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.

Dudeface wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

Breton wrote:
Have you seen the points costs for 5/10 Marine units in Power Armor?

I thought points are bad or something?

Points per unit = ok, points for every doodad they have on them needing to be differentiated = bad I think is the oversimplification.

The reasoning for that difference completely eludes me. Probably because my glory days with the hobby were with the Imperial Guard where the "doodads" were more important than the units .

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Honestly if you're going so far as to make every weapon or upgrade sidegrades even when that doesn't make sense (like when there's nothing it's replacing in the first place), the next logical conclusion is to go the extra mile and make ever unit a sidegrade to each other and just deleted points wholesale! That's get rid of all those "extra rules" and even delete a whole document!

I mean, if a laspistol should have 4 shots to make it equal to a plasma pistol, it's only logical that you can do the same to make a guardsman equal to a space marine and it wouldn't break immersion or the game rules or anything like that.

...Do you see how ridiculous this all sounds now?

been there, done that

was called Age of Sigmar 1st Edition, was a nice idea but did not work well as GW only provided rules to play for 2 factions with the core box models and said "figure out yourself" to everyone else
and yes, if every unit should be equal you give them advantages/disadvantages to handle that, it is not like it does not work it is just the same amount of work as giving points to upgrades

there is no easy solution to this and no matter what system is chosen, be it points for upgrades, be it equal units without points, or be it that unit upgrades are split into different datasheets, the results are the same if done well

the problem is always the same, GW does not want to spend the time and the money to do it well because people are buying and defending it no matter what (so there is no reason to invest anything into it specially as it is only valid for 3 years anyway)

we see how the current system can work with Landspeeders. If it is an upgrade it gets a new Datasheet with different points, if it is a sidegrade it is an option on that Datasheet.
but there are 2 problems, first it is a lot of work to split all the units up, and the more important one, we would get much more units for Xenos and most factions would be on a Marine level of unit numbers

 AtoMaki wrote:

Breton wrote:
Have you seen the points costs for 5/10 Marine units in Power Armor?

I thought points are bad or something?

Points are good - but mostly I was pointing out that they maybe shouldn't have tried to suggest making all the units cost the same as an equivalent swap-out while almost all the 5/10 Marine units are 90/180 points as that's probably a little too true right now to be a joke.

How much extra movement will my Hammerhead get for not taking Seeker Missiles?

And does it gain that extra movement after I fire said seeker missiles in the game? After all, it is no longer slowed down by the weight of the missiles any more.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
How much extra movement will my Hammerhead get for not taking Seeker Missiles?

And does it gain that extra movement after I fire said seeker missiles in the game? After all, it is no longer slowed down by the weight of the missiles any more.

Have them for free, base equipment. You're welcome.

Dudeface wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
How much extra movement will my Hammerhead get for not taking Seeker Missiles?

And does it gain that extra movement after I fire said seeker missiles in the game? After all, it is no longer slowed down by the weight of the missiles any more.

Have them for free, base equipment. You're welcome.

Okay, so does that also apply to my Devilfish, Skyrays, Piranhas and Broadsides? Doesn't altering the base equipment of those units require the same amount of changes as just adding a points cost to the wargear?

What about if I swap the twin pulse carbines on my Devilfish, Skyrays, Hammerheads for Burst Cannons or SMS? Do I get any bonus for not swapping to the superior weapons?

I'm a little late to the party, but whatever...

I like pointing units in blocks of models, I think this is a good change.

However, unit wargear (not necessarily weapon options), but optional unit wargear that grant an ability or whole unit enhancement should have a points cost associated with it.

I think it's important to keep in mind, despite anything GW may have already said, this can change. Us vets who have lived through a few editions know full well that GW can and will (because they have so many times before) shift design direction during an edition.

Breton wrote:
I do admit I'm loving the "My way isn't a rule" line in the sand y'all are drawing. This line telling me what I can do and how to do it is not a rule because points. But adding an ELSE statement to the IF/THEN part totally makes it a rule.

