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.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Toofast wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
it obviously still matters if building an army without Battlescribe is a tedious and error-prone process.

I think whether it is or not depends on your overall intelligence level and familiarity with that aspect of playing games. Judging by some of the comments here, I'm not surprised some people find it tedious and error prone to build lists by hand...

I used to use Microsoft Word to make my lists. Battlescribe is just so much greater.

I became a master at excel formulas long before they were required for the soul-sucking corporate world just from making army lists when I was bored. It's part of the fun of the hobby but some people want to kill it because I guess counting to 2,000 with the help of an app is too high-level math and gives them a headache.

Even doing a list on paper isn’t terrible if I’m going to be honest.

Toofast wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
it obviously still matters if building an army without Battlescribe is a tedious and error-prone process.

I think whether it is or not depends on your overall intelligence level and familiarity with that aspect of playing games. Judging by some of the comments here, I'm not surprised some people find it tedious and error prone to build lists by hand...

I love how you just keep slinging insults.

Maybe some people just don't like crap being so heavily digitized?

Also, why are you constantly having to "build lists" if you are playing so often? Why aren't you just saving the lists or using this magical device that uses ink to commit your digital creations to a hard copy?

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Even doing a list on paper isn’t terrible if I’m going to be honest.

I pretty much always use pencil+paper.

I'm a spreadsheet guy mostly. Though I have written a few apps to help me as well.

Toofast wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
it obviously still matters if building an army without Battlescribe is a tedious and error-prone process.

I think whether it is or not depends on your overall intelligence level and familiarity with that aspect of playing games. Judging by some of the comments here, I'm not surprised some people find it tedious and error prone to build lists by hand...

Oh, so instead of actually addressing my post, now we're just down to personal insults. Neat.

Also, judging by the tournaments where illegal lists have made high placement with nobody noticing until after the fact, you're full of gak.

Toofast wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
I'm all in of PL. Throw the points away!

You have a hard time counting to 2000 or something?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
I'm all in of PL. Throw the points away!

State what benefits a less granular system provide?

*Saves me a few moments by not having to look up pts values for this/that/something else.
*I don't have to pay any attention to CA volume whatever.

Now if only I could bank those saved moments & put em towards the time wasted with all the re-rolls.....

If you can memorize the PL for something, why can't you memorize the point cost?

I don't memorize either. Wich is different than can't. And given how often GW changes pts values here in recent years? Well, there's no point & I've just got better things to do.

Toofast wrote:
You don't have to pay attention to CA right now, just use battlescribe and the points automatically update.

For starters Battlescribe won't load properly on my phone. There's probably some way to fix that but it's not an important enough issue for me to bother with.

Toofast wrote:
I guess PL is for people too lazy to spend literally 2 mins while taking a dump to throw a list together in Battlescribe.

Yes, I've told you I'm lazy. I always have been. And the older I get the lazier I get concerning meaningless crap like adding up GWs tiny & now frequent pts changes.
1/4+ of the stuff (depending upon wether I go 1st or 2nd) gets deleted off the table turn 1. Was it worth my time to figure out the minutia of one weapon costing x &vs another costing y? Nope. Just tell me the squad costs Z pts & be done with it.

Toofast wrote:
If that's too much effort for someone, I wonder why they play 40k.

Because despite whatever its flaws current 40k is one of the games me & mine enjoy playing. Adding up PTs or PL is really neither here nor there in that equation. It's just that I find pts to be a waste of time/effort compared to the results. And since we get the same results no matter how we tally it up....

Toofast wrote:
Even during the days of paper lists in the 90s, I never thought "man this is just way too complicated for my koala smooth brain, I wish they would make a system that does nothing whatsoever to account for unit size or upgrades so I don't have to sit here and do simple math for 5mins".

