Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I feel like I'm missing something here, Dudeface. Insectum is making sense to me.

GW valued the HK missile a handful of points, you chose to either buy them or not, but if you didn't get some dude(s) elsewhere. That is a simple choice. Your army and it's agency/effectiveness is based on whether you want the HK, or some other unit/addition right?

Right.

New school of thought:

People who didn't have the one shot missiles get them, those who did now have some points to spend. In both cases the player benefits, the negative is you can't opt to have a smaller model count arguably. Sort of doesn't matter if you festoon your tank in the bits any more as an aside.

So you still have the points to spend, you still need to make a list construction choice, no agency is lost, it's just moved and a little less granular.

Wrong. Points got adjusted as part of the edition change. You don't, "now have some points to spend," because GW didn't port over the olds points costs and make the HKs free; they (presumably) costed the tank based on its capabilities (including the "optional" HKs).

So you went from having a genuine choice of either putting some of your army's power (points) into the HKs, or into some other upgrades or extra models elsewhere...

to the fake "choice" of taking or leaving the HKs, being charged points like you took the HKs regardless of your choice, and subsequently not having extra points left over to put towards other upgrades/models.

Exactly, so the converse is also true, you can't say that the cost of the HK is also baked in as you don't know what it would cost as a stand alone in 10th. You must simply view them as a free extra.

The other half is instead perspective I think. If you wanted 5 rhinos or whatever in 9th you needed (well, for most of the edition) to make the decision whether to attach the HK at that point, or instead spend the points on something else.

An optimistic perspective in 10th is that they don't cost any points so the decision is gone, you just instead get to go spend points on another unit anyway. You're no longer cannibalising your list for one shot missiles, you get missile and your choice of unit.

As you note, we've 0 frames of reference for rhino without a HK in 10th, it's equally impossible to state whether you paid for them or not, the only objective evidence is that they're included in the options for the vehicle at no additional cost now. They are now free.

Exactly, so the converse is also true, you can't say that the cost of the HK is also baked in as you don't know what it would cost as a stand alone in 10th. You must simply view them as a free extra.
...
As you note, we've 0 frames of reference for rhino without a HK in 10th, it's equally impossible to state whether you paid for them or not, the only objective evidence is that they're included in the options for the vehicle at no additional cost now. They are now free.

I guess I'm giving GW the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they're (at least trying) to factor in a unit's weapons when setting the points cost. If they're not, that strikes me as bad design.

The other half is instead perspective I think. If you wanted 5 rhinos or whatever in 9th you needed (well, for most of the edition) to make the decision whether to attach the HK at that point, or instead spend the points on something else.

An optimistic perspective in 10th is that they don't cost any points so the decision is gone, you just instead get to go spend points on another unit anyway. You're no longer cannibalising your list for one shot missiles, you get missile and your choice of unit.

Okay, I think I see what you're getting at. Let me try to steelman you: You're saying it's kind of like the upside of Power Level from 8th and 9th. Where there would be flavorful but suboptimal options that never got taken because they weren't considered worth the points. With Power Level (and with 10th edition's approach) there's no downside to taking those options unless they compete with another choice in the same slot.

So maybe you'd never take a power sword on a swooping hawks exarch in 8th edition because it wasn't worth the 5(?) points, but you'd take it if you were using PL because it was "free," and you're viewing that as an upside because it means you get to use options you'd have passed on otherwise.

Am I understanding you correctly? If so, I'd say that's a valid silver lining but that Insectum is still right about it being a reduction in player choice. They've still functionally removed a meaningful choice (HKs vs more models or upgrades elsewhere in the list); they've just also (silver lining) given you a reason to play with some of the unpopular options you'd struggle to justify in the past.

And I'd also note that, at least for my eldar and dark eldar, a lot of those suboptimal options have been removed in 10th or made to compete with other options. Power blades aren't an add-on that I can have regardless of other choices now; now they prevent me from having certain gun options. A power sword on my hawkxarch now requires that I take the lacklustre pistol for my ranged weapon, which actually makes me less likely to take the power sword than in the past. (I have a guy modeled with a rifle and sword.)

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Exactly, so the converse is also true, you can't say that the cost of the HK is also baked in as you don't know what it would cost as a stand alone in 10th. You must simply view them as a free extra.
...
As you note, we've 0 frames of reference for rhino without a HK in 10th, it's equally impossible to state whether you paid for them or not, the only objective evidence is that they're included in the options for the vehicle at no additional cost now. They are now free.

I guess I'm giving GW the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they're (at least trying) to factor in a unit's weapons when setting the points cost. If they're not, that strikes me as bad design.

The other half is instead perspective I think. If you wanted 5 rhinos or whatever in 9th you needed (well, for most of the edition) to make the decision whether to attach the HK at that point, or instead spend the points on something else.

