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.

A poll...

Do you like the way the Munitorum Field Manual now works for unit upgrades?

(Not fixed unit sizes. that would be a separate question I think).

No third option?

Lammia wrote:
No third option?

What would it be? "Mixed feelings"? Added that now.

No, solely because they half implemented something sensible as a concept (reducing needless side grades, consolidating some options in the same design space, making options equal but for different tasks hence enough needing different points).

They then proceeded to stop what seems like less than 5% of the way through the process and just thought "nahhh whatever sticks, sticks".

Even with what we have they could have made it better. Imagine if the battlewagon rather than being the same points for a naked transport, and a model with all the upgrades, now came with all the upgrades as a default loadout so could have a price tag appropriate and people needn't care about wysiwyg as every battlewagon is the same.

So far I absolutely hate it.
You're forced to pick one:
* glue random bits to your models to represent free wargear
* no longer play wysiwyg
* straight up nerf your units by not bringing free upgrades

All three suck, with the cherry on top that if you go and add bits to your units, you might get fethed over if GW decides to move away from the current concept again.

nekooni wrote:
So far I absolutely hate it.
You're forced to pick one:
* glue random bits to your models to represent free wargear
* no longer play wysiwyg
* straight up nerf your units by not bringing free upgrades

All three suck, with the cherry on top that if you go and add bits to your units, you might get fethed over if GW decides to move away from the current concept again.

Wysiwyg is ded. Has been for a while.

Yes points where always badly handled, making weapon options different in how they operate with the points baked into the unit is a much better way to do it.

It also means the game is more about fun and not micro adjustments to squeeze out the most optimal peak performance from every single point... you know, the tournament mindset that has been making the game a bit dull.

This is a return to fun, and for people to be able to build their models how they like without having to worry about whether that configuration would mean the unit/model puts their force over the points limit.

 stonehorse wrote:
Yes points where always badly handled, making weapon options different in how they operate with the points baked into the unit is a much better way to do it.

It also means the game is more about fu and not micro adjustments to squeeze out the most optimal peak performance from every single point... you know, the tournament mindset that has been making the game a bit dull.

This is a return to fun, and for people to be able to build their models how they like without having to worry about whether that configuration would mean the unit/model puts their force over the points limit.

It's also a system where you can play someone using the same units with outright better gear than yours and not being any worse off for doing so.

I'm not particularly worried about this weapon option being better than that option (usually) but it can cause some problems with filling out the tail end of a list.

I really dislike the 3 or 6 not 3 up to 6 - though not so much on the 5-10 (especially if they up the Drop Pod to 12 for Unit + attached which they should have for the Tac Squad with a Cap/LT) - I just have a mental block over 100/6.

I'd like to see some very minor Unit level enhancements that do the 5-10 point bumps to get you to 2000 even.

Lammia wrote:
Wysiwyg is ded. Has been for a while.

If that was the case, we wouldn't also be stuck with No Model No Rules and rules based solely on What's In The Box.

no and it has killed my interest in 10th, the general rules are ok, no real difference from 9th other than side shifts, as usual GW is lying about the marketing of making things simpler, it is not, they just moved the bloat from one place to another.

A lot of the games integral core issues still remain, lack of an initiative stat means pointless rules have to exist in order to replace said stat.

Lack of terrain rules, decent line of sight rules, removal of psychic phase when more interaction was needed, keeping the I go, you go, mechanic rather than alternating activations, lack of templates meaning even more rules are required to compensate.

The name change of power level to points is just the icing on the cake for me.

I have mixed feelings, I guess because I liked power Level, and I also liked points and felt they were good for different things.

A lot of people are saying that WYSIWYG is dead, but my experience of PL is the opposite.

With PL and I imagine in 10th my group played WYSIWYG with PL and much less so with points.

For PL we took our models as they are built and and played them 100% WYSIWYG because we didn’t need to worry about going over the points limit or being inefficient choices etc, whereas points were for more competitive games where we wanted to squeeze efficiency out of the army list and 5 points on a sergeant here or there could take you over the points limit for the game.

Dudeface wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Yes points where always badly handled, making weapon options different in how they operate with the points baked into the unit is a much better way to do it.

It also means the game is more about fu and not micro adjustments to squeeze out the most optimal peak performance from every single point... you know, the tournament mindset that has been making the game a bit dull.

This is a return to fun, and for people to be able to build their models how they like without having to worry about whether that configuration would mean the unit/model puts their force over the points limit.

