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.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


EDIT:
Speaking of invisible differences, the Land Raiders are different speeds. The classic Lascannon loadout has a move of 10", while the Crusader and Redeemer have a move of 12". Huh.

They really must have split up the designers and handed them an alphabetical list with breakpoints between the land raiders and other units.... And then banished each of the designers in a room on a diffrent floor and with strict prohibition to speak to one another.

How else do you reach something like this. And it isn't the only exemple, the Eldar have something similar with fireprisms and another unit.

Or crusader being more of assault version classically represents that by greater speed?

Less weight due to lack of energy generators for 4 lascannons.

 kodos wrote:
back in the days Landspeeder hat 3 weapons to chose from in any combination and 1 weapon as add-on

you could run flamer/melta/bolter+flamer/melta/bolter or flamer/melta/bolter+rocket launcher/assault cannon

now we have a Datacard for Bolter/Melter+Melta
one for Bolter+assault cannon or melta+assault cannon or melta+flamer
and one for bolter+rocket launcher or melta+rocket launcher

players are not happy with any option, having only 1 and paying points for weapons not taken, or having multiple cards with fixed loadouts

So, the total number of unique loadouts for those old landspeeders (going from the 5th edition codex as it is what I have to hand) was:

1) Heavy Bolter
2) Heavy Bolter and Missile launcher
3) Heavy Bolter and Heavy Flamer
4) Heavy Bolter and Heavy Bolter
5) Heavy Bolter and Multi-Melta
6) Heavy Bolter and Assault Cannon
7) H. Flamer
8) H. Flamer and Missile Launcher
9) H. Flamer and Multi-Melta
10) H. Flamer and H. Flamer
11) H. Flamer and A. Cannon
11) Multi-Melta
12) Multi-Melta and Missile Launcher
13) Multi-Melta and Multi-Melta
14) Multi-Melta and A. Cannon

14 unique loadouts possible. Not bad, but less than half of the 35 available from, again, just the weapons in the Crisis Suit kit which is ignoring any weapon options not in the kit but available to the unit (CIB and Frag), and other wargear choices such as support systems and shield generators.

the sensible way is to have a unit, and to have upgrades, with point values for that upgrade on that unit, this is where 8th fell over trying to have a fixed cost for a weapon without considering what it it did platform by platform

you can then have stuff like

may take weapon A for 10 points
may take weapon B for 10 points
may take both weapons A and B for 25 points

as well as disallowing some combinations or whatever is needed for that specific unit

ditto say only allowing any unit card to be taken once and once only, but the card indicating how many units you can have, e.g. for say a tank

[i]may take one of these tanks for 100 points
may take two individual units of of these tanks for 210 points
may take one unit of two tanks for 190 points

etc.

thus you can say allow a unit of snipers, for a cost, but brining two such units, while more flexible, costs you more

this sort of thing is apparently far too complicated these days

leopard wrote:
the sensible way is to have a unit, and to have upgrades, with point values for that upgrade on that unit, this is where 8th fell over trying to have a fixed cost for a weapon without considering what it it did platform by platform

They had variable weapon costs back in 3rd Edition. Heavy Weapons had a higher cost in a Dev Squad than they did in a Tactical Squad. Didn't make a lot of sense then, still doesn't today.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

leopard wrote:
the sensible way is to have a unit, and to have upgrades, with point values for that upgrade on that unit, this is where 8th fell over trying to have a fixed cost for a weapon without considering what it it did platform by platform

They had variable weapon costs back in 3rd Edition. Heavy Weapons had a higher cost in a Dev Squad than they did in a Tactical Squad. Didn't make a lot of sense then, still doesn't today.

Yeah, that case didn't make sense as Devs had nothing that actually made the weapons better on that chassis than it was on tacticals. They should cost the same given that.

They had this exact thing in the Tau 9th edition codex. Some weapons were more expensive for the Commanders to take than they were for crisis suit teams. The Commander had better ballistic skill (2+), so got more value out of a one shot fusion blaster than the BS4+ Crisis suit, and so the cost was higher. The trick is getting the balance right between the two.
In a similar vein, flamers cost the exact same on both, as the commander had no advantage using it over crisis suits, as it ignored BS.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

leopard wrote:
the sensible way is to have a unit, and to have upgrades, with point values for that upgrade on that unit, this is where 8th fell over trying to have a fixed cost for a weapon without considering what it it did platform by platform

They had variable weapon costs back in 3rd Edition. Heavy Weapons had a higher cost in a Dev Squad than they did in a Tactical Squad. Didn't make a lot of sense then, still doesn't today.

