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.
2023/03/27 03:48:23
Subject: Re:Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
alextroy wrote: If weapons are background imbalanced and cost different points, then nobody uses them because GW can't get the points right.
Well that's quite a stretch. "Nobody" is a pretty absolutist position to take.
The phrase you are looking for is rhetorical flourish.
Wouldn't it be better to balance the weapons against each other and thereby make the job of finding the correct cost easier?
If your claim is that GW can't balance weapons with points, why would they then suddenly find the skill to balance them without points?
Also, are you suggesting that a chainsword should be as effective as a power fist? Because that would be quite unfluffy.
It's like you actually aren't reading my post for any purpose but looking for reasons to criticize it. Go back and read the full post and you will actually see I suggested no such thing.
Kanluwen wrote:If certain weapons are such a difficult bit to balance when able to be fielded en masse?
Don't let them be. Infantry Squads, for example, have zero reason to be running around with a Plasma Gun and a Mortar. Mortars are specialist tools that should be locked to the Heavy Weapons Team and Plasma Guns are supposed to be relatively rare weapons.
Excising them from Troops choices ain't a bad move, no matter what you lot seem to think.
Wouldn't it be better to balance the weapons against each other and thereby make the job of finding the correct cost easier?
If your claim is that GW can't balance weapons with points, why would they then suddenly find the skill to balance them without points?
Also, are you suggesting that a chainsword should be as effective as a power fist? Because that would be quite unfluffy.
You know that while chainswords are free, the Power Fist costs points in many cases right?
You understand the proposal I was responding to was removing differentiating points values for wargear, right?
We interpreted Alex's quote vastly differently, I guess.
I read it not as "removing differentiating points values for wargear" but rather as "accepting that certain items cannot accurately be pointed unless actually balanced against each other".
Bingo. Balance the weapons once, then they can iterate on what is the proper point level to make taking any of them viable.
2023/03/27 05:07:43
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
What you always ignore is that GW cannot get the rules right to balance options against each other either, why do you think Chapters have different win rates? They don't cost points so it should be easy right?
2023/03/27 06:10:27
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
vict0988 wrote: What you always ignore is that GW cannot get the rules right to balance options against each other either, why do you think Chapters have different win rates? They don't cost points so it should be easy right?
I'd also argue a lot of the playerbase lack the willingness or imagination to make balancing the options closer together work.
To use powerfist vs chainsword, for a Sargent in a unit why is 2 harder hitting attacks with a lower ws, that far apart from say a more accurate weapon with 4 attacks? You're giving both a niche that they're both potentially equally good at.
Ws 4+ s8 ap-2 d2 2A
Ws 3+ s4 ap- d1 4A
One is clearly better into chaff, the other clearly better into big things, both are game legacy and fluff accurate to some degree.
2023/03/27 08:05:00
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
vict0988 wrote: What you always ignore is that GW cannot get the rules right to balance options against each other either, why do you think Chapters have different win rates? They don't cost points so it should be easy right?
I'd also argue a lot of the playerbase lack the willingness or imagination to make balancing the options closer together work.
To use powerfist vs chainsword, for a Sargent in a unit why is 2 harder hitting attacks with a lower ws, that far apart from say a more accurate weapon with 4 attacks? You're giving both a niche that they're both potentially equally good at.
Ws 4+ s8 ap-2 d2 2A
Ws 3+ s4 ap- d1 4A
One is clearly better into chaff, the other clearly better into big things, both are game legacy and fluff accurate to some degree.
Now do the same for for a vehicle with nothing vs with 2 hurricane bolters, do you lose speed from the extra weight on the hull? How much Movement is 2 hurricane bolters worth? Is that a realistic amount of Movement to lose for having 2 hurricane bolters, halving your maximum speed is probably balanced, but not fluffy, losing 5" of Movement might be fluffy but it'd be an auto-include like it is currently at 0 cost. Is that imaginitive enough? Whether we are imaginitive or not, it doesn't change the fact that it's a bad idea to get rid of points. There is a reason a lot of people want points costs for relics.
2023/03/27 08:18:07
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
vict0988 wrote: What you always ignore is that GW cannot get the rules right to balance options against each other either, why do you think Chapters have different win rates? They don't cost points so it should be easy right?
I'd also argue a lot of the playerbase lack the willingness or imagination to make balancing the options closer together work.
To use powerfist vs chainsword, for a Sargent in a unit why is 2 harder hitting attacks with a lower ws, that far apart from say a more accurate weapon with 4 attacks? You're giving both a niche that they're both potentially equally good at.
Ws 4+ s8 ap-2 d2 2A
Ws 3+ s4 ap- d1 4A
One is clearly better into chaff, the other clearly better into big things, both are game legacy and fluff accurate to some degree.
Now do the same for for a vehicle with nothing vs with 2 hurricane bolters, do you lose speed from the extra weight on the hull? How much Movement is 2 hurricane bolters worth? Is that a realistic amount of Movement to lose for having 2 hurricane bolters, halving your maximum speed is probably balanced, but not fluffy, losing 5" of Movement might be fluffy but it'd be an auto-include like it is currently at 0 cost. Is that imaginitive enough? Whether we are imaginitive or not, it doesn't change the fact that it's a bad idea to get rid of points. There is a reason a lot of people want points costs for relics.
Or... make them part of the standard wargear given the only reason not to take them before was to save points. It's not a good idea to get rid of points but it doesn't mean you have to try and force everything to be so bespoke it requires a different points cost.
