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.

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

Why would you want a different system to be closer to Power Level? Just use Power Level!

It'd be like me saying "Anything to make Tau more like Necrons, I'm good." Why wouldn't I just play Necrons if I love them so much. You have PL. Play PL. Why advocate for points to also be PL. What would be the point?

 tauist wrote:
... I don't care too much if 40K is "perfectly balanced"...

Oh Christ not this claptrap again. Who precisely is calling for a "perfectly balanced" game in this thread?

ccs wrote:
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?

That's two posts out of three on posts just blanket attacking everyone participating in the thread.

You planning on participating yourself, or just continuing to snipe from the shadows?

tneva82 wrote:
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.

GW is unique in the way that their points never work out. Other systems figured it out. In my own game, I looked at hit probabilities set a baseline at 50% and then modified it up and down based on the shifts. It took a while, but eventually I got a formula that pretty accurately reflects relative combat power.

GW's point system is just notoriously bad. In some editions, it is less bad, but it's still bad.

I don't really see a lot of game balance implications because GW isn't interested in anything other than selling models. I recall when AP 3 was king, and everyone scrambled to retool their armies to load up on things that used it. I see a similar dynamic here.

If GW decides power swords don't cost more than chainswords, you're going to see every army capable of fielding them re-equip with them because "they're free." (Yes, there will be stubborn grognards who don't convert, but GW will still make its money.)

And then, when the power curve explodes, GW will step in and change the rule to something else and people will cheer the return to reason and then have to modify all their armies again. Wash, rinse, repeat.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Moreover, we already have Power Levels. Why would we want a slighly differenter version?

Again, not sure if you actually recognised it, but that's what I literally said.

As long as PL is an option, y'all can sort out points how you like.

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 think I understand what you were saying, thank you for the elaboration and explanation. All the same, I must admit, I'm rather disappointed by the amount of other users who are now SUPPORTING the statement that players are "wrong and stupid" for taking "sub-par" choices, even if you yourself were not saying that (or only saying it as an example of toxic players who would make that claim).

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.

Now, that last bit is a fair point. As mentioned by Haighus, I don't want points and PL to become the same thing. I like them being separate. I like them both having a niche to exist. I don't believe that it's a silly format, though I can understand how someone else might believe so, and that's why I will still advocate for points to be what points players want it to be. However, when you say PL will only be mediocre, I have to disagree, but this is probably because our metrics of what we want from it are different. For me, PL is much more than that, and I like it.

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 did get that, I was extending your metaphor - but I'm glad you don't steal dice!

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.

And I think this is where we disagree, because I don't see 40k as that. I see it as a chance to tell stories, to enjoy playing with our lil plastic minis with a shared ruleset and framework, and a chance to create spectacle. Playing to the objective is entirely secondary to my experience.

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.

I still must say, I don't understand the 1800s analogy still at all. My "thoughts" are literally "tell a fun story, put on a good show, enjoy ourselves pushing around plastic minis with a shared framework".

You say "stupid and wrong", but that is only from that ONE perspective, and it is not the only one. Therefore, I think establishing that there isn't just one way to enjoy the game, and that there are a multitude which deserve equal respect is important, especially on this forum where even mentioning PL gets me dogpiled.

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.

Mission are in the rules, yes, but so is "have fun playing". In fact, I think "have fun" comes before missions in the rulebook.

Plus, there are plenty of ways to play 40k that involve asymmetric styles of play, or even unwinnable games, where you just see how long you can last. After all, if a chance for victory is what defines 40k, then surely you should be ending games the moment one army has a significant enough lead that victory is assured. I keep playing on, because I like to see my games out to the end, and see what stories I can tell with it.

Again - I think forced is too strong a word here, because I'm not being "forced" in any practical way.

 vict0988 wrote:

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.

Here's the thing, in case you misunderstand my position. I'm coming from the pov that ttg's are very limited systems, can't hold much weight and really, we can only expect 'so much' from them before things start to go awry. We put the emphasis on collaborative game building and list-'matching' rather than double blind list-building-for-advantage for a reason.

Every approach has problems and consequences. It's the nature of ttgs.

'Being punished for your choices?' Yeah, That sounds like every implemented points system I've ever looked at.

Freedom of choice is illusory, especially when of your million choices only a handful are ever 'worth it'. And ascribing a universal cost to anything is a faulty foundation to begin with considering context ascribes value, more than anything else.

Buy this is going o/t and I'm.gonna leave it there.

 vict0988 wrote:

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.

Coming from a wmh background I'm perfectly OK with a 'lessening' or elimination of the wargear options and I don't see it as detrimental in any way. More stuff is just more book keeping and often just more bloat for very little value in my experience. 'Less is more' is not a punishment.

