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.

Not sure if it will be applied across the board, but the trend seems to be squads = free stuff (i.e. all imperial guard infantry except fancy pistols and power weapons), big single models = some points variety (i.e. sponsons on rogal dorn). I expect it will continue to be applied like this.

I'm not a fan of this, as it is a soft swap over to PL where you just take the statistically best stuff and removes another aspect of the game where you have to think about what you are doing.

 Dysartes wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Nah, I call BS. If two people brought the same exact list, except one player used all Power Swords, Bolt Pistols, etc. While the other defaulted to Chainswords and Laspistols, one player has an inherent advantage for no reason. It would be inappropriate NOT to proxy when all wargear costs the same.

Only if you're trying to min/max the last percentile point of power out of your list, and not everyone chooses to play like that.

Eliminating points inherently encourages this type of min/maxing. With wargear level points you are rewarded for playing your dudes vs penalised for taking only the best performers. Eventually even the most novice players notice this kind of thing.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Well are you using the Power Sword profile and just using a proxy?

Some people play the game to win-that's how they have fun.
Some people play the game for the aesthetics-that's how they have fun.
Some people play the game for the stories that come from it-that's how they have fun.

None of those people are wrong. So long as you're polite and respectful to your opponent, if everyone has a good time, that's a successful game, no matter who wins and loses.

Nah, I call BS. If two people brought the same exact list, except one player used all Power Swords, Bolt Pistols, etc. While the other defaulted to Chainswords and Laspistols, one player has an inherent advantage for no reason. It would be inappropriate NOT to proxy when all wargear costs the same.

Like I said:
"My models have chainswords. I play them using chainswords. If I wanted them to use power sword profiles, they'd be armed with power swords, or power axes, or some other "power" weapon that would fit the "power sword" statblock. But, as a chainsword model can be reflected with the chainsword statblock, I'll use the chainsword statblock." No, it's not inappropriate. They're my models. I'll equip and play with them how I want to, in a way I enjoy.

So, like I finished that paragraph with:
"Problem?"

I swear we JUST had like 3-5 threads on this, with the last 2-3 being started by the same guy just remaking profiles to start troll threads.

Basically, 40k/Dakka is filled with contrarians, and when presented with a binary choice, the worst comes out, and the threads get locked. So yeah. Asked and answered.

Casual gamers - PL is the most fun.
Serious players - Points are more fun.
Ultra Competitive WAAC - Doesn't matter because points never really matter at that level, skill does.

I can absolutely see GW doing this and also requiring all models to be WYSIWYG compatible.

Because that will make GW the most money. They always choose that option.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Well are you using the Power Sword profile and just using a proxy?

Some people play the game to win-that's how they have fun.
Some people play the game for the aesthetics-that's how they have fun.
Some people play the game for the stories that come from it-that's how they have fun.

None of those people are wrong. So long as you're polite and respectful to your opponent, if everyone has a good time, that's a successful game, no matter who wins and loses.

Nah, I call BS. If two people brought the same exact list, except one player used all Power Swords, Bolt Pistols, etc. While the other defaulted to Chainswords and Laspistols, one player has an inherent advantage for no reason. It would be inappropriate NOT to proxy when all wargear costs the same.

Like I said:
"My models have chainswords. I play them using chainswords. If I wanted them to use power sword profiles, they'd be armed with power swords, or power axes, or some other "power" weapon that would fit the "power sword" statblock. But, as a chainsword model can be reflected with the chainsword statblock, I'll use the chainsword statblock." No, it's not inappropriate. They're my models. I'll equip and play with them how I want to, in a way I enjoy.

So, like I finished that paragraph with:
"Problem?"

Yeah, because you probably have the same pretend attitude of "I don't actually care if I win or lose", so I'm sure you'd be fine with a 10 point hike per model on your army if winning is not important.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I want more units to be "pick-up-and-playable" without too much thought over the minutia of their kit.

That's Power Level, so if you want that, play Power Level.

They shouldn't dumb down points to make it a slightly different version of Power Level.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Calling people "wrong and stupid" is a pretty sure fire way for me to lose sympathy for your position.