An optimistic perspective in 10th is that they don't cost any points so the decision is gone, you just instead get to go spend points on another unit anyway. You're no longer cannibalising your list for one shot missiles, you get missile and your choice of unit.

Okay, I think I see what you're getting at. Let me try to steelman you: You're saying it's kind of like the upside of Power Level from 8th and 9th. Where there would be flavorful but suboptimal options that never got taken because they weren't considered worth the points. With Power Level (and with 10th edition's approach) there's no downside to taking those options unless they compete with another choice in the same slot.

So maybe you'd never take a power sword on a swooping hawks exarch in 8th edition because it wasn't worth the 5(?) points, but you'd take it if you were using PL because it was "free," and you're viewing that as an upside because it means you get to use options you'd have passed on otherwise.

Am I understanding you correctly? If so, I'd say that's a valid silver lining but that Insectum is still right about it being a reduction in player choice. They've still functionally removed a meaningful choice (HKs vs more models or upgrades elsewhere in the list); they've just also (silver lining) given you a reason to play with some of the unpopular options you'd struggle to justify in the past.

And I'd also note that, at least for my eldar and dark eldar, a lot of those suboptimal options have been removed in 10th or made to compete with other options. Power blades aren't an add-on that I can have regardless of other choices now; now they prevent me from having certain gun options. A power sword on my hawkxarch now requires that I take the lacklustre pistol for my ranged weapon, which actually makes me less likely to take the power sword than in the past. (I have a guy modeled with a rifle and sword.)

I think you summed it reasonably well. If you always took HK and ringfenced 80 pts in listbuildong or whatever, well you don't need to any more. If you never took them because you liked more models, well you got them thrown in as a bonus. All positives there really and hence agency concerns drop off as there isn't any meaningful expression lost.

If they'd listed rhinos as a base cost, a HK price and said "they all come in the base loadout" and it meant for some players their decision to not and instead have more bodies was no longer possible, I can understand that. But from my perspective that hasn't happened.

I will add for sponsons and some wargear it is absolutely the wrong choice and I can understand wanting a russ to be 25% or so cheaper and have no sponsons so you can fit more chassis in. That choice has been removed. The little faff bits like havoc launchers or HK etc are all just not worth being upset a out imo.

Dudeface wrote:

I think you summed it reasonably well. If you always took HK and ringfenced 80 pts in listbuildong or whatever, well you don't need to any more. If you never took them because you liked more models, well you got them thrown in as a bonus. All positives there really and hence agency concerns drop off as there isn't any meaningful expression lost.

If they'd listed rhinos as a base cost, a HK price and said "they all come in the base loadout" and it meant for some players their decision to not and instead have more bodies was no longer possible, I can understand that. But from my perspective that hasn't happened.

I will add for sponsons and some wargear it is absolutely the wrong choice and I can understand wanting a russ to be 25% or so cheaper and have no sponsons so you can fit more chassis in. That choice has been removed. The little faff bits like havoc launchers or HK etc are all just not worth being upset a out imo.

"No meaningful expression lost" is obviously pure opinion, which will change from person to person. Objectively speaking there are still options for optimization lost if we assume that points costs for units were made with optional upgrades in mind (as they should be) in which you're still missing the option of going "lean" a few units to add minor upgrades elsewhere. If you're still recommending points costs for sponsons we're just talking about granularity.

And on the "meaningful expression" part of it, an HK here and an HK there may not seem like much. But in the context where most people didn't take them because they didn't want to spend a few extra points, you roll up with a list that commits and fires off 6-10 of them in the first turn to nice effect, I'd argue that's a more meaningful expression than whether or not some Russ's have sponsons. You've taken an option that most people scoff at, and put it to a surprising and effective use catching your opponent off guard. Now that they're free it's kinda less of a statement.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

I think you summed it reasonably well. If you always took HK and ringfenced 80 pts in listbuildong or whatever, well you don't need to any more. If you never took them because you liked more models, well you got them thrown in as a bonus. All positives there really and hence agency concerns drop off as there isn't any meaningful expression lost.

If they'd listed rhinos as a base cost, a HK price and said "they all come in the base loadout" and it meant for some players their decision to not and instead have more bodies was no longer possible, I can understand that. But from my perspective that hasn't happened.

I will add for sponsons and some wargear it is absolutely the wrong choice and I can understand wanting a russ to be 25% or so cheaper and have no sponsons so you can fit more chassis in. That choice has been removed. The little faff bits like havoc launchers or HK etc are all just not worth being upset a out imo.

"No meaningful expression lost" is obviously pure opinion, which will change from person to person. Objectively speaking there are still options for optimization lost if we assume that points costs for units were made with optional upgrades in mind (as they should be) in which you're still missing the option of going "lean" a few units to add minor upgrades elsewhere. If you're still recommending points costs for sponsons we're just talking about granularity.

