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.

 Trickstick wrote:
WYSIWYG makes games look much better.

It's also a play aid. If your entire army is a word salad of one-per-unit wargear upgrades you need a way to keep track of who has what.

'This guy with a grenade launcher actually has a plasma gun' is manageable.

'These six units of Wracks that are all modeled with hooks and chains actually contain a liquifier, ossefactor, hexrifle, and stinger pistol' really isn't.

Mchagen wrote:

In 40k, if I want a cheap 40 point throw-away unit that can claim objectives and do other minor tasks in game, I should be able to choose that rather than paying 80 points for the same unit that has all the extra wargear and weapons tacked on to it automatically, regardless of what wargear I put on them. It's ridiculous to claim that I'm going to choose the best options every time--no, I'm not because I don't have the points to do so. That's the point of using points.

This thought process confuses me. Surely you'd pick the 40 point cheap throw-away unit because it's the best options for what you want it to do? That you'd even consider the 40 point version over the 80 point version proves you're choosing the best options every time, because both of those options have valid roles. Sorry that the unit has changed roles/lost versatility to be an 80 point unit that exists beyond just being thrown away. But units change roles/lose versatility all the time even in a granular point system?

The point that you're missing completely is that I have no choice to take a 40 point unit, because in the AoS version of the game, I have to take the 80 point unit.

I don't have the option to reduce it's cost by 40 in the first place.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 triplegrim wrote:
And yes, this is probably the end of WYSIWG. I am a bit sad about that, as a modeller, but as a gamer I like it.

If it's the end of WYSIWYG, and I kinda doubt it is, wouldn't that promote modelling for visual effect over modelling for mechanical efficiency? You'd be able to theme your units as you saw fit, without worrying about sub optimal loadouts weighing you down during actual play.

. Thats the glass half full way to see it, yes.

On the other hand, my motivation will just disappear, because I'm a fairly lazy chump who proxies weapons and gear if I sense an accepting opponent, so theres that.

 Rihgu wrote:

Mchagen wrote:

In 40k, if I want a cheap 40 point throw-away unit that can claim objectives and do other minor tasks in game, I should be able to choose that rather than paying 80 points for the same unit that has all the extra wargear and weapons tacked on to it automatically, regardless of what wargear I put on them. It's ridiculous to claim that I'm going to choose the best options every time--no, I'm not because I don't have the points to do so. That's the point of using points.

This thought process confuses me. Surely you'd pick the 40 point cheap throw-away unit because it's the best options for what you want it to do? That you'd even consider the 40 point version over the 80 point version proves you're choosing the best options every time, because both of those options have valid roles. Sorry that the unit has changed roles/lost versatility to be an 80 point unit that exists beyond just being thrown away. But units change roles/lose versatility all the time even in a granular point system?

That's not really how opportunity costs work. The 40pt unit doing throwaway unit stuff is valuable BECAUSE it's 40pts. At 80pts, it's roll is no longer worth completing AT ALL and is better made up in other areas of the army.

When you make a 40pt unit an 80pt unit by adding bells and whistles, you are often eliminating it's purpose altogether.

Example: My back iches and I can't scratch it. I can 1. Find a nearby stick to extend my reach enough to scratch the area or 2. Go to the store and buy a Backscratcher. The backscratcher is better at the task at hand, but is far more resource intensive.

Now take away the stick. You go buy the backscratcher, right? Wrong, you just deal with itch because the investment isn't worth it anymore.

Mchagen wrote:
The point that you're missing completely is that I have no choice to take a 40 point unit, because in the AoS version of the game, I have to take the 80 point unit.

I don't have the option to reduce it's cost by 40 in the first place.

Welcome to playing Guard? We've been doing fixed unit sizes for at least a decade.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

That's not really how opportunity costs work. The 40pt unit doing throwaway unit stuff is valuable BECAUSE it's 40pts. At 80pts, it's roll is no longer worth completing AT ALL and is better made up in other areas of the army.

When you make a 40pt unit an 80pt unit by adding bells and whistles, you are often eliminating it's purpose altogether.

When the purpose is "cheap throwaway unit", elimination is for the best.

This new army construction is absolute trash, and is basically what I feared would happen when they started the 10th hype months ago.

Fixed unit sizes, all upgrades free, wasted points...
they just copied the horrible age of sigmar system and put in 40k. Absolutely terrible. That is the worst part of the Age of Sigmar, and to tack that onto 40k and remove a system that had been working great for decades is ridiculous.

