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.

I would be opposed to any kind of side board or ability to change your list once you've seen your opponents. Even as an IOM player I'm not a big fan of being able to pick which assassin I want popping up and I don't like the idea of that expanding.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

There is a rumour that GW wanted to drop points for 8th entirely, and that the Playtest group threatened to cause an internet storm about it, so GW shoehorned in Matched Play and points. If 9th scraps points GW are going to lose a lot of their undeserved good will.

I mean, this would explain an awful lot.

It's hard enough carrying a 2k Guard army as it is. Add in sideboarding and I think I would turn into a packhorse. Also, I can only imagine how much extra time it would add to a game. HAve you ever played against an indecisive person trying to write a list before a game? Not an experience to encourage.

 alextroy wrote:
I think the key to getting "competitive" armies to look more like "fluffy" armies is to revise how points are done rather than toss them overboard for Power Level. If some of the value of upgrades was baked into the base cost of the unit and then the upgrade cost were reduced, you would be incentivized to take more upgrades.

For example, let's take a Astra Militarum Infantry Squad. They are 4 points a model for 10 models, so 40 points. They are often fielded barebones or with just a Mortar (5 points). You never see a Vox Caster and rarely a special weapon.

Now change the points cost of the unit to 50 for 10 models. Reduce the cost of the voxcaster, special weapons, and heavy weapons by 5 points each (except for Sargent weapons). I bet you will see a lot more special and heavy weapons and voxcasters under such a point schedule.

I suspect you'd still see people cutting corners, thing with the guard is at their level of price point even saving a point per squad can add up quickly.

Allowing you to change loadouts between games will never happen. The administration necessary to police that, let alone how much extra storage that would require is frankly mind boggling. A single space marine Dev squad would require you to bring AT LEAST 13 models.

Also, coming from Sigmar, all that happens is you take the best upgrades every time. It works and it's fine, but that's all it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I think the key to getting "competitive" armies to look more like "fluffy" armies is to revise how points are done rather than toss them overboard for Power Level. If some of the value of upgrades was baked into the base cost of the unit and then the upgrade cost were reduced, you would be incentivized to take more upgrades.

For example, let's take a Astra Militarum Infantry Squad. They are 4 points a model for 10 models, so 40 points. They are often fielded barebones or with just a Mortar (5 points). You never see a Vox Caster and rarely a special weapon.

Now change the points cost of the unit to 50 for 10 models. Reduce the cost of the voxcaster, special weapons, and heavy weapons by 5 points each (except for Sargent weapons). I bet you will see a lot more special and heavy weapons and voxcasters under such a point schedule.

I suspect you'd still see people cutting corners, thing with the guard is at their level of price point even saving a point per squad can add up quickly.

The greater likelyhood is that either the unit is dropped altogether, or even MORE upgrades get cut to pay for the actual valuable part of a guardsman (the body).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

There is a rumour that GW wanted to drop points for 8th entirely, and that the Playtest group threatened to cause an internet storm about it, so GW shoehorned in Matched Play and points. If 9th scraps points GW are going to lose a lot of their undeserved good will.

I mean, this would explain an awful lot.

No it wouldn't. They learned what happens when you try to take out points from the launch of Sigmar.

This is just someone with a grudge trying to convince the gullible to demonize the playtesters.

ERJAK wrote:
This is just someone with a grudge trying to convince the gullible to demonize the playtesters.

How is that demonizing the playtesters? GW wanted to do something idiotic and potentially catastrophic, the playtesters used their available leverage to make GW do the right thing. The playtesters are the heroes of this (alleged) story!

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
I think it would be perfectly reasonable to try to abstract things to maybe 5 point increments (in a 2k point game, it's got to be near-impossible to identify a 1-point difference in power) or something like that, but there are just so many roles removed by doing power levels as they stand. Jump packs might add 1 PL cost, while a heavy weapon might not add any cost. I like running stripped down units, esp. for troops, and throw my points where I think they'll be most effective; I'd really rather not have the equivalent of building in the price of upgrades and then getting to pick them, rather than the option to take them or not, to begin with.

