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.

EightFoldPath wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Andykp wrote:I think it’s a brilliant system as long as you and your opponents are all sensible

How many special weapons can I take on a unit of Scions (who can take up to 4) before it stops being sensible, and where can I appeal to if my opponent and I don't see eye-to-eye?

I mean, the caveat 'it works as long as you're sensible' is really just offloading the burden of balancing the game from the developer onto the players, and then throwing in a layer of undeserved moral judgment to boot (because the implication is if you can't figure it out on your own, you're not being sensible).

H.B.M.C. wrote:Again, at which point you're just doing more different-er points, but with less granularity, and less accuracy... so why bother?

Conversely, I don't think points would be even better if we increased the cost of everything by a factor of 10 and started playing 20,000 point games- less granularity doesn't necessarily translate into worse outcomes.

I don't regularly use PL, but given how GW has been approaching upgrades thus far (embracing sidegrades and baking wargear into unit costs), I would be okay with PL becoming the less-granular points system that it could be but for lack of representing wargear.

Wasn't there a bit of a discussion in 8th with Cultists, Guardsmen, and a few others all sitting at around 5 points per model and how it was a shame you couldn't make them 4.5 or 5.5? Going to 4,000 points (doubling everything) would probably give the right amount of granularity to make the game better. The caveat being that the current awful general balance by GW using points or PL means it wouldn't be worth the bother for now.

I mean Infantry was an easy solution: make the Sergeant 5 more points. Bam, whole squad is 45 points.

EightFoldPath wrote:
Wasn't there a bit of a discussion in 8th with Cultists, Guardsmen, and a few others all sitting at around 5 points per model and how it was a shame you couldn't make them 4.5 or 5.5? Going to 4,000 points (doubling everything) would probably give the right amount of granularity to make the game better. The caveat being that the current awful general balance by GW using points or PL means it wouldn't be worth the bother for now.

If a unit is in a position where its value is right in between two round-number points values, there are a variety of ways to handle it.
-Adjust its capabilities upwards or downwards to match a whole number.
-Set the cost for the whole unit to have a fraction baked in. Note that this is exactly what GW did with Guardsmen.
-Rethink the unit identity, since if it can be summed up as 'Guardsmen, but half a point worse', it really isn't all that distinct. Might as well either just be Guardsmen, or more of its own thing.
-Accept that the unit is, theoretically, very slightly overcosted or undercosted- 25pts across 50 troopers is a drop in the bucket compared to some of the points imbalances currently in the game.
-Just use the fraction.

In any case, as you pointed out, it's moot, because having twice the granularity only matters if the balance is already so good that less than a whole point of increment is needed and there aren't any bigger fish to fry, and we aren't even remotely close to that yet.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How are points "too granular"?

I see you didn't read the whole sentence, yet alone paragraph. Here it is again with added emphasis

Match Play Points are too granular for the designers to successfully balance. Too many units with too many upgrades that need to be perfectly balanced or we end up with only "the more efficient" options being taken. They use these units, but not those. They use these upgrades, but not those.

And I mean the current designers, not any possible designer. They have proved to be unable to balance points at the level they are assigning them.

Let's make all the pistol options 5 points because they are equal. Let's make most of the Special Weapons 5 points because they are equal. These may not be true, but would it really matter if the Hand Flamer was 3 points, the Plasma Pistol was 4 points, and the Inferno Pistol was 4 points for your Character or Squad Leader?

Is the right point value for a single model X, X-1, or X+1? I don't know, but if you let people purchase 1 model at a time you need to answer that question.

This is where PL has part of the idea correct. You get a 5 models for X PL. 6-10 Models is PL Y. If this unit had no upgrade options, you can adjust the PL as necessary for both X and Y to achieve the desired play experience. We all know the Points Rules but he cost of 10 models (no upgrades) at twice the cost of 5 models. We also know that isn't actually correct. A 10-model unit is in most ways inferior to two 5-model units. That is really hard to fix in points, but really easy to fix in PL. The Y I noted above doesn't have to be twice X, which would reflect all the disadvantages of having a bigger unit.

And before you complain about wanting less models in the unit than 10, you rarely actually want that. You are mostly shaving points, not models. If 10 models cost the same as 6, you darn well are taking 10 unless there is a very compelling reason.

