism we're going to see is armies built before 10th (with 'modest' levels of upgrades) against ones built in 10th (with every upgrade that comes in the kit). Both players could be totally casual, neither looking for a competitive advantage, but across the entirety of an army those little upgrades add up.
And we have our first instance of the 10e unit upgrade approach breaking down due to nerfs - the Glaive and Suncannon WK got hit just as hard as the Wraithcannon WK. How is that at all defensible? How does one contort the facts to justify it?
Yeah, this just solidifies for me that they need to change the points system back. Now we have units paying for the sins of weapons they can't take. It's insane.
It's so good that the Heavy Lascannon and Malleus Rockets went up in price because the Bombast is powerful.
These sort of nerfs might well produce paradox outcomes: before it, since the whole thing was cheap, some players might have added the non-optimal loadout into the army because they liked the look or for thematic reasons. Now, by pricing it according to its most broken option, that might be too expensive for the fluffy players, and (if the broken option remains good enough) the only variant you'll ever see is the one with extra cheese.
At least these point increases sort of prove that the colossus should be indirect, as it was caught up in the blanket "indirect = +20% points" that we got.
See this vibro cannon, that’s a D cannon. That wraith knight with suncannon and shield, no, you’re mistaken, 2 wraith cannons. This box of tissues, might as well be a land raider.
This points approach is terrible for the game.
nemesis464 wrote: How can any clown defend the stupid “points” system after this??
(I’m sure there will still be the blindly positive fanboys that will try)
I'm sure we'll see exactly how on short notice
But no, you can't defend it: equipment and abilities that are entirely unrelated got more expensive because of one broken option among many, without reason. Undefendable. It's an issue that would haven been entirely preventable if at least major upgrades had associated points costs.
I'm sure the "casual people" who don't want to spend their time with fiddly upgrade costs and just want to play with what they think looks cool, appreciate the price increase on their units that were caused by completely different wargear options.
And by the way... if the price increase for a loadout now puts you above 2000 points, enjoy making a new army list as well.
a_typical_hero wrote: I'm sure the "casual people" who don't want to spend their time with fiddly upgrade costs and just want to play with what they think looks cool, appreciate the price increase on their units that were caused by completely different wargear options.
And by the way... if the price increase for a loadout now puts you above 2000 points, enjoy making a new army list as well.
Did your list going up 100+ points not mean you needed a new army list before?
a_typical_hero wrote: I'm sure the "casual people" who don't want to spend their time with fiddly upgrade costs and just want to play with what they think looks cool, appreciate the price increase on their units that were caused by completely different wargear options.
And by the way... if the price increase for a loadout now puts you above 2000 points, enjoy making a new army list as well.
Did your list going up 100+ points not mean you needed a new army list before?
I suspect they may have been thinking more about how hard it is to account for changes like that now that you can't just drop wargear to make up the difference.
a_typical_hero wrote: I'm sure the "casual people" who don't want to spend their time with fiddly upgrade costs and just want to play with what they think looks cool, appreciate the price increase on their units that were caused by completely different wargear options.
And by the way... if the price increase for a loadout now puts you above 2000 points, enjoy making a new army list as well.
Did your list going up 100+ points not mean you needed a new army list before?
You had a lot more levers to pull before, so even 100 point swings (which is a strawman - if your list went up by 100 points, you were either running OP stuff or needlessly caught in the crossfire because your unit shares an option/rule with something OP) were easier to deal with.
There's no point making a comment like this if it's going to be so comically easy to rebut.
a_typical_hero wrote: I'm sure the "casual people" who don't want to spend their time with fiddly upgrade costs and just want to play with what they think looks cool, appreciate the price increase on their units that were caused by completely different wargear options.
And by the way... if the price increase for a loadout now puts you above 2000 points, enjoy making a new army list as well.
Did your list going up 100+ points not mean you needed a new army list before?
You had a lot more levers to pull before, so even 100 point swings (which is a strawman - if your list went up by 100 points, you were either running OP stuff or needlessly caught in the crossfire because your unit shares an option/rule with something OP) were easier to deal with.
There's no point making a comment like this if it's going to be so comically easy to rebut.
So yes, your list needed to change when point changed. Thanks for the needlessly long and aggressive answer.
So yes, your list needed to change when point changed. Thanks for the needlessly long and aggressive answer.
You can't, with a straight face, act like an update to remove 20 or 50 or 100 points is as simple to do optimally in 10th as it was in 9th. If you're actually trying to make that dishonest comparison, the "aggressive answer" was justified.
bullyboy wrote: See this vibro cannon, that’s a D cannon. That wraith knight with suncannon and shield, no, you’re mistaken, 2 wraith cannons. This box of tissues, might as well be a land raider.
This points approach is terrible for the game.
