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.

ccs wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
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.

Replace 'don't get a few points back' with 'don't get to save a few points' if you're going to hyperfixate on the phrasing. It's the same thing.

Your sergeant was 18pts, and that was cheaper than 18pts + whatever a plasma pistol cost. Come 10th Ed you still have no plasma pistol, but now GW's balancing the unit and points around the assumption you have one, and you don't even get the consolation prize of having the unit cost fewer points than one that does have a plasma pistol.

Karol wrote:

 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.

are there any actual armies LIKE that though Karol? given subfactions have largely been swept away? I know that in prior editions salamnders used flamers better, IFs used bolters better etc, but they're all marines using the gladius detachment right now

BrianDavion wrote:

are there any actual armies LIKE that though Karol? given subfactions have largely been swept away? I know that in prior editions salamnders used flamers better, IFs used bolters better etc, but they're all marines using the gladius detachment right now

Maybe not right now but it'll happen. Might be at the first codex or the traditional GW mid-edition design paradigm shift, but it will come.

EDIT: And actually, some of the Space Marine chapters do basically have that in their detachment rules. Black Templars have 2 vows in their possible choices that just make them flat better in melee by adding extra rules to the melee weapons of Adeptus Astartes units (lethal hits or sustained hits).

Blood Angels all get +1 strength and +1 attack on the charge, which is added to all melee weapons that the unit has.

Space Wolf sagas can also add rules like Sustained Hits and Lethal Hits to melee weapons when they are completed.

So, yes. There are rules that make units in some detachments flat out better than identical units in a different detachment, despite both units costing the same points.

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

That's my point, they didn't & don't. You don't get anything "back" by not upgrading (or taking a lesser upgrade). You just didn't pay as much.
Catbarf is claiming that those of us with Sgts etc wielding Bolt Pistols are being disadvantaged by cheaper plasma pistols because ... well somehow.

Idk about plasma pistols breaking anything but the fact is costs are baked in. Many maybe even all armies have symptoms of that right now.
Tank commanders, scourges, reavers, kabalites all come to mind. Their costs reflect the best upgrades rather than a middle ground or no costs at all.

ccs wrote:

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

That's my point, they didn't & don't. You don't get anything "back" by not upgrading (or taking a lesser upgrade). You just didn't pay as much.
Catbarf is claiming that those of us with Sgts etc wielding Bolt Pistols are being disadvantaged by cheaper plasma pistols because ... well somehow.

You are though. Where previously there was a points differential between two units, now there is none.

Look at it from a different frame of reference. Instead of thinking of it as plasma pistols getting cheaper, instead your bolt pistols have all increased to be the same cost as plasma pistols and this cost is hardcoded into the unit and inescapable. Previously model A cost 15 points, bolt pistol was included in that cost and plasma cost 5 extra. Now that model still costs 15 but plasma costs 0, effectively meaning that the cost to upgrade to plasma is built into that 15 points. That's the same as saying the model costs 10 and both the plasma and bolt pistol each cost 5. The model has had an effective price cut before wargear, which is equal to the cost of the most expensive loadout you could put on that model previously. But you cannot take advantage of that cut because the cost of all weapons has been raised to be equal to the cost of what was the most expensive option previously. So unless you are taking that most expensive loadout, the cost of all of your weapons has been increased relative to before.

Lets look at Crisis suits under this framework to calculate the new base cost of a single crisis suit model with no wargear. In 10th crisis suits costs 65 points per model with 3 guns and a shield generator included. Under the 9th edition points (don't have the errata to hand so we'll go by the numbers in the book), the most expensive gun loadout for a Crisis suit was triple CIB. That wargear (3 CIBs and a shield generator) comes to 60 points. Let's subtract that from the cost of a decked out crisis in 10th to work out how many points we're paying for the base profile before we add wargear. So, we have 65-60=5. 5 points is what crisis suits would have cost in 9th before you added the guns for them to cost the same as they do for an identical loadout in 10th. And we didn't even get to drones which are harder to quantify due to the changes but still I think most people would agree that +2 wounds on an already 4 wound model is worth more than 5 points. In 10th edition, Crisis suits are effectively negative points in cost per model before you pay for wargear if you give them 3 CIBs, a shield generator, and 2 shield drones each. Meanwhile, the person who put 1 Burst Cannon, 1 Plasma Rifle, and 1 Flamer without a sheild generator on their crisis suit was paying 15 points total for those weapons on top of the base cost of the model in 9th. They're paying 65 points in 10th. So under the new rules, their crisis suit effectively costs them 50 points per model before wargear.