'Free' warhead can have a place. I remember when marines were 15pts and came with a bolter. Now they're whatever and get 'free' pistols and frag and kraks. And 'free' wargear can have a place if it's built into the overall unit cost - the cost is essentially carried elsewhere.

And i only mentioned swc as Swc is an interesting set up providing a second track to track cost and put the brakes on runaway builds. You can't just take 8x models with hmg's, even if you had the points. It's not ne essarily 'the answer', merely an example of an alternative approach. I.could have easily mrntioned pp's 2-list formats or multiple win conditions which had a far greater impact on promoting improved balance in their games' ecosystems than any amount of points-adjustments. I doubt most folks would be aware of w:nm's approach to list building, for example.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
I like how even in the OP's example of Guard weapons, the options clearly aren't equal, and therefore shouldn't be costed (or not) as such...

Thats really an issue of the grenade launcher being absolute trash and in need of a complete stats/role overhaul than anything else. Flamers, meltaguns, and plasmaguns all have strong arguments to be made for taking any of them despite the fact that they all cost the same currently (as far as guard are concerned anyway), and you will see competitive lists make use of any/all of them. The flamer is borderline though as most armies don't want for ways to kill more infantry, so its often reduced to a debate between plasma v melta as a result, with the tradeoff between them being that the melta offers raw stopping power against a single target, whereas the plasma gun is a bit less effective but has greater utility against a greater range of targets.

 oni wrote:

They're forgetting that they made points costs granular for a reason - it's a metric for game balance.

Its cute that people think this, but it honestly is not true, just an extremely pervasive misconstrued belief that has surface-level logic behind it that makes it seem like a reasonable assumption, but which does not actually stand up to deeper scrutiny or statistical analysis.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
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.

People with game design pedigrees - You're all understanding, using, and applying points incorrectly (including GWs design team)

It depends on what upsets you really.

The issue with a lot of upgrades is that they are borderline meaningless - and so shouldn't obviously have a points cost. Even if they are objectively better.

So yes, a Guardsman sergeant expects to do twice as much damage with a power sword into Marines (with AOC) as with a Chainsword. But in real terms - we are talking about expecting to do 1/6th of a wound more. I.E. about 1.66 points extra damage if you get to swing - and you have not got instantly wiped out by something shooting or charging you.

What is that worth? 5 points? Obviously not. The odds of you making your points back are slim - in practice you'd just be giving your opponent an extra 5 points when they casually wipe the squad. A single point just because then? Maybe. But if so, surely you can just leave it at zero, and I suspect it will have almost no impact on the balance of the game.

Its arguably even more extreme in the case of a bolt pistol over a laspistol. The bolt pistol expects to do a quarter of a point more damage into marines every time I get to fire it over the las pistol. What is that worth to me? That's not worth a point.

On average I'd need to fire 72 bolt pistols to kill an additional marine over 72 laspistols. It seems somewhat unlikely to happen in any real game.

A plasma pistol by contrast seems worth something - because when supercharging that does about 10 times the damage into Marines, or about 5.5 points, rather than 0.555 the las pistol is giving you. Although you do need to factor in some reduction due to the chance of killing yourself.

But again, how many points are we talking here? Paying 5 points to do 5 extra points of damage sounds good. Unfortunately its on a 12" range in a Guardsmen squad that dies to a stiff breeze. You are therefore going to get plenty of games where you don't get to shoot - due to being out of range and then dead. So maybe it should be 2-3 points. But we could just go the full-hog and make it zero points. If you are taking 10 squads and have 10 free plasma pistols which "should cost an extra 20-30 points" is it likely to be a balance issue? Will anyone look at Guard win rates and go "its the free plasma pistols?" It seems unlikely.

But clearly as said, if plasma pistols are free, why would you ever bother with the other two? But I'd argue this is why weapon options should only exist if they bring utility. The laspistol has to be the "right choice" into certain lists. But there are none. So you are stuck with "what's it worth to upgrade a laspistol to a plasma pistol" - and the answer surely is "not much". At which point, whether its 0 points or 2 points is essentially academic.

What GW have often really struggled with is the glasscannonification of points increases. So you can say "this gun does more damage, it should cost more points". But this often overlooks that the unit is now giving up more points in turn. Which is why the whole game moves towards being glorified checkers - because everything kills everything.

And arguably, if you math things out so a unit having a special weapon does more damage, but gives up more points when attacked itself, you can potentially end up in the situation where it doesn't matter whether you take special weapons or not. Which might be good for balance, but feels a bit silly.

Which basically brings us back to wargear choices should somehow do something in game. A squad with a flamer is somehow very different to one with a melta gun - or nothing etc. Rather than just being more or less efficient in specific games and the meta as a whole.

 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.

