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.

 Stormonu wrote:
*shrug* You get what you paid for?

Honestly, GW has never really been good evaluating points as it is. And the mathhammer folks have been too good at squeezing every ounce out point disparities as it is. This rules and balance thing isn't GW's main gig, they just want you to buy (lots) of their cool models.

Now the pressure is on not to optimize too hard. If you do with the current point scale, you're going to run out of people who want to play against you mighty quick. It's an insidious but ingenious way to force the community to not take the game too seriously.

Huh? Isn't it the other way around now?
You might not have picked the best option (e.g. a flamer), but at least you didn't pay as much points for it? Now you have a worse loadout and not even get compensated for it.

The new system is completely stupid and greedy, as it punishes people who built things before in the only legal way to do it, only for them to change it and make those models useless (e.g. jetbikes used to be only one heavy weapon / 3 instead of the entire unit). Now it’s made utterly moronic to not upgrade them in effect obsoleting old models.

 tauist wrote:
Love it! Always liked PL better than points too, happy everyone is forced to using PL now. If other players get existential crisis when they think about either "cheesing the list to 11" or "nerfing their list on purpose by not taking the best upgardes", well, that is sad, but I don't make the rules. I pick the best looking options for my models, roll dice like always, win or lose

But please spare us with the "this dumbing down of the details is for idiots". It's for players who dont want 40K to be an excercise in mental gymnastics, this does not imply anything else about their intelligence, just about their preference for "hi brow/low brow" entertainment. All people, from the smartest to the dumbest, have a right to enjoy whatever brow they feel like at the moment

You realise that the change is not better for your kind of playstyle, right? Unless "I pick the best looking model" somehow always correlated to "the optimal loadout", you will still be at a (bigger?) disadvantage now, as you pay the same points as someone who does take the best stuff.

I'm torn what to feel about the "don't say it is getting dumbed down for idiots" part if you equate adding some small numbers together as an "excercise in mental gymnastics".

 tauist wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 tauist wrote:
Love it! Always liked PL better than points too, happy everyone is forced to using PL now. If other players get existential crisis when they think about either "cheesing the list to 11" or "nerfing their list on purpose by not taking the best upgardes", well, that is sad, but I don't make the rules. I pick the best looking options for my models, roll dice like always, win or lose

Sooooo.....you "like it' that everyone is forced into playing with your preferred system? Instead of offering both systems, as was offered in 8th/9th? Really like that "my side wins" feeling, don't ya?

Ahh, I believe I already had this discussion with another regular user on here? I like to write polarizing, baity snipe replies to hot topics, but rarely feel arsed enough to reply or discuss my opinions further. That's all you get from me this time. I have spoken.

So, you'll start the fire, but you yourself when the firefight comes. Noted.

I don't understand the sentiment that I have seen that this somehow improves peoples' options to take whatever they want on their models. To me it seems to do the opposite.

There are many options now that are just statistically worse to take. I'm citing it a lot, but Guard officers are objectively wrong to take any pistol that isnt a plasma pistol. Your fluffy bolt pistol commissars are just wrong now, even if that is the only weapon even in the latest kit.

As to the argument that a single pistol is not important: it is simply a microcosm of the problem over the whole range. A leman russ tank is pointed as if it has all the most powerful guns. This is the main reason that the new Russ costs are so high. If they were not pointed to come with multimeltas, hunterkillers, and stubbers, you may have been able to knock 20-30 points off of a bolter armed russ.

I'm not a fan as it actually reduces player freedom to build models how they want, as it is easy to make objectively wrong choices.

I think people are meaning they can build what they like on their models, but pick the most optimal set of choices from the rules for their army list, under the belief that WYSIWYG no longer matters.

 Dysartes wrote:
I think people are meaning they can build what they like on their models, but pick the most optimal set of choices from the rules for their army list, under the belief that WYSIWYG no longer matters.