I agreed. It SHOULD have been a mixed approach.
MOST wargear free (or rather included in the base unit cost) with a select handful of upgrades treated as...well, upgrades.
Vibro cannon/Shadow weaver - base unit cost. D-cannon, +25
WK with Shield and Suncannon or Sword - base cost. +25pts per HWC
Want a Multi-melta on that Land Raider? +10pts
I think it would be fairly easy to identify just 1 wargear option for about half the units in 40k that are obvious choices and put a price on it.
GW could still have MOST units with all free wargear, but at least a few with 1 upgrade points cost.
For most armies this would still keep the Points sheet to 1 page.
So my 1000pt Eldar list went up 25pts due to the Fire Prism change. Ok, so I drop my Rangers.
What do I do with the extra 30pts? Maybe add an enhancement I didn’t really want, or start from scratch?
That’s the issue, there are no small adjustments anymore.
- Not every unit got slammed with another 100 points on top this time.
- Further point increases might not feature any change of this magnitude at all.
- Under the old list building rules, I would have been completely unaffected if my WK was equipped accordingly. So yes, one option going up 100pts at a time would NOT cause me to rebuild my list.
- Smaller point changes gave the very easy wiggle room to just add/remove a single model or special weapon here and there. Or switch them out for a better/worse weapon.
So yes, your list needed to change when point changed. Thanks for the needlessly long and aggressive answer.
You can't, with a straight face, act like an update to remove 20 or 50 or 100 points is as simple to do optimally in 10th as it was in 9th. If you're actually trying to make that dishonest comparison, the "aggressive answer" was justified.
Have you stopped to consider that maybe it's meant to be less trivial to work around points changes by design? The point is and was that when a balance pass takes place, you generally need a new list. It was as true at any point in the games history as it is now, that's not related to the relative complexity of doing so.
Your justification for being aggressive is "someone doesn't think the exact same as me", which really isn't justifiable.
And by the way... if the price increase for a loadout now puts you above 2000 points, enjoy making a new army list as well.
I'm curious how this ends up looking for Imperial Knights armies. Most of the units went up in points (but I'm not sure by how much). Will it actually effect the armies that were previously on tables? Or were they already going into games short of their points limit? Do they just drop an enhancement and have the same army? Or were the points raises large enough that most armies will actually need to do something like swap a big knight for a little one?
And by the way... if the price increase for a loadout now puts you above 2000 points, enjoy making a new army list as well.
I'm curious how this ends up looking for Imperial Knights armies. Most of the units went up in points (but I'm not sure by how much). Will it actually effect the armies that were previously on tables? Or were they already going into games short of their points limit? Do they just drop an enhancement and have the same army? Or were the points raises large enough that most armies will actually need to do something like swap a big knight for a little one?
They were enough to have to drop an armiger/wardog in some cases.
So yes, your list needed to change when point changed. Thanks for the needlessly long and aggressive answer.
You can't, with a straight face, act like an update to remove 20 or 50 or 100 points is as simple to do optimally in 10th as it was in 9th. If you're actually trying to make that dishonest comparison, the "aggressive answer" was justified.
Have you stopped to consider that maybe it's meant to be less trivial to work around points changes by design? The point is and was that when a balance pass takes place, you generally need a new list. It was as true at any point in the games history as it is now, that's not related to the relative complexity of doing so.
Your justification for being aggressive is "someone doesn't think the exact same as me", which really isn't justifiable.
Okay, you win. Your nonsensical, contorted logic has bested me. Thanks for the needlessly long and aggressive answer.
So yes, your list needed to change when point changed. Thanks for the needlessly long and aggressive answer.
You can't, with a straight face, act like an update to remove 20 or 50 or 100 points is as simple to do optimally in 10th as it was in 9th. If you're actually trying to make that dishonest comparison, the "aggressive answer" was justified.
Have you stopped to consider that maybe it's meant to be less trivial to work around points changes by design? The point is and was that when a balance pass takes place, you generally need a new list. It was as true at any point in the games history as it is now, that's not related to the relative complexity of doing so.
Your justification for being aggressive is "someone doesn't think the exact same as me", which really isn't justifiable.
Okay, you win. Your nonsensical, contorted logic has bested me. Thanks for the needlessly long and aggressive answer.
I'm glad GW has already addressed some of the most glaring issues, but I agree that at the same time they highlight the need to re-introduce points costs for upgrades and additional equipment even more now.
SarisKhan wrote: I'm glad GW has already addressed some of the most glaring issues, but I agree that at the same time they highlight the need to re-introduce points costs for upgrades and additional equipment even more now.
Two steps forward, one step back, I suppose.
I am sad they didn't seize the chance tbh, this was the moment to regain a little trust and confidence.
