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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
Points are tracked minutely when you're picking units, but then you get to wargear and it's 'eh, sure, it's only tripling their firepower, who cares'.

1) Abilities
2) Tacs are 17.5 per model and Devs are 24 per model ( for the first 5 ).

It would be more appropriate to say that 88 points of tacs with all the upgrades are matched to 120 points of Devs. Then the remaining 88 points of Tacs gets matched to the 80 of Devs.

Er, I think you're rather making my point for me- GW recognizes that the first five Devastators with the lascannons are more valuable than the next five with bolters, and GW also recognizes that ten Marines with four lascannons is more valuable than ten Marines with las/plas (also with some ability shuffling in there).

But when it comes to a tank, an upgrade that just about triples its offensive output isn't accounted for at all.

There's a clear incongruity between which things are considered important enough to account for with points, and which things are handwaved away as too insignificant to matter. If you're going to tell me that a Devastator with a lascannon is worth 8pts more than a Devastator with a bolter then you can damn well set an appropriate value for sponsons.

 catbarf wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
Points are tracked minutely when you're picking units, but then you get to wargear and it's 'eh, sure, it's only tripling their firepower, who cares'.

1) Abilities
2) Tacs are 17.5 per model and Devs are 24 per model ( for the first 5 ).

It would be more appropriate to say that 88 points of tacs with all the upgrades are matched to 120 points of Devs. Then the remaining 88 points of Tacs gets matched to the 80 of Devs.

Er, I think you're rather making my point for me- GW recognizes that the first five Devastators with the lascannons are more valuable than the next five with bolters, and GW also recognizes that ten Marines with four lascannons is more valuable than ten Marines with las/plas (also with some ability shuffling in there).

But when it comes to a tank, an upgrade that just about triples its offensive output isn't accounted for at all.

There's a clear incongruity between which things are considered important enough to account for with points, and which things are handwaved away as too insignificant to matter. If you're going to tell me that a Devastator with a lascannon is worth 8pts more than a Devastator with a bolter then you can damn well set an appropriate value for sponsons.

Throw in that Retributors, a nearly identical unit with roughly half the defensive statistics, are 26 points per model and don't let you buy the additional 5 just in case you thought actually getting to USE your detachment buff would be cool.

Yeah, that's the issue. The difference between a Baneblade and a Hellhammer is probably about right at 30pts (540 vs 510) because the Hellhammer has a gun that is about 30pts weaker (str 7, ap -1, damage 2, 4d6 shots, ignores cover).

The difference between a Baneblade with 2 sponsons pairs and 1 sponson pair is 6 twin-linked bolter shots (slightly better than the d6 extra shots Hellhammer cannon) and 2 lascannon shots.

This tells me that a Baneblade with 1 sponson pair has no business costing as much as a Hellhammer, not to mention costing the same as an entire, fully upgraded Baneblade.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
It's pretty straightforward. This particular upgrade increases the models CC damage output by 4-8x depending on target. It should have an associated cost.

Well, it does have that cost. This is a scenario where you don't have the item and worrying about not being efficient as a result ( as opposed to not having free points to spend elsewhere ).

It's the same thing, because points are a fluid asset. I no longer have the option of not taking the P-fist and spending the points on an upgrade elsewhere.

The upgrade is either worth something, or it isn't. And despite your attempt to minimize it, it's clearly worth something.

On one end it's worth potentially zero, because you might never swing it. On the other end it does have some effect on what you can fit in a list, but everyone is at the same level.

Noooo, everyone isn't on the same level, because some people have shown up to the battle without the now free Powerfist. Having a powerfist in your list is worth more than not having it. Being able to put it to use is a result of on-table decision making.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
That said a tac squad is 175 and was 180 before gear in Nephilim. And Devs were 130 with Heavy Bolters and now sit at 120. They already shaved the points off for you! ( slight sarcasm )

Irrelevant. There's a system reboot going on.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Which is something you can still do.

No, you're paying for the upgrades regardless of whether you take them or not. That's the opposite of choice.

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
It's pretty straightforward. This particular upgrade increases the models CC damage output by 4-8x depending on target. It should have an associated cost.

