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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
3 models rounds up to 5, yes? Or does it round down? Blame the newness.

For blast? It doesnt round. You just get +1 shots for every 5 whole models in the target unit.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
3 models rounds up to 5, yes? Or does it round down? Blame the newness.

For blast? It doesnt round. You just get +1 shots for every 5 whole models in the target unit.

Roger doger (that's the same thing as rounding down)

The fed just came out and said PL is transitory. It's all gonna be okay folks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Haha see someone just necroed the crasssus from last decade! This is totally normal.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
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

Lol, this would make perfect sense!
130 for 10 actually is a reasonable cost.

 bullyboy wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
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

Lol, this would make perfect sense!
130 for 10 actually is a reasonable cost.

Still bad at their job though - and still not worth taking anything but the 'most expensive' Multi-meltas.

I love it, in context.

GW has to make money somehow. Let's run through their options:
- Create new units that are must-haves based on point values/awesome sculpts.
-Charge more money for the books for each new edition.
-Convince people to buy more models from the same old kits.

Given those options, the first unbalances the game and leads to ever-expanding codices, which make the game unwieldy and harder to balance (can't playtest all ten zillion combos). The second is intellectual property and can be circumvented.
So what do these new rules do? Rewards casual hobbyists who put power fists on their devastator sergeants (if you made that decision, you need a leg up in tournaments anyway), and gives competitive players a reason to buy more models from the same kits, decked out with different loadouts than before.

In terms of money making schemes for a company that has to keep selling models and books, I like it better than any alternative I've seen or seen suggested.

I like it, but as mentioned earlier they need to stick with it long enough to shake out the bugs -

Things like Leman Russ without Sponsons need somesort of boost for the tradeoff of no Sponsons like more movement, or an invuln or something that would be a performance improvement based on the absence of a bit as opposed to the presence of it. If it's got Sponsons it's MV5, if not it's MV7 or some such.

dominuschao wrote:
The fed just came out and said PL is transitory. It's all gonna be okay folks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Haha see someone just necroed the crasssus from last decade! This is totally normal.

I kept wondering why most of those images don't work. Took me 13 pages of chuckling to realize

Breton wrote:
Things like Leman Russ without Sponsons need somesort of boost for the tradeoff of no Sponsons like more movement, or an invuln or something that would be a performance improvement based on the absence of a bit as opposed to the presence of it. If it's got Sponsons it's MV5, if not it's MV7 or some such.

No, we don't need More Rules™. That won't solve anything.

Just put costs in for upgrades. It's the easiest option to take.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Breton wrote:
Things like Leman Russ without Sponsons need somesort of boost for the tradeoff of no Sponsons like more movement, or an invuln or something that would be a performance improvement based on the absence of a bit as opposed to the presence of it. If it's got Sponsons it's MV5, if not it's MV7 or some such.

No, we don't need More Rules™. That won't solve anything.

Just put costs in for upgrades. It's the easiest option to take.

No we don't need More Points For Upgrades™ That won't solve anything. Just put in boosts for "negative" upgrades. Its the easiest option to take.

Obviously a sponsonless russ has a smaller front profile, making it easier to get the benefits of cover which results in a precisely equal increase of effectiveness as that of taking two extra heavy weapons would yield

Obviously

Breton wrote:
No we don't need More Points For Upgrades™ That won't solve anything. Just put in boosts for "negative" upgrades. Its the easiest option to take.

Nice try, but no.

Your suggestion was to bolt on further special rules to the game. How is that ever a good solution? How is that a solution in this edition of the game?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Breton wrote:
No we don't need More Points For Upgrades™ That won't solve anything. Just put in boosts for "negative" upgrades. Its the easiest option to take.

Nice try, but no.

Your suggestion was to bolt on further special rules to the game. How is that ever a good solution? How is that a solution in this edition of the game?

You've convinced me. Lets just really cut out the rules.

The board will be divided into 64 squares in an 8x8 pattern

You can only move units diagonally to open squares.
2. All moves should be made across the dark squares.
3. Each unit can move only a Single Square at a time.
4. If the unit can make it to the farthest row from its initial place, it is considered “Emperored”, and another piece is placed on top of it.
5. The Emperor unit is also limited to move only one square at a time. However, as per Warhammer rules, a player can move backward to prevent Battleshock.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Breton wrote:
Things like Leman Russ without Sponsons need somesort of boost for the tradeoff of no Sponsons like more movement, or an invuln or something that would be a performance improvement based on the absence of a bit as opposed to the presence of it. If it's got Sponsons it's MV5, if not it's MV7 or some such.