2023/03/27 08:25:10
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
there is a difference between upgrades and options
You must take A or B can be balanced without points of both have a dedicated role
You make take C in addition cannot be balanced without points
take C but lose D might be, but this depends on the type of upgrade
a transport losing speed to gain smoke launchers is something is something different than put guns that are useless as an option there
and yes, more weapons on a battle tank would mean less speed, space and armour, and not just more points
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2023/03/27 09:11:10
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
kodos wrote: there is a difference between upgrades and options
You must take A or B can be balanced without points of both have a dedicated role
You make take C in addition cannot be balanced without points
take C but lose D might be, but this depends on the type of upgrade
a transport losing speed to gain smoke launchers is something is something different than put guns that are useless as an option there
and yes, more weapons on a battle tank would mean less speed, space and armour, and not just more points
That's all true but sadly 40k isn't enough of a simulation to consider these things, but the example in question was the storm bolters on the stormraven. The weapon was considered useless and would only be taken if it was free. You can argue either make it not useless which likely involves a bespoke hurricane bolter for the raven, or you just bake it into the base loadout since in it's current iteration you either consider it dead weight that would never be paid for or slap it on anyway because it's free.
If you wanted to start altering other stats based on loadout that could be cool, I'm not against weapon upgrades etc costing points, but it doesn't have to nor does the gear need to be an optional extra necessarily.
2023/03/27 09:46:36
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
kodos wrote: there is a difference between upgrades and options
You must take A or B can be balanced without points of both have a dedicated role
You make take C in addition cannot be balanced without points
take C but lose D might be, but this depends on the type of upgrade
a transport losing speed to gain smoke launchers is something is something different than put guns that are useless as an option there
and yes, more weapons on a battle tank would mean less speed, space and armour, and not just more points
Even if GW tries to balance every option and makes all previously optional wargear mandatory you'd still need points to make up for any mistakes because a changed points cost is easier to deal with than changing rules, like imagine if bolters had different profiles on Rhinos vs Razorbacks to make up for some kind imbalance that'd otherwise be there. Getting rid of pts is a terrible idea, especially when you already have PL, but PL players are greedy and selfish, they should have never been given that inch, let them eat sand and make pew pew sounds in games without any balancing mechanisms like AoS 1. /sarcasm
Making options mandatory is a terrible idea because many people haven't modelled it on their old miniatures and don't have the leftover bits for it, there are also sometimes different versions of kits, with only the new one coming with optional bonus equipment.
2023/03/27 10:27:57
Subject: Re:Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
I think they should make you roll for your upgrades, rather than picking or paying for them (which is unrealistic). You should also have to roll for the size of your army, because a pitched battle against an opponent of precisely equivalent size is also (which is unrealistic). If you find yourself going BUT MY DUDES, MY PRECIOUS DUDES then maybe you should be writing fanfic instead, you disgusting little punk, and leave the grim sim War to the grownups.
2023/03/27 10:31:10
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
non of my Space Wolves models is going to fit the new game anyway
no matter what there is, how options are balanced and if there are points in whatever granularity
so going by that argument I am only allowed to play 5th Edition anyway, so I don't really care if the new rules fit my old models, because they won't no matter what, therefore at least trying to get a working game is the better option
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2023/03/27 11:13:20
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
Wayniac wrote: Kan does have a point. If certain options are imbalanced not due to existing but being readily available in spammable units, it makes sense to "balance" that by removing them from the spammable unit and out them exclusively in more controlled units.
For instance if plasma is being spammed all over by 5-man Troop squads, disallow them to be taken in Troops entirely, but can be taken by the more expensive and limited Veterans.
Kan has zero point.
Make the Plasma slightly more expensive. This isn't rocket science.
Politely disagreeing with you both.
The issue isn’t spam as such. The issue isn’t a weapon being too cheap.
It’s certain options just being more ubiquitous compared to others. Let’s consider the Tactical Trinity, from 3rd-7th.
Flamer. Super short ranged, but had its uses depending on what you were fighting against. Also cheap.
Meltagun. Again super short ranged. Might only get a couple of worthwhile shots a game. Low rate of fire and low opportunities outweighed it’s deadliness overall.
Plasmagun. Same range and ROF as the rest of the squad. Can, in a pinch, also pose a threat to medium vehicles. Really really good against Heavy Infantry.
Plasma just didn’t have quite the right downside. Not to say it was Too Powerful. It was just the obvious choice for tactical flexibility. Thanks to its range, it could plink away alongside the rest of its squad - if you wanted. The choice not to risk baking its bearer was always an option. For rear or side armour shots, it was in some senses superior to the Meltagun, because you didn’t need to get within 12”, and if you were, you got double the shots making it less likely to miss entirely.
That is the problem. That is what leads to spam. That is what makes folk feel upping its points would fix it.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Wayniac wrote: Kan does have a point. If certain options are imbalanced not due to existing but being readily available in spammable units, it makes sense to "balance" that by removing them from the spammable unit and out them exclusively in more controlled units.
For instance if plasma is being spammed all over by 5-man Troop squads, disallow them to be taken in Troops entirely, but can be taken by the more expensive and limited Veterans.
Kan has zero point.
Make the Plasma slightly more expensive. This isn't rocket science.
Politely disagreeing with you both.
The issue isn’t spam as such. The issue isn’t a weapon being too cheap.
It’s certain options just being more ubiquitous compared to others. Let’s consider the Tactical Trinity, from 3rd-7th.
Flamer. Super short ranged, but had its uses depending on what you were fighting against. Also cheap.
Meltagun. Again super short ranged. Might only get a couple of worthwhile shots a game. Low rate of fire and low opportunities outweighed it’s deadliness overall.
