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.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Unfortunately this all sounds very classic GW we the designers want to play narative campaigns so everyone must even tournament players.

If how they make it interact with tournament lists is have free CP congratulations you missed the point by a mile that's not compatible with the point of a practice game.

It also keeps talking about PL again it didn't work lads if anything people wanted more granularity in points not your constant insistence that PL will work.

You can always just say no, you will only play matched play you know?

I dont mind playing not cutting edge tournament winning lists all the time a lot of the guys I play with a more narative/hobby dudes and thats fine but even they gave up on PL in 8th as it was so broken.

They will want to play this type of game and I dont mind but GW forcing PL back into this system already makes me worried that this will be so brakeable.

Ice_can wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Unfortunately this all sounds very classic GW we the designers want to play narative campaigns so everyone must even tournament players.

If how they make it interact with tournament lists is have free CP congratulations you missed the point by a mile that's not compatible with the point of a practice game.

It also keeps talking about PL again it didn't work lads if anything people wanted more granularity in points not your constant insistence that PL will work.

You can always just say no, you will only play matched play you know?

I dont mind playing not cutting edge tournament winning lists all the time a lot of the guys I play with a more narative/hobby dudes and thats fine but even they gave up on PL in 8th as it was so broken.

They will want to play this type of game and I dont mind but GW forcing PL back into this system already makes me worried that this will be so brakeable.

Yeah. Deathwatch PL is not the same as Necron or Daemon PL (as it stands right now).

Gee, if only they had said early on that they're going to start doing Power Level revisions regularly.

They explained PL. It makes sense the way they think of it:
Power Level is meant to make it so you can build lists easier on the fly or for pickup games.
Points is for tournaments/competitive play where lists usually get submitted in advance.

Yeah because regulating power level will work REALLY well compared to just abandoning it and focus on the more granular points

 Kanluwen wrote:
Gee, if only they had said early on that they're going to start doing Power Level revisions regularly.

They explained PL. It makes sense the way they think of it:
Power Level is meant to make it so you can build lists easier on the fly or for pickup games.
Points is for tournaments/competitive play where lists usually get submitted in advance.

Have they said that? I was not aware.

But it's just less precise points. If you struggle with adding (28+7+7+10)*3 for one unit, Power Level makes it easier, sure... But I don't think I've ever met anyone who struggled with basic arithmetic like that and had an interest in 40k. I have experienced people who were confused about what exactly they needed to add together, but that's because GW made points more annoying to use, not because Power Level is really any better.

And it still doesn't address that a Deathwatch Veteran Squad can be 9 PL (5 Bolter dudes) or 9 PL (Sergeant with Storm Shield and Bolter, 4 men with Frag Cannons).
Whereas a Plaguebeare squad can be 12 PL (30 Plaguebearers) or 12 PL (30 Plaguebearers with three Instruments and three Icons).

The Veterans go from a cheap, throwaway unit that can plug some shots to downrange to a murder machine.
The Plaguebearers go from a tough tarpit to... A tough tarpit with minor morale resilience and slightly better advance and charge rolls.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Deathwatch PL is not the same as Necron or Daemon PL (as it stands right now).

Do you mean they changed the formula used to calculate it (if I recall correctly; minimum points for those models, plus maximum points for them, divided by 40) or simply the fact that models with few options (like necrons or daemons) tend to be relatively good value compared to models with numerous options (like deathwatch) so long as they don't actually take a ridiculous number of those options?

 Perfect Organism wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Deathwatch PL is not the same as Necron or Daemon PL (as it stands right now).

Do you mean they changed the formula used to calculate it (if I recall correctly; minimum points for those models, plus maximum points for them, divided by 40) or simply the fact that models with few options (like necrons or daemons) tend to be relatively good value compared to models with numerous options (like deathwatch) so long as they don't actually take a ridiculous number of those options?

I mean that 4 PL for 10 Plaguebearers is reasonably accurate, because they have minimal options.

Whereas 9 PL for 5 Veterans is not, because they can be worth far, FAR less or far, FAR more than that.