Nobody in my group likes these changes. We'll still give it a go, but I have lost just about all interest in the edition.

Army construction is boring and everything will be cookie cutter. No individuality, no choice, no balancing taking option a over b and c, etc etc.

Its lame as hell.

At the same time armies in 40K are way bigger than most in AoS. In theory GW could be moving toward having fewer units with 10 weapon options that lets them do everything; toward units that have specific roles and more limited weapons; but where the unit itself is the option a over option b.


It would lend itself well to bigger army rosters and more unit types within each army.


It is one approach to army bloat.

 Kanluwen wrote:

When the purpose is "cheap throwaway unit", elimination is for the best.

"Taking away options is cool!"

Yeah, no.

There was a great time when Termagants came in cheap-objective/screen mode with the Fleshborer, and then a more expensive shock-assault mode with Devourers. People would even have discussions about the best ratios to mix the weapons. No such now. No wargear costs and a flattened design makes for a less interesting unit, and reduces the flexibility for fishing for points when you're trying to squeeze some other unit into the your list.

Can't even take a 30-gant squad now.

Tyranid Warriors can't even go past 6 models. Ugh.

Terrible. They didn't need to do anything with how armies were built. It was great.

They just turned points into power level essentially. And kept the name points as a mask.

I really vehemently hate the new "points" system. My 4 other friends that play too hate it and I think this bodes poorly for player retention. Nobody is excited. I'm already looking forward to 11th edition.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Mchagen wrote:
The point that you're missing completely is that I have no choice to take a 40 point unit, because in the AoS version of the game, I have to take the 80 point unit.

I don't have the option to reduce it's cost by 40 in the first place.

Welcome to playing Guard? We've been doing fixed unit sizes for at least a decade.

This is a terrible response, my post has nothing to do with Guard and has nothing to do with fixed unit sizes.

Kanluwen wrote:When the purpose is "cheap throwaway unit", elimination is for the best.

I'm curious, do you think pawns should be eliminated in chess? This is a rhetorical question by the way.

Mchagen wrote:

I'm curious, do you think pawns should be eliminated in chess? This is a rhetorical question by the way.

Doesn't matter, they're OP and I hope the next balance update fixes them

I love how One Page Rules has a more sophisticated points system.

Mchagen wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Mchagen wrote:
The point that you're missing completely is that I have no choice to take a 40 point unit, because in the AoS version of the game, I have to take the 80 point unit.

I don't have the option to reduce it's cost by 40 in the first place.

Welcome to playing Guard? We've been doing fixed unit sizes for at least a decade.

This is a terrible response, my post has nothing to do with Guard and has nothing to do with fixed unit sizes.

Might want to tell that to your quoted post then?

Because it seems pretty heavily like you're just complaining that you can't take the "cheap throwaway unit" as a MSU anymore.

Kanluwen wrote:When the purpose is "cheap throwaway unit", elimination is for the best.

I'm curious, do you think pawns should be eliminated in chess? This is a rhetorical question by the way.

Aw gee, I wish it weren't rhetorical so I could answer it...might as well!

Yeah. I do think that doing away with the role of "cheap throwaway unit that contributes nothing to the game other than bodies" is beneficial for 40k.

Because 40k isn't chess and pretending that every faction has Pawns is ridiculous.

 ph34r wrote:
I really vehemently hate the new "points" system. My 4 other friends that play too hate it and I think this bodes poorly for player retention. Nobody is excited. I'm already looking forward to 11th edition.

Yep. There's about 10 people and my group and nobody likes these changes. We are still gonna try out the game as we all love the lore and whatnot, but my god...who asked for these horrible changes?

Why are the killing the goose that lays the golden egg?!?!

It is mind boggling!

 Kanluwen wrote:

Mchagen wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Mchagen wrote:
The point that you're missing completely is that I have no choice to take a 40 point unit, because in the AoS version of the game, I have to take the 80 point unit.

I don't have the option to reduce it's cost by 40 in the first place.

Welcome to playing Guard? We've been doing fixed unit sizes for at least a decade.

This is a terrible response, my post has nothing to do with Guard and has nothing to do with fixed unit sizes.

Might want to tell that to your quoted post then?

Because it seems pretty heavily like you're just complaining that you can't take the "cheap throwaway unit" as a MSU anymore.

Kanluwen wrote:When the purpose is "cheap throwaway unit", elimination is for the best.