Chainswords are cool. All my guardsmen sergeants carry laspistol and chainsword, and I play PL. Are you calling me "wrong and stupid"?

You're missing his point completely by trying to play the victim of an insult. Well done.

 vipoid wrote:
On a related note, I miss having 1-3pt upgrades that I can slap on to round out a list.

This is the result of GW reducing granularity and turning wargear into strats.

 Insularum wrote:
Not sure if it will be applied across the board, but the trend seems to be squads = free stuff (i.e. all imperial guard infantry except fancy pistols and power weapons), big single models = some points variety (i.e. sponsons on rogal dorn). I expect it will continue to be applied like this.

I'm not a fan of this, as it is a soft swap over to PL where you just take the statistically best stuff and removes another aspect of the game where you have to think about what you are doing.

 Dysartes wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Nah, I call BS. If two people brought the same exact list, except one player used all Power Swords, Bolt Pistols, etc. While the other defaulted to Chainswords and Laspistols, one player has an inherent advantage for no reason. It would be inappropriate NOT to proxy when all wargear costs the same.

Only if you're trying to min/max the last percentile point of power out of your list, and not everyone chooses to play like that.

Eliminating points inherently encourages this type of min/maxing. With wargear level points you are rewarded for playing your dudes vs penalised for taking only the best performers. Eventually even the most novice players notice this kind of thing.

Bingo. One player gets inherently punished for an aesthetic they prefer. That's garbage game design to attempt defending.

*Sees character attacks already started*

Countdown to locked thread starting NOW.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Well are you using the Power Sword profile and just using a proxy?

Some people play the game to win-that's how they have fun.
Some people play the game for the aesthetics-that's how they have fun.
Some people play the game for the stories that come from it-that's how they have fun.

None of those people are wrong. So long as you're polite and respectful to your opponent, if everyone has a good time, that's a successful game, no matter who wins and loses.

Nah, I call BS. If two people brought the same exact list, except one player used all Power Swords, Bolt Pistols, etc. While the other defaulted to Chainswords and Laspistols, one player has an inherent advantage for no reason. It would be inappropriate NOT to proxy when all wargear costs the same.

Like I said:
"My models have chainswords. I play them using chainswords. If I wanted them to use power sword profiles, they'd be armed with power swords, or power axes, or some other "power" weapon that would fit the "power sword" statblock. But, as a chainsword model can be reflected with the chainsword statblock, I'll use the chainsword statblock." No, it's not inappropriate. They're my models. I'll equip and play with them how I want to, in a way I enjoy.

So, like I finished that paragraph with:
"Problem?"

Yeah, because you probably have the same pretend attitude of "I don't actually care if I win or lose", so I'm sure you'd be fine with a 10 point hike per model on your army if winning is not important.

You'll have a hard time with it for me, because I don't use points.

Again, I love how the idea of "eh, I don't really mind" is so threatening to you that you respond with "you say you don't care, HOW ABOUT I TAKE IT TO EXTREME LEVELS HUH SEE HOW MUCH YOU CARE NOW???"

I mean, yeah. It's unreasonable, not because adding 10ppm is an issue (especially for a low model count army), but because you're doing it deliberately out of spite, in an attempt to win an pretty pathetic argument. You're being deliberately inflammatory and dishonest in your argument, as well as refusing to countenance the idea that some people just aren't like you.

I pity you. You could have kept this thread much more clean. But you just had to go ahead with your diatribe.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I want more units to be "pick-up-and-playable" without too much thought over the minutia of their kit.

That's Power Level, so if you want that, play Power Level.

They shouldn't dumb down points to make it a slightly different version of Power Level.

Hey! Hey you! Yes, you!

How about reading the thread? I know it's three pages long, but I understand it's a busy time for you! In case you missed it (on the first page):

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Haighus wrote:The thing is, PL already exists and you can already play it. Matched play should also continue to exist for those who want to play that.

Actually, you know what, I'm swayed by that. As long as PL exists, I don't really have an opinion on what happens with points. Fair play to you!

I already realised that actually, as long as PL exists, I don't care what happens with points.