And I'd rather not look across the table at 3 5 man scout squads somebody took so they could dump all their points in the same "uber" units. In a perfect world, I'd prefer they fix power level which would require balancing all the units and options- meaning the points you scrimped on Troops with would be just as viable and useful in the troops slot now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
I think the key to getting "competitive" armies to look more like "fluffy" armies is to revise how points are done rather than toss them overboard for Power Level. If some of the value of upgrades was baked into the base cost of the unit and then the upgrade cost were reduced, you would be incentivized to take more upgrades.

For example, let's take a Astra Militarum Infantry Squad. They are 4 points a model for 10 models, so 40 points. They are often fielded barebones or with just a Mortar (5 points). You never see a Vox Caster and rarely a special weapon.

Now change the points cost of the unit to 50 for 10 models. Reduce the cost of the voxcaster, special weapons, and heavy weapons by 5 points each (except for Sargent weapons). I bet you will see a lot more special and heavy weapons and voxcasters under such a point schedule.

What makes you think upgrades are fluffy? For example lets take the Astra Militarum Squad. How often do you read about a Sergeant with a power sword in the books? Of course, some upgrades are fluffier than others. Also people keep trying to conflate fluffy and stereotypical Battalion Force Org. I can make a very fairly fluffy 2000 point list with Chronus, 2 techmarines, 2 landraiders, 3 predators, 4 razorbacks, 2 Land speeders, and 3 Whirlwinds. In fact I had to make it less fluffy because of the rule of three introduced for balance, I had to swap predators for Whirlwinds and Landspeeders. The only two infrantry models are the Techmarines, but it's fluffy. Ravenwing and Deathwing lists will also be fluffy but not particularly Battalion-ish. The "point" of going power level over points is to try and reduce disparity between various units. and options so taking something different doesn't mean taking something worse.

As for seeing more special and heavy weapons, I doubt it. Players will still look down their nose at the troop slot. They'll still prefer to spend those 5 points in the elite, fast, or heavy slots. In some cases it's justified, in some cases its just silly prejudice.

I'm generally quite happy with less granular points systems, like what you see in warmachine/hordes. A squad of x is 5pts for min size, 8pts for max size. I generally prefer less granular systems, we deal with rough systems, I don't think increased granularity adds much.

It worked in WMH, and could potentially work in 40k but there are caveats. In WMH, squad options are fixed. An iron fang is an iron fang, and always has a blasting pike. There is no swapping it for x, or upgrading to y for z points. Closest thing you have to these kinds of upgrades is Some squads have 'attachment' options for officers (more in game abilities to the squad' or weapon attachments ('special weapons' e.g. Winter guard rocketeer is a wa for the winter guard infantry squad).
Secondly, there are sideboard options in WMH, or there were, in some formats back in mk2. Some tournaments had a thing where you had 20% of your points as a side board that you could swap out. It added a lot of tactical flexibility and did help alleviate those 'gotcha!' Match ups and hard counters. Still, it was far easier to manage with WMH's less granular points system and lack of upgrades.

Also multiple-list tournaments are the norm in WMH.

Now, here's the thing. I probably prefer power levels over points in gw games for several reasons. Gw points are not balanced either. And never will be. For me, for either, you need to have the 'communication phase' an work out with the guy across the table what you both want out of the game to make it fair. So for me, if I am going to be doing that anyway, I'd rather les granular accounting than more granular accounting, because that's simply what I prefer, based on my years of WMH.

Now that said, is 'power level' a straight 'port' from the list-building and options you see in WMH. No it is not. It's different. It could work, but it would require a lot of core changes to the game and how you can build your army and would in a lot of ways, change the nature of 40k. In the end, it wouldn't be 'power level'. And I don't know if it should worth it.

Deadnight wrote:
I'm generally quite happy with less granular points systems, like what you see in warmachine/hordes. A squad of x is 5pts for min size, 8pts for max size. I generally prefer less granular systems, we deal with rough systems, I don't think increased granularity adds much.

Yeah, Warmachine used to (back in Mk1) be much more granular, with 40K-like unit costs. They switched to a less granular system, and I don't think there was anything lost. Granted, Warmachine doesn't have the plethora of upgrades to units that 40K does.

