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.
2023/06/24 11:23:14
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Unit1126PLL wrote: 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.
A Vindicator is 205 points. 5 Terminators is about 205 Points. Sounds pretty close to me. Few guns are the optimal gun for both, especially with the plateau around S/T 9 or 10.
Yes, you could in fact do poorly 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.
S10 -2 D3D isn't heavy anti-tank anymore - its aimed at light vehicles and heavy infantry.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/06/24 11:23:32
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2023/06/24 11:31:53
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.
Actually, the superb-AT turbo-laser is an upgrade over the mediocre-ish AP battle cannon. I guess the battle cannon has better synergy with the other guns on the Thunderhawk? With the 4 Twin HBs it can very likely wipe the 10 'stealers, especially if you buff stack the attack, tho I dunno how much return we are looking at here compared to just not trying to hold an objective with Eliminators vs Tyranids and then betting an entire Thunderhawk to make it work.
My armies:
14000 points
2023/06/24 11:34:09
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Unit1126PLL wrote: 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.
A Vindicator is 205 points. 5 Terminators is about 205 Points. Sounds pretty close to me. Few guns are the optimal gun for both, especially with the plateau around S/T 9 or 10.
Vs Terminators, the T-hawk with Heavy Cannon gets:
11 shots, approximately 7 hits, 6 wounds, and kills 3, earning you a 125 point return into a 205 point terminator squad
Vs Vindicator, the T-hawk with TLD gets:
3 shots, 2 hits, very little chance to save either, 19 damage, earning you a 205 point return.
TLD is a better choice if both weapons fire at their preferred targets.
The opposite:
TLD will kill 1 terminator for a 41 point return
Heavy Cannon will neither kill nor cripple a vindicator (10 shots, 6 hits, 2 wounds, 1 save, 3 damage) for a 0 pt return, effectively. (Damage isn't exactly worth nothing, but you haven't even made him pull out a tech marine for fear yet).
Yes, you could in fact do poorly 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.
S10 -2 D3D isn't heavy anti-tank anymore - its aimed at light vehicles and heavy infantry.
Correct, that's my point. The AT gun should be the more expensive of the two.
More armies are likely to bring tanks/monsters than heavy infantry; I can't wait for the IG Ogryn spam list....
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/06/24 11:37:52
2023/06/24 12:07:23
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Correct, that's my point. The AT gun should be the more expensive of the two.
More armies are likely to bring tanks/monsters than heavy infantry; I can't wait for the IG Ogryn spam list....
Why? Because it can kill 1 Terminator, MANZ, Warrior, Carnifex, Jackal, Venom, etc per turn? Its overkill for most things in most armies, optimal for few things - meanwhile the other version is more likely to be in the "optimal" range for far more units. One makes for bigger numbers, the other has more uses. They're tradeoffs. Blowing up a Terminator with 15 extra but discarded wounds doesn't make the gun an upgrade. Having to spend all day shooting that big giant Knight to death doesn't make the other gun an upgrade either. You pick the role you need to fill, and they balance out to a side grade.
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2023/06/24 12:18:27
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Unit1126PLL wrote: 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.
A Vindicator is 205 points. 5 Terminators is about 205 Points. Sounds pretty close to me. Few guns are the optimal gun for both, especially with the plateau around S/T 9 or 10.
Vs Terminators, the T-hawk with Heavy Cannon gets:
11 shots, approximately 7 hits, 6 wounds, and kills 3, earning you a 125 point return into a 205 point terminator squad
Vs Vindicator, the T-hawk with TLD gets:
3 shots, 2 hits, very little chance to save either, 19 damage, earning you a 205 point return.
TLD is a better choice if both weapons fire at their preferred targets.
The opposite:
TLD will kill 1 terminator for a 41 point return
Heavy Cannon will neither kill nor cripple a vindicator (10 shots, 6 hits, 2 wounds, 1 save, 3 damage) for a 0 pt return, effectively. (Damage isn't exactly worth nothing, but you haven't even made him pull out a tech marine for fear yet).