Plasmagun. Same range and ROF as the rest of the squad. Can, in a pinch, also pose a threat to medium vehicles. Really really good against Heavy Infantry.
Plasma just didn’t have quite the right downside. Not to say it was Too Powerful. It was just the obvious choice for tactical flexibility. Thanks to its range, it could plink away alongside the rest of its squad - if you wanted. The choice not to risk baking its bearer was always an option. For rear or side armour shots, it was in some senses superior to the Meltagun, because you didn’t need to get within 12”, and if you were, you got double the shots making it less likely to miss entirely.
That is the problem. That is what leads to spam. That is what makes folk feel upping its points would fix it.
Well said, I'd argue that the missing step here is as you add points it doesn't actually resolve that ubiquity, so it continues to be a better default choice until such time as it's so expensive that the maths shifts to melta/nothing. It needs a rules adjustment, not points, which is a recurring issue across multiple options in multiple books.
2023/03/27 12:36:33
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
The idea that balance is on a knife edge is silly, if plasma guns are trash at 11 they're not OP at 10. There'll be a range of pts where plasma is an auto-include, a range where it is extremely good unless (insert edge case), a range where it is good sometimes and bad sometimes, a range where it is bad unless (insert edge case) and then anything over that is total pass because it is too expensive. You're not jumping from 2/5 to a 4/5 with 1 pt, let alone a 1/5 to a 5/5. If a melta gun is equal to a plasma gun at 0 vs 0 then there'll still be plenty of reasons to take a 10 pt plasma vs an 11 pt melta or vise versa. The idea that you'll be able to find the perfect statline that makes weapons equal to each other is silly, you'll hit it one in three times on accident and then fantastic you can have your free wargear, the points need there to be there for the 60% of the time where GW fails. GW will then fail at getting the right pts costs for options 50% of the time, too bad, still better than PL. Ubeiqutous plasma is not problematic, only if it gives an unfair advantage is it a problem, but if a list with 20 plasma guns is tier 1, then it is not going to become tier 2 by going up 20 pts.
non of my Space Wolves models is going to fit the new game anyway
no matter what there is, how options are balanced and if there are points in whatever granularity
so going by that argument I am only allowed to play 5th Edition anyway, so I don't really care if the new rules fit my old models, because they won't no matter what, therefore at least trying to get a working game is the better option
When did a Greyclaw with wolfbolter become unplayable?
Removing pts does not a working game make.
2023/03/27 12:37:19
Subject: Re:Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
Altruizine wrote: I think they should make you roll for your upgrades, rather than picking or paying for them (which is unrealistic). You should also have to roll for the size of your army, because a pitched battle against an opponent of precisely equivalent size is also (which is unrealistic). If you find yourself going BUT MY DUDES, MY PRECIOUS DUDES then maybe you should be writing fanfic instead, you disgusting little punk, and leave the grim sim War to the grownups.
I kinda like that but it would be better, imop, in a video game or in a different scale of model. I'd love to see a good system for rolling up an army outside of campaigns. Sounds engaging.
The rewards of tolerance are treachery and betrayal.
Remember kids, Games Workshop needs you more than you need them.
2023/03/27 12:48:11
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
vict0988 wrote: When did a Greyclaw with wolfbolter become unplayable?.
by the time that Bolter + Chainsword was not an option any more
and if you now say that does not matter, your sentence
Making options mandatory is a terrible idea because many people haven't modelled it on their old miniatures and don't have the leftover bits for it, there are also sometimes different versions of kits, with only the new one coming with optional bonus equipment.
as either legacy equipment is important for rules or it is not
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/27 12:49:25
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2023/03/27 14:08:04
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
alextroy wrote: Yes. I want a fluffier game. There is no reason a game cannot be both fluffy and competitive. That is a matter of structure. GW has failed to make fluffy armies competitive because it is too easy to leech efficiency out of being non-fluffy.
Now explain to me how does free upgrades lead to ridiculous levels of imbalance, assuming the upgrades are of equal value and the units are valued with the upgrades in their cost?
So to update my original comment, you want a fluffy game, but you also want the fluffy lists to be competitive. GW has successfully made Fluffy lists competitive this very edition. For my orkz you had the Speed Freak Army of Renown. So congrats your request has been granted! sadly its no longer allowed, but that doesn't mean you can't just use the older rules in a game. Or are you a tournament player who is getting rickrolled at matches when you bring out your fluffy list? If you aren't a tournament player than to quote everyone's favorite game company "Forge the narrative harder!" If you aren't playing a tournament you can justify any rules you want with your opponent ahead of time. Hell, I had a good friend of mine beg me to bring the most utterly ridiculous ork list I could think of so we could have a massive mek battle! Brought out my 15 Killakanz, Deffdreadz, morkanauts and my buggies for fun, he brought out hellbrutes and other assorted chaosy vehicles. Hilarity ensued. And guess what? A few weeks later we both went to a GT where we brought out hardcore tournament lists. This game isn't zero sum, if you want fluffy lists to be good than you need to work with your opponent, if you want them to be tournament level good and to go to tournaments...well sorry, but from this forum we can see that hte vast majority don't want that.
