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.

 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

You have to use the rules for list construction to write the list to play the game. So points are rules.

Now if you want to say, I’d rather have more variable points than unit Abilities, say what you mean. Don’t say “points are not rules”.

 Wyzilla wrote:
This also carries over to the wargame itself as I cannot think of a single time that any pistol proved worthwhile at all for me in any context.

I once had a Wraith one-shot Celestine on overwatch with a Particle Caster.

Best salt : 5pts ratio I've ever seen.

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.

We keep coming back to this. Anyone with half a brain can see what the obvious solution is, and it begins with ‘p’

 alextroy wrote:

 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

You have to use the rules for list construction to write the list to play the game. So points are rules.

Now if you want to say, I’d rather have more variable points than unit Abilities, say what you mean. Don’t say “points are not rules”.

well points are not part of the rules, but come in a dedicated points document, so I don't need the rules for the points
than list building comes before playing the game, so you don't need the points to play as the parts were you need them comes before you start playing the game

and you don't even need points at all to play as narrative and combat patrol don't need points at all

the point that matched play points are part of the rules and if we add more points or remove points we add and remove points, is pointless as this is just 1 rule anyway
you either have points and need to clarify how they work with a rule, or you don't have them and that rule

as soon as there are points, just by having some parts of the game having them but not all does not change the amount of rules
same as USR is only needed once, no matter how many units use them, saying you reduce the amount of rules by having only 1 unit using each USR is just not true

Hypothetically I'm making a unit for a game, I give it two options, but find that both options are not equal in practice. I have lots of options to solve this. I can increase the value of the weaker option. I can lower the power of the other option, I can add a tradeoff to the better option. Or, I can add a cost to the better option. I could even split the option into two distinct units and value them independently.

Hypothetically, If I did none of these....I would be 10th Edition 40K

Edit: We could get into a heated discussion about which of these is the best or easiest to implement, but the point is none seam to have been consistently applied.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 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.

Sure, there's a whole range of targets and that AP4 works much better when it's unimpeded. Guns that are AP2 or 3 will rarely ever be wasted. AP4 into 3+/5++ loses a lot of it's luster, which is why it looks to be strong into Sentinels. There's also dealing with wound counts - a Wave Serpent totally dodges two Prism wounds. Even the turbo laser will need two wounds through ( and the cannon needs 5 ). Generally, it seems like anything D3 and down is an anti-infantry weapon that can flex up if it's stats are ok.

I'm making a tool to calculate weapons into an array of targets to try and pick out the bad and the good as well as getting a sense for the real net effect of USRs.

 kodos wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 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

You have to use the rules for list construction to write the list to play the game. So points are rules.

Now if you want to say, I’d rather have more variable points than unit Abilities, say what you mean. Don’t say “points are not rules”.

well points are not part of the rules, but come in a dedicated points document, so I don't need the rules for the points
than list building comes before playing the game, so you don't need the points to play as the parts were you need them comes before you start playing the game

and you don't even need points at all to play as narrative and combat patrol don't need points at all

the point that matched play points are part of the rules and if we add more points or remove points we add and remove points, is pointless as this is just 1 rule anyway
you either have points and need to clarify how they work with a rule, or you don't have them and that rule

as soon as there are points, just by having some parts of the game having them but not all does not change the amount of rules
same as USR is only needed once, no matter how many units use them, saying you reduce the amount of rules by having only 1 unit using each USR is just not true

So those rules in the Core Rules that talk about how to setup a battle and talk about points multiple times are not rules? Or the part of Strategic Reserves that talk about points are not rules?

I like how it simplifies army list point calculations; but I'd appreciate a little more flavor then all units being maxed out on wargear... Let me spam a couple sword and board Wraithlord and save pts w/ no flamers or bright lances please!

nemesis464 wrote:

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.

We keep coming back to this. Anyone with half a brain can see what the obvious solution is, and it begins with ‘p’

Proportionate rules compensation to the value of upgrade lost :3

 CaulynDarr wrote:
We could get into a heated discussion about which of these is the best or easiest to implement, but the point is none seam to have been consistently applied.

No, the point is power level fans should have kept their mouths shut about liking their terrible system and people should have rioted when SM and Guard got free wargear upgrades in 9th and everyone should have joined me and others in deriding PL as a silly and terrible pts system. I knew 10ths balance was going to be a mess, I'm only mad that I can't do my Charge/Fight phase shenanigans, I want a turn-based strategy game, not Autochess.

 vict0988 wrote:

No, the point is power level fans should have kept their mouths shut about liking their terrible system and people should have rioted when SM and Guard got free wargear upgrades in 9th and everyone should have joined me and others in deriding PL as a silly and terrible pts system. I knew 10ths balance was going to be a mess, I'm only mad that I can't do my Charge/Fight phase shenanigans, I want a turn-based strategy game, not Autochess.

And douche of the day award goes tooo.....

Dai wrote:

 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!

