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.

nou wrote:

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.

Ehh??? It's more like measuring with centimeters or inches vs feet.
Good luck describing the exact dimensions of a table using whole numbers.

Centimeter wont be exact, but by sure it'll be closer than feet.

I measure to the millimeter so I don't unfairly shoot at my opponent when I shouldn't be able to.

nou 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.

This is wrongheaded. When you use a tape to measure a 6" move, you're not measuring 6 inches with no decimal place of precision. You're measuring as close to the 6" mark as you can. The same is true if you use a centimeter tape. So you're not super clear on how precision actually applies to real-world measurements.

nou wrote:
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.

I'm highly aware of what those terms are, and much more familiar with them then you are. PL is both *less accurate* and *less precise* than points. I'm not saying points are perfect - but they're better than PL for balance, because it's more accurate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

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.

What's the difference between paying 95 points for a Big Mek w/ Mega Armor vs. 6 PL for it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

Some of us like math. And prefer that we can get more balanced by doing some.

catbarf wrote:

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.

We prefer using the 4th ed codex for nids as it better represent their adaptability. we just reverse "import" newer bugs into the old codex framework. I.E. using the new points cost for the new units but the rules for the gear/upgrades from the core 4th ed book. It is very cross compatible as with many codexes through GWs history often saw use halfway through the next editions because of GWs release policy

 catbarf wrote:

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.

My wife enjoyed early 8th but found the extra layers of rules in 9th to be cumbersome, so when we played we often omitted doctrine-equivalents & stratagems. How much faster of a game would you consider OPR? We typically played 500pt games for 60-90 minutes. Then we found a copy of Blackstone Fortress and found that to be a much more fun way to pass the time during lockdowns.

Hecaton wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

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.

What's the difference between paying 95 points for a Big Mek w/ Mega Armor vs. 6 PL for it?

In isolation of context there isn't a difference, they're both made up values assigned to a made up profile in a fictional game. Both can be balanced to one degree or another against other made up numbers

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

Some of us like math. And prefer that we can get more balanced by doing some.

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...

Unfortunately that is only fun when one applies the same level of intelligence you are to this conversation.

But, the ultimate irony in bringing that up is almost all of the gameplay during that era happened under one of the fan-comps that did provide points. And no edition of Warhammer has ever been as balanced as what fans came up with inside of a year.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Unfortunately that is only fun when one applies the same level of intelligence you are to this conversation.

The guy you're quoting made a sarcastic point, but the implied point was smarter and more thought-out than anything you've said in this thread. It anticipates your argument and scathingly disproves it.

Hecaton wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Unfortunately that is only fun when one applies the same level of intelligence you are to this conversation.

The guy you're quoting made a sarcastic point, but the implied point was smarter and more thought-out than anything you've said in this thread. It anticipates your argument and scathingly disproves it.

We get it, you don't understand the argument and don't want to. You've made that pretty clear.

Hecaton wrote:


What's the difference between paying 95 points for a Big Mek w/ Mega Armor vs. 6 PL for it?

Big difference.

6PL Big mek might have KFF, Killsaw and Grot Oiler which costs 40 points, aka 40ish % more than the 95 points model's cost, if you consider points. It's like making it cost 8-9PL if he takes that gear.

Voss wrote:

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.

Indeed, and im not sure if you're trying ti argue against something I didn't say?

Please note the underlined bits. It's more complicated than 'less granular is better' but my point wasn't about that, it was illustrating that some of the best balanced systems out there were less granular systems, not more granular systems.

You could make every space marine cost 40,000 points if you wanted, but it still won't make it a 'better' system.

Doesn't warmachine have unit attachments and unit special weapons which are bought from a separate points pull, which on top of that is modified based on what theme list someone plays?

 Blackie wrote:

Hecaton wrote:


What's the difference between paying 95 points for a Big Mek w/ Mega Armor vs. 6 PL for it?

Big difference.

6PL Big mek might have KFF, Killsaw and Grot Oiler which costs 40 points, aka 40ish % more than the 95 points model's cost, if you consider points. It's like making it cost 8-9PL if he takes that gear.