So, I think you can take that back now, as you're a little late to the party.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Calling people "wrong and stupid" is a pretty sure fire way for me to lose sympathy for your position.

Chainswords are cool. All my guardsmen sergeants carry laspistol and chainsword, and I play PL. Are you calling me "wrong and stupid"?

You're missing his point completely by trying to play the victim of an insult. Well done.

Trying? My fella, they just called people like me "wrong and stupid" - in case you missed the memo, that's a little insulting.

I'm offering them a chance to walk that comment back, but no, we have other folks pouring gasoline on it and insisting that "no, it's okay to call those players wrong and stupid, because that's a reasonable stance to take about playing with plastic toy soldiers".

You're guilty of it too.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
*Sees character attacks already started*

Countdown to locked thread starting NOW.

They can't even say I didn't provide off-ramps for it. I've repeated that the issue, over and over, has been that it's not exactly pleasant to call people "wrong and stupid". Yet, apparently, there's a handful of users who actually think that's okay to say about how someone like playing with their war dollies.

That's on them.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Well are you using the Power Sword profile and just using a proxy?

Some people play the game to win-that's how they have fun.
Some people play the game for the aesthetics-that's how they have fun.
Some people play the game for the stories that come from it-that's how they have fun.

None of those people are wrong. So long as you're polite and respectful to your opponent, if everyone has a good time, that's a successful game, no matter who wins and loses.

Nah, I call BS. If two people brought the same exact list, except one player used all Power Swords, Bolt Pistols, etc. While the other defaulted to Chainswords and Laspistols, one player has an inherent advantage for no reason. It would be inappropriate NOT to proxy when all wargear costs the same.

Like I said:
"My models have chainswords. I play them using chainswords. If I wanted them to use power sword profiles, they'd be armed with power swords, or power axes, or some other "power" weapon that would fit the "power sword" statblock. But, as a chainsword model can be reflected with the chainsword statblock, I'll use the chainsword statblock." No, it's not inappropriate. They're my models. I'll equip and play with them how I want to, in a way I enjoy.

So, like I finished that paragraph with:
"Problem?"

Yeah, because you probably have the same pretend attitude of "I don't actually care if I win or lose", so I'm sure you'd be fine with a 10 point hike per model on your army if winning is not important.

You'll have a hard time with it for me, because I don't use points.

Again, I love how the idea of "eh, I don't really mind" is so threatening to you that you respond with "you say you don't care, HOW ABOUT I TAKE IT TO EXTREME LEVELS HUH SEE HOW MUCH YOU CARE NOW???"

I mean, yeah. It's unreasonable, not because adding 10ppm is an issue (especially for a low model count army), but because you're doing it deliberately out of spite, in an attempt to win an pretty pathetic argument. You're being deliberately inflammatory and dishonest in your argument, as well as refusing to countenance the idea that some people just aren't like you.

I pity you. You could have kept this thread much more clean. But you just had to go ahead with your diatribe.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I want more units to be "pick-up-and-playable" without too much thought over the minutia of their kit.

That's Power Level, so if you want that, play Power Level.

They shouldn't dumb down points to make it a slightly different version of Power Level.

Hey! Hey you! Yes, you!

How about reading the thread? I know it's three pages long, but I understand it's a busy time for you! In case you missed it (on the first page):

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Haighus wrote:The thing is, PL already exists and you can already play it. Matched play should also continue to exist for those who want to play that.

Actually, you know what, I'm swayed by that. As long as PL exists, I don't really have an opinion on what happens with points. Fair play to you!

I already realised that actually, as long as PL exists, I don't care what happens with points.

So, I think you can take that back now, as you're a little late to the party.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Calling people "wrong and stupid" is a pretty sure fire way for me to lose sympathy for your position.

Chainswords are cool. All my guardsmen sergeants carry laspistol and chainsword, and I play PL. Are you calling me "wrong and stupid"?

You're missing his point completely by trying to play the victim of an insult. Well done.

Trying? My fella, they just called people like me "wrong and stupid" - in case you missed the memo, that's a little insulting.