For the Imperial Guard you could have the plasma gun (kills everything, sometimes including you), melta gun (kills tanks, short range), flamer (kills light infantry, shorter range) and grenade launcher (kills nothing, kind of sucks). And a case could be made for taking any of them.

If the game became less granular, back to all power weapons having the same stats for example, it could work. The only people who'd miss out are the people who modeled 'naked' units to save points.

It would be terrible for the game and would give certain factions/units a ridiculous advantage over others.

A great example of this is just simple troop choices between Marines and Orkz. A Marine can take 5 man units and include a Sgt with a host of weapon options and a special or heavy weapons option. The unit come costs 90pts, it would end up receiving 58pts of FREE upgrades. (Multi-melta and combi-melta/PF)

What can the Boyz squad take? Well for starters they have to take 10 models, and the best "Free" gear would be a Rokkit Launcha and the Nob with 2 Killsaws So an 80pt squad gets 30pts of "free" upgrades

Marines get 64% more points and the Ork boyz get...37.5% more points. And of course the fact that the weapon options aren't correctly priced to begin with (10pts for a 1/3rd chance to hit with a rokkit isn't worth it)

And this isn't even going to the extreme examples. There are units which can take a ridiculous amount of weapon and gear upgrades. This idea would simply destroy any sense of balance or competitiveness in the game and it would become useless to play. Points at least vaguely balance things, taking 60%+ more points than your opponent because someone thought free upgrades was a good idea will just destroy the game.

@Semper Mortis it only wrecks internal balance, Plague Marines get tonnes of free stuff but Orks can still beat them if they're cheap enough and Plague Marines aren't even an auto-include in DG lists.

Tyel wrote:
It depends on what upsets you really.

The issue with a lot of upgrades is that they are borderline meaningless - and so shouldn't obviously have a points cost. Even if they are objectively better.

So yes, a Guardsman sergeant expects to do twice as much damage with a power sword into Marines (with AOC) as with a Chainsword. But in real terms - we are talking about expecting to do 1/6th of a wound more. I.E. about 1.66 points extra damage if you get to swing - and you have not got instantly wiped out by something shooting or charging you.

What is that worth? 5 points? Obviously not. The odds of you making your points back are slim - in practice you'd just be giving your opponent an extra 5 points when they casually wipe the squad. A single point just because then? Maybe. But if so, surely you can just leave it at zero, and I suspect it will have almost no impact on the balance of the game.

That's only looking at external balance, internal balance means that there is a reason to take every option in the book. Even if a bolt pistol is overcosted at 1 point, there is still a reason to take it, it gives the shooting attack on your Sergeant +1 S. Power swords are a bit more complicated, against an Ork or Daemon you'll get more damage from a chainsword, there are enough downsides to taking a power sword on an AM Infantry Squad that it's fine to leave it at 0 pts compared to a chainsword.

I reckon a bolt pistol should be about 0,2 pts. You learn fractions in third grade and your app can handle the bigger numbers, I'm just not convinced that ease of calculating PL in your head is a real upside when more mistakes are bound to happen when you do mental calculations instead of using at the very least a piece of paper. Bolt pistols are just a question of principle, but the issue is very clear when you look at Plague Marines and their free wargear, it's a complete mess with every unit being completely blinged out. The bling might change a little from list to list but it's always there, if you own boltgun Plague Marines you might as well throw them in the trash.

And arguably, if you math things out so a unit having a special weapon does more damage, but gives up more points when attacked itself, you can potentially end up in the situation where it doesn't matter whether you take special weapons or not.

It absolutely matters, because you want your glasscannons safe and you want your sacrificial units cheap. There is no gameplay incentive to take weaker options unless they cost less. I get it is frustrating you want to bling out your squads and you don't feel the bling is worth it, but there is free where you'll always take something, undercosted where you'll probably take it, perfectly balanced where you'll take it if it fits your list, overcosted where you'll only take it if you have nothing else to use the pts for and hilariously overcosted where it is never worth it.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
I like how even in the OP's example of Guard weapons, the options clearly aren't equal, and therefore shouldn't be costed (or not) as such...

Thats really an issue of the grenade launcher being absolute trash and in need of a complete stats/role overhaul than anything else. Flamers, meltaguns, and plasmaguns all have strong arguments to be made for taking any of them despite the fact that they all cost the same currently (as far as guard are concerned anyway), and you will see competitive lists make use of any/all of them. The flamer is borderline though as most armies don't want for ways to kill more infantry, so its often reduced to a debate between plasma v melta as a result, with the tradeoff between them being that the melta offers raw stopping power against a single target, whereas the plasma gun is a bit less effective but has greater utility against a greater range of targets.

So the choices are equal, except for the one which is trash, and the other one which nobody takes already. Cooool.

Hey 2/4 are worth considering. That's GW balance in a nutshell...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

ccs wrote:
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?

That's two posts out of three on posts just blanket attacking everyone participating in the thread.