No, we don't need More Rules™. That won't solve anything.

Just put costs in for upgrades. It's the easiest option to take.

I'd gladly take either approach; reintroduce points for (obviously) unequal options, or eliminate upgrade points and make all options equal (as in actual viable choices/tradeoffs). The issue is we ended up with a little bit of both, which is just a mess.

Breton wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Breton wrote:
Things like Leman Russ without Sponsons need somesort of boost for the tradeoff of no Sponsons like more movement, or an invuln or something that would be a performance improvement based on the absence of a bit as opposed to the presence of it. If it's got Sponsons it's MV5, if not it's MV7 or some such.

No, we don't need More Rules™. That won't solve anything.

Just put costs in for upgrades. It's the easiest option to take.

No we don't need More Points For Upgrades™ That won't solve anything. Just put in boosts for "negative" upgrades. Its the easiest option to take.

Uh no thanks, a las pistol should be inferior to a plasma pistol

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Breton wrote:
Things like Leman Russ without Sponsons need somesort of boost for the tradeoff of no Sponsons like more movement, or an invuln or something that would be a performance improvement based on the absence of a bit as opposed to the presence of it. If it's got Sponsons it's MV5, if not it's MV7 or some such.

No, we don't need More Rules™. That won't solve anything.

Just put costs in for upgrades. It's the easiest option to take.

So not those rules , but [/i]these[i] rules.....
Either way you're adding Rules. And if so I'd rather have something fun/interesting vs +x points.

Breton wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Breton wrote:
No we don't need More Points For Upgrades™ That won't solve anything. Just put in boosts for "negative" upgrades. Its the easiest option to take.

Nice try, but no.

Your suggestion was to bolt on further special rules to the game. How is that ever a good solution? How is that a solution in this edition of the game?

You've convinced me. Lets just really cut out the rules.

The board will be divided into 64 squares in an 8x8 pattern

You can only move units diagonally to open squares.
2. All moves should be made across the dark squares.
3. Each unit can move only a Single Square at a time.
4. If the unit can make it to the farthest row from its initial place, it is considered “Emperored”, and another piece is placed on top of it.
5. The Emperor unit is also limited to move only one square at a time. However, as per Warhammer rules, a player can move backward to prevent Battleshock.

Bruh, this is the exact thing your rules that need to be equal to sponsons, it does not make a lick of sense for anyone except those with a third grade level of math who can do the math for 3 figure numbers only if the final digit ends in 0 or 5 and no more than 20 numbers in total. Just use a spreadsheet or an app for making your list, this is madness. You have never suggested previously that sponsons ought to slow a vehicle down have you? Isn't that proof that you don't think it's something the game needs to represent on the table, just like we don't need to represent whether Sergeant Harker has a bad hairday?

ccs wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Breton wrote:
Things like Leman Russ without Sponsons need somesort of boost for the tradeoff of no Sponsons like more movement, or an invuln or something that would be a performance improvement based on the absence of a bit as opposed to the presence of it. If it's got Sponsons it's MV5, if not it's MV7 or some such.

No, we don't need More Rules™. That won't solve anything.

Just put costs in for upgrades. It's the easiest option to take.

So not those rules , but these rules.....
Either way you're adding Rules. And if so I'd rather have something fun/interesting vs +x points.

It's also not acknowledging that getting +X points right isn't trivial either, it adds another burden to the writing process for good or ill.

Dudeface wrote:

ccs wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Breton wrote:
Things like Leman Russ without Sponsons need somesort of boost for the tradeoff of no Sponsons like more movement, or an invuln or something that would be a performance improvement based on the absence of a bit as opposed to the presence of it. If it's got Sponsons it's MV5, if not it's MV7 or some such.

No, we don't need More Rules™. That won't solve anything.

Just put costs in for upgrades. It's the easiest option to take.

So not those rules , but these rules.....
Either way you're adding Rules. And if so I'd rather have something fun/interesting vs +x points.

It's also not acknowledging that getting +X points right isn't trivial either, it adds another burden to the writing process for good or ill.

We're not asking GW to get +X points right, we are asking them to give a single solitary gak about the balance in the game. GW didn't get the cost between units and factions right, so clearly they didn't spend the time saved on not implementing pts costs for options into balancing the game in other ways.