But they're not equal value whatsoever, so pricing them as such is an absurd system.

Why do Ork Boyz and Gretchin have different PL? Aren't they more or less the same? /sarcasm

EviscerationPlague wrote:
But they're not equal value whatsoever, so pricing them as such is an absurd system.

No, AlexTroy is right, for thr nuance and application between some special weapons, a 5-10 bracket isn't enough to actualy provide the correct level of differentiation without there being a "best choice".

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
But they're not equal value whatsoever, so pricing them as such is an absurd system.

No, AlexTroy is right, for thr nuance and application between some special weapons, a 5-10 bracket isn't enough to actualy provide the correct level of differentiation without there being a "best choice".

Show me a 40k GT list with grenade launchers. Nobody takes grenade launchers because they are worth less than plasma guns. Why should Gretchin have lower PL than Boyz? What's the difference?

Maybe we cannot agree whether Gretchin should be 3 or 5 pts or Boyz should be 6 or 10 pts but Gretchin should cost fewer pts/PL than Boyz. Same thing for plasma guns and grenade launchers.

The problem with Grenade Launchers is that they are actively worse than lasguns, which they replace, because they can't FRFSRF:

With Hammer, against a T7 or T8, 3+ vehicle, the "antitank grenade" (krak) does just about 0.27 wounds on average. The Krak profile is also affected by AoC

With Hammer, the lasgun does 0.3 under FRFSRF, whilst being unaffected by AoC

Against other targets, the blast grenade does 3.5 shots (random) to the Lasgun's guaranteed FRFSRF 4 shots.

A Guard infantry squad would be cheaper if armed with 100% grenade launchers, and would have to pay to upgrade to lasguns.

That, to me, showcases the problem with GW. Here is a random player who, using simple math, can determine that one weapon is better than another. So, by logic the better weapon should cost more but, IIRC you pay more for the lesser weapon. Why doesn't GW just do some basic homework before assigning points (using whatever system).

To be fair, a Grenade Launcher does do about twice the damage of a Lasgun to an ordinary Marine (even with Armor of Contempt) assuming the Lasgun gets two shots, whether from FRFSRF or Rapid Fire Range.

It's basically never worth taking compared to the other upgrades, but it's not a straight downgrade from a Lasgun against all targets.

Halve the number of shots the lasgun usually gets and yeah, the grenade launcher outperforms it.

But (for my army at least, ironically in the lore the regiment that prefers grenade launchers the most) there is only a tiny baby 6" band where that applies...

...at which point you just move closer with your lasguns. Never assume lasguns aren't getting their 4 shots.

I think you are paying for the potential of a krak grenade. But this is clearly inferior to a plasma gun, so why bother?

Its much like the Missile Launcher. "look you get the flexibility of D6 S4 AP- shots". Okay... so the flexibility I'm never going to use unless literally anything tougher than a guardsman is dead - and even then I'm likely only killing one? Yeah this sucks.

Weapons should not be costed "by potential" when a Grot CC weapon has the "potential" to remove a Warlord Titan from play.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Weapons should not be costed "by potential" when a Grot CC weapon has the "potential" to remove a Warlord Titan from play.

Some stuff should flat out not be able to damage something like that

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Weapons should not be costed "by potential" when a Grot CC weapon has the "potential" to remove a Warlord Titan from play.

It's charged due to its flexibility. It should, in theory be better at killing gaunts than plasma but better at killing tanks than a flamer, it's a generalist but people don't see any inherent value when you'll get 0.12 wounds or whatever more through on a plasma gun vs Marines and is at the least comparable vs tanks and other infantry.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
But they're not equal value whatsoever, so pricing them as such is an absurd system.

No, AlexTroy is right, for thr nuance and application between some special weapons, a 5-10 bracket isn't enough to actualy provide the correct level of differentiation without there being a "best choice".

Actually, I was talking about the fact that 2-5 Model Squads (no upgrades) cost the same Points at 1-10 Model Squad of any unit in the game. Only when you can combo-combo the 10-model squad to ludicrous effectiveness does anyone in competitive play take a the 10-Model squad. Therefore, a 10-model squad should be cheaper than a 2 5-model squads.

This is one thing that both systems are getting wrong, but it is easier to get right in PL than Points. Still, I suppose GW could change the Match Play Points to A points for the basic unit of B models with +X points per additional model (X< A/B). I'm sure everyone will love doing that math when writing their list.

