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:

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.

Sure, but how does making them all free fix this issue rather than exacerbating it?

Toofast wrote:

nou wrote:

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.

Sure, but how does making them all free fix this issue rather than exacerbating it?

Can it even be fixed?

And if it can't?

 Blackie wrote:
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.

Ah. That's wrongheaded - the MegaMek is given PL *assuming* you take the KFF (and that the KFF is worth taking in 9th).

 Blackie wrote:
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.

Yes, but there are people in this thread who are arguing that PL is more or as accurate as points, so I'm arguing against them.


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.

Yes, but in this example, that makes PL *even less* accurate than points while being even less granular.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
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.

No, people don't believe this. They just know it's a better approximation than PL.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

 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.

Its more strategic than 40k too IMO.

Tyran wrote:

 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.

Except that is not true. i have been playing hybrid 5th ed since 8th edition dropped. when i run nids i have zero trouble killing vehicles. just a couple weeks ago i blew up a land raider with a brood lord. just because one weapon (venom cannon) can never pen, doesn't mean other units/weapons cannot. also glancing hits still effect the performance of vehicles. they are not supposed to destroy them directly (with the possibility of doing it through cumulative damage). it is part of the immersion and the reason why 5th ed vehicle damage is my favorite take on the damage chart.

As for rules, yes if you are using new units from 8th or 9th ed they do not work because they are not cross compatible. 8th and 9th are a completely different game. however 3rd-7th are absolutely cross compatible.

Toofast wrote:

nou wrote:

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.

Sure, but how does making them all free fix this issue rather than exacerbating it?

For the hundredth time - all my posts about adequate granularity are NOT in defence of GW's implementation of low granularity point system. And if you remember my POV from various similar threads, I'm strongly against treating point system as end all, be all balance tools, because they do not work in this role at all.

So, to reiterate one last time - because point systems of any kind can only ever put very rough brackets on real, effective match time value of units, keeping the precision of measurement close to the real accuracy of said measurement prevents people from believing, that points matter as much as they think they do. Then, on top of a general structure of rough point measurement, other, more adequate balancing tools should be utilised to ensure a fair game.

I've recently realised something funny - some time ago, Deadnight mentioned how Warcaster approaches balance. And it's the same process everybody knows from their childhood if they ever played spontaneous soccer/basketball game - the most intuitive approach of "draw players one by one from the common pool" is the best one that anybody implemented in a wargame

 aphyon wrote:

Except that is not true. i have been playing hybrid 5th ed since 8th edition dropped. when i run nids i have zero trouble killing vehicles. just a couple weeks ago i blew up a land raider with a brood lord. just because one weapon (venom cannon) can never pen, doesn't mean other units/weapons cannot. also glancing hits still effect the performance of vehicles. they are not supposed to destroy them directly (with the possibility of doing it through cumulative damage). it is part of the immersion and the reason why 5th ed vehicle damage is my favorite take on the damage chart.

As for rules, yes if you are using new units from 8th or 9th ed they do not work because they are not cross compatible. 8th and 9th are a completely different game. however 3rd-7th are absolutely cross compatible.

Considering that a 4th edition broodlord with toxin sacs needs to roll 6s to rend and then roll 5-6 to pen a Land Raider, and then 5-6 for destroyed result, nice rolls but not exactly a convincing argument.

And I don't think a 5th edition broodlord can even hope to accomplish that.

As for rules, yes if you are using new units from 8th or 9th ed they do not work because they are not cross compatible. 8th and 9th are a completely different game. however 3rd-7th are absolutely cross compatible.

Hence I said "reverse engineer". General rules would be halving infantry wounds and reducing monster wounds to a third and toughness values by 1. For AP, simply add 6, so e.g AP -1 + 6 = AP 5. Weapons with a strength value over 10 are reduced to 10 but get a bonus AP (so Rupture Cannons would be S10 AP1).

More weird weapons and abilities would need more thought, but I'm not playing a Tyrannofex with the extremely subpar rules it had in 5th and 6th ed codexes.

nou 804585 11349138 wrote:

I've recently realised something funny - some time ago, Deadnight mentioned how Warcaster approaches balance. And it's the same process everybody knows from their childhood if they ever played spontaneous soccer/basketball game - the most intuitive approach of "draw players one by one from the common pool" is the best one that anybody implemented in a wargame

To my expiriance this generally ends with one team being 2/3 of the local SKS club members and the rest being 1-3 good players and a ton of randoms getting smashed everytime.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight 804585 11349119 wrote:
Can it even be fixed?