I would say a marine tactical squad and a marine devastator squad likely would and should have the same cost for say a laser cannon, the guy carrying it is the same and while the tac squad gets one and the dev squad can get four that is countered in other ways as they borderline have different roles (one being a gun battery to take down larger things, the other more useful to finish things off and generally support the squad its in)

I would however suggest that say a power fist should cost more on a terminator than a marine, due to the survivability of the platform, and should cost more on a character with a higher SW and more attacks

it is entirely situational, which is why is should be on the profile, then you get a higher cost, or even a reduced one, on units that can get more or less utility from an option

you also can play into the law of diminishing returns, e.g. maybe the third tactical squad should cost slightly less than the first two, and the forth slightly less again, ditto how HH used to do it where the squad had a cost per model, but the cost to add models to the squad was lower

Only way I see it working for older players is if WYSIWYG is done away with. Kinda sad but maybe it will open up modeling opertunity.

Boosykes wrote:
Only way I see it working for older players is if WYSIWYG is done away with. Kinda sad but maybe it will open up modeling opertunity.

Unclear why people keep insisting WYSIWYG is going away, both players still need to be able to identify what weapon models have.
This is especially true for units that can't have 'two of the same' special weapon.

Voss wrote:

Boosykes wrote:
Only way I see it working for older players is if WYSIWYG is done away with. Kinda sad but maybe it will open up modeling opertunity.

Unclear why people keep insisting WYSIWYG is going away, both players still need to be able to identify what weapon models have.
This is especially true for units that can't have 'two of the same' special weapon.

I suspect this is aimed purely so those who have already built armies can compete with the "SPAM EVERYTHINGZ!!!" newer armies, presumably until some semblance of sanity returns with some sort of restrictions

when there will be the same level of screaming from those who added every single bit of bling they could find and now find it costs points

personally it doesn't overly bother me, all I generally as if someone is proxying one weapon as another is that they are consistent about it (e.g. in my HH army all the plasma pistol models are actually hand flamers)

Voss wrote:

Boosykes wrote:
Only way I see it working for older players is if WYSIWYG is done away with. Kinda sad but maybe it will open up modeling opertunity.

Unclear why people keep insisting WYSIWYG is going away, both players still need to be able to identify what weapon models have.
This is especially true for units that can't have 'two of the same' special weapon.

I think for anything with an option, yes. For things like the battlewagon where most upgrades are additive, then by all means just make it base profile then apply wysiwyg once you change the turret from the default weapon. or have "battlewagon weapon" if so inclined.

So you lot have spent the last few years arguing that GW is too lazy/stupid/bad at balancing things & haven't been happy with any combo of pts for the different weapon options.....

And GW literally confirmed it with their comments on the coming Legends of the Heresy.

But you still expect them to chase that Grail for another 3 years?

Why? What results do you think you'd get?

ccs wrote:
So you lot have spent the last few years arguing that GW is too lazy/stupid/bad at balancing things & haven't been happy with any combo of pts for the different weapon options.....

And GW literally confirmed it with their comments on the coming Legends of the Heresy.

But you still expect them to chase that Grail for another 3 years?

Why? What results do you think you'd get?

Who knows. I expected them to dum-dum down a lot of options which some of them they did (combi-weapons, melee weapons on nid warriors) then the vast majority they did not (Nid warrior ranged weapons, melee weapons on assault squads). The former can have single point values IF the options that do remain, they of parity in terms of worth. If they not, or in the case of the latter where there are designated "better" options, you need points.

I want them to see either option to the end. They have not committed to anything so far, which is why there are issues.

I really hate what they did with Leman Russ wargear.
We didn't get free war gear.
We got forced to pay for maxed out war gear.

Nobody every bought hunter killer missiles.
Heavy stubbers were a "If you have 5 points left over" type deal.
Multimelta sponsons were a situational thing, because putting that many points into a chassis was risky.

Now you have to pay for all of that, and in some cases pay a little extra more for some abilities.

The Tank Commander now cost 240 points, that's more than a Repulsor Executioner.

240 points just to give a single tank (NOT THE TANK COMMANDER THEMSELF) an order, is waaay too high.
And compounding that with a the +1 order enhancement is just making the concentration of points an even riskier proposition, though it's approaching the level of a necessary risk.

I much prefer the old setup. Some units don't need all the bells and whistles, keep them cheap.
Other's need to be pimped out deathstars, make them expensive.

Dudeface wrote:

ccs wrote:
So you lot have spent the last few years arguing that GW is too lazy/stupid/bad at balancing things & haven't been happy with any combo of pts for the different weapon options.....