Dudeface wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Weapons should not be costed "by potential" when a Grot CC weapon has the "potential" to remove a Warlord Titan from play.

It's charged due to its flexibility. It should, in theory be better at killing gaunts than plasma but better at killing tanks than a flamer, it's a generalist but people don't see any inherent value when you'll get 0.12 wounds or whatever more through on a plasma gun vs Marines and is at the least comparable vs tanks and other infantry.

Yeah but with Lasguns able to hurt tanks, then the most flexible gun is the free one.

Flexibility means nothing valuable when every gun is flexible.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
But they're not equal value whatsoever, so pricing them as such is an absurd system.

No, AlexTroy is right, for thr nuance and application between some special weapons, a 5-10 bracket isn't enough to actualy provide the correct level of differentiation without there being a "best choice".

Until of course the 10pts is 10pts times 6 units and suddenly it is 60pts. And the better the unit the more of a problem it becomes. Try dropping the point cost of NDKs by 15 pts and check what happens. Voids at 95 or 90 doesn't seem to be that much different, until there are 9 of those.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Weapons should not be costed "by potential" when a Grot CC weapon has the "potential" to remove a Warlord Titan from play.

It's charged due to its flexibility. It should, in theory be better at killing gaunts than plasma but better at killing tanks than a flamer, it's a generalist but people don't see any inherent value when you'll get 0.12 wounds or whatever more through on a plasma gun vs Marines and is at the least comparable vs tanks and other infantry.

Yeah but with Lasguns able to hurt tanks, then the most flexible gun is the free one.

Flexibility means nothing valuable when every gun is flexible.

Doesn't the grenade launcher have extra range? Otherwise there has to be some sorta other benefit to it. I mean it IS sorta worth an extra Infantry dude depending how you roll, but that's still random.

 alextroy wrote:
... 2x5=1x10... it is easier to get right in PL than Points.

It is just as easy to fix in pts, just increase the cost of the Sergeant. It is exactly because of lazy PL designers that they don't charge for things as obvious as a Dire Avenger Exarch with dual catapults over a regular Dire Avenger with one catapult. Necron Overlord and Lord wargear options were really balanced in 8th and got fethed to gak in 9th because everything has to be in multiples of 5.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Doesn't the grenade launcher have extra range? Otherwise there has to be some sorta other benefit to it. I mean it IS sorta worth an extra Infantry dude depending how you roll, but that's still random.

24" Assault 1 instead of 24" RF 1. HotE, MMM and FRFSRF are just gakky.

We've been almost exclusively been playing with PL since about a year.

It has two big weaknesses, one is not allowing single models to be added to units, the other is overcharging for army-based upgrades like pathogens or kustom jobs that are 10 points but then become 1 PL.

The changes to how wargear is upgraded has no impact on balance. In almost all cases there is an obvious best choice when playing with points, the obvious best choice for playing with PL is just a different gun.

The theory is nice and all, but in reality fiddling with 1-10 points differences for upgrades is just a waste of time when the result still doesn't make those options balanced against each other.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Weapons should not be costed "by potential" when a Grot CC weapon has the "potential" to remove a Warlord Titan from play.

It's charged due to its flexibility. It should, in theory be better at killing gaunts than plasma but better at killing tanks than a flamer, it's a generalist but people don't see any inherent value when you'll get 0.12 wounds or whatever more through on a plasma gun vs Marines and is at the least comparable vs tanks and other infantry.

Yeah but with Lasguns able to hurt tanks, then the most flexible gun is the free one.

Flexibility means nothing valuable when every gun is flexible.

Doesn't the grenade launcher have extra range? Otherwise there has to be some sorta other benefit to it. I mean it IS sorta worth an extra Infantry dude depending how you roll, but that's still random.

Grenade launchers are 24" Assault

lasguns are 24" rapid fire (my regiment rapid fires at 18" instead of 12").

In 3rd and 4th edition, when movement affected your shooting more dramatically (and when Armageddon Steel Legion were incepted with Grenade Launchers and Missile Launchers), the Grenade Launcher was a much more mobile weapon, allowing you to spit firepower whilst maneuvering.