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

ccs wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Breton wrote:
Things like Leman Russ without Sponsons need somesort of boost for the tradeoff of no Sponsons like more movement, or an invuln or something that would be a performance improvement based on the absence of a bit as opposed to the presence of it. If it's got Sponsons it's MV5, if not it's MV7 or some such.

No, we don't need More Rules™. That won't solve anything.

Just put costs in for upgrades. It's the easiest option to take.

So not those rules , but these rules.....
Either way you're adding Rules. And if so I'd rather have something fun/interesting vs +x points.

It's also not acknowledging that getting +X points right isn't trivial either, it adds another burden to the writing process for good or ill.

We're not asking GW to get +X points right, we are asking them to give a single solitary gak about the balance in the game. GW didn't get the cost between units and factions right, so clearly they didn't spend the time saved on not implementing pts costs for options into balancing the game in other ways.

Nobody is arguing that, but there are definitely people who want points over rules/option parity because it comes without the burden of balancing them against one another and weirdly some people love the option of simply having a series of things that exist but are betterer than each other.

Dudeface wrote:
and weirdly some people love the option of simply having a series of things that exist but are betterer than each other.

Elite versions of basic units have been in the game since forever.

a_typical_hero wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
and weirdly some people love the option of simply having a series of things that exist but are betterer than each other.

Elite versions of basic units have been in the game since forever.

And the basic guys with no gear have been superior for most of that time because they cost less points.

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

ccs wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Breton wrote:
Things like Leman Russ without Sponsons need somesort of boost for the tradeoff of no Sponsons like more movement, or an invuln or something that would be a performance improvement based on the absence of a bit as opposed to the presence of it. If it's got Sponsons it's MV5, if not it's MV7 or some such.

No, we don't need More Rules™. That won't solve anything.

Just put costs in for upgrades. It's the easiest option to take.

So not those rules , but these rules.....
Either way you're adding Rules. And if so I'd rather have something fun/interesting vs +x points.

It's also not acknowledging that getting +X points right isn't trivial either, it adds another burden to the writing process for good or ill.

We're not asking GW to get +X points right, we are asking them to give a single solitary gak about the balance in the game. GW didn't get the cost between units and factions right, so clearly they didn't spend the time saved on not implementing pts costs for options into balancing the game in other ways.

Nobody is arguing that, but there are definitely people who want points over rules/option parity because it comes without the burden of balancing them against one another and weirdly some people love the option of simply having a series of things that exist but are betterer than each other.

Some things you can reasonably balance against each other-a Heavy Bolter, an Autocannon, and a Lascannon can (in theory) all be made worth the same points cost fairly.
But if you take a Devastator Squad with one Heavy Weapon, it should be cheaper than one with four.

As for why you'd want to take a Dev Squad with only one Heavy, the Signum. An old five-strong Tactical Squad with one Heavy Weapon isn't legal as a Tactical Squad anymore, but it IS as a Devastator Squad. And even if they revert Tac Squads to be 5-10, for a backfield objective holder, the Signum is better than the Tactical Marine's special rule.

And generally things that are better - like better weapons over not-as-good weapons - cost points! Funny that...

ccs wrote:
So not those rules , but [/i]these[i] rules.....

Not even close. Points already exist. This would be increasing (or, rather, reintroducing) greater granularity. You're not adding any rules.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
And the basic guys with no gear have been superior for most of that time because they cost less points.

Is that so? IIRC even when troops were seen as a tax under the old FOC, people still gave them upgrades. For example the infamous 5 man LasPlas squads of old. Upgrades to a bigger HQ were more or less always taken too, just to give another example.

Dudeface 810334 11556023 wrote:
Nobody is arguing that, but there are definitely people who want points over rules/option parity because it comes without the burden of balancing them against one another and weirdly some people love the option of simply having a series of things that exist but are betterer than each other.

Both points and unit composition problems are the buy product of how GW designed the boxes. Why are DG taken in 5s or 10s, but the box comes with 7 dudes? Can't take 9 sword brethern to fit in a character, but the concept of smaller units to fit a character is something GW can imagine, because they let 2 custodes bike be take. And they do it only because there is an option to make a shield captin out of one. So GW does know that in order to be played armies like Votan or SoB, should be MSU, but they just don't let regular troops do it. Now retributors, who probably would want to have 2-3 extra bodies, can't do it. And votan infantry can combat squad, but only if the person buy , and I am talking money here, a transport option for them. Often the stuff gets really bizzar. GK termis and paladins are made out of the same box. The termintors get an "option" to take an ancient and apothecary, but paladins can only take the ancient? What happened, also the idea of 20% of all GK being librarians and apothecaries is mind blowing. There is also copy paste errors or things we wished were ones, but probably are just GW being serious. And all of this wouldn't be such a gigantic problem, if the different between the have and have nots in w40k wasn't gigantic. The low or mid tier army just can't afford to take the less optimal options, especialy if the player in case doesn't have access to limitless supply of hobby money.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
And the basic guys with no gear have been superior for most of that time because they cost less points.