And on the "meaningful expression" part of it, an HK here and an HK there may not seem like much. But in the context where most people didn't take them because they didn't want to spend a few extra points, you roll up with a list that commits and fires off 6-10 of them in the first turn to nice effect, I'd argue that's a more meaningful expression than whether or not some Russ's have sponsons. You've taken an option that most people scoff at, and put it to a surprising and effective use catching your opponent off guard. Now that they're free it's kinda less of a statement.

I mean I'm happy to agree to disagree as a lot of it is subjective. I'm on record saying the wargear doesn't need points at all if they balance it correctly, they just haven't.

With regards your above exmaple, that in game expressionism is still there, you can still opt to build a list with a lot of HK platforms and use them for an alpha strike, you just likely have an extra 5 man unit as well now rather than having to make a sacrifice to get the missiles.

That's why it isn't any real loss of agency, you can still do what you wanted to do before, express your play style how you wanted. I just don't agree your agency has been impacted because the small extra unit is now an AND rather than an OR. They've not taken away anything that impacts your play style or tactical choices.

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

I think you summed it reasonably well. If you always took HK and ringfenced 80 pts in listbuildong or whatever, well you don't need to any more. If you never took them because you liked more models, well you got them thrown in as a bonus. All positives there really and hence agency concerns drop off as there isn't any meaningful expression lost.

If they'd listed rhinos as a base cost, a HK price and said "they all come in the base loadout" and it meant for some players their decision to not and instead have more bodies was no longer possible, I can understand that. But from my perspective that hasn't happened.

I will add for sponsons and some wargear it is absolutely the wrong choice and I can understand wanting a russ to be 25% or so cheaper and have no sponsons so you can fit more chassis in. That choice has been removed. The little faff bits like havoc launchers or HK etc are all just not worth being upset a out imo.

"No meaningful expression lost" is obviously pure opinion, which will change from person to person. Objectively speaking there are still options for optimization lost if we assume that points costs for units were made with optional upgrades in mind (as they should be) in which you're still missing the option of going "lean" a few units to add minor upgrades elsewhere. If you're still recommending points costs for sponsons we're just talking about granularity.

And on the "meaningful expression" part of it, an HK here and an HK there may not seem like much. But in the context where most people didn't take them because they didn't want to spend a few extra points, you roll up with a list that commits and fires off 6-10 of them in the first turn to nice effect, I'd argue that's a more meaningful expression than whether or not some Russ's have sponsons. You've taken an option that most people scoff at, and put it to a surprising and effective use catching your opponent off guard. Now that they're free it's kinda less of a statement.

I mean I'm happy to agree to disagree as a lot of it is subjective. I'm on record saying the wargear doesn't need points at all if they balance it correctly, they just haven't.

With regards your above exmaple, that in game expressionism is still there, you can still opt to build a list with a lot of HK platforms and use them for an alpha strike, you just likely have an extra 5 man unit as well now rather than having to make a sacrifice to get the missiles.

That's why it isn't any real loss of agency, you can still do what you wanted to do before, express your play style how you wanted. I just don't agree your agency has been impacted because the small extra unit is now an AND rather than an OR. They've not taken away anything that impacts your play style or tactical choices.

To add to what Insectum wrote, I'll note that sometimes taking unpopular choices was fun because it gave your dudes a sense of personality and uniqueness. A power sword on a sybarite wasn't generally an optimal build, but spending the points anyway because you like the idea of your sybarite being a spicy little melee addict and then watching him occassionally punch up (especially back when initiative and Furious Charge were a thing) could be really satisfying. Similarly, "wasting" points on a power sword for my hawkxarch let me express this story that the exarch's shrine emphasizes swooping into melee as a means of staying constantly in motion, like Faolchu evading the arrows of his enemies, or whatever. In the 10th edition index when power swords were free for hawkxarchs (and didn't lock out gun options like they do now), everyone tossed a power sword on their hawkxarch because why wouldn't you?

Admittedly, this is a sort of gamey thing that only exists in that fuzzy hobby area where game meets fluff, but that sort of thing is one of the major ingredients that feels like it's missing from 10th edition. When people talk about 10th not feeling very flavorful, I think about my cheeky suboptimal power weapons and the fluff I headcanoned onto my models about them.

tldr; taking away the choice to pay for a suboptimal add-on doesn't necessarily impact my tactical chocies, but it does kind of take away an aspect of my fluff/hobby choices.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

I think you summed it reasonably well. If you always took HK and ringfenced 80 pts in listbuildong or whatever, well you don't need to any more. If you never took them because you liked more models, well you got them thrown in as a bonus. All positives there really and hence agency concerns drop off as there isn't any meaningful expression lost.

If they'd listed rhinos as a base cost, a HK price and said "they all come in the base loadout" and it meant for some players their decision to not and instead have more bodies was no longer possible, I can understand that. But from my perspective that hasn't happened.