For a mechanized regiment like Steep Legion, this gave them the lasgun arrays on the side of the Chimera and the ability to fire the Grenade Launcher out of the hatch on the back while the vehicle was maneuvering. This was more firepower than weapons like plasma guns had at the time (well at least at a longer range).

But with 9th edition's mechanics, everything was gone. All Assault let's you do now is advance and shoot it... which is a bit silly for a regiment that doesn't do it's maneuvering on foot often.

Just give people access to more type of grenades. In old GK books, I saw ones that dropped toughness of units, made stuff unable to move or hit themselfs etc. There could be MW grenades, grenades that slow units down, stop them from performing actions or ones that do damage every turn till the end of the game.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

One army's TAC list should not be, by default, more powerful than another army's TAC list. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

I don't believe in perfectly TAC lists, I don't think they can exist. My point is: play a game or two with average collections of models, and then if an army appears to be weaker it should have the tools in the codex to fill up the gap next time. If that's possible, and I mean possible enough for a casual player (buying countless boxes of the same unit is out of the question), then that's when I believe armies are balanced.

If army X struggle against army Y and both field TAC list, the game is still very balanced if army X can easily change something and be on par with army Y, even if it doesn't field something that might be considered TAC anymore.

 catbarf wrote:

Andykp wrote:I think it’s a brilliant system as long as you and your opponents are all sensible

How many special weapons can I take on a unit of Scions (who can take up to 4) before it stops being sensible, and where can I appeal to if my opponent and I don't see eye-to-eye?

I mean, the caveat 'it works as long as you're sensible' is really just offloading the burden of balancing the game from the developer onto the players, and then throwing in a layer of undeserved moral judgment to boot (because the implication is if you can't figure it out on your own, you're not being sensible).

H.B.M.C. wrote:Again, at which point you're just doing more different-er points, but with less granularity, and less accuracy... so why bother?

Conversely, I don't think points would be even better if we increased the cost of everything by a factor of 10 and started playing 20,000 point games- less granularity doesn't necessarily translate into worse outcomes.

I don't regularly use PL, but given how GW has been approaching upgrades thus far (embracing sidegrades and baking wargear into unit costs), I would be okay with PL becoming the less-granular points system that it could be but for lack of representing wargear.

I am perfectly happy with balancing the game myself, have been since day one (1989 for me). You don’t see people complaining about the system used in AOS which is basically power levels, fixed points for units regardless or equipment and options. I know that there aren’t the same amount of unit choices in sigmar but it seems to work fine.

I think PL works great if you are prepared to play in a casual way, which isn’t for everyone so points and power levels seems to be needed. Ideally in my head they should have a separate tournament version of 40k that’s is balanced and all the dull stuff competitive types like but completely apart form the narrative game.

I will say this though, as a narrative/casual player who enjoys building thematic armies and is happy to take responsibility to balance the game and ensure both me and my opponents enjoy the game, I seem to enjoy 40k more than others who want to win and demand balance be built in. I am not saying they are doing it “wrong”, just that they seem to complain endlessly about how bad the game is each edition for different reasons. Where as I have managed to find the fun each edition and enjoyed them all. Some more than others (looking at you 3rd edition, for shame), but each has been enjoyable and the introduction of power levels has increased my enjoyment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
We've been almost exclusively been playing with PL since about a year.

It has two big weaknesses, one is not allowing single models to be added to units, the other is overcharging for army-based upgrades like pathogens or kustom jobs that are 10 points but then become 1 PL.

The changes to how wargear is upgraded has no impact on balance. In almost all cases there is an obvious best choice when playing with points, the obvious best choice for playing with PL is just a different gun.

The theory is nice and all, but in reality fiddling with 1-10 points differences for upgrades is just a waste of time when the result still doesn't make those options balanced against each other.

For me the first one is a strength of PL as well. Depends on perspective. From a collecting point of view it’s nicer to build units in multiples of what comes in the box, no more fiddling about trying to find two ore boyz to make a unit of 12 and things. Doesn’t sound much, but a huge part of the hobby for me is building and paint thematic armies and you find you very quickly get used to just taking units groups of 10 or 5. (I am not saying I like the “units can only have what comes in the box” rule, I do not)

As for the second point, I think that was introduced because before then you often played a pl or two down if you didn’t get your army to add up to exactly the right amount. Not all armies have 1 or 2 PL cost things to fill out the difference. This allowed you to level up the occasional unit to fill in those gaps you would have left empty anyway. Is it an elegant solution, not really, but you may be paying over the odds but you got nothing for that PL before this, so it’s a kind of win??