That seems a bit like the system is so messed up, we are going to have to start ignoring basic 40k principles to cope with the changes.

I'm not arguing with you, just explaining what I think they're trying to express.

 Dysartes wrote:
I'm not arguing with you, just explaining what I think they're trying to express.

Oh I understand, I wasn't intending to argue.

Yea it's pretty bad to me that there's going to be one optimal build for each datasheet and everything else is a waste of money, points and hobby time.

It's okayish in AoS where most of the boxes were designed with the system in mind and it's usually a choice of 2 marginally different weapons and 1 in 5 dudes having a marginally better weapon. It's not okayish if you can festoon your tank with 3 extra free lascannons and if you do anything else you're an imbecile.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Yea it's pretty bad to me that there's going to be one optimal build for each datasheet and everything else is a waste of money, points and hobby time.

It's okayish in AoS where most of the boxes were designed with the system in mind and it's usually a choice of 2 marginally different weapons and 1 in 5 dudes having a marginally better weapon. It's not okayish if you can festoon your tank with 3 extra free lascannons and if you do anything else you're an imbecile.

I'm sure it'll be better by 12th edition once GW retires old legacy kits and we're stuck with kits with minimal options anyway

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

What is a sigmarine?

Sigmarine = Space Marine of Sigmar. It is a common nickname for Stormcast Eternals because people see them simply as SM ported into fantasy.

 Trickstick wrote:
I don't understand the sentiment that I have seen that this somehow improves peoples' options to take whatever they want on their models. To me it seems to do the opposite.

as I wrote before, this is about the collectors
those that use Codices as guideline on "what to collect" buy each box once and assembly what they think looks cool

and Power Levels and units options tied to box content only (as who on their right mind would collect 2 of the same boxes) make it much easier for those to actually play with that collection and give them more options
because someone using the weapons they liked the look of does not run into problems with list building and always has their 2k army

the gamers, that make an army list first and than buy the stuff for that and build it by having several of the same and combine weapons from different boxes is not the target group for GW and therefore the rules are not written to fit their needs

I'm a collector though, but I still feel that I'm being railroaded into building my models a certain way. My cool urban combat tanks, which have no sponsons for moving down narrow streets, are punished by the rules. I'm being told that the way I have built things is objectively wrong.

I don't see how this system is anything but worse for someone who build their models without worrying about points costs. How is it an improvement? They are just paying more for not taking the mathematically optimal loadouts.

This is basically the same problem as the unit numbers change. A russ without sponsons is like paying for 10 models and using 7.

but you assume that the collectors know the mathematical best and wort option

or that those even have the rules or read that part of the Codex

there are people that look on the pic of an SM company, buy it, paint it, play 1 game and continue with the other army in the 2 player set

there are people who just don't care because they never really play or care about the best options in game
and this is also a reason why they are attracted to the GW because anyone else has their rules written as game first while for GW this is the least important part

also those people will explain to you that such things don't matter because 40k is all about the background and the fun and only WAAC & TFG care about mathematical best options
(a reason why 9th was not for me, as I am a collector but a gamer as well and this is not a game I like to play although I would like to collect an army)

 kodos wrote:
also those people will explain to you that such things don't matter because 40k is all about the background and the fun and only WAAC & TFG care about mathematical best options
(a reason why 9th was not for me, as I am a collector but a gamer as well and this is not a game I like to play although I would like to collect an army)

Oh boyo, 10th edition will be hell for you... Because now WAAC & TFG don't have to churn out those best options, they get 'em for free. And if you don't exploit the shameless min/maxing then the game puts you at a disadvantage due to the min/maxing being baked into your points costs. So not only do you have to suffer the super-easy min/maxing but literally get punished for not doing it yourself.

