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_typical_hero wrote:

 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?

No it is not a reaction, if someone where to use a full 10 man unit of Devastators with just Boltguns than they are deliberately doing something moronic to try and show how the points don't work. I mean you could take such a unit, but that doesn't mean you should. Doing so to prove a point is being a bit of a TFG.

 stonehorse wrote:
The game is meant to be a casual tea and crumpets sort of game.

Sure isn't sold or advertised that way.

You can always opt to play a lopsided game in a balanced system by knowingly weakening yourself. Playing a 'fair' game in an unbalanced system takes a whole lot more effort than 'tea and crumpets' - which is why you don't get to move twice as far if you pick the car in monopoly, or get twice as many players on one side of the foosball table.

It's why casual games should always strive for an an even playing field. Highly competitive games at least have the excuse of 'punishing' players for taking sub-optimal choices.

A.T. wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
The game is meant to be a casual tea and crumpets sort of game.

Sure isn't sold or advertised that way.

Funny, as 9th was quite clearly "40k- tournament edition" as the rot had set in fully from GW bowing down to the tournament "celebrities" and the utter cancer they bring to this game. People were still in denial when Chapter Approved was called the "Grand Tournament Pack". The 10th points are just more examples of this and cookie cutter 40k brought on by inattentive Gen Z players with zero attention spans who worship at the feet of these tournament players is the end result.

Pack it up lads, we're in the last days of Rome...

 Lord Damocles wrote:

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.

That's WHW rules set though. Not even the most power tripping TOs have enforced those level of rules.

You do have to make it clear what models have what weapons. But there are honestly clearer ways than taking weapons on and off troop models

Lammia wrote:

You do have to make it clear what models have what weapons. But there are honestly clearer ways than taking weapons on and off troop models

Go on then, I'll bite. What are they? As typically SEEING what you get and the models having a visual representation of it is quite clear and the best way to represent what gear they have in a visual game.

 stonehorse 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.

The picture you are commenting on was uploaded by the same user in 2017. I highly doubt the sponsons and pintle-mounted weapons were photoshopped away in the past just to win a possible argument in the future 6 years later.

 stonehorse wrote:
No it is not a reaction, if someone where to use a full 10 man unit of Devastators with just Boltguns than they are deliberately doing something moronic to try and show how the points don't work. I mean you could take such a unit, but that doesn't mean you should. Doing so to prove a point is being a bit of a TFG.

I think you like to label people with negative words if they challenge your opinion.

So far:
- If you want to have point differences between options, you have a tournament mindset which is bad for the game.
- If you prove with pictures from your own army that you have built units in a specific configuration, you might have altered the picture.
- If you take a loadout which costs the same points as something else, but is CLEARLY INFERIOR to everyone with a working brain, you have TFG energy.

Your argument would work if the options are actually close enough in performance. But the fact ist, that boltgun only (or any other default wargear) units exist and are legal to field next to the exact same units with EVERY possible upgrade under the sun.

 stonehorse wrote:

No it is not a reaction, if someone where to use a full 10 man unit of Devastators with just Boltguns than they are deliberately doing something moronic to try and show how the points don't work. I mean you could take such a unit, but that doesn't mean you should. Doing so to prove a point is being a bit of a TFG.

So I'm a "bit of a TFG" for owning a Leman Russ without sponsons and complaining that it suddenly costs the exact same as one of my other Leman Russ that are obviously superior in firepower? wow.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Funny, as 9th was quite clearly "40k- tournament edition" as the rot had set in fully from GW bowing down to the tournament "celebrities" and the utter cancer they bring to this game. People were still in denial when Chapter Approved was called the "Grand Tournament Pack". The 10th points are just more examples of this and cookie cutter 40k brought on by inattentive Gen Z players with zero attention spans who worship at the feet of these tournament players is the end result.

Pack it up lads, we're in the last days of Rome...

I'm not even Gen Z, but... OK, boomer.

Do I like losing different type of melee weapons, having str 6 thunder hammers and nutered psychic powers? No I don't. I also don't like having any serious offensive power in units and a downgrade to dreadnoughts. Even NDKs , which I do not own and don't want to use, wierd.

I don't like how marines limitations are put on my units, but stuff that marines have to balance it were "missed".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lammia 810334 11551251 wrote:That's WHW rules set though. Not even the most power tripping TOs have enforced those level of rules.

You do have to make it clear what models have what weapons. But there are honestly clearer ways than taking weapons on and off troop models

Maybe in Australia it is like that. But where I live people playing DG were not happy in early 8th that the squad leader from dark empire comes with a plasma gun on his back. Of course back then they didn't yet know what it means to be really unhappy.

nekooni wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Funny, as 9th was quite clearly "40k- tournament edition" as the rot had set in fully from GW bowing down to the tournament "celebrities" and the utter cancer they bring to this game. People were still in denial when Chapter Approved was called the "Grand Tournament Pack". The 10th points are just more examples of this and cookie cutter 40k brought on by inattentive Gen Z players with zero attention spans who worship at the feet of these tournament players is the end result.