Your math is off. Remember, 1 PL ~20 points. The 95 point MegaMek I'm describing has a TP Blasta and no KFF. If you give him the KFF he clocks in around 120. But this is my point about PL being less accurate - he should only cost 5 PL if he's 95 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
We get it, you don't understand the argument and don't want to. You've made that pretty clear.

No, your argument was pretty clear - you want simpler arithmetic and don't care if it has the knockoff consequence of wrecking game balance. That's worth criticizing.

Karol wrote:
Doesn't warmachine have unit attachments and unit special weapons which are bought from a separate points pull, which on top of that is modified based on what theme list someone plays?

you have

.warcaster/warlock

.warjack/warbeast

.units

.unit attachments

.solos

.battle engines

.colossals

.each is bought separately for points and has field allowance restrictions (limit to the number that can be taken in an army)

the exception being warjacks/warbeasts and casters/warlocks-

the casters are free with a certain number of free points to bring the jacks/beasts for free. you can bring more than the free points allow but you must pay for them in overall army points.

What you are mostly thinking of is unit attachments, and some solos that stay in command range of a unit to give them special abilities.

Themed lists are restricted lists that give effectively "free models" similar to how 7th ed 40K did formations (i prefer not to use them so i can take the models i like to use).

Hecaton wrote:


Your math is off. Remember, 1 PL ~20 points. The 95 point MegaMek I'm describing has a TP Blasta and no KFF. If you give him the KFF he clocks in around 120. But this is my point about PL being less accurate - he should only cost 5 PL if he's 95 points.

I did my math based on percentages rather than the actual PL/points conversion. 95 points compared to 135 and 6 PL compared to 8-9 PL. The increase is the same percentages. And +2PL (the jump from 6PL to 8PL) would match the +40points hike that the big mek gets when maxing out his upgrades.

I know that PL are less accurate though, to the point that most of the points costs are based assuming the unit did take most of, if not all, the expensive gear. There is a significant difference between a big mek with TP (the 95 points one) and a big mek with KFF (the 6PL or 115 points one) in terms of gameplay and also price, by using points.

 catbarf wrote:
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.

Not sure its adding much but I broadly agree with you. Especially if PL were to factor in wargear, you'd basically just have a points system divided by 20. There would be some biting points - but there are already.
Points should be better - but require GW to review them holistically. And I think there's a lot of evidence that they want to move on from that.

Hecaton wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Hecaton wrote:


What's the difference between paying 95 points for a Big Mek w/ Mega Armor vs. 6 PL for it?

Big difference.

6PL Big mek might have KFF, Killsaw and Grot Oiler which costs 40 points, aka 40ish % more than the 95 points model's cost, if you consider points. It's like making it cost 8-9PL if he takes that gear.

Your math is off. Remember, 1 PL ~20 points. The 95 point MegaMek I'm describing has a TP Blasta and no KFF. If you give him the KFF he clocks in around 120. But this is my point about PL being less accurate - he should only cost 5 PL if he's 95 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
We get it, you don't understand the argument and don't want to. You've made that pretty clear.

No, your argument was pretty clear - you want simpler arithmetic and don't care if it has the knockoff consequence of wrecking game balance. That's worth criticizing.

If you assume that the points costs of units overall are correct, then indeed, a MegaMek should be 5 PL. But the thing is, most points costs just aren't correct and they never will be. Partially because GW just isn't that competent, but far more importantly because it's actually pretty much impossible to balance a game with way too many options like 40k has. Another issue is that in 40k, the rules try to include far too much granularity for the size of the games (like seriously, do we need to differentiate a dozen varieties of the same basic weapon or make differences between swords, clubs, axes, and all that?)

There's a reason why most other games don't use 2000 points for armies or warbands and that is because that just gives fake granularity that the designers can't actually work around. Of course, it runs into the issue that some pieces of equipment are much better than others (plasma vs grenade launchers for instance) but that only really means that more has to be done to differentiate them. Which, if points no longer are the absolute focus, should be much easier. It would also help if GW moved on from giving every little detail on a model rules. They could do with much more abstraction.

aphyon wrote:We prefer using the 4th ed codex for nids as it better represent their adaptability. we just reverse "import" newer bugs into the old codex framework. I.E. using the new points cost for the new units but the rules for the gear/upgrades from the core 4th ed book. It is very cross compatible as with many codexes through GWs history often saw use halfway through the next editions because of GWs release policy

I might give that a shot. Though in some cases I may end up homebrewing new rules- eg Tyrannofexes being AP4 never sat right with me.