Yes, you could in fact do poorly 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.
S10 -2 D3D isn't heavy anti-tank anymore - its aimed at light vehicles and heavy infantry.
Correct, that's my point. The AT gun should be the more expensive of the two.
More armies are likely to bring tanks/monsters than heavy infantry; I can't wait for the IG Ogryn spam list....
How are you deciding that 3 wounds off a vindicator is worth a total return of 0?
2023/06/24 12:42:38
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Correct, that's my point. The AT gun should be the more expensive of the two.
More armies are likely to bring tanks/monsters than heavy infantry; I can't wait for the IG Ogryn spam list....
Why? Because it can kill 1 Terminator, MANZ, Warrior, Carnifex, Jackal, Venom, etc per turn? Its overkill for most things in most armies, optimal for few things - meanwhile the other version is more likely to be in the "optimal" range for far more units. One makes for bigger numbers, the other has more uses. They're tradeoffs. Blowing up a Terminator with 15 extra but discarded wounds doesn't make the gun an upgrade. Having to spend all day shooting that big giant Knight to death doesn't make the other gun an upgrade either. You pick the role you need to fill, and they balance out to a side grade.
Let me reply to you with a quote of something I already said, since you didn't read it:
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.
Unit1126PLL wrote: 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.
A Vindicator is 205 points. 5 Terminators is about 205 Points. Sounds pretty close to me. Few guns are the optimal gun for both, especially with the plateau around S/T 9 or 10.
Vs Terminators, the T-hawk with Heavy Cannon gets:
11 shots, approximately 7 hits, 6 wounds, and kills 3, earning you a 125 point return into a 205 point terminator squad
Vs Vindicator, the T-hawk with TLD gets:
3 shots, 2 hits, very little chance to save either, 19 damage, earning you a 205 point return.
TLD is a better choice if both weapons fire at their preferred targets.
The opposite:
TLD will kill 1 terminator for a 41 point return
Heavy Cannon will neither kill nor cripple a vindicator (10 shots, 6 hits, 2 wounds, 1 save, 3 damage) for a 0 pt return, effectively. (Damage isn't exactly worth nothing, but you haven't even made him pull out a tech marine for fear yet).
Yes, you could in fact do poorly 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.
S10 -2 D3D isn't heavy anti-tank anymore - its aimed at light vehicles and heavy infantry.
Correct, that's my point. The AT gun should be the more expensive of the two.
More armies are likely to bring tanks/monsters than heavy infantry; I can't wait for the IG Ogryn spam list....
How are you deciding that 3 wounds off a vindicator is worth a total return of 0?
Since GW decided that doing the remaining 8 wounds to it (and actually killing the tank) was worth 0 points, relatively, I extrapolated.
Cheeky answer, I know, but it feels unfair for me to be asked to assess how much 3 wounds on a single vindicator affects the game state (and therefore what they are worth) when the professional game designers of the game can't be troubled to assess anything of the sort...
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2023/06/24 12:46:02
2023/06/24 12:54:38
Subject: Re:Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
ccs wrote: Other than killing time, why are you debating the effectiveness of the Thundrrhawks guns?
Have any of you ever even seen a Thundrrhawk played??
.
It is a case study on free upgrades (the thread topic).
2023/06/24 13:23:18
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
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.
I read it. I just don't buy it. ATV's are T5 W8. Storm Speeders are T9 W11, Screamer Killers are T9 W8, Tyrannocytes are T9, W10, Anhilation Barges are T8, W9, Canoptek Spiders are T7 W6, Venoms are T6 W6, DeffKoptas are T6 W4, Mek Gunz are T5 W6, Dragstas are T7 W9, Crisis Suits are T5 W4, Ghostkeel is T8 W12, Broadsides are T6 W8, Sentinels are T7, W7 or T8 W7, Field Ordnance Batteries are T5 W6, Armiger/War Dogs are T10 W 10 and probably at the very top of this sort of bracket. The point is there are a LOT of these Heavy Infantry -> Light Vehicle - Medium Vehicle targets that don't need S14+ D6+X damage weapons aimed at them - and truth be told they're where you want your Krak Missiles, Multi Meltas, Battle Cannon, etc. - that bracket became much more populated this time around.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs wrote: Other than killing time, why are you debating the effectiveness of the Thundrrhawks guns?