Pack it up lads, we're in the last days of Rome...

I'm not even Gen Z, but... OK, boomer.

Lol, seriously, I teach undergrads and yeah, a lot of them have like no attention if they're bored but they're also teens and teens surrounded by shiny tech designed to be addictive, and by continual global crises: of course they're easily distracted, but that doesn't mean anything but they're easily distracted. This new points system might very well be based off some marketing guru's perception of the new generation, but those kids encroaching on your lawn are plenty smart enough to do basic math and then some.

Oh, and more on topic: yeah this new system is awful. I think 40k could have easily been abstracted to multiples of 5 points, tiers of weapons, etc., because yeah I don't believe the game has ever been balanced finely enough that 1 point in 2000 is I think ever going to be accurate, but there's also plenty of gear that could be represented with abstracted but present costs: we don't need to pretend that we can justify a lascannon's game value may be quantified as exactly 12 points, but we can say that a lascannon's game value is more than the bolter it replaces.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Lammia wrote:

You do have to make it clear what models have what weapons. But there are honestly clearer ways than taking weapons on and off troop models

Go on then, I'll bite. What are they? As typically SEEING what you get and the models having a visual representation of it is quite clear and the best way to represent what gear they have in a visual game.

Well, I'm a fan of using paint. But there are other tools you can use too. Hell, give them different flags that stick to the base, that way you can remove the models you want without checking their weapon first

Lammia wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Lammia wrote:

You do have to make it clear what models have what weapons. But there are honestly clearer ways than taking weapons on and off troop models

Go on then, I'll bite. What are they? As typically SEEING what you get and the models having a visual representation of it is quite clear and the best way to represent what gear they have in a visual game.

Well, I'm a fan of using paint. But there are other tools you can use too. Hell, give them different flags that stick to the base, that way you can remove the models you want without checking their weapon first

For even greater clarity at a distance, you can even replace all your models with colored cardboard tokens

 Grimtuff wrote:
brought on by inattentive Gen Z players with zero attention spans who worship at the feet of these tournament players is the end result.

No.

It's dumb.

What the actual feth have they done?

Some units are complete points sinks unless you take every single best weapon. Lower tier weapons are useless when everything costs the same. Tank have to have sponsons or they’re wasting points?

I was ok with them dumbing down the core rules for Little Timmy, but when have the dumbed down list building for people that can’t manage basic addition…?


Also the arbitrary squad sizes are a joke. I buy a box of 5 Custodes Wardens but can only use them in groups of 3 or 6? What is wrong with 3-6? Yet Custodes Guard can’t be taken in 3s or 6s, but you can take them in 9s.

Genuinely moronic.

nekooni wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

No it is not a reaction, if someone where to use a full 10 man unit of Devastators with just Boltguns than they are deliberately doing something moronic to try and show how the points don't work. I mean you could take such a unit, but that doesn't mean you should. Doing so to prove a point is being a bit of a TFG.

So I'm a "bit of a TFG" for owning a Leman Russ without sponsons and complaining that it suddenly costs the exact same as one of my other Leman Russ that are obviously superior in firepower? wow.

No, that is not what I said and I think you know that. What I said was if anyone deliberately takes a 10 man unit of DEVASTATORS with just bolt guns, they are doing so fully aware that what they are doing is fully within the rules, but is not what DEVASTATORS are there for. No one in their right mind buys a box of DEVASTATORS, looks at the cool, big heavy weapons, and goes, 'do you know what, I think I'll equip them with these basic run of the mill Boltguns, because that'd be awesome!'

Hope that clears things up, anyway... I've got more important things to do than waste my time with this foolishness, if you want to field 10 men DEVASTATORS all with Bolt Guns, so you can say the points system is flawed, be my guest, but anyone with half a functioning brain, will see right through your attempt at trying to find fault.

I wouldn't have minded, if all options are equally viable, or at least all have viable roles. Flamer vs Grenade Launcher vs Meltagun vs Plasmagun still has clear winners.

And then there's the Leman Russ with or without sponsons, or the 10000 upgrades on a battlewagon. Those are more clear problems, but they could have been addressed (increased speed without upgrades? Transport cap on the wagon?)

If those issues had been handled, I would have been somewhat ok with the stealth switch to PL. As it stands, this looks like amateur hour.

 Insectum7 wrote:
No.

It's dumb.

Seconded and exalted.

A.T. wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:
The game is meant to be a casual tea and crumpets sort of game.

Sure isn't sold or advertised that way.