You planning on participating yourself, or just continuing to snipe from the shadows?

1) I said my piece on the subject waaay back near the top. But for you I'll repeat it: I'm ok with it wich ever way it goes.
Though as I've said in other posts on PL I am a bit lazy & like just looking at a unit & seeing that it costs x. Doesn't matter to me if x is one digit, two, three....

On free/no cost meaning that I'll always take the best option? No it doesn't.
Because a lot of my stuff was built before 1/2 of you ever played your 1st game. Maybe I built it optimized for the edition I built the unit during. Of course maybe I also just built it to suit my own vision at the time. (I've always done that alot. Always will.) I likely don't remember. But it doesn't matter here in 2022+. These are finished models/units that I've been playing with for years & will continue to play with for more years. As long as the weapons options I built them with are options in the current edition I'm fine & my only question is: How many pts does this model/unit cost today.
New stuff I build today? Maybe it'll be optimized, maybe not. Odds are pretty equal. For ex: Come Jan when I start building my Votann? I'll build them heavy on Ion blasters & Beam weapons. Because that's what grabs my imagination with this force. Is that optimal? Sub-optimal? Doesn't matter. I like it & will figure out how to make it work for me. And a few years from now in 15th edition? Rules permitting, my nu-squats will still be armed like this.

2) It's not an attack. It's an honest question. And one that you should be considering how to answer. Some of you are pretty upset over a possible change. What will you do if it becomes real?
* Will you quit current 40k?
* Will you continue to play current 40k?
** Will you be like my friend Joe who continues to, for reasons known only to him, play versions of games he really doesn't like & then complains non-stop?
* Will any of you have mental breakdowns or aneurisms or post amusing vids of you burning your toys?

Part of the problem is that GW is not great at applying negative consequences to upgrades to make them not automatically better, and is getting actively worse at it. Indeed, it seems they are going out of their way to allow players to ignore core rules that apply negatives to models. A good example is the increased utility of basically every weapon type over the editions- rapid fire gained the ability to move and shoot at full range. It then gained the ability to shoot and assault in the same turn. Pistols gained the ability to shoot in melee. Assault weapons gained the ability to shoot after advancing. Heavy weapons lost the restriction of being unable to shoot after moving- this last one was a big balance consideration in the past, an upgrade might be powerful, but you would sacrifice mobility for it.

There are loads of examples for this, such as the way everyone overcharges plasma almost all the time, because re-rolls are trivially easy to provide and the damage boost is basically always worth it.

If heavy and special weapons had more meaningful restrictions attached to them, it would be easier to balance them. Obviously not a practical example for 40k, but things like the Necromunda ammo rolls are a good example of what kind of things can be done- advanced support weapons are less reliable than basic guns in that setting.

chaos0xomega 808219 11471168 null. wrote:

 oni wrote:

They're forgetting that they made points costs granular for a reason - it's a metric for game balance.

Its cute that people think this, but it honestly is not true, just an extremely pervasive misconstrued belief that has surface-level logic behind it that makes it seem like a reasonable assumption, but which does not actually stand up to deeper scrutiny or statistical analysis.
People with game design pedigrees - You're all understanding, using, and applying points incorrectly (including GWs design team)

I think it would be helpful for the discussion if you explain why points are not a metric for game balance, and maybe explaine what they are, in your opinion/experience. As it stands, this post comes across as pretty condescending (esp. when using the word pedigree) and I don't think that is your intention.

It would be terrible for the game and would give certain factions/units a ridiculous advantage over others.

A great example of this is just simple troop choices between Marines and Orkz. A Marine can take 5 man units and include a Sgt with a host of weapon options and a special or heavy weapons option. The unit come costs 90pts, it would end up receiving 58pts of FREE upgrades. (Multi-melta and combi-melta/PF)

That is assuming GW won't increase the point costs of Space Marines which I expect them to do. If anything this means that we won't see an endless cascade of barebones squads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If one weapon is better than another, then upgrading to that weapon should have a cost.

The problem that lies therein is that either the weapon needs extra shots(like Multi-melta got) or we need to change the point costs. The current system is just too low end and to get to some realistic point you'd have to play 10.000 point games where a Battle Sister would cost around 80+ points. I would imagine that's something GW doesn't want to do.

Tyel wrote:
It depends on what upsets you really.

The issue with a lot of upgrades is that they are borderline meaningless - and so shouldn't obviously have a points cost. Even if they are objectively better.

So yes, a Guardsman sergeant expects to do twice as much damage with a power sword into Marines (with AOC) as with a Chainsword. But in real terms - we are talking about expecting to do 1/6th of a wound more. I.E. about 1.66 points extra damage if you get to swing - and you have not got instantly wiped out by something shooting or charging you.