And GW literally confirmed it with their comments on the coming Legends of the Heresy.

But you still expect them to chase that Grail for another 3 years?

Why? What results do you think you'd get?

Who knows. I expected them to dum-dum down a lot of options which some of them they did (combi-weapons, melee weapons on nid warriors) then the vast majority they did not (Nid warrior ranged weapons, melee weapons on assault squads). The former can have single point values IF the options that do remain, they of parity in terms of worth. If they not, or in the case of the latter where there are designated "better" options, you need points.

I want them to see either option to the end. They have not committed to anything so far, which is why there are issues.

This is going to turn into one of those "I told you so" things I mentioned in the likes/dislikes thread.
So let's get on with it....
YES, they have committed to something: Your options/upgrades cost zero pts.
This is how it works in Sigmar. This is how it worked with PL. This is what they showed you was coming with that pts update that came out along side Arks. At the very least you could see it coming months away. Now it's here in full.
And it's not going away. At least not in 10e.
Go ahead, file this away under I-Told-You-So.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

leopard wrote:
the sensible way is to have a unit, and to have upgrades, with point values for that upgrade on that unit, this is where 8th fell over trying to have a fixed cost for a weapon without considering what it it did platform by platform

They had variable weapon costs back in 3rd Edition. Heavy Weapons had a higher cost in a Dev Squad than they did in a Tactical Squad. Didn't make a lot of sense then, still doesn't today.

I'd argue the different point costs made alot of sense at the time, because units couldn't split fire and couldn't move and fire with Heavy weapons. A single Lascannon in a squad primarily equipped for battleline anti-infantry work is not worth as much as in a unit that's going to spend much of the battle being static and concentrated on AT/AMC work. The Devastator squad is going to be firing those Lascannons all game. The Tac squad will maybe shoot it twice, but then be involved in advancing, CC, or maneuvering firefights. And if it did stand still, sure the Lascannon can fire all game but the Bolters will often be wasted, not getting their full potential value.

The points costs worked because of the paradigm they were under.

ccs wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

ccs wrote:
So you lot have spent the last few years arguing that GW is too lazy/stupid/bad at balancing things & haven't been happy with any combo of pts for the different weapon options.....

And GW literally confirmed it with their comments on the coming Legends of the Heresy.

But you still expect them to chase that Grail for another 3 years?

Why? What results do you think you'd get?

Who knows. I expected them to dum-dum down a lot of options which some of them they did (combi-weapons, melee weapons on nid warriors) then the vast majority they did not (Nid warrior ranged weapons, melee weapons on assault squads). The former can have single point values IF the options that do remain, they of parity in terms of worth. If they not, or in the case of the latter where there are designated "better" options, you need points.

I want them to see either option to the end. They have not committed to anything so far, which is why there are issues.

This is going to turn into one of those "I told you so" things I mentioned in the likes/dislikes thread.
So let's get on with it....
YES, they have committed to something: Your options/upgrades cost zero pts.
This is how it works in Sigmar. This is how it worked with PL. This is what they showed you was coming with that pts update that came out along side Arks. At the very least you could see it coming months away. Now it's here in full.
And it's not going away. At least not in 10e.
Go ahead, file this away under I-Told-You-So.

I agree entirely, but they haven't seen it through in making things worth no points. They didn't even half and half. Ap were stuck with this frankenstein not-solution for a few years now.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
*shrug* You get what you paid for?

Honestly, GW has never really been good evaluating points as it is. And the mathhammer folks have been too good at squeezing every ounce out point disparities as it is. This rules and balance thing isn't GW's main gig, they just want you to buy (lots) of their cool models.

Now the pressure is on not to optimize too hard. If you do with the current point scale, you're going to run out of people who want to play against you mighty quick. It's an insidious but ingenious way to force the community to not take the game too seriously.

Huh? Isn't it the other way around now?
You might not have picked the best option (e.g. a flamer), but at least you didn't pay as much points for it? Now you have a worse loadout and not even get compensated for it.

First off, I don't agree with what GW has done, I think it's extremely lazy. If their going to offer/sell these rules, figuring this stuff out is their job, not something to brush off or push off to the player base.

However, I can't count the number of times people were already complaining that points weren't right for this option or that and not worth/too efficient for their cost, so does it really matter for this version or not? If you take a TAC list, it'll probably balance out.