That just shows how you don't understand why you're wrong. Points are not rules.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
How much extra movement will my Hammerhead get for not taking Seeker Missiles?

And does it gain that extra movement after I fire said seeker missiles in the game? After all, it is no longer slowed down by the weight of the missiles any more.

Have them for free, base equipment. You're welcome.

Okay, so does that also apply to my Devilfish, Skyrays, Piranhas and Broadsides? Doesn't altering the base equipment of those units require the same amount of changes as just adding a points cost to the wargear?

What about if I swap the twin pulse carbines on my Devilfish, Skyrays, Hammerheads for Burst Cannons or SMS? Do I get any bonus for not swapping to the superior weapons?

Of course it can apply to all of them it's A. no different from how it is today, B. removed the need for WYSIWYG modelling of said missiles and C. comes backed into the cost then.

With regards the other options, yes. I'm not sure if the drones still detach? That was the added value previously to the pulse rifles. Otherwise the weapons shouldn't be obviously superior to one another potentially. They can cost points and still have an obviously superior option regardless.

I think it's even more hilarious Breton thinks 2" of movement is "equal" in cost to 2 Heavy Bolters or 2 Lascannons LMAO

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Breton wrote:
I do admit I'm loving the "My way isn't a rule" line in the sand y'all are drawing. This line telling me what I can do and how to do it is not a rule because points. But adding an ELSE statement to the IF/THEN part totally makes it a rule.

That just shows how you don't understand why you're wrong. Points are not rules.

Honestly I don't get how this is even a discussion. No points for options can work *if you (re)design the game around it*. Points for options can work *if you (re)design the game around it*. Gw did neither, that's on them. There's no point in arguing with eachother over it.

This is one of those threads where I start to think that Breton is a troll but he keeps going and makes it clear that he's serious and he breaks my brain by the end of it. It's like post-modernist philosophy.

But unlike post-modern philosophy, it's so fascinating, I just can't look away...

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
This is one of those threads where I start to think that Breton is a troll but he keeps going and makes it clear that he's serious and he breaks my brain by the end of it. It's like post-modernist philosophy.

But unlike post-modern philosophy, it's so fascinating, I just can't look away...

Yeah if you think the guy saying a bullet point allowing you to buy sponsons is not a rule, but another bullet point saying free sponsons or add movement is a rule isn't the troll, I can't help you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I think it's even more hilarious Breton thinks 2" of movement is "equal" in cost to 2 Heavy Bolters or 2 Lascannons LMAO

Could be movement - that was someone else's idea - Personally I'd go with an invuln or a FNP and frequently said faster/tougher/something - the power that would have gone to the sponson weapons now powers an impulsor shield dome nicked from Cawl or something. Honesty must not be your thing.

The point is a SOMETHING for no sponsons should have been a thing. GW should have caught it. They didn't. They should fix it now and quickly.

Breton wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

No, your proposal has more rules because you need to add the extra rules for a different stat if you don't choose an option, but you still need to retain the list of options on the datasheet. Equating a points cost to a rule just strikes me as a dishonest attempt to justify an untenable position.

So only the lines on the datasheet you don't like are rules? The rest are point costs?

A line is a line is a rule is a rule. Pay 25 points for sponsons, or Pay 2 MV for Sponsons isn't so drastically different, but thanks for the laugh at trying to insinuate dishonesty over it. That was even funnier than 25 points for Sponsons is a cost, 2 Movement Rating is a rule!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
solution is easy anyway, you have a datacard without sponsons and one datacard with them
so you get different points for the naked one and the one with sponsons

That can open up Leman Russ overload going around the Rule of Three - though they can just do the same thing they did with Daemon Princes. Its probably the "better" choice tho, because they tend to not allow us to modify the statline except for +1W on models that already have a 4+ when taking a Storm Shield.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I've tried explaining that.