Eh. It actually is.
A vocal chunk of the player base is totally against it being treated that way (and instead its serious business), but GW has been rather consistent that its a pretty casual set of rules and they aren't going to fuss too hard about it. Its been the major disconnect (for decades) between how the studio designs and plays the game and how people out in the world play.

I am very happy to see them moving the army building mechanics of the game in a more lore friendly direction. I hate seeing all these list that are built for points efficiency and thus lack any upgrades at all. I like the idea that every squad is armed with special weapons and would love to see that on the battlefield.

I am also happy to see them upgrading the weapons rules to make options more sidegrades than upgrades. The Terminator datasheet is a great example. Powerfist and Chainfist are both compelling choices. The same can be said for the Assault Cannon, Cyclone Missile Launcher, and Heavy Flamer.

However, other such attempts fall flat. There is never a reason to pick a Laspistol or Bolt Pistol over a Plasma Pistol. The same is true for a Chainsword over a Power Weapon. A bit more design work could have made these interesting choices also. So that leave these unbalanced choices along with the purely optional choices (Leman Russ Sponsons) as areas that need points to balance them out. This is where the new unit upgrade rules fail the most.

I have tons of Russes - 30, in fact. I have many without sponsons and many with.

I like the variety.

The only sponson Russes I have left are ones that are metal add-ons. I'll tear apart old models but those old plasma cannons are sacred.

 stonehorse wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 stonehorse wrote:

No it is not a reaction, if someone where to use a full 10 man unit of Devastators with just Boltguns than they are deliberately doing something moronic to try and show how the points don't work. I mean you could take such a unit, but that doesn't mean you should. Doing so to prove a point is being a bit of a TFG.

So I'm a "bit of a TFG" for owning a Leman Russ without sponsons and complaining that it suddenly costs the exact same as one of my other Leman Russ that are obviously superior in firepower? wow.

No, that is not what I said and I think you know that. What I said was if anyone deliberately takes a 10 man unit of DEVASTATORS with just bolt guns, they are doing so fully aware that what they are doing is fully within the rules, but is not what DEVASTATORS are there for. No one in their right mind buys a box of DEVASTATORS, looks at the cool, big heavy weapons, and goes, 'do you know what, I think I'll equip them with these basic run of the mill Boltguns, because that'd be awesome!'

Hope that clears things up, anyway... I've got more important things to do than waste my time with this foolishness, if you want to field 10 men DEVASTATORS all with Bolt Guns, so you can say the points system is flawed, be my guest, but anyone with half a functioning brain, will see right through your attempt at trying to find fault.

I never mention devastators, I was only asking if the same applies to a sponsonless LR. Because the principle is the same - I have to pay the same, for no good reason. That's the major flaw with PL, and it's a massive issue now that this was applied to points as well. Whoever brought up the devastators was providing you with an example, and instead of taking it as an example, you attack the person behind the argument. Just like you're doing now, again, instead of addressing the argument.

 alextroy wrote:
I am very happy to see them moving the army building mechanics of the game in a more lore friendly direction. I hate seeing all these list that are built for points efficiency and thus lack any upgrades at all. I like the idea that every squad is armed with special weapons and would love to see that on the battlefield.

I am also happy to see them upgrading the weapons rules to make options more sidegrades than upgrades. The Terminator datasheet is a great example. Powerfist and Chainfist are both compelling choices. The same can be said for the Assault Cannon, Cyclone Missile Launcher, and Heavy Flamer.

However, other such attempts fall flat. There is never a reason to pick a Laspistol or Bolt Pistol over a Plasma Pistol. The same is true for a Chainsword over a Power Weapon. A bit more design work could have made these interesting choices also. So that leave these unbalanced choices along with the purely optional choices (Leman Russ Sponsons) as areas that need points to balance them out. This is where the new unit upgrade rules fail the most.

The problem with this system is they decided to universalize it when it doesn't work like that.
There are a lot of units where there are no meaningful choices and its fine. Most Daemon units, for example. If bloodletters are over or under valued, change the points for the unit and problem solved.

Even sergeant-class models are fine. Which Whacking Stick they have doesn't really matter and its not going to turn the game if you assume their weapons are all worth 5 points rather than 0 or 10. 10 intercessors can be worth XX points regardless of whether or not the sarge does an extra 0.6 wounds in combat specifically against MEQ or GEQ, but does 0.7 less wounds in combat against vehicles.
Plasma pistols are a weird case because there isn't any way around how superior they are to the alternatives.

The problem is units like devastators, havocs or even hearthkyn warriors. If grav cannons or magna rifles (somehow, with its current stats) are overperforming, then raising the price on the unit makes all the other options even worse. It theoretically 'solves' the problem with the overpowered option, but creates an even larger imbalance in the unit. There simply is no way to fix it at the 'unit costs XX points level.' You have to go back to per-weapon costs to successfully solve a problem. (or nerf the weapon *stares at desolators*)

 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.