I'm offering them a chance to walk that comment back, but no, we have other folks pouring gasoline on it and insisting that "no, it's okay to call those players wrong and stupid, because that's a reasonable stance to take about playing with plastic toy soldiers".

You're guilty of it too.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
*Sees character attacks already started*

Countdown to locked thread starting NOW.

They can't even say I didn't provide off-ramps for it. I've repeated that the issue, over and over, has been that it's not exactly pleasant to call people "wrong and stupid". Yet, apparently, there's a handful of users who actually think that's okay to say about how someone like playing with their war dollies.

That's on them.

An increase of 10 points per model is a lot of PL added to your infantry squads. Avoided the point made is awesome, but I'd expect a general avoidance of that with anyone that attempts a defense of PL

Ideally for me, GW would take a middle ground where many wargear options were free, but not all.

For units with very limited number of upgrades over a larger number of models, baking in the cost of most upgrades would lead to more thematic units in matched play armies. AM Infantry Squads with special weapons, voxcasters, and heavy weapons teams are very thematic. So putting the unit at 65 points and only having select upgrades cost points is reasonable. It just should probably be more than only Plasma Pistols and Power Swords.

However, this can go very wrong very easily if taken as a blanket rule like down in Power Levels. Units like Devastators, Retributors, and even Heavy Weapons Squad have very different effectiveness when comparing 4 Heavy Boaters to 4 Multi-Meltas/Lascannons. These types of units need price differences between the the most extreme options.

So unless GW overhauls weapons to make the effectiveness between different options much more even than currently, I don't want to see no wargear cost.

EviscerationPlague wrote:An increase of 10 points per model is a lot of PL added to your infantry squads.

Points and PL don't exactly correlate, and you know that. No matter what "points" changes you make, PL is not exactly corresponding to it.

Adding 10ppm to my infantry squads doesn't change their PL, because the two systems aren't the same. I thought we were all in favour of separation between points and PL here?

Avoided the point made is awesome, but I'd expect a general avoidance of that with anyone that attempts a defense of PL

No, I saw your point. I just filed it down to the thrust of what you were saying - that you feel so threatened by the idea of someone enjoying PL that you feel the need to spear them. Why do you feel the need to "prove" someone's preferences? Why does that have to be an invitation for a "gotcha" moment? Why do you need to test and dispute the idea that people enjoy themselves differently?

Why is that? Why are you terrified of the idea of "alternative fun"? Why is PL even on topic in this thread? All I said was "maybe we shouldn't call people wrong and stupid for liking things"?
Isn't it enough to agree and say "yes, it isn't very good to say that people are wrong and stupid for enjoying the game their way"? Isn't that the civil option?

 alextroy wrote:
Ideally for me, GW would take a middle ground where many wargear options were free, but not all.

They could easily allow equivalent "special weapon" choices for no cost and allow one "free" heavy weapon and then charge to upgrade it to a better one. For example, a squad gets a flamer and a heavy bolter as standard, but lascannon or melta costs extra.

Part of me thinks that they will go all-in, though, and power swords will cost the same a chain swords and GW will demand strict adherence to WYSIWYG, enjoying a wave of purchases as everyone rushes to convert to "free" upgrades.

Which 11th Edition will undo.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:An increase of 10 points per model is a lot of PL added to your infantry squads.

Points and PL don't exactly correlate, and you know that. No matter what "points" changes you make, PL is not exactly corresponding to it.

Adding 10ppm to my infantry squads doesn't change their PL, because the two systems aren't the same. I thought we were all in favour of separation between points and PL here?

Avoided the point made is awesome, but I'd expect a general avoidance of that with anyone that attempts a defense of PL

No, I saw your point. I just filed it down to the thrust of what you were saying - that you feel so threatened by the idea of someone enjoying PL that you feel the need to spear them. Why do you feel the need to "prove" someone's preferences? Why does that have to be an invitation for a "gotcha" moment? Why do you need to test and dispute the idea that people enjoy themselves differently?