I think that demonstrates how utterly fethed this approach to points is.

Man, the more you examine this system the more it reveals how utterly, utterly fethed it is in whole new ways. It's like a fractal of bad game design, you look at one part and an infinitude of new bad decisions spirals out, forever.

ccs wrote:
Catbarf is claiming that those of us with Sgts etc wielding Bolt Pistols are being disadvantaged by cheaper plasma pistols because ... well somehow.

I think it's pretty clear what he's getting at.

It all comes down to one simple immutable truth: Upgrades should cost points. You shouldn't get any upgrade for free.

 catbarf wrote:

ccs wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
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.

Replace 'don't get a few points back' with 'don't get to save a few points' if you're going to hyperfixate on the phrasing. It's the same thing.

Totally not the same thing. I didn't save any pts because the Sgt was already as cheap as the rules allowed.

 catbarf wrote:
Your sergeant was 18pts, and that was cheaper than 18pts + whatever a plasma pistol cost. Come 10th Ed you still have no plasma pistol, but now GW's balancing the unit and points around the assumption you have one, and you don't even get the consolation prize of having the unit cost fewer points than one that does have a plasma pistol.

Yeah, you know what? My Tac squads now cost 175pt for 10 guys. I'm not sweating it that my BP armed Sgt now works out to the ungodly sum of 7.5 pts no matter what he is/isn't equipped with.
And the models been in use for almost 20 years armed with just BP/chainsword - so clearly I'm not concerned that I'm missing the firepower.
What I am slightly annoyed by is the fact that I have to take the full 10 man squad - because it means I can't mount some of them in a Razorback anymore & gives me no reason to buy an Impulsor(?).

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
So, yes. There are rules that make units in some detachments flat out better than identical units in a different detachment, despite both units costing the same points.

I think SW is maligned, because of how hard it seems. At the same time SW can potentially ( though quite unlikely ) achieve all of those Sagas.

There's a fair amount of durability buffs on top of character hunting to encourages you to lunge forward like a Space Wolf might.

There just isn't a lot of room for stuff like that to be effective now with things as wonky as they are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

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

That's my point, they didn't & don't. You don't get anything "back" by not upgrading (or taking a lesser upgrade). You just didn't pay as much.
Catbarf is claiming that those of us with Sgts etc wielding Bolt Pistols are being disadvantaged by cheaper plasma pistols because ... well somehow.

You do lose out...I just don't think a few plasma pistols are shaking the game a ton. Especially now that Hazardous can't be rerolled away. Plasma has never been more of a choice than with these rules.

Obviously you don't have to OC, but it's not wildly better.

ccs wrote:
I didn't save any pts because the Sgt was already as cheap as the rules allowed.

You saved points by not upgrading to a plasma pistol. Now you have to pay a baked-in cost for the plasma pistol you don't get, because GW isn't balancing around naked squads.

You don't get to field the cheap naked sergeant anymore. You get to field a naked sergeant priced as if he had a plasma pistol.

ccs wrote:
Yeah, you know what? My Tac squads now cost 175pt for 10 guys. I'm not sweating it that my BP armed Sgt now works out to the ungodly sum of 7.5 pts no matter what he is/isn't equipped with.

In my Guard army I've got over a dozen characters who could have plasma pistols instead of laspistols. I have multiple tanks that could have sponsons. I have squads that have heavy bolters and not lascannons. I have Sentinels without chainsaws, Chimeras without hunter-killer missiles, infantry squads without heavy weapons, command squads without medics or banners. You really think all of that amounts to nothing?

ccs wrote:
And the models been in use for almost 20 years armed with just BP/chainsword - so clearly I'm not concerned that I'm missing the firepower.