You know, neither have I. My koala brain just has more creases than yours. This has allowed me to identify something that's a waste of my time/effort. Not much of a waste, granted. But still a waste.
And since 99% of my 9e games have been Crusade, & the group is happy using PL, I rarely have to deal with pts minutia.

Voss wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Voss wrote:
'Not counting' when counting is definitely a different way.
'Less granular' is likely not the proper term when 6 models = 10 models and grenade launchers are the same as plasma guns.

Not that I disagree with your overall point (no pun intended), but aren't plasmaguns the same as grenade launchers even under the current point system?

/shrug. They very well could be at this point.
While I'm (re)building my guard army (building a new one? the line is blurry), I haven't been paying much attention to the 9th edition patches to the 8th edition codex. I've found that not bothering to rationalize the points updates and 'balance slates' better for my mental health. Once the bulk of the army is done, the new book and/or 10th edition will be out, so its unlikely to matter. For points or PL, when it comes down to it.

GW has done an exceptionally poor job at points values lately. The big point list at the start of 9th was... weird. Too many things were exactly the same cost as they were in rogue trader, to the point that it didn't feel like a coincidence, but that they were trying to feel out the formula baseline all over again. The absurd adjustments and things that were just obviously wrong on release (which still continues, if devourer gaunts and warriors are any example, if for different reasons) suggests a system that's not only broken, but that they don't know how to utilize

Oh, I completely agree.

It was such a shame to see GW spend most of 8th tweaking point costs to try and balance each option against the alternatives, only to then throw it all away in 9th.

 vipoid wrote:

Voss wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Voss wrote:
'Not counting' when counting is definitely a different way.
'Less granular' is likely not the proper term when 6 models = 10 models and grenade launchers are the same as plasma guns.

Not that I disagree with your overall point (no pun intended), but aren't plasmaguns the same as grenade launchers even under the current point system?

/shrug. They very well could be at this point.
While I'm (re)building my guard army (building a new one? the line is blurry), I haven't been paying much attention to the 9th edition patches to the 8th edition codex. I've found that not bothering to rationalize the points updates and 'balance slates' better for my mental health. Once the bulk of the army is done, the new book and/or 10th edition will be out, so its unlikely to matter. For points or PL, when it comes down to it.

GW has done an exceptionally poor job at points values lately. The big point list at the start of 9th was... weird. Too many things were exactly the same cost as they were in rogue trader, to the point that it didn't feel like a coincidence, but that they were trying to feel out the formula baseline all over again. The absurd adjustments and things that were just obviously wrong on release (which still continues, if devourer gaunts and warriors are any example, if for different reasons) suggests a system that's not only broken, but that they don't know how to utilize

Oh, I completely agree.

It was such a shame to see GW spend most of 8th tweaking point costs to try and balance each option against the alternatives, only to then throw it all away in 9th.

And now we have the 'balance datasheet' to revisit this topic. All guard infantry squad upgrades are reduced to 0.
10 naked guys? 60 points.
Full upgrades- bolter & powersword for sgt, lascannon, plasmagun, vox? 60 points.

Maybe they will meet AoS design in the middle and 10th will have a points/power level fusion.

no. no it wont lol. 40k has to many war gear options for that.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
no. no it wont lol. 40k has to many war gear options for that.

Have you not been following 9th edition? A _huge_ amount of of wargear options are 0 points.
Take a look at tyranid warriors- they have 9 weapons to choose from, in an array of combinations. They only have to pay for 2. (and the 'other wargear' which matters a lot more to whoever wrote that codex)
That isn't even unusual.

And they just did it for guard squads, which is what prompted the post in the first place... Every single thing is zeroed out.

If they do that i highly suspect that you will see some hilarious meme units coming back into play.
Full rubric squads will be a thing again, able to take all flamers.
Dev squads spamming Las canons
I expect to see LazPlas razor backs again.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
If they do that i highly suspect that you will see some hilarious meme units coming back into play.
Full rubric squads will be a thing again, able to take all flamers.
Dev squads spamming Las canons
I expect to see LazPlas razor backs again.