Why is that? Why are you terrified of the idea of "alternative fun"? Why is PL even on topic in this thread? All I said was "maybe we shouldn't call people wrong and stupid for liking things"?
Isn't it enough to agree and say "yes, it isn't very good to say that people are wrong and stupid for enjoying the game their way"? Isn't that the civil option?

Smudge, you know better. Don't get caught up in engaging with people who refuse to, or are unable to, listen to alternative viewpoints. Just let the thread die, and give yourself a pat on the back for being a bigger person.

I personally believe that pricing the upgrades rather than having a singular unit cost is better for all walks of players:
If you care about high end efficiency towards victory, you have the ability to tailor the units more discretely, and of course pay the theoretically most appropriate cost for the actual capability of a unit, thus theoretically creating a more balanced experience
If you aren't tailoring for high end efficiency and are just fielding the models you have, you can select what you have and be priced accordingly for your less-optimal configuration, resulting in a reduced penalty to your odds of winning for your suboptimal selection.
And, for the CAAC people, who are quite proud of the aggressively negative enjoyment they derive from being able to win the game, the manner by which the units are selected doesn't matter, since the degradation or lack thereof of your odds of winning from fielding less or more optimal configurations isn't one of the factors that has even the smallest bearing on your enjoyment of the game.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Ideally for me, GW would take a middle ground where many wargear options were free, but not all.

They could easily allow equivalent "special weapon" choices for no cost and allow one "free" heavy weapon and then charge to upgrade it to a better one. For example, a squad gets a flamer and a heavy bolter as standard, but lascannon or melta costs extra.

Part of me thinks that they will go all-in, though, and power swords will cost the same a chain swords and GW will demand strict adherence to WYSIWYG, enjoying a wave of purchases as everyone rushes to convert to "free" upgrades.

Which 11th Edition will undo.

We can only sit back and wait to see what they are thinking with the upcoming MFM. We see them moving units slowly to this state in various codexes and past MFM. Will they dive in or keep slowly moving units into the no/less wargear with cost?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:An increase of 10 points per model is a lot of PL added to your infantry squads.

Points and PL don't exactly correlate, and you know that. No matter what "points" changes you make, PL is not exactly corresponding to it.

Adding 10ppm to my infantry squads doesn't change their PL, because the two systems aren't the same. I thought we were all in favour of separation between points and PL here?

Avoided the point made is awesome, but I'd expect a general avoidance of that with anyone that attempts a defense of PL

No, I saw your point. I just filed it down to the thrust of what you were saying - that you feel so threatened by the idea of someone enjoying PL that you feel the need to spear them. Why do you feel the need to "prove" someone's preferences? Why does that have to be an invitation for a "gotcha" moment? Why do you need to test and dispute the idea that people enjoy themselves differently?

Why is that? Why are you terrified of the idea of "alternative fun"? Why is PL even on topic in this thread? All I said was "maybe we shouldn't call people wrong and stupid for liking things"?
Isn't it enough to agree and say "yes, it isn't very good to say that people are wrong and stupid for enjoying the game their way"? Isn't that the civil option?

Smudge, you know better. Don't get caught up in engaging with people who refuse to, or are unable to, listen to alternative viewpoints. Just let the thread die, and give yourself a pat on the back for being a bigger person.

All upgrades costing the same is objectively bad game design. There's no "alternative" viewpoint besides the CAAC contrarian

If one weapon is better than another, then upgrading to that weapon should have a cost.

This is not a complex concept, no matter how often and how brazenly GW wants to abdicate proper rules design.

Moreover, we already have Power Levels. Why would we want a slighly differenter version?

Old thread https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/805449.page pretty sure there was a third one or that it was discussed for pages in another thread.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

vict0988 wrote:Let's just go with deliberately slow to understand.

Nah, go on. I know you're mincing your words, but the intent is still there.

Stop hiding, and just say it. It'll make this easier.