What I find really baffling about power level is that in the one instance where it would be really useful to not have to add points up (reinforcements summoned during the battle) *they didn't use them*.

 Perfect Organism wrote:
What I find really baffling about power level is that in the one instance where it would be really useful to not have to add points up (reinforcements summoned during the battle) *they didn't use them*.

They kinda do-at least for Daemon Summoning.

You have to roll equal to or above their PL on a 3d6 roll to summon a unit. But then you have actual points for what you can summon.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Have they said that? I was not aware.

Yep.

But it's just less precise points. If you struggle with adding (28+7+7+10)*3 for one unit, Power Level makes it easier, sure... But I don't think I've ever met anyone who struggled with basic arithmetic like that and had an interest in 40k. I have experienced people who were confused about what exactly they needed to add together, but that's because GW made points more annoying to use, not because Power Level is really any better.

Let me put this bluntly then.

If I'm doing a pick-up game? I don't want to have to bust out a calculator or pencil+paper. You're welcome to consider it as "struggling with basic arithmetic" or whatever, but it's a convenience thing. I don't want to mess around making sure I paid X points for the squad's plasma gun, Y for their heavy bolter, or whatever.

And it still doesn't address that a Deathwatch Veteran Squad can be 9 PL (5 Bolter dudes) or 9 PL (Sergeant with Storm Shield and Bolter, 4 men with Frag Cannons).
Whereas a Plaguebeare squad can be 12 PL (30 Plaguebearers) or 12 PL (30 Plaguebearers with three Instruments and three Icons).

The Veterans go from a cheap, throwaway unit that can plug some shots to downrange to a murder machine.
The Plaguebearers go from a tough tarpit to... A tough tarpit with minor morale resilience and slightly better advance and charge rolls.

When they made their mention of reviewing Power, they made it sound like part of what they'll be looking at is whether or not some stuff is going to start getting treated like Tau having drones or the like(which cost additional Power).

It's such a minor time-saver. To draw to another point, you'll have to spend more time talking with your opponent about how competitive to make the game than you will adding points up.

Plus Battlescribe exists.

And Veterans actually DO add PL for each model added. But the model's wargear is irrelevant to the PL-meaning that 10 guys with bolters costs 19 PL, while 10 guys with 4 Frag Cannons, 6 Storm Shields, and 6 Storm Bolters costs 19 PL as well.

Battlescribe is trash, so that's not really an option for me.

You get that your whole argument using Deathwatch veterans is kinda goofy right? PL, currently, is effectively there for 'body count'. There are very few things that alter a unit's PL cost.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Gee, if only they had said early on that they're going to start doing Power Level revisions regularly.

They explained PL. It makes sense the way they think of it:
Power Level is meant to make it so you can build lists easier on the fly or for pickup games.
Points is for tournaments/competitive play where lists usually get submitted in advance.

Have they said that? I was not aware.

But it's just less precise points. If you struggle with adding (28+7+7+10)*3 for one unit, Power Level makes it easier, sure... But I don't think I've ever met anyone who struggled with basic arithmetic like that and had an interest in 40k. I have experienced people who were confused about what exactly they needed to add together, but that's because GW made points more annoying to use, not because Power Level is really any better.

And it still doesn't address that a Deathwatch Veteran Squad can be 9 PL (5 Bolter dudes) or 9 PL (Sergeant with Storm Shield and Bolter, 4 men with Frag Cannons).
Whereas a Plaguebeare squad can be 12 PL (30 Plaguebearers) or 12 PL (30 Plaguebearers with three Instruments and three Icons).

The Veterans go from a cheap, throwaway unit that can plug some shots to downrange to a murder machine.
The Plaguebearers go from a tough tarpit to... A tough tarpit with minor morale resilience and slightly better advance and charge rolls.

Exactlly most people will have their list or lists writen before they turn up for their game as no-one has time for waiting on your oppoenet to figure out what unit and what models they need to get out of their case to build their army.