"Snake Plisken voice"
)
The More things change, the more they Stay the same" (Proceeds to EMP the entire Planet)

ccs wrote:

GWs tiny & now frequent pts changes.

Voidweavers, the most impactful unit in the game, just went up 45%. That's a tiny change to you? SM ignoring AP1 is a tiny change? If you want to ignore the dataslate and play PL, that's fine with me. For all I care, you guys can just setup your whole collections, push models around while making laser noises, and whoever loses their voice last wins. Just don't pretend that's the "one true way(tm)" to play Warhammer and everyone else is missing out on a great time drinking beer and eating pretzels.

Voss wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
no. no it wont lol. 40k has to many war gear options for that.

Have you not been following 9th edition? A _huge_ amount of of wargear options are 0 points.
Take a look at tyranid warriors- they have 9 weapons to choose from, in an array of combinations. They only have to pay for 2. (and the 'other wargear' which matters a lot more to whoever wrote that codex)
That isn't even unusual.

And they just did it for guard squads, which is what prompted the post in the first place... Every single thing is zeroed out.

There's more than one way to get players to power levels. Zeroing out option costs is certainly one.

Deathwatch, otoh, has permutations of weapons options. All available at a cost of multiples of 5. When I build a list, I spend more time with the last 15 points than the rest combined.

Given the new guard points cost per unit, and how everything is free, I would like to humbly call it, that I was right. GW is going to the path of least possible work. All weapon options will soon be free, and a half squad or a whole squad will cost the same. YES GW, keep doing it!!! Just like that! RUIN YOUR GAME for the competitives!

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Given the new guard points cost per unit, and how everything is free, I would like to humbly call it, that I was right. GW is going to the path of least possible work. All weapon options will soon be free, and a half squad or a whole squad will cost the same. YES GW, keep doing it!!! Just like that! RUIN YOUR GAME for the competitives!

Ah, yes, 'the competitives.' Always the first to reject points for power level.

And apparently I've sprained something trying to head tilt and eye-roll simultaneously.

Uhh, do people actually find creating lists via points... hard? How many microplastics have ya'll been injesting?

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Uhh, do people actually find creating lists via points... hard? How many microplastics have ya'll been injesting?

No. It is however far quicker and simpler. There is a very toxic attitude among some not only toward power level but even toward people who use power level. Just wannabe hardcore gamer gatekeeping rubbish.

With regard to power levels vs. points, I think that there is an issue with compromises being made to try and have both exist at the same time.

For example, artefacts used to be purchased with points, like other wargear. But of course, that doesn't work with PL so instead they're purchased with CPs. This is a bad thing because it means all artefacts are priced the same, even though there is often a significant difference in power. Points allowed for such differences to be represented. The current system does not.

I don't begrudge people preferring PL to points. However, I do think it's important to realise that its addition brings with it consequences, including some that negatively affect points-based lists.

Except of course there are upgrades with points&pl so your claim is demonsrably flat out wrong

It's not wrong though, as it applies to Relics.

 catbarf wrote:
Did I give the impression that I'm anti-points? I'm really not; just saying the way GW has chosen to present points is obnoxious and has poor usability, and I can see how PL is more attractive to people who don't want to deal with any of that. Cleaning up the presentation would be an improvement. Making PL at least attempt to model significant wargear would also be an improvement, in that there would then be a decent alternative.

I didn't think you were anti-points. Only Kan is the guy who massively hates points for... some reason, even thought points have been how 40k has been played since even the Rogue Trader days, but whatever I'm getting off your main point.