I'm curious, do you think pawns should be eliminated in chess? This is a rhetorical question by the way.

Aw gee, I wish it weren't rhetorical so I could answer it...might as well!

Yeah. I do think that doing away with the role of "cheap throwaway unit that contributes nothing to the game other than bodies" is beneficial for 40k.

Because 40k isn't chess and pretending that every faction has Pawns is ridiculous.

^That's a ridiculous stance.

IG Commanders or Tyranid Hive Minds don't ever consider a role for cannon fodder?

Do you 40k?

 Kanluwen wrote:
Might want to tell that to your quoted post then?

Because it seems pretty heavily like you're just complaining that you can't take the "cheap throwaway unit" as a MSU anymore.

My quoted post mentioned neither Guard nor fixed unit sizes nor MSU, try again. Also, you seem to be focusing mostly on 'cheap throw-away unit' and not the actual point.

Kanluwen wrote:Aw gee, I wish it weren't rhetorical so I could answer it...might as well!

Yeah. I do think that doing away with the role of "cheap throwaway unit that contributes nothing to the game other than bodies" is beneficial for 40k.

Because 40k isn't chess and pretending that every faction has Pawns is ridiculous.

No it isn't chess, but there are reasons to take cheap(er) units in 40k. I'd assumed the idea of 'pawns,' aka sacrificial units in 40k was not beyond you, seems I was wrong.

Heafstaag wrote:
This new army construction is absolute trash, and is basically what I feared would happen when they started the 10th hype months ago.

Fixed unit sizes, all upgrades free, wasted points...
they just copied the horrible age of sigmar system and put in 40k. Absolutely terrible. That is the worst part of the Age of Sigmar, and to tack that onto 40k and remove a system that had been working great for decades is ridiculous.

Nobody in my group likes these changes. We'll still give it a go, but I have lost just about all interest in the edition.

Army construction is boring and everything will be cookie cutter. No individuality, no choice, no balancing taking option a over b and c, etc etc.

Its lame as hell.

It works in AoS because units don't really have upgrades and they have built in systems dealing with the weird point amounts. It's still not my FAVORITE part of the game, but that's fine.

This is trying to cram a Ford F-150 engine into a Geo Metro.

ERJAK wrote:

Heafstaag wrote:
This new army construction is absolute trash, and is basically what I feared would happen when they started the 10th hype months ago.

Fixed unit sizes, all upgrades free, wasted points...
they just copied the horrible age of sigmar system and put in 40k. Absolutely terrible. That is the worst part of the Age of Sigmar, and to tack that onto 40k and remove a system that had been working great for decades is ridiculous.

Nobody in my group likes these changes. We'll still give it a go, but I have lost just about all interest in the edition.

Army construction is boring and everything will be cookie cutter. No individuality, no choice, no balancing taking option a over b and c, etc etc.

Its lame as hell.

It works in AoS because units don't really have upgrades and they have built in systems dealing with the weird point amounts. It's still not my FAVORITE part of the game, but that's fine.

This is trying to cram a Ford F-150 engine into a Geo Metro.

I think AoS is fun enough, but the army construction is what is holding it back. Is so boring. Everything is so cookie cutter.

And now 40k will be, too.

I will say I am 50% happy with the new points paradigm.

Good
You will see less barebones units on the board.
There is less incentive to find the optimal number of models for unit X.
More freedom to use cool models as the upgrades are free.

Bad
Everyone will bring maximally upgraded units.
No upgrades to pad your last few points.
Harder to get to exact points.

The one thing GW needs to do is a better job balancing the weapons against each other. They made a decent effort, but it is hard to balance so many weapons over so many targets. Here's the average damage you get out of an IG Heavy Weapons Squad. Not surprisingly, the Lascannon are best against tanks while Heavy Bolters are pretty boss into Infantry.

Or just cost things appropriately.

Not saying it's easy - or that it'll ever be perfectly balanced - but their complete abdication of any responsibility towards game design is shocking.

At the same time 40K (esp Space Marines who in effect have 2 armies in one with standard and primaris) has been slowly running out of unit niches.

Heck Tyranids used to operate with just the Carnifex doing pretty much every heavy support role they needed.

I can see a balance discussion, esp one that's looking for new niches to put models into so that they can keep adding to armies; sitting next to staff arguing for smaller numbers of models per army.
That's a hard discussion when some of those models are multi-role because they've got 5-10 weapon options.

