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.
2023/06/23 10:44:47
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
I'm pretty sure we had an entire thread dedicated to the question of "power level vs. points" no too long ago. You might want to check that out if you are looking for arguments supporting PL.
One I remember is that PL is more accessible to handicapped people who have an easier time dealing with less granular systems.
2023/06/23 10:47:10
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Like we've been saying: Different people writing each book, locked in different rooms - perhaps on different continents - with no communication between them, and some of them were given 8th Edition Codices for reference rather than 9th Edition books.
Yeah.
I guess they may not be aware of this - given that they're a miniatures company, not a publishing company - but generally there's someone called an editor who is meant to plan and coordinate this sort of thing...
2023/06/23 10:49:17
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Tyel wrote: My issue with upgrades are whether they are meaningful in game.
Sheild Vanes on Necron Tomb Blades are a clear example where its not. "Would you like to go to a 3+ Sv over a 4+ Sv" - "obvious yes, if its worth the points?"
So most of the time, its going to be either an auto-take, or a never take. Its very hard to have a scenario where both options are justifiable.
Now you could write the rules so there were "Heavy Tomb Blades" with say a 3+/5++ that play completely differently to "Light Tomb Blades" (4+, perhaps even a 5+) without these upgrades. You'd also probably need to tweak the guns, speed, objective scoring etc etc.
But if you aren't going to have that in the rules, its pointless. The option should just be removed. Make Necron Tomb Blades a 3+ Sv unit and move on.
Its arguably the same with the Battlewagon. In "the rules" - do you want a slimmed down no-gun option to be played? Or do you want the Battlewagon to have such and such firepower, and you don't really care how its modelled? If you want meaningfully different units, this can be set up in the rules - or not if you don't.
You might say this sucks and removes agency from the player etc - but ultimately that argument applies to every limitation in the rules.
I see where you’re coming from. But you have the choice of Shield Vanes or Nebuloscope. Yes Shield Vanes are of course useful. But, Nebuloscopes remove the benefits of cover.
Which is more desirable is something we’ll have to get games in to better appreciate. With less AP than 9th Ed in general, Nebuloscopes may prove more of a choice than we currently appreciate. Especially if your build leans into Resurrection Protocols, which if stacked right can keep them in the fight longer, somewhat mitigating the appeal of a 3+ save.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Tyel wrote: My issue with upgrades are whether they are meaningful in game.
Sheild Vanes on Necron Tomb Blades are a clear example where its not. "Would you like to go to a 3+ Sv over a 4+ Sv" - "obvious yes, if its worth the points?"
So most of the time, its going to be either an auto-take, or a never take. Its very hard to have a scenario where both options are justifiable.
Now you could write the rules so there were "Heavy Tomb Blades" with say a 3+/5++ that play completely differently to "Light Tomb Blades" (4+, perhaps even a 5+) without these upgrades. You'd also probably need to tweak the guns, speed, objective scoring etc etc.
But if you aren't going to have that in the rules, its pointless. The option should just be removed. Make Necron Tomb Blades a 3+ Sv unit and move on.
Its arguably the same with the Battlewagon. In "the rules" - do you want a slimmed down no-gun option to be played? Or do you want the Battlewagon to have such and such firepower, and you don't really care how its modelled? If you want meaningfully different units, this can be set up in the rules - or not if you don't.
You might say this sucks and removes agency from the player etc - but ultimately that argument applies to every limitation in the rules.
I see where you’re coming from. But you have the choice of Shield Vanes or Nebuloscope. Yes Shield Vanes are of course useful. But, Nebuloscopes remove the benefits of cover.
Which is more desirable is something we’ll have to get games in to better appreciate. With less AP than 9th Ed in general, Nebuloscopes may prove more of a choice than we currently appreciate. Especially if your build leans into Resurrection Protocols, which if stacked right can keep them in the fight longer, somewhat mitigating the appeal of a 3+ save.
Nope. Tomb Blades choose between Nebuloscope (ignores cover) and Shadowloom (5++). Shield Vanes are a separate item that doesn't conflict with anything else and it increases your save to 3+. It's the perfect example of how half-baked this whole thing is.
2023/06/23 11:59:39
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Tyel wrote: My issue with upgrades are whether they are meaningful in game.
Sheild Vanes on Necron Tomb Blades are a clear example where its not. "Would you like to go to a 3+ Sv over a 4+ Sv" - "obvious yes, if its worth the points?"