GW's frustrating formatting and separating of the rules isn't anything new though, sadly. 4th Edition was a horrific period where you could have the rules for a single unit spread across multiple locations in the same book (I think 4 separate areas was the most for one unit, but I can't find it at the moment). I mean, just skimming the 4th Ed Marine 'Dex I can see that the Sternguard entry has their profile and some of their ammo types on one page, another type of ammo in the Wargear section, but their points and options in the army list. In the 4th Ed Guard Codex, by far the worse/best example of this, the 'Vehicle Wargear' section has 31 entries, and 22 of those are just page references, and a 23rd one refers you back to the main rulebook!

I like to believe that they put all the points into their own section so that they could just update those pages and no one else, but life would be so much simpler if they just did what they did with the revised free Autarch entry for everyone. Emperor knows that there's so much blank space in the army list section that they certainly have the room for it.

To be charitable to tneva, they could be referring to the relics that are upgrades to other wargear (eg. can't buy the Claw of the Desert Tigers, you have to buy a power sword and then upgrade it to the CotDT).

I mean, they're still wrong because you don't pay any points/pl for the relics themselves (and I'd be interested to hear which upgrade requires pl specifically), but still.

 waefre_1 wrote:
To be charitable to tneva, they could be referring to the relics that are upgrades to other wargear (eg. can't buy the Claw of the Desert Tigers, you have to buy a power sword and then upgrade it to the CotDT).

I mean, they're still wrong because you don't pay any points/pl for the relics themselves (and I'd be interested to hear which upgrade requires pl specifically), but still.

There's the faux relics that do that via the Tyranid Monster upgrades, Black Templar relic bearers, Kuztom Mek jobz, etc. Maybe that'd be what they're referring to?

As of the latest dataslate, guard squads are effectively using PL in matched play - 60 points (3PL) for the unit, all upgrades are free. Early indications are that the unit (and the faction) are now more playable and better balanced than at any time since 9th edition launched.

Imagine that.

Yes in general if you make a faction get stuff for free, and it is real free aka the cost of stuff isn't added to the base cost of units, they do better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dai 804474 11347797 wrote:Uhh, do people actually find creating lists via points... hard? How many microplastics have ya'll been injesting?

No. It is however far quicker and simpler. There is a very toxic attitude among some not only toward power level but even toward people who use power level. Just wannabe hardcore gamer gatekeeping rubbish.

Karol wrote:
Yes in general if you make a faction get stuff for free, and it is real free aka the cost of stuff isn't added to the base cost of units, they do better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dai 804474 11347797 wrote:Uhh, do people actually find creating lists via points... hard? How many microplastics have ya'll been injesting?

No. It is however far quicker and simpler. There is a very toxic attitude among some not only toward power level but even toward people who use power level. Just wannabe hardcore gamer gatekeeping rubbish.

It is not gate keeping. Why is there are a need for two separate point systems? If someone plays total narrative, then I assume points don't matter at all, from how people seem to describe how those games are suppose to look like. For everything else a normal point system should be sufficient.

Dai wrote:

It is gatekeeping. Why the hell do you even care? Also stop using words like "weird", "crazy" and "normal" in relation to these things. It is exceptionally rude.

In defence of Karol, I don't think he has any ill intent here, and it is a translation problem. In polish, 'normalny' (normal) and 'dziwny' (weird, odd, baffling) have no pejorative tone and no psychiatric connotation to them. In this context, normal means "default" and weird means "out of ordinary".

Karol screwed up quoting, my bad Dai!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Yes in general if you make a faction get stuff for free, and it is real free aka the cost of stuff isn't added to the base cost of units, they do better.

Yeah, no.

So obviously points vs PL = big debate, but I think a hybridized system could work just fine.

You get X PL for your army and X Points for all the upgrades across your army.

I've played a lot of both points and PL and both have their issues. Points tend to leave most upgrade options by the wayside in favour of the leanest, most efficient units, while PL games throw every possible upgrade on a model because there is usually no reason not to.

Just saying, it would be nice to have a middle ground where people have some extra room to play around with customizability, without sacrificing unit efficiency; and I don't think that it would make calculating lists any more complex.