It's also a system where you can play someone using the same units with outright better gear than yours and not being any worse off for doing so.

Not sure it is fair to say gear is better or worse, it seems to be that all gear has a role to play against different targets. Take Tactical Squads for example, Flamer is good at close range against Light to Medium Infantry, Melta gun is good at close range against Vehicles, Plasma Gun is good at close range against Monsters and Heavy Infantry.

 stonehorse wrote:
This is a return to fun

[Citation needed.]

No.

Upgrades should cost points.

Period.

 vipoid wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
This is a return to fun

[Citation needed.]

And with that you highlighted my point. The game is meant to be a casual tea and crumpets sort of game.

Your need for citation is very much in line with the mindset that sucks fun out of things that are meant to be taken casually.

Hmm, even casual games should be *fair*, though - the basic starting point for a game with your mate is 2 armies that should be of roughly equal power.

And if one player has gone all-out with upgrades whereas the other hasn't, this new points scheme doesn't deliver that, imo.

 Slinky wrote:
Hmm, even casual games should be *fair*, though - the basic starting point for a game with your mate is 2 armies that should be of roughly equal power.

And if one player has gone all-out with upgrades whereas the other hasn't, this new points scheme doesn't deliver that, imo.

It is virtually impossible to make things in a game like 40k fair, due to the staggering amount of variables, from terrain type, terrain layout, amount of terrain, mission, and also the players choice in unit/model selection. There is simply too much to factor in to make it fair, it will never be fair. So, with that in mind the best cause of action is to make it about fun, and make wargear upgrades more about different battlefield roles and Tey to keep them So different that none of them is a no brained and is better than the rest. That way it rewards a balanced force, as it can perform a lot of battlefield roles.

Also, some of the best games I have had are ines where I have been utterly up against what was an unwinnable situation, it then became a 'how well can I perform when the odds are so stacked against me'. Sometimes the challenge of the situation (as long as the opponent is a good sport) is more rewarding than a win. Because ultimately, this is a game of plastic toy soldiers... so should be approached in that way.

 stonehorse wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Yes points where always badly handled, making weapon options different in how they operate with the points baked into the unit is a much better way to do it.

It also means the game is more about fu and not micro adjustments to squeeze out the most optimal peak performance from every single point... you know, the tournament mindset that has been making the game a bit dull.

This is a return to fun, and for people to be able to build their models how they like without having to worry about whether that configuration would mean the unit/model puts their force over the points limit.

It's also a system where you can play someone using the same units with outright better gear than yours and not being any worse off for doing so.

Not sure it is fair to say gear is better or worse, it seems to be that all gear has a role to play against different targets. Take Tactical Squads for example, Flamer is good at close range against Light to Medium Infantry, Melta gun is good at close range against Vehicles, Plasma Gun is good at close range against Monsters and Heavy Infantry.

Leman Russes, for example.
They may take sponson weapons (Heavy Bolter, Plasma Cannon, Multi-Melta, Heavy Flamer) but they don't have too. They also don't need to take a pintle-weapon (Heavy Stubber, Stormbolter) or a Hunterkiller Missile. Under the old system, all that was accounted for, but now if you run a Leman Russ without sponsons, pintle-weapon and missile you are objectively using a worse vehicle configuration for the same cost.

 stonehorse wrote:
Not sure it is fair to say gear is better or worse, it seems to be that all gear has a role to play against different targets. Take Tactical Squads for example, Flamer is good at close range against Light to Medium Infantry, Melta gun is good at close range against Vehicles, Plasma Gun is good at close range against Monsters and Heavy Infantry.

Weapons might have preferred targets against which they excel at, but that does not mean that they are all equal in points. GW knows this. Wargear had different upgrade points for the past 9 editions of the game. Flamers were still better against light infantry horde than a lascannon, just like now.

If you bring a Rhino and a Devastator squad with nothing but boltguns and your opponent brings a Rhino and a Devastator squad with 4 lascannons, he will have the stronger loadout than you without giving up anything in return. Bear in mind that there are units out there where every model can upgrade to something that is outright better than the default wargear. Why should you ever not do it then? Only out of fear that GW might revert this design philosophy at some point.

What would you think about having fixed unit costs, regardless if you bring 5 or 10 man sized units? Makes as much sense as the weapon upgrades.

I thought magnets have been the name of the game for more than a decade now anyway.

Maybe GW should go the way PP went eith the new edition of Warmachine and make new kits specifically designed with magnet use in mind (sockets in models, magnets included in kits etc)?