Generally my list at least is built the night before and the models I need packed ready to go.

Writing a list at the table promotes list tailoring and other bad sportsmanship.
Additionally how long does it take you to put a 2k list into battlescribe etc? If its more than about 10-15 miniuts your doing something wrong.

Speaking of which just a quick look 4 2k lists for the same army same.subfactions has a powerlevel range from 125 to 113.
My other factions is 107 for its 2k list, that is a massive swing if your playing PL

 Kanluwen wrote:
Battlescribe is trash, so that's not really an option for me.

You get that your whole argument using Deathwatch veterans is kinda goofy right? PL, currently, is effectively there for 'body count'. There are very few things that alter a unit's PL cost.

You'll have the GW app to build the list in should you unable to use software you don't like.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Battlescribe is trash, so that's not really an option for me.

You get that your whole argument using Deathwatch veterans is kinda goofy right? PL, currently, is effectively there for 'body count'. There are very few things that alter a unit's PL cost.

What's wrong with Battlescribe? I wouldn't use it as a rules source without having a codex to double check, but for points, it's MORE ACCURATE than the books.

And what about SM Devastators? Same PL whether they have 5 guys with Bolters or 5 guys with 4 heavies.

PL is wonky ANYWHERE there's a lot of options.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Codexes could be just as balanced as the Indexes were, if only the writers would communicate with each other when writing the codexes.

You do know they work as a large team and not as single individuals on those books right?

But do the teams working on each book talk to the teams working on other books? If they do, or if the same people work on every book, then the disparity between csm "2" and c:sm 2.0 is unconscionable.

There is one team periord, not one team per book. Clearly the booka where written at different times. CSM was written with the intent of a living edition update, while Marines took the approach of a new edition coming and building towards that. Design goals change, and release date isn't the same as when it was sent off to print.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bdrone wrote:
..So wait, they added another system to bloat the books and contend with further rulekeeping during a match?

... im not excited about this. did we not have enough issues with to many books, and now we add a sheet to it or ignore it and thus possibly pay extra for nothing?

No, they made nareative a real game system is what they did.

The only place PL even remotely worked was in Appocolypse and guess what GW managed to make that an nightmare of horrifically overncosted and undercosted units, even with weapons upgrades and wargear having costs in PL.

Heck even pointa aint prefect but jeso PL is a joke in regards to balance I have yet to meet anyone who genuinely uses PL for games.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Then how do we end up with codexes of such wildly differing power levels released as closely together as csm 2 and c:sm 2.0? Faction bias? I don't believe that, gw wants to sell all their armies.

And for the record, I also quite like the idea of my contemptor unloading some ectoplasma point blank before cutting loose with its chainclaws.

Books written at different times with difderent design goals.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Then how do we end up with codexes of such wildly differing power levels released as closely together as csm 2 and c:sm 2.0? Faction bias? I don't believe that, gw wants to sell all their armies.

And for the record, I also quite like the idea of my contemptor unloading some ectoplasma point blank before cutting loose with its chainclaws.

Books written at different times with difderent design goals.

If the design goals have moved that much they really need to learn when to hit the dang pause button and think about what the goals are.
Marines 2.0 must of had a design goal of make all other codex's redundant for them to beleive it was balanced and fit for release.

Points are so easy to calculate that no one ever goofs it up at tournaments. Especially not in the top tables.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Battlescribe is trash, so that's not really an option for me.

You get that your whole argument using Deathwatch veterans is kinda goofy right? PL, currently, is effectively there for 'body count'. There are very few things that alter a unit's PL cost.

What's wrong with Battlescribe? I wouldn't use it as a rules source without having a codex to double check, but for points, it's MORE ACCURATE than the books.

Gee, it's almost like the books have points updated in the form of Chapter Approved...

Anyways, it's because it is the most common tool I've seen for people trying to be sketchy as hell with their lists. Saw plenty of people just trying to copy up that one Cadian list early on with Primaris Psyker utilizing Relic of Lost Cadia, which was being flagged as "Valid" as Battlescribe. They KNEW that crap wasn't legit but insisted and insisted and insisted on it being valid because Battlescribe says it was. There's probably other things but given that I was more actively playing my Cadians at the time? That infuriated me.