Have any of you ever even seen a Thundrrhawk played??
1) Because it's fairly representational of the Free Upgrades/Sidegrades issue - and naturally already taken to extremes to prove the point.
2) No, but I bought one when you could still fit it in 2K at something like 600 in the back of the Space Marine codex and every body was celebrating the imminent release of plastic Thunderhawks.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/06/24 13:25:59
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2023/06/24 13:37:24
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
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.
I read it. I just don't buy it. ATV's are T5 W8. Storm Speeders are T9 W11, Screamer Killers are T9 W8, Tyrannocytes are T9, W10, Anhilation Barges are T8, W9, Canoptek Spiders are T7 W6, Venoms are T6 W6, DeffKoptas are T6 W4, Mek Gunz are T5 W6, Dragstas are T7 W9, Crisis Suits are T5 W4, Ghostkeel is T8 W12, Broadsides are T6 W8, Sentinels are T7, W7 or T8 W7, Field Ordnance Batteries are T5 W6, Armiger/War Dogs are T10 W 10 and probably at the very top of this sort of bracket. The point is there are a LOT of these Heavy Infantry -> Light Vehicle - Medium Vehicle targets that don't need S14+ D6+X damage weapons aimed at them - and truth be told they're where you want your Krak Missiles, Multi Meltas, Battle Cannon, etc. - that bracket became much more populated this time around.
Yes, and I think if you instantly vaporized most of those units (no more than than 3 models in any, and the ones with 3 get blasted by d3+2 shots or more from the big gun) you would be setting your opponent back pretty significantly.
That Thunderhawk gun (the big one) will kill a squadron of 3 Sentinels far more effectively than the littler gun, for example. Far, far more effectively. To the point where it is probably the better gun for it. (Just to choose one of your examples)
2023/06/24 13:51:47
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Yes, and I think if you instantly vaporized most of those units (no more than than 3 models in any, and the ones with 3 get blasted by d3+2 shots or more from the big gun) you would be setting your opponent back pretty significantly.
That Thunderhawk gun (the big one) will kill a squadron of 3 Sentinels far more effectively than the littler gun, for example. Far, far more effectively. To the point where it is probably the better gun for it. (Just to choose one of your examples)
Not really, with D3+1 shots you're likely to flubb the hit or wound roll on the last one still alive. And you really won't have enough shots for all the Deffkoptas. There's a role for the Laser there's a role for the Canon. Neither of them are replaced by 7 Tactical Marines with Bolters. Neither of them are an upgrade over the other.
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2023/06/24 14:23:18
Subject: Re:Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
ccs wrote: Other than killing time, why are you debating the effectiveness of the Thundrrhawks guns?
Have any of you ever even seen a Thundrrhawk played??
.
It is a case study on free upgrades (the thread topic).
Here, let me save you some time.
Your discussion will end with some of you maintaining that one of its guns should cost more pts (because some math vs arbitrary units).
The whole exercise won't matter however as it's focused on a $900 model that costs 840 pts (for SM) + all the time/effort to build & paint to put one on the table.
Believe me, no matter what math you use , or how often & loudly you claim upgrades sould cost pts, if youre bringing this to a game, you've paid for that upgrade....
2023/06/24 14:25:27
Subject: Re:Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
ccs wrote: Other than killing time, why are you debating the effectiveness of the Thundrrhawks guns?
Have any of you ever even seen a Thundrrhawk played??
.
It is a case study on free upgrades (the thread topic).
Here, let me save you some time.
Your discussion will end with some of you maintaining that one of its guns should cost more pts (because some math vs arbitrary units).
The whole exercise won't matter however as it's focused on a $900 model that costs 840 pts (for SM) + all the time/effort to build & paint to put one on the table.
Believe me, no matter what math you use , or how often & loudly you claim upgrades sould cost pts, if youre bringing this to a game, you've paid for that upgrade....