But maybe you are going to notice when you go up against an army built with these points costs in mind, and at 2000pts you're facing what would have been a 2300-2500pt army in prior editions while you still only have 2000pts of stuff.

I don't feel I should have to explicitly say this, but the issue isn't actually just about SM sergeants with plasma pistols.

 catbarf wrote:


I don't feel I should have to explicitly say this, but the issue isn't actually just about SM sergeants with plasma pistols.

This. See my post prior about how some crisis suit loadouts will effectively give you points as the base cost of the model becomes negative once you account for the built in wargear costs if those wargear options are assumed to cost the same as they did in 9th.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 catbarf wrote:


I don't feel I should have to explicitly say this, but the issue isn't actually just about SM sergeants with plasma pistols.

This. See my post prior about how some crisis suit loadouts will effectively give you points as the base cost of the model becomes negative once you account for the built in wargear costs if those wargear options cost the same as they did in 9th.

I think you can reasonably say that a different edition would have different points costs. You can't use 9th costs one-to-one, especially since I don't think anyone took all three of the same weapon on Crisis Suits (mostly because of escalating points costs-which was a fine bit of design).

That being said-the current approach of GW's points is terrible. It's a neat concept to have all heavy weapons equal other heavies, specials equal other specials, so on and so forth... But the execution is awful, and some things are straight upgrades. Sponsons are not equal to not-sponsons, for instance.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 catbarf wrote:


I don't feel I should have to explicitly say this, but the issue isn't actually just about SM sergeants with plasma pistols.

This. See my post prior about how some crisis suit loadouts will effectively give you points as the base cost of the model becomes negative once you account for the built in wargear costs if those wargear options cost the same as they did in 9th.

I think you can reasonably say that a different edition would have different points costs. You can't use 9th costs one-to-one, especially since I don't think anyone took all three of the same weapon on Crisis Suits (mostly because of escalating points costs-which was a fine bit of design).

That being said-the current approach of GW's points is terrible. It's a neat concept to have all heavy weapons equal other heavies, specials equal other specials, so on and so forth... But the execution is awful, and some things are straight upgrades. Sponsons are not equal to not-sponsons, for instance.

I don't see why I can't. The profile of the crisis suit is identical, as is the profile of the weapon short of losing assault (which all crisis weapons did) and the changes to overcharging (EDIT: I also noticed that the base profile did also actually lose a point of AP, so I was wrong here), and the shield generator is also identical.

So, given that we have literally nothing else to base the points on, I think using the previous costs is perfectly acceptable for this demonstration.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You do lose out...I just don't think a few plasma pistols are shaking the game a ton. Especially now that Hazardous can't be rerolled away. Plasma has never been more of a choice than with these rules.

Kinda missing the woods for the trees there, Daed. The issue isn't specific to Plasma Pistols, but Plasma Pistols are indicative of the issue as a whole.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 catbarf wrote:


I don't feel I should have to explicitly say this, but the issue isn't actually just about SM sergeants with plasma pistols.

This. See my post prior about how some crisis suit loadouts will effectively give you points as the base cost of the model becomes negative once you account for the built in wargear costs if those wargear options cost the same as they did in 9th.

I think you can reasonably say that a different edition would have different points costs. You can't use 9th costs one-to-one, especially since I don't think anyone took all three of the same weapon on Crisis Suits (mostly because of escalating points costs-which was a fine bit of design).

That being said-the current approach of GW's points is terrible. It's a neat concept to have all heavy weapons equal other heavies, specials equal other specials, so on and so forth... But the execution is awful, and some things are straight upgrades. Sponsons are not equal to not-sponsons, for instance.

I don't see why I can't. The profile of the crisis suit is identical, as is the profile of the weapon short of losing assault (which all crisis weapons did) and the changes to overcharging, and the shield generator is also identical.