Granular points systems can work if the granularity actually leads to more balance. As it stands now, it really doesn't in 40K. Plenty of weapon options are overcosted or undercosted, so a reduction in granularity wouldn't change all that much. There are lots of no-brainer 1pt upgrades that you might as well make free.

Power level was a good idea, but the lack of representation of any options just kills it as a balancing mechanism. Using power level, there is no reason for me to take Termagants with Fleshborers over Devourers, as the Devourers are better in every single way, but under the points system double the cost of the unit. I'm not looking to min-max the system, but the whole point of a balancing mechanism like points or power level or whatever is to represent the relative power of units, and without taking upgrades into account it doesn't work. Two 50PL armies can be radically different in effectiveness if one is full of upgrades and the other isn't.

Apocalypse is trying a hybrid approach and I suspect it might be what GW does in 9th Ed. It has the '10 models/20 models/30 models' scaling from the power level system, but heavy weapons and unit upgrades have additional costs. Combine this with some baked-in minor upgrades and I think it'd work for 40K.

Or, more simply: I suspect that you could divide all point costs by 5, using the fixed unit sizes a la AoS/Apoc/PL to account for fractions, and rounding all weapon upgrades/options to the nearest whole number, without significantly impacting balance.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
currently it seems silly to me that so many squads go in with no upgrades, or if they do it is because a weapon is just that much better for the points.

As opposed to power-levels, which gives us a situation where there's no reason to take a lot of upgrades because their main advantage was being cheap. Instead, just pick the best most expensive upgrades because under the power-level system they both cost the exact same anyway.

I can see it happening, personally. Maybe not in 8.5/9th, but absolutely it's where the game is headed.

GW is headed in the "less options" direction in their kits, and a lot of "monopose" style builds, squads, etc. I keep joking to my buddies who don't play WYSIWYG....that we'll all be playing that way soon. Once GW gets to the "buy this box...they have this" level on more kits and army, points will become less important.

That'd be quite the sad day for the hobby tbh.

Oh I concur, I'm not actually following GW forward with their new production style/plan. I have my armies and I'm done....but it's very clear the emphasis is on less options, easier and more straight forward, etc.

ERJAK wrote:
No it wouldn't. They learned what happens when you try to take out points from the launch of Sigmar.

Er . . . you are aware that Power Level in 40k is basically identical to Points in Age of Sigmar, right?

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
No it wouldn't. They learned what happens when you try to take out points from the launch of Sigmar.

Er . . . you are aware that Power Level in 40k is basically identical to Points in Age of Sigmar, right?

Age of Sigmar didn't have points on launch. They had a system that, no exaggeration, amounted to 'take whatever models you like, and whoever has fewer models gets a small bonus'. The backlash was incredible, and a big part of why many Fantasy players abandoned the game entirely rather than switch. GW realized pretty quickly that their fans want a balancing mechanism for the game, and added points about a year later.

The idea that GW only wanted PL for 40K, but added points due to backlash from playtesters, wouldn't surprise me one bit.

catbarf wrote:

Age of Sigmar didn't have points on launch. They had a system that, no exaggeration, amounted to 'take whatever models you like, and whoever has fewer models gets a small bonus'. The backlash was incredible, and a big part of why many Fantasy players abandoned the game entirely rather than switch. GW realized pretty quickly that their fans want a balancing mechanism for the game, and added points about a year later.

Oh, believe me, I'm well aware of AoS's complete lack of any points system when it was first released.

However, what I meant was that even the current "Points" system is basically identical to Power Level in 40k. Units are bought in bundles (you pay to add 5 or 10 extra models to a unit, rather than paying for each individual model), and all options and upgrades are completely free.

 TheFleshIsWeak wrote:

catbarf wrote:

Age of Sigmar didn't have points on launch. They had a system that, no exaggeration, amounted to 'take whatever models you like, and whoever has fewer models gets a small bonus'. The backlash was incredible, and a big part of why many Fantasy players abandoned the game entirely rather than switch. GW realized pretty quickly that their fans want a balancing mechanism for the game, and added points about a year later.