Like someone said pages ago: if you're having Thunderhawks et al. on the table, you've left the land of balanced pitched battles and are either deep into narrative gaming or playing something that should be apocalypse-level.
2023/06/24 14:32:00
Subject: Re:Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
ccs wrote: Other than killing time, why are you debating the effectiveness of the Thundrrhawks guns?
Have any of you ever even seen a Thundrrhawk played??
.
It is a case study on free upgrades (the thread topic).
Here, let me save you some time.
Your discussion will end with some of you maintaining that one of its guns should cost more pts (because some math vs arbitrary units).
The whole exercise won't matter however as it's focused on a $900 model that costs 840 pts (for SM) + all the time/effort to build & paint to put one on the table.
Believe me, no matter what math you use , or how often & loudly you claim upgrades sould cost pts, if youre bringing this to a game, you've paid for that upgrade....
Consider it the opposite end of the "Sargent with Plasma Pistol" example. It's still an argument of "free upgrades" vs "sane rules writing". We've just switched from "so small that it doesn't matter", to "so expensive that it doesn't matter" .
In the end, I imagine that we'll find an example that hits home. But, right now, we've got the two extremes covered. Don't we?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/06/24 14:33:23
2023/06/24 14:37:04
Subject: Re:Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
ccs wrote: Other than killing time, why are you debating the effectiveness of the Thundrrhawks guns?
Have any of you ever even seen a Thundrrhawk played??
.
It is a case study on free upgrades (the thread topic).
Here, let me save you some time.
Your discussion will end with some of you maintaining that one of its guns should cost more pts (because some math vs arbitrary units).
The whole exercise won't matter however as it's focused on a $900 model that costs 840 pts (for SM) + all the time/effort to build & paint to put one on the table.
Believe me, no matter what math you use , or how often & loudly you claim upgrades sould cost pts, if youre bringing this to a game, you've paid for that upgrade....
Consider it the opposite end of the "Sargent with Plasma Pistol" example. It's still an argument of "free upgrades" vs "sane rules writing". We've just switched from "so small that it doesn't matter", to "so expensive that it doesn't matter" .
In the end, I imagine that we'll find an example that hits home. But, right now, we've got the two extremes covered. Don't we?
IMHO it's a classical example of a certain type of problem: you can definitely argue that the points value of e.g. pistol variants on a given low-level character rarely matter or are close to zero anyway, and you can definitely argue that upgrades and additional stuff on rarely-seen, absurdly expensive collector's models don't matter in practice because any game they show up in is probably going to be a special occasion anyway. The middle ground, where free upgrades with no downside are important enough to matter in most games, yet the models are ubiquitous and relevant lies with stuff like free Sponsons on Leman Russes, or with Battlewagon upgrades and the like.
2023/06/24 14:53:48
Subject: Re:Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
ccs wrote: Other than killing time, why are you debating the effectiveness of the Thundrrhawks guns?
Have any of you ever even seen a Thundrrhawk played??
.
It is a case study on free upgrades (the thread topic).
Here, let me save you some time.
Your discussion will end with some of you maintaining that one of its guns should cost more pts (because some math vs arbitrary units).
The whole exercise won't matter however as it's focused on a $900 model that costs 840 pts (for SM) + all the time/effort to build & paint to put one on the table.
Believe me, no matter what math you use , or how often & loudly you claim upgrades sould cost pts, if youre bringing this to a game, you've paid for that upgrade....
Consider it the opposite end of the "Sargent with Plasma Pistol" example. It's still an argument of "free upgrades" vs "sane rules writing". We've just switched from "so small that it doesn't matter", to "so expensive that it doesn't matter" .
In the end, I imagine that we'll find an example that hits home. But, right now, we've got the two extremes covered. Don't we?