As far as how "free upgrades lead to ridiculous levels of imbalance assuming the upgrades are of equal value"...Well for starters your assumption is massive and likely not going to happen. You will never be able to balance FREE upgrades across multiple units. The scale of this problem seems to elude you, you are asking for a company which notoriously can't balance its game very well to redo every single unit in every single army and than balance each unit with multiple free upgrade options against one another using a single points scale and have that reflect equal outcomes at the competitive level? Flat out , won't happen. But we don't even have to guess if this is correct because we already have PL as an option for people to play; And guess what? I refuse to play PL because every single time i've tried to do so I add up the lists afterwards and lo and behold, my opponents usually have 200-600pts more than me thanks to free upgrades and the fact that my army doesn't have many upgrades and the ones we do have are mostly useless. "oh wow! I can take a FREE rokkit on my boyz squad!" sucks it will statistically only hit 1.6x the entire game and only if the unit survives 5 turns. "Awesome! My lootas get a free KMB!" again, won't be used much and has about the same chance of killing itself as its target. Compare that to a SM unit getting free lascannons, meltas, etc or a veteran squad taking combi weapons for free because why not?
alextroy wrote: If weapons are background imbalanced and cost different points, then nobody uses them because GW can't get the points right. Wouldn't it be better to balance the weapons against each other and thereby make the job of finding the correct cost easier?
It doesn't matter if the cost ends up being 0 points, 2 points, 5 points, or 10 points, if most options are of the same relative value (on a per unit basis) to makes finding the proper cost easier. And this can be easier in a system where you have more variables in the weapons themselves. A Powerfist will always be stronger than a Chainsword, but that doesn't mean a Chainsword and a Power Weapon (not Powerfist) can't be roughly equal, with the Chainsword better for killing light infantry and the Power Weapon better against medium/heavy infantry.
Just because most upgrades can be of relative value doesn't mean all of them need be. But it would be great if there were only a few ranges with cost that make them worth using, not the mess we have today.
And the problem is....there aren't equal targets. What do I mean by this? Someone was comparing a Bolter, Plasmagun, Flamer and Melta gun a bit ago. You want these options to be balanced against one another so people are more enticed to take a mixed list rather than just grabbing 10 plasma guns or 10 melta guns. Here is the problem, the last BIG 40k Tournament was the Rock Mountain GT with 144 people playing in it. Guess how many lists featured Power Armor or similar type armor (Dwarves, SoB, custards, etc)...83 And now include Knight lists and likely the Tau lists since they almost universally take Battlesuits, congrats you are north of 100 out of 144, or basically more than 2/3rds. Why on gods green earth would you take a flamer which is 12' range and averages 0.58dmg to a Marine when you could just take a Plasma gun which averages 0.74dmg at twice the range and can Supercharge to inflict 1.85dmg. if your response is "What about hordes!" they don't exist anymore. If your answer is "What about light infantry!" they barely exist anymore. And realistically nobody is having a hard time atm shifting 10 guardsmen or firewarriors off an objective, its usually a tanky unit with 3+ armor or 4+ with -1AP sitting on that objective and for that you want the plasma not the flamer or bolter. This same problem is seen in the CCWs as well
I do hope that point value are phased out by 11th in favor of Power Levels, and that 40k cease to be a customization nightmare.
I just never understand players who say this stuff. The vast majority of the game wants Points and balance, but you also have a very vocal minority who wants PL to become the norm and used universally...why? Do you play tournaments? if so do you want them switched to PL? Why? And if you don't play tournaments why are you trying to force your version of the game onto those who do play tournaments? PL is garbage and has been from its inception, its a balance nightmare with a few factions cashing in on massive benefits while a bunch of other factions are left with the aforementioned bad upgrades that are now free...yay.
vict0988 wrote: When did a Greyclaw with wolfbolter become unplayable?.
by the time that Bolter + Chainsword was not an option any more
and if you now say that does not matter, your sentence
Making options mandatory is a terrible idea because many people haven't modelled it on their old miniatures and don't have the leftover bits for it, there are also sometimes different versions of kits, with only the new one coming with optional bonus equipment.
as either legacy equipment is important for rules or it is not
"Every other model is equipped with: bolt pistol; boltgun; frag grenades; krak grenades."
"Any number of Grey Hunters can each be equipped with 1 Astartes chainsword."'
If GW actually had removed the option, like they have removed many options in the past, I'd be outraged and in support of bringing it back. I think Chosen on Juggernauts need to be brought back. Exceptions? Models that are too small and give an unfair advantage. Obviously, Astartes chainswords shouldn't be free though.
2023/03/27 15:02:57
Subject: Re:Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
Altruizine wrote: I think they should make you roll for your upgrades, rather than picking or paying for them (which is unrealistic). You should also have to roll for the size of your army, because a pitched battle against an opponent of precisely equivalent size is also (which is unrealistic). If you find yourself going BUT MY DUDES, MY PRECIOUS DUDES then maybe you should be writing fanfic instead, you disgusting little punk, and leave the grim sim War to the grownups.
I kinda like that but it would be better, imop, in a video game or in a different scale of model. I'd love to see a good system for rolling up an army outside of campaigns. Sounds engaging.
AK-47 Republic was a game basically written around that idea. You don't know what forces you'll have available, what kind of events might occur between battles (oops! UN intervention, your opponent has heavy armor), or whether your troops will be reliable on the field.
It's great fun- if you approach it with the right mindset and don't take it too seriously. Competitive 40K players would scream bloody fething murder.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:The issue isn’t spam as such. The issue isn’t a weapon being too cheap.
It’s certain options just being more ubiquitous compared to others. Let’s consider the Tactical Trinity, from 3rd-7th.
Agreed. Plasma has always been the utility choice in a game dominated by 3+ saves- good range, multiple shots, useful AP, high Strength. Every army had something plasma guns would be useful against. Even when they were made incredibly expensive, players often gritted their teeth and took them anyways, because they were the most useful option.