Adding rules to make up for differences in ability isn't the same as having different points costs. Points aren't rules.

The one line rule on the data sheet that lets you take two sponsons for 25 points is points!

The one line rule that lets you add 2" to MV for not taking a sponson is rules!

1-2 Canoptek Spyders equipped with: automaton claws 70 pts/model.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 2 particle beamers.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 fabricator claw array.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 gloom prism.

1-2 Canoptek Spyders equipped with: automaton claws 70 pts/model.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 2 particle beamers. Add 2" to the Movement characteristic of models without this.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 fabricator claw array. Add 1 to the Toughness characteristic of models without this.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 gloom prism. Add 1 to the Attacks characteristic of models without this.

1-2 Canoptek Spyders equipped with: automaton claws 60 pts/model.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 2 particle beamers 5 pts/model.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 fabricator claw array 5 pts/model.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 gloom prism 5 pts/model.

The second puts strain on both players during the game, the first and third do not factor into the game after the list is made. The first punishes people for not taking all the upgrades. The third is the best option and I would say has the same number of rules as number 1 while number 2 has 3 extra rules.

leopard wrote:
*cough* who cares about more rules or fewer rules [i]when the rules are logical, consistent and make some sort of sense?

the issue here is the lack of making sense and trying to equate as equal things which are quite evidently unequal and calling it "simplicity" when actually all its doing is making trying to approximately balance two forces so its the players skill on the table, not in the "list building phase" that determines the output more

list building is obviously a skill yes and it should matter, but not be everything

as a side note the idea that a tank moves slower the more "upgrades" you add as a balance factor is one I quite like, resource management other than just points

I care because the game becomes unwieldy when it has too many rules. How am I supposed to remember all the different benefits of not having sponsons? Obviously making sense isn't exactly the biggest concern of the proponents of PL either. Keeping PL around is the biggest concern.

Breton wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
This is one of those threads where I start to think that Breton is a troll but he keeps going and makes it clear that he's serious and he breaks my brain by the end of it. It's like post-modernist philosophy.

But unlike post-modern philosophy, it's so fascinating, I just can't look away...

Yeah if you think the guy saying a bullet point allowing you to buy sponsons is not a rule, but another bullet point saying free sponsons or add movement is a rule isn't the troll, I can't help you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I think it's even more hilarious Breton thinks 2" of movement is "equal" in cost to 2 Heavy Bolters or 2 Lascannons LMAO

Could be movement - that was someone else's idea - Personally I'd go with an invuln or a FNP and frequently said faster/tougher/something - the power that would have gone to the sponson weapons now powers an impulsor shield dome nicked from Cawl or something. Honesty must not be your thing.

Maybe "not a rule" isn't the correct term.
Turning every wargear option into an "either get the upgrade, or get some other rules that benefit you" adds massive amounts of complexity to the game in terms of balancing, especially when you have multiple upgrade combinations on a unit.
Simply saying "you get this thing, OR you get X free points" is simpler, and (by comparison) much easier to balance. You don't have to rewrite and rebalance an entire (active or passive) ability, you just adjust a single number.

Breton wrote:The point is a SOMETHING for no sponsons should have been a thing. GW should have caught it. They didn't. They should fix it now and quickly.

100%

 vict0988 wrote:

1-2 Canoptek Spyders equipped with: automaton claws 70 pts/model.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 2 particle beamers.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 fabricator claw array.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 gloom prism.

1-2 Canoptek Spyders equipped with: automaton claws 70 pts/model.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 2 particle beamers. Add 2" to the Movement characteristic of models without this.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 fabricator claw array. Add 1 to the Toughness characteristic of models without this.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 gloom prism. Add 1 to the Attacks characteristic of models without this.

1-2 Canoptek Spyders equipped with: automaton claws 60 pts/model.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 2 particle beamers 5 pts/model.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 fabricator claw array 5 pts/model.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 gloom prism 5 pts/model.