As someone else mentioned, this really hurts the people who aren't familiar with the "true value" of different options or loadout and don't realize they're underloading or overloading their roster. The ones who mathhammer their armies are the ones who are going to have to learn moderation or risk having no one willing to play with them.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

leopard wrote:
the sensible way is to have a unit, and to have upgrades, with point values for that upgrade on that unit, this is where 8th fell over trying to have a fixed cost for a weapon without considering what it it did platform by platform

They had variable weapon costs back in 3rd Edition. Heavy Weapons had a higher cost in a Dev Squad than they did in a Tactical Squad. Didn't make a lot of sense then, still doesn't today.

I'd argue the different point costs made alot of sense at the time, because units couldn't split fire and couldn't move and fire with Heavy weapons. A single Lascannon in a squad primarily equipped for battleline anti-infantry work is not worth as much as in a unit that's going to spend much of the battle being static and concentrated on AT/AMC work. The Devastator squad is going to be firing those Lascannons all game. The Tac squad will maybe shoot it twice, but then be involved in advancing, CC, or maneuvering firefights. And if it did stand still, sure the Lascannon can fire all game but the Bolters will often be wasted, not getting their full potential value.

The points costs worked because of the paradigm they were under.

I disagree. Devastators paid the price of being able to take multiple big guns by being a heavy support slot, taking up one of only 3 you would have access to. You are effectively taking a Tac squad that, for the price of taking one third of your heavy slots, can take 4 heavy weapons in a 5 man squad and loses access to special weapons. The guns didn't need to cost more on top of that.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

leopard wrote:
the sensible way is to have a unit, and to have upgrades, with point values for that upgrade on that unit, this is where 8th fell over trying to have a fixed cost for a weapon without considering what it it did platform by platform

They had variable weapon costs back in 3rd Edition. Heavy Weapons had a higher cost in a Dev Squad than they did in a Tactical Squad. Didn't make a lot of sense then, still doesn't today.

I'd argue the different point costs made alot of sense at the time, because units couldn't split fire and couldn't move and fire with Heavy weapons. A single Lascannon in a squad primarily equipped for battleline anti-infantry work is not worth as much as in a unit that's going to spend much of the battle being static and concentrated on AT/AMC work. The Devastator squad is going to be firing those Lascannons all game. The Tac squad will maybe shoot it twice, but then be involved in advancing, CC, or maneuvering firefights. And if it did stand still, sure the Lascannon can fire all game but the Bolters will often be wasted, not getting their full potential value.

The points costs worked because of the paradigm they were under.

I disagree. Devastators paid the price of being able to take multiple big guns by being a heavy support slot, taking up one of only 3 you would have access to. You are effectively taking a Tac squad that, for the price of taking one third of your heavy slots, can take 4 heavy weapons in a 5 man squad and loses access to special weapons. The guns didn't need to cost more on top of that.

Disagree, because if Lascannons only cost 15 points for Devastators they'd be way too good. And if Lascannons cost 35 points on Tacticals they wouldn't be worth it.

Could there have been a happy medium? Probably not without having knock-on effects with other competing units. Making them cost different works fine. I don't see the issue with it either, everyone should know that the worth of equipment is variable when applied to different contexts.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
So, which of those is the "correct" loadout for the points cost of the unit, where it is supposedly balanced against other equivalently costed units in a similar role and I am not being TFG by taking the piss with all the free wargear that I can take?

Gee, I don't think the system works.

The model with everything, allegedly. I doubt that's true everywhere but you can clearly see the intent comparing some specific units; legionaries costing more than rubric marines is laughable at first blush but does make sense if you assume the legionaries are fully kitted out.

Overall, I really like how things are done. I think in most cases making things function different is better than trying to make them equal via points. Similarly I think toys costing boys was always a tough sell and I think the game is more interesting when its options are readily avialable.

That said, not EVERYTHING is sunshine and rainbows. Sometimes it makes sense just to have a super power thing and while a lot of them are done well here, there are definitely options that just aren't cutting it. I think though, part of me is taking heavy solice in the knowledge that the exact same issue would be true with points, just for different reasons.

Not Online!!! wrote:
...handed them an alphabetical list with breakpoints between the land raiders and other units....

I think you mean breakpowerlevels.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

The model with everything, allegedly. I doubt that's true everywhere but you can clearly see the intent comparing some specific units; legionaries costing more than rubric marines is laughable at first blush but does make sense if you assume the legionaries are fully kitted out.

Yet somehow 1ksons are much better as an index army, then chaos. Just plain more efficient. Plus there are armies that don't options, or didn't have options. Or the options were just bad, and often stayed bad in the codex. Then a streamline system like that, especialy when some factions are undercosted, does not end with fun games. You just like feel, as if the othe side had a few hundred points extra. And it get really bad, if your army pulled the short one rules wise in 10th.