The Red Hobbit wrote:My wife enjoyed early 8th but found the extra layers of rules in 9th to be cumbersome, so when we played we often omitted doctrine-equivalents & stratagems. How much faster of a game would you consider OPR? We typically played 500pt games for 60-90 minutes. Then we found a copy of Blackstone Fortress and found that to be a much more fun way to pass the time during lockdowns.

Still faster than even no-stratagem, no-doctrine 8th/9th. I mean, feel free to have a look at the core rules and army lists. The rules reference sheet with USRs is one page, double-sided, with reasonably normal sized text, and the army lists are one page double-sided as well. Gameplay involves a lot less rolling than 40K and general resolution is faster. It does slow down a bit due to analysis paralysis in the AA system, but a game is four turns, so it ends up going pretty quickly.

1000pts of GDF is 500-750pts of 40K, and takes under an hour in my experience. It's not a super deep game, but it feels like a wargame and keeps both players involved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dolnikan wrote:
If you assume that the points costs of units overall are correct, then indeed, a MegaMek should be 5 PL. But the thing is, most points costs just aren't correct and they never will be. Partially because GW just isn't that competent, but far more importantly because it's actually pretty much impossible to balance a game with way too many options like 40k has. Another issue is that in 40k, the rules try to include far too much granularity for the size of the games (like seriously, do we need to differentiate a dozen varieties of the same basic weapon or make differences between swords, clubs, axes, and all that?)

There's a reason why most other games don't use 2000 points for armies or warbands and that is because that just gives fake granularity that the designers can't actually work around. Of course, it runs into the issue that some pieces of equipment are much better than others (plasma vs grenade launchers for instance) but that only really means that more has to be done to differentiate them. Which, if points no longer are the absolute focus, should be much easier. It would also help if GW moved on from giving every little detail on a model rules. They could do with much more abstraction.

Maybe the points are wrong and the Mek shouldn't be cheaper with certain wargear; but maybe the points are wrong and the Mek with that loadout actually should be cheaper still, and clock in at 4PL or whatever. And if we're comparing KFF and no KFF, then there's a difference in power there that ought to be accounted for in some fashion. Otherwise it's not actually a choice.

The underlying point is that wargear can drastically affect the value of a model, but PL currently makes no provision for representing that. Points costs may not always get the value right, but that doesn't mean that setting the value of all wargear to 0 produces a better outcome.

I like the push towards sidegrade options, so that if 40K has to represent swords vs axes vs clubs (because I agree, that's too much minutiae for the scale of the game) then at least they can all be equivalent cost, but significant straight upgrades are commonplace in 40K and the lack of representation is a major impediment to balancing under PL. The granularity isn't 'fake', it exists, but it isn't nearly as beneficial to balancing as just representing power-altering options would be.

Deadnight wrote:

Voss wrote:

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.

Indeed, and im not sure if you're trying ti argue against something I didn't say?

Please note the underlined bits. It's more complicated than 'less granular is better' but my point wasn't about that, it was illustrating that some of the best balanced systems out there were less granular systems, not more granular systems.

No, I'm arguing against what you did say: Yes, it is 'more to it,' there are a lot of complications. And part of that is having more moving parts. In a system where you only take units 'as is,' you can get away with simple and low points. When each unit can have 0-15 options, and they have a wildly varied effect on the game, you can't do that.

Also, with smaller point values, each mistake by the devs in costing units has a larger effect on the game. As much as people like to quibble, if a single space marine is 20 or 22 points rather 21, the over all effect on a 1500 or 2000 point game is pretty minor. If heavy warjack is 7 but really should be 10, it matters a lot.

Voss wrote:
No, I'm arguing against what you did say: Yes, it is 'more to it,' there are a lot of complications. And part of that is having more moving parts. In a system where you only take units 'as is,' you can get away with simple and low points. When each unit can have 0-15 options, and they have a wildly varied effect on the game, you can't do that.