SarisKhan wrote: I'm glad GW has already addressed some of the most glaring issues, but I agree that at the same time they highlight the need to re-introduce points costs for upgrades and additional equipment even more now.
Two steps forward, one step back, I suppose.
What would point costs for upgrades matter for the changes this balance pass was looking to make?
SarisKhan wrote: I'm glad GW has already addressed some of the most glaring issues, but I agree that at the same time they highlight the need to re-introduce points costs for upgrades and additional equipment even more now.
Two steps forward, one step back, I suppose.
What would point costs for upgrades matter for the changes this balance pass was looking to make?
2/3 wraithknight builds weren't a problem. 3/3 builds went up in price.
bullyboy wrote: So my 1000pt Eldar list went up 25pts due to the Fire Prism change. Ok, so I drop my Rangers.
What do I do with the extra 30pts? Maybe add an enhancement I didn’t really want, or start from scratch?
That’s the issue, there are no small adjustments anymore.
Again, I'm in complete agreement with you.
At the VERY least it would be nice to be able to add extra models to units WITHOUT having to go to the max unit size.
But also giving some units an actual cost for their most useful piece of wargear would be great too.
Paying extra 1 piece of wargear on the occasional unit would not make the game much more complex for new players and would easily give list-building options to add or remove a few things without having to drop whole units and still have a deficit in your points.
points costs for wargear upgrades won't be happening until Codexes come out, this is the serious downside of the "data card" idea, that sort of upgrade starts to get a lot harder to manage - even with points elsewhere in the manual outside this its too much of a change
bullyboy wrote: So my 1000pt Eldar list went up 25pts due to the Fire Prism change. Ok, so I drop my Rangers.
What do I do with the extra 30pts? Maybe add an enhancement I didn’t really want, or start from scratch?
That’s the issue, there are no small adjustments anymore.
Again, I'm in complete agreement with you.
At the VERY least it would be nice to be able to add extra models to units WITHOUT having to go to the max unit size.
But also giving some units an actual cost for their most useful piece of wargear would be great too.
Paying extra 1 piece of wargear on the occasional unit would not make the game much more complex for new players and would easily give list-building options to add or remove a few things without having to drop whole units and still have a deficit in your points.
-
I was writing my post before I saw your response so it wasn’t a direct reaction to your comment. I agree with you solution of just limited upgrade costs, especially to the worst offenders.
It would be ok if rules for each weapon balanced each other but they clearly don’t. In regard to support weapon example D-cannon > Shadow weaver > Vibro cannon.
The vibro should be nowhere near that of the d cannon. Shame because I love the way the vibro cannon looks, but it’s worthless currently, especially at the inflated price (it was crap before the increase)
SarisKhan wrote: I'm glad GW has already addressed some of the most glaring issues, but I agree that at the same time they highlight the need to re-introduce points costs for upgrades and additional equipment even more now.
Two steps forward, one step back, I suppose.
What would point costs for upgrades matter for the changes this balance pass was looking to make?
2/3 wraithknight builds weren't a problem. 3/3 builds went up in price.
The Wraithknight was upped for towering, which is a "problem" for all the builds. The problem build was mostly hit with the Fate nerf.
Now, if you ask me if I think points are a good way to fix towering... absolutely not. It's a terrible way to fix the problem.
SarisKhan wrote: I'm glad GW has already addressed some of the most glaring issues, but I agree that at the same time they highlight the need to re-introduce points costs for upgrades and additional equipment even more now.
Two steps forward, one step back, I suppose.
What would point costs for upgrades matter for the changes this balance pass was looking to make?
I give to you the vibro canon, D-canon, spinner thingy weapon platform for eldar. The point cost it optimised around one profile. The spinner one would be a potential one to run, for the utility and potential plink damage, but not the point cost of the platform it has right now.
also the entire big knight thing in chaos knight lists.
SarisKhan wrote: I'm glad GW has already addressed some of the most glaring issues, but I agree that at the same time they highlight the need to re-introduce points costs for upgrades and additional equipment even more now.
Two steps forward, one step back, I suppose.
What would point costs for upgrades matter for the changes this balance pass was looking to make?
2/3 wraithknight builds weren't a problem. 3/3 builds went up in price.
The Wraithknight was upped for towering, which is a "problem" for all the builds. The problem build was mostly hit with the Fate nerf.
Now, if you ask me if I think points are a good way to fix towering... absolutely not. It's a terrible way to fix the problem.
OK, how would towering result in a 100+ point hike for a melee build?
Don't play the melee build. It is bad. It is like the wright infantry, for some reason the melee dudes, who are incomperable worse then the shoting ones, cost more points. It ain't just an eldar problem, someone at the studio thought it is a good idea to punish all those people that bought 30 sang guard for 9th, and not just gimmped their rules in an already melee unfriendly edition, but also made them cost like twice what venguard vets cost. And venguard vets are considered bad.
