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.

GW has always had a marketing strategy heavily based on word of mouth. That makes existing player perception more important to them than it would be for other companies.

Feel this is kind of chicken and egg.

Content creators are good for marketing - but they can only sustain themselves as businesses because people will watch their stuff. Right now there's clearly a market for people to watch 40k videos - and people fill that niche. If they quit 40k, others are likely to fill their shoes. Some of the audience might go "sure, I'd watch even if you became a LotR/Battletech/MTG channel" but a lot would go "nah, I'm here to watch 40k, I'm out."

If the playerbase as a whole goes "40k sucks, I'm off" - then that sector will contract. This can happen quite suddenly, as creators try to stick it out, then all give up the ghost together.

Tbh all the arguments about PL have been made. I personally don't mind the rules reflecting what's "in the box".

I think trying to argue that 10 guardsmen with lasguns is functionally the same as 10 guardsmen but the unit has a melta gun and a lascannon is silly. It isn't. One a one-off basis its probably not deciding games - but across a whole army, it will clearly add up.

If however these come in the box, its not an unreasonable assumption that the unit will have a special weapon and a heavy weapon. In turn, you can then balance these weapons such that a melta gun isn't miles better in all circumstances than a flamer etc. So the argument becomes whether "flamer/HB" is worth +/- the same as "melta/Lascannon". And while I don't think we are there, its not conceptually impossible to imagine you could be. At which point "free wargear" is not really a problem, beyond the desire to not take these weapons for aesthetic reasons I guess.

Its sort of the same argument as "but I liked taking minimal sized units for 5 guys to act as chaff, they did that job really well" - "but now you can't".

Unfortunately you've then got the Combat Patrol rules going "you should this loadout of limited special options" and then "proper 40k rules" are saying "take all the options, we don't care". Probably because different people handled them or something - but its incoherent.

Which is the problem with trying to defend anything GW does with rules. There's no guiding philosophy - its just arbitrary and inconsistent choices all the way down. I wouldn't be surprised at all if in a year or so they bring back points for wargear. And possibly upgraded psychic powers. And all the bloat from 9th etc. They might become more restrictive on bringing all the options in a unit again - but I doubt it partly due to the "Scatbike" precedent.

when I picked up the Burning of Prospero box (twice) it was notable that the suggested loadouts for the scenarios presented were not going to create 30k legal units

it was also notable that there was not actual "build this way to play the games in this box" guide, so no real idea of how many of what to build

built them all as tactical squads in the end, 15 man ones, plus some 5 man support units

the idea that whats in the box isn't a legal army is not new, the idea that its suggested to make none game legal units is perhaps slightly more cynical of GW

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But at the end, these are upgrades. They make units [u]better[/i] than they were. They should cost points.

As far as I can understand it, the argument is that units should be good as standard and as such all "upgrades" are expected and should be an innate (free) part of the unit. It is just not spelled out on the datasheets because that much handholding would really nudge people the wrong way.

We still don’t know this is the 10th Ed approach, because we’re yet to see a Codex.

Consider, getting all these cards done and release at the same time is a different job to working on a single Codex and its own constituent parts.

I am absolutely happy to be proven wrong in due course, but calling these cards the final evidence is simply erroneous.

And if it is? Do we still have the significant differences in utility across the weapon options open to a given unit? I genuinely don’t know, as I’ve only really looked at the Tyranid data sheets, and never mind 10th, I lack understanding and experience of 7th, 8th and indeed 9th Ed.

If that difference is less pronounced, then the unit points quite likely incorporate those upgrades as something you were going to take anyway, there being little to no disadvantage in doing so.

I suspect the few few codexes will be remarkably similar to this, as they will have been locked down months ago and are likely already on their way here from China, if not already here

it will, as usual, all turn upside down about the 4th or 5th book released

and as for the utility of the upgrades and the cost in effect being baked in, it works for some things but not others, the problem is when as HMBC notes one option is stand out better than the others in the majority of cases, if thats not what GW have baked in problems will occur

I mean now its not "is it worth upgrading this bolt pistol?" its "which upgrade will I take?"

chaos0xomega wrote:

Now across an entire army of upgrades? Sure that might run away from you a bit, 2 extra pts of damage becomes 20 - but both parties have equal access to it...