And just so we're clear:
It was a <Regiment> relic being placed on a non-<Regiment> model. There wasn't even any kind of errata or FAQ, Primaris Psykers flatout never had <Regiment>.

And what about SM Devastators? Same PL whether they have 5 guys with Bolters or 5 guys with 4 heavies.

PL is wonky ANYWHERE there's a lot of options.

Did you not read what I posted?

There are very few things that alter a unit's PL cost. Your Devastator example is exactly the same thing as your Deathwatch Veterans example, it's just counting the bodies.
But if you want it finessed, fine:
Devastator Squad is 6 Power. That gets you 1 Space Marine Sergeant(who can have an Armorium Cherub, 2 weapons from the Sergeant Weapons) and 4 Space Marines(who can take heavy weapons). Those extra 5 Bolter Marines? They're 3 Power.
So 5 Bolter Marines are 3 Power, not 6. You can choose to run a Devastator Squad with no Heavy Weapons, but let's not pretend anyone does that shall we?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Battlescribe is trash, so that's not really an option for me.

You get that your whole argument using Deathwatch veterans is kinda goofy right? PL, currently, is effectively there for 'body count'. There are very few things that alter a unit's PL cost.

What's wrong with Battlescribe? I wouldn't use it as a rules source without having a codex to double check, but for points, it's MORE ACCURATE than the books.

Gee, it's almost like the books have points updated in the form of Chapter Approved...

Anyways, it's because it is the most common tool I've seen for people trying to be sketchy as hell with their lists. Saw plenty of people just trying to copy up that one Cadian list early on with Primaris Psyker utilizing Relic of Lost Cadia, which was being flagged as "Valid" as Battlescribe. They KNEW that crap wasn't legit but insisted and insisted and insisted on it being valid because Battlescribe says it was. There's probably other things but given that I was more actively playing my Cadians at the time? That infuriated me.

And just so we're clear:
It was a <Regiment> relic being placed on a non-<Regiment> model. There wasn't even any kind of errata or FAQ, Primaris Psykers flatout never had <Regiment>.

And what about SM Devastators? Same PL whether they have 5 guys with Bolters or 5 guys with 4 heavies.

PL is wonky ANYWHERE there's a lot of options.

Did you not read what I posted?

There are very few things that alter a unit's PL cost. Your Devastator example is exactly the same thing as your Deathwatch Veterans example, it's just counting the bodies.
But if you want it finessed, fine:
Devastator Squad is 6 Power. That gets you 1 Space Marine Sergeant(who can have an Armorium Cherub, 2 weapons from the Sergeant Weapons) and 4 Space Marines(who can take heavy weapons). Those extra 5 Bolter Marines? They're 3 Power.
So 5 Bolter Marines are 3 Power, not 6. You can choose to run a Devastator Squad with no Heavy Weapons, but let's not pretend anyone does that shall we?

But then you have Autocannons as the same price as Lascannons as Missile Launchers as Heavy Bolters.

As for Battlescribe, again, it is NOT a rules source. I don't rely on Battlescribe telling me whether or not my list is legal-only the points value.

 gorgon wrote:
Points are so easy to calculate that no one ever goofs it up at tournaments. Especially not in the top tables.

Being 10-40 points out on a 2k one of games likely won't change the result, it likely wouldn't in an event, the difference ia thats not the point.
People get DQ'd etc as the idea is to make it as closely matched forces as possible having that free plasma pistol etc could have which is why most people voluntarily withdrawn themselves.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Then how do we end up with codexes of such wildly differing power levels released as closely together as csm 2 and c:sm 2.0? Faction bias? I don't believe that, gw wants to sell all their armies.

And for the record, I also quite like the idea of my contemptor unloading some ectoplasma point blank before cutting loose with its chainclaws.

Books written at different times with difderent design goals.