There's a lot more to Thousand Sons being strong than Rubrics costing one less than Legionaries. I don't think CSM is totally woeful either, though obviously a lot of meta perceptions are gonna be distorted right now because of Eldar existing.

 Stormonu wrote:
However, I can't count the number of times people were already complaining that points weren't right for this option or that and not worth/too efficient for their cost, so does it really matter for this version or not? If you take a TAC list, it'll probably balance out.

Let's say we have a character who has a bolt pistol and can optionally take a plasma pistol. Let's say the plasma pistol is objectively, according to critical consensus of a million billion competitive players backed up by Deep Blue, worth 5pts.

GW can't balance worth a damn. So they initially set it at 8pts. The competitive players complain that the plasma pistol is never worthwhile and don't use it. The casual players might take it and overpay a bit, and in return for the points their unit becomes more powerful.

GW rebalances to 3pts. The competitive players consider plasma pistols an auto-take. But for casual players who don't have one modeled, hey, you save 3pts.

GW unveils 10th and now the plasma pistol is 0pts. The competitive players will take plasma pistols because duh, you'd be a moron not to. But the casual players who have bolt pistols don't get a few points back like before; they get nothing.

We all know GW sucks at balancing. The problem is that this makes it worse. Instead of having choices that aren't cost-efficient or are too cost-efficient, you have these no-brainer choices where there's no reason whatsoever not to take the more powerful option.

It's not an alternative and it's not a solution. It's the same system- we're still using points- except erring on the side of under-valuing options; the game design equivalent of just circling 'A' for every answer so you can get the test over with. I would much rather have sloppy, half-assed points values rounded to the nearest 5 than for everything to simply be free, because then at least some attempt was made.

And there's no reason why having points costs for significant upgrades can't coexist with the sidegrade system. Special weapons can stay free if they're all balanced against one another. It's the things like thunder hammers, venom cannons, plasma pistols, or sponson guns that represent clear upgrades with no downside and really ought to have some associated cost.

And it's not like it is just a single plasma pistol. I could have over a dozen different sergeants/officers that can take plasma pistols now. That is a significant change, especially as I have nowhere near enough plasma pistols to replace them.

Not that I would rip my models up like that, but I shouldn't even feel forced to.

 Trickstick wrote:
And it's not like it is just a single plasma pistol. I could have over a dozen different sergeants/officers that can take plasma pistols now. That is a significant change, especially as I have nowhere near enough plasma pistols to replace them.

Not that I would rip my models up like that, but I shouldn't even feel forced to.

Even worse since the squads are priced at full and KT is a thing, KT squads have significantly MORE options to slap on that are already priced in.
Hence why Legionaires, despite being nothing more than tacs, just baseline cost way more.

 catbarf wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
However, I can't count the number of times people were already complaining that points weren't right for this option or that and not worth/too efficient for their cost, so does it really matter for this version or not? If you take a TAC list, it'll probably balance out.

GW rebalances to 3pts. The competitive players consider plasma pistols an auto-take. But for casual players who don't have one modeled, hey, you save 3pts.

GW unveils 10th and now the plasma pistol is 0pts. The competitive players will take plasma pistols because duh, you'd be a moron not to. But the casual players who have bolt pistols don't get a few points back like before; they get nothing.

I'm a purely casual player and I've never gotten any pts back for taking/just having a Bolt Pistol. (in some cases, with my Guard over the years that BP actually cost me a pt or so!)
My SM tac squad sgt? He didn't get any cheaper because I opted to not up-grade him. I still spent the same base 18pts or whatever on him. Meanwhile that Sgt I did give a plasma pistol to? He cost me extra.

Why would the Sergeant get cheaper because you chose not to upgrade him?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Why would the Sergeant get cheaper because you chose not to upgrade him?

Becuase the unit over all cost is based around the idea that you are taking every possible upgrade. That is how you end up with some armies having very high cost units. Problem with that is, aside for not everyone wanting to rebuild entire units or buy replacements of identical units, is that it doesn't care what ever the upgrade is worth taking or not. So army wise, the upgrade isn't "free" because it is backed in to a unit cost. You wouldn't want a long range support squad have an upped cost of the unit over all, because the box include a powerfist/claw/etc option. It is also bad for internal balance between similar factions. Lets say faction X is better with a specific weapon, normaly the weapon isn't optimal, but the army can make it work, through a combination of extra rules and lets say the option being cheaper, it was less optimal. Now if the most optimal option costs the same, then the special rule of the faction doesn't matter, because the correct way would be to take the most optimal option. Now later on a codex can fix that, but with how updates look in w40k, this can mean a 2+ year wait time.