The second puts strain on both players during the game, the first and third do not factor into the game after the list is made. The first punishes people for not taking all the upgrades. The third is the best option and I would say has the same number of rules as number 1 while number 2 has 3 extra rules.

You missed a fourth option:

"1-2 Canoptek Spiders each equipped with automaton claws, 2 particle beamers, 1 fabricator claw array and 1 gloom prism. 70pts/model"


If the gear doesn't have points and there's no downside to taking it, just assume each physical model representing the unit has it, whether or not the upgrade is there on a particular individual model.

Breton wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
This is one of those threads where I start to think that Breton is a troll but he keeps going and makes it clear that he's serious and he breaks my brain by the end of it. It's like post-modernist philosophy.

But unlike post-modern philosophy, it's so fascinating, I just can't look away...

Yeah if you think the guy saying a bullet point allowing you to buy sponsons is not a rule, but another bullet point saying free sponsons or add movement is a rule isn't the troll, I can't help you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I think it's even more hilarious Breton thinks 2" of movement is "equal" in cost to 2 Heavy Bolters or 2 Lascannons LMAO

Could be movement - that was someone else's idea - Personally I'd go with an invuln or a FNP and frequently said faster/tougher/something - the power that would have gone to the sponson weapons now powers an impulsor shield dome nicked from Cawl or something. Honesty must not be your thing.

The point is a SOMETHING for no sponsons should have been a thing. GW should have caught it. They didn't. They should fix it now and quickly.

Okay, but WHY should the Russ get those benefits? They're already 2+, and have a high T value. You realize how much more of a benefit would need to be added to that in order to weigh close to two extra guns?

It'd absurd.

 Asmodai wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

1-2 Canoptek Spyders equipped with: automaton claws 70 pts/model.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 2 particle beamers.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 fabricator claw array.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 gloom prism.

1-2 Canoptek Spyders equipped with: automaton claws 70 pts/model.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 2 particle beamers. Add 2" to the Movement characteristic of models without this.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 fabricator claw array. Add 1 to the Toughness characteristic of models without this.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 gloom prism. Add 1 to the Attacks characteristic of models without this.

1-2 Canoptek Spyders equipped with: automaton claws 60 pts/model.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 2 particle beamers 5 pts/model.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 fabricator claw array 5 pts/model.
Any number of models can each be equipped with 1 gloom prism 5 pts/model.

The second puts strain on both players during the game, the first and third do not factor into the game after the list is made. The first punishes people for not taking all the upgrades. The third is the best option and I would say has the same number of rules as number 1 while number 2 has 3 extra rules.

You missed a fourth option:

"1-2 Canoptek Spiders each equipped with automaton claws, 2 particle beamers, 1 fabricator claw array and 1 gloom prism. 70pts/model"


If the gear doesn't have points and there's no downside to taking it, just assume each physical model representing the unit has it, whether or not the upgrade is there on a particular individual model.

Good point, I forgot that option was mentioned previously in the thread. Tomb Blades have to choose between ignores cover and a 5++ in terms of wargear upgrades, which one do they have if the models don't have either? Isn't it a failure if in the fluff not all Canoptek Spyders have particle beamers, but in the crunch they all do?

Putting points on a piece of equipment requires heuristically assessing its value.

Adding a new ability as a sidegrade to the equipment requires designing a novel ability or characteristic change, heuristically assessing its value against that of the equipment, and tweaking the new ability until it presents comparable value.

They're both valid approaches, but the first requires a lot less design overhead, avoids situations where turning straight upgrades into sidegrades has undesirable implications (see: the four-shot laspistol), and most importantly is going to be a lot easier to implement after the fact.

 vipoid wrote:
And those four flamers together kill . . . a whole Marine.

Flamers OP. GW please nerf.