So most of the time, its going to be either an auto-take, or a never take. Its very hard to have a scenario where both options are justifiable.
Now you could write the rules so there were "Heavy Tomb Blades" with say a 3+/5++ that play completely differently to "Light Tomb Blades" (4+, perhaps even a 5+) without these upgrades. You'd also probably need to tweak the guns, speed, objective scoring etc etc.
But if you aren't going to have that in the rules, its pointless. The option should just be removed. Make Necron Tomb Blades a 3+ Sv unit and move on.
Its arguably the same with the Battlewagon. In "the rules" - do you want a slimmed down no-gun option to be played? Or do you want the Battlewagon to have such and such firepower, and you don't really care how its modelled? If you want meaningfully different units, this can be set up in the rules - or not if you don't.
You might say this sucks and removes agency from the player etc - but ultimately that argument applies to every limitation in the rules.
My issue with transports are whether they are meaningful in game.
Rhinos for Tactical Marines are a clear example where it's not. "Would you like to get carried by a vehicle or walk on foot" - "obvious yes, if its worth the points?"
So most of the time, its going to be either an auto-take, or a never take. Its very hard to have a scenario where both options are justifiable.
Now you could write rules so there are Gladius Detachments were Tactical Squads ride in Rhinos, completely different from Hammerstrike Detachments were Tactical Squad walk on foot.
But if you aren't going to have that in the rules, its pointless. The option should just be removed. Give Tactical Squads a free Rhino and move on.
You might say this sounds like 7th edition (otherwise known as worst edition) etc - but ultimately I think we should be looking to 7th edition for how to make a great 40k edition, not because it was, but because it could have been and we'll never know if it can work until we get it right or until the end of intelligent life interested in playing with toy soldiers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/06/23 12:00:56
2023/06/23 13:28:59
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
...Whether or not to buy a transport for a unit is a much more significant, impactful, and interesting choice than whether you can spare the points to upgrade a 4+ save to a 3+ one.
More relevantly, a transport is something that still does cost points- as it should- while the 4+-to-3+ is free with no downsides and so might as well just be a 3+ on the profile.
I mean, what's the point of even having the option? A 'feth you' to people who built their minis without it?
Points are not the only way to make this balanced and you can in fact make such options sidegrades. In this particular case it would be enough to make sponson upgrade reduce the movement stat as a drawback. If firing arcs and turn radius rules were reintroduced, it would be even easier to do, because now the added firepower is situational and depends on your ability to manouver, which is already reduced.
So while agree, that GW effort to make this system work properly is not sufficient (and by a large margin), it can, in principle, work just fine. And moreover, be vastly more interesting than points system approach of the past.
2023/06/23 16:48:42
Subject: Re:Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
vipoid wrote: Then came 9th. Suddenly, every weapon costed exactly the same. No longer was there any cost benefit to taking a grenade launcher on a veteran over a plasmagun. Not only that, but the change to Overwatch and the drastic increase in the durability of Marines, Orks etc. meant that flamers were now farting into the wind.
Not only that, but weapon costs also no longer took into consideration the cost of the model using them. In 8th, IG characters received discounts on power swords and power fists, because they were being wielded by squishy IG characters with poor stats. But then 9th hit and suddenly they were paying the exact same costs as SM captains with far better durability and melee stats.
I guess what I'm saying is that 8th actually made a lot of solid strides forward in terms of finding appropriate costs for weapons . . . and then 9th just threw the entire thing out of the window for no reason beyond Churn for the Churn God.
Those GL went from S6 AP1 DD3 to S9 AP2 DD3, which makes it just as useful ( if not more so, because of frag ). It's very much an equivalent weapon now and the D3 Blast tries not to step on the horde clearing toes of a flamer. With overwatch as it is you'll rarely want to overwatch with them though, but with the Platoon CS you can have...
20 dudes with 2 flamers plus the PCS with a Regimental Standard and Medipack plus 2 more flamers, 3 plasma pistols, 2 power swords and a power fist for 190 ( was 235 in 9th ). Toss in an Ogryn to pick up an extra 6 wounds for 40 points. You could even go for 5 flamers for a decent overwatch.
Then your next line could drop the Standard and pick up the Master Vox to command from behind, but instead of flamers you're rolling the GLs. Same points. No faffing about. You just have two units serving different roles. Trying to add 5 points here or there isn't changing the utility or outcome for these units.