What is that worth? 5 points? Obviously not. The odds of you making your points back are slim - in practice you'd just be giving your opponent an extra 5 points when they casually wipe the squad. A single point just because then? Maybe. But if so, surely you can just leave it at zero, and I suspect it will have almost no impact on the balance of the game.

It doesn't matter. The Power Sword is not a sidegrade, it's an upgrade. The Chainsword has minimal targets you'd want it over. A system of free upgraded rewards someone that either can break the system or rewards someone that likes a particular aesthetic. How can you defend that?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Tyel wrote:
It depends on what upsets you really.

The issue with a lot of upgrades is that they are borderline meaningless - and so shouldn't obviously have a points cost. Even if they are objectively better.

So yes, a Guardsman sergeant expects to do twice as much damage with a power sword into Marines (with AOC) as with a Chainsword. But in real terms - we are talking about expecting to do 1/6th of a wound more. I.E. about 1.66 points extra damage if you get to swing - and you have not got instantly wiped out by something shooting or charging you.

What is that worth? 5 points? Obviously not. The odds of you making your points back are slim - in practice you'd just be giving your opponent an extra 5 points when they casually wipe the squad. A single point just because then? Maybe. But if so, surely you can just leave it at zero, and I suspect it will have almost no impact on the balance of the game.

It doesn't matter. The Power Sword is not a sidegrade, it's an upgrade. The Chainsword has minimal targets you'd want it over. A system of free upgraded rewards someone that either can break the system or rewards someone that likes a particular aesthetic. How can you defend that?

So how many points is a Power Sword worth for a Guard Sergeant?
What's the fair cost, when a squad of Guard is 65 Points base?

Even against an enemy GEQ squad, you're looking at doing no damage from the Sarge 4/9 times. That's better than a Chainsword... But not by much.
Against a MEQ, it's 84% chance of doing nothing with a Chainsword, and 69% with a Power Sword.

It's such a paltry amount of melee damage from a non-melee squad that it'll be irrelevant in nine games out of ten, at least.
I can agree that a Lascannon should cost more than a Missile Launcher (or the Missile Launcher should be buffed to be worth the same) but the melee options? None of them make the Sergeant a good melee combatant, let alone the whole squad.

@JNA How much a power sword is worth depends on combos and synergies, I don't know how much exists, but I can see it being worth 5 points at the high end if you're looking at a 3A S4 WS4+ dude with Hatred and the potential to fight twice. Otherwise? Probably 1 point. It's not a big deal to pay 1 extra point, where do you need those extra 12 points you're spending on your perhaps slightly overcosted power swords and bolt pistols anyway?

You're ignoring the bigger issue which is trading a plague knife for Nurgle's sacred plague Daeamon blade forged in the heart of a dying pus star of death for 0 pts.

 Eldarsif wrote:
The problem that lies therein is that either the weapon needs extra shots(like Multi-melta got) or we need to change the point costs. The current system is just too low end and to get to some realistic point you'd have to play 10.000 point games where a Battle Sister would cost around 80+ points. I would imagine that's something GW doesn't want to do.

A children's card game (Yugioh) has 8000 life points, 40k players can play with 40000 pts, that's ignoring the option of fractions and the fact that bolt pistols being 1 point overcosted isn't a big deal, but absolute upgrades being free is a big deal because there is no reason not to take them if you want to win.

How about we stick to base profiles first before factoring in wombocombos?

I for one would be fine if they added a zero to EVERY SINGLE POINTS COST IN GAME! More granularity couldn't hurt.

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Tyel wrote:
It depends on what upsets you really.

The issue with a lot of upgrades is that they are borderline meaningless - and so shouldn't obviously have a points cost. Even if they are objectively better.

So yes, a Guardsman sergeant expects to do twice as much damage with a power sword into Marines (with AOC) as with a Chainsword. But in real terms - we are talking about expecting to do 1/6th of a wound more. I.E. about 1.66 points extra damage if you get to swing - and you have not got instantly wiped out by something shooting or charging you.

What is that worth? 5 points? Obviously not. The odds of you making your points back are slim - in practice you'd just be giving your opponent an extra 5 points when they casually wipe the squad. A single point just because then? Maybe. But if so, surely you can just leave it at zero, and I suspect it will have almost no impact on the balance of the game.

It doesn't matter. The Power Sword is not a sidegrade, it's an upgrade. The Chainsword has minimal targets you'd want it over. A system of free upgraded rewards someone that either can break the system or rewards someone that likes a particular aesthetic. How can you defend that?

So how many points is a Power Sword worth for a Guard Sergeant?
What's the fair cost, when a squad of Guard is 65 Points base?

Even against an enemy GEQ squad, you're looking at doing no damage from the Sarge 4/9 times. That's better than a Chainsword... But not by much.
Against a MEQ, it's 84% chance of doing nothing with a Chainsword, and 69% with a Power Sword.