Well, it does have that cost. This is a scenario where you don't have the item and worrying about not being efficient as a result ( as opposed to not having free points to spend elsewhere ).

It's the same thing, because points are a fluid asset. I no longer have the option of not taking the P-fist and spending the points on an upgrade elsewhere.

The upgrade is either worth something, or it isn't. And despite your attempt to minimize it, it's clearly worth something.

Stop looking at it as an upgrade, look at it as base equipment you can opt not to use for whatever reason. That's the general point of the discussion I think, same with the squad of legionnaires mentioned earlier, if you can have 5 with a free special/heavy, assume they always have one.

It's just the same situation in the negative. I could take the free Powerfist, or I could take an obvious downgrade and get no advantage for it. You still changing the "battle value " of the unit without accounting for it.

The Powerfist is not a sidegrade. It's an upgrade from the default loadout, points or not.

 catbarf wrote:
But when it comes to a tank, an upgrade that just about triples its offensive output isn't accounted for at all.

There's a clear incongruity between which things are considered important enough to account for with points, and which things are handwaved away as too insignificant to matter. If you're going to tell me that a Devastator with a lascannon is worth 8pts more than a Devastator with a bolter then you can damn well set an appropriate value for sponsons.

At the same time tanks are usually an easier solve and typically people will want to switch weapons on those models more often since magnetization is so easy.

It's hard to tell if GW is committing to the system or taking a pit stop here. Tomb Blades, for example, could just have had the profile with all the upgrades and just not give the upgrades as options.

It creates this scenario where all the new kits get built with upgrades and if they reverse the decision those people are left holding the bag. There's lots of weird stuff.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It creates this scenario where all the new kits get built with upgrades and if they reverse the decision those people are left holding the bag. There's lots of weird stuff.

Yeah, that's exactly why I abandoned my plans to buy new stuff for my armies after reading the MFM. It's such a clumsily executed paradigm shift that I have no idea whether GW will stick with it, so I'm not about to glue anything together in the interim.

(Again, because this is exactly what happened with the 9th Ed Tyranid codex, and GW did end up adding points to wargear)

If the codices start coming out and show a better-thought-out approach, then I'll reconsider. Putting points on upgrades, properly establishing them as sidegrades, or eliminating the pointless options- I don't care what approach they take so long as it's consistent.

 catbarf wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It creates this scenario where all the new kits get built with upgrades and if they reverse the decision those people are left holding the bag. There's lots of weird stuff.

Yeah, that's exactly why I abandoned my plans to buy new stuff for my armies after reading the MFM. It's such a clumsily executed paradigm shift that I have no idea whether GW will stick with it, so I'm not about to glue anything together in the interim.

(Again, because this is exactly what happened with the 9th Ed Tyranid codex, and GW did end up adding points to wargear)

If the codices start coming out and show a better-thought-out approach, then I'll reconsider. Putting points on upgrades, properly establishing them as sidegrades, or eliminating the pointless options- I don't care what approach they take so long as it's consistent.

Yeah, seeing the Tyranid codex whiplash, then the ridiculous points-costs shift in late 9th, and then seeing what's going on now . . . I'm not exactly seeing anything stable that I would invest in, meta wise.

I have the things I already want to complete, and a few items will shift in priority. But to actually buy into anything GW is doing? Forget it.

Since upgrades are treated like side grades and in either case those are now "point less" maybe we should do away with all upgrades.

That's GW's end goal for the game.

Hope not. And fully balanced side grades is also not something I have any interest in. Because it's not possible without homogenizing them to a point they hold no interest to me.

One of the frustrating things about this edition (any edition, really) is GW's concepts vs execution.

In the context of this thread, and upgrades, something I mentioned is the concept of upgrades where one of them is generally good enough in most situations to the point where they make other options not worth taking even if there are specific situations where they would be better (plasma vs everything else being the classic example).

One simple way to avoid this type of situation is to ensure that weapons have defined roles, thereby ensuring that you might not just pick the most generally useful one. And the way you can do this in 10th - and the way GW aren't doing so, hence concept vs execution - is through the use of their weapon keywords.

Why am I bringing this up then?

