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.

Hecaton wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The sentiment is that points are so badly balanced that players must self-balance to get a matching game, so if you are already doing it might as well use the simpler numbers since either way they are at best rough guidelines.

After all, the points say 2k of guardsmen is evenly matched against 2k of Tau. Who would win!?

That sentiment is wrongheaded, because PL is just "points, but less granular and less accurate."

When you care about re-balancing things, switching to the less accurate measure of relative power is just making things harder for yourself. If you have dyscalculia, then that's another story.

You are confusing accuracy and precision; points are precise, they are not accurate. Removed - rule #1 please

 Irbis wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Guardsmen getting auto wound on 6s is the dumbest, least internally consistent, least fluff-based balance decision I've seen this edition. Maybe that sounds dramatic, but when someone decides that Guardsmen with lasguns should be better at killing tanks than Intercessors, it's very clear that the guys writing the rules are trying to balance tournament win rates without regard for the verisimilitude or even just matching the fluff.

So, army famous for weight of fire getting a few shots through bits of armor already weakened by previous damage somehow ""breaks verisimilitude"" even though that's literally how they deal with every single well armored foe in every single bit of IG fluff, but orkstodes, all the OP gak taudar do including laughable nonsense that is their most busted weapons capable of killing literal gods with ease (Emperor was stupid chasing webway, he should have initiated Railgun project instead to kill Chaos real dead, hurr durr), and chaffiest tyranids all lugging heavy bolters (not to mention other insane stuff that breaks the fluff to bits Tyranids now have) does not?

*slow clap*

I especially like xenos players crying what used to be glass hammers is no longer straight upgrade in durability over SM and that tiny buff SM got somehow makes them OP when in reality SM will probably go from 30% winrate to 35% while broken xeno gak goes from 70-80% to 65-75%. Oh no, the world is ending, SM no longer are removed from table like orks (except they still are to usual taudar AT spam, but SHHH on that inconvenient truth)

I have two Guard armies and play them more than xenos, you absolute clown.

'Getting a few shots through bits of armor already weakened by previous damage' is how you characterize 'failing an armor save'. I question how much fluff you've read if you interpret massed lasgun fire as 'how they deal with every single well armored foe in every single bit of IG fluff' and somehow missed all the bits about tanks, artillery, heavy weapons teams, and meltaguns. THOSE are how the Guard deals with heavily armored enemies. Lasguns being massed to inflict credible damage to tanks has never been part of the lore. Guardsmen being more effective at damaging light vehicles than Tactical Marines has absolutely never been part of the lore.

If I were halfway as faction-biased as you seem to think I am, I would be ecstatic that a single squad of un-upgraded Scions can now plausibly bracket a tank in a single round of shooting. But I'm not, because it's a stupid rule.

Also, I think everyone would appreciate if you could try to make at least one post that isn't ranting about how everything you disagree with is 'laughable' or 'crying', or alternatively just get therapy if this forum is your redirected outlet for pent-up aggression.

 Irbis wrote:

I like how you cherrypicked really bad unit and act like IG being now better than crap is the problem, not SM Devs being terrible.

Oh you agree with me that the game balance is really whack. Thank you, Irbis.

Well technically if you overloaded the battery on a lasgun you should get off one very strong shot, before it melting or exploding.

I don't whole immertion thing. It as if people tried to really act out what is going on in the battle. It is a game in runs on abstractions. Only thing I care about with rule like +6 auto wounds, if someone tested it and checked if there are no problems. If there are no infinite damage loops, some wierd interactions with stuff from outside of the codex etc. If there are no such problems and the lasguns aren't doing an auto wound on a +4, for some reason, who cares how the thing is called and how it is in lore explained.

Being lore accurate is not as important as not messing up the game. That is why in sports we have age and weight classes. Because no one wants to see a 6 foot 16y old beat up a 4"8 one kid of same age.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You are confusing accuracy and precision; points are precise, they are not accurate. Removed

No I'm not. Points are both more precise (granular) *and* more accurate, as they differentiate between, say, a devastator squad with no heavy weapons vs. one with 4.