It's such a paltry amount of melee damage from a non-melee squad that it'll be irrelevant in nine games out of ten, at least.

It doesn't matter how irrelevant you think it is. The melee option exists for sergeants for a reason. 0 points for a Power Sword on a Devastator sergeant would be bad design too, even though it's a range squad first and foremost. If it's an improvement, it had a cost. Period.

For a fair price, that's a different story. GW sticking with increments of 5 for upgrades is more a problem than anything. Knock it down to 3 points and see how it goes. Even to 2 if you want. It should NOT be a free exchange though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
How about we stick to base profiles first before factoring in wombocombos?

I for one would be fine if they added a zero to EVERY SINGLE POINTS COST IN GAME! More granularity couldn't hurt.

I don't think we need a zero added. I think just multiplying by 2 would help do the trick.

 vict0988 wrote:
You're ignoring the bigger issue which is trading a plague knife for Nurgle's sacred plague Daeamon blade forged in the heart of a dying pus star of death for 0 pts.

But if Nurgle's Sacred Plague Daemon blade forged in the heart of a dying pus start of death amounts to... you get +1S, how many points is it worth?
Somewhere between zero and 1? In which case, what's the gameplay impact of it being zero?

I mean your Plague Marine Champion does 33% more damage into MEQ. But in real terms, we are talking about an expected damage increase of 1.29~ points going into a 20 point Intercessor. Who cares? This has essentially no impact on winning a game of 9th edition 40k. Which is why it can be zero points and not matter.

In the same way of "how do I defend a power sword being free"? Because it doesn't matter.

I don't want to say this applies to everything - because say a guardsmen squad with plasma/melta is clearly better than just lasguns. And quite significantly so in certain circumstances. But I don't mind a system where this is incorporated into a squads cost, and people who didn't build any specials are a bit worse off. Go and buy some if it bothers you.

Tyel wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
You're ignoring the bigger issue which is trading a plague knife for Nurgle's sacred plague Daeamon blade forged in the heart of a dying pus star of death for 0 pts.

But if Nurgle's Sacred Plague Daemon blade forged in the heart of a dying pus start of death amounts to... you get +1S, how many points is it worth?

About tree fiddy. Now you tell me why Nurgle's sacred plague Daeamon blade forged in the heart of a dying pus star of death only adds +1S. Is it because you wanted to remove pts costs from upgrades for no good reason?

what's the gameplay impact of it being zero?

The gameplay impact is that you have no good reason to use your plague knife and bolter Plague Marines so the game pieces you paid for stop being game pieces and that's annoying and unethical.

And quite significantly so in certain circumstances. But I don't mind a system where this is incorporated into a squads cost, and people who didn't build any specials are a bit worse off. Go and buy some if it bothers you.

What's the upside of giving up internal balance like this? Just pay whatever Nurgle's sacred plague Daeamon blade forged in the heart of a dying pus star of death is worth if you want to use it and if you don't then take your discount.

I'd rather see more impactful things addressed before minutiae.

Interfaction and intrafaction balance for one. Look at Daemons-Tzeentch has arguably the single best datasheet in the entire game, and Khorne is doing reasonably well across the board for the most part. And Nurgle... Well, it's there.
Quibbling over a whether a Power Sword on a GEQ should be 0-1 points is something that can be addressed later.

I'm ok with free weapons to a point. When it's small units, overly restricted weapons, or units that don't often do much on the table then go for it.

When it comes to something like Kasrkin I'm a little more skeptical. Clearly no one will ever not take all four specials. OTOH this gives us a more consistent outcome for the unit in games.

Obviously some weapons are much more edge case ( e.g. flamers ) than others, but overall the difference in weapon function and targeting is so much better that there is no real one size fits all choice.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'd rather see more impactful things addressed before minutiae.

Interfaction and intrafaction balance for one. Look at Daemons-Tzeentch has arguably the single best datasheet in the entire game, and Khorne is doing reasonably well across the board for the most part. And Nurgle... Well, it's there.
Quibbling over a whether a Power Sword on a GEQ should be 0-1 points is something that can be addressed later.

Internal balance needs to be checked before external balance can.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'm ok with free weapons to a point. When it's small units, overly restricted weapons, or units that don't often do much on the table then go for it.

When it comes to something like Kasrkin I'm a little more skeptical. Clearly no one will ever not take all four specials. OTOH this gives us a more consistent outcome for the unit in games.

Obviously some weapons are much more edge case ( e.g. flamers ) than others, but overall the difference in weapon function and targeting is so much better that there is no real one size fits all choice.

Good point, but with Kasrkin it's even weirder - not taking all the specials is actually the strongest loud out (taking only hotshot weapons including volley and maybe sniper and using the MW strat is already showing up in tournament topping lists).