SarisKhan wrote: I'm glad GW has already addressed some of the most glaring issues, but I agree that at the same time they highlight the need to re-introduce points costs for upgrades and additional equipment even more now.
Two steps forward, one step back, I suppose.
What would point costs for upgrades matter for the changes this balance pass was looking to make?
2/3 wraithknight builds weren't a problem. 3/3 builds went up in price.
The Wraithknight was upped for towering, which is a "problem" for all the builds. The problem build was mostly hit with the Fate nerf.
Now, if you ask me if I think points are a good way to fix towering... absolutely not. It's a terrible way to fix the problem.
OK, how would towering result in a 100+ point hike for a melee build?
This is why points are a terrible way to fix towering.
Well it probably means that the points cost of a melee and shoty version of a WK should not be the same. But really an eldar list can "carry" melee WK, they still dunk on the majority of armies post the change. There will be few or no triples or doubles of some options, but we will see more maxed out tanks, warp spiders.
The only difference between now and yestarday, is that a WK doesn't invalidate majority of other armies, turn 1. One even with the changes is still a super powerful and very point efficient unit. I mean compare it to the Skull dude in WE or the for some reason points hiked orkish Naught? That is like the same point cost range.
This is why points are a terrible way to fix towering.
Yes, but still a better way than what they did.
moving an army from +65% win rates to probably something like 60% isn't much of a fix though. Especialy when the bad armies stay bad, and some will stay that way till summer seson 2024.
There is not enough data for any of the win rate % to really be valid beyond basic "this faction is way too powerful" analysis. Plus you have different house rules getting adopted, so the game isn't even a standard thing really. Have to wait for the FAQ, then let things settle for a month or two, before you can look at win rates as anything more than very vague estimates.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: And we have our first instance of the 10e unit upgrade approach breaking down due to nerfs - the Glaive and Suncannon WK got hit just as hard as the Wraithcannon WK. How is that at all defensible? How does one contort the facts to justify it?
Some people have to wait whole four years before they get to see olympic level gymnastics. Us lucky dakkanauts have Daedalus81 instead. I for one, can't wait.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: And we have our first instance of the 10e unit upgrade approach breaking down due to nerfs - the Glaive and Suncannon WK got hit just as hard as the Wraithcannon WK. How is that at all defensible? How does one contort the facts to justify it?
Some people have to wait whole four years before they get to see olympic level gymnastics. Us lucky dakkanauts have Daedalus81 instead. I for one, can't wait.
Some of the other online outlets for discussion are banning any criticism of GW over the balance of 10th. It's getting bad.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: And we have our first instance of the 10e unit upgrade approach breaking down due to nerfs - the Glaive and Suncannon WK got hit just as hard as the Wraithcannon WK. How is that at all defensible? How does one contort the facts to justify it?
Some people have to wait whole four years before they get to see olympic level gymnastics. Us lucky dakkanauts have Daedalus81 instead. I for one, can't wait.
Some of the other online outlets for discussion are banning any criticism of GW over the balance of 10th. It's getting bad.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: And we have our first instance of the 10e unit upgrade approach breaking down due to nerfs - the Glaive and Suncannon WK got hit just as hard as the Wraithcannon WK. How is that at all defensible? How does one contort the facts to justify it?
Some people have to wait whole four years before they get to see olympic level gymnastics. Us lucky dakkanauts have Daedalus81 instead. I for one, can't wait.
Some of the other online outlets for discussion are banning any criticism of GW over the balance of 10th. It's getting bad.
Where is that happening? I know Redditors will just downvote but at least it isn't FULLY censored.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: And we have our first instance of the 10e unit upgrade approach breaking down due to nerfs - the Glaive and Suncannon WK got hit just as hard as the Wraithcannon WK. How is that at all defensible? How does one contort the facts to justify it?
Some people have to wait whole four years before they get to see olympic level gymnastics. Us lucky dakkanauts have Daedalus81 instead. I for one, can't wait.
Some of the other online outlets for discussion are banning any criticism of GW over the balance of 10th. It's getting bad.
Where is that happening? I know Redditors will just downvote but at least it isn't FULLY censored.
Nor can I see B&C slapping people which is usually somewhere very upbeat (I'm too negative over there).
Gene St. Ealer wrote: And we have our first instance of the 10e unit upgrade approach breaking down due to nerfs - the Glaive and Suncannon WK got hit just as hard as the Wraithcannon WK. How is that at all defensible? How does one contort the facts to justify it?
Some people have to wait whole four years before they get to see olympic level gymnastics. Us lucky dakkanauts have Daedalus81 instead. I for one, can't wait.