IMHO it's a classical example of a certain type of problem: you can definitely argue that the points value of e.g. pistol variants on a given low-level character rarely matter or are close to zero anyway, and you can definitely argue that upgrades and additional stuff on rarely-seen, absurdly expensive collector's models don't matter in practice because any game they show up in is probably going to be a special occasion anyway. The middle ground, where free upgrades with no downside are important enough to matter in most games, yet the models are ubiquitous and relevant lies with stuff like free Sponsons on Leman Russes, or with Battlewagon upgrades and the like.
. Sooooo....basically what I said. Kudos on making the issue more clear, however.
2023/06/24 14:57:32
Subject: Re:Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
ccs wrote: Other than killing time, why are you debating the effectiveness of the Thundrrhawks guns?
Have any of you ever even seen a Thundrrhawk played??
.
It is a case study on free upgrades (the thread topic).
Here, let me save you some time.
Your discussion will end with some of you maintaining that one of its guns should cost more pts (because some math vs arbitrary units).
The whole exercise won't matter however as it's focused on a $900 model that costs 840 pts (for SM) + all the time/effort to build & paint to put one on the table.
Believe me, no matter what math you use , or how often & loudly you claim upgrades sould cost pts, if youre bringing this to a game, you've paid for that upgrade....
Consider it the opposite end of the "Sargent with Plasma Pistol" example. It's still an argument of "free upgrades" vs "sane rules writing". We've just switched from "so small that it doesn't matter", to "so expensive that it doesn't matter" .
In the end, I imagine that we'll find an example that hits home. But, right now, we've got the two extremes covered. Don't we?
IMHO it's a classical example of a certain type of problem: you can definitely argue that the points value of e.g. pistol variants on a given low-level character rarely matter or are close to zero anyway, and you can definitely argue that upgrades and additional stuff on rarely-seen, absurdly expensive collector's models don't matter in practice because any game they show up in is probably going to be a special occasion anyway. The middle ground, where free upgrades with no downside are important enough to matter in most games, yet the models are ubiquitous and relevant lies with stuff like free Sponsons on Leman Russes, or with Battlewagon upgrades and the like.
. Sooooo....basically what I said. Kudos on making the issue more clear, however.
Yeah, the discussion is kind of circling itself already, and has been doing that for a couple of pages. It's probably because nobody has a good argument to justify all options being free, so most of the discussion is actually people broadly agreeing, and either discussing the details of what 'most' means, or not realizing that they agree because they got lost in wordiness
2023/06/24 15:05:56
Subject: Re:Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
ccs wrote: The whole exercise won't matter however as it's focused on a $900 model that costs 840 pts (for SM) + all the time/effort to build & paint to put one on the table. Believe me, no matter what math you use , or how often & loudly you claim upgrades sould cost pts, if youre bringing this to a game, you've paid for that upgrade....
The big gun with 4-5 shots, hitting on 3s and wounding on 2s, guaranteeing a kill, only needs 3 to get past to annihilate the entire sentinel squadron.
The little gun with 10-11 shots, hitting on 3s and wounding on 3s, needs 9 shots to get through to guarantee a kill on the whole squadron AND that is ignoring the 5+ save that the sentinels will get.
If I was shooting at Sentinels, I know which of the "equally useful" guns I would want, and your argument falls apart, Breton.
EDIT:
As for the people arguing about "it's irrelevant because it's imbalanced" then...Well, yes, that's the point, innit?
The game could suck, or not suck, based on the skill of the designer. "The game sucks so stop asking the designers to make it better!" Is not the strong argument you think it is.
All things should be able to be balanced, 840 points, 1000 points, or 15 points.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2023/06/24 15:17:57
2023/06/24 15:42:47
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
All things should be able to be balanced, 840 points, 1000 points, or 15 points.
Yeah, ideally that would be so, but if you have to chose it's a legitimate strategy to accept stuff 'fraying at the edges' to get the core of most people's gaming experience down pat. In my opinion, getting e.g. Leman Russes etc. right is more important that pricing individual pistols or Thunderhawk upgrades. A good system should allow for all three, but the middle of the road is the most important.
GW, however, has given up, or does not even try, and that is a criticism that can be levelled at them fairly. Doubly so because they're probably going to fold soon anyway, and adding points cost at least for major upgrades back in (again, in my opinion) at least for GTs.