That's a lie.
Necrons, for example, don't have anywhere near the same access to Free Stuff as Marines have, as they have few upgrade options for their units.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Now across an entire army of upgrades? Sure that might run away from you a bit, 2 extra pts of damage becomes 20 - but both parties have equal access to it...

That's a lie.
Necrons, for example, don't have anywhere near the same access to Free Stuff as Marines have, as they have few upgrade options for their units.

But there you have the unwritten seeming assumption the points for Necrons and Marines don’t reflect those options or lack thereof.

This is a FOIP matter, because we will need game time experience to understand the balance.

They really shouldn't be referred to as free upgrades, as the word "free" shapes the thought around the subject in a certain way. You see this when you buy products with free add-ons, when it is just a promotion that is factored into the price.

They are pre-paid upgrades.

 Trickstick wrote:
They are pre-paid upgrades.

I would say they are Mandatory-by-Intent-Upgrades. Them being pre-paid is really just a means to an end here.

Yeah but you are never going to get mandatory-by-intent-upgrades past the marketing committee.

 Trickstick wrote:
Yeah but you are never going to get mandatory-by-intent-upgrades past the marketing committee.

Probably that's why they officially call it Simplified Not Simple.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
Yeah but you are never going to get mandatory-by-intent-upgrades past the marketing committee.

Probably that's why they officially call it Simplified Not Simple.

"Simplified not simple" is also just the corporations version of less effort for product.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Now across an entire army of upgrades? Sure that might run away from you a bit, 2 extra pts of damage becomes 20 - but both parties have equal access to it...

That's a lie.
Necrons, for example, don't have anywhere near the same access to Free Stuff as Marines have, as they have few upgrade options for their units.

But there you have the unwritten seeming assumption the points for Necrons and Marines don’t reflect those options or lack thereof.

This is a FOIP matter, because we will need game time experience to understand the balance.

I see two options here*:

1. Marines are costed as if paying for the most expensive upgrades they could take (and are therefore penalized for taking less). Say 200pts for 10 dudes + 50 for a plasmagun+lascannon (or whatever), a total of 250. Necrons are also costed as if taking the most expensive upgrade, but they have less expensive upgrades. Say 200pts for 10 warriors + 10 for zappier rayguns, a total of 210. If I take a barebones marine squad I'm overpaying by 50 pts, while the necron barebones unit is overpaying by 10pts in this scenario. The marine player is 40 pts worse off than the necron player, but both are hurting themselves. The price of being a filthy casual, I guess.

2. Marines are costed for the barebones squad and all weapons are free, same for the necrons. The result is the opposite from the scenario above. The marines are getting 40pts more free stuff by kitting out their unit with all the bells and whistles, both are getting free stuff. Again, you're screwing yourself if you take a not fully decked out unit (or *gasp* a barebones unit).

Either way, balance's fethed. Anyone with upgrade options is now punished in points for not taking the most valuable ones and the straight upgrades.

I also disagree with "wait and see: till the codex drops". We now have the full product gw deemed as sufficient for this edition's release and we can analyze/judge it as such.

Google can't tell me what FOIP is, but after vocalising a bit I discovered it's similar to the sound of dripping water. This has only made my confusion worse :p


* they could also have taken the average of barebones/fully kitted out, that'd lessen the effects but wouldn't eliminate them. Doesn't look like it afaict, but who knows.

 catbarf wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
Just to consider the guard infantry squad: 10 lasguns do about .55 damage to a marine, a single heavy bolter averages 1 damage. That one gun triples the threat of the infantry squad.

And now your unit actually does something but the lasguns do a bit more now with Lethal Wounds as well.