I have... mixed feelings, we'll see how this all works out in practice, in theory it's actually kinda a decent idea as it takes a lot of the more granular math out of list building.
That said the tourny scene will be FILLED with TFGs finding ways to abuse this (course it's always filled with TFGs finding ways to be abusive)
So I imagine we'll see the tourny drama

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Yes points where always badly handled, making weapon options different in how they operate with the points baked into the unit is a much better way to do it.

It also means the game is more about fu and not micro adjustments to squeeze out the most optimal peak performance from every single point... you know, the tournament mindset that has been making the game a bit dull.

This is a return to fun, and for people to be able to build their models how they like without having to worry about whether that configuration would mean the unit/model puts their force over the points limit.

It's also a system where you can play someone using the same units with outright better gear than yours and not being any worse off for doing so.

Not sure it is fair to say gear is better or worse, it seems to be that all gear has a role to play against different targets. Take Tactical Squads for example, Flamer is good at close range against Light to Medium Infantry, Melta gun is good at close range against Vehicles, Plasma Gun is good at close range against Monsters and Heavy Infantry.

Leman Russes, for example.
They may take sponson weapons (Heavy Bolter, Plasma Cannon, Multi-Melta, Heavy Flamer) but they don't have too. They also don't need to take a pintle-weapon (Heavy Stubber, Stormbolter) or a Hunterkiller Missile. Under the old system, all that was accounted for, but now if you run a Leman Russ without sponsons, pintle-weapon and missile you are objectively using a worse vehicle configuration for the same cost.

Lack of sponson weapons also gives the Leman Russ a slimmer profile, allowing it to fit through tighter gaps, also gives it less that can be measured to and seen. So can have a very situational advantage.

As for pintal mounted weapons, in all my 30+ years of gaming I have yet to see a Leman Russ without a pintal mounted weapon, so that is not going to happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Not sure it is fair to say gear is better or worse, it seems to be that all gear has a role to play against different targets. Take Tactical Squads for example, Flamer is good at close range against Light to Medium Infantry, Melta gun is good at close range against Vehicles, Plasma Gun is good at close range against Monsters and Heavy Infantry.

Weapons might have preferred targets against which they excel at, but that does not mean that they are all equal in points. GW knows this. Wargear had different upgrade points for the past 9 editions of the game. Flamers were still better against light infantry horde than a lascannon, just like now.

If you bring a Rhino and a Devastator squad with nothing but boltguns and your opponent brings a Rhino and a Devastator squad with 4 lascannons, he will have the stronger loadout than you without giving up anything in return. Bear in mind that there are units out there where every model can upgrade to something that is outright better than the default wargear. Why should you ever not do it then? Only out of fear that GW might revert this design philosophy at some point.

What would you think about having fixed unit costs, regardless if you bring 5 or 10 man sized units? Makes as much sense as the weapon upgrades.

No one takes a unit if Devastators with just Boltguns, at that stage why are they even calling them Devastators, when they are I fact a Tactical Squad. Made up scenarios that are never going to happen in the real world don't make the point you are trying to make.

 stonehorse wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Yes points where always badly handled, making weapon options different in how they operate with the points baked into the unit is a much better way to do it.

It also means the game is more about fu and not micro adjustments to squeeze out the most optimal peak performance from every single point... you know, the tournament mindset that has been making the game a bit dull.

This is a return to fun, and for people to be able to build their models how they like without having to worry about whether that configuration would mean the unit/model puts their force over the points limit.

It's also a system where you can play someone using the same units with outright better gear than yours and not being any worse off for doing so.

Not sure it is fair to say gear is better or worse, it seems to be that all gear has a role to play against different targets. Take Tactical Squads for example, Flamer is good at close range against Light to Medium Infantry, Melta gun is good at close range against Vehicles, Plasma Gun is good at close range against Monsters and Heavy Infantry.

Leman Russes, for example.
They may take sponson weapons (Heavy Bolter, Plasma Cannon, Multi-Melta, Heavy Flamer) but they don't have too. They also don't need to take a pintle-weapon (Heavy Stubber, Stormbolter) or a Hunterkiller Missile. Under the old system, all that was accounted for, but now if you run a Leman Russ without sponsons, pintle-weapon and missile you are objectively using a worse vehicle configuration for the same cost.

Lack of sponson weapons also gives the Leman Russ a slimmer profile, allowing it to fit through tighter gaps, also gives it less that can be measured to and seen. So can have a very situational advantage.