This is part of why I've long been interested in a sideboard mechanic for choosing things like special weapons before a game. The need to pick weapons in a total vacuum makes it hard to appropriately cost niche weapons against more generalist (or meta-appropriate) ones. If you could just pick whatever weapons you wanted after knowing the composition of the other army, it would be okay if plasma was the 'generally best' choice, because you'd still have the option to take melta when facing tanks or flamers when facing hordes. You wouldn't need every weapon to be perfectly balanced against each other, just ensure that each weapon has a matchup where you might want to take it.
It would require a relaxed attitude towards WYSIWYG of course. And that alone probably makes it a non-starter for GW.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/27 15:04:28
vict0988 wrote: What you always ignore is that GW cannot get the rules right to balance options against each other either, why do you think Chapters have different win rates? They don't cost points so it should be easy right?
I'd also argue a lot of the playerbase lack the willingness or imagination to make balancing the options closer together work.
To use powerfist vs chainsword, for a Sargent in a unit why is 2 harder hitting attacks with a lower ws, that far apart from say a more accurate weapon with 4 attacks? You're giving both a niche that they're both potentially equally good at.
Ws 4+ s8 ap-2 d2 2A
Ws 3+ s4 ap- d1 4A
One is clearly better into chaff, the other clearly better into big things, both are game legacy and fluff accurate to some degree.
Why is the Chainsword at 2 more attacks? It's 1 attack granted.
Wayniac wrote: Kan does have a point. If certain options are imbalanced not due to existing but being readily available in spammable units, it makes sense to "balance" that by removing them from the spammable unit and out them exclusively in more controlled units.
For instance if plasma is being spammed all over by 5-man Troop squads, disallow them to be taken in Troops entirely, but can be taken by the more expensive and limited Veterans.
Kan has zero point.
Make the Plasma slightly more expensive. This isn't rocket science.
Politely disagreeing with you both.
The issue isn’t spam as such. The issue isn’t a weapon being too cheap.
It’s certain options just being more ubiquitous compared to others. Let’s consider the Tactical Trinity, from 3rd-7th.
Flamer. Super short ranged, but had its uses depending on what you were fighting against. Also cheap.
Meltagun. Again super short ranged. Might only get a couple of worthwhile shots a game. Low rate of fire and low opportunities outweighed it’s deadliness overall.
Plasmagun. Same range and ROF as the rest of the squad. Can, in a pinch, also pose a threat to medium vehicles. Really really good against Heavy Infantry.
Plasma just didn’t have quite the right downside. Not to say it was Too Powerful. It was just the obvious choice for tactical flexibility. Thanks to its range, it could plink away alongside the rest of its squad - if you wanted. The choice not to risk baking its bearer was always an option. For rear or side armour shots, it was in some senses superior to the Meltagun, because you didn’t need to get within 12”, and if you were, you got double the shots making it less likely to miss entirely.
That is the problem. That is what leads to spam. That is what makes folk feel upping its points would fix it.
Plasma can literally kill the model outright when using the non-safe firing mode. That's why just upping the points is fine even with rerolls available (fun fact, if you have full rerolls instead of just rerolling 1s, you're more likely to kill your model)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/27 17:19:03
2023/03/27 17:30:41
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
vict0988 wrote: What you always ignore is that GW cannot get the rules right to balance options against each other either, why do you think Chapters have different win rates? They don't cost points so it should be easy right?
I'd also argue a lot of the playerbase lack the willingness or imagination to make balancing the options closer together work.
To use powerfist vs chainsword, for a Sargent in a unit why is 2 harder hitting attacks with a lower ws, that far apart from say a more accurate weapon with 4 attacks? You're giving both a niche that they're both potentially equally good at.
Ws 4+ s8 ap-2 d2 2A
Ws 3+ s4 ap- d1 4A
One is clearly better into chaff, the other clearly better into big things, both are game legacy and fluff accurate to some degree.
Why is the Chainsword at 2 more attacks? It's 1 attack granted.
Balancing the options. If you want a fluff snippet: "chainswords are comparatively flexible duelling weapons, the user is able to parry and riposte deftly".
Failing that, same logic they get +1 now.
2023/03/27 19:15:32
Subject: Re:Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
alextroy wrote: If weapons are background imbalanced and cost different points, then nobody uses them because GW can't get the points right.
Well that's quite a stretch. "Nobody" is a pretty absolutist position to take.
The phrase you are looking for is rhetorical flourish.
I might use "hyperbole" instead.
You're asserting two things at the same time.
1: GW can't get points right.
and 2: "Nobody" takes the "bad" options.
And I disagree with both!
I think GW can manage (and has in the past) to get points "right enough". There's no "absolute right" point value for them to hit, because tactics, local metas, and list contextualization will always play into what any given weapon is actually worth. Ballpark points values are good enough.
Because of those variables, "nobody" is often still "somebody". While a weapon may not be an assumed go-to, there are often still people who find value in them for their particular armies and communities. I took Flamers on my Tactical Squads all the time back in the day, because my local Meta included Orks, Dark Eldar and Tyranids, and the Flamer was cheaper than the alternatives at 5 points (maybe 6?).
Wouldn't it be better to balance the weapons against each other and thereby make the job of finding the correct cost easier?
If your claim is that GW can't balance weapons with points, why would they then suddenly find the skill to balance them without points?
Also, are you suggesting that a chainsword should be as effective as a power fist? Because that would be quite unfluffy.
It's like you actually aren't reading my post for any purpose but looking for reasons to criticize it. Go back and read the full post and you will actually see I suggested no such thing.
The post:
Spoiler:
alextroy wrote: If weapons are background imbalanced and cost different points, then nobody uses them because GW can't get the points right. Wouldn't it be better to balance the weapons against each other and thereby make the job of finding the correct cost easier?