Lethal Hits, you mean.
Standing stationary and with Lethal Hits, an Infantry Squad's heavy bolter actually averages 1.5 wounds against Marines.
The 7 lasguns from the squad + 2 laspistols, rapid firing with Lethal Hits, also average 1.5 damage. So that's 3 wounds total.
If the squad didn't take a heavy bolter, it'd have 9 lasguns and a laspistol, for a total of 1.76 wounds.
So even in 10th, benefitting from an army ability that makes lasguns actually pretty credible, adding a heavy bolter to an Infantry Squad nearly doubles its offensive output. That multiplier goes up further when you start looking at heavier stuff like autocannons or lascannons, against harder targets than basic Marines, or at the early turns where the Infantry won't be rapid firing or potentially able to fire their lasguns at all.
If attaching a heavy weapon was all of a 5% increase in damage then I don't think anyone would care about it becoming free, but turns out that number's actually a total asspull, so...

The HWT adds 0 wounds to the units lethality if its dead before it can be used.

Evaluating based purely on a weapons lethality is giving you a misleading sense of value. You have to account for the actual level of utility being provided by the option, which is kind of the core of my point (and what nou understood and everyone else didn't). In most cases (especially in the last couple editions), you will not get 6 turns of use out of a weapon, in many cases you won't even get 3 turns. In the case of guard squads, in many cases you'll be lucky to get a single turn of value out of it. You have to look at average performance over the course of a real game, not the potential offered by a single isolated and idealized scenario where you're getting the use of a fully loaded out and equipped unit. The value of that HWT is not so much what it adds to the unit using it, but rather how it compensates for the loss/degradation in effectiveness of the rest of the unit - as well as the loss/degradation in effectiveness of other units in the army as a whole - over the course of a game.

Its also helpful to (once again - been a while since I've said this) frame points in the correct context - points are balanced and evaluated at the army level, not the unit level, not the model level, nor the weapon level. The points cost of an individual weapon or model is meaningless, because whats being balanced is a 2000pt army, not a 200 point unit, nor a 20 point model nor a 2 point weapon. It certainly helps in theory if all your weapons and models and units are balanced, but thats not really how it works in actuality, because the meta is an emergent aspect of gameplay directly shaped by the interaction of your points system with your core gameplay mechanics, and any adjustment made to points results in a shift in meta which might exacerbate or mitigate said points adjustment. In reality, points are purposefully skewed by the designer of basically every game in order to shape the meta to meet a preconceived notion of what gameplay "should" look like, rather than being set in an idealized vacuum by a blind lady using a scale to evaluate the worth of any given option.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Furthermore, it may be hard to "prove" that 7pts is correct for a meltagun on a squad vs say 5pts, but it is very EASY to say that 0 pts is totally inappropriate.
One does not have to prove that something is worth exactly X points in order to refute that Y points is wrong. They must only prove that Y points are wrong and I think that is trivial.
"Is a thing better than the other thing? If yes, it costs more than.0 points"

Great, lets give every perceived "upgrade" (as opposed to "sidegrade") a symbolic cost of 1 point. There, problem solved. I agree, you can't really prove what the correct cost of something should be and that 0 points is inappropriate - so all upgrades are now 1 point, in recognition that they add "something" though we can't really quantify how much of something it actually adds.

FOIP - Find Out In Play

Again your reasoning is based on there being a pronounced difference in the upgrades available to a given unit, and ignoring any other perks and advantages a given army or even unit might have available.

Necron Warriors for instance have Resurrection Protocols because they’re Necrons, and an improved version because they’re Necron Warriors.

The Necron army has various means to improve Resurrection Protocols - and the Warrior’s native boost triggers on every instance.

So whilst yes, a Tactical Squad may have greater flexibility of options, Necron Warriors can just keep on getting up, and getting up, and getting up, and getting up. Not only does that help them avoid Battle Shock, but suitably supported they may prove bloody difficult to shift off an Objective.