As for pintal mounted weapons, in all my 30+ years of gaming I have yet to see a Leman Russ without a pintal mounted weapon, so that is not going to happen.

Funny, because I've seen many a Leman Russ without pintle-weapons on the tabletop.
And also never with a missile.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
Yes points where always badly handled, making weapon options different in how they operate with the points baked into the unit is a much better way to do it.

It also means the game is more about fu and not micro adjustments to squeeze out the most optimal peak performance from every single point... you know, the tournament mindset that has been making the game a bit dull.

This is a return to fun, and for people to be able to build their models how they like without having to worry about whether that configuration would mean the unit/model puts their force over the points limit.

It's also a system where you can play someone using the same units with outright better gear than yours and not being any worse off for doing so.

Not sure it is fair to say gear is better or worse, it seems to be that all gear has a role to play against different targets. Take Tactical Squads for example, Flamer is good at close range against Light to Medium Infantry, Melta gun is good at close range against Vehicles, Plasma Gun is good at close range against Monsters and Heavy Infantry.

Leman Russes, for example.
They may take sponson weapons (Heavy Bolter, Plasma Cannon, Multi-Melta, Heavy Flamer) but they don't have too. They also don't need to take a pintle-weapon (Heavy Stubber, Stormbolter) or a Hunterkiller Missile. Under the old system, all that was accounted for, but now if you run a Leman Russ without sponsons, pintle-weapon and missile you are objectively using a worse vehicle configuration for the same cost.

Lack of sponson weapons also gives the Leman Russ a slimmer profile, allowing it to fit through tighter gaps, also gives it less that can be measured to and seen. So can have a very situational advantage.

As for pintal mounted weapons, in all my 30+ years of gaming I have yet to see a Leman Russ without a pintal mounted weapon, so that is not going to happen.

Funny, because I've seen many a Leman Russ without pintle-weapons on the tabletop.
And also never with a missile.

Course you have, next you'll be telling me that the player with these Leman Russes would have won the game if they had those extra shots from the pintal Mounted Storm Bolter.

 stonehorse wrote:
No one takes a unit if Devastators with just Boltguns, at that stage why are they even calling them Devastators, when they are I fact a Tactical Squad. Made up scenarios that are never going to happen in the real world don't make the point you are trying to make.

You said in this very thread:

 stonehorse wrote:
Yes points where always badly handled, making weapon options different in how they operate with the points baked into the unit is a much better way to do it.

It also means the game is more about fun and not micro adjustments to squeeze out the most optimal peak performance from every single point... you know, the tournament mindset that has been making the game a bit dull.

This is a return to fun, and for people to be able to build their models how they like without having to worry about whether that configuration would mean the unit/model puts their force over the points limit.

"No one takes a unit of Devastators with just Boltguns" is a reaction from you because YOU KNOW that this is a sub-optimal choice. Boltguns handle differently and are better against lightly armored hordes than lascannons. Just like flamers. Maybe that choice should be handled by the game system with something like... making it so if you take 4 lascannons, you can take less models in total?

How about a Tactical squad with just boltguns and one with all the (in older editions) most expensive upgrades? Why is "This is a return to fun, and for people to be able to build their models how they like" suddenly something "nobody would ever do" if I take a "bad" loadout on purpose? Since points are the same, why is my loadout worse?

If the power of different loadouts vary so much, why is there no difference during list creation?

Lammia wrote:
Wysiwyg is ded. Has been for a while.

Yeah, no.

I only ever see this horsegak trotted out in this site. IRL nothing could be further from the truth. Go on, play with a load of random stuff and see how many return opponent you get.

GW themselves even call out WYSIWYG in their tournament packs (page 5). If players are so hell-bent on inserting tournament rules in the main game, then you can't cherry pick which ones you want to insert. Also, "no model no rules." Why would that be a thing if WYSIWYG did not exist?

 Slinky wrote:

Well thatbis a first, still haven't seen any Leman Russes in that configuration in real life (photos can be altered so... sadly not always reliable). The one with the Commissar, could easily be counts as a Storm Bolter. First and third one, can't be that hard to just put on a pingal mounted weapon or use counts as. If your opponent says no to the above,find better opponents.

 stonehorse wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
This is a return to fun

[Citation needed.]

And with that you highlighted my point. The game is meant to be a casual tea and crumpets sort of game.

Your need for citation is very much in line with the mindset that sucks fun out of things that are meant to be taken casually.

People wanting points for upgrades does not make them a powergamer. Take your strawman elsewhere.