Well, I just got my Leviathan box. In that box are the assembly instructions for all the miniatures, and like all modern day assembly instructions from GW, they come with basic rules for all the units. And the Primaris Lieutenant/Primaris Sternguard entries are eye opening.

We know that when GW engaged their hyper-incredible levels of imagination it resulted in generic Combi-Weapons... except it didn't in these 'simple' rules.

The Combi-Flamer, Plasma and Melta are all distinct. Yes, they're all S4 AP-1 D1 with Devastating wounds (and the Lt. hits on 2+, but he's a character so ignore that), but they have further things that define them:

1. The Combi-Flamer has Ignores Cover.
2. The Combi-Plasma has Anti-Monster 4+ and Hazardous.
3. The Combi-Melta has Anti-Vehicle 4+ and Melta 2.

All of them are essentially the same, but they have specific roles in that one is good for ignoring cover, one is better for hunting monsters (and anti-monster is a fairly rare rule at this point), and the other one is for hunting vehicles.

Imaging doing that to the current list of weapons. You would have more clearly defined roles, and each special weapon could be a side-grade for one another rather than one weapon being generally better than the other in most situations, rendering those other options essentially redundant.

Now I'm just talking about special weapons here. This does not strictly apply to heavy weapons (I don't think we can call a Lascannon a "side grade" to a Heavy Bolter), nor does it mean they can suddenly be free (you should always be paying for ugprades), but I think using the weapon rule system (something GW introduced but has failed to use in a comprehensive capacity) helps quite a bit here.

(Side note: Imagine if all Melta weapons had Anti-Vehicle 4+? Every single issue with the Melta weapons in 10th being left behind would vanish in an instant!)

chaos0xomega wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
sophistry

You keep using that word. I don't think you know what it means. Sophistry implies that I have motive to attempt to mislead - if I do, thats certainly news to me.

I'll gladly repeat it every time you say that an offensive upgrade is worthless because "opponent can kill the unit" or defensive upgrade is worthless because "opponent can choose not to attack the unit". It is true for every offensive and defensive upgrade and therefore adds nothing of value to the discussion. Do some math, roll some dice, play some games, anything other than relying on misleading arguments. I haven't seen your lists but I don't think you're even convinced yourself because you seem to be taking lascannons in your Infantry Squads, that might just be a holdover from ancient times when you first built your Guardsmen in 95 so I can only say that it makes me suspicious, in any case the outrageous statistics you came up with were clearly sophistry, if you're bad at mathhammer that's okay, just don't mention it and if you're confused or curious about something ask me and I will try to help you understand, although I am not a math expert and only a sup-par teacher.

units have had free weapon options for upwards of a year now without anyone really batting an eye

What constitutes batting an eye at the change? Perhaps a poll where 60% of people dislike it? Two 50 page threads where people call each other devil worshipper for wanting to play pts/PL, another huge thread discussing whether Space Marines are going to be broken with free wargear? Still nobody batted an eye? I will admit a lot of competitive folks just kind of accepted it, internal balance is a foreign concept to many of these people surprisingly, the same as it is to you. Show me that the value is illusory, play 3 games with as few and as bad options as possible, you have a tonne of experience, you should be able to do that, then 3 games with the best options. Take notes on how things went.

Many other designers whom I respect greatly (and who, more importantly, are actually published and therefore have more clout than little ol' me) have arrived at very similar conclusions as well and moved towards less granular points systems or replacing points and using other mechanisms for army construction.

What tests do you reckon I could run that would convince me that options should be free? I am curious whether you've tried to do break a game before like what is done by video game playtesters or if you do GW-style testing where you bring balanced lists and see if the game can be fun.

There are two kinds of balance, internal balance and external balance. It would be a rather shoddy wargame if the game was entirely externally balanced but wholly unbalanced internally as every faction would devolve to playing the same list with no opportunity for replacements or personal expression because a unit of Guardsmen costs more than a Leman Russ and Monoliths less than Deathmarks per model.

Both internal and external balance are achieved using the same points system and methodology, so if you want to talk about sophistry, trying to argue that points only impact one but not the other might just be it.