Also, with smaller point values, each mistake by the devs in costing units has a larger effect on the game. As much as people like to quibble, if a single space marine is 20 or 22 points rather 21, the over all effect on a 1500 or 2000 point game is pretty minor. If heavy warjack is 7 but really should be 10, it matters a lot.

Well, costing a warjack at 7 when it should be 10 is like costing a Marine at 20pts when it should be 28pts, or costing the warjack at 70 when it should be 100. That's a proportionality issue that holds true regardless of where you set the granularity.

I'm inclined to think that you could easily reduce all points costs by a factor of 5, and do an end run around the reduced granularity by:
-Assigning costs of units based on increments of some number of models (smaller than PL does),
-Giving unit-wide wargear costs based on the same increments, and
-Rounding one-off upgrades as needed.

So maybe a unit of Tyranid Warriors costs 5pts apiece, you can give them all Adrenal Glands at 1pt for every 3 models, and a Venom Cannon upgrade is 1pt. Tempestus Scions can be 9pts for every 5 models, with flamers/GLs/HSVGs costing 1pt apiece and melta/plasma costing 2pts.

Granularity of per-model costs is preserved by tying the points cost to multiple models, and upgrades are essentially rounded to the nearest 5pts (which seems about as granular as GW has been able to effectively do). Pretty simple.

Voss wrote:

No, I'm arguing against what you did say: Yes, it is 'more to it,' there are a lot of complications. And part of that is having more moving parts. In a system where you only take units 'as is,' you can get away with simple and low points. When each unit can have 0-15 options, and they have a wildly varied effect on the game, you can't do that.

Um...

Youre not arguing 'against' what I said. If you were, you'd be saying less granularity is terrible, more granularity is better. You're not saying that.

Lets try again. What I did say is low granular points can work, look to wmh but it's a bit more complicated than that... We're actually not in disagreement here. You say it yourself.

I've always acknowledged that there's other factors at play voss, and you're mischaracterizing my position unfairly if you want to claim I'm not saying that and i really dont appreciate it if you are. I just didn't want to dig down intp it because (a) it's going off topic, and (b) there are a lot more aspects to it that I didn't want to get into at the time- again, i said what I said because I think its short sighted to just claim 'more granularity is better'.

Voss wrote:

Also, with smaller point values, each mistake by the devs in costing units has a larger effect on the game. As much as people like to quibble, if a single space marine is 20 or 22 points rather 21, the over all effect on a 1500 or 2000 point game is pretty minor. If heavy warjack is 7 but really should be 10, it matters a lot.

Youre not wrong, but in my experience playing wmh for about 15 years, being over or under by a point mattered a hell of a lot less[i] than, say, taking stryker over haley 2, or strakhov over butcher3, or taking winter guard without Joe rather than with. As you say, there's more to it.

 catbarf wrote:

Voss wrote:
No, I'm arguing against what you did say: Yes, it is 'more to it,' there are a lot of complications. And part of that is having more moving parts. In a system where you only take units 'as is,' you can get away with simple and low points. When each unit can have 0-15 options, and they have a wildly varied effect on the game, you can't do that.

Also, with smaller point values, each mistake by the devs in costing units has a larger effect on the game. As much as people like to quibble, if a single space marine is 20 or 22 points rather 21, the over all effect on a 1500 or 2000 point game is pretty minor. If heavy warjack is 7 but really should be 10, it matters a lot.

Well, costing a warjack at 7 when it should be 10 is like costing a Marine at 20pts when it should be 28pts, or costing the warjack at 70 when it should be 100. That's a proportionality issue that holds true regardless of where you set the granularity.

I'm inclined to think that you could easily reduce all points costs by a factor of 5, and do an end run around the reduced granularity by:
-Assigning costs of units based on increments of some number of models (smaller than PL does),
-Giving unit-wide wargear costs based on the same increments, and
-Rounding one-off upgrades as needed.

So maybe a unit of Tyranid Warriors costs 5pts apiece, you can give them all Adrenal Glands at 1pt for every 3 models, and a Venom Cannon upgrade is 1pt. Tempestus Scions can be 9pts for every 5 models, with flamers/GLs/HSVGs costing 1pt apiece and melta/plasma costing 2pts.

Granularity of per-model costs is preserved by tying the points cost to multiple models, and upgrades are essentially rounded to the nearest 5pts (which seems about as granular as GW has been able to effectively do). Pretty simple.