So, given that we have literally nothing else to base the points on, I think using the previous costs is perfectly acceptable for this demonstration.

The whole game changed, though.
A 4++, for instance, is very valuable when your base save is 3+ and AP-2 or better is very common. When AP better than -1 is much more rare, it's not worth as much.

Again, I'll stress that I'm with you on "Upgrades should cost points." I just think your example is not perfect.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 catbarf wrote:


I don't feel I should have to explicitly say this, but the issue isn't actually just about SM sergeants with plasma pistols.

This. See my post prior about how some crisis suit loadouts will effectively give you points as the base cost of the model becomes negative once you account for the built in wargear costs if those wargear options cost the same as they did in 9th.

I think you can reasonably say that a different edition would have different points costs. You can't use 9th costs one-to-one, especially since I don't think anyone took all three of the same weapon on Crisis Suits (mostly because of escalating points costs-which was a fine bit of design).

That being said-the current approach of GW's points is terrible. It's a neat concept to have all heavy weapons equal other heavies, specials equal other specials, so on and so forth... But the execution is awful, and some things are straight upgrades. Sponsons are not equal to not-sponsons, for instance.

I don't see why I can't. The profile of the crisis suit is identical, as is the profile of the weapon short of losing assault (which all crisis weapons did) and the changes to overcharging, and the shield generator is also identical.

So, given that we have literally nothing else to base the points on, I think using the previous costs is perfectly acceptable for this demonstration.

The whole game changed, though.
A 4++, for instance, is very valuable when your base save is 3+ and AP-2 or better is very common. When AP better than -1 is much more rare, it's not worth as much.

Again, I'll stress that I'm with you on "Upgrades should cost points." I just think your example is not perfect.

The shield generator is only 5 points out of the 60. So even if that is free, the base crisis suit is still only 10 points before drones when equipped with 3 CIBs using 9th edition points costs. The costs of 3 CIBs need to have been cut by 20 points total, over one third of what those weapons cost in 9th, before we get the base chassis to the pre-codex-nerf cost of 30 points per model in 10th.

I don't think my points are perfect, due to the changes in 10th, but I think they are close enough to serve as a good demonstration.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You do lose out...I just don't think a few plasma pistols are shaking the game a ton. Especially now that Hazardous can't be rerolled away. Plasma has never been more of a choice than with these rules.

Kinda missing the woods for the trees there, Daed. The issue isn't specific to Plasma Pistols, but Plasma Pistols are indicative of the issue as a whole.

No, I get it. There's definitely degrees. I magnetized my sponsors ages ago, because when you had to draw sight from the gun then paying for the pair could potentially be a waste of points. That dynamic has shifted from even that, but I imagine most people still have sponsons on magnet or sprue.

It's probably why they butchered VV and combi. It dramatically reduces the difference between fully upgraded and not. And also why blasters and inferno Pistols went to D3 from D6.

It's not perfect, but it's probably the only way to make nuPoints work in that context.

But nothing is forcing them to use this style of points.

They could just have units cost points, and upgrades for those units also cost points.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
No, I get it. There's definitely degrees. I magnetized my sponsors ages ago, because when you had to draw sight from the gun then paying for the pair could potentially be a waste of points. That dynamic has shifted from even that, but I imagine most people still have sponsons on magnet or sprue.

Whether they do or not doesn't really matter: A Leman Russ with two sponson heavy bolters is objectively better than one without them... so it should have an associated cost. It doesn't, so it means that:

1. The system is inherently unbalanced, as things that are better do not cost more than things that are worse.
2. Things that do not take them are essentially paying for upgrades they are not using, and that's actually worse.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It's probably why they butchered VV and combi. It dramatically reduces the difference between fully upgraded and not. And also why blasters and inferno Pistols went to D3 from D6.

I think they butchered combi-weapons because they've learnt the wrong lessons from 9th and didn't understand what people actually meant by "reduce bloat".

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It's not perfect, but it's probably the only way to make nuPoints work in that context.