Some of the other online outlets for discussion are banning any criticism of GW over the balance of 10th. It's getting bad.
ccs wrote: So you lot have spent the last few years arguing that GW is too lazy/stupid/bad at balancing things & haven't been happy with any combo of pts for the different weapon options.....
And GW literally confirmed it with their comments on the coming Legends of the Heresy.
But you still expect them to chase that Grail for another 3 years?
Why? What results do you think you'd get?
Well, I expected them to do better than this.
Satisfying the community is not impossible. Except, perhaps, for GW's design team, but that seems to be more a matter of incompetence than unwillingness.
GW had, during 9th, refused to balance options appropriately with points. Now they've abdicated that responsibility entirely to the detriment of game balance. That's on them, not the community; hold GW accountable like the big boys they are. They're not children.
ccs wrote: So you lot have spent the last few years arguing that GW is too lazy/stupid/bad at balancing things & haven't been happy with any combo of pts for the different weapon options.....
And GW literally confirmed it with their comments on the coming Legends of the Heresy.
But you still expect them to chase that Grail for another 3 years?
Why? What results do you think you'd get?
That's on them, not the community; hold GW accountable like the big boys they are. They're not children.
Isn't it so strange some of the posters here refuse to do so for what aren't very good reasons?
I am sad they didn't seize the chance tbh, this was the moment to regain a little trust and confidence.
There was no way they were going to back pedal their points decision this soon.
If they are going to do so I suspect it will be like one of the following:
- As official codex comes out. This is fine but it means some index will be running this old points system for too long. You would also have to assume they planned for this as some codex are already in stages of completion if not ready at printers.
- A mass release points update. Would be ideal but given their pipeline, I wouldn't expect this in the short terms. Perhaps after a year of experimenting will they potentially see the light. Perhaps as a 10.5 reset.
GW is in a catch 22 situation here. One, where they themselves maneuvered them into.
A) If they announce that point differentiation will come back, nobody is going to buy additional stuff to bring existing units up to snuff with all upgrades in fear that it won't be useful anymore.
B) If they don't say anything, players who are unsatisfied with the current approach will stay unhappy.
C) If they introduce it with a codex without prior announcement, it will be similar to A) and players who kitted out their stuff for that faction are mega pissed for having spent money on upgrades that they won't take anymore.
D) If they don't introduce it with a codex, it will be similar to B).
Nothing stops them changing at essentially any time, but I'd be surprised if points for options are in the codexes. This is clearly a paradigm they want to explore, and they aren't going to pivot after 2 weeks.
Tyel wrote: Nothing stops them changing at essentially any time, but I'd be surprised if points for options are in the codexes. This is clearly a paradigm they want to explore, and they aren't going to pivot after 2 weeks.
Literally the only hope if that were the case is that they sidegarde up and consolidate options properly for the codex. If the dataslates are truly "not to be touched" it won't get better I'd wager.
Room for curveball detachments that make certain builds suddenly better might exist.
Andykp wrote: We have been having this debate for ages and nothing changes, people who like really granular points systems will find endless faults with a simple pl type system, because it doesn’t provide what they want for a game.
People who don’t care about that like a pl type system for its simplicity, because they don’t care about the added granularity of charging a few points for an upgrade. The way they play the game that doesn’t matter.
The two types of people will never agree because to them 40K is 2 different experiences. Nobody here is going to convince one side or the other that their way is better, because it isn’t, for them.
I suggest that those who want to, go and find ways to squeeze the most optimum builds out of the new system and those who want to just build pretty armies and play games go do that.
People convert religions, they can change their opinion on whether sponsons ought to cost pts. I have changed my mind on things I was sure of regarding 40k before, like whether Space Marines were more overpowered in 8th using the ITC Champions missions. There was data to support the claim, I experienced it myself and the arguments to support the fact eventually made sense to me. Every person who changes their mind on something is not going to post that they did so and even just making people give up arguing in favor of letting GW get away with this sloppy excuse of a launch is better than nothing.
Wibe wrote: I like that all weapons are free and "equal", with different roles. It makes it a tactical choice what you bring (it just needs some balance so there is no obvious best option).
But I don't like that you have to have a fixed amount of troops pr unit. That takes away from the tactical choices.
And special/heavy/different weapon choices should always increase with the size of the squad. Looking at noisemarines, they get one blastmaster pr unit, not one pr 5 models.
You can take 6-man units and pay for 10, that way you can hide the unit in smaller spaces and prevent it from being shot /sarcasm.
ccs wrote: B) People who're joining us from Sigmar.
AoS has upgrades that cost pts, see Bastiladon. If WL traits become codex-only I'm going to flipping flip, I hope we get them back in a matched play book for all factions at once, I don't think army-specific ones add anything to the game regardless, if you want a Nurgle WL that is good at moving slightly faster or a tougher Khorne leader you should be able to get that.
