stonehorse wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Yes points where always badly handled, making weapon options different in how they operate with the points baked into the unit is a much better way to do it.

It also means the game is more about fu and not micro adjustments to squeeze out the most optimal peak performance from every single point... you know, the tournament mindset that has been making the game a bit dull.

This is a return to fun, and for people to be able to build their models how they like without having to worry about whether that configuration would mean the unit/model puts their force over the points limit.

It's also a system where you can play someone using the same units with outright better gear than yours and not being any worse off for doing so.

Not sure it is fair to say gear is better or worse, it seems to be that all gear has a role to play against different targets. Take Tactical Squads for example, Flamer is good at close range against Light to Medium Infantry, Melta gun is good at close range against Vehicles, Plasma Gun is good at close range against Monsters and Heavy Infantry.

 stonehorse wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Yes points where always badly handled, making weapon options different in how they operate with the points baked into the unit is a much better way to do it.

It also means the game is more about fu and not micro adjustments to squeeze out the most optimal peak performance from every single point... you know, the tournament mindset that has been making the game a bit dull.

This is a return to fun, and for people to be able to build their models how they like without having to worry about whether that configuration would mean the unit/model puts their force over the points limit.

It's also a system where you can play someone using the same units with outright better gear than yours and not being any worse off for doing so.

Not sure it is fair to say gear is better or worse, it seems to be that all gear has a role to play against different targets. Take Tactical Squads for example, Flamer is good at close range against Light to Medium Infantry, Melta gun is good at close range against Vehicles, Plasma Gun is good at close range against Monsters and Heavy Infantry.

Leman Russes, for example.
They may take sponson weapons (Heavy Bolter, Plasma Cannon, Multi-Melta, Heavy Flamer) but they don't have too. They also don't need to take a pintle-weapon (Heavy Stubber, Stormbolter) or a Hunterkiller Missile. Under the old system, all that was accounted for, but now if you run a Leman Russ without sponsons, pintle-weapon and missile you are objectively using a worse vehicle configuration for the same cost.

Lack of sponson weapons also gives the Leman Russ a slimmer profile, allowing it to fit through tighter gaps, also gives it less that can be measured to and seen. So can have a very situational advantage.

As for pintal mounted weapons, in all my 30+ years of gaming I have yet to see a Leman Russ without a pintal mounted weapon, so that is not going to happen.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Again, it's literally your job as a designer to figure this sort of thing out. It's not an unknowable mystery, just not necessarily straight forward. In a given paradigm, maybe points aren't the reason something isn't taken, though meltas are a bad example because there will always be a non-zero cost where people will take a melta over a bolter. Flamers, for example, suffered in previous editions because they usually weren't an upgrade, so any points cost above 0 was too high.

Taking meltas specifically, let's show why you're wrong. We'll assume we're talking about Tacticals here and we'll assume meltaguns are not currently taken but we don't know why. A simple thought experiment shows why your reasoning doesn't work. If we increased the cost of plasma, grav and flamers to 100 points and changed the cost of meltaguns to 1, we'd see everyone taking meltaguns and nobody taking the other options. That fact alone tells you there is a point-based solution to this. You can argue the reduced range means the bolter still has some utility over the meltagun, but I'd challenge that assertion given the huge lethality increase a meltagun provides and the tiny cost in our example. The exact ratios are not easy to determine, but that's not the same as things being impossible. If nobody is ever taking a weapon that is an upgrade over your basic gun you haven't costed it appropriately, by definition.

Even with all that said, GW's current solution still isn't the solution.

Flamers are an interesting one. GW has tried a few things. CSM had +2 flamers that were half the cost of plasma and melta. No one took them. AoO dropped points to zero. Do you know what people took? Cultists.

Making meltas 1 and everything else would STILL have people not taking them. Why? When you build your list what do you do? You fill in your basic requirements, which is the cheapest of the cheap. Then you do the rest of your list. THEN if you have points left over you start grabbing tertiary upgrades starting from the top - not the bottom.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
This thread has now had the claim that everybody took sponsons on their Russes, and any evidence to the contrary is a deepfake AND the claim that nobody took sponsons.

Slipspace wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 kodos wrote:
there is not much there on the Errata in the first place
if this is the Errata, meaning everything else is intended design choice and not a typo, the Index is a very bad joke

Please go read the article/watch the video.

It's still a half-assed errata. There are still major errors here that make some units non-functional. Reivers with Bolt Carbines still have no close combat weapon, for example.

Breton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


Like what? where is anything being "stealth updated"?

Runtherds are now T2 when being shot at in a Gretchin squad instead of Gretchin being T5.

I'd wager we can find a few more from the errata thread.

nou wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Also unambiguous. There is a reason the mnemonic PEDMAS exist. It reminds you of the correct answer. Not that it really has anything to do with 10th Ed Unit Upgrade philosophy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations#Mixed_division_and_multiplication

It's ambiguous because there is a conflict between the strict interpretation of the written numbers and symbols and the implicit meaning of the way they are written. Nitpicking that the common use is not technically correct is missing the point.

You are correct, though, that this has nothing to do with 40k. Not only does 40k not use any of this the riddles are deliberately stupid. In any real use of math you will have context for what the math represents and it will be obvious how you're supposed to interpret any ambiguity or conflict between literal and implicit representations. It's only relevant to obnoxious KIDS THESE DAYS CANT DO MATH CAN YOU SOLVE THIS?????? facebook memes shared by tech-illiterate boomers.

As others above wrote, there is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever in any of such riddles. Anybody who thinks otherwise should seriously reconsider their perspective on their math prowess. The linked wiki on mixed multiplication and division only applies to polynomials - there is no such thing as an implicit fraction bar for non-polynomial equations. If you see an inline notation of just numbers with a division in it, it is resolved in normal order of operations. You want it to be treated as a fraction bar? You have to use parentheses. Period. And no, you don't need a fething context to solve 2+2*2 properly. If there is no context given, it is resolved directly as written.

And while it no longer exists in 40k, why do you all think GW got rid of U melee strength and U strength modifiers? Exactly because of the order of operations causing problems and unnecessary disputes, especially since the wrong interpretation was the more advantageous one.

Andykp wrote:
How would anyone feel about bringing back random equipment tables that you pay the same for regardless of what you roll like we had in first edition? I enjoyed them, made designing your army into a game all of its own, I’m guessing it’s going to be “objectively” worse than choosing your equipment.