Hence FOIP. Right now, we only have theory hammer for the most part. Until we’ve seen how overall armies perform, particularly as we’ve a much looser FOC, we can’t really say too much about balance.

Because the game is about more than just trying to annihilate each other’s models. It may not matter if you’re kicking my head in each turn, if I’m deft at scoring Objectives and other sources of VPs.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Furthermore, it may be hard to "prove" that 7pts is correct for a meltagun on a squad vs say 5pts, but it is very EASY to say that 0 pts is totally inappropriate.

One does not have to prove that something is worth exactly X points in order to refute that Y points is wrong. They must only prove that Y points are wrong and I think that is trivial.

"Is a thing better than the other thing? If yes, it costs more than.0 points"

It doesn't cost 0 points here. We're just not privy to the actual cost. Instead you're forced to take the option.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Furthermore, it may be hard to "prove" that 7pts is correct for a meltagun on a squad vs say 5pts, but it is very EASY to say that 0 pts is totally inappropriate.

One does not have to prove that something is worth exactly X points in order to refute that Y points is wrong. They must only prove that Y points are wrong and I think that is trivial.

"Is a thing better than the other thing? If yes, it costs more than.0 points"

It doesn't cost 0 points here. We're just not privy to the actual cost. Instead you're forced to take the option.

Does that change anything though? At most it makes squads that are not built with the KT version of the CSM kit just inherently worse?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Well we can't do it because you can't perfectly balance it."

"You don't need to do it that way."

"Well we can't do it because it's what's the game designers decided on!"

Remind to never challenge you to an arm wrestle. All that time moving goalposts has made you strong!

I don't think all those things are mutually exclusive.

There's are aspects to paying points for wargear that changes how you view it...do you own a model with that weapon? What's the opportunity cost? Will gluing this on be a regret if balance shifts later on?

The vast majority of people skipped all upgrades on their basic units, because they'd rather have bigger and longer range guns.

You could look at data and see meltas not getting used. With granular points how are you interpreting that? Is it because no one likes meltas or is it because they're not good? The reality is that meltas could be very good and that people aren't choosing them for other reasons. Dropping the points on them would make them a no brainer and suddenly you've upset the value of the other weapons. This system doesn't have that problem and it looks like they made an effort to rebalance the weapon rules at least a little.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

You could look at data and see meltas not getting used. With granular points how are you interpreting that? Is it because no one likes meltas or is it because they're not good? The reality is that meltas could be very good and that people aren't choosing them for other reasons. Dropping the points on them would make them a no brainer and suddenly you've upset the value of the other weapons. This system doesn't have that problem and it looks like they made an effort to rebalance the weapon rules at least a little.

Yes, it does. Previously, which weapon you chose out of melta, plasma, flamer and grav was determined by the points efficiency of each choice. That's still the case, it just so happens the cost of each one is 0. The difference with the system in 10th is you can never alter that equation. If you charge points for upgrades you can, theoretically, balance each option through its cost. The fact GW sucked at this doesn't alter that.

Also, to take your example, determining the reason melta wasn't taken is literally the designers job. Yes, it may be difficult to figure out, but it's hardly an impossible task. You seem to be suggesting it was so difficult the only possible solution is to abdicate all responsibility for even trying.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The HWT adds 0 wounds to the units lethality if its dead before it can be used.

That's a facile observation. Avoiding upgrades on units that are unlikely to get to employ them is basic stuff. That has no bearing on the delta in lethality provided by the upgrade; they're still twice as effective with the HWT whether they shoot once, six times, or not at all.

At 10-15pts a heavy bolter only has to shoot a Marine once to earn its points back and be worth the cost of upgrade. That's a reasonably safe bet, and why HWTs were regularly used for decades despite the cost. Unless you were getting tabled turn 2, it was not difficult for surviving squads to inflict enough damage to make up for the ones that were knocked out before they got their chance.