It doesn't matter if the cost ends up being 0 points, 2 points, 5 points, or 10 points, if most options are of the same relative value (on a per unit basis) to makes finding the proper cost easier. And this can be easier in a system where you have more variables in the weapons themselves. A Powerfist will always be stronger than a Chainsword, but that doesn't mean a Chainsword and a Power Weapon (not Powerfist) can't be roughly equal, with the Chainsword better for killing light infantry and the Power Weapon better against medium/heavy infantry.
Just because most upgrades can be of relative value doesn't mean all of them need be. But it would be great if there were only a few ranges with cost that make them worth using, not the mess we have today.
You are still needlessly compressing values into "sameness". You CAN make some of them the same value, balance-wise, but I see no particular value in that endeavor. Imo it's fine to have a paradigm where a Chainsword is worth 2 points, a Power Sword worth 8, and a Power Fist worth 15.
vict0988 wrote: What you always ignore is that GW cannot get the rules right to balance options against each other either, why do you think Chapters have different win rates? They don't cost points so it should be easy right?
I'd also argue a lot of the playerbase lack the willingness or imagination to make balancing the options closer together work.
To use powerfist vs chainsword, for a Sargent in a unit why is 2 harder hitting attacks with a lower ws, that far apart from say a more accurate weapon with 4 attacks? You're giving both a niche that they're both potentially equally good at.
Ws 4+ s8 ap-2 d2 2A
Ws 3+ s4 ap- d1 4A
One is clearly better into chaff, the other clearly better into big things, both are game legacy and fluff accurate to some degree.
It's not a lack of willingness or imagination here. It's simply a lack of desire for the outcome that it achieves. By shoehorning options into "same-value" you're at once being lore-inaccurate, and also removing design space.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/03/27 19:20:58
alextroy wrote: If weapons are background imbalanced and cost different points, then nobody uses them because GW can't get the points right.
Well that's quite a stretch. "Nobody" is a pretty absolutist position to take.
The phrase you are looking for is rhetorical flourish.
I might use "hyperbole" instead.
You're asserting two things at the same time.
1: GW can't get points right.
and 2: "Nobody" takes the "bad" options.
And I disagree with both!
I think GW can manage (and has in the past) to get points "right enough". There's no "absolute right" point value for them to hit, because tactics, local metas, and list contextualization will always play into what any given weapon is actually worth. Ballpark points values are good enough.
Because of those variables, "nobody" is often still "somebody". While a weapon may not be an assumed go-to, there are often still people who find value in them for their particular armies and communities. I took Flamers on my Tactical Squads all the time back in the day, because my local Meta included Orks, Dark Eldar and Tyranids, and the Flamer was cheaper than the alternatives at 5 points (maybe 6?).
Wouldn't it be better to balance the weapons against each other and thereby make the job of finding the correct cost easier?
If your claim is that GW can't balance weapons with points, why would they then suddenly find the skill to balance them without points?
Also, are you suggesting that a chainsword should be as effective as a power fist? Because that would be quite unfluffy.
It's like you actually aren't reading my post for any purpose but looking for reasons to criticize it. Go back and read the full post and you will actually see I suggested no such thing.
The post:
Spoiler:
alextroy wrote: If weapons are background imbalanced and cost different points, then nobody uses them because GW can't get the points right. Wouldn't it be better to balance the weapons against each other and thereby make the job of finding the correct cost easier?
It doesn't matter if the cost ends up being 0 points, 2 points, 5 points, or 10 points, if most options are of the same relative value (on a per unit basis) to makes finding the proper cost easier. And this can be easier in a system where you have more variables in the weapons themselves. A Powerfist will always be stronger than a Chainsword, but that doesn't mean a Chainsword and a Power Weapon (not Powerfist) can't be roughly equal, with the Chainsword better for killing light infantry and the Power Weapon better against medium/heavy infantry.
Just because most upgrades can be of relative value doesn't mean all of them need be. But it would be great if there were only a few ranges with cost that make them worth using, not the mess we have today.
You are still needlessly compressing values into "sameness". You CAN make some of them the same value, balance-wise, but I see no particular value in that endeavor. Imo it's fine to have a paradigm where a Chainsword is worth 2 points, a Power Sword worth 8, and a Power Fist worth 15.
vict0988 wrote: What you always ignore is that GW cannot get the rules right to balance options against each other either, why do you think Chapters have different win rates? They don't cost points so it should be easy right?
I'd also argue a lot of the playerbase lack the willingness or imagination to make balancing the options closer together work.
To use powerfist vs chainsword, for a Sargent in a unit why is 2 harder hitting attacks with a lower ws, that far apart from say a more accurate weapon with 4 attacks? You're giving both a niche that they're both potentially equally good at.
Ws 4+ s8 ap-2 d2 2A
Ws 3+ s4 ap- d1 4A
One is clearly better into chaff, the other clearly better into big things, both are game legacy and fluff accurate to some degree.
It's not a lack of willingness or imagination here. It's simply a lack of desire for the outcome that it achieves. By shoehorning options into "same-value" you're at once being lore-inaccurate, and also removing design space.
Lack of design space is not a worry on GWs end.
When they need more? They'll just print more/different rules. Or make any other changes as they need.
You'll all scream about "BLOAT!!" But 1) GW doesn't (really) care. 2) it won't stop most of you from buying the new thing/continuing to play.
2023/03/27 20:27:53
Subject: Re:Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
vict0988 wrote: What you always ignore is that GW cannot get the rules right to balance options against each other either, why do you think Chapters have different win rates? They don't cost points so it should be easy right?
I'd also argue a lot of the playerbase lack the willingness or imagination to make balancing the options closer together work.
