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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
So pretty crazy how fast i went from being hyped about a new edition to being completely neutral towards it, i'm not so dissapointed that i have real-life stuff to do this weekend instead of trying it out finally...

I really like the core rules. I think that, with a few exceptions (Desperate Breakout) they make a fantastic base for the new game.

The Datasheets are a bit all over the place, but there are some armies that seem to have their gak together (Necrons look like a wonderfully synergistic army!), and there are some that make my blood boil (the Carnifex entry).

And then they go and do... this!

+1 to both of you. I hate to say it, but this totally halfassed approach to points has killed a lot of the enthusiasm I had for 10th.

“…I'm starting a podcast about it now. Probably the only way I'll get a copy of the next Killteam set.”

Hilarious because it is grounded in reality

 catbarf wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
So pretty crazy how fast i went from being hyped about a new edition to being completely neutral towards it, i'm not so dissapointed that i have real-life stuff to do this weekend instead of trying it out finally...

I really like the core rules. I think that, with a few exceptions (Desperate Breakout) they make a fantastic base for the new game.

The Datasheets are a bit all over the place, but there are some armies that seem to have their gak together (Necrons look like a wonderfully synergistic army!), and there are some that make my blood boil (the Carnifex entry).

And then they go and do... this!

+1 to both of you. I hate to say it, but this totally halfassed approach to points has killed a lot of the enthusiasm I had for 10th.

I blame this on Crusade.

Crusade was successful, Crusade used powerlevels. Therefore, GW assumed that the general playerbase would be interested in using powerlevels.

They are not.

For us is the choise, are we going to play 10the, or do we play an older edition. for new players or compitition players there isnt that choise.

Honestly this feels a lot like GW reversing from the comp play back towards enforcing a more casual game. I wonder if it's also to drive more a wedge between 40k and HH.

I think for once this might hurt their bottom line a little long term.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Also, personally, to address the survivability v lethality issue with regards to vehicles, I would have just made vehicles reduce D1 to D0 and D2 to D1. That keeps your small arms from getting away from you without requiring you to inflate toughnessess and strengths to try to balance everything out.

That would have been very interesting and I think preferable to what we got. Similar to the old AV system where vehicles were essentially immune to small arms, but without requiring an entirely different method of resolving attacks. I think it would need a little tweaking, but I'd definitely give it a go.

ERJAK wrote:
I blame this on Crusade.

Crusade was successful, Crusade used powerlevels. Therefore, GW assumed that the general playerbase would be interested in using powerlevels.

They are not.

It just blows my mind because they did this for the 9th Ed Tyranid codex, and then backpedaled on it like a month after release, adding points costs to the obvious upgrades.

And that system worked- some options were just made free/basic equipment, some were consolidated, some were set up as sidegrades. Points costs were reserved for the most impactful upgrades, and tied to easy-to-work-with multiples of 5.

Then I guess they said 'haha jk' and we're back to where we were.

It's laziness. This is easier for them to write up and so they couldn't be bothered to actually create proper rules. They don't give a gak as long as people keep buying models.

ERJAK wrote:

I blame this on Crusade.

Crusade was successful, Crusade used powerlevels. Therefore, GW assumed that the general playerbase would be interested in using powerlevels.

They are not.

Crusade was just copying the system which AoS had already implemented.

 Scottywan82 wrote:
It's laziness. This is easier for them to write up and so they couldn't be bothered to actually create proper rules. They don't give a gak as long as people keep buying models.

It's probably a budget issue. I don't believe their rules writers are lazy, just that they are given very little time and room to work with. This looks legitimately like something that was written up in a month or two.

Uhhuh. Crusade came in 9e 40k. Aos3 wlth it's ptg which is still different to crusade year later

 skeleton wrote:
For us is the choise, are we going to play 10the, or do we play an older edition. for new players or compitition players there isnt that choise.

The correct choice is to just not play 40k to be honest. Or Heresy.

This, to me, is the final proof that GW truly do not a give a crap.

To even play casual games will take a full day of looking through all the unit options, finding the not terrible ones, building new squad sergeants, building all the tanks that were crap in 9th but are our 'well what else is there?' in 10th. And feeling bad about it the whole time because Eradicators are NINETY FIVE POINTS.

I SHOULD just play my space marines and be done with it, but I hate space marines. I was planning on using 10th to sell them off for Tyranids, but now if I do that, I'll have an unplayable army and an unbuilt army and that's about it.

 catbarf wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
I blame this on Crusade.

Crusade was successful, Crusade used powerlevels. Therefore, GW assumed that the general playerbase would be interested in using powerlevels.

They are not.

It just blows my mind because they did this for the 9th Ed Tyranid codex, and then backpedaled on it like a month after release, adding points costs to the obvious upgrades.