I did not argue that points affect one and not the other, I said directly that internal balance is dictated by the relative points differences between units within a codex (I bolded my original message). Let's say fully equipped SM are balanced against fully equipped Necrons then necessarily faultily equipped SM will be worse than faultily equipped Necrons because Necrons have fewer straight upgrades, like special and heavy weapons. There is terrible internal balance in the SM codex, but the SM codex when played at its peak could be equal to Necrons played at their peak if so the external balance would be great.

5 points is basically the nothingburger of points differences - its literally 0.25% of the typical points total, and somewhere between 2.5% and 5% of the cost of the typical unit in the game

5 points is a huge amount, going from 4 pts to 9 pts is a massive increase and means the unit was either useless before or now. Even 40 to 45 is a pretty big difference in how far up the competitive ladder or how far down the trash pile a unit is. I don't understand how you can say 5 pts when you take was it 15 lascannons? That'd be 75 pts if they became 5 pts more expensive, you'd have to cut two Infantry Squads.

 catbarf wrote:
That ties back to points as a shaping mechanism rather than a balancing mechanism per se.

That only works if you're consistent with it, if you intentionally shape the game so people need to destroy their miniatures every 3 years you are being a git. If GW consistently said "Space Marines Squads are usually 5-man and they usually wield a thunder hammer, plasma pistol and plasma gun and only use other weapon options when their plasma weapons overheat and the thunder hammer runs out of energy, then players would know to take these options when trying to be effective and choosing any other options or no options would be a deliberate downgrade in power to convey a narrative of a hard-stripped squad of Marines who no longer have the equipment to fight at optimal efficiency but fight regardless because they must, similar to Goblins and Halflings being funny little underdogs in Bloodbowl. But 10th? That's just GW being lazy.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

We know that when GW engaged their hyper-incredible levels of imagination it resulted in generic Combi-Weapons... except it didn't in these 'simple' rules.

The Combi-Flamer, Plasma and Melta are all distinct. Yes, they're all S4 AP-1 D1 with Devastating wounds (and the Lt. hits on 2+, but he's a character so ignore that), but they have further things that define them:

1. The Combi-Flamer has Ignores Cover.
2. The Combi-Plasma has Anti-Monster 4+ and Hazardous.
3. The Combi-Melta has Anti-Vehicle 4+ and Melta 2.

All of them are essentially the same, but they have specific roles in that one is good for ignoring cover, one is better for hunting monsters (and anti-monster is a fairly rare rule at this point), and the other one is for hunting vehicles.

Imaging doing that to the current list of weapons. You would have more clearly defined roles, and each special weapon could be a side-grade for one another rather than one weapon being generally better than the other in most situations, rendering those other options essentially redundant.

Now I'm just talking about special weapons here. This does not strictly apply to heavy weapons (I don't think we can call a Lascannon a "side grade" to a Heavy Bolter), nor does it mean they can suddenly be free (you should always be paying for ugprades), but I think using the weapon rule system (something GW introduced but has failed to use in a comprehensive capacity) helps quite a bit here.

(Side note: Imagine if all Melta weapons had Anti-Vehicle 4+? Every single issue with the Melta weapons in 10th being left behind would vanish in an instant!)

question now is that this change prior or after the cards
the pdf look like to be just the stuff that went to the printer for the cards that were sold

so either we have again 2 people working on rules not talking to each other, or it was decided to change one for the other which could mean we get that rules back with the Codex

just imagine Melta being anti-vehicle 4+ with the Codices meaning only Index faction having that problem


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dominuschao wrote:
Since upgrades are treated like side grades and in either case those are now "point less" maybe we should do away with all upgrades.

funnily enough, they did with some units
1 datacard for the base unit, with sidegrades, and 1 datacard for each upgrade with different points

so somehow someone understood how that works but failed to do it with all of the units from all factions

which indicates either different people working on the same not talking to each other (likely to prevent any leaks) or they started out well and gave up early on as they would not meet the deadline if they do it right (and someone above decided that it is not necessary anyway as people buy it anyway)
or both

problem for GW, such things often cause the designers to leave which will interrupt the process

 kodos wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

We know that when GW engaged their hyper-incredible levels of imagination it resulted in generic Combi-Weapons... except it didn't in these 'simple' rules.