This right here, what Voss wrote, is a perfect illustration of the biggest flaw of overly granular point systems - they make people believe, that it is possible to pinpoint the cost of a model/weapon/wargear to +/- 1 point, when the real in-game value of an item swings at least an order of magnitude higher than this depending on mission and matchup context. The more universal the item is, the less swing there is, the more specialised the item is, the more swing there is. And no, "pinpointing to the average" is not possible either, because the boundaries you are calculating such average for change with "the meta", which in turn change with "the average" you assign to items.

@ catbarf: As I've wrote it above, granularity of around 100-200 units is perfectly workable in 40k and even currently, the real granularity of large swathes of the point system in 40k is 400 units, not 2000 units - 5pts increments are a standard since many editions ago and in many, many cases upgrades that are 1-2 pts per model must be taken for all models in the squad, so you still pay multiples of 5pts for them.

going down to +/- 1 point is impossible for 40k, simply because random damage weapons exist

how to you calculate D6 damage weapons, points per average damage because on 100 games the points will be right?
points on maximum possible damage? (what GW has done for long)
points for minimum possible damage?

does it make a difference which unit takes the weapons, should every additional similar weapon cost more because the chance to do the average amount of damage is higher the more you take?


40k has the illusion of balance via points on a fine granularity by adding single points to wargear
and now people believe that there is no other way without breaking the not existing balance of 40k

for the game itself, it won't matter of those are single points, steps of 5 or 10, 2000 points or 20
the balance were such details would make sense is not there in the first place

It depends on what you are looking at.

Whether a "unit" should be 100 or 101 points is likely to be incidental. But if individual models should be 10 - but one is priced at 11, and another is priced at 9 - this can start to have a significant impact. If that spread is replicated across a 2k army, I'm effectively playing a faction with 2200 points and you are playing a faction with 1800. Its not surprising that my win percentage is much higher as a result. If you could bring an extra unit or two - and I had to leave a unit or two behind, it would have a massive impact on the game.

 kodos wrote:
going down to +/- 1 point is impossible for 40k, simply because random damage weapons exist

how to you calculate D6 damage weapons, points per average damage because on 100 games the points will be right?
points on maximum possible damage? (what GW has done for long)
points for minimum possible damage?

does it make a difference which unit takes the weapons, should every additional similar weapon cost more because the chance to do the average amount of damage is higher the more you take?


40k has the illusion of balance via points on a fine granularity by adding single points to wargear
and now people believe that there is no other way without breaking the not existing balance of 40k

for the game itself, it won't matter of those are single points, steps of 5 or 10, 2000 points or 20
the balance were such details would make sense is not there in the first place

That is another of the great many reasons why 2000 units make no practical sense, yes.

Wouldn't be issues of one wargear option being better than another if every option was viable in a specific niche. But I guess asking for actual balance outside of "points adjustments" is too much for the GW skeleton crew to handle.

Should just adopt AoS point system. Its more align to 40k PL than 40k points, but the larger number allows for a little more granularity.

 catbarf wrote:

aphyon wrote:We prefer using the 4th ed codex for nids as it better represent their adaptability. we just reverse "import" newer bugs into the old codex framework. I.E. using the new points cost for the new units but the rules for the gear/upgrades from the core 4th ed book. It is very cross compatible as with many codexes through GWs history often saw use halfway through the next editions because of GWs release policy

I might give that a shot. Though in some cases I may end up homebrewing new rules- eg Tyrannofexes being AP4 never sat right with me.

It is hard to use the 4th ed codex for nids because a) half of my nid army doesn't have 4th ed rules and b) even the 4th ed codex struggles to work in the 5th ruleset. Good luck facing a vehicle list when the venom cannon is unable to make pens and it is nearly impossible to kill vehicles with glancing hits.

Personally if I had to play using 5th rules, I would prefer to reverse engineer the new 9th ed datasheets to work in 5th.

The swinging of value between games is very important and I think is a huge issue for 40k.

Almost all armies in 40k inherently skew some way - look at a Space Marine army and show me some light infantry. Or heavy infantry in a Guard list - no Ogryns don't count because they're a very different target profile than Astartes.
Or even to the further extremes like Knights, which are about as skewed in one direction as it's possible to get.