It's almost like they should have one clear vision and design purpose they should follow to the end. Asking a bit much from such a big company I know.

Ice_can wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Then how do we end up with codexes of such wildly differing power levels released as closely together as csm 2 and c:sm 2.0? Faction bias? I don't believe that, gw wants to sell all their armies.

And for the record, I also quite like the idea of my contemptor unloading some ectoplasma point blank before cutting loose with its chainclaws.

Books written at different times with difderent design goals.

If the design goals have moved that much they really need to learn when to hit the dang pause button and think about what the goals are.
Marines 2.0 must of had a design goal of make all other codex's redundant for them to beleive it was balanced and fit for release.

CSM 2 is living edition rules consolidation. At some point after that they rwalized they needed a new edition to fix all the bubears in the system which lead to a different design ethos post that book.

 JNAProductions wrote:
But then you have Autocannons as the same price as Lascannons as Missile Launchers as Heavy Bolters.

Which, again, goes to the fact that Power Level NOW, AS IT STANDS CURRENTLY, is centered around the bodies for a unit not all the extra gubbins.

That's why that Devastator Squad you brought up is 6 Power for 5 Bolter armed models to start with rather than 3. That's why a Skitarii Ranger/Vanguard Squad is 4 Power instead of the 3 that the additional 5 are. The 'costs' are frontloaded.

As for Battlescribe, again, it is NOT a rules source. I don't rely on Battlescribe telling me whether or not my list is legal-only the points value

That's great and all, but you're not the only person ever to use Battlescribe. I've had far too many people try to use Battlescribe as a codex and list checker to ever trust anyone at this point throwing a list my way from it.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Then how do we end up with codexes of such wildly differing power levels released as closely together as csm 2 and c:sm 2.0? Faction bias? I don't believe that, gw wants to sell all their armies.

And for the record, I also quite like the idea of my contemptor unloading some ectoplasma point blank before cutting loose with its chainclaws.

Books written at different times with difderent design goals.

It's almost like they should have one clear vision and design purpose they should follow to the end. Asking a bit much from such a big company I know.

It's almost as if circumstances can change forcing a pivot on existing goals and people should be more understanding in hiw their own feedback can force design goals to change in a game.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Then how do we end up with codexes of such wildly differing power levels released as closely together as csm 2 and c:sm 2.0? Faction bias? I don't believe that, gw wants to sell all their armies.

And for the record, I also quite like the idea of my contemptor unloading some ectoplasma point blank before cutting loose with its chainclaws.

Books written at different times with difderent design goals.

If the design goals have moved that much they really need to learn when to hit the dang pause button and think about what the goals are.
Marines 2.0 must of had a design goal of make all other codex's redundant for them to beleive it was balanced and fit for release.

CSM 2 is living edition rules consolidation. At some point after that they rwalized they needed a new edition to fix all the bubears in the system which lead to a different design ethos post that book.

Sorry, but no. New editions take more time than that. They always talk about new editions taking several years. The Chaos SM copypasta would have been happening alongside 9th edition rules.

As mentioned, the Chaos SM copypasta wasn't advertised as a new book. It had the note I posted from the getgo.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

Ice_can wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Then how do we end up with codexes of such wildly differing power levels released as closely together as csm 2 and c:sm 2.0? Faction bias? I don't believe that, gw wants to sell all their armies.

And for the record, I also quite like the idea of my contemptor unloading some ectoplasma point blank before cutting loose with its chainclaws.

Books written at different times with difderent design goals.

If the design goals have moved that much they really need to learn when to hit the dang pause button and think about what the goals are.
Marines 2.0 must of had a design goal of make all other codex's redundant for them to beleive it was balanced and fit for release.

CSM 2 is living edition rules consolidation. At some point after that they rwalized they needed a new edition to fix all the bubears in the system which lead to a different design ethos post that book.

Then release that codex when you drop the new edition not a year ahead of that and reduce the current edution to play this codex or GTFO with winning and spend the next six months unbreaking the game from your mistakes.