Tyel wrote: Nothing stops them changing at essentially any time, but I'd be surprised if points for options are in the codexes. This is clearly a paradigm they want to explore, and they aren't going to pivot after 2 weeks.
As a Necrons player it's not going to impact me much, I just won't run Monoliths, Wraiths, Tomb Blades or Spyders against people who want WYSIWYG. I talked to a buddy of mine who wants to get his coworkers into 10th and he was unhappy about the rules for Combat Patrols, I was clueless why until I read the datasheets for Astra Militarum, they are littered with countless upgrades which are totally inappropriate for an introductory game mode, on the other hand, because GW are pursuing PL in 10th it is objectively the right way to build your units if you want to use them outside Combat Patrol. Perhaps the Combat Patrol rules ought to have used a "Sergeant pistol" profile with just an extra couple of shots instead of a plasma pistol with a unique profile, I don't exactly remember what weapons the unit had but you get the point.
Dudeface wrote: Literally the only hope if that were the case is that they sidegarde up and consolidate options properly for the codex. If the dataslates are truly "not to be touched" it won't get better I'd wager.
Room for curveball detachments that make certain builds suddenly better might exist.
Do you mean unconsolidate?
I mean if you care about people running a Sword and Board Wraithknight and feeling hard done, you could just give it a separate Dataslate. "Wraithknight Ghostglaive" - "X points".
But you easily could just not care and leave it as an inefficient option. I don't think its breaking the game as a result.
a_typical_hero wrote: GW is in a catch 22 situation here. One, where they themselves maneuvered them into.
A) If they announce that point differentiation will come back, nobody is going to buy additional stuff to bring existing units up to snuff with all upgrades in fear that it won't be useful anymore.
B) If they don't say anything, players who are unsatisfied with the current approach will stay unhappy.
C) If they introduce it with a codex without prior announcement, it will be similar to A) and players who kitted out their stuff for that faction are mega pissed for having spent money on upgrades that they won't take anymore.
D) If they don't introduce it with a codex, it will be similar to B).
I agree and the 2 least painful options are either continue to make options of equal worth, which seems a big stretch at this stage. Or they go with A as that annoys the fewest as a guess.
But options aren't of equal worth. They never have been. There are always choices that are better than others, and that's not even factoring in choices above basic standard equipment. They should all have an associated and separate cost, rather than taking the most expensive option and costing the unit assuming that the most expensive one is always taken.
Tyel wrote: I mean if you care about people running a Sword and Board Wraithknight and feeling hard done, you could just give it a separate Dataslate. "Wraithknight Ghostglaive" - "X points".
Or you could have a points system that shows differences in weapon choice via assigning numerical values that one can compare to one another and make informed choices about what to take based upon the other elements of your army, how many points you have to spend, and whether the upgrade is worth the cost. Like the game has had since it's first edition.
Just an idea.
Tyel wrote: But you easily could just not care and leave it as an inefficient option. I don't think its breaking the game as a result.
bullyboy wrote: See this vibro cannon, that’s a D cannon. That wraith knight with suncannon and shield, no, you’re mistaken, 2 wraith cannons. This box of tissues, might as well be a land raider.
This points approach is terrible for the game.
I agreed. It SHOULD have been a mixed approach.
MOST wargear free (or rather included in the base unit cost) with a select handful of upgrades treated as...well, upgrades.
Vibro cannon/Shadow weaver - base unit cost. D-cannon, +25
WK with Shield and Suncannon or Sword - base cost. +25pts per HWC
Want a Multi-melta on that Land Raider? +10pts
I think it would be fairly easy to identify just 1 wargear option for about half the units in 40k that are obvious choices and put a price on it.
GW could still have MOST units with all free wargear, but at least a few with 1 upgrade points cost.
For most armies this would still keep the Points sheet to 1 page.
GW could get rid of the second page of all datasheets and make it part of pts changes such that the options for which units characters can join can be expanded in the future and it'd be a couple of pages worth of text for each faction with the benefit of halving the number of pages in the index, so far less overall.
Dudeface wrote: Literally the only hope if that were the case is that they sidegarde up and consolidate options properly for the codex. If the dataslates are truly "not to be touched" it won't get better I'd wager.
Room for curveball detachments that make certain builds suddenly better might exist.
Do you mean unconsolidate?
I mean if you care about people running a Sword and Board Wraithknight and feeling hard done, you could just give it a separate Dataslate. "Wraithknight Ghostglaive" - "X points".
But you easily could just not care and leave it as an inefficient option. I don't think its breaking the game as a result.
The wraithknight is a poor example there, the field ordnance batteries might be a better one where they could have "field artillery weapon" with 1 profile and points cost. It's boring, will upset some, but gives freedom of modelling and avoids the stupid situation we see currently. I'm not sure that's preferable to just splitting the indirect fire away from the lascannons though.