2023/06/23 16:54:14
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
The grenade launcher change was definitely a step in the right directon for guard special balance. I think the flamer could use a bit of a buff, maybe d6+2 shots, or somehow make blast work with torrent. I would be ok with free upgrades a bit more if they were all sidegrades.
Russes are nowhere near that yet, although some of the melta/bolter changes were a step.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/06/23 16:54:37
nemesis464 wrote: I still have let to see a good argument for wargear/weapons points being removed.
The only one people keep coming back to is “it’s easier” which isn’t a good argument in my eyes. I don’t know anyone, even children new to the hobby, that struggled with basic calculator addition before.
Since no one has seemed to have a good argument, I'll take a stab.
The Case for Zero Point Options
It has long been an issue that the game that the Design Studio produces is not played in the way they designed it. This is not a case of the rules not being followed, but one of them assuming players will make the same decisions around setting up a game that the Design Studio uses in their play testing. We've all heard the stories of the playtesters being given specific armies to play and then only wanting specific feedback. We have all seen the Design Studio respond with a parenthetical "that's not what we intended". Zero Point Options is a way to get the player base to play closer to the game the Design Studio uses when they are designing the game.
All indications is that the Design Studio like to play with cool models rather than efficient ones. They bring the special and heavy weapons and randomly upgrade their unit champions in cool ways. They test the game with those models and sculpt the rules to work on the assumption that the game will be played in that manner. The problem is they have so far failed to get the players to do the same. This is where Zero Points Options can help bridge the gap.
Zero Points Options help because the Design Studio's game crafted on the extensive presence of unit options falls apart in the face of the tyranny of upgrade cost. Evidence indicates to me that points values of units is an afterthought in the Design Studio process. They have the units they use to build balanced playtest game and then start working backwards to get the points. The mostly fully-loaded Tactical Squad is worth 180 points. Now how much is the model and how much are the upgrades? I guess these upgrades are 5 points, these are 10, and this one is 20. I guess the models are 130 points left over, so 13 points a model. Do this for every unit (or fudge because X is 5 points there so it is 5 points everywhere) and you get the MFM.
Once the player base get their grubby hands on the MFM they quickly decide that some upgrades are simply not worth the point. "Only a fool puts upgrades on Infantry Squads", "I'm going to keep this unit cheap so I can have more units", and "that upgrade isn't worth the point so I never take it" enter the arena and warp the game well outside of the design parameters. Zero Point Upgrades helps solve this issue.
If the unit is worth X points for Y models with no cost for upgrades, people are more likely to take the upgrades. Also, people can never take a cheaper than designed version of the unit to save points. Limiting the unit to proscribed sizes also removes the issue of players taking "just the right amount" of models in a unit and again warping the Design Studio's points balancing work.
So all the Design Studio needs to do is properly craft the units such that the Zero Point Options are properly balanced against each other. Note that this requires approximate balance not perfect balance. The weapon options of a Terminator Squad are balanced rather well because you have simple and relatively balanced options: Power Fist or Chainfist; Choice of Assault Cannon, Cyclone Missile Launcher or Heavy Flamer for 1 in every 5 models. Players have the choice of 5 or 10 Terminator in a squad (points wise) Produce all the unit datasheets in this fashion and you have a successful use of Zero Point Options.
Design Studio Grade: D The Design Studio seems to have taken the idea as their goal and fumbled the execution into a barely passing grade. For every well-crafted unit datasheet, there is another the labors under a number of serious flaws such as:
No Downside Every Model Upgrades: The Battlewagon has a large number of no cost additions in the Upgrade section. This is not a 1 in 10 Infantry Squad members can take a Vox Caster, which they assume you will just take. It is the ability to add 6 guns, 2 Extra attacks melee weapons, and a massive upgraded melee weapon for no cost. This all requires extensive modeling, but the difference is still substantial and free.
Inconsistent Design Application: Death Company Marines are allowed to have every model upgrade from Blowgun and Close Combat Weapon into a dizzying array of melee weapon, each with it's own stat line. Sanguinary Guard can only upgrade Encarmine Blade to a Power Fist for 1 in 5 models. Meanwhile, Vanguard Veterans have Heirloom Weapons with no option for a Power Fist or Thunder Hammer! Would it be that hard to produce a second weapon stat line in the PF/TH zone that was balanced with Heirloom Weapons?