Oh, believe me, I'm well aware of AoS's complete lack of any points system when it was first released.

However, what I meant was that even the current "Points" system is basically identical to Power Level in 40k. Units are bought in bundles (you pay to add 5 or 10 extra models to a unit, rather than paying for each individual model), and all options and upgrades are completely free.

Well, I figured the person you were replying to knows how it works, since they specified the launch of Sigmar.

One thing I've noticed with AoS is that the upgrades and options tend not to have the same impact as they do in 40K. On a unit of Freeguild Guard, I can take shields, or halberds, or spears, and they're all roughly equivalent. On a unit of Astra Militarum Infantry, whether I run them bare or take a meltagun and lascannon makes a big difference. AoS's options tend to be wargear choices for the whole unit and roughly equivalent in effectiveness, while 40K's options tend to be additional capabilities and increase a unit's effectiveness at a cost. That, I think, is why the AoS-style Power Level system doesn't work for 40K, even though I think it's a great change and works really well for AoS.

 Melissia wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
currently it seems silly to me that so many squads go in with no upgrades, or if they do it is because a weapon is just that much better for the points.

As opposed to power-levels, which gives us a situation where there's no reason to take a lot of upgrades because their main advantage was being cheap. Instead, just pick the best most expensive upgrades because under the power-level system they both cost the exact same anyway.

Assuming, once they do switch, one same price option is universally better than the others. The trick to Power Level will be balancing the options. I did the math somewhere else but Stalker Bolt Rifles and Rapid Firing Regular Bolt Rifles work out to about the same damage output against T4 3+ MEQ's. - The Auto Bolt Rifles still suck - especially being more expensive, and not covered by the new Beta Bolter Rule.

If all the options are similar to Bolt/Stalker Bolt Rifle comparisons almost identical baseline, with a small situational divergence, or Power Level costed i.e. Jump Packs Power Level works, and I'd far prefer power level over points. In Points, if I decide I want to change up my list, I have to redo the whole thing because I'll need to steal some points from Unit A to pay for the new load on Unit B, or whatever. With Power level I can change it up, and try something different without having to write a new list and chase 5-10 points through 6 different units as I end up 20 points over and under trying to hit the magic number.

If they rebalance the options so they're all equally valuable in their given role, so they're all the same points - then power level is points, just instead of having to add and subtract 10-20 power level for a list change you'd add and subtract 150-300 points. At that stage, points are probably better for the same reason a D10 based system is better than D6. There's more room to differentiate.

Breton wrote:
If all the options are similar to Bolt/Stalker Bolt Rifle comparisons almost identical baseline, with a small situational divergence, or Power Level costed i.e. Jump Packs Power Level works, and I'd far prefer power level over points. In Points, if I decide I want to change up my list, I have to redo the whole thing because I'll need to steal some points from Unit A to pay for the new load on Unit B, or whatever. With Power level I can change it up, and try something different without having to write a new list and chase 5-10 points through 6 different units as I end up 20 points over and under trying to hit the magic number.

But that's not how it would work. If everything is identical in effectiveness then it's going to have the same point cost and you can easily do a 1:1 swap. The only time you'll have to adjust your list is if the options you're swapping aren't equally powerful and you're trying to make a stronger list without paying the points for it.

 Peregrine wrote:

Breton wrote:
If all the options are similar to Bolt/Stalker Bolt Rifle comparisons almost identical baseline, with a small situational divergence, or Power Level costed i.e. Jump Packs Power Level works, and I'd far prefer power level over points. In Points, if I decide I want to change up my list, I have to redo the whole thing because I'll need to steal some points from Unit A to pay for the new load on Unit B, or whatever. With Power level I can change it up, and try something different without having to write a new list and chase 5-10 points through 6 different units as I end up 20 points over and under trying to hit the magic number.

But that's not how it would work. If everything is identical in effectiveness then it's going to have the same point cost and you can easily do a 1:1 swap. The only time you'll have to adjust your list is if the options you're swapping aren't equally powerful and you're trying to make a stronger list without paying the points for it.