It even makes TAC lists problematic as a TAC list won't have enough of the relevant anti-profile if it encounters the corresponding skew.

Additionally:

The Power Level computation of MOST units is some sort of median between their base kit and their max kit. What that normally turns into is that if you barebones a unit, you're losing out on the ratio... and if you max a unit, you may be able to "game" the system some to get a slight boost to your ratio.

Having built PL armies frequently, I'll tell you there's some units that just never come to that true 20:1 ratio, and there's some units that can mock it. Before the PL Adjustment sheet, it was literally impossible to get 20:1 on the Sisters' tanks, they were 1PL too high and would come in 5 to 15 points below the ratio. Then they did a points and PL adjustment and they're coming in around or just over the 8PL cost they sport when converted to points. Normally, the big units with less flexibility are fairly close... like normally within 1PL and normally for the worse.

However, there is a dark side of that:

A basic BSS costs 3 PL (I think they should be 4, but they cost 3... whatever). I think with a Simulacrum, Combi-melta, and Multi-melta, they're coming in at like 90 points, which puts them between 4 and 5 PL. Which means if I make those squads, I do get a little boost... but I dunno how significant that is across the course of the game, but having the spot MM here and there does... stuff... by definition. They still largely have the role of muddling around and trying to get me some ObSec while being able to toss a couple of shots down range. I feel that troops and ObSec have a bit of a diminished value in Crusade, too, since normally the games have fewer (if any) objectives and the agendas are pretty much what you're working on.

Then there is the "weird" cases, which I doubt are very weird at all, when players choose "sub-optimal" load outs so the units can serve a role. I believe my Heavy Bolter Retributors lose out on the PL:points ratio, but I tend to not care at all because they make up for that after deployment with their ROLE. I also think role-based squads pop up a bit more in Crusade or PL games because you're not trying to "cut points here to boost points there".

Is it breakable? Absolutely. But I'd argue it is breakable in the same way that bringing 5 naked BSS girls in order to shift 40 points into Retributors to afford the upgrade from Heavy Bolters to Multi-melta breaks point games and makes stuff inanely difficult to balance. The trim-and-bloat style of list building is just a swingy version of PL... only in PL it could be argued that instead of all that strength being diverted into a super-cereal core of units designed to do the work, the power is by nature divided more evenly over the army.

I doubt it will ever work for GTs or massive events with rewards on the line, but I'd definitely applaud them a bit for sticking with it, refining it, and not abandoning it after 8th edition. I think a few more passes and it will be passable (like adding PL increases for pricy upgrades to specific units - like they did with Daemon Prince wings). Lascannons are "good" (read as: expensive), so you take a PL hit for running it... but the basic squad may actually drop a point or two in PL (especially something like Retributors, who are basic sisters before upgrades, but cost 6PL instead of 3). There's definitely room for more improvement, and maybe they're ready to ditch points by 10th, who knows. I honestly doubt they'll ever unify matched play and narrative play under that same umbrella, though, so stressing about it is overly pointless. And even if they do unify the systems... what can we do about it? Play on playa, or fuss in dakka about current edition rules when you haven't played in 3-4 editions. GW living rent free!

A few edits:

Changed some capitalization to prevent colon+character emojis, lol... silly ratio formatting.

I also wanted to add: My HB Rets, the sub-optimal unit that they are... lots of player would probably argue that they're frustrating and one of my better units in the game. Some things cannot be quantified when the role is matched well with a need.

 catbarf wrote:

Still faster than even no-stratagem, no-doctrine 8th/9th. I mean, feel free to have a look at the core rules and [url=https://webapp.onepagerules.com/game-systems/grimdark-future]army lists[url]. The rules reference sheet with USRs is one page, double-sided, with reasonably normal sized text, and the army lists are one page double-sided as well. Gameplay involves a lot less rolling than 40K and general resolution is faster. It does slow down a bit due to analysis paralysis in the AA system, but a game is four turns, so it ends up going pretty quickly.

1000pts of GDF is 500-750pts of 40K, and takes under an hour in my experience. It's not a super deep game, but it feels like a wargame and keeps both players involved.

Oh I didn't realize it was AA as well. Thanks we'll have to check it out one day.