I will add for sponsons and some wargear it is absolutely the wrong choice and I can understand wanting a russ to be 25% or so cheaper and have no sponsons so you can fit more chassis in. That choice has been removed. The little faff bits like havoc launchers or HK etc are all just not worth being upset a out imo.

"No meaningful expression lost" is obviously pure opinion, which will change from person to person. Objectively speaking there are still options for optimization lost if we assume that points costs for units were made with optional upgrades in mind (as they should be) in which you're still missing the option of going "lean" a few units to add minor upgrades elsewhere. If you're still recommending points costs for sponsons we're just talking about granularity.

And on the "meaningful expression" part of it, an HK here and an HK there may not seem like much. But in the context where most people didn't take them because they didn't want to spend a few extra points, you roll up with a list that commits and fires off 6-10 of them in the first turn to nice effect, I'd argue that's a more meaningful expression than whether or not some Russ's have sponsons. You've taken an option that most people scoff at, and put it to a surprising and effective use catching your opponent off guard. Now that they're free it's kinda less of a statement.

I mean I'm happy to agree to disagree as a lot of it is subjective. I'm on record saying the wargear doesn't need points at all if they balance it correctly, they just haven't.

With regards your above exmaple, that in game expressionism is still there, you can still opt to build a list with a lot of HK platforms and use them for an alpha strike, you just likely have an extra 5 man unit as well now rather than having to make a sacrifice to get the missiles.

That's why it isn't any real loss of agency, you can still do what you wanted to do before, express your play style how you wanted. I just don't agree your agency has been impacted because the small extra unit is now an AND rather than an OR. They've not taken away anything that impacts your play style or tactical choices.

To add to what Insectum wrote, I'll note that sometimes taking unpopular choices was fun because it gave your dudes a sense of personality and uniqueness. A power sword on a sybarite wasn't generally an optimal build, but spending the points anyway because you like the idea of your sybarite being a spicy little melee addict and then watching him occassionally punch up (especially back when initiative and Furious Charge were a thing) could be really satisfying. Similarly, "wasting" points on a power sword for my hawkxarch let me express this story that the exarch's shrine emphasizes swooping into melee as a means of staying constantly in motion, like Faolchu evading the arrows of his enemies, or whatever. In the 10th edition index when power swords were free for hawkxarchs (and didn't lock out gun options like they do now), everyone tossed a power sword on their hawkxarch because why wouldn't you?

Admittedly, this is a sort of gamey thing that only exists in that fuzzy hobby area where game meets fluff, but that sort of thing is one of the major ingredients that feels like it's missing from 10th edition. When people talk about 10th not feeling very flavorful, I think about my cheeky suboptimal power weapons and the fluff I headcanoned onto my models about them.

tldr; taking away the choice to pay for a suboptimal add-on doesn't necessarily impact my tactical chocies, but it does kind of take away an aspect of my fluff/hobby choices.

I dont see how your fluff/hobby choice has been taken away.
Your sword weilding Hawk still has something few other players do - a story reason to have that sword.

Dudeface wrote:
I mean I'm happy to agree to disagree as a lot of it is subjective. I'm on record saying the wargear doesn't need points at all if they balance it correctly, they just haven't.

With regards your above exmaple, that in game expressionism is still there, you can still opt to build a list with a lot of HK platforms and use them for an alpha strike, you just likely have an extra 5 man unit as well now rather than having to make a sacrifice to get the missiles.

That's why it isn't any real loss of agency, you can still do what you wanted to do before, express your play style how you wanted. I just don't agree your agency has been impacted because the small extra unit is now an AND rather than an OR. They've not taken away anything that impacts your play style or tactical choices.

To be fair, I see Insectum's point. I think you are focused too much on actual hunter-killer missiles vs marines example. The more abstract version of their stance is that there used to a hand full of decisions in the game where it was reasonable to decide between more damage/utility on existing models or more models and that they feel like this is now missing from the game.

That said, those decisions were few and far between. In most cases taking more bodies was always the right choice unless an upgrade was an auto-takes.

I feel like building a list in 10th requires much more meaningful decisions that any of the previous edition. Since you often don't want to take three of a unit, or a single instance of a unit is sufficient to cover your bases, you play much more different units. In addition, units like gretchin or stormboyz are mandatory to win games consistently, so you still take "marines vs HK" decisions by bringing units whose damage output is next to nothing over units with a ton of guns stuck to them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:
I dont see how your fluff/hobby choice has been taken away.
Your sword weilding Hawk still has something few other players do - a story reason to have that sword.

Agree. If anything, fluff and hobby choice were held back by the rules, not enabled by them.
My nob "Manslaughter" still has a story to tell despite not being able to kill a whole squad of guardsmen on his own for many editions now.