For me, baking in some costs is fine but anything that substantially alters a units function has to be priced otherwise we end up in situations where options don't matter as there is simply a selection of items that are either underpriced or overpriced relative to the arbitrary value assigned to the unit.

Racerguy180 wrote:
How about we stick to base profiles first before factoring in wombocombos?

I for one would be fine if they added a zero to EVERY SINGLE POINTS COST IN GAME! More granularity couldn't hurt.

Because combos exist. GW though tyranid warriors were balanced for what they did. They were a bit off on that, because they are a bit too good. But when they could suddenly be only wounded on a +4, it drasticly changed them.

Any unit or weapon that seems balanced, stops being balanced if extra rules are added. Lets take intercessor for example. They have a grenade launcher option per 5 dudes. In effecient and moot rule most of the time. but what if with the return of the Lion the weapon vaults of the DA are open for that one faction, and suddenly those intercessors are shoting vortex grenades with a 2-3CP stratagem. Only DAs can do it. Other mariens don't have access. Now GWs anwsers to such problems is almost never the changing of the problem unit, but rather carpet bombing the entire slot. Tau Cmds and Tyrants a problem? now no one can take 3+ units of non troops. Tau bomber are NPE, opponents can do nothing about. GW nukes all fliers, including 99% that are bad and now got worse. LoV Thunder dudes are horrible, but the community calls for nerfs so lets hike up their point costs, so that no one who can read buys the unit. etc.

It would be better for the game if GW just be open about it, build one working list for each faction. And if someone wants to play an in efficient or not working list, then they can play narrative or open. This way at least stuff would be in the open and new players wouldn't have to learn the fact that hard way. It would also mean that if GW decided that a type of build should no longer be a thing, they would have to change point costs and rules in a such a way that the faction doesn't get stranded with nothing, but now has a new way to play. It would still be better then what exits now.

They've been "streamlining" to the absolute cost of the battle experience since 8th was conceived of so why not?

We have a game which is essentially a video game of two forces hitting attack over and over until one runs out of hitpoints and they are hiding this by ensuring the player has an awful lot of "processing" to do. Special weapon points are irrelevant.

Dai wrote:
They've been "streamlining" to the absolute cost of the battle experience since 8th was conceived of so why not?

We have a game which is essentially a video game of two forces hitting attack over and over until one runs out of hitpoints and they are hiding this by ensuring the player has an awful lot of "processing" to do. Special weapon points are irrelevant.

Sadly, this is all too true.

 Haighus wrote:
Part of the problem is that GW is not great at applying negative consequences to upgrades to make them not automatically better, and is getting actively worse at it. Indeed, it seems they are going out of their way to allow players to ignore core rules that apply negatives to models. A good example is the increased utility of basically every weapon type over the editions- rapid fire gained the ability to move and shoot at full range. It then gained the ability to shoot and assault in the same turn. Pistols gained the ability to shoot in melee. Assault weapons gained the ability to shoot after advancing. Heavy weapons lost the restriction of being unable to shoot after moving- this last one was a big balance consideration in the past, an upgrade might be powerful, but you would sacrifice mobility for it.

This is also true. The fact that you can now assault after firing *any* weapon (not just Assault and Pistol weapons), means that Assault is frequently just a markedly worse type than rapid fire (and I'm not sure many profiles/costs were changed to reflect this fact).

 Haighus wrote:
Part of the problem is that GW is not great at applying negative consequences to upgrades to make them not automatically better, and is getting actively worse at it. Indeed, it seems they are going out of their way to allow players to ignore core rules that apply negatives to models. A good example is the increased utility of basically every weapon type over the editions- rapid fire gained the ability to move and shoot at full range. It then gained the ability to shoot and assault in the same turn. Pistols gained the ability to shoot in melee. Assault weapons gained the ability to shoot after advancing. Heavy weapons lost the restriction of being unable to shoot after moving- this last one was a big balance consideration in the past, an upgrade might be powerful, but you would sacrifice mobility for it

This is the part you have problems with?

No, pistols being able to do a clunky, inconvenient shot in melee (because they lost +1A) or heavies doing snap shots after move is peanuts next to broken gak stat inflation in xeno and chaos armies removing all the balance elements from the game. Tau used to max at 4+ skill, if you wanted more you needed markerlights and characters. Now? 2+ handed out like candy. Orkstodes and demons used to be T3, now it's T5 in half the entries because frak you. Eldar wraith units had very high stats in return for babysitter getting them to do what you wanted - no more, Eldar players whined so that was binned. Cheap chaos demon auxilias used to have 4+ skill to make 3+ of CSM stand out - nope, all 3+ now, hell, 2+ in some cases. Helbrutes and demon weapons were poweful but disobedient on roll of 1 - screw that, chaos must be predictable so that's gone too. Etc, etc, there were hundreds of characterful downsides in the game to balance upsides but not only it's in the past, the upsides that were once so good they needed a check are now being buffed into the stratosphere even though downside is gone