Hecaton wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You are confusing accuracy and precision; points are precise, they are not accurate. Removed

No I'm not. Points are both more precise (granular) *and* more accurate, as they differentiate between, say, a devastator squad with no heavy weapons vs. one with 4.

Maybe this will help - are you measuring distances in milimeters, or are inches sufficient enough? And if better granularity means better balance, then why you do not advocate for increasing granularity tenfold and play 20000pts games? The balance would obviously be ten times better.

You know, there is a reason why some smart people invented terms like measurement accuracy and measurement precision and significant figures and defined them as completely independent qualities of measurement. If you don't know what those terms mean, then wiki is your friend.

Better granularity doesn't necessarily equate to perfect balance but provides more opportunity for balance. Hands down the stupidest argument I've heard for PL is that "points are unbalanced anyway hurr durr". Well then certainly taking a system based on points, and then giving extra models or upgrades absolutely free, is always going to be worse. More granularity doesn't mean more balance but less granularity certainly leads to more room for abuse.

Toofast wrote:
Better granularity doesn't necessarily equate to perfect balance but provides more opportunity for balance. Hands down the stupidest argument I've heard for PL is that "points are unbalanced anyway hurr durr". Well then certainly taking a system based on points, and then giving extra models or upgrades absolutely free, is always going to be worse. More granularity doesn't mean more balance but less granularity certainly leads to more room for abuse.

Tell me what the difference is between spending 60 pts for a Guard squad with all options costing zero pts vs spending 3PL on them.

Toofast wrote:
Better granularity doesn't necessarily equate to perfect balance but provides more opportunity for balance. Hands down the stupidest argument I've heard for PL is that "points are unbalanced anyway hurr durr". Well then certainly taking a system based on points, and then giving extra models or upgrades absolutely free, is always going to be worse. More granularity doesn't mean more balance but less granularity certainly leads to more room for abuse.

Oh, I agree that GW's PLs are terribly executed. But the question is, given the parameters of the core system, how much granularity is actually necessary and meaningful at the same time. 2000 'units' is an overkill in a system with so much swing in utility of units/upgrades from matchup to matchup and first turn advantage commonly reaching 50%. With 50% damage output you can field 1333pts against 2000pts army and if you go first then the game is still an equal matchup of 1333 pts. With most upgrades/wargear/whatever costing 5pts you are not really using 2000 'units' system anyway, you are using 400 'units' system in majority of cases. 40k pts could be easily denominated to 100-200 'units' system without loosing any meaningful granularity.

Just food for thought:

One of The 'best' points systems Ive come across was warmachine/hordes. It went from gw-esque in mk1 to minimalist and less granular in mk2.

Juggernaut went from 131pts to 7pts; things like that. Games went from 500 ot 750pte to 35 or 50.

Mk3 opened it up a bit further but its still broadly held to the less granular approach.

There's more to it than just 'less granular numbers' but as a unit of measure it was absolutely solid. And it was easy to math.

Todays lesson in a nutshell kids. Don't dismiss 'less granular' out of hand.

ccs wrote:

Toofast wrote:
Better granularity doesn't necessarily equate to perfect balance but provides more opportunity for balance. Hands down the stupidest argument I've heard for PL is that "points are unbalanced anyway hurr durr". Well then certainly taking a system based on points, and then giving extra models or upgrades absolutely free, is always going to be worse. More granularity doesn't mean more balance but less granularity certainly leads to more room for abuse.

Tell me what the difference is between spending 60 pts for a Guard squad with all options costing zero pts vs spending 3PL on them.

Cool, now lets do that for every other squad in the game that didn't get blanket free upgrades as a bandaid.