No Brainer Upgrades: For may unit champions, there exist a number of upgrades that have no downside. There is no reason to not give your Infantry Squad Sergeant a Plasma Pistol and Power Sword. There is no downside. It wouldn't have been difficult to either add a downside or produce a Sergeant's Melee Weapon and Sergeant's Pistol wargear entry to give them one statline all the time.
So there you go. My case for Zero Point Upgrades along with my assessment on the Design Studio's success in applying it to 10th Edition.
Great write up. That deserves an exalt. The more I use it the more I enjoy these points. There's enough good to outweigh the bad, but I know it won't be for everyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: From the Forge World Marine rules, specifically the Thunderhawk entry:
Thunderhawk Heavy Cannon [Blast]
48" D6+6 3+ S10 Ap-2 D3
BertBert wrote: I'm pretty sure we had an entire thread dedicated to the question of "power level vs. points" no too long ago. You might want to check that out if you are looking for arguments supporting PL.
One I remember is that PL is more accessible to handicapped people who have an easier time dealing with less granular systems.
The main issue with PL has always been that the weapon options underneath it were designed with points in mind. The vast majority of stuff was designed with a Standard, Standard+, Deluxe structure that required points to create meaningful choices. The redesign puts more emphasis on options serving different roles, so while there's no longer a cost element to consider, there's still a sense that you are making an informed choice in your loadout. Obviously there are still winners and losers in this, just as there were in a points driven system, but they have at least taken steps to make PL an interesting system.
2023/06/23 17:43:28
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
BertBert wrote: I'm pretty sure we had an entire thread dedicated to the question of "power level vs. points" no too long ago. You might want to check that out if you are looking for arguments supporting PL.
One I remember is that PL is more accessible to handicapped people who have an easier time dealing with less granular systems.
The main issue with PL has always been that the weapon options underneath it were designed with points in mind. The vast majority of stuff was designed with a Standard, Standard+, Deluxe structure that required points to create meaningful choices. The redesign puts more emphasis on options serving different roles, so while there's no longer a cost element to consider, there's still a sense that you are making an informed choice in your loadout. Obviously there are still winners and losers in this, just as there were in a points driven system, but they have at least taken steps to make PL an interesting system.
Right. PL wasn't good. I didn't like it, because they explicitly did not design the game around it. It was never going to work. This at least has the pretense of being designed to work with these other considerations in mind.
2023/06/23 19:24:58
Subject: Re:Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
With Guard infantry specials, there isn't a "sword to slay all" in terms of hitting everything as hard. I think that makes the new points more palatable for me.
The thing about 40k is that no one person can grasp the fullness of it.
Weird example to choose. At the point someone is fielding a Thunderhawk your game is not about balance. You’re off into narrative or should-be-Apocalypse territory.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
2023/06/23 21:15:06
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
nemesis464 wrote: I still have let to see a good argument for wargear/weapons points being removed.
The only one people keep coming back to is “it’s easier” which isn’t a good argument in my eyes. I don’t know anyone, even children new to the hobby, that struggled with basic calculator addition before.
Since no one has seemed to have a good argument, I'll take a stab.
The Case for Zero Point Options
It has long been an issue that the game that the Design Studio produces is not played in the way they designed it. This is not a case of the rules not being followed, but one of them assuming players will make the same decisions around setting up a game that the Design Studio uses in their play testing. We've all heard the stories of the playtesters being given specific armies to play and then only wanting specific feedback. We have all seen the Design Studio respond with a parenthetical "that's not what we intended". Zero Point Options is a way to get the player base to play closer to the game the Design Studio uses when they are designing the game.
All indications is that the Design Studio like to play with cool models rather than efficient ones. They bring the special and heavy weapons and randomly upgrade their unit champions in cool ways. They test the game with those models and sculpt the rules to work on the assumption that the game will be played in that manner. The problem is they have so far failed to get the players to do the same. This is where Zero Points Options can help bridge the gap.
Zero Points Options help because the Design Studio's game crafted on the extensive presence of unit options falls apart in the face of the tyranny of upgrade cost. Evidence indicates to me that points values of units is an afterthought in the Design Studio process. They have the units they use to build balanced playtest game and then start working backwards to get the points. The mostly fully-loaded Tactical Squad is worth 180 points. Now how much is the model and how much are the upgrades? I guess these upgrades are 5 points, these are 10, and this one is 20. I guess the models are 130 points left over, so 13 points a model. Do this for every unit (or fudge because X is 5 points there so it is 5 points everywhere) and you get the MFM.