 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.

 stonehorse wrote:
Hope that clears things up, anyway... I've got more important things to do than waste my time with this foolishness, if you want to field 10 men DEVASTATORS all with Bolt Guns, so you can say the points system is flawed, be my guest, but anyone with half a functioning brain, will see right through your attempt at trying to find fault.

A little bit of a schizophrenic take, innit?. On one side the new system is better, because upgrades can't be qualified as being better or worse, as long as they have different profiles for different targets, but on the other side there are clear examples where you agree that specific configurations are sub-par to others. You seem to be awfully stuck up on Devastators when more or less every unit in the game sits in the same boat where the default wargear is not the best loadout and upgrades are not simple sidegrades.

Apart from agreeing with the "Dislike the change"-faction that some configurations don't make sense when upgrades are free, you don't bring anything up to defend your argument.

 alextroy wrote:
However, other such attempts fall flat. There is never a reason to pick a Laspistol or Bolt Pistol over a Plasma Pistol. The same is true for a Chainsword over a Power Weapon. A bit more design work could have made these interesting choices also.

They took two steps when they could have taken one.
Pay x points for the squad, y points for each extra model, and z points to unlock the 'elite' wargear options. Secondary costs as needed for any key upgrades like elite sergeant wargear access or drones/servitors/etc.

Still cuts each unit down to a half dozen or less values rather than a full wargear list. Then again I don't understand the concept of simplifying one of the more straightforward aspects of the game while simultaneously giving every unit its own unique special rules, stacked on faction special rules, stacked on single use and command point wombo combos that are all buried behind a bucket of dice that you get to roll twice*

(*special results my apply to any arbitrary value rolled)

Basically if GW was going to remove options from points, they should have removed options from the rules too.

I dont mind for instance if a Leman Russ just has such and such an attack profile. It might take something from the game that you can't pick guns, but in a "rules first" view (as against models first) it could hold up.

But as people say, its stupid to dumb down the rules to avoid traps - then explicitly leave the traps there.

Unfortunately, the article yesterday lays out their design philosophy. Its impossible for there to be a 'better gun,' only guns with specific battlefield roles, therefor an imbalance can never happen.

Its a really hazy logic chain, and they did (as always) a poor job differentiating battlefield roles, so it can't work out in practice.

There are simply too many weapons that work on basic infantry and heavy infantry and still do chip damage to tanks. And AT weapons that work downward. And anti-aircraft weapons that still do the job at anti infantry or heavy infantry. The roles aren't discrete, so hand-waving balance via weapon roles is a non-starter. But that's what they decided to do regardless.

 stonehorse wrote:
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.

I have never, ever before seen anyone argue that omitting sponsons on a Russ is useful for battlefield footprint and I have to wonder if you really believe that a minutely slimmer profile is just as valuable as a pair of plasma cannons.

I'm pretty okay with taking points off of 'basic gear' (vox, one special weapon per squad, etc) and making sidegrades roughly equivalent and free, but there are a bunch of cases where the option is a straight upgrade with absolutely no downsides and you're a chump for not taking it.

Why would I ever:
-Not take Venom Cannons and Barbed Stranglers on Tyranid Warriors
-Not take one of every weapon upgrade on Wracks
-Not take a plasma pistol on every Guard sergeant and officer who has the option
-Not take hunter-killer missiles on literally every vehicle in my Guard army

Even within the sidegrade options there are some that are clearly not equivalent. Nine times out of ten, a plasma cannon is more useful than a heavy bolter. Points were a useful way to balance this out and give some utility to the less effective or more niche options, and make you think twice about dumping a ton of points into a unit without making it any more durable. For all the claims of reduced lethality that GW has made, we're about to see what happens when there is no reason not to have the absolute best weapons on every unit in the game.

This is an egregious enough issue that it's killed most of my enthusiasm for 10th- I'm not going to expand my armies when I feel railroaded into giving new models all the bells and whistles, let alone with the risk that GW might say 'oops' and add points back, making those configurations so expensive as to be worthless.

I did like the old fluff distinction with regards to sponsons - sponsons were typically on the slow infantry support russes or on the fire support russes (like exterminators) while maneuver russes tended to omit them.

This meant that armored companies, who depended on tanks for maneuver and for fires, would often have more sponsonless tanks than sponsons, while siege regiments or infantry regiments with tanks in support would often include them.

Now? Eh. You can leave the sponsons off if you want. You could also just "counts as" invisible sponsons, too. WYSIWYG is dead.

Voss wrote:
There are simply too many weapons that work on basic infantry and heavy infantry and still do chip damage to tanks. And AT weapons that work downward.

It is ironic that this kind of points system would have worked much better in earlier paper/scissors/stone iterations of the game where paying a flat cost and then picking your weapons on the day would have discouraged many of the skew lists.