Yeah, I was editing at the same time you were posting to make a similar point, with a little more depth too. Assuming they balance the options within units - Power Level with it's smaller numbers would be nice in the way that if you wanted to replace intercessors with infiltrators - which currently have a 1 PL difference, you only have to juggle the 1 PL in your head, going from - for example - a Venerable Dread to a Regular Dread. In the current points version, you'd have to juggle 60 points, Which would be the Dread swap, plus more points in wargear. In this hypothetical points system where it's all balanced and 1 PL = X points so in this case 1 PL = 60 points and a Venerable Dread should/would be 60 points more than a regular one - you have to juggle double digit math in your head. Not that difficult for most people, but still a drawback. The plus side is the difference between the 1PL of a Dread to a Venerable Dread, and the 1PL from an Intercessor to an Infiltrator probably aren't the same power level (The measurable performance as opposed to Power Level the stat) making the points system with 1000-2000 points vs 50-150 Power Level give a much more graduated and smoother performance curve.

The problem PL faces, is that not all the Army are made under that rule system. Some have loads of upgrades, other have none.
And where you point the ability to switch is a huge deal for any game where you want balance.
Space marines often have a bunch of options, Do we start accounting for that ability in PL.

Really power level is just a points system, its closer to other games. But in the GW way of not really putting the effort in.

If they went to a pure PL system, with a sideboard. I would still think they should have a two point system or the change probably would be meaningless.
Have 100PL 20UP games, where you get 20 points to upgrade.
Things like a farseer can use up 2UP and 3UP with a spear. For there high utlility, and the autarchs can use no UP with a bunch of upgrades to make them work better with there aspects. If GW was willing to work with it, and plan ahead for the system it could work.

Things like devstators could have a slight high Points cost, but a low Upgrade cost.
Why a tac squad a lower points, but its a flat full point for heavy upgrade, and 1 for 2 special.
A lot of the unit upgrades could be used a bit like mini charecters.
And only gods know how you would work out things like knight armys >.<

Apple fox wrote:
The problem PL faces, is that not all the Army are made under that rule system. Some have loads of upgrades, other have none.
And where you point the ability to switch is a huge deal for any game where you want balance.
Space marines often have a bunch of options, Do we start accounting for that ability in PL.

Really power level is just a points system, its closer to other games. But in the GW way of not really putting the effort in.

If they went to a pure PL system, with a sideboard. I would still think they should have a two point system or the change probably would be meaningless.
Have 100PL 20UP games, where you get 20 points to upgrade.
Things like a farseer can use up 2UP and 3UP with a spear. For there high utlility, and the autarchs can use no UP with a bunch of upgrades to make them work better with there aspects. If GW was willing to work with it, and plan ahead for the system it could work.

Things like devstators could have a slight high Points cost, but a low Upgrade cost.
Why a tac squad a lower points, but its a flat full point for heavy upgrade, and 1 for 2 special.
A lot of the unit upgrades could be used a bit like mini charecters.
And only gods know how you would work out things like knight armys >.<

Power Level is absolutely a points system. The upgrade thing you mentioned is sporadic - go back to the Intercessors. They have three options of which they will always take one. Technically they have another option- the Aux GL's but they're not really relevant (as they're free, have no drawback and more or less pre-baked-in to the squad cost already) Those three options should all be roughly equivalent. Two of them currently are. Take the Tactical Squad, they have two places (Sgt and Heavy) they can take about 8 different options, and 1 place (Special) they can take about 4 Regardless one can assume/expect/encourage/build-in-the-idea-of they will take SOME option in each of those three places. So first you balance the option choices against each other so they're of relatively equal value - and build the power level around 5 + 2 Options/10 + 3 Options.

There are two types of two types of options - Squad wide, or X per unit - and must take one of the following, or may take.

Auto/Stalker/Bolt Rifles are Must Take One Of, and Squad wide. So all three should balance against each other with no Power Level Price difference to the unit - this is ideal.Then squads can be just like lego bricks, and you just pick one up and push down another.