Once the player base get their grubby hands on the MFM they quickly decide that some upgrades are simply not worth the point. "Only a fool puts upgrades on Infantry Squads", "I'm going to keep this unit cheap so I can have more units", and "that upgrade isn't worth the point so I never take it" enter the arena and warp the game well outside of the design parameters. Zero Point Upgrades helps solve this issue.
If the unit is worth X points for Y models with no cost for upgrades, people are more likely to take the upgrades. Also, people can never take a cheaper than designed version of the unit to save points. Limiting the unit to proscribed sizes also removes the issue of players taking "just the right amount" of models in a unit and again warping the Design Studio's points balancing work.
So all the Design Studio needs to do is properly craft the units such that the Zero Point Options are properly balanced against each other. Note that this requires approximate balance not perfect balance. The weapon options of a Terminator Squad are balanced rather well because you have simple and relatively balanced options: Power Fist or Chainfist; Choice of Assault Cannon, Cyclone Missile Launcher or Heavy Flamer for 1 in every 5 models. Players have the choice of 5 or 10 Terminator in a squad (points wise) Produce all the unit datasheets in this fashion and you have a successful use of Zero Point Options.
Design Studio Grade: D The Design Studio seems to have taken the idea as their goal and fumbled the execution into a barely passing grade. For every well-crafted unit datasheet, there is another the labors under a number of serious flaws such as:
No Downside Every Model Upgrades: The Battlewagon has a large number of no cost additions in the Upgrade section. This is not a 1 in 10 Infantry Squad members can take a Vox Caster, which they assume you will just take. It is the ability to add 6 guns, 2 Extra attacks melee weapons, and a massive upgraded melee weapon for no cost. This all requires extensive modeling, but the difference is still substantial and free.
Inconsistent Design Application: Death Company Marines are allowed to have every model upgrade from Blowgun and Close Combat Weapon into a dizzying array of melee weapon, each with it's own stat line. Sanguinary Guard can only upgrade Encarmine Blade to a Power Fist for 1 in 5 models. Meanwhile, Vanguard Veterans have Heirloom Weapons with no option for a Power Fist or Thunder Hammer! Would it be that hard to produce a second weapon stat line in the PF/TH zone that was balanced with Heirloom Weapons?
No Brainer Upgrades: For may unit champions, there exist a number of upgrades that have no downside. There is no reason to not give your Infantry Squad Sergeant a Plasma Pistol and Power Sword. There is no downside. It wouldn't have been difficult to either add a downside or produce a Sergeant's Melee Weapon and Sergeant's Pistol wargear entry to give them one statline all the time.
So there you go. My case for Zero Point Upgrades along with my assessment on the Design Studio's success in applying it to 10th Edition.
Great write up. That deserves an exalt. The more I use it the more I enjoy these points. There's enough good to outweigh the bad, but I know it won't be for everyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: From the Forge World Marine rules, specifically the Thunderhawk entry:
Thunderhawk Heavy Cannon [Blast]
48" D6+6 3+ S10 Ap-2 D3
They serve different roles. The WK Cannon breaks the mold, because of DW otherwise the Suncannon could have some room to breathe.
These are just anti-heavy infantry and anti-tank options. The turbo laser cooks vehicles, but what if you face all DA Termies?
Retributor Squad T3, 3+SV, 1W Models. Can take 4 heavy weapons out of Multimelta, HF, HB. Sergeant gets a CombiWeapon/Pistol suite and a 2A WS4, S4 power weapon. Unit ability is reroll 1s to wound. 130pts.
Devastator Squad. T4, 3+SV 2W Models. Can take 4 heavy weapons out of: Multimelta, HF, HF, Missile Launcher, Lascannon, Grav Canno, Plasma Cannon. Sergeant gets imperial pistol options+Grav pistol and Options for a Powerfist or Thunderhammer. Unit ability is Ignores Cover when Remain stationary. 120pts
Explain to me how GW's fluff based design principles determined that 5 Sisters of battle with a Powersword is worth 10 more points than 5 Space Marines with a Powerfist.
Then keep in mind that the Dev squad also gets the option to go up to 10 (sisters don't but would LOVE to), 4 heavy weapon options sisters don't, and that their faction rules and detachment rules basically cancel out.