And that system worked- some options were just made free/basic equipment, some were consolidated, some were set up as sidegrades. Points costs were reserved for the most impactful upgrades, and tied to easy-to-work-with multiples of 5.

Then I guess they said 'haha jk' and we're back to where we were.

Well, the way GW did it here, if they do say "haha jk" then they only have one document to change, instead of changing every single Datasheet.

I'll bet that when the faction codices get released though, that the Munitorum Field Manual is going to get updated with more options. Or it will be included in the codex.

Explains the Combi-weapon consolidation garbage though.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

I blame this on Crusade.

Crusade was successful, Crusade used powerlevels. Therefore, GW assumed that the general playerbase would be interested in using powerlevels.

They are not.

Crusade was just copying the system which AoS had already implemented.

That's reductive. AoS is more or less designed around the idea that unit upgrades are going to be free. They're YEARS removed from '40 skeletons get 40 banners'.

40k is ENTIRELY built from models on up around the idea that a Multimelta is going to cost more than a Flamer.

Which is how you end up with 130pt Retributors and 95pt Eradicators.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Explains the Combi-weapon consolidation garbage though.

It doesn't, because they haven't applied it across the rest of the game.

Apokalypse works with Power Level, there are still duds and the whole system is built around it.
Implementing this as the only way for 40K is hilarious. And it's quite obvious they knew there would be a backlash, otherwize they wouldn't have held that information back until now. If they were confident with that decision they would have told us in one of the first previews to 10th or in any of the focusses, but they know how many people felt about Power Level.

ERJAK wrote:

 skeleton wrote:
For us is the choise, are we going to play 10the, or do we play an older edition. for new players or compitition players there isnt that choise.

The correct choice is to just not play 40k to be honest. Or Heresy.

This, to me, is the final proof that GW truly do not a give a crap.

To even play casual games will take a full day of looking through all the unit options, finding the not terrible ones, building new squad sergeants, building all the tanks that were crap in 9th but are our 'well what else is there?' in 10th. And feeling bad about it the whole time because Eradicators are NINETY FIVE POINTS.

I SHOULD just play my space marines and be done with it, but I hate space marines. I was planning on using 10th to sell them off for Tyranids, but now if I do that, I'll have an unplayable army and an unbuilt army and that's about it.

So given your strength of feeling, you’ll either delete your account or not bother with Dakka in the fyootcha?

I have a bit of a conspiracy theory.

Next week they will come over all "we listened" and publish equipment points for positive pr and praise for their live service model. Not very likely of course but companies have done crazier things.

I dont actually believe it btw.

 Trickstick wrote:
I have a bit of a conspiracy theory.

Next week they will come over all "we listened" and publish equipment points for positive pr and praise for their live service model. Not very likely of course but companies have done crazier things.

I dont actually believe it btw.

or there will be some "look this is a short term fix so people can get used to the new rules, a revised points system will be presented alongside the first codex!"

or we will get 11th somewhat earlier than planned

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Explains the Combi-weapon consolidation garbage though.

It doesn't, because they haven't applied it across the rest of the game.

Applied what?

If the idea was to make the different options (SI Bolters and Combi-weapons) balanced without using points, the solution is to just mash the potential damage output of the combi-weapons.

I agree and I can see they tried that, but my issue is you take that then compare it to the melee weapons on say death company, or the ranged guns on tyranid warriors and there's clearly some options that are worth more. I'm all for them making side grades and it making sense, but they've done it in what feels like 3%.

 Trickstick wrote:
I have a bit of a conspiracy theory.

Next week they will come over all "we listened" and publish equipment points for positive pr and praise for their live service model. Not very likely of course but companies have done crazier things.

I dont actually believe it btw.

Dont you think they will wait 2 months so people have sold or bought just enough models to invalidate their current army setup?

No way Im gonna bother retooling my astra militarum to this nonsense, but my 3rd ed Necron army actually is about 2000 points the whole way and still is, with some scarabs for loose change and an extra lord I had lying around since early 2000s. I'll just play with that one instead.

That said, I like the easier points system. Hope they would keep it somehow. Makes it more predictable what to meet in turnaments and how to deal with units. 40k could need some more standardization and less rerolls.

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Explains the Combi-weapon consolidation garbage though.

It doesn't, because they haven't applied it across the rest of the game.

Applied what?

If the idea was to make the different options (SI Bolters and Combi-weapons) balanced without using points, the solution is to just mash the potential damage output of the combi-weapons.

I agree and I can see they tried that, but my issue is you take that then compare it to the melee weapons on say death company, or the ranged guns on tyranid warriors and there's clearly some options that are worth more. I'm all for them making side grades and it making sense, but they've done it in what feels like 3%.