Jump Packs for assault marines are May Take Squad Wide. You have the option of making not taking jump packs as valid as taking them - or adding a power level price bump. Currently Jump Packs at a 1/2 Power Level bump- previous editions stressed Assault Squads who didn't take Jump Packs could take a Rhino as a Dedicated Transport. A Rhino is Power Level 4 - So either keep the Jump Packs as a 1/2 PL bump, or improve them to be worth 4PL and bake in a Rhino (Plus make them as effective jumping out of a Rhino as they are jumping around on jump packs) Keeping them as a PL1/2 increase is probably easiest and best rather than forcing someone into a two unit combo.

Devastator Squads - Up to 4 per unit, May Take - I've seen lists that didn't take the full four, but not very often. Build their Power Level and options with the assumption they will take 4 and make all options balanced as either excellent at one role, or pretty good but not great at all given roles. Devastators will be tricky in that their four options have traditionally come in the first five and the second five were a combat squad/ablative wounds. If the power level is X for 5, 2X for 10, that won't work, unless you get 2 Heavies for each 5, which will also make some people unhappy. If Tacticals are 9 - 5 then 4 Power Level - Devs might be 8 and 3.

Bike Squads are one of the examples for why Power Level is bad. The first three are 5 - because of the Sergeant and his upgrades - the next 3 are 4PL - OR - the next 5 are 6PL. - They're setting a basic 3 bikers are worth 4 PL 1.33 PL per model price point- however that middle 5 are only 6 - 1.2 PL per model. Looking at it another way - you're paying 1.33 PL for the first 6(8 total) Bikes, plus 1(Now 9 Total) PL for Sgt Upgrades (Including stats and wargear) and two specials- then you pay 1PL for TWO bikes. Discount Shopping! This is the argument for points. PL isn't fractional and doesn't have enough room to graduate choice value on units like this - if they want to break up the upgrades like this. It works if it's 2 groups of 4, at 5/4 but not as currently.

 Melissia wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:
currently it seems silly to me that so many squads go in with no upgrades, or if they do it is because a weapon is just that much better for the points.

As opposed to power-levels, which gives us a situation where there's no reason to take a lot of upgrades because their main advantage was being cheap. Instead, just pick the best most expensive upgrades because under the power-level system they both cost the exact same anyway.

the assumption is reworking weapons to be more equal. sure currently if a heavy bolter as is vs a missile launcher you would always take the missile launcher or lascannon. but if the heavy bolter were to receive a mild power increase and the missle launcher and lascannon a decrease it would not be a case of "best weapon" rather best tool for the job,

example of possible new profiles

Missile Launcher becomes krak heavy 1 S8 AP-2 D2 frag being heavy 3 S4 AP-1 D1

Heavy Bolter becomes Heavy 4 S5 AP-1 D1

Las Cannon becomes Heavy S9 AP-3 D3

suddenly the heavy bolter is a better against troops than either the ML or Lascannon, Lascannon is better than both at tanks and the ML maintains its dual purpose. but I don't think either one sticks out as the "best" gun.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

the assumption is reworking weapons to be more equal. sure currently if a heavy bolter as is vs a missile launcher you would always take the missile launcher or lascannon. but if the heavy bolter were to receive a mild power increase and the missle launcher and lascannon a decrease it would not be a case of "best weapon" rather best tool for the job,

example of possible new profiles

Missile Launcher becomes krak heavy 1 S8 AP-2 D2 frag being heavy 3 S4 AP-1 D1

Heavy Bolter becomes Heavy 4 S5 AP-1 D1

Las Cannon becomes Heavy S9 AP-3 D3

suddenly the heavy bolter is a better against troops than either the ML or Lascannon, Lascannon is better than both at tanks and the ML maintains its dual purpose. but I don't think either one sticks out as the "best" gun.

I like the ML suggestion. But I still think HBs should be RF2, for Astartes at least. It would combo well with the Bolter Discipline rule so that:
A) You get 4 shots if stationary at 36", or all the time at 18"
B) You have the option to move without suffering -1 to hit (particularly good for Attack Bikes and Land Speeders)

As to "killing the hobby", I think a PL only system could work and actually ENCOURAGE some hobby aspects.
You would basically have a PL for a minimum "vanilla" unit, then add PLs to make them upgraded.
The difference between that and Points, is that all Wargear would cost the same, so you take what you want and your list stays the same total PL.