The Combi-Flamer, Plasma and Melta are all distinct. Yes, they're all S4 AP-1 D1 with Devastating wounds (and the Lt. hits on 2+, but he's a character so ignore that), but they have further things that define them:

1. The Combi-Flamer has Ignores Cover.
2. The Combi-Plasma has Anti-Monster 4+ and Hazardous.
3. The Combi-Melta has Anti-Vehicle 4+ and Melta 2.

All of them are essentially the same, but they have specific roles in that one is good for ignoring cover, one is better for hunting monsters (and anti-monster is a fairly rare rule at this point), and the other one is for hunting vehicles.

Imaging doing that to the current list of weapons. You would have more clearly defined roles, and each special weapon could be a side-grade for one another rather than one weapon being generally better than the other in most situations, rendering those other options essentially redundant.

Now I'm just talking about special weapons here. This does not strictly apply to heavy weapons (I don't think we can call a Lascannon a "side grade" to a Heavy Bolter), nor does it mean they can suddenly be free (you should always be paying for ugprades), but I think using the weapon rule system (something GW introduced but has failed to use in a comprehensive capacity) helps quite a bit here.

(Side note: Imagine if all Melta weapons had Anti-Vehicle 4+? Every single issue with the Melta weapons in 10th being left behind would vanish in an instant!)

question now is that this change prior or after the cards
the pdf look like to be just the stuff that went to the printer for the cards that were sold

so either we have again 2 people working on rules not talking to each other, or it was decided to change one for the other which could mean we get that rules back with the Codex

just imagine Melta being anti-vehicle 4+ with the Codices meaning only Index faction having that problem

The stats in the instructions differ wildly from those on the cards in some places. It's either the manual stats were from well before the current rules were decided or they're a preview into the codex. Given the difference I'd wager the former.

I hope you are very wrong.

 catbarf wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
See, i can see your point but you yourself admited that for that to happen we would need a better designed game. I'd even go so far as to say a game that right now GW has not the capability to design.

And the predator exemple shows preciscly the problem, the other versions still suck now

What gets me is that if a trio of Predators getting sponson lascannons (that let them do an extra 150-200pts of damage over the course of the game) is irrelevant and not worth putting a cost on, there is absolutely no reason why it should cost 25pts to replace a squad of Tacticals with a squad of Devastators.

Points are tracked minutely when you're picking units, but then you get to wargear and it's 'eh, sure, it's only tripling their firepower, who cares'.

It's a lot of excuses and handwaving for sloppy, inconsistent design.

he, formations also just gave you what, 700-800pts in free transports... not trippling but was considered problematic (for all but the 5 minutes it was the top of the line formation ) surely it won't lead to problems when you can just tripple the firepower

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Spoiler:

One of the frustrating things about this edition (any edition, really) is GW's concepts vs execution.

In the context of this thread, and upgrades, something I mentioned is the concept of upgrades where one of them is generally good enough in most situations to the point where they make other options not worth taking even if there are specific situations where they would be better (plasma vs everything else being the classic example).

One simple way to avoid this type of situation is to ensure that weapons have defined roles, thereby ensuring that you might not just pick the most generally useful one. And the way you can do this in 10th - and the way GW aren't doing so, hence concept vs execution - is through the use of their weapon keywords.

Why am I bringing this up then?

Well, I just got my Leviathan box. In that box are the assembly instructions for all the miniatures, and like all modern day assembly instructions from GW, they come with basic rules for all the units. And the Primaris Lieutenant/Primaris Sternguard entries are eye opening.

We know that when GW engaged their hyper-incredible levels of imagination it resulted in generic Combi-Weapons... except it didn't in these 'simple' rules.

The Combi-Flamer, Plasma and Melta are all distinct. Yes, they're all S4 AP-1 D1 with Devastating wounds (and the Lt. hits on 2+, but he's a character so ignore that), but they have further things that define them:

1. The Combi-Flamer has Ignores Cover.
2. The Combi-Plasma has Anti-Monster 4+ and Hazardous.
3. The Combi-Melta has Anti-Vehicle 4+ and Melta 2.