To use powerfist vs chainsword, for a Sargent in a unit why is 2 harder hitting attacks with a lower ws, that far apart from say a more accurate weapon with 4 attacks? You're giving both a niche that they're both potentially equally good at.
Ws 4+ s8 ap-2 d2 2A
Ws 3+ s4 ap- d1 4A
One is clearly better into chaff, the other clearly better into big things, both are game legacy and fluff accurate to some degree.
It's not a lack of willingness or imagination here. It's simply a lack of desire for the outcome that it achieves. By shoehorning options into "same-value" you're at once being lore-inaccurate, and also removing design space.
I'm not sure I agree entirely, a powerfist being slower and harder to land hits with isn't exactly inaccurate to the lore. The only design space removed is paying more for an item that's flatly superior for a cost.
2023/03/27 21:13:10
Subject: Re:Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
vict0988 wrote: What you always ignore is that GW cannot get the rules right to balance options against each other either, why do you think Chapters have different win rates? They don't cost points so it should be easy right?
I'd also argue a lot of the playerbase lack the willingness or imagination to make balancing the options closer together work.
To use powerfist vs chainsword, for a Sargent in a unit why is 2 harder hitting attacks with a lower ws, that far apart from say a more accurate weapon with 4 attacks? You're giving both a niche that they're both potentially equally good at.
Ws 4+ s8 ap-2 d2 2A
Ws 3+ s4 ap- d1 4A
One is clearly better into chaff, the other clearly better into big things, both are game legacy and fluff accurate to some degree.
It's not a lack of willingness or imagination here. It's simply a lack of desire for the outcome that it achieves. By shoehorning options into "same-value" you're at once being lore-inaccurate, and also removing design space.
I'm not sure I agree entirely, a powerfist being slower and harder to land hits with isn't exactly inaccurate to the lore. The only design space removed is paying more for an item that's flatly superior for a cost.
Ok then. . . so lorewise no weapon is better than any other weapon? You're removing design space from the lore at this point. The Veteran Sergeant of a unit, as befitting a warrior of his rank and skill, gets access to weapons that are worth the same as the weapons already wielded by his squad mates. . . how inspiring.
This should be a really simple concept to grasp: As units, also wargear. You pay more points for better units. You also pay more points for better wargear. Neither lore nor game-balance should be artificially constrained into "same value" just because people want to convert points into Power Level.
Edit: This whole "Wargear Equity Movement" is so f***ing bizarre.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/27 21:25:55
No, it wasn't. At least for 3rd-5th, there was only a single stat line for Plasma with Gets Hot on every shot. I'd have to double check 6th and 7th,
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/27 22:04:28
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
2023/03/27 22:11:42
Subject: Re:Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
When it comes down to it, I have no faith in the GW Design Teams ability to balance the point values of too many variables. Every variable we can remove from the balancing equation should provide us with a better balanced game. I am willing to give up some lore accuracy on rarer, better equipment in pursuit of a better balanced and more lore accurate looking army on the battlefield.
In short, I would rather see 6 Tactical Squads with a mix of non-additional cost special weapons because they are all equally valid power-wise across different function then see 6 Tactical Squads with no upgrades because "why spend 5 points upgrading a 18 point marine, the upgrades aren't worth the points anyway"?
You are welcome to disagree, but that doesn't mean it will result in a unbalanced, dumpster fire of a game.
And don't even bring up the red herrings of balancing something against nothing or a special weapon against a basic weapon. We all know that a question designed to win points rather than have an honest discussion.
2023/03/27 22:15:13
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
Kanluwen wrote: It's no less bizarre than pretending that certain options aren't(I assume you meant) outright ignored in favor of others, no matter the points costs.
According to who? The mighty Kanluwen and his projectionist claims? Ha!
I think part of the issue is that you seem to be conflating wanting a flat cost to be no cost.
Uhhhh. . . Nope! I don't see flat cost as no cost. I see it as
1: A reduction in available design space, since you remove the option to have variable-value gear.
2: A reduction in solo-engagement with the hobby, because some of us really enjoy the nitty-gritty of listbuilding.
3: A reduction in options, because you can't take a minimal cost unit for a backfield task vs. a tooled out one for a "main line" unit. You save no "value" by taking a "min" squad. You just shoot yourself in the foot even harder than you project others do by taking Flamers instead of Plasma. At least folks who take Flamers might save on points and get a little extra kick against hordes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alextroy wrote: When it comes down to it, I have no faith in the GW Design Teams ability to balance the point values of too many variables. Every variable we can remove from the balancing equation should provide us with a better balanced game. I am willing to give up some lore accuracy on rarer, better equipment in pursuit of a better balanced and more lore accurate looking army on the battlefield.
In short, I would rather see 6 Tactical Squads with a mix of non-additional cost special weapons because they are all equally valid power-wise across different function then see 6 Tactical Squads with no upgrades because "why spend 5 points upgrading a 18 point marine, the upgrades aren't worth the points anyway"?
You are welcome to disagree, but that doesn't mean it will result in a unbalanced, dumpster fire of a game.
Great, so you have no faith in GWs ability to balance, but then propose they're going to balance it by shifting weapon stats around. Their skill at balancing will suddenly improve? The assumptions you make here are like tantamount to utopian dellusion. "If we do this one thing everything will be solved!"
But also . . . If points were no issue I'd probably spam certain weapons even harder. Points have absolutely driven me to more army diversity in my builds throughout the editions. Because of the varying costs, I had to make compromises and take other gear than just the best or most optimal for intended deployment.