I'd argue they don't work, regardless of how one might spin it. And don't call them points. It's Power Level with the serial numbers filed off.

we have seen during 7th edition how well the "a few free items won't shake up the game" went

not using points for upgrades is not reducing the amount of "math" but increase it
before your upgrades had points you could assume that they are priced right and 10 points extra are worth it
now you pay for the unit and need to figure out which upgrade is the best so you make the most out of the points you pay

but this is the main problem with GW, each time they are told that the game is too complicated and there is too much bloat their execution of their solution results in the opposite

Well, that's why I say nuPoints.

Nothing you said is wrong, but at the same time I think it's possible to adapt.

I'll give acolytes as an example.

In a mining tool unit you have 4 tools and an icon. That leaves 5 spots for hand flamers, but taking flamers on that unit is irrelevant. You don't want to deepstrike and make your charge range longer. The autopistol mooks are there to take hits and get rezzed.

An acolyte unit that wants to shoot has all flamers. You don't really want mining tools in there. You want max overwatch potential.

So people can reorganize into melee or shooting units. Yes, this removes the choice of tools and flamers, but it let's you make a single price for the unit. ( and I think most people were organized this way already ).

Was it the right thing to do? Dunno. I'm not sure people were getting much out of an experience juggling a hand flamer or two with spare points. And the folks who jumped on the flamer craze still have a capable unit. I know some people will be lost in the gaps though and that jankier scenarios exist.

I'm not defending all the changes. I'm just approaching a problem with the most effective solution I can find

I have played since 3rd ed 1997 and for me list building and converting has always been something I have liked.

The new simplified say of taking increments of units does not appeal to me, except when playing with my kids. Power level/open war was great when learning 5-10 year olds.

I also do not like unit sizes and options being decided by box contents. I rarely build something out of the box. I feel this is a move that helps new players but deter us hobbyists with long experience and big collections.

Balance wise I fear most players will take the "best" loadouts since you don't save points on taking a slightly less competitive weapon. I foresee more lascannons and less heavy Bolters/autocannon in Imperial speak. Which reduces richness in variation.

The removal of FOC might also lead to less taking of troops, given most stronger units seem to have OC values too. We'll see. I don't like spam/skew lists.

of course it is possible to adept, but I won't do anything until I get the Codex for my factions

just not trusting GW here and I am not in the mood to change everything twice within a year

and it is not like as such an approach can work really well
AoS does it, KoW does it, why should it not work for 40k (well, the reason why it won't work for 40k is that GW does not cut down on units on the one side but also does not want to make several unit entries with points for the basic options, like 2 datacards without side weapons for LRBT with similar turret weapons grouped into 1 card, and 2 datacards with side weapons, having 4 that would cost different amount of points)

 kodos wrote:
we have seen during 7th edition how well the "a few free items won't shake up the game" went

This is not that though. This is, at worst, overpaying.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 kodos wrote:
we have seen during 7th edition how well the "a few free items won't shake up the game" went

This is not that though. This is, at worst, overpaying.

Considering the Pts on some units... cough prisms and wraithknight cough i am not certain it's just "overpaying", even tough units with options certainly seem to be looking at that problem.

The approach has been weirdly inconsistent.

Neophytes had all their unit leader's pistol options condensed into a "Leader Pistol" - even though those weapons had different niches and weren't direct upgrades.

I'm not sure why that wasn't done with AM Infantry Squads when the Plasma Pistol is a straight upgrade over the Las Pistol in every circumstance. Why not just have a "Sergeant Pistol" to match how GSC and other armies work?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 catbarf wrote:


I don't feel I should have to explicitly say this, but the issue isn't actually just about SM sergeants with plasma pistols.

This. See my post prior about how some crisis suit loadouts will effectively give you points as the base cost of the model becomes negative once you account for the built in wargear costs if those wargear options are assumed to cost the same as they did in 9th.

For basic infantry the Votann Hearthkyn really stand out. 10 of those bodies aren't worth 135 points. Not a chance.