Based!

ccs wrote:
You are wrong on that.

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

Weapon Skill is a rule. Armour Saves are a rules. A points system is a rule.

WS5+ is not a rule. Sv3+ is not a rule. 100 points is not a rule. They are values within a system.

So I am free to change the WS, Attacks, and Points values of my units since those are not rules?

 vict0988 wrote:

nemesis464 wrote:

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.

We keep coming back to this. Anyone with half a brain can see what the obvious solution is, and it begins with ‘p’

Proportionate rules compensation to the value of upgrade lost :3

 CaulynDarr wrote:
We could get into a heated discussion about which of these is the best or easiest to implement, but the point is none seam to have been consistently applied.

No, the point is power level fans should have kept their mouths shut about liking their terrible system and people should have rioted when SM and Guard got free wargear upgrades in 9th and everyone should have joined me and others in deriding PL as a silly and terrible pts system. I knew 10ths balance was going to be a mess, I'm only mad that I can't do my Charge/Fight phase shenanigans, I want a turn-based strategy game, not Autochess.

It's going to be a tedious 3 years reading your angry rants.

 alextroy wrote:
So I am free to change the WS, Attacks, and Points values of my units since those are not rules?

What a laughably absurd response.

You have to know you're grasping at straws by now, right? No one can actually make the argument above in good faith.

ccs wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

nemesis464 wrote:

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.

We keep coming back to this. Anyone with half a brain can see what the obvious solution is, and it begins with ‘p’

Proportionate rules compensation to the value of upgrade lost :3

 CaulynDarr wrote:
We could get into a heated discussion about which of these is the best or easiest to implement, but the point is none seam to have been consistently applied.

No, the point is power level fans should have kept their mouths shut about liking their terrible system and people should have rioted when SM and Guard got free wargear upgrades in 9th and everyone should have joined me and others in deriding PL as a silly and terrible pts system. I knew 10ths balance was going to be a mess, I'm only mad that I can't do my Charge/Fight phase shenanigans, I want a turn-based strategy game, not Autochess.

It's going to be a tedious 3 years reading your angry rants.

What leads you to the belief that it's going to get better after 3 years? That sort of overly self-confident bitterness can go on for decades easily, have you seen a proper family feud or conflict among neighbors, preferably over absolute trivialities?

 alextroy wrote:
So I am free to change the WS, Attacks, and Points values of my units since those are not rules?

In a game of monopoly, the rule is that you move a number of spaces equal to the sum of the values rolled on 2 six sided dice.

The results of the dice themselves are not rules as they are not instructions on how to play the game, they are a mechanism used to play the game.

"To make a melee attack, you must roll above or equal to your Weapon Skill value, after accounting for any and all modifiers, on a six sided die" is a rule. The text describing how to identify a units weapon skill is a rule.

3+ is not a rule. 3+ does not tell you how to play a game. 8 is not a rule, nor is 7.

Those are values, which are set by the game designer, that the rules of the game tell you how to use.

If numbers themselves are rules, then tell me, how do I 5?

I disagree. The statistics of a unit are the rules for using that unit in the game. The units BS 3+ is no less a rule than it’s Abilities. If they were not rules, you could play the game without them.

 alextroy wrote:
I disagree. The statistics of a unit are the rules for using that unit in the game. The units BS 3+ is no less a rule than it’s Abilities. If they were not rules, you could play the game without them.

Then answer, how do I 5? A rule instructs you how to play a game. How does 5 do that?

Bear in mind you can write the entire instructions on how to play the game without ever referring to any specific number. You point to the game mechanic or variable, instead. "Compare the Strength characteristic to the Toughness characteristic. If the Strength is the same as the Toughness then X etc." You can understand how to play 40K without ever needing to see an actual number assigned to a units characteristic anywhere in the written rules. That's a bit of a hint that the numbers themselves are not the rules, but just a variable that is used by the player, as instructed to do so by the rules.

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

No, the point is power level fans should have kept their mouths shut about liking their terrible system and people should have rioted when SM and Guard got free wargear upgrades in 9th and everyone should have joined me and others in deriding PL as a silly and terrible pts system. I knew 10ths balance was going to be a mess, I'm only mad that I can't do my Charge/Fight phase shenanigans, I want a turn-based strategy game, not Autochess.

And douche of the day award goes tooo.....

Nobody, because vict was nowhere near incorrect, and we should've made Cruddace feel worse about his dumb ideas.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I disagree. The statistics of a unit are the rules for using that unit in the game. The units BS 3+ is no less a rule than it’s Abilities. If they were not rules, you could play the game without them.

Then answer, how do I 5? A rule instructs you how to play a game. How does 5 do that?

Bear in mind you can write the entire instructions on how to play the game without ever referring to any specific number. You point to the game mechanic or variable, instead. "Compare the Strength characteristic to the Toughness characteristic. If the Strength is the same as the Toughness then X etc." You can understand how to play 40K without ever needing to see an actual number assigned to a units characteristic anywhere in the written rules. That's a bit of a hint that the numbers themselves are not the rules, but just a variable that is used by the player, as instructed to do so by the rules.