Working out the expected level of utility provided by the option really is not as complicated at the mathematical gymnastics you are performing. Nobody assumes shooting an optimal target for 6 turns, and you certainly don't need to do that to make a case for why heavy weapons have value that is worth paying for.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Great, lets give every perceived "upgrade" (as opposed to "sidegrade") a symbolic cost of 1 point. There, problem solved. I agree, you can't really prove what the correct cost of something should be and that 0 points is inappropriate - so all upgrades are now 1 point, in recognition that they add "something" though we can't really quantify how much of something it actually adds.

It would be a small step in the right direction as we work towards quantifying what the actual cost should be.

Points don't need to be perfect. 'Close enough' would be fine.

That said, I am, again, fine with special/heavy weapons being rolled into the unit's basic wargear with sidegrade options available, because points are a structuring mechanism. It's the straight upgrades that are currently unaccounted for in the system where the structuring mechanism is producing unintuitive results. Astra Militarum fielding infantry squads with special and heavy weapons fits the lore and vision for how the army should operate better than a tidal wave of riflemen. Every last officer packing a power sword and plasma pistol does not.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Does that change anything though? At most it makes squads that are not built with the KT version of the CSM kit just inherently worse?

Certainly there's a reckoning with issues like that, but the Balefire is a pretty small upgrade now. And you don't need the heavy weapons if you don't plan on melee. I imagine though most people can sort the issues with an extra box and use of the leftover sprues.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You could look at data and see meltas not getting used. With granular points how are you interpreting that?

The ruleset is fugged. In fact, I don't even need points of any kind to draw that conclusion from meltas not getting used.

Slipspace wrote:
Also, to take your example, determining the reason melta wasn't taken is literally the designers job. Yes, it may be difficult to figure out, but it's hardly an impossible task. You seem to be suggesting it was so difficult the only possible solution is to abdicate all responsibility for even trying.

I don't think it is a suggestion as much as a (IMO) pretty accurate observation.

Slipspace wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

You could look at data and see meltas not getting used. With granular points how are you interpreting that? Is it because no one likes meltas or is it because they're not good? The reality is that meltas could be very good and that people aren't choosing them for other reasons. Dropping the points on them would make them a no brainer and suddenly you've upset the value of the other weapons. This system doesn't have that problem and it looks like they made an effort to rebalance the weapon rules at least a little.

Yes, it does. Previously, which weapon you chose out of melta, plasma, flamer and grav was determined by the points efficiency of each choice. That's still the case, it just so happens the cost of each one is 0. The difference with the system in 10th is you can never alter that equation. If you charge points for upgrades you can, theoretically, balance each option through its cost. The fact GW sucked at this doesn't alter that.

Also, to take your example, determining the reason melta wasn't taken is literally the designers job. Yes, it may be difficult to figure out, but it's hardly an impossible task. You seem to be suggesting it was so difficult the only possible solution is to abdicate all responsibility for even trying.

No, because you're making the assumption something isn't taken because it isn't costed properly. It can absolutely be costed properly and people will still abandon it. You as a designer are not privy to these thoughts and so you act on the data where the weapon is not used and fundamentally break the balance.

I mean, they could always try asking players why they don't use X weapon before hitting the "Increase the cost of every weapon a unit has to the price of their most expensive and bake that into the cost of the unit regardless of what weapon is actually taken" button.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You could look at data and see meltas not getting used. With granular points how are you interpreting that? Is it because no one likes meltas or is it because they're not good?

Six of one, half dozen of the other- it doesn't matter. From a design standpoint it might be helpful to understand why people aren't using melta, but the ideal is simply to find a cost where the melta is just as enticing as other weapons and all are worth considering.

This is no different between points and 'pick one special weapon'; it's just a numerical points cost versus an opportunity cost. The points are easier to tweak but you can adjust stats to work it out either way.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Does that change anything though? At most it makes squads that are not built with the KT version of the CSM kit just inherently worse?

Certainly there's a reckoning with issues like that, but the Balefire is a pretty small upgrade now. And you don't need the heavy weapons if you don't plan on melee. I imagine though most people can sort the issues with an extra box and use of the leftover sprues.