I think you misunderstood my point, and that's my fault. Klickor said that it was easier to build models how you like if the options don't have pts costs. Now whether someone like Sgt_Smudge who doesn't care about pts-efficiency plays with pts or power level is irrelevant because you will always pick the more flavourful option. It is when it comes to someone like Karol who does care about pts efficiency that it actually matters. By making thunderhammers and powerswords cost the same, people in Karol's community who see his Grey Knights army with power swords instead of thunderhammers won't take notice of that and adjust the number of special weapons and melee upgrades they take, they'll have an easy game and then tell Karol to rip his models apart because taking power swords is wrong and stupid. That's an attitude that some people have, it doesn't matter whether Karol likes power swords or doesn't want to rip his models apart. My comment was never about how I feel about players making sub-optimal choices for the benefit of fluff, but about how the experiences of players will be ruined by poor internal balance on datasheets which will automatically come about when you rule out wargear costs where they would be appropriate. When I tell people that X or Y option or unit is bad I always try to say that it's fine if they like that unit and that they should be careful about only taking the best units because then they'll have to play against better lists as well.

PL is a silly format and if I thought there was a 99% chance of GW keeping pts and a 100% chance of GW keeping pts if I pressed a big button that got rid of PL then I'd press the button twice. But I don't hate PL or the people that enjoy. I would really like you all to understand that you are playing a silly format and understand that most people want better than the mediocrity of PL. Pts have been mediocre in 9th, but they can be good, PL will never be better than mediocre. One thing that has ticked me off a little bit is when people say that PL doesn't hurt pts players since GW is moving so fast in the direction of PL we get multiple threads in one year asking if it's going to happen and if it happens will it be good or bad for the game.

All of this is not mentioning how difficult it is to make and define a casual list regardless of format, it should be GW's job to make sure that most lists are okay. Some lists will do better in certain events because of the terrain and missions used and better use of synergies, but there should be a bell curve of list strength, with few useless lists, many okay lists and very few overperforming lists.

So, if you aren't enjoying it, why do you play? Even if you only play to "steal dice", don't you enjoy stealing dice? I'd like to hope you enjoy what you do, else why are you on a forum for it?

Also, I have absolutely no idea what this tangent about 1800s artists is. Care to explain?

I don't steal dice, everything that comes before "/sarcasm" is said in jest. I do enjoy 40k and not for the purpose of winning, I only play to teach other people how to play. To feel their excitement, be of service and be appreciated. Points don't matter to me at all at the moment because I am not trying to win while building my lists. All of that's because I cannot enjoy 40k for what it is supposed to be, a game about trying to complete the victory conditions. I think Armour of Contempt is a bunch of gak and I don't like how imbalanced the game was for a long while between the release of Drukhari and Tyranids, more than a year of complete garbage fire balance and an avalanche of bloat. The other day I spent 4 hours reading Stratagems from new codexes, I'm still not done. PL is one step further away from where I want the game to be such that I can return to enjoying it like I did 8th, where I could play casually or competitively and enjoy the fluff at the same time.

You could make a commentary on an 1800s artist with an essay, or perhaps you could do it more abstractly through a play or a piece of music to convey your thoughts and feelings on the subject of the artist, it'd be obvious you were commenting on it in an essay, with a play or a piece of music it would be more abstract and most would miss it unless you noted it before playing the play or music. But conveying your thoughts through the medium of your 40k list is so abstract as to be absurd. When I discuss tactics I am not thinking about 1800s artists or fluff, those are separate concerns. An army can be stupid and wrong from the perspective of trying to win the game, while being sensical from the point of view of just trying to have a good time. Like putting a Triarch Stalker (supports ranged units) into a Novokh army (melee army) is stupid and wrong and I routinely do it because I don't care whether it is smart, like the people who did Jackass didn't care whether everything they did was smart, the goal was entertainment.

The moment you change that 1 to a 0 you are forcing everyone to switch. With something like plasma gun vs melta gun it's complicated, I can let it slide if they're the same points but one of them is more popular, there just isn't an excuse to make bolt pistols 0 pts for AM Sergeants.

Forcing? I've never felt forced to change my army because of PL. You can speak for yourself, but don't use "everyone" when you can't prove that.

Also also, you know you don't need to play 40k with a mission pack, right?