I'd say a major consistency with GW these days is their inconsistency. And just poor thinking.

In other news, I just built a 1K army! It was incredibly un-fun.

Dudeface wrote:

I agree and I can see they tried that, but my issue is you take that then compare it to the melee weapons on say death company, or the ranged guns on tyranid warriors and there's clearly some options that are worth more. I'm all for them making side grades and it making sense, but they've done it in what feels like 3%.

As a BA player who just a few months ago built 10 true scale vanguard veterans(quite pricy with assault intercessor legs, 3d printed torsos, FW heads and shoulders and then VV weapons and JP) with mixed load outs to be both semi competitive but mostly awesome looking along with 10 Death Company Marines with JP that have 0 power fists or inferno pistols among them I really feel this. I think 2 of the VV veterans out of those 20 models look close to an optimal load out. Having thunder hammers or lightning claws count as "Heirloom weapons" just feels wrong since both lightning claws and thunder hammers still exists among space marines and have very different stats from heirloom weapons. Would just be confusing for both players when my kitted out Veteran sergeant wielding a thunder hammer only have S5 ap1 D1 and not S8 ap2 D3 like he obviously look like.

So 18 out of 20 of my latest bought, built and painted models are either complete trash(DC with BP and CS are so much worse than PF+IP it isnt funny that they are the same points) or needs to have their arms broken off. I didn´t give them optimal load outs to begin with cause if I varied a bit at least the majority should still be useful even if not optimal in the next edition. So I didnt bother using magnets (I was out of right size and couldnt bother to order more) and were ok with shelving some of them until their equipment would be useful later down the line but I never thought I would have to shelve 90% of them or giving up a big advantage.

Then Sanguinary Guard is expensive as hell and I only have 20% of them with magnetized bolters/inferno pistols (I do like that they went back to Encarmine Blades) and Mephiston lost his wings while becoming even worse of a psyker and the best squad he can even join is assault intercessors. Most of the models I own(or more like those I have painted) really suck now. Not that the army or marines are weak but my personal shelf of well painted blood angels I have spent way too much time on got hit extra hard and I either spend 50-100h painting up replacements or wait for next major update.

For options there need to be a trade off

AoS works because different options trade something

if there is one anti-infantry option and one anti-tank option, you don't need points as you trade the specialisation
if there is a 3rd option that is good against both and better than the other way, you need something to compensate and this would be points

just having not points for options but at the same time all kind of options that don't trade but are straight upgrades just means the 40k designers again just picked stuff from other games they thought are cool without understanding why those are there in the first place

was the same with stratagems, was the same with range markings in Kill Team and now with Power Level


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Klickor wrote:
So 18 out of 20 of my latest bought, built and painted models are either complete trash(DC with BP and CS are so much worse than PF+IP it isnt funny that they are the same points)

and complaining about those means for the regular GW fanboy that you are a WAAC player that complains because his units are not the strongest anymore and he needs to buy new models to be competitive again

and yes this excuse will be thrown around if you say something was invalidated, as this never happens with 40k in all its history and every army was always playabler after a change, you just need to buy a little bit more to be up to date

and this is the reason why 40k sells

People keep representing AoS as being picking whether you want to have a 3+ to hit and 4+ to wound or 4+ to hit and 3+ to wound.

I'm guessing those people haven't actually played AoS.

What trade-off am I making when I swap an arkanaut's pistol for a light skyhook? Or add a banner to a unit. Pure upgrade. Many units have options like these.

It still works in AoS, just like it will work in 40k.

There's a world of difference between "do I add the banner to this unit" and "do I give this heavy weapon team three mortars or three lascannons". You're making silly excuses.

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Explains the Combi-weapon consolidation garbage though.

It doesn't, because they haven't applied it across the rest of the game.

Applied what?

If the idea was to make the different options (SI Bolters and Combi-weapons) balanced without using points, the solution is to just mash the potential damage output of the combi-weapons.

I agree and I can see they tried that, but my issue is you take that then compare it to the melee weapons on say death company, or the ranged guns on tyranid warriors and there's clearly some options that are worth more. I'm all for them making side grades and it making sense, but they've done it in what feels like 3%.

Careful. You're going to invoke the monkey's paw and get a New! Updated! 10 man death company box with exactly 2 powerfists and a datacard to match.

90% sure VVs are getting a new kit and card to match the sternguard.

None of my Leman Russ tanks have sponsons or HK missiles modelled on, but I guess they will all have them in games now...

*edit* Also, all the Leman Russ variants have different points, but then a Tank Commander costs the same no matter which turret gun?

 Slinky wrote:
None of my Leman Russ tanks have sponsons or HK missiles modelled on, but I guess they will all have them in games now...

Is wysiwyg even a rule any more?