BertBert wrote: I'm pretty sure we had an entire thread dedicated to the question of "power level vs. points" no too long ago. You might want to check that out if you are looking for arguments supporting PL.
One I remember is that PL is more accessible to handicapped people who have an easier time dealing with less granular systems.
The main issue with PL has always been that the weapon options underneath it were designed with points in mind. The vast majority of stuff was designed with a Standard, Standard+, Deluxe structure that required points to create meaningful choices. The redesign puts more emphasis on options serving different roles, so while there's no longer a cost element to consider, there's still a sense that you are making an informed choice in your loadout. Obviously there are still winners and losers in this, just as there were in a points driven system, but they have at least taken steps to make PL an interesting system.
Right. PL wasn't good. I didn't like it, because they explicitly did not design the game around it. It was never going to work. This at least has the pretense of being designed to work with these other considerations in mind.
With PL systems, internal balance doesn't really matter. It's just going to be everyone bringing the same stuff every time. It's ultimately just a different kind of meta than points create. It's why I thought PL events would have been a fun alternate format.
It's the inter-factional balance being so far off that upsets me. They're pretending Desolation Squads are somehow worse than Dominions, or that 2 Fire Prisms are exactly the same as 3 Paragon Warsuits.
You're only balancing around the absolute best stuff the unit can bring and you somehow got it WORSE?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/06/23 21:21:35
2023/06/23 22:10:09
Subject: Re:Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Those GL went from S6 AP1 DD3 to S9 AP2 DD3, which makes it just as useful ( if not more so, because of frag ). It's very much an equivalent weapon now and the D3 Blast tries not to step on the horde clearing toes of a flamer. With overwatch as it is you'll rarely want to overwatch with them though, but with the Platoon CS you can have...
20 dudes with 2 flamers plus the PCS with a Regimental Standard and Medipack plus 2 more flamers, 3 plasma pistols, 2 power swords and a power fist for 190 ( was 235 in 9th ). Toss in an Ogryn to pick up an extra 6 wounds for 40 points. You could even go for 5 flamers for a decent overwatch.
And those four flamers together kill . . . a whole Marine.
Flamers OP. GW please nerf.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
2023/06/24 00:06:03
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Oh stop it, Daed! Every time someone shows a clear upgrade you find a way to excuse it. And vipoid was talking about 9th Edition Grenade Launchers.
Upgrades should cost points.
JohnnyHell wrote: At the point someone is fielding a Thunderhawk your game is not about balance. You’re off into narrative or should-be-Apocalypse territory.
Says who? Based on what metric? Who are you to determine how people and why people use their models? And balance helps everyone, even narrative games. Why does this need to be constantly restated?
And as far as examples so, it's perfectly fine, because it shows a base gun and then an alternate weapon option that is vastly more powerful, yet you don't pay one measly point to get it.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2023/06/24 00:09:59
Retributor Squad T3, 3+SV, 1W Models. Can take 4 heavy weapons out of Multimelta, HF, HB. Sergeant gets a CombiWeapon/Pistol suite and a 2A WS4, S4 power weapon. Unit ability is reroll 1s to wound. 130pts.
Devastator Squad. T4, 3+SV 2W Models. Can take 4 heavy weapons out of: Multimelta, HF, HF, Missile Launcher, Lascannon, Grav Canno, Plasma Cannon. Sergeant gets imperial pistol options+Grav pistol and Options for a Powerfist or Thunderhammer. Unit ability is Ignores Cover when Remain stationary. 120pts
Explain to me how GW's fluff based design principles determined that 5 Sisters of battle with a Powersword is worth 10 more points than 5 Space Marines with a Powerfist.
You do realize this example has nothing to do with Zero Cost Upgrades? Both units have come we to comparable upgrades available. No, this is simply a case of the points being just plan wrong.
10 Battle Sisters are worth 110 points
10 Tactical Marines are worth 175 points
5/10 Devastator Marines are worth 120/200 points
Anyone with a basic understanding of the game can tell you 5 Retributors have no business being 130 points. Based on the comparison of Tacticals to Devastators, 130 is about right for 10 Retributors. 5 should be maybe 80 points.
2023/06/24 01:27:09
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Would not be shocked if the points guy thought Rets were set at Squad Size 10 like basic Sisters and Doms were, instead of having the 5 extra girls cut from the squad completely
2023/06/24 06:42:48
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Oh stop it, Daed! Every time someone shows a clear upgrade you find a way to excuse it. And vipoid was talking about 9th Edition Grenade Launchers.