And if it can't?

Lets assume this is true, is this the reason to make stuff even worse?

 Tyran wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

Except that is not true. i have been playing hybrid 5th ed since 8th edition dropped. when i run nids i have zero trouble killing vehicles. just a couple weeks ago i blew up a land raider with a brood lord. just because one weapon (venom cannon) can never pen, doesn't mean other units/weapons cannot. also glancing hits still effect the performance of vehicles. they are not supposed to destroy them directly (with the possibility of doing it through cumulative damage). it is part of the immersion and the reason why 5th ed vehicle damage is my favorite take on the damage chart.

As for rules, yes if you are using new units from 8th or 9th ed they do not work because they are not cross compatible. 8th and 9th are a completely different game. however 3rd-7th are absolutely cross compatible.

Considering that a 4th edition broodlord with toxin sacs needs to roll 6s to rend and then roll 5-6 to pen a Land Raider, and then 5-6 for destroyed result, nice rolls but not exactly a convincing argument.

And I don't think a 5th edition broodlord can even hope to accomplish that.

As for rules, yes if you are using new units from 8th or 9th ed they do not work because they are not cross compatible. 8th and 9th are a completely different game. however 3rd-7th are absolutely cross compatible.

Hence I said "reverse engineer". General rules would be halving infantry wounds and reducing monster wounds to a third and toughness values by 1. For AP, simply add 6, so e.g AP -1 + 6 = AP 5. Weapons with a strength value over 10 are reduced to 10 but get a bonus AP (so Rupture Cannons would be S10 AP1).

More weird weapons and abilities would need more thought, but I'm not playing a Tyrannofex with the extremely subpar rules it had in 5th and 6th ed codexes.

Methinks you have forgotten the 4th edition rules:
rending in close combat was on 6s TO HIT (much easier than 6s to wound since you roll more dice) and gave you 6+d6 armor penetration. With a strength of 5 (?) he would need a 3 to glance a Land Raider and kill it on a 6, or a 4+ to pen and kill it on a 4+.

If he's strength 4, he would need a 4 to glance and kill on a 6, and a 5+ to pen and kill on a 4+.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Methinks you have forgotten the 4th edition rules:
rending in close combat was on 6s TO HIT (much easier than 6s to wound since you roll more dice) and gave you 6+d6 armor penetration. With a strength of 5 (?) he would need a 3 to glance a Land Raider and kill it on a 6, or a 4+ to pen and kill it on a 4+.

If he's strength 4, he would need a 4 to glance and kill on a 6, and a 5+ to pen and kill on a 4+.

But I thought we were talking about 5th in which vehicles were exponentially tougher (with glances being unable to kill vehicles and pens needing 5+) and rending was much weaker as it worked on To Wound rolls and was 6+D3 penetration.

4th ed Tyranids had little issue killing vehicles in 4th edition, but struggled in 5th edition (and were screwed if they ran into an IG leaf blower list)

Ahh true true, forgive me.

I play 4th currently.

I have to say, this arguement over purposeful difficulty as some form of barrier to the casuals smacks of the same argument used against 5th, from the 3rd ed. Grognards. Who gives a crap if it's easier or harder to build a list? You all act like you aren't extremely entitled rich white adult males playing with fething dolls. Which is the point. I want MORE people in this game, not less. I want it to be easy to make a quick game happen, and I want it easier to make 3rd party list building apps to replace the gak that GW puts out.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Who gives a crap if it's easier or harder to build a list? You all act like you aren't extremely entitled rich white adult males playing with fething dolls.

Woah, y'know many of us aren't (who knows about the subjective "extremely entitled" part) those things, what a weird assumption about class/sex/race for someone looking for more people to be involved. I and the people I play fit at most one of those categories each and are fine nerds, thanks.

But, most people aren't saying anything about intentional barriers, just the value of granularity, and I would be surprised if there were a very large demographic who enjoyed 40k but couldn't add to 4-digit numbers with a calculator. It's kind of weirdly insulting though that you think that that barrier is what excludes people outside your accused group from enjoying the game.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I have to say, this arguement over purposeful difficulty as some form of barrier to the casuals smacks of the same argument used against 5th, from the 3rd ed. Grognards. Who gives a crap if it's easier or harder to build a list? You all act like you aren't extremely entitled rich white adult males playing with fething dolls. Which is the point. I want MORE people in this game, not less. I want it to be easy to make a quick game happen, and I want it easier to make 3rd party list building apps to replace the gak that GW puts out.