 kodos wrote:
but you assume that the collectors know the mathematical best and wort option

or that those even have the rules or read that part of the Codex

there are people that look on the pic of an SM company, buy it, paint it, play 1 game and continue with the other army in the 2 player set

there are people who just don't care because they never really play or care about the best options in game
and this is also a reason why they are attracted to the GW because anyone else has their rules written as game first while for GW this is the least important part

also those people will explain to you that such things don't matter because 40k is all about the background and the fun and only WAAC & TFG care about mathematical best options
(a reason why 9th was not for me, as I am a collector but a gamer as well and this is not a game I like to play although I would like to collect an army)

"The new rules are better for people who don't use the rules" is a bit of a dud argument

 Dysartes wrote:
I think people are meaning they can build what they like on their models, but pick the most optimal set of choices from the rules for their army list, under the belief that WYSIWYG no longer matters.

Or that before generally upgrades were best to kept to minimum. Boys before toy. You were penaisea hard by taking upgrades.


Optimal build is always so if you want optimised list you have 1 build and that's it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 kodos wrote:
also those people will explain to you that such things don't matter because 40k is all about the background and the fun and only WAAC & TFG care about mathematical best options
(a reason why 9th was not for me, as I am a collector but a gamer as well and this is not a game I like to play although I would like to collect an army)

Oh boyo, 10th edition will be hell for you... Because now WAAC & TFG don't have to churn out those best options, they get 'em for free. And if you don't exploit the shameless min/maxing then the game puts you at a disadvantage due to the min/maxing being baked into your points costs. So not only do you have to suffer the super-easy min/maxing but literally get punished for not doing it yourself.

Well luckily i don't play vs that kind of people and get to laugh them paying for all those optimals. And chucke knowing the optimal changes.

And no count as won't go. Want that 10 dc fist&inferno pistol? Models have to have them

 lord_blackfang wrote:
"The new rules are better for people who don't use the rules" is a bit of a dud argument

and the one I haven seen most often by now regarding 10th and why it is already better than anything before
because it is all about playing the game you love and not care about the rules (but dare to suggest not using the official rules as this would kill all the fun)

 AtoMaki wrote:
Oh boyo, 10th edition will be hell for you... Because now WAAC & TFG don't have to churn out those best options, they get 'em for free. And if you don't exploit the shameless min/maxing then the game puts you at a disadvantage due to the min/maxing being baked into your points costs. So not only do you have to suffer the super-easy min/maxing but literally get punished for not doing it yourself.

well, I am already out and maybe try again when Codex SW hits

and that some fanboys suggested that my collection is not unplayable because I can run them as Primaris instead (just use your Wulfen as Bladguard and throw the Wolfscouts away and buy Reivers) showed me that it is not worth even trying to get into for now

 Trickstick wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I'm not arguing with you, just explaining what I think they're trying to express.

Oh I understand, I wasn't intending to argue.

Plus, I think people were already fudging WYSIWYG a little especially on smaller bits like pistols. Heck I think they're even starting to build the models with this sort of thing in mind - Most BGV are defaul/posed with the sword out and the pistol holstered.

Mixed I guess, but largely leaning towards "hate it".

I think built in "upgrades" when you're actively seeking to encourage fluff-consistent builds (e.g. special and heavy weapon in Tactical Squads), or are actively making an effort to create some sort of parity beyond alternatives (give people a reason to take melta/plasma/flamer depending on what you want the unit to do) is largely fine.

But then when there's "optional" stuff which is VERY CLEARLY an absolute no brainer, because it's and undeniable quantitative improvement (e.g. a unit of 7 Plague Marines is 43% more expensive per model than if you've taken 5 or 10; a Leman Russ doesn't always have sponsons but there's literally no downside to taking them cos you're getting free extra heavy weapons) then I think it's actively contributing to a situation where people are penalised for trying to create fun, interesting or fluffy units/armies outside of some extremely narrow parameters.

I think the way the last Guard book did it was about right tbh – heavy/special weapons costs baked into the units, but then undeniable upgrades like plasma pistols or sponsons were an additional cost.

