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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

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.

It's not just 'cheap throwaway units' that have been obliterated, it's every unit configuration that chose to forgo upgrades or chose any other than the strict best.

Take Tyranid Warriors. At one point I would field, within the same army:
-Scything Talons + Devourers for cheap, reasonably durable Synapse projectors that could do some damage up close without being so expensive that I'd worry about protecting them.
-Boneswords + Deathspitters for expensive but hard-hitting shock troops to accompany my Tyrant, capable of both melee and shooting.
-Scything Talons + Deathspitters + Venom Cannons for backfield protection and ranged fire support, omitting melee capability and maximizing firepower.

None of those builds were cheap throwaway units that contributed nothing but wounds on the table. They were different units for different roles, because loading up all the best weapons and upgrades meant an expensive unit that died just as easily as any other.

In 10th, every single unit of Warriors is going to be exactly the same: One-third Deathspitters, one-third Venom Cannons, and one-third Barbed Stranglers, and melee weapons don't matter because they've all been consolidated. That's the purely optimal build taking the maximum amount of each of the best weapons, and nothing else is as effective. There's no choice, there's no consideration, there's One Obvious Correct Build and if you take Warriors at all that's how you field them.

And if you haven't magnetized your Warriors to be able to assemble the One Obvious Correct Build, as far as GW is concerned you can piss up a rope.

This post, like Gaul, is divided into three parts:

First, a plea: Please, please, please, stop arguing that free upgrades aren't a problem because the weapons are differentiated and useful for different purposes. Even if that were completely, perfectly true, there's still a problem. Units have literal upgrades. You can add sponsons to Leman Russes. There's zero downside. You get more weapons, for free. I know a LOT of guard players who fielded skinny Leman Russ tanks to let them spend more points on more models. The other, perhaps more perfect example:

Ork Battlewagon, which comes equipped with tracks and wheels.

It can 'trade' those tracks and wheels for the 'sidegrade' of a Deffrolla, which has the same attacks, better WS, higher S, more AP, and more Damage at the same cost. There's no balancing of weapon profiles. One is superior to the other in literally every single melee weapon stat but one, where it is just as good.

Then, it can add, for free, a Lobba, a kannon/zzap gun, up to 4 big shootas, a wreckin' ball, and a grabbin' klaw, for six additional ranged weapons and two additional melee weapons, at no cost in points.

There is no way imagineable that this is balanced. If the battlewagon is priced at including three melee upgrades and six ranged upgrades, it's overpriced for not including any one of them.


Second, a warning: unless you are a player who routinely churns through new armies for each new edition, or each tournament season, don't suddenly add every single upgrade to your army. There's absolutely zero guarantee that GW won't change points values midstream, or charge for upgrades next edition. Then you need to get new models without those power fists/plasma pistols/side sponsons. Make the model you want to assemble and paint, if you want to collect an army you love. The game won't be balanced. It just won't. But I know that a LOT of people can have fun playing a game with their mates, even if they lose. Don't let GW make you get rid of models you love, especially since they change this crap every 3 years now.


Finally, a happy thought: At least GW gave us the game rules, the army lists, and the points values separately. There's nothing to say that someone can't hammer out their own points values with some world-wide community feedback. If we had editions with ITC rulings on this, that, and the other, maybe we can just leave the GW game, and army lists, alone, and provide a tournament points list?

Free wargear across the board has totally taken the wind out of my sails. What a breathtakingly stupid decision from GW.

 Marshal Loss wrote:
Free wargear across the board has totally taken the wind out of my sails. What a breathtakingly stupid decision from GW.

Same here.

That and the crappy datasheet for Tankbustas and a few other ork units will probably let me out as far as this version is going.

Options without points cost: love it.
There has always been an optimal build in the past, so nothing wil really change at worst.
But maybe they managed to make them close enough in balance it mostly does not matter ( i know Plasma Pistols in characters, thankfully they dont really Matter much and in many cases its a fixed loadout anyway)

Fixed unit size:I played within 9th daemons and while no god numbers hurt a bit it is FINE. Simplyfies list building a lot and its seriously not a problem.

The actual Points: man, maybe i just lack the experience with the system but it feels like most "Epic" heroes are way undercosted.
But we will See.

Option disparity gets worse without points cost and they doubled down on it with twin linked. The double shuriken catapult bikes are now twin linked garbage sitting in the box instead of a cheaper option, whereas without points cost the double one which just had twice the shots is almost competitive with the heavy weapons versions.

I new you all would lose it when the points dropped!

I love Dakka

I don't want to harp on, as it seems we're about 90% agreed that upgrades without points are a bad thing, but I've been updating the points for my Imperial Guard, and here's another really silly example:

Armoured sentinels "can" have a sentinel chainsaw that makes them better at melee, and they "can" have a HK missile. But there's 0 reason not to take those things.


And going back to Leman Russ tanks:

Leman Russ 1: Battle Cannon, Heavy Bolter
Leman Russ 2: Battle Cannon, Las cannon, 2 multi-meltas, a hunter-killer missile and a storm bolter.

Both 195 points.

 tauist wrote:
I new you all would lose it when the points dropped!