All of them are essentially the same, but they have specific roles in that one is good for ignoring cover, one is better for hunting monsters (and anti-monster is a fairly rare rule at this point), and the other one is for hunting vehicles.

Imaging doing that to the current list of weapons. You would have more clearly defined roles, and each special weapon could be a side-grade for one another rather than one weapon being generally better than the other in most situations, rendering those other options essentially redundant.

Now I'm just talking about special weapons here. This does not strictly apply to heavy weapons (I don't think we can call a Lascannon a "side grade" to a Heavy Bolter), nor does it mean they can suddenly be free (you should always be paying for ugprades), but I think using the weapon rule system (something GW introduced but has failed to use in a comprehensive capacity) helps quite a bit here.

(Side note: Imagine if all Melta weapons had Anti-Vehicle 4+? Every single issue with the Melta weapons in 10th being left behind would vanish in an instant!)

Sounds very much like the 'ol missile launcher rules - frag vs. infantry, krak vs. hardened targets. I'd like if a lot of upgrades were sidegrades for tweaking your army against specific builds/threats. But, in the end they do need to be accounted for with an additional point cost, even if they were all +10 point upgrades. That GW is currently baking them in whether taken or not is ultimately the core problem.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I hope you are very wrong.

I'll pop them on here for reference:

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I hope you are very wrong.

I'll pop them on here for reference:

Tyranid Prime:
Instructions: 12''/5/4+/5/4+/1
Download: 12''/5/4+/6/7+/1

Screamer-Killer:
Instructions: 9''/9/2+/8/10+/3
Download: 8''/9/2+/10/8+/3

Leaper:
Instructions: 10''/5/4+/3/9+/1
Download: 10''/5/4+/3/8+/1

Neurotyrant:
Instructions: 5''/5/5+/5/4+/1 AND 5''/5/5+/2/10+/1
Download: 6''/8/4+/9/7+/3

So, practically no profile is the same, and the instruction booklet has separate profiles for the thingies that are only markers on the Neurotyrant in the pdf.

Good job Gee-dubs.

Tsagualsa wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I hope you are very wrong.

I'll pop them on here for reference:

Tyranid Prime:
Instructions: 12''/5/4+/5/4+/1
Download: 12''/5/4+/6/7+/1

Screamer-Killer:
Instructions: 9''/9/2+/8/10+/3
Download: 8''/9/2+/10/8+/3

Leaper:
Instructions: 10''/5/4+/3/9+/1
Download: 10''/5/4+/3/8+/1

Neurotyrant:
Instructions: 5''/5/5+/5/4+/1 AND 5''/5/5+/2/10+/1
Download: 6''/8/4+/9/7+/3

So, practically no profile is the same, and the instruction booklet has separate profiles for the thingies that are only markers on the Neurotyrant in the pdf.

Good job Gee-dubs.

Given the lead times for a big box like Leviathan it's probably safe to assume the profiles in the box are older ones and the ones released in the PDFs are the up-to-date correct ones. It is pretty worrying that fairly fundamental design decisions were still being taken so late in the process though.

Slipspace wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I hope you are very wrong.

I'll pop them on here for reference:

Tyranid Prime:
Instructions: 12''/5/4+/5/4+/1
Download: 12''/5/4+/6/7+/1

Screamer-Killer:
Instructions: 9''/9/2+/8/10+/3
Download: 8''/9/2+/10/8+/3

Leaper:
Instructions: 10''/5/4+/3/9+/1
Download: 10''/5/4+/3/8+/1

Neurotyrant:
Instructions: 5''/5/5+/5/4+/1 AND 5''/5/5+/2/10+/1
Download: 6''/8/4+/9/7+/3

So, practically no profile is the same, and the instruction booklet has separate profiles for the thingies that are only markers on the Neurotyrant in the pdf.

Good job Gee-dubs.

Given the lead times for a big box like Leviathan it's probably safe to assume the profiles in the box are older ones and the ones released in the PDFs are the up-to-date correct ones. It is pretty worrying that fairly fundamental design decisions were still being taken so late in the process though.

