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.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Alpharius wrote:

azreal13 wrote:

Enough of this off topic japery

Good idea, that.

Can everyone please stay on topic?

I don't understand what the topic is if not discussion of the proposed rules and their impact.

Seriously?

It isn't about if cell phones have calculators, what we do for a living and calling into question anyone's math skills.

OK?

Hey, Alph, can we lock this until we get more rumors? As much as I like seeing LBF and Shuma wave their junk around...

lord_blackfang wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
The system breaks down?

No, I'm pretty sure that didn't happen.

It did when they stopped listing price upgrades and attributing them to models.

You not being aware of the rules given to handle such eventualities does not mean that the system broke down, just that you were ignorant of the rules.

They probably should of put those rules in the rulebooks then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alpharius wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Alpharius wrote:

azreal13 wrote:

Enough of this off topic japery

Good idea, that.

Can everyone please stay on topic?

I don't understand what the topic is if not discussion of the proposed rules and their impact.

Seriously?

It isn't about if cell phones have calculators, what we do for a living and calling into question anyone's math skills.

OK?

I didn't talk about any of that .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pretre wrote:Hey, Alph, can we lock this until we get more rumors? As much as I like seeing LBF and Shuma wave their junk around...

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/06/40k-rumors-6th-rules-tidal-wave-pt1.html
News stuff

ShumaGorath wrote:

You know that how? You've read an article explaining the thought process behind the removal of victory points? I'd like to read that too so please be so kind to let me know where to find it. I think we've already covered the fact that victory points weren't difficult to calculate so you are incorrect there.

How many points is a space marine sergeant worth? If models don't have attributable point values than the victory point system breaks down.26 points simple math really, if a normal SM is 16 points out of the starter then whats left after 4 of those? (least that is what it is for BA) You have to generalize but for you hard core tourney players I know it can be hard.

It's exceptionally easy to cheat with, but so is everything else in this game (cheating with rolls, dice and other accessories, measuring movement and ranges, army building, breaking the rules intentionally by taking advantage of your opponent's weak grasp of the game, misdirecting your opponent, etc) so I really don't think we need to take into account cheaters when designing a game's victory conditions.

Any reduction in ease of and incidental accidental cheating is a good design decision. Yes and no

It's exceptionally easy to catch the cheater if you care to check the points yourself.

I don't think you've ever tried to figure out how much a crisis suit team costs. Such a PAIN! "This model has what again? And what about that one? . . .and that one???"

As far as your opinion about victory points sucking goes, I strongly disagree. As an answer to your question: I've really no idea what a Space Marine Sergeant or any other individual part of a unit's composition either free or an upgrade bought with points has to do with the conditions we put into place to establish the winner of the game.

The value of models matters in victory points. The system is super clunky. . . I remember winning a 'Ard Boyz cuz of a victory point game. . . 'nids vs BA and I killed all the big things and took out the tooled up genestealers while looking 2 tanks. . . and 2 sergeants. . . fancy that. . .

I'm interested only in how big of an achievement the games designer thinks destroying a Space Marine Tactical Squad was in comparison to destroying a Land Raider. If destroying units isn't important, they don't need to award any points for killing anything, but any convoluted 1 KP per 50 point system is just worse than straight up old school victory points.

Except the parts where it's not. I like the idea of a LR being worth 5 KP while my 105 point SM unit is also worth 5 KP. . . almost even there. . . almost, this would make my 260 point assault squad with 2 meltaguns and a serg with Stormshield and Thunder Hammer worth 6 KP. . . joy. . .

I wonder if they could just provide both types of win conditions (VP & KP) and just let you pick which one you would want to use. It would seem to me that if there is a hideous imbalance between the two then tournaments would find the best one and run with that one.

Also, do we know how scoring objectives are going to work? As in do they still work the same way as they did in 5th? I would hope that they change. I hate how the game currently is in regards to scoring objectives. Shoot the crap out of each for four turns then make a mad dash for the objectives and hope the game ends. Yeah...

I would imagine scoring points by controlling an objective for a full turn would be better but maybe there is some huge imbalance with that?

In regards to MSUs, I would imagine if they incorporated some sort of penalty for having a small squad size would make it where taking MSUs are a liability. A deduction in Ld or like would be ideal. Not sure how that would work with fearless, though. You have to lose combat for that to mean anything.

Any VP/KP system can be gamed and has it's flaws. Is a 51 point unit twice the value as a 50 point one? Is a 5 man scout squad the same as a tricked out land raider? While I like the actual point system (your 195 point squad is worth 195 points if killed) it does require more math, easy math for the most part, but still some number crunching. I think the chunky VP systems (eg. 100pts=1VP) artificially restrict army construction. An option that pushes you over the breakpoint suddenly is not worth the points.

The current rules have us make choices. Is a rhino worth 35 points? Is it worth the KP? Is the mobility/durability it grants worth the cost for either of those? The new rules will be abused in new, different ways, and favor different armies. We'll adapt to the new rules, like we did the the current set.

We'll know the actual issues in a few weeks, I'm not getting bent out of shape until then.

ShumaGorath wrote:
They probably should of put those rules in the rulebooks then.

The rules for calculating split-unit VPs were right there in the rule for Combat Squads in Codex: Dark Angels, where split units were introduced.

My final reply, I promise.

lord_blackfang wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
They probably should of put those rules in the rulebooks then.

The rules for calculating split-unit VPs were right there in the rule for Combat Squads in Codex: Dark Angels, where split units were introduced.

My final reply, I promise.

To this day it's the only place that shows up.

And that's that for now.