2 (different, sigh) special weapons, sgt melee weapon, sgt plasma pistol, ignore cover, FNP 6+, and chance to get CP. That's all part of the cost for the unit (and I'm still not convinced they're worth 135).
Not taking all of the upgrades is a huge blow to the unit.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 kodos wrote:
we have seen during 7th edition how well the "a few free items won't shake up the game" went

This is not that though. This is, at worst, overpaying.

it is just the Index yet, wait and see

 westiebestie wrote:
I have played since 3rd ed 1997 and for me list building and converting has always been something I have liked.

Agree

The new simplified say of taking increments of units does not appeal to me, except when playing with my kids. Power level/open war was great when learning 5-10 year olds.

It is simplified, but it's deeper than it seems.

I also do not like unit sizes and options being decided by box contents. I rarely build something out of the box. I feel this is a move that helps new players but deter us hobbyists with long experience and big collections.

Yes, it's certainly geared for easier decisions there. It might even encourage the piles of shame to get built. I don't have to stress if a heavy weapon in a CSM squad will be worthwhile. Now it's just which weapon. Vehicle sponsons will still be magnetized. It's mostly Orks that become static on some of their stuff.

Balance wise I fear most players will take the "best" loadouts since you don't save points on taking a slightly less competitive weapon.

That's what they've always done, but that "best" loadout is between anti-tank / anti-horde / anti-elite instead of "this unit purely exists to fill a slot and I stripped all the upgrades from it so I could maximize my points elsewhere".

The removal of FOC might also lead to less taking of troops, given most stronger units seem to have OC values too. We'll see. I don't like spam/skew lists.

Which is the purpose for everything getting special rules and characters attaching to units. People were upset about character restrictions -- because really what many want to do is stick the most powerful buff in the most powerful unit. Now you pick a unit because it serves a role not because it fulfills the checklist.

I think the only real downside with having upgrades free is that it doesn't enable GW to sell you multiples of a single kit just to have every single permutation. I am actually amazed that GW doesn't have the tools to farm their players financially about intricate miniature details in the same way as before.

For players it will continue as before: The optimal build is always the best build. Choice is an illusion, something something something free will.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The new simplified say of taking increments of units does not appeal to me, except when playing with my kids. Power level/open war was great when learning 5-10 year olds.

It is simplified, but it's deeper than it seems.

I honestly believe that anyone who does not like the new unit sizes is not a fan of meaningful choices. When you can't snugly fit what you like MSU style everywhere you are more often than not forced to think what you are going for. It's one of the things I love(as well as frustrates me) in AoS. I can't just take exactly what I want and play around the system. I must commit to a choice and deal with the consequences. I was in an autumn league last autumn and my AoS list changed so much more than my 40k lists. Because if I had to change something in AoS it meant I would have to reorganize my entire army instead of snugly fitting something into an open slot.

And honestly, I do get the feeling a lot of players want the illusion of meaningful choices, but not actually have meaningful choices. Most of the upgrades used to give the illusion of choice, and people felt good about it. They thought that they unlocked some Tessaract vault by pinpointing the optimal loadout and combo, even if thousands of players had netlisted that exact thing themselves, but the illusion was there, and it felt good; almost like a miniature game skinner box.

Now, people might say I am harsh, but I have also been playing since 2nd edition and it's always about the optimal choice in each edition, which usually meant barebone squads with the occasional plasma or whatever the math showed was the next best thing. It also meant that with every new edition players would have to go buy more models to fill their shelves to get what was hot then or languish with a subpar model. Here is the tricky part though, and probably why GW decided to take this direction: 3D printing entered the game, along with a plethora of 3rd party printer shops and resin casters. Suddenly the old guard was buying all their upgrades and alternatives elsewhere, meaning that all those nice options GW was trying to sell you was probably being funneled more to shops that weren't GW. Although this is a conjecture on my part I wouldn't be too surprised either considering GW does not like that other manufacturers are playing in their own pool.

Also, I'd argue that the upgrade issue is more of a Space Marine issue than anything else. D&D 40k: Space Marine is real, and hangs around GW's neck like a 20 year old dead Albatross.