Well, yea, but that's why you generally don't point heavy bolters at tanks. Measuring against only MEQ doesn't give you the whole story. If every gun was equally efficient against all targets it'd be sort of pointless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
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 not that clear to me. One is very good into heavy infantry and the other is very good into vehicles. You're not going to think the turbo laser is an "upgrade" squaring off against an all termie force are you?

This isn't an edition where taking a bunch of S8 weapons solves all your problems.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Breton wrote:
I do admit I'm loving the "My way isn't a rule" line in the sand y'all are drawing. This line telling me what I can do and how to do it is not a rule because points. But adding an ELSE statement to the IF/THEN part totally makes it a rule.

That just shows how you don't understand why you're wrong. Points are not rules.

One thing we need to get straight here is the following are all rules:

A unit statistic
A unit or wargear ability
The unit composition
A unit option
The units points value

They are all things published by GW that are used to play the game, aka rules.

 alextroy wrote:

A unit statistic
A unit or wargear ability
The unit composition
A unit option
The units points value

They are all things published by GW that are used to play the game, aka rules.

OK if this is a semantic argument, what's the difference you're defining between a game rule, a game mechanic, and the mechanics of a game component?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
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.

This assumes armies are not functional without bigger models. Missions matter.

The Heavy Cannon is 15% efficient into terminators ( 410 ) -- turbo laser is 5%. The turbo laser is 16% efficient into a ( also 410 ) Knight -- the heavy cannon is 6%. Weird, right? ( not sarcastically )

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Points aren't rules.

You are wrong on that.
1st, & most importantly, is that the rules say X thing costs Y pts.
It's a rule that my SM atv costs 80/model. If I just decide to spend 75 pts on it? Then I'm cheating.

2nd, pts often lead to having more rules written about them. Ex: how many pts worth of stuff could be placed in reserve, what % can be spent on various types/amounts of units/allies, how many terrain features, victoy conditions, hell even the recommend size of your table. All those & more are rules related to pts that frequently show up in GWs games.

Rules for list construction =/= rules for playing the game. I don't need to know your points costs, I need to know your stats and abilities. If GW adds more stats and abilities to the game then the game becomes more complicated for me, if sponsons cost points nothing changes for me. The only time I would have to care about points is when I am building my list.

 alextroy wrote:
[They are all things published by GW that are used to play the game, aka rules.

no, some of those are used to build a list and not used to play the game
if you use points to play you are doing something very different while playing the game than most of us

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, no.

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.

We have yet to classify the units and how weapons interact in each class. The number of different profiles and "what weapon goes where" is much more broad.

A non-exhaustive list :



You obviously don't build your list with a weapon for each profile in mind. You'll have high AP weapons to take on models with no invuln. Then you have high volume to tackle more plentiful units. From there it's special rules, but DW throws a wrench in the whole thing.

After a few games in the past week I have to say I'm quite happy with the change. Units are just more interesting not having to strip out all their interesting gear to fit more stuff. It's a little complicated, particularly given the apps lack of a good play mode, but I found the armies themselves to be drastically more interesting than I'm used to.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
The Heavy Cannon is 15% efficient into terminators ( 410 ) -- turbo laser is 5%. The turbo laser is 16% efficient into a ( also 410 ) Knight -- the heavy cannon is 6%. Weird, right? ( not sarcastically )

It kinda is, actually, because the Terminators are the best target for the cannon (T5 vs S10, 2+/4++ save vs -2 AP, W3 vs D3) while the turbo-laser does not exactly like targeting that Knight (especially the 5++ cutting its effectiveness by a third). And you need THAT, a perfect target vs sub-optimal target scenario for the cannon to break even. If anything, this is the perfect example of why the turbo-laser should cost something.

 kodos wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
[They are all things published by GW that are used to play the game, aka rules.

no, some of those are used to build a list and not used to play the game
if you use points to play you are doing something very different while playing the game than most of us

I hate to be the smug "both sides" guy but this disagreement may be the most touch grass thing I've seen...well today but thats still a lot!