Primaris crusader squad:
11 models with pistol/chainsword is 20PL or 199 points
20 models with bolt rifles, 2x power fist, 2x pyreblaster, pyre pistol on the sgt and sigismund's seal relic is also 20PL...or 433 points

What a fantastic balancing mechanism when those 2 squads cost the exact same amount to add to your list. I'm sure this will take off as the best and one true way to play 40k any day now.

This is a pretty clear example of why PL is geared towards little timmy who just got a couple boxes of models and hasn't really read the codex but wants to push his toy soldiers around and make laser noises. If people can't see that just because it isn't a bold subtext paragraph on the first page of the rulebook, I don't think I can help them either.

Toofast wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Oh look, a thread proclaiming the death of 40K. Must be a day from the past 20+ years ending in y.

Every time an individual player personally gets fed up and decides to quit for the first time they feel like their outrage is more justified than the outrage of all the players who came before, and figure that because they're outraged that must mean there's something sufficiently wrong with the game for lots of people to quit. Let them hang around for a few edition cycles and watch the newbies dismiss them as frustrated old farts who don't know what they're talking about because GW has changed and everything's going to be fine now, and they'll be grouchy and jaded too.

Nice try, but that was more a comment about how people have been doomsaying the imminent death of 40K for nigh on 30 years and continue to be so epicly WRONG.

Well there have been a couple periods over those years where they've hemorrhaged players and their stock price plummeted. The game wasn't dead but it wasn't the most played/bought tabletop wargame for the first time in its existence. I remember Xwing and WMH outselling 40k at all my local stores for a couple years. GW got rid of Kirby and his team and got back on track for awhile. Now we have 9th which is probably the worst state the game has ever been in in terms of balance and rules bloat. Coincidentally, my local store is now having an Infinity night for the first time since the pandemic started. I'm seeing the same trends now as I was the last time around, 40k tournament attendance plummets (my FLGS has a monthly 40k tournament, they used to have 32 players, the next one was reduced to 14 spots because of lack of demand), other games start becoming popular (everyone is playing Bloodbowl or Infinity now), stock price dropping, websites heavily sponsored by GW become openly critical... The game isn't dead and it won't die any time soon but GW will do a lot worse financially unless they fix it.

7th was still worse. Ninth is definitely not going in the right direction but 7th was still worse. 200 pages of core rules that literally never came up and 50pt blue horrors that could shrug off 1850pts of Tau Shooting.

Deadnight wrote:
Just food for thought:

One of The 'best' points systems Ive come across was warmachine/hordes. It went from gw-esque in mk1 to minimalist and less granular in mk2.

Juggernaut went from 131pts to 7pts; things like that. Games went from 500 ot 750pte to 35 or 50.

Mk3 opened it up a bit further but its still broadly held to the less granular approach.

There's more to it than just 'less granular numbers' but as a unit of measure it was absolutely solid. And it was easy to math.

Todays lesson in a nutshell kids. Don't dismiss 'less granular' out of hand.

Warmachine also has no options. You took things as is. That makes a huge difference in a system.

Weapon and command add-ons are about the only exception, and some of them felt real bad after the changeover. A full point for a rocket launcher (or whatever) after the changeover seemed pointlessly expensive, when the base unit was 4 pts for 6 models and 6 pts for 10.

Also, 'easy to math' is... interesting. One of my most memorable moments with Mk2 was my opponent pulling out a calculator for a 15 point warjack brawl (basically just the warcaster & 3 jacks).
I've never felt quite so embarrassed for another person, when he (with a mechanical device) failed to add -6, 5, 7 and 9 together..

Toofast wrote:

ccs wrote:

Toofast wrote:
Better granularity doesn't necessarily equate to perfect balance but provides more opportunity for balance. Hands down the stupidest argument I've heard for PL is that "points are unbalanced anyway hurr durr". Well then certainly taking a system based on points, and then giving extra models or upgrades absolutely free, is always going to be worse. More granularity doesn't mean more balance but less granularity certainly leads to more room for abuse.