2023/06/24 16:22:36
Subject: Re:Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
ccs wrote: Other than killing time, why are you debating the effectiveness of the Thundrrhawks guns?
Have any of you ever even seen a Thundrrhawk played??
Have you ever seen that tree you're looking for? Or is the forest in the way again?
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
2023/06/24 16:58:04
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
The big gun with 4-5 shots, hitting on 3s and wounding on 2s, guaranteeing a kill, only needs 3 to get past to annihilate the entire sentinel squadron.
The little gun with 10-11 shots, hitting on 3s and wounding on 3s, needs 9 shots to get through to guarantee a kill on the whole squadron AND that is ignoring the 5+ save that the sentinels will get.
If I was shooting at Sentinels, I know which of the "equally useful" guns I would want, and your argument falls apart, Breton.
EDIT:
As for the people arguing about "it's irrelevant because it's imbalanced" then...Well, yes, that's the point, innit?
The game could suck, or not suck, based on the skill of the designer. "The game sucks so stop asking the designers to make it better!" Is not the strong argument you think it is.
All things should be able to be balanced, 840 points, 1000 points, or 15 points.
A gun can be "equally useful" based on the target, because one target is preferable for one weapon doesn't mean it's preferable for all weapons. That's the point. If the cannon is better enough into infantry/elite infantry where the Destructor is wasted on it, then a balance is achieved.
There is a degree of scarcity to apply to anti-vehicle weapons though as otherwise mentioned, that is a valid point as well. I'm not sure you should have to pay more for the chance to be better into an infrequent profile.
2023/06/24 17:31:02
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
BertBert wrote: One I remember is that PL is more accessible to handicapped people who have an easier time dealing with less granular systems.
No it's not. There was one poster arguing for it, but they literally didn't play with anyone else and didn't want to. Physical disabilities don't make someone incapable of doing addition and subtraction or thinking critically about the benefits of different unit options.
2023/06/24 17:32:25
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
BertBert wrote: One I remember is that PL is more accessible to handicapped people who have an easier time dealing with less granular systems.
No it's not. There was one poster arguing for it, but they literally didn't play with anyone else and didn't want to. Physical disabilities don't make someone incapable of doing addition and subtraction or thinking critically about the benefits of different unit options.
PL, as a separate system from points, is fine. It's not as granular or as balanced, but for those who prefer it, no harm done.
Or at least, that was true in 8th and 9th. In 10th, it's PL with bigger numbers for everyone, which IS an issue.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2023/06/24 17:34:19
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
BertBert wrote: One I remember is that PL is more accessible to handicapped people who have an easier time dealing with less granular systems.
No it's not. There was one poster arguing for it, but they literally didn't play with anyone else and didn't want to. Physical disabilities don't make someone incapable of doing addition and subtraction or thinking critically about the benefits of different unit options.
PL, as a separate system from points, is fine. It's not as granular or as balanced, but for those who prefer it, no harm done.
Or at least, that was true in 8th and 9th. In 10th, it's PL with bigger numbers for everyone, which IS an issue.
Well, we just experienced the harm. Because PL exists, lazy, egotistical, and incompetent designers (Cruddace and his ilk) kludged it into the entire game system.
2023/06/24 17:35:05
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
BertBert wrote: One I remember is that PL is more accessible to handicapped people who have an easier time dealing with less granular systems.
No it's not. There was one poster arguing for it, but they literally didn't play with anyone else and didn't want to. Physical disabilities don't make someone incapable of doing addition and subtraction or thinking critically about the benefits of different unit options.
PL, as a separate system from points, is fine. It's not as granular or as balanced, but for those who prefer it, no harm done.
Or at least, that was true in 8th and 9th. In 10th, it's PL with bigger numbers for everyone, which IS an issue.
Well, we just experienced the harm. Because PL exists, lazy, egotistical, and incompetent designers (Cruddace and his ilk) kludged it into the entire game system.
Yes. That was what I said.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2023/06/24 19:18:29
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
14000 points 