Nah man, numbers are rules.

17 may be a prime number and a two-digit number in the tens, but it is also a wargame rule.

ccs wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

nemesis464 wrote:

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.

We keep coming back to this. Anyone with half a brain can see what the obvious solution is, and it begins with ‘p’

Proportionate rules compensation to the value of upgrade lost :3

 CaulynDarr wrote:
We could get into a heated discussion about which of these is the best or easiest to implement, but the point is none seam to have been consistently applied.

No, the point is power level fans should have kept their mouths shut about liking their terrible system and people should have rioted when SM and Guard got free wargear upgrades in 9th and everyone should have joined me and others in deriding PL as a silly and terrible pts system. I knew 10ths balance was going to be a mess, I'm only mad that I can't do my Charge/Fight phase shenanigans, I want a turn-based strategy game, not Autochess.

It's going to be a tedious 3 years reading your angry rants.

Maybe you'd see less rants if less people kept supporting awful rules and ideas. We literally just had someone suggest Laspistols go to 4 shots to make the Plasma Pistol a side grade in order to fit this paradigm, and you see NOTHING wrong with that?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I disagree. The statistics of a unit are the rules for using that unit in the game. The units BS 3+ is no less a rule than it’s Abilities. If they were not rules, you could play the game without them.

Then answer, how do I 5? A rule instructs you how to play a game. How does 5 do that?

How do you know when to fight if you don't known any of the units I score?

Bear in mind you can write the entire instructions on how to play the game without ever referring to any specific number. You point to the game mechanic or variable, instead. "Compare the Strength characteristic to the Toughness characteristic. If the Strength is the same as the Toughness then X etc." You can understand how to play 40K without ever needing to see an actual number assigned to a units characteristic anywhere in the written rules. That's a bit of a hint that the numbers themselves are not the rules, but just a variable that is used by the player, as instructed to do so by the rules.

Unit datasheets and the statistics on them are rules just as much as the Core Rules. Without the unit statistics, all you can do is randomly move models around the board, make pew pew sounds, and argue about whether the unit you fired at is dead or not.

Also nice if you to see note the Core Rules are actually the instructions, which are combined with the unit datasheets to get the full Rules.

Not asking for that. How do you 5? Resolve 5. 5 is a rule, how do you 5?

Resolve 5 what?

I can play this game too: Strength is a rule. I see it in the Core Rules. How do you resolve Strength?

The answer, obviously, is you don't because Strength is a Characteristic, which may very well be 5.

When making an attack you roll a d6 and compare the result of the roll to the Strength Characteristic of the Weapon from the datasheet of the model making the attack to the Toughness Characteristic of the datasheet of the unit it is attacking.

All those italics above are rules (or shorthand for a process). If you don't have any of those, you can't play the game.

Man, I knew it was a mistake to leave this thread unattended for a few days.

It's going to take a powerful vehicle if I'm ever going to catch up with those goalposts again.

 alextroy wrote:
Resolve 5 what?

Exactly. A number is not a rule as it tells you nothing with regards to how to play.
Strength is the name of a defined variable in the ruleset. The ruleset tells you when to use that variable and how to use it.

The actual value of that variable tells you none of that. Therefore the value of the variable is not a rule. It is just that, a value.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Resolve 5 what?

Exactly. A number is not a rule as it tells you nothing with regards to how to play.
Strength is the name of a defined variable in the ruleset. The ruleset tells you when to use that variable and how to use it.

The actual value of that variable tells you none of that. Therefore the value of the variable is not a rule. It is just that, a value.

And your point is?

My point is you cannot play the game without the Datasheets and the Statistics and Abilities they tell you that models and units have. The may not be instructions, but they are still rules.

That values aren't rules.

Remember, all of this came about because of Breton's attempt to say that adding additional special rules was no more or less "adding rules" than adding more granular points.

It's a flawed argument from the start because numerical values aren't rules, as Malus just conclusively and comprehensively demonstrated. They are values that work without an existing rules system or framework.

 alextroy wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Resolve 5 what?

Exactly. A number is not a rule as it tells you nothing with regards to how to play.
Strength is the name of a defined variable in the ruleset. The ruleset tells you when to use that variable and how to use it.

The actual value of that variable tells you none of that. Therefore the value of the variable is not a rule. It is just that, a value.

And your point is?

My point is you cannot play the game without the Datasheets and the Statistics and Abilities they tell you that models and units have. The may not be instructions, but they are still rules.

You also can't play the game without models, are models rules? You cannot play the game without dice or a dice equivalent, are dice rules? You cannot play without a means of measuring physical distance, are rulers rules?

Not everything required to play a game is rules. You need a ball to play football, is a ball a rule? You cannot play 40k without players, are players rules?