Tell me what the difference is between spending 60 pts for a Guard squad with all options costing zero pts vs spending 3PL on them.

Cool, now lets do that for every other squad in the game that didn't get blanket free upgrades as a bandaid.

Primaris crusader squad:
11 models with pistol/chainsword is 20PL or 199 points
20 models with bolt rifles, 2x power fist, 2x pyreblaster, pyre pistol on the sgt and sigismund's seal relic is also 20PL...or 433 points

What a fantastic balancing mechanism when those 2 squads cost the exact same amount to add to your list. I'm sure this will take off as the best and one true way to play 40k any day now.

This is a pretty clear example of why PL is geared towards little timmy who just got a couple boxes of models and hasn't really read the codex but wants to push his toy soldiers around and make laser noises. If people can't see that just because it isn't a bold subtext paragraph on the first page of the rulebook, I don't think I can help them either.

This right here is why I hate the point-mongers who purposefully create strawmen to chastise the system.

Sure, a Crusader Squad with 11 models is 20 power level. Got it.

Put in the odd circumstance that you purposely choose to break the system (for the worst) you get: 5 Neophytes, 5 Initiates, and 1 Sword Brother (194 points for 20 PL)

Conversely, if you have maybe half a brain...

11 Initiates, 8 Neophytes, 1 Sword Brother (356 points for the same 20 PL)

OR (let me blow your mind here)

Drop a single Initiate and it becomes 178 points for 10PL

THEN you add in upgrades for squad size:

+5 Pyre Pistol, +10 Power Fist so 15 for the 10 model squad, +25 for the max size?

Which means... you're MUCH MORE LIKELY to come out with 193 points for 10 PL or 381 points for 20PL?

Both of those are just on the shy side of fair if you go with the 20:1 ratio, and I'd probably lobby that they should be 9/18PL instead of 10/20... but whatever, splitting hairs at that point. But good lord, the initial argument was so bombastic that it is to the point of intentionally misleading to make your argument sound like what a normal person would do.

Also, still love how the argument for/against power level assumes one person is munchkining and the other person is dragging knuckles and drooling on themselves.

If you aren't drooling on yourself then you should be capable of making a list using points. It's not a strawman to point out how easily broken PL is. It's a great system to get a new player putting models on the table with the least amount of time and knowledge necessary. Beyond that it fails as a game balancing mechanic.

Toofast wrote:
Better granularity doesn't necessarily equate to perfect balance but provides more opportunity for balance.

And when GW makes use of that opportunity many PL supporters will be happy to go back.

Toofast wrote:
If you aren't drooling on yourself then you should be capable of making a list using points. It's not a strawman to point out how easily broken PL is. It's a great system to get a new player putting models on the table with the least amount of time and knowledge necessary. Beyond that it fails as a game balancing mechanic.

You'll need to accept that the point is above the level of intellectual capacity you are applying, otherwise it will seem frustrating and irrational because you have chosen not to understand it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Also, still love how the argument for/against power level assumes one person is munchkining and the other person is dragging knuckles and drooling on themselves.

It's the only two qualities they know

Toofast wrote:

ccs wrote:

Toofast wrote:
Better granularity doesn't necessarily equate to perfect balance but provides more opportunity for balance. Hands down the stupidest argument I've heard for PL is that "points are unbalanced anyway hurr durr". Well then certainly taking a system based on points, and then giving extra models or upgrades absolutely free, is always going to be worse. More granularity doesn't mean more balance but less granularity certainly leads to more room for abuse.

Tell me what the difference is between spending 60 pts for a Guard squad with all options costing zero pts vs spending 3PL on them.

Cool, now lets do that for every other squad in the game that didn't get blanket free upgrades as a bandaid.