How do you make a new artillery model when several models already have artillery options. do you make the new model superior and thus make the others pointless to take; or make them all the same or just alternate which one you nerf each edition.





At the same time, in typical GW fashion, they've likely taken the seed of a good idea and applied it with too heavy a stroke in one go.


Heck maybe its sparked by complaints that building armies with codex is freaking hard and page flippingly annoying and for some reason GW can't go back to the older 3rd edition style of codex data presentation (which was just as varied in optoins but way way easier to read); so they decided to respond to that issue by simply removing the tables of optional parts that caused the complaints .

Well, the dude at the gamestore painting Armigers 7-12 tonight isn't bothered by it in the least and everyone else seems to be shrugging. I think GW wins again with their most important customers. It doesn't win with me, but that's OK.

 alextroy wrote:
I will say I am 50% happy with the new points paradigm.

Good
You will see less barebones units on the board.
There is less incentive to find the optimal number of models for unit X.
More freedom to use cool models as the upgrades are free.

Well, no. The optimal numbers are simply reduced to 5 or 10 OR 10 or 20.
or sometimes 5, 6, 10, 11 or 12. Or 1, 2, 3 or 6.

And more freedom to use the weapons that are good, perhaps. So-so weapons can never be cost effective.


Getting to or padding exact points isn't important and never has been. If 1997/2000 created a game defining moment, something went terribly wrong.
Though now some armies might end up with a 30-60 point gap they just can't do anything about

Yeah, this feels pretty awkward. If they aren't going to have points values for upgrades, they should adjust the stats of the weapons so that various options are viable, depending on your matchup. Bolt pistols could be better against light infantry and plasma pistols could be better against heavily-armored troops, for example. With this system, you're just foolish not to model the strongest weapon onto your miniature in many cases.

My only real gripe with the fixed unit sizes is it makes it a bit more awkward to fit certain units into transports. For example, if I want to run a bigger squad of Bladeguard with a character in an Impulsor, I now can't do that because it holds 6 models, not 7. Taking a smaller unit feels like it wastes the character, and if I have to pay for 6 models I'm gonna have my full 6 models, dammit. As for the points on the wargear going away, I do think a lot of the choices are going to get frozen out by the more optimal stuff, but with the changes to the game as a whole I don't think it's going to be as bad as a lot of the chicken littles in this thread are saying. For example, let's compare the Lascannon to the Multi-melta on, say, a Devastator Squad. In 9th, it was no contest, the MM was better because it did the same job and had two shots to the Lascannon's one, and better AP to boot. The longer range of the LC wasn't really a factor either, usually people were using Devs out of a pod to get close to the enemy. Now, that choice is back, both because the MM has an even shorter range and because at S9 it just isn't as good at busting vehicles and monsters now that they've all gone way up in toughness. Likewise, flamers are really good with the changes to overwatch, so people saying that in Sisters nobody should choose anything besides meltas and "if you choose flamers or storm bolters or heavy bolters you're stupid" (you know who you are) can go pound sand. Units still need to have the right tools for their respective jobs, and not be trying to hammer in a nail with a screwdriver (or trying to use anti-tank weapons to clear a big squad of Ork Boyz or whatever).

Honestly, while I think GW perhaps went a bit too far getting rid of all weapons costs, I'm of the opinion that we as players will simply have to adapt. The bigger problem as it stands right now is balance, but we know that's something GW is fairly proactive about changing with balance dataslates and stuff. I do think we're all going to have to hail our pointy-eared overlords for the time being though. But nothing is forever.

 BertBert wrote:

Boosykes wrote:
Life has gotten crazy over the last few days and I haven't been able to keep up with the revels but I know point drop today. How close was I? Are death guard bottom of the barrel, sitting next to adeptus mechanicus like they looked in the preview and are eldar, and space marines hanging at the top? Like they appeared to be?

That's what it currently looks like, yes.

Thank you for the update.

I'm somewhat growing on the fixed unit sizes. At least it makes min-maxing harder. However, you the have units like Deathwatch Proteus teams that deserve points destinations between power armor and terminator squad members.

I'd also like to have points for all the unit upgrades, even if the points in increments of 5.

While I'm not entirely happy with fixed unit sizes, I do like that it gives way better pricing flexibility. Units can have costs that aren't a product of their model count.

Of course the execution is mixed at best because GW is going to GW.

Not having weapon costs is dumb though. Not all weapons need costs nor all units need weapon costs, but still it is very stupid that everyone gets free wargear.