That should open up plenty of hobby opportunities without making those options "free" as they are in the current PL system.

-

 Peregrine wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
This is just someone with a grudge trying to convince the gullible to demonize the playtesters.

How is that demonizing the playtesters? GW wanted to do something idiotic and potentially catastrophic, the playtesters used their available leverage to make GW do the right thing. The playtesters are the heroes of this (alleged) story!

I'd argue GW is at least as much a hero.

GW had a theory. They committed to that theory. They started to execute.

Feedback game back: you're dumb.

Most orgs (and indiviudals) double down when called dumb.

GW pivoted away from their half-baked theory.

If the story is true, I see it as more positive on GW than negative.

That said, they still did "Power Levels" as a midground between "Play however many of whatever kits you buy" and "Sure, you can take four Lascannons in a squad of doods, but you gotta pay for them".

I think Points, Power Levels, and Open Play make a lot more sense seen as a continuum. We want to throw our toys on the table and fight.
-At it's most basic, just throw all your toys on the table, and duke it out.
-Some people will have moar/betterer toys than other people. So only bring about as much power (levels) as the opponent. Here's a quick number for each box of doods/kit. Quickly work that out, and it'll be reasonably balanced.
-Some people care enough about the relative power of LasCannon vs Boltgun or Brightlance vs Scatter Laser to find more balanced games by pointing out each choice. So here are granular per-upgrade points.

You could continually subdivide the brackets anywhere you want, to provide more ways to play to make more people happy at specific places. But it dilutes the overall "How do you play?" discussion. So going beyond 3 is too much bloat (some would argue even 3 is too much bloat).

I would further state that the problem is that their "points" bracket isn't quite right, both because some options are off in points (Tac Marines, for example), and because they aren't as granular as they should be (Captain Power Sword vs Sarge Power Sword example). The first is a flaw in execution, the second is a tradeoff with bloat. I'd like to see them both "fixed", but that's where your problem is.

Less granular "pointing" will decrease variety, not increase it. (unless it comes with complementary streamlining of the rules - if a PG and MG did exactly the same thing, no need to point them differently. But such a streamline would be terrible.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

the assumption is reworking weapons to be more equal. sure currently if a heavy bolter as is vs a missile launcher you would always take the missile launcher or lascannon. but if the heavy bolter were to receive a mild power increase and the missle launcher and lascannon a decrease it would not be a case of "best weapon" rather best tool for the job,

example of possible new profiles

Missile Launcher becomes krak heavy 1 S8 AP-2 D2 frag being heavy 3 S4 AP-1 D1

Heavy Bolter becomes Heavy 4 S5 AP-1 D1

Las Cannon becomes Heavy S9 AP-3 D3

suddenly the heavy bolter is a better against troops than either the ML or Lascannon, Lascannon is better than both at tanks and the ML maintains its dual purpose. but I don't think either one sticks out as the "best" gun.

I like the ML suggestion. But I still think HBs should be RF2, for Astartes at least. It would combo well with the Bolter Discipline rule so that:
A) You get 4 shots if stationary at 36", or all the time at 18"
B) You have the option to move without suffering -1 to hit (particularly good for Attack Bikes and Land Speeders)

As to "killing the hobby", I think a PL only system could work and actually ENCOURAGE some hobby aspects.
You would basically have a PL for a minimum "vanilla" unit, then add PLs to make them upgraded.
The difference between that and Points, is that all Wargear would cost the same, so you take what you want and your list stays the same total PL.

That should open up plenty of hobby opportunities without making those options "free" as they are in the current PL system.

-

IOW, all options should be worth equal points, but better in different scenarios.
That's not a "Points vs PL" debate; that's a "Do options vary in power" debate. Either system does that. However, if you get to the point where it's true across the board, PL and Points would have the same exact ratio, so would be the exact same thing just different units.