Primaris crusader squad:
11 models with pistol/chainsword is 20PL or 199 points
20 models with bolt rifles, 2x power fist, 2x pyreblaster, pyre pistol on the sgt and sigismund's seal relic is also 20PL...or 433 points

What a fantastic balancing mechanism when those 2 squads cost the exact same amount to add to your list. I'm sure this will take off as the best and one true way to play 40k any day now.

This is a pretty clear example of why PL is geared towards little timmy who just got a couple boxes of models and hasn't really read the codex but wants to push his toy soldiers around and make laser noises. If people can't see that just because it isn't a bold subtext paragraph on the first page of the rulebook, I don't think I can help them either.

Your 11 man squad should only cost you 15pl. Unless the Russians haven't kept the entry up to date, in wich case rant on.
In the end it really doesn't matter if we count pts or pl. Games are played, fun is had, & we do it all again next week.

Well games are played anyways.

And fewer than before.

ccs wrote:

Your 11 man squad should only cost you 15pl. Unless the Russians haven't kept the entry up to date, in wich case rant on.
In the end it really doesn't matter if we count pts or pl. Games are played, fun is had, & we do it all again next week.

I'm at work so I just pulled up my app and the primaris crusader datasheet says: "If this unit contains 11 or more models, it has Power Rating 20"

 catbarf wrote:


I have two Guard armies and play them more than xenos, you absolute clown.

Also, I think everyone would appreciate if you could try to make at least one post that isn't ranting about how everything you disagree with is 'laughable' or 'crying', or alternatively just get therapy if this forum is your redirected outlet for pent-up aggression.

Hmmm.

There's nothing intellectually wrong with PL, it just moves the imbalance to a different area.

Obviously its a bit silly that 11 guys costs the same as 15 or 20... but that just means everyone will run 15 or 20 and not 11. In much the same way people will always take the best special weapons rather than not.

While the dream is points can resolve these issues - it has to be recognised that GW has often failed, and many datasheets are "solved" for want of a better word. You can take bad options - and the points are there to provide some sort of illusion of justification - but if you are a creature of pure maths, you won't.

Yeah. The point was never about the concept or an assertion that PL are balanced. Just that less math is preferable to more math.

In the math game.

Voss wrote:
In the math game.

The removal of the math from the game is what has made it harder to balance.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yeah. The point was never about the concept or an assertion that PL are balanced. Just that less math is preferable to more math.

You could save yourself some time and remove all the math by just placing however many models will fit in your deployment zone and whoever makes the best laser noises or Ork waaaggghhh wins the game. I believe those were the core rules for AoS for a brief period. I think some of the commenters here were the target audience for that version of the game but for some reason it didn't last very long...

Toofast wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Yeah. The point was never about the concept or an assertion that PL are balanced. Just that less math is preferable to more math.

You could save yourself some time and remove all the math by just placing however many models will fit in your deployment zone and whoever makes the best laser noises or Ork waaaggghhh wins the game. I believe those were the core rules for AoS for a brief period. I think some of the commenters here were the target audience for that version of the game but for some reason it didn't last very long...

My understanding of AoS from the beginning was with out points costs you'd simply agree on the number and variety of units for a game and bring in your collection because it was all about picking a counter unit to a deployed unit from you entire available collection. The yelling nonsense just shows how much contempt GW has for players who have been collecting for a long time and still want to play. Who ever came up with that needed their writing privileges revoked.

as as much as I would like a change away from points, and I do think it is possible, I say that these granular points are not granular enough in the age of army building apps. There's no reason to not use fraction of a point where applicable across every codex and set the point just one time. Even on paper it would be completely doable.

 warhead01 wrote:


as as much as I would like a change away from points, and I do think it is possible, I say that these granular points are not granular enough in the age of army building apps. There's no reason to not use fraction of a point where applicable across every codex and set the point just one time. Even on paper it would be completely doable.

I disagree tremendously.

It is nice that apps exist for those who like to use them. GW definitely should double down on apps and get good at designing them.