And don't even bring up the red herrings of balancing something against nothing or a special weapon against a basic weapon. We all know that a question designed to win points rather than have an honest discussion.
Pffft! It's a perfectly valid point for two reasons.
1: Part of seeing loadout diversity on the table is including both "haves" and "have nots".
2: The second is that it removes the option of making those compromises in favor of other options elsewhere.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/03/27 22:36:57
I want to see them massively drop the killing power of units. They should move away from this idea that to make the game exciting every time you act you get a unit kill. It massively unbalances the game, you can even with an innocent list all but table your opponent from a single good turn of shooting and it results in weird things like MSU, avoiding any movement across open ground.
I prefer the game to be troop heavy and to be more about movement and having to focus your units to push people off objectives. More of a shoving match and less like wack a mole. In practice it doesn’t make the game quicker because there’s that much math and strats to get these crazy kills off. When it would be be quicker to have simpler less buffed units moving around.
Specifically with Sisters of Battle to go on a tangent. Apart from repentia they shouldn’t be a glass cannon but I went from playing Guard to them and they didn’t seem any different. You can have your 2 plus armour and 4 up inv but it just doesn’t matter against the kind of firepower. Where failing a single charge can throw a game because you will not survive that counterfire and if you had got the charge you’d annihilate the unit. It’s all or nothing. This is just friendly games BTW. This ain’t tooling up lists.
For individual units. I’d like them to incentivise you to take big blocks of Sisters of Battle. Right now, they’re just objective counters and bolters play too small a role so you go for retributors and dominions. Either make the unit more tanky point for point or make the bolters better. I think the weapon skill should go up as well. Like I want to see them be the absolute core of the army and not just a vehicle for taking meltaguns.
I also think Paragon Warsuits need a major look at. Either make them a little worse but troops and more of a budget Dreadnought; 3 up armour and worse weapons. Like you could take an army of them cheap. But they’re a relatively cheap line unit that’s not a big deal if they die. Or make them a serious elite combat unit where it’s a huge premium to take them but they are just all round good. Basically give them a reasonable invulnerable save and an extra wound so they’re less likely to be one shot.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/27 22:39:06
Starting Sons of Horus Legion
Starting Daughters of Khaine
2000pts Sisters of Silence
4000pts Fists Legion
Sylvaneth A forest
III Legion 5000pts
XIII Legion 9000pts
Hive Fleet Khadrim 5000pts
Kabal of the Torn Lotus .4000pts
Coalition of neo Sacea 5000pts
2023/03/27 22:51:40
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
Kanluwen wrote: It's no less bizarre than pretending that certain options aren't(I assume you meant) outright ignored in favor of others, no matter the points costs.
According to who? The mighty Kanluwen and his projectionist claims? Ha!
I meant "are". Because certain options are ignored in favor of others or outright just not opted to upgrade.
I think part of the issue is that you seem to be conflating wanting a flat cost to be no cost.
Uhhhh. . . Nope! I don't see flat cost as no cost. I see it as
1: A reduction in available design space, since you remove the option to have variable-value gear.
"Free" is a variable-value, FYI. A Guard Officer should not be paying for a Power Sword, Chainsword, Bolt Pistol, or Laspistol--and they don't. They do pay for a Power Fist or Plasma Pistol though.
2: A reduction in solo-engagement with the hobby, because some of us really enjoy the nitty-gritty of listbuilding.
Weapons actually being balanced across their profiles would shift that "nitty-gritty" from simple number-crunching to actual, meaningful decisions. I would think that people wanting the "nitty-gritty of listbuilding" would want factors other than simple number-crunching to be the reason listbuilding becomes challenging, right?
Part of why I liked the Cadian and Death Korps squads being able to double up on weapons is that it allowed for a meaningful choice, alongside of letting me throw a bit more customization to the unit in lieu of that HWT.
A double plasma squad, with medical pouches scattered across the gear of the other squad members for Cadians? A double-flamer squad, with everyone modeled with gas-masks and running poses? Krieg with sharpshooters modeled to look more like a "security team" for a rear echelon?
That's where my engagement comes from. Truly making a force mine. I don't give one flipping feth about the "nitty-gritty of listbuilding" when people pretend that there is some kind of secret knowledge in it. By and large it comes down to either "I like the look of item X/Y/Z" or "Numbercrunchers showed that A/B/C is the best, so I take that".
3: A reduction in options, because you can't take a minimal cost unit for a backfield task vs. a tooled out one for a "main line" unit. You save no "value" by taking a "min" squad.
You're speaking to a Guard player. I can't take a "min squad" anyways, unless I run Scions, Ogryn, Rough Riders, or various vehicles. All of my squads are locked at 5 or 10 models.
The most I could do prior to the free wargear was simply not take upgrades, which still locked me in at 9 Lasguns and a Laspistol...in which case I should have just taken Conscripts and gotten 11 more Lasguns for around the same price.
You just shoot yourself in the foot even harder than you project others do by taking Flamers instead of Plasma. At least folks who take Flamers might save on points and get a little extra kick against hordes.
The problem with this argument is that the actual lists written back when Guard paid points for upgrades shows this wasn't the case.
Plasma was basically an ever-present item in the lists. Usually with autocannons in the same squad. Then there were the trusty alternates of Grenade Launchers and Mortars in the same squad, letting you ignore LOS while camping on an objective out of LOS and chip away hoping for a lucky wound....
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/27 22:53:20
question designed to win points rather than have an honest discussion.
Sylvaneth A forest
III Legion 5000pts
XIII Legion 9000pts
Hive Fleet Khadrim 5000pts
Kabal of the Torn Lotus .4000pts
Coalition of neo Sacea 5000pts