Forced in the same way that you're forced to say whether you like your mother or your father best if you had a gun to your head, you could say both but then you'd get shot. You could take the laspistol but then your army is undeniably less suited to completing the victory conditions of whatever mission you are playing.

Mission is required, it's pretty much the first rule in the core rules. If you want to knock models around and make laser sounds that's cool, but it's not 40k unless there are victory conditions as far as I am concerned.

 warhead01 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
But also giving some cool thing to a unit leader who is slain before that cool thing is ever used, why am I paying for that again?

I don't know, have you considered giving cool things to the unit leaders that don't get killed before they do their cool thing? You know that buying melee weapons on Space Marine Sergeants is occasionally meta right? /sarcasm All it takes is the right pts costs and then whether you choose to take the upgrades or not will be an efficient choice depending on the situation instead of it automatically being the better choice. Making weapon upgrades free also doesn't lower lethality for extremely obvious reasons.

Constantly updating points is just a headache that some players, not unlike myself, just don't care about because it's just adding work.

Don't you have a phone? There's an app for this.

Well there it is the best advice for a casual player. Git Gud Bro. Nice.
Stay classy Santiago.

Yes, I know there's an app. We all know there is an app.

Let's carry out your reasoning to the rest of the game. Howling Banshees die as easily as Guardsmen, so they should cost the same. Vanguard Veterans die as easily as Assault Marines, they should cost the same. Do you see how silly you are being? If you cannot keep your Vanguard Veterans safe and they always die before they see melee then downgrade them to Assault Marines. Think about the people that want to run Assault Marines (or barebones units) why should you get units that are strictly better without paying more?

I find it funny that GW are basically going “here have free melta guns, plasma guns, and lascannons, but you still have to pay 5 points for a sergeant plasma pistol.”

As if that’s somehow better than a free plasma gun.

Jarms48 wrote:
I find it funny that GW are basically going “here have free melta guns, plasma guns, and lascannons, but you still have to pay 5 points for a sergeant plasma pistol.”

As if that’s somehow better than a free plasma gun.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/DjcDsrpTgqE3rpHb.pdf

Sure, a plasma pistol is far superior afterall to either a powersword or plasma gun or grenade launcher of melta.
And all of the above at the end are clearly equal with the sniperrifle.

What could go wrong...

Oh wait you can literally make cultists even more obsolete than what mere mortals does to them and the cultist keyword

My ideal would be to keep prices per weapon, with a concerned effort to merge similar weapons and keep options competitive. One problem has always been that since slots are limited I won't take a non-viable weapon for 5 points when a viable is one is just 10, 15 or 20 points. It's the difference between a squad that can do nothing, and one that can have an effect.

I thought the 3-5th system where all power weapons were the same was a good one. I'd go farther with give the Imperium power weapons (S: user, AP -3) and heavy power weapons (S: 2xuser, AP -4, always goes last).

For the IG, most of the special weapons have a use, except for the Grenade Launcher. I would not take it at any price, even free. But make it rapid fire, or indirect and I might give it a new look.

My reason for starting the thread is looking at my spanking brand new Cadia Stands box and trying to figure out what I should make with it, and GW's new paradigm is not helping me.

just magnetise all the special weapons on smalish models, clearly you have no problems then

Lol. Just think, if some of you are this worked up now, over the idea of this change? Whatll happen to you if it becomes real?

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
The handwriting seems to be on the wall that paying points per weapon will go away as we see more codex where weapon upgrades are free.

What do people think, assuming 10th is a major reboot is that the direction they will go in? Should they?

For me the idea works when various weapon options are comparable.

I'm actually OK with the idea, but would need to see how it's implemented. There are other ways of costing things other than points - look at infinitys SWC. Points are often the worst and least-effective lever to pull - its better to look at the overall system.

Whether a mook has an x-weapon or a y-weapon often means less than people think it does when you zoom out and look at the big picture. But that's assuming other factors too.

Coming from the perspective of other games like pp's warmachine and warcaster:nm, especially the latter, where they are clearly moving away from 'assign every 'thing' a specific cost, tgos might be just a gradual shift in the industry as a while. Even gw's recent crackingly good kill-team has stepped away from 'traditional' approach to lost building/points costings so it would not surprise me to see some variation of this applied to the mass battle game.

 vict0988 wrote:
Old thread https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/805449.page pretty sure there was a third one or that it was discussed for pages in another thread.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

vict0988 wrote:Let's just go with deliberately slow to understand.