Just make all the guns generic because it's too hard to cost them correctly?
That's an awful suggestion.
That is so unbelievably awful.
Did you have a hand in writing the 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex, by any chance? Are you secretly Gavin Thorpe? Did the Generic Daemon option make you smile warmly because it solved the horrible problem of having to write rules for different daemons? Sure, it was boring. Sure, it upset some! But it sure gave freedom of modelling!
bullyboy wrote: See this vibro cannon, that’s a D cannon. That wraith knight with suncannon and shield, no, you’re mistaken, 2 wraith cannons. This box of tissues, might as well be a land raider.
This points approach is terrible for the game.
I agreed. It SHOULD have been a mixed approach.
MOST wargear free (or rather included in the base unit cost) with a select handful of upgrades treated as...well, upgrades.
Vibro cannon/Shadow weaver - base unit cost. D-cannon, +25
WK with Shield and Suncannon or Sword - base cost. +25pts per HWC
Want a Multi-melta on that Land Raider? +10pts
I think it would be fairly easy to identify just 1 wargear option for about half the units in 40k that are obvious choices and put a price on it.
GW could still have MOST units with all free wargear, but at least a few with 1 upgrade points cost.
For most armies this would still keep the Points sheet to 1 page.
-
Yeah, something like this would have been perfectly fine.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Just make all the guns generic because it's too hard to cost them correctly?
That's an awful suggestion.
That is so unbelievably awful.
Did you have a hand in writing the 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex, by any chance? Are you secretly Gavin Thorpe? Did the Generic Daemon option make you smile warmly because it solved the horrible problem of having to write rules for different daemons? Sure, it was boring. Sure, it upset some! But it sure gave freedom of modelling!
Just give them different points!
It's not rocket surgery.
It is awful, it's also the easiest option that doesn't give them multiple unit entries or individual points. If you want to find a way forwards inside of GW's current design paradigm that's how it has to go.
One of my friends whose an overly critical devils advocate about everything in life type of person actually said "cool I see a buff for the other 2 weapons being made on the datacard then", because they want to believe in the design paradigm and that there's some greater plan going on etc. However nuts you think I am others are worse.
Dudeface wrote: It is awful, it's also the easiest option that doesn't give them multiple unit entries or individual points. If you want to find a way forwards inside of GW's current design paradigm that's how it has to go.
I reject that notion completely. It's not the easiest option.
Giving them points is the easiest option. It is the only solution that makes any sense.
Making things generic is anti-fun. It is the opposite of good design. It is a horrific suggestion.
Dudeface wrote: One of my friends whose an overly critical devils advocate about everything in life type of person actually said "cool I see a buff for the other 2 weapons being made on the datacard then", because they want to believe in the design paradigm and that there's some greater plan going on etc. However nuts you think I am others are worse.
I don't think you're nuts. I think that you're making a "just accept it because it's what GW is doing" argument that we've seen here (and that I've seen in other places).
Dudeface wrote: It is awful, it's also the easiest option that doesn't give them multiple unit entries or individual points. If you want to find a way forwards inside of GW's current design paradigm that's how it has to go.
I reject that notion completely. It's not the easiest option.
Giving them points is the easiest option. It is the only solution that makes any sense.
Making things generic is anti-fun. It is the opposite of good design. It is a horrific suggestion.
Dudeface wrote: One of my friends whose an overly critical devils advocate about everything in life type of person actually said "cool I see a buff for the other 2 weapons being made on the datacard then", because they want to believe in the design paradigm and that there's some greater plan going on etc. However nuts you think I am others are worse.
I don't think you're nuts. I think that you're making a "just accept it because it's what GW is doing" argument that we've seen here (and that I've seen in other places).
I'm just here for the ride really, as mentioned earlier the game suffices for my wants but dislike the current pointing structure. The entire nature of the debate is whether GW will move away from their design scope and what they can do to make things better inside of it.
So yes, going "oh the indirect one is +15 per model" is the obvious and easy solution, but that doesn't fit the criteria of living in pants on heads land where all builds are one cost.
I think what you perceive as "just accept it because it's what GW is doing" are people trying to talk around what they can do with it if they aren't going to change their minds. Totally understand that's not a plausible situation for you and that is itself a good and valid opinion, but it's not to say people trying to work within the parameters are happy having to do so. The same is likely true of the staff in GW as well.
One of my friends whose an overly critical devils advocate about everything in life type of person actually said "cool I see a buff for the other 2 weapons being made on the datacard then", because they want to believe in the design paradigm and that there's some greater plan going on etc. However nuts you think I am others are worse.
See, I actually think better of them as they are an actual true believer, however deluded that belief is.