Upgrades should cost points.
It's only an upgrade if you want to shoot tanks, it is marginally a little bit tol much of an improvement imo, but the cannon just needs the number of shots regulating very slightly and a bump to range. It already is better against terminators and almost all infantry as per daeds comment.
I suppose "upgrade" needs a definition.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/06/24 06:43:13
2023/06/24 07:09:19
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Right. PL wasn't good. I didn't like it, because they explicitly did not design the game around it. It was never going to work. This at least has the pretense of being designed to work with these other considerations in mind.
I haven't seen anything by now that would convince me that this game is more designed around power level than the previous ones
just because some units look to be designed with PL in mind (like the 3 Landspeeder) you could also say GW started to design it with PL but gave up on it and the Codex will feature points because most data cards are witten is if they would have had points in mind and not PL
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2023/06/24 07:25:56
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
That's not really an upgrade. 7-12 Avg 9 S10 Medium damage shots vs 2-4 avg 3 S20 High damage shots isn't an upgrade its different priorities. 1 Str 400 Shot is not an upgrade to 40 Str 10 shots.
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2023/06/24 08:14:32
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
That's not really an upgrade. 7-12 Avg 9 S10 Medium damage shots vs 2-4 avg 3 S20 High damage shots isn't an upgrade its different priorities. 1 Str 400 Shot is not an upgrade to 40 Str 10 shots.
One is just a glorified Battle Cannon, I guess you can bully Intercessors with it or something. The other slaps a Land Raider off the board in one attack.
My armies:
14000 points
2023/06/24 08:56:51
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
no, you see, it has another "USE" therefore it is not an "upgrade", only a SIDEGRADE.
NVM that profiles got so streamlined that mechanically speaking that is a boldfaced lie but that is another debate.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2023/06/24 09:17:35
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
That's not really an upgrade. 7-12 Avg 9 S10 Medium damage shots vs 2-4 avg 3 S20 High damage shots isn't an upgrade its different priorities. 1 Str 400 Shot is not an upgrade to 40 Str 10 shots.
One is just a glorified Battle Cannon, I guess you can bully Intercessors with it or something. The other slaps a Land Raider off the board in one attack.
And one scratches paint on said Landraider while the other vaporizes one, maybe two Intercessors while the rest shrug their shoulders. They have different preferred targets.
Lets try this another way: You need to shoot up the unit of 10 genestealers about to take objective #5 from your Eliminators. Would you rather do it with 11 (BLAST) S10 shots, or 4 (BLAST) S20 shots?
One turn behind it is a Tyrranofex (T12, 2+ 16W) would you rather do it with the S10 or the S20 attack? The S20 naturally. They're not upgrades, they're options for different brackets or what is referred to as a sidegrade.
NVM that profiles got so streamlined that mechanically speaking that is a boldfaced lie but that is another debate.
One blows up large infantry to small monsters while bouncing off large tanks/monsters. The other melts the tanks/large monsters and can't keep up with the large infantry/small monsters. Profiles aren't that streamlined - in fact I'd say they created/reinforced/expanded another stat band beyond GEQ/MEQ/Vehicles. TEQ has more company, the vehicles have been split - probably right around T9/T10.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/06/24 09:21:11
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2023/06/24 09:30:19
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Breton wrote: Lets try this another way: You need to shoot up the unit of 10 genestealers about to take objective #5 from your Eliminators. Would you rather do it with 11 (BLAST) S10 shots, or 4 (BLAST) S20 shots?
Neither, obviously. The 11 S10 shots won't save my Eliminators because they will kill only half the 'stealers and my Eliminators will lose the objective the same way, the 'stealers will just overkill them less. The battle cannon is not exactly impressive against hordes (not as much as the turbo laser is against big stuff), it can just swing hard if you have a good hand, but I'm not exactly a fan of turning my 40k game into a gamble if you know what I mean.
My armies:
14000 points
2023/06/24 11:08:11
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Breton wrote: Lets try this another way: You need to shoot up the unit of 10 genestealers about to take objective #5 from your Eliminators. Would you rather do it with 11 (BLAST) S10 shots, or 4 (BLAST) S20 shots?