Nah, go on. I know you're mincing your words, but the intent is still there.

Stop hiding, and just say it. It'll make this easier.

I think you misunderstood my point, and that's my fault. Klickor said that it was easier to build models how you like if the options don't have pts costs. Now whether someone like Sgt_Smudge who doesn't care about pts-efficiency plays with pts or power level is irrelevant because you will always pick the more flavourful option. It is when it comes to someone like Karol who does care about pts efficiency that it actually matters. By making thunderhammers and powerswords cost the same, people in Karol's community who see his Grey Knights army with power swords instead of thunderhammers won't take notice of that and adjust the number of special weapons and melee upgrades they take, they'll have an easy game and then tell Karol to rip his models apart because taking power swords is wrong and stupid. That's an attitude that some people have, it doesn't matter whether Karol likes power swords or doesn't want to rip his models apart. My comment was never about how I feel about players making sub-optimal choices for the benefit of fluff, but about how the experiences of players will be ruined by poor internal balance on datasheets which will automatically come about when you rule out wargear costs where they would be appropriate. When I tell people that X or Y option or unit is bad I always try to say that it's fine if they like that unit and that they should be careful about only taking the best units because then they'll have to play against better lists as well.

I will just add that a very important part about the options not having point costs is that I also think they should consolidate the options at the same time. So it wouldn't really matter what weapon they have so no need to rip them off the arms and rebuild them. If "anti infantry power weapon" is equally as good as "anti tank power weapon" and just have different niches so one isn't superior to the other then it would be fine if "Thunder Hammers" and "power swords" cost the same. Right now thunder hammers would be the better option if they both were free but if they at the same time gave "power sword" option +1 attack when fighting infantry or "thunder hammers" an additional -1 to hit against infantry or both then they would be used for mutually exclusive things and not really be a problem if one is "better" than the other since you probably wouldn't kit out your entire army with one of the options.

@Klickor What is the purpose of 40k rules?

Deadnight wrote:
Points are often the worst and least-effective lever to pull - its better to look at the overall system.

You can't give me a better alternative that allows for as much freedom without punishing people for their choices. Free wargear punishes people that don't want to take extra wargear. Limited options makes it impossible to bling out a squad. SWC cannot distinguish between a better weapon and a much better weapon, so the balance is going to be really rough. How silly would you feel for suggesting it should cost something other than pts to upgrade Assault Marines to Vanguard Veterans. Sometimes Assault Marines are bad, sometimes Vanguard Veterans are bad, with free upgrades Assault Marines are always bad, with SWC you still have the same old problem of whether the upgrade is worth the currency. But with SWC you're also running into the problem of whether every army can use the currency for anything.

Eliminate wargear costs? Sure, why not. If it gets the game closer to playing with PL, I'm good

Unlike many people, I don't care too much if 40K is "perfectly balanced". I have a strong dislike for Matched Play in general, give me asymmetric boards and lopsided forces with interesting mission objectives anyday instead of L-shaped ruins and "balanced" dross

Why not get rid of dice throwing altogether? It's ruining balanced gaming

 tauist wrote:
Eliminate wargear costs? Sure, why not. If it gets the game closer to playing with PL, I'm good

Unlike many people, I don't care too much if 40K is "perfectly balanced". I have a strong dislike for Matched Play in general, give me asymmetric boards and lopsided forces with interesting mission objectives anyday instead of L-shaped ruins and "balanced" dross

Why not get rid of dice throwing altogether? It's ruining balanced gaming

Yeah, sure, that gonna work out really nicely, if only we didn't make points, truly we will end up with a superior gameformat....
cough aos 1.

Of course if you want real balance points is one thing you do need to get rid of. Point of points isn't balance but quick way to set game up. Only noobs　assume points give actual real balance. It's not their job and if you keep using points for that yot keep failing.