Andykp wrote:
You don’t see people complaining about the system used in AOS which is basically power levels, fixed points for units regardless or equipment and options.

I won't find people complaining about underpowered wargear options if I start touring AOS spaces?

 vict0988 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
You don’t see people complaining about the system used in AOS which is basically power levels, fixed points for units regardless or equipment and options.

I won't find people complaining about underpowered wargear options if I start touring AOS spaces?

You might, there are always some folk who will complain about anything. But the points in AOS are basically power levels, just more granular in that they are bigger numbers. You don’t pay for war gear. No one stresses if a model cost 2 points or 3 like if really matters. You pay the price for the unit. Simple.

There will always be more optimal choices for those that need to win, but like I said it’s a bit different as they aren’t the wide variety of load out options that you see in 40k.

I am in no way advocating GW using only power levels. But for the way I play they are perfect. And it seems people who play the I do enjoy the game more, or certainly complain less about it.

Andykp wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
You don’t see people complaining about the system used in AOS which is basically power levels, fixed points for units regardless or equipment and options.

I won't find people complaining about underpowered wargear options if I start touring AOS spaces?

You might, there are always some folk who will complain about anything. But the points in AOS are basically power levels, just more granular in that they are bigger numbers. You don’t pay for war gear. No one stresses if a model cost 2 points or 3 like if really matters. You pay the price for the unit. Simple.

There will always be more optimal choices for those that need to win, but like I said it’s a bit different as they aren’t the wide variety of load out options that you see in 40k.

I am in no way advocating GW using only power levels. But for the way I play they are perfect. And it seems people who play the I do enjoy the game more, or certainly complain less about it.

AoS for the most part doesn't have wargear to pay for.
Without customizable units there really is no difference between points and PL.

A quick stroll to the AoS faction forums can show that people do not complain any less about stuff, then people do at w40k. And mods are very trigger happy with bans back there.

Andykp wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
We've been almost exclusively been playing with PL since about a year.

It has two big weaknesses, one is not allowing single models to be added to units, the other is overcharging for army-based upgrades like pathogens or kustom jobs that are 10 points but then become 1 PL.

The changes to how wargear is upgraded has no impact on balance. In almost all cases there is an obvious best choice when playing with points, the obvious best choice for playing with PL is just a different gun.

The theory is nice and all, but in reality fiddling with 1-10 points differences for upgrades is just a waste of time when the result still doesn't make those options balanced against each other.

For me the first one is a strength of PL as well. Depends on perspective. From a collecting point of view it’s nicer to build units in multiples of what comes in the box, no more fiddling about trying to find two ore boyz to make a unit of 12 and things. Doesn’t sound much, but a huge part of the hobby for me is building and paint thematic armies and you find you very quickly get used to just taking units groups of 10 or 5. (I am not saying I like the “units can only have what comes in the box” rule, I do not)

I understand that point of view, and it's probably why GW implemented it that way. The issue is that it simply doesn't work that way for many units though - there are a bunch of units that come with 3 models in the box and you often want to run them in 5s, but PL forces you to run a sixth one you don't want. Boyz have 12 models in the box, but you can't just add 2 to fill out your trukk, you need to pay for 20. And then there are chaos cult marines which used to be run in magic numbers, but you suddenly have to bring 5 or 10, even if the plague marine box contains exactly 7 models.
For those units, PL is essentially doing the exact opposite of what you want.

As for the second point, I think that was introduced because before then you often played a pl or two down if you didn’t get your army to add up to exactly the right amount. Not all armies have 1 or 2 PL cost things to fill out the difference. This allowed you to level up the occasional unit to fill in those gaps you would have left empty anyway. Is it an elegant solution, not really, but you may be paying over the odds but you got nothing for that PL before this, so it’s a kind of win??

It's still a net loss compared to points because it means that you will have exactly one of those upgrades in your army and you are usually overpaying for them. Adding a custom job to a squig buggy, a SJD and a snazzwagon für 45 points is a good way to sink points, paying 4 PL for those three jobs is not.