But making the game dependent upon their use is another thing entirely. There's a cool concept known as Universal Design; it started with architecture, and has been adopted by other industries- particularly education. Essentially what it boils down to is that you design things in such a way that they can be used by the greatest number of people. So in architecture, we get wheelchair accessible houses as a default build; in education, we get lesson plans that are designed with learners who have special needs in mind.

Three ways to play, arguably, is a step toward universal design.

Making both good books and good apps would be another example of universal design.

A system that REQUIRES an app is no better than a system for which no app exists- it just screws a different audience.

I am furious that you NEED a cellphone to spend Tim Hortons reward points or to play their roll up the rim game. It is an example of ridiculous, backwards thinking which will only serve to alienate a portion of the customer base. Had the App been optional, I would have praised them for being forward thinking.

The only thing you should NEED a phone for is phone calls- and honestly? You shouldn't even need one for that- phone calls from a laptop are just as viable. This is not to say that you shouldn't be able to do everything on your phone too- I'm fine with that. It's the phone being NECESSARY to do things that I object to.

catbarf wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Guardsmen getting auto wound on 6s is the dumbest, least internally consistent, least fluff-based balance decision I've seen this edition. Maybe that sounds dramatic, but when someone decides that Guardsmen with lasguns should be better at killing tanks than Intercessors, it's very clear that the guys writing the rules are trying to balance tournament win rates without regard for the verisimilitude or even just matching the fluff.

So, army famous for weight of fire getting a few shots through bits of armor already weakened by previous damage somehow ""breaks verisimilitude"" even though that's literally how they deal with every single well armored foe in every single bit of IG fluff, but orkstodes, all the OP gak taudar do including laughable nonsense that is their most busted weapons capable of killing literal gods with ease (Emperor was stupid chasing webway, he should have initiated Railgun project instead to kill Chaos real dead, hurr durr), and chaffiest tyranids all lugging heavy bolters (not to mention other insane stuff that breaks the fluff to bits Tyranids now have) does not?

*slow clap*

I especially like xenos players crying what used to be glass hammers is no longer straight upgrade in durability over SM and that tiny buff SM got somehow makes them OP when in reality SM will probably go from 30% winrate to 35% while broken xeno gak goes from 70-80% to 65-75%. Oh no, the world is ending, SM no longer are removed from table like orks (except they still are to usual taudar AT spam, but SHHH on that inconvenient truth)

I have two Guard armies and play them more than xenos, you absolute clown.

'Getting a few shots through bits of armor already weakened by previous damage' is how you characterize 'failing an armor save'. I question how much fluff you've read if you interpret massed lasgun fire as 'how they deal with every single well armored foe in every single bit of IG fluff' and somehow missed all the bits about tanks, artillery, heavy weapons teams, and meltaguns. THOSE are how the Guard deals with heavily armored enemies. Lasguns being massed to inflict credible damage to tanks has never been part of the lore. Guardsmen being more effective at damaging light vehicles than Tactical Marines has absolutely never been part of the lore.

If I were halfway as faction-biased as you seem to think I am, I would be ecstatic that a single squad of un-upgraded Scions can now plausibly bracket a tank in a single round of shooting. But I'm not, because it's a stupid rule.

Also, I think everyone would appreciate if you could try to make at least one post that isn't ranting about how everything you disagree with is 'laughable' or 'crying', or alternatively just get therapy if this forum is your redirected outlet for pent-up aggression.

You have come to the place many of us who have gone back to older editions of the game have. yes in the lore an infantry small arm is not what the IG use to deal with big monsters are heavy armor. but the current game is more "game" and less Napoleonic wargame/satire that it was originally intended to be.

If you want the game to be more thematic and less about tournament balance you have to switch rule sets. rather it be picking your favorite edition, doing a hybrid "best of edition" like some of us have done, or use something like one page rules puts out.