Yeah, that's probably the reason. It's also possible to conclude that the changes in LD score (consistent over all profiles) is due to the Tyranid 'Synapse' ability not being finalized until the 11th hour; i find it more worrying that even stuff like 'these two dudes are just markers' seems to have been decided only when some printed stuff was already out the factory door.

Also, that's like the 3rd conflicting profile for the Screamer-Killer now, what with the 'my girlfriend from Canada' edition and whatnot

Think they could have done it like in 4th or 5th marine book. There a 10 man tactical squad started with flamer and heavy bolter for like 200pts since even the worst extra option is better than the bolter and the unit should come with some special options to fit the background and design. Then if you wanted a melta gun or a lascannon you paid only the difference between the flamer or heavy bolter.

Still makes it easier than what we had before to set points if you assume some minimum upgrades that are baked in and sidegrades are free but any actual upgrades cost points. They did it a bit like this in 9th with only upgrades that had point costs actually cost points and everything else was free but it wasnt a very good solution in how they presented this stuff since you had to flip between point costs and datasheet to see which upgrades were free (since if they were free they werent listed with points) by comparing 2 entries and see what was missing and then knowing it was free.

But if they write the datasheet with some built in options and then have rest cost points then it is fine. Hunter Killer Missiles and stormbolters/stubbers should be automatically included in the profile and be part of the cost of the unit. Let the sergeants have "leader pistol" and "leader weapon" that is included in the price and is depending on unit something like an astartes chainsword to a powerweapon in power level. Then 5pts if you want it to be a fist or hammer. Have flamers and heavy bolters/flamers be on the datasheet of units and pay 5pt if upgrading to melta or plasma. Be it dreads, tacticals, devastators, assault marines, or infantry squads. Maybe do it with sponsons as well but make it the weakest you pay for.

Then you get more kitted out squads than before but not every squad is having 100% of all possible upgrades and all of them being the most expensive ones in the previous editions. You can still choose to not have a flamer or heavy bolter in your squad if you like the look of it or not sponsons on your tanks and it will be less optimal but at least you only pay for some flamers, heavy bolters and a maybe a powersword and not twice or thrice that amount for meltas, lascannons and thunderhammers.

This approach and doing more stuff like in the box (they just need to design the box load out with this point/rules design too so they are in sync) load outs would help out in the long run with both balance and ease for newer players. But they went too far and are just as bad as the previous way, just different. Like always when GW do a good change they go overboard and at best it is equal to what we had before when it could and should have been a straight improvement.

Tsagualsa wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I hope you are very wrong.

I'll pop them on here for reference:

Tyranid Prime:
Instructions: 12''/5/4+/5/4+/1
Download: 12''/5/4+/6/7+/1

Screamer-Killer:
Instructions: 9''/9/2+/8/10+/3
Download: 8''/9/2+/10/8+/3

Leaper:
Instructions: 10''/5/4+/3/9+/1
Download: 10''/5/4+/3/8+/1

Neurotyrant:
Instructions: 5''/5/5+/5/4+/1 AND 5''/5/5+/2/10+/1
Download: 6''/8/4+/9/7+/3

So, practically no profile is the same, and the instruction booklet has separate profiles for the thingies that are only markers on the Neurotyrant in the pdf.

Good job Gee-dubs.

The screamer killer is also S6 I think in melee, leapers look to have lost a point of strength, prime looks to be down a point of strength and damagea nd psychic scream is unrecognisable from what is on the index card.

2d6 s5 ap-1 d2 ignore cover, torrent, psychic
d6 s2 ap-2 d3 anti infantry 2+, ignore cover, torrent, psychic

Dudeface wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I hope you are very wrong.

I'll pop them on here for reference:

Tyranid Prime:
Instructions: 12''/5/4+/5/4+/1
Download: 12''/5/4+/6/7+/1

Screamer-Killer:
Instructions: 9''/9/2+/8/10+/3
Download: 8''/9/2+/10/8+/3

Leaper:
Instructions: 10''/5/4+/3/9+/1
Download: 10''/5/4+/3/8+/1

Neurotyrant:
Instructions: 5''/5/5+/5/4+/1 AND 5''/5/5+/2/10+/1
Download: 6''/8/4+/9/7+/3

So, practically no profile is the same, and the instruction booklet has separate profiles for the thingies that are only markers on the Neurotyrant in the pdf.