Neither, obviously. The 11 S10 shots won't save my Eliminators because they will kill only half the 'stealers and my Eliminators will lose the objective the same way, the 'stealers will just overkill them less. The battle cannon is not exactly impressive against hordes (not as much as the turbo laser is against big stuff), it can just swing hard if you have a good hand, but I'm not exactly a fan of turning my 40k game into a gamble if you know what I mean.
You got me there, both of them are an upgrade over nothing. However Nothing is not an option on the Thunderhawk, Nothing is also even further from saving your Eliminators. I'm guessing from the non-answer though the point about different roles probably meaning Not-Upgrade has been made. At least until the next person goes chasing A1 S20, D6+6 just because the numbers are bigger. Sort Of.
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2023/06/24 11:11:24
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
People miss that the reason anti-tank weapons were expensive (when points were a thing) was because you didn't need anti-infantry weapons as badly since you had basic guns.
Adding a better anti-infantry gun to an army is a difference of degrees.
Adding a better anti-tank gun to an army is a difference in kind.
Simply saying "well, one is anti-tank and the other is anti-infantry, therefore they are balanced and equivalent in cost" misses that tanks and infantry THEMSELVES are not the same cost.
Yes, you could in fact do poorly by shooting an anti-tank weapon at infantry. But that doesn't matter, because you have a million and one other ways to slap infantry. Vaporizing a tank, though, in a single shot is an extremely rare capability, that bypasses the toughness that someone buying a tank has themselves paid for.
The only times you won't get value out of a heavy AT weapon is:
1) you have some kind of spongy, damaged brain and decided to ignore the heavy enemy assets and only shoot it at infantry
2) the enemy hasn't brought any heavy assets
If 1, that's on you.
If 2? You should be dancing for joy. Sure, this one expensive gun is less effective, but you have efficiently suppressed/deterred some of the most powerful capabilities available to his army. Losing value on the AT gun is a small price to pay for your enemy losing access to anything with more than 4 wounds in his book.
Breton wrote: Lets try this another way: You need to shoot up the unit of 10 genestealers about to take objective #5 from your Eliminators. Would you rather do it with 11 (BLAST) S10 shots, or 4 (BLAST) S20 shots?
Neither, obviously. The 11 S10 shots won't save my Eliminators because they will kill only half the 'stealers and my Eliminators will lose the objective the same way, the 'stealers will just overkill them less. The battle cannon is not exactly impressive against hordes (not as much as the turbo laser is against big stuff), it can just swing hard if you have a good hand, but I'm not exactly a fan of turning my 40k game into a gamble if you know what I mean.
You got me there, both of them are an upgrade over nothing. However Nothing is not an option on the Thunderhawk, Nothing is also even further from saving your Eliminators. I'm guessing from the non-answer though the point about different roles probably meaning Not-Upgrade has been made. At least until the next person goes chasing A1 S20, D6+6 just because the numbers are bigger. Sort Of.
I would rather use the superzap gun on the Swarmlord making the Genestealers themselves better, and then use the huge amount of anti-infantry firepower that every army gets just for existing to shoot the Genestealers themselves. If the Genestealers are the only enemy unit left while I have Eliminators and a Thunderhawk then the fact that the superzap gun is less efficient against them is probably not going to change the outcome of the game.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/06/24 11:22:07
2023/06/24 11:17:29
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
catbarf wrote: ...Whether or not to buy a transport for a unit is a much more significant, impactful, and interesting choice than whether you can spare the points to upgrade a 4+ save to a 3+ one.
More relevantly, a transport is something that still does cost points- as it should- while the 4+-to-3+ is free with no downsides and so might as well just be a 3+ on the profile.
I mean, what's the point of even having the option? A 'feth you' to people who built their minis without it?
Not everyone built their Tomb Blades with shield vanes or their Tacticals with hidden tiger blades and crouching dragon guns out of every orifice. It's okay for a faction sometimes to produce an inferior but cheaper soldier, it makes perfect sense, otherwise, the Imperium would just field Space Marines instead of Guardsmen. In an aggressive army or one trying to maximize MSU for objective control it has made sense in the past to save on shield vanes and in lists where the Tomb Blades needed to hold, not die and regenerate the shield vanes were an interesting and worthwhile option. The 5++ was generally overcosted, but many still enjoyed taking the option. Dumbing the game down enough so that PL works is fantastically stupid, there is no reason for it to exist in the first place.
- but generally there's someone called an editor who is meant to plan and coordinate this sort of thing... 
14000 points 