Is that so? IIRC even when troops were seen as a tax under the old FOC, people still gave them upgrades. For example the infamous 5 man LasPlas squads of old. Upgrades to a bigger HQ were more or less always taken too, just to give another example.

Yeah, the idea that naked squads have usually been better is bogus. LasPlas was a thing and Tacticals were rarely all-bolter. Imperial Guard Leafblower (chock-full of triple-plasma Veterans in Chimeras) was a thing. Scions have spent most of their existence toting as many special weapons as they can. Find me the Drukhari player who said 'no thanks, I don't want more Blasters, just Splinter Rifles is fine'. As-cheap-as-possible Spinefist Termagants were a thing in 5th but Devourer Termagants (doubling their cost) was a thing in 8th. Every single game-breaking deathstar that has ever existed in the history of 40K has been contingent on stacking upgrades and add-ons.

Even if the premise were true, you can always find a cost where the heavy weapons are worth taking. Would Astra Militarum players really ditch all their special and heavy weapons if they cost 1pt apiece? There is a cost level where an upgrade is a real consideration rather than a must-take or never-take, and that's the appropriate cost.

In any case I'm still pretty fine with special and heavy weapons being free if appropriately balanced so that they're actually sidegrades and there aren't clear winners or losers. I just don't see how you can balance chainsword+laspistol against power sword+plasma pistol without either points or something significantly more complicated.

nemesis464 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Breton wrote:
Things like Leman Russ without Sponsons need somesort of boost for the tradeoff of no Sponsons like more movement, or an invuln or something that would be a performance improvement based on the absence of a bit as opposed to the presence of it. If it's got Sponsons it's MV5, if not it's MV7 or some such.

No, we don't need More Rules™. That won't solve anything.

Just put costs in for upgrades. It's the easiest option to take.

No we don't need More Points For Upgrades™ That won't solve anything. Just put in boosts for "negative" upgrades. Its the easiest option to take.

Uh no thanks, a las pistol should be inferior to a plasma pistol

A las pistol should be different from, but not inferior to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

Breton wrote:

Bruh, this is the exact thing your rules that need to be equal to sponsons, it does not make a lick of sense for anyone except those with a third grade level of math who can do the math for 3 figure numbers only if the final digit ends in 0 or 5 and no more than 20 numbers in total. Just use a spreadsheet or an app for making your list, this is madness. You have never suggested previously that sponsons ought to slow a vehicle down have you? Isn't that proof that you don't think it's something the game needs to represent on the table, just like we don't need to represent whether Sergeant Harker has a bad hairday?

Nope in the past they used a different design theory. Recently I didn't play Guard so it didn't occur to me, when someone else pointed out this fell through the cracks, I immediately agreed there should be a balance path for those models.

Breton wrote:

Uh no thanks, a las pistol should be inferior to a plasma pistol

A las pistol should be different from, but not inferior to.

Negative. The Plasma Pistol is canonically a superior weapon, and has been for the life of the game. Games really, as it exists in Necromunda and the RPGs as well. It is an upgrade.

Making it not an upgrade is over-design for the sake of artificial constraints which are completely unnesessary. It's the sacrifice of lore for junk design.

Breton wrote:

nemesis464 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Breton wrote:
Things like Leman Russ without Sponsons need somesort of boost for the tradeoff of no Sponsons like more movement, or an invuln or something that would be a performance improvement based on the absence of a bit as opposed to the presence of it. If it's got Sponsons it's MV5, if not it's MV7 or some such.

No, we don't need More Rules™. That won't solve anything.

Just put costs in for upgrades. It's the easiest option to take.

No we don't need More Points For Upgrades™ That won't solve anything. Just put in boosts for "negative" upgrades. Its the easiest option to take.

Uh no thanks, a las pistol should be inferior to a plasma pistol

A las pistol should be different from, but not inferior to.

You should apply for a job at GW immediately, you’re perfect for the sort of nonsense they come up with