I'm still very much not sold on the "Nobody should ever decide not to upgrade". Or on the "No upgrade should ever be more powerful". I'm still smarting from the "A splinter of the legendary Anaris, used as a Sword, is no more powerful than this other random sword that catches on fire". I *want* to be able to give my Sarge or Exarch a melee weapon to *upgrade* them for points. I want the Fire Pike to be "Meltagun but better" - and cost more points for it. I *want* to be able to have two squads with different points-quality of gear.

There are pros and cons to both systems. The PL system is fine for more casual games at a friends house or at the store where you're playing with someone else's models. However, it simply doesn't work at a competitive level in my opinion.

At many tournaments and such you're expected to register your lists ahead of time. Players don't need to take excess models for the most part. Players are forced to take more 'balanced' lists overall because they are unsure who they will be up against thus making list building a very important aspect of the hobby.

AS many others have said, the PL system really only rewards Marine players. Some armies like Eldar in particular are at a severe disadvantage with the system. It would require players to bring alternate models for every point of variability in the PL system which could require Marine players to need to bring dozens of unnecessary models to matches. This issue would only be exacerbated with the introduction of a sideboard.

The PL system does have advantages to this though. It would remove the dreaded 'meta' that we all are tired of dealing with because people are no longer min/maxing at a granular level and instead are much more free to choose what they play with. This would be especially true with a sideboard approach. It also greatly reduces the complexity of the game because units are much more basic and easier to track as opposed to tournament play where one unit could have a grenade and another unit would have a power sword, and another unit could have a bolt pistol or something along those lines.

The amount of work it would take to make the PL system functional and fair for all armies would be a massive undertaking and nothing in my experience with GW has lead me to believe they're capable of doing it right. The power disparity between Eldar and Marines lists for example due to the fundamental design of each army with one being a specialist and the other being a generalist army would be quite complicated to resolve.

I think both systems have their place but I'd much prefer GW spent more time making the game as a whole run smoother and once the game was balanced at a macro level, if we chose to use PL or Points at a micro level can be discussed then.

Nvs wrote:
The PL system does have advantages to this though. It would remove the dreaded 'meta' that we all are tired of dealing with because people are no longer min/maxing at a granular level

No, it'd only change the face of min/maxing. Not the amount.

The only way to reduce min-maxing is to actually balance the game better. This can be done with or without changing the game to a PL system.

As much as I do like PL, the only "advantage" I can see it that it is on the Datasheet. Condensed rules are always preferable to the 20+ sources/pages you currently need to reference for a single faction army (not to mention Soup)

Arguably, though, this could be achieved with Points (as was done in prior edition codices), but since points are intentionally "tacked on", I doubt GW will ever go this route again.

-

I do like the rapid fire better, so 4 shots still or move in range for the 4 shots. but still can hit with the 2 on the move. its mostly just sthinking of posibilities, I am suere a professional game developr could banace it better than me though



I mean in the case of fire dragons a firepike could have the longer range, but maybe the exarch has a rule for +1 to hit with a normal melta gun rule.

as for specifics like a relic though that should be definitively better as you would still theoretically pay CP or takign your 1 free relic slot for it. If my warboss can take a power claw vs da super killy claw of mork or the dead killy choppa they shoudl be better than any entry for that characters data sheet



I actually think the simplicity they were aimign for is one of the things that ended up hurting balance and creating must have gear options

why does a lascannon on a leman russ cost the same as on a much weaper heavy weapons team? why does a warboss pay the same for a poawerclaw as a boss nob. the warboss is clearly the superior chasis for it. A power axe on a space wolf captain beats the one on a sarg but same points.

Even at the troop level why does a vertran with a better BS pay the same as the infantry squad for a plasma gun? I mean I guess it in theory is baked into the unit cost except in practice it mean nobody is going to take vetran's squads unless their whole goal was to include plasma guns.

"I mean in the case of fire dragons a firepike could have the longer range, but maybe the exarch has a rule [...]"
IOW:
-You want all Fire Dragon Exarchs to be identical in terms of absolute power.
-I want Fire Dragon Exarchs to vary in terms of absolute power, depending on upgrades selected.

The problem isn't that we don't understand eachother; it's that we want different things. I see the logic in your proposal, but I love the choices you want removed.