BrianDavion wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Yea it's pretty bad to me that there's going to be one optimal build for each datasheet and everything else is a waste of money, points and hobby time.

It's okayish in AoS where most of the boxes were designed with the system in mind and it's usually a choice of 2 marginally different weapons and 1 in 5 dudes having a marginally better weapon. It's not okayish if you can festoon your tank with 3 extra free lascannons and if you do anything else you're an imbecile.

I'm sure it'll be better by 12th edition once GW retires old legacy kits and we're stuck with kits with minimal options anyway

Is this a serious post?

It'll be better when they've removed unit options and upgrades from the game?

no, but GW makes rules to fit the most recent kits and does not care about old stuff or veteran players using the old stuff instead of buying the shiny new one

which is a reason why AoS works better than 40k, there are no real legacy items any more, just models that are designed with AoS in mind while over 2 editions those that did not fit were removed

so GW should finally remove the old Marines from 40k, this would not only cut the datasheets and remove bloat but also removes problems that the kits don't fit the rules

 Insectum7 wrote:
It'll be better when they've removed unit options and upgrades from the game?

It's the endgame.

Warcry is what GW wants their games to be: Set units, set models, even set terrain set ups. If they'd've been able to get away with that with Necromunda, they would have.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
It'll be better when they've removed unit options and upgrades from the game?

It's the endgame.

Warcry is what GW wants their games to be: Set units, set models, even set terrain set ups. If they'd've been able to get away with that with Necromunda, they would have.

Come to Horus Heresy, we have 20 pages of guns each with a points cost!

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
It'll be better when they've removed unit options and upgrades from the game?

It's the endgame.

Warcry is what GW wants their games to be: Set units, set models, even set terrain set ups. If they'd've been able to get away with that with Necromunda, they would have.

Come to Horus Heresy, we have 20 pages of guns each with a points cost!

And ten pages of them are even Bolters, just like God the Emperor intended.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
It'll be better when they've removed unit options and upgrades from the game?

It's the endgame.

Warcry is what GW wants their games to be: Set units, set models, even set terrain set ups. If they'd've been able to get away with that with Necromunda, they would have.

Come to Horus Heresy, we have 20 pages of guns each with a points cost!

Alas, HH does not currently have rules for the armies I play.

 vipoid wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
It'll be better when they've removed unit options and upgrades from the game?

It's the endgame.

Warcry is what GW wants their games to be: Set units, set models, even set terrain set ups. If they'd've been able to get away with that with Necromunda, they would have.

Come to Horus Heresy, we have 20 pages of guns each with a points cost!

Alas, HH does not currently have rules for the armies I play.

well, panoptica exists, and then there's the fact that you could run an eldar codex from the past editions.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
It'll be better when they've removed unit options and upgrades from the game?

It's the endgame.

Warcry is what GW wants their games to be: Set units, set models, even set terrain set ups. If they'd've been able to get away with that with Necromunda, they would have.

Come to Horus Heresy, we have 20 pages of guns each with a points cost!

Alas, HH does not currently have rules for the armies I play.

well, panoptica exists, and then there's the fact that you could run an eldar codex from the past editions.

HH 2.0 is different enough that you'd have to make adjustments.
It'd be a good BASE, but you cannot play it as-is.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
It'll be better when they've removed unit options and upgrades from the game?

It's the endgame.

Warcry is what GW wants their games to be: Set units, set models, even set terrain set ups. If they'd've been able to get away with that with Necromunda, they would have.

Come to Horus Heresy, we have 20 pages of guns each with a points cost!

Alas, HH does not currently have rules for the armies I play.

well, panoptica exists, and then there's the fact that you could run an eldar codex from the past editions.

HH 2.0 is different enough that you'd have to make adjustments.
It'd be a good BASE, but you cannot play it as-is.

Movement stat and unit type. And all relevant unit types for eldar exist to my knowledge. after that some deine tuning of points and psy and you'd be pretty golden afaik.