Good job Gee-dubs.

The screamer killer is also S6 I think in melee, leapers look to have lost a point of strength, prime looks to be down a point of strength and damagea nd psychic scream is unrecognisable from what is on the index card.

2d6 s5 ap-1 d2 ignore cover, torrent, psychic
d6 s2 ap-2 d3 anti infantry 2+, ignore cover, torrent, psychic

Interesting, now i wonder how the Marine half of it has changed

We seem to be drifting somewhat from the point I was making. Not even sure why Dudeface posted Tyranid stats when I was talking about the Primaris Lt/Sternguard stats being different.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
We seem to be drifting somewhat from the point I was making. Not even sure why Dudeface posted Tyranid stats when I was talking about the Primaris Lt/Sternguard stats being different.

It was an example of how different they were from the released version and it wasn't just combi weapons, although don't worry, we all know how you feel about that.

Dudeface wrote:
It was an example of how different they were from the released version and it wasn't just combi weapons, although don't worry, we all know how you feel about that.

And you just suddenly have to have a snide go at me about it? What is your major malfunction, Dudeface?

Did you just miss the entire point of the post? How it relates to the topic of upgrades and the paying of points for said upgrades?

Here, I'll do a cut-down version of the important bit you clearly just up and ignored as you were uploading rando-Tyranid sheets into Dakka:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
In the context of this thread, and upgrades, something I mentioned is the concept of upgrades where one of them is generally good enough in most situations to the point where they make other options not worth taking even if there are specific situations where they would be better (plasma vs everything else being the classic example).

One simple way to avoid this type of situation is to ensure that weapons have defined roles, thereby ensuring that you might not just pick the most generally useful one. And the way you can do this in 10th - and the way GW aren't doing so, hence concept vs execution - is through the use of their weapon keywords.

...

All of [the combi-weapons] are essentially the same, but they have specific roles in that one is good for ignoring cover, one is better for hunting monsters (and anti-monster is a fairly rare rule at this point), and the other one is for hunting vehicles.

Imaging doing that to the current list of weapons. You would have more clearly defined roles, and each special weapon could be a side-grade for one another rather than one weapon being generally better than the other in most situations, rendering those other options essentially redundant

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
It was an example of how different they were from the released version and it wasn't just combi weapons, although don't worry, we all know how you feel about that.

And you just suddenly have to have a snide go at me about it? What is your major malfunction, Dudeface?

Did you just miss the entire point of the post? How it relates to the topic of upgrades and the paying of points for said upgrades?

Here, I'll do a cut-down version of the important bit you clearly just up and ignored as you were uploading rando-Tyranid sheets into Dakka:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
In the context of this thread, and upgrades, something I mentioned is the concept of upgrades where one of them is generally good enough in most situations to the point where they make other options not worth taking even if there are specific situations where they would be better (plasma vs everything else being the classic example).

One simple way to avoid this type of situation is to ensure that weapons have defined roles, thereby ensuring that you might not just pick the most generally useful one. And the way you can do this in 10th - and the way GW aren't doing so, hence concept vs execution - is through the use of their weapon keywords.

...

All of [the combi-weapons] are essentially the same, but they have specific roles in that one is good for ignoring cover, one is better for hunting monsters (and anti-monster is a fairly rare rule at this point), and the other one is for hunting vehicles.

Imaging doing that to the current list of weapons. You would have more clearly defined roles, and each special weapon could be a side-grade for one another rather than one weapon being generally better than the other in most situations, rendering those other options essentially redundant

I offered an example to back up your observation that the build instructions are wrong in comparison to the index cards. You're the one aggressively questioning what I'm posting, if you consider it off topic just flag it for a mod? And contrary to your defensive nature there, you have made your stance on combi-weapons widely known at every opportunity and clearly were wanting to discuss them further as you just showed, I'm not being snide, it's an observation.

Stop looking for inferred insult where there is none.