It's not just the balefire that is in the KT version. It's also the "Heavy melee weapon" and the reaper chaincannon that actually propperly fits on the CSM.

No matter how you slice it. It's stupidity x10.

Because even if we just say, yea specialisation would lower the bling, the fundamental fact is, that a melee squad with 2 heavy melee weapons will outperform a melee squad without the two.

And those are far more similar in performance than the shooting version of legionaires would be due to the tome and the PP on the champ adding quite a bit of mmph above the special / heavies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I mean, they could always try asking players why they don't use X weapon before hitting the "Increase the cost of every weapon a unit has to the price of their most expensive and bake that into the cost of the unit regardless of what weapon is actually taken" button.

See, but at some point' they'd be confronted with the fact that the core rules are not good enough to facilitate a serious consideration for weaponry like flamers or grenade launchers, due to cover mechanics beeing pretty tame, Stubbers and HB and mortars due to surpression as already discussed , not being a thing anymore, PG and Melta often being to close due to the armor system being dumbed down to MC's etc.

Which would hinder the simplification in search of the supposedly existing greater playerbase as i brought up in another thread.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

You could look at data and see meltas not getting used. With granular points how are you interpreting that? Is it because no one likes meltas or is it because they're not good? The reality is that meltas could be very good and that people aren't choosing them for other reasons. Dropping the points on them would make them a no brainer and suddenly you've upset the value of the other weapons. This system doesn't have that problem and it looks like they made an effort to rebalance the weapon rules at least a little.

Yes, it does. Previously, which weapon you chose out of melta, plasma, flamer and grav was determined by the points efficiency of each choice. That's still the case, it just so happens the cost of each one is 0. The difference with the system in 10th is you can never alter that equation. If you charge points for upgrades you can, theoretically, balance each option through its cost. The fact GW sucked at this doesn't alter that.

Also, to take your example, determining the reason melta wasn't taken is literally the designers job. Yes, it may be difficult to figure out, but it's hardly an impossible task. You seem to be suggesting it was so difficult the only possible solution is to abdicate all responsibility for even trying.

No, because you're making the assumption something isn't taken because it isn't costed properly. It can absolutely be costed properly and people will still abandon it. You as a designer are not privy to these thoughts and so you act on the data where the weapon is not used and fundamentally break the balance.

Again, it's literally your job as a designer to figure this sort of thing out. It's not an unknowable mystery, just not necessarily straight forward. In a given paradigm, maybe points aren't the reason something isn't taken, though meltas are a bad example because there will always be a non-zero cost where people will take a melta over a bolter. Flamers, for example, suffered in previous editions because they usually weren't an upgrade, so any points cost above 0 was too high.

Taking meltas specifically, let's show why you're wrong. We'll assume we're talking about Tacticals here and we'll assume meltaguns are not currently taken but we don't know why. A simple thought experiment shows why your reasoning doesn't work. If we increased the cost of plasma, grav and flamers to 100 points and changed the cost of meltaguns to 1, we'd see everyone taking meltaguns and nobody taking the other options. That fact alone tells you there is a point-based solution to this. You can argue the reduced range means the bolter still has some utility over the meltagun, but I'd challenge that assertion given the huge lethality increase a meltagun provides and the tiny cost in our example. The exact ratios are not easy to determine, but that's not the same as things being impossible. If nobody is ever taking a weapon that is an upgrade over your basic gun you haven't costed it appropriately, by definition.

Even with all that said, GW's current solution still isn't the solution.

 catbarf wrote:
From a design standpoint it might be helpful to understand why people aren't using melta, but the ideal is simply to find a cost where the melta is just as enticing as other weapons and all are worth considering.

I don't think there is a cost. It's mostly binary. 2 point meltas might be enticing over 5 point plasma, but ultimately both get dumped to find room elsewhere.

Slipspace wrote:
You seem to be suggesting it was so difficult the only possible solution is to abdicate all responsibility for even trying.

That's exactly what GW has done.