Meanwhile Imperial armies mostly kept the statlines and weapons, no matter how stupid they were - why SM veteran of centuries of warfare, clad in small tank, namely terminator plate, is still S4 T4 when any ork runt in t-shirt or small demon in loincloth now sports better stats? Why gravis statline is a joke next to ton of entries that shouldn't be even close to it? Why SM kept 3+/3+ when say Tau kid fresh out of academy (or DE teens with mom-funded gear on first raid) gets 2+/2+ just for existing? Why bolters are S4 AP- when junk colts bashed from scrap by GSC mooks are not only better than this, but are also better than most legendary, relic bolt pistols millennia old costing relic slots? Because frak you, that's why

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'd rather see more impactful things addressed before minutiae.

Interfaction and intrafaction balance for one. Look at Daemons-Tzeentch has arguably the single best datasheet in the entire game, and Khorne is doing reasonably well across the board for the most part. And Nurgle... Well, it's there.
Quibbling over a whether a Power Sword on a GEQ should be 0-1 points is something that can be addressed later.

So what happens if GW removes pts costs for all SM upgrades and fix Flamers of Tzeentch? You call that a step forward? Internal balance matters more to 40k players than one faction having one overpowered datasheet. It's not even like Flamers lists win every tournament.

The game needs a balance foundation instead of this hopping from one branch to the next branch with a broken wing underdeveloped gak. Put the bird out of its misery and start at the basics, write rules based on fluff, scissors should not be AP-1. Things that are strictly better should cost more points. Determine the value of a point to the Space Marines codex. Playtest pts with the finalized rules before release against Space Marines and several other factions. The most popular units in the most overperforming factions in competitive play should cost more. The least popular units in underperforming factions in competitive play should cost less.

If GW slowed down releases in a more "fixed" edition and then removed all wargear costs and made all upgrades free and then worked from there I think they could massively improve the game. Current GW with the current way 40k works points for wargear is just too much work for GW.

If they started with trying to find the point cost of the most powerful load out (and didn't change everything every 6 months) then they could start with at least getting that load out the correct points and at least have 1 build for each unit that is balanced around competitive play. Like say they give devastators a cost of 100 and assume everyone is going to go for all meltas. If people want they can go lascannons or heavy bolters in their casual games and it will still cost 100pts. After 6 months they might find out that it should have been 105pts and the unit is perfect at the higher end like that. Then they can try having all the other options at -5pts for the unit and work down. Over time more and more options would be balanced. If they can't do it then they should perhaps consolidate some options and slow down on their updating.

Rather than now where everything goes up and down in points and its a pure 50/50 if it was a good or bad decision from GW and entire units (not to mention specific load outs) can go from stellar to crap or the reverse at any point. Not everything needs to be perfect. But the current way make almost no unit well costed. It is just that a combination of limited under costed units is balanced by having mandatory overcosted units so as a whole it is balanced if the right units are taken. But I would prefer at least some units and some load outs are well balanced and then GW tries to balance more. Strive to reach perfection by iteration over time. Not all at once.

IF GW were good at this I would love even more points and more options than there currently is. I love mathhammer and thinking about optimal load outs and how different game mechanics work. I'm the type that used to go look up the .txt files in old computer games(or not so old for things like Paradox games) for getting the exact stats and mechanics so I could take out my notebook and calculator. So if GW could give me more of that I would be happy. But they obviously can't and the game is more bloated then ever without having well costed units, items and abilities. So for everyones sake they should reduce the amount of bloat until they have learned how to handle it.

I think saying pts changes are 50/50 good/bad is too harsh, it's 90% good, 10% bad. If GW stopped with the rules changes like implementing Armour of Contempt and randomly giving Custodes Martial Katahs or improving Flayed Ones AP for no reason things would go a lot faster.

The problem with 40k is that there is no baseline of saying what is balanced, if Space Marines were internally balanced around Intercessors then other armies could be balanced around Space Marines, trying to keep Space Marines in a 50% win rate overall.

Whether the most cost-efficient option for Devastators is heavy bolters or multi-meltas doesn't really matter, you still have to buff the underperforming options or nerf the overperforming option based on how good Devastators are relative to the rest of the SM faction and how good SM are compared to the rest of the meta.

All the wargear options in 40k are peanuts compared to how much Stratagems and Chapter Tactics affect balance, remove 90% of Stratagems and every Chapter Tactic and that'll give GW that chance to actually balance stuff. As Karol mentioned, it's not the grenade launcher that's OP, it's the Dark Angels Stratagem that makes an otherwise fair option too good.