As an old gamer not into the tournament scene i am more interested in "my dudes" fight epic battles in the 40K universe the way they should in lore, or a close proximation of it, for an epic fun battle against an opponent. not worrying about rather unit b is worth X points compared to a comparative unit B from a different factions army that is worth Y points for it's durability or lethality output.

There has to be some abstracts in the game of course because it is a game with core mechics. however GW has gotten to the point that HBMC already pointed out elsewhere, it isn't just bad rules writing, or incompetent rules writing. they have fethed this up so bad they are just throwing things against the wall trying to make something work to the point it is negligent rules writing.

For a very large group of players 9th ed isn't a fun edition of the game. that combined with the behavior of GW towards their own fanbase in many areas has driven players to seek alternatives. As a classic battletech player as well, the new interest it has brought to that game is a positive for me.

nou 804585 11348534 wrote:

Maybe this will help - are you measuring distances in milimeters, or are inches sufficient enough? And if better granularity means better balance, then why you do not advocate for increasing granularity tenfold and play 20000pts games? The balance would obviously be ten times better.

You know, there is a reason why some smart people invented terms like measurement accuracy and measurement precision and significant figures and defined them as completely independent qualities of measurement. If you don't know what those terms mean, then wiki is your friend.

But wouldn't it be more balanced. A more granular points system, would mean there could be differentiatin in points for stuff which now has flat the same points. Suddenly a heavy bolter in a marine chapter that can make it do more D, shot more times, fire it on the move without penality, get access to special ammo would and could have a different cost then an army in which it is just a X shots, Y D and Z AP, and that is it. And it could be done for everything technically indentical unit type, special rules could be actually calculated and coralation could be made between cost and and efficiency, depending on access of something in an army. Deep strikes option for an army that has it on every unit, and has no plasma/heavy weapon option, would not cost the same as lets say an army which could consist of 30 deep striking hellblasters combat squading on arrival.

Tyel wrote:While the dream is points can resolve these issues - it has to be recognised that GW has often failed, and many datasheets are "solved" for want of a better word.

The phrase that most comes to mind for me is 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'.

Yes, GW has often failed to appropriately price out different options, but I don't think that means assigning them all zero value is an improvement. There's some merit to the argument that points disguise the reality that you're going to have to converge towards parity on your own; but I've never felt like PL got me closer than points to start with, just that it was a lot quicker to put together an army under PL.

Maybe a Blaster isn't really worth the same as a Heat Lance, but at least under points they're both valued at more than the default Shardcarbine. And at least the guy carrying it has a value, too, rather than being tied to fixed increments.

I mean, this isn't an unsolvable problem. PL certainly could take wargear into account, or more granular increments of models. And points have also been going in a bad direction with decidedly unequal wargear choices being made equal-cost (see: Tyranid Warriors). Because ultimately they're both points systems, just structured a bit differently. So I really don't understand why people sometimes talk in absolutes about points versus PL.

aphyon wrote:You have come to the place many of us who have gone back to older editions of the game have. yes in the lore an infantry small arm is not what the IG use to deal with big monsters are heavy armor. but the current game is more "game" and less Napoleonic wargame/satire that it was originally intended to be.

If you want the game to be more thematic and less about tournament balance you have to switch rule sets. rather it be picking your favorite edition, doing a hybrid "best of edition" like some of us have done, or use something like one page rules puts out.

That is, unfortunately, the conclusion I've been slowly coming to. Two of my buddies have been running the Raid on Kastorel-Novem campaign from one of the Imperial Armour books using 5th Ed rules, and it's been fun to watch. My only hangup with 5th Ed is that the Tyranids book really sucked, and while I do generally prefer 4th/5th Ed for my Guard armies (one of which is really a R&H army, and those rules are tons of fun), I like to bring out the 'Nids from time to time.

OPR's Grimdark Future has been fun though. A bit sparse, but plays quickly and my wife has a much better time with it than 9th Ed.