You, on the other hand, have heen arguing for this system despite not having that belief.
One of my friends whose an overly critical devils advocate about everything in life type of person actually said "cool I see a buff for the other 2 weapons being made on the datacard then", because they want to believe in the design paradigm and that there's some greater plan going on etc. However nuts you think I am others are worse.
See, I actually think better of them as they are an actual true believer, however deluded that belief is.
You, on the other hand, have heen arguing for this system despite not having that belief.
Come again?
Dudeface wrote:I'm just here for the ride really, as mentioned earlier the game suffices for my wants but dislike the current pointing structure.
When have I ASKED for this exact outcome at any point in this thread?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Why would you leave a gak unit as a gak unit?
In this case because its a Knight and I think it shouldn't really be in the game. Much like Flyers.
Every time Knights have been competitively priced they've completely skewed the meta into "can your list deal with knights y/n". Because they are, by design, a hard skew, and can't be anything else.
If you want them in a casual game then go nuts - but don't have them clogging up every table because GW thought gluing 3 dreadnoughts together was a fun idea.
Its far healthier for them not to be meta relevant.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Why would you leave a gak unit as a gak unit?
In this case because its a Knight and I think it shouldn't really be in the game. Much like Flyers.
Every time Knights have been competitively priced they've completely skewed the meta into "can your list deal with knights y/n". Because they are, by design, a hard skew, and can't be anything else.
If you want them in a casual game then go nuts - but don't have them clogging up every table because GW thought gluing 3 dreadnoughts together was a fun idea.
Its far healthier for them not to be meta relevant.
Have you written for GW before? That's some ass logic they would certainly use.
One of my friends whose an overly critical devils advocate about everything in life type of person actually said "cool I see a buff for the other 2 weapons being made on the datacard then", because they want to believe in the design paradigm and that there's some greater plan going on etc. However nuts you think I am others are worse.
See, I actually think better of them as they are an actual true believer, however deluded that belief is.
You, on the other hand, have heen arguing for this system despite not having that belief.
Ironically I feel the same way about people who have so much faith in points.
That said, I'll reiterate that I'm of the belief that towering is a terrible rule and making it "cost more" is undoubtably the worst way to fix it.
The thing with points is that they could do a much better job. Now GW does its own thing with points though, that often makes no sense, but it is still better then saying unit X should cost the same what ever it has basic guns or All the guns.
Karol wrote: The thing with points is that they could do a much better job. Now GW does its own thing with points though, that often makes no sense, but it is still better then saying unit X should cost the same what ever it has basic guns or All the guns.
I think the goal is to make more units have all the guns, which personally I find has made for far more interesting armies and games than when you really had to cut all the interesting stuff out for more efficient bodies.
I guess late 9th has seen Knights be capable (well, not the Wraithknight so much), but not explicitly oppressive. But that's due to it being an unusually balanced period in 40k's history.
Which is good if you just made a new game or system, people don't have 30-20-10-5-etc year old collections and now you are telling that that in order to play that some need to rebuy their armies, because they made the choice of putting sponsos on their tanks (because of points) or they build one vexila (because he wasn't a unit upgrade, but rather a one per army used buff bot). And you totaly don't do that after you had pointed upgrades for 30+ years.
And efficiency happens on its own anyway, mostly because GW undercosted eldar rules in every edition. Or make the error of puting LoSless shoting in the game. I don't know how many times they did it in the past. I only know 8th, 9th and 10th. And each time, each edition they do the same things. And then sprinkle it with "fixing" things that weren't broken and breaking things that needed fixing.
Now GW is in their full right to do what ever they want. It is their game, and with the turn over of players, they don't really have to worry about hordes of people with invalidated armies from 8th. Mostly because few people stay for longer then 1-2 editions. It doesn't make it any less bad for people that do get affected by it. Plus GW is inconsistent with their changes, as always. The paladin box is the same box as the termintor box. Why can the terminators take an apothecary and an ancient, and the paladins only an ancient?
Why are armies like Votan or SoB, with mechanics build around their units dieing, pointed like elite armies? I what world are 5 GK purgators more costly 5 desolators?
Karol wrote: The thing with points is that they could do a much better job. Now GW does its own thing with points though, that often makes no sense, but it is still better then saying unit X should cost the same what ever it has basic guns or All the guns.
I think the goal is to make more units have all the guns, which personally I find has made for far more interesting armies and games than when you really had to cut all the interesting stuff out for more efficient bodies.
Chalk up another tally for 'GW didn't get it perfect therefore throwing it all out is just as good' on the board.
If an upgrade was never worth taking over more bodies, that means it was overpriced. But that was hardly a universal issue, since anyone who played 3rd-7th knows that most armies were not just about spamming as many un-upgraded squads as possible.
).