There are nonwhite people who are good at math, too, you idiot.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I have to say, this arguement over purposeful difficulty as some form of barrier to the casuals smacks of the same argument used against 5th, from the 3rd ed. Grognards. Who gives a crap if it's easier or harder to build a list? You all act like you aren't extremely entitled rich white adult males playing with fething dolls. Which is the point. I want MORE people in this game, not less. I want it to be easy to make a quick game happen, and I want it easier to make 3rd party list building apps to replace the gak that GW puts out.

You want Tindr or Humpr or Grindr or Tik-Tok 40K? Why level everything down to a lowest common denominator in the name of inclusivity? Why not be exclusive, with a cognitive barrier to entry alongside the other barriers in the forms of monetary investment, time, hobby skill development, and so on?

This thread wasn't really on the rails to start with but holy crap I leave for a few hours to work on an introduction to narrative play and come back to some of the most insane back and forth nonsense I've witnessed on this site.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I have to say, this arguement over purposeful difficulty as some form of barrier to the casuals smacks of the same argument used against 5th, from the 3rd ed. Grognards. Who gives a crap if it's easier or harder to build a list? You all act like you aren't extremely entitled rich white adult males playing with fething dolls. Which is the point. I want MORE people in this game, not less. I want it to be easy to make a quick game happen, and I want it easier to make 3rd party list building apps to replace the gak that GW puts out.

So you’re saying we have to dumb things down for minorities?, that’s kind of very not good. I would reconsider what you’re saying.

I'd prefer less people in the game if it meant it were a more quality game. Keeping in mind even if you cut the entire player base in half you'd STILL easily find a game in any state barring Alaska

Tyran wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Methinks you have forgotten the 4th edition rules:
rending in close combat was on 6s TO HIT (much easier than 6s to wound since you roll more dice) and gave you 6+d6 armor penetration. With a strength of 5 (?) he would need a 3 to glance a Land Raider and kill it on a 6, or a 4+ to pen and kill it on a 4+.

If he's strength 4, he would need a 4 to glance and kill on a 6, and a 5+ to pen and kill on a 4+.

But I thought we were talking about 5th in which vehicles were exponentially tougher (with glances being unable to kill vehicles and pens needing 5+) and rending was much weaker as it worked on To Wound rolls and was 6+D3 penetration.

4th ed Tyranids had little issue killing vehicles in 4th edition, but struggled in 5th edition (and were screwed if they ran into an IG leaf blower list)

Unit1126PLL wrote:Ahh true true, forgive me.

I play 4th currently.

Yes we are using 5th ed rules so rending is only a 6 + a d3 VS armor, however for a vehicle that didn't move you auto hit....so a brood lord gets 5 hits on the charge at S6 with rending.

Now that aside and my good dice rolls, we use AV14 as the gold standard, however not many vehicles in the game are AV14, or not AV14 all around like a land raider or a monolith. when it comes to vehicle smashing nids with the 4th ed codex even with the downtuned rending(it really needed it after 4th) there are still plenty of things that can hurt heavy armor. zoanthropes S10 AP1 lance, carnifexes with S8 barbed stranglers, any big bug in melee combat and of course the humble outflanking gene stealer/broodlord combos. if you start reverse importing the new bugs from 5th-7th into the 4th ed codex you have hive guard with assault 2 S8 indirect fire guns, tyrano fex, trygons, mawlocks etc

The last list i ran was thematically focused on melee combat, however more shooting themed lists are still just as viable.

The point for catbarf is he still can enjoy playing 40K, even if it isn't the current edition, from the sounds of it his friends playing the FW campaign they seem to have figured this out.

nou wrote:

 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.