I love Dakka

Ditto.

Well of course it's not optrmal but i can live with it.

Helpsi haven't been deceived by tsport silliness and never been fooled to think 40k is balanced.

Also never being fan of spamming my armies don't get crippled by point changes.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I love how One Page Rules has a more sophisticated points system.

Well they do spend a whole page on it

Honestly I dare say I'll play and enjoy 10th as a game to roll dice and have a laugh with. I don't play with competitive types anyway but this change doesn't feel great to me still and I'm convinced they'll suffer for it. I think the e-sports crowd will drop off now.

 alextroy wrote:


Good
More freedom to use cool models as the upgrades are free.

I have to disagree with this one - Under a model where upgrades cost points you have the freedom to build your models however you want, and then the points costs make an attempt (not always a good one, of course) of assigning a value to your choices.

Whereas now, if your idea of cool is to leave a storm bolter off the turret so your tank commander can be viewed in all his glory, you've made a mistake that strictly makes the model worse in-game...

I’ve been mulling this overnight and it boils down to two things:

1) I don’t mind losing points costs for minor upgrades (grenades, HK missiles, etc.); I think that’s a good level of simplification and it will only have a very small impact on gameplay. However, if they were going to go down this route, why bother with making them options in the first place. Save the space on the data sheet and just have them included in the base profile. This also solves a lot of the modelling / WYSIWYG issues; doesn’t matter whether I stuck a HK to my tank or not under previous editions, it’s got one, end of.

2) As others have said, not including points for major options is a big mistake. I think there’s an argument that, for example, all special weapons could be the same price, but there definitely ought to be a price differential between squads with a special weapon and ones without. Not just for balance reasons, but also for tactical options. The Ork Battlewagon is a great example; having a barebones wagon for transporting a key unit, where it is also likely to get right in face of the enemy (where it will die, quickly), versus a full gun-wagon that’s used as a tank and is standing off and using cover to stay alive are two very different things.

10th ed is a bad joke, it's got race to the bottom written all over it in 10 foot lettering that's stroboscopic in nature.

I got the the same vibes here when WFB was turned into AoS, then it was harsher with the few page rules, use anything approach etc.

I also get the feeling the actual content of the units themselves here is getting simplified to the point that its not about how they perform individually but rather how they perform in an army depending how much you spam them. (sounds boring)
Everyone will only use the same cookie cutter units but people will probably have different quantities/combinations of them?
Not sure but dont care much XD
Either way 40k should always have been beer and pretzels game IMO but just got too bloated. I still think it is, because a normal game of errrr 3hours is just too much commitment.

I think for competitive players there is a fat layer of unit optimisation that is now just gone, for everyone else is still bloated so I think these rules amends did not bring much to anyone really.

Next GW move, concentrate only on combat patrol boxes with prebuilt armies that you cannot change a thing and have less multipart regiment kits. This is what they are aiming too.

Dont know about other armies but Votann got points reductions that means I need to buy 300pts extra now... Maybe it's just the stunties but did the other armies also got point reductions? If so Naughty GW

 Jadenim wrote:
I’ve been mulling this overnight and it boils down to two things:

1) I don’t mind losing points costs for minor upgrades (grenades, HK missiles, etc.); I think that’s a good level of simplification and it will only have a very small impact on gameplay. However, if they were going to go down this route, why bother with making them options in the first place. Save the space on the data sheet and just have them included in the base profile. This also solves a lot of the modelling / WYSIWYG issues; doesn’t matter whether I stuck a HK to my tank or not under previous editions, it’s got one, end of.

2) As others have said, not including points for major options is a big mistake. I think there’s an argument that, for example, all special weapons could be the same price, but there definitely ought to be a price differential between squads with a special weapon and ones without. Not just for balance reasons, but also for tactical options. The Ork Battlewagon is a great example; having a barebones wagon for transporting a key unit, where it is also likely to get right in face of the enemy (where it will die, quickly), versus a full gun-wagon that’s used as a tank and is standing off and using cover to stay alive are two very different things.

Yeah this is basically my position too. Many of the smaller wargear options like sergeant pistols or single special weapons will be a relatively minor effect on a game, perhaps getting into range to fire their small number of shots once or twice. 40k as a whole is also nowhere close to the level of balance fine-tuning where those choices need to be seriously considered. Right now it's pointless extra book-keeping for both the players and the team who decide on ponits changes.

What they should be focusing on instead are:
a) Allowing more incremental changes to model counts in units.
b) The more substantial choices like Ork Battlewagons or Leman Russ sponsons, which are more likely to have a larger effect across multiple turns and aren't really a choice at all if they're free.

The one silver lining to this situation is that it has the same air as the Chapter Approved drama around 18 months ago. Early last year GW sent out what was to be the final printed copy of a Chapter Approved points update for review by content creator types. Unusually for people sent free gak from GW, those reviews ranged from tepid to straight up scathing. Almost all of them questioned why GW were sticking to printed media and made points changes that were 6-12 months behind the actual state of the game. The reaction prompted GW announcing digital points updates not long after.