So a Leman Russ is worth 10-1000 pts and a Guardsman is worth 1-100 pts? That's as close as you can get to balance? That's two orders of magnitude. If balance was as loose as you suggest we wouldn't see changes in the meta when GW adjusts points by 20%. A bolt pistol is better than a laspistol, it shouldn't be 5 points or 0 pts. Going from 235 to 237 pts is too granular, going from 5 to 7 pts is not.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I'd prefer less people in the game if it meant it were a more quality game. Keeping in mind even if you cut the entire player base in half you'd STILL easily find a game in any state barring Alaska

Ah yes, 40k, the US of A native game.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I'd prefer less people in the game if it meant it were a more quality game. Keeping in mind even if you cut the entire player base in half you'd STILL easily find a game in any state barring Alaska

Ah yes, 40k, the US of A native game.

I'm talking for myself in that instance. If I lived elsewhere I'd use elsewhere in my sentence. Your point is what?

When I lived in a relatively small town in the UK I still had two clubs playing 40k within a short walk of my house. That was even before the huge covid-boom.
The 40k player base is plenty large enough for what it is imo, there's no need pressing need to grow it and I would happily sacrifice some numbers for a better quality game.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I'd prefer less people in the game if it meant it were a more quality game. Keeping in mind even if you cut the entire player base in half you'd STILL easily find a game in any state barring Alaska

Good for you, but how about the people that don't live in countries with populations over 400 milion? If you cut store populations outside of UK or US, you get dead stores and then no one gets to play there at all.

US and EU are very different here, less people in the US because of changes to the game, does not mean less people in the EU as well

People like different styles of games and a lot of games that are well received in EU are not that popular in USA and vice versa

current version of 40k sells more in the USA and the market share is larger than for EU in the last years
it also has a larger potential to grow, so GW won't change something as long as the larger potential market likes the game

The quality of the 40Ks rules wasn't better when the playerbase was smaller, though.

Good for you, but how about the people that don't live in countries with populations over 400 milion? If you cut store populations outside of UK or US, you get dead stores and then no one gets to play there at all.

Thats true anywhere you live.

I Iive about an hour away from my game shop. there are some more rural areas of the country that have almost no gamers.

Building a strong gaming community is key to having people to play with rather or not the games played are related to GW. i play every weekend for over 12 hours and i have not had a GW related game in the store for a month, however i have gotten loads of classic battletech and warmachine games in. other players have been playing flames of war, specter operations, MTG and other systems. the loss of GW games isn't the end of the world.

 vict0988 wrote:

nou wrote:

 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.

So a Leman Russ is worth 10-1000 pts and a Guardsman is worth 1-100 pts? That's as close as you can get to balance? That's two orders of magnitude. If balance was as loose as you suggest we wouldn't see changes in the meta when GW adjusts points by 20%. A bolt pistol is better than a laspistol, it shouldn't be 5 points or 0 pts. Going from 235 to 237 pts is too granular, going from 5 to 7 pts is not.

Where did you got those two orders of magnitude from? I wrote about one. There are cases of weapons/rules however, that swing down to 0 value, the old poison against an armoured company for example, or highwire against an all infantry list.

And the meta will change with any wide enough change (with the caveat, that „wide enough” means affect enough players, not enough units). That is the whole point of the „meta is a dynamic system and as such follows chaotic math, not simple algebrae” argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Your laspistol vs bolt pistol example is a good one though, but for the exact opposite reason you wrote. I think everyone will agree, that upgrading a single character to bolt pistol doesn’t influence the outcome of the game anyhow. But if you upgrade a large enough squad from las to bolt, it will have an impact. So, a treshold exists, a minimal number of points spent on las to bolt upgrades, that becomes influential. That threshold is the adequate granularity for the system, and for 40k it is somewhere between 20 and 50pts. This gives a workable granularity between 40 and 100 units. Current real granularity of 400 units is still an overkill, and perceived granularity of 2000 units is a meaninglessly inflated one. 200 units gives enough room for micromanagent on model level and it looks like GW is aiming at something between 200 and 400 real units for future editions.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I have to say, this arguement over purposeful difficulty as some form of barrier to the casuals smacks of the same argument used against 5th, from the 3rd ed. Grognards. Who gives a crap if it's easier or harder to build a list? You all act like you aren't extremely entitled rich white adult males playing with fething dolls. Which is the point. I want MORE people in this game, not less. I want it to be easy to make a quick game happen, and I want it easier to make 3rd party list building apps to replace the gak that GW puts out.

Oh, so you're actually an idiot, now that explains all your past posts. Thanks for clearing that out for me

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
The quality of the 40Ks rules wasn't better when the playerbase was smaller, though.

Less vocal though.