The same people with preview material have spent the last couple of weeks being coy about the points changes knowing full well how they'd be recieved. Now that they're allowed to talk about it, we're seeing much of the same language in questioning why the changes need to be so extreme and restrictive to both list building & game balance.

I'm hopeful history will repeat itself and this can be at least partially walked back.

Dudeface wrote:
I don't play with competitive types anyway but this change doesn't feel great to me still and I'm convinced they'll suffer for it. I think the e-sports crowd will drop off now.

Implying that points are only important for competitive/e-sports type.

If I ignore the cynic in me, I can see some merit in what GW is trying to do. A lot of the issues with 40k stem from its Rogue Trader era roots, that no longer connect well to the trunk of a game played on a very different scale. Tightening unit size and wargear options can, in theory, deal with or eliminate a number of old issues, like 1% options, MSU spam, entry bloat or time wasted on resolving 4 different weapon profiles per unit. There should be a sweet spot for 40k somewhere between skirmish and Epic in terms of granularity of rules and list building. Granted, the execution of this transition seems a touch haphazard and it will likely result in a game that some players might not be interested in any more, but it can result in one more in sync with its scale and therefore one that plays better.

Theoretically speaking.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I don't play with competitive types anyway but this change doesn't feel great to me still and I'm convinced they'll suffer for it. I think the e-sports crowd will drop off now.

Implying that points are only important for competitive/e-sports type.

Yet they still manage to play with rulers, ironic.

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

Good
You will see less barebones units on the board.

Except for all the characters who've had their gear stripped to the bone, you mean.

 alextroy wrote:

More freedom to use cool models as the upgrades are free.

Unless you play an army other than Space Marines and all your once-cool models have had every ounce of fun painstakingly hammered out of them.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
If I ignore the cynic in me, I can see some merit in what GW is trying to do. A lot of the issues with 40k stem from its Rogue Trader era roots, that no longer connect well to the trunk of a game played on a very different scale. Tightening unit size and wargear options can, in theory, deal with or eliminate a number of old issues, like 1% options, MSU spam, entry bloat or time wasted on resolving 4 different weapon profiles per unit. There should be a sweet spot for 40k somewhere between skirmish and Epic in terms of granularity of rules and list building. Granted, the execution of this transition seems a touch haphazard and it will likely result in a game that some players might not be interested in any more, but it can result in one more in sync with its scale and therefore one that plays better.

Theoretically speaking.

I don't think anyone is going to believe these decisions were made out of anything other than cynicism and laziness. Worse still, it feels like creating the problem to sell the solution again. I just think there can't possibly be good faith in a system that tries to reconcile knights as their own faction in 500pt games. Post 7th all they've tried to do is make the game so stone stupid that anyone can sell it because there aren't any real restrictions at the end of the day. It's a card game with models now and we're all worse off for it. Posting pictures of actual boards with actual terrain is all I have left now, the game really has become battling over giant branded discs in the same terrible looking city until you just quit playing. That's the state of 40k. At least aos boards tend to look good. Sigh.

Granular points for special weapons are a "rule for a more civilized age"

M.

I just saw someone post a list that was Azrael and 21 space marine captains (from 7 different datasheets)

So, anyone else thinking about canceling their Leviathan pre order?

Hoffa76 wrote:
So, anyone else thinking about canceling their Leviathan pre order?

If GW trashing their rules is all it takes for you to want to cancel, you should have adopted the default video game pre-order stance to begin with - ie DON'T!

Hoffa76 wrote:
So, anyone else thinking about canceling their Leviathan pre order?

Nope.

10th has some big changes. Some I’m happy with. Others less so. Just like every edition change in the history of 40k. Will everything get shaken up? New meta, new normal? Yes. Am I grumbling about parts of my collection being irrelevant? More so then with prior editions. Will I keep playing? Absolutely.

 Nevelon wrote:

Hoffa76 wrote:
So, anyone else thinking about canceling their Leviathan pre order?

Nope.

10th has some big changes. Some I’m happy with. Others less so. Just like every edition change in the history of 40k. Will everything get shaken up? New meta, new normal? Yes. Am I grumbling about parts of my collection being irrelevant? More so then with prior editions. Will I keep playing? Absolutely.

Post hoc reasoning and sunk cost fallacy, same as it ever was indeed.

Most of us here have been through this dance before, many times. GW will change things; it will get balance wrong; they will make some mistakes that are just mindbreakingly baffling how they managed to do it; they will change things just because they can.

Most of us have adopted strategies to cope - using house rules; using magnets on optional weapon parts; collecting more models etc.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I just saw someone post a list that was Azrael and 21 space marine captains (from 7 different datasheets)

I need to see the details. Please link.

M.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

Hoffa76 wrote:
So, anyone else thinking about canceling their Leviathan pre order?

Nope.

10th has some big changes. Some I’m happy with. Others less so. Just like every edition change in the history of 40k. Will everything get shaken up? New meta, new normal? Yes. Am I grumbling about parts of my collection being irrelevant? More so then with prior editions. Will I keep playing? Absolutely.

Post hoc reasoning and sunk cost fallacy, same as it ever was indeed.

Companies pumping our sub par rubbish never learn their lessons if people keep giving them cash for sub par rubbish. Vote with your wallet.