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.

 vict0988 wrote:

No, the point is power level fans should have kept their mouths shut about liking their terrible system .

Balance-at-all-cost tourney types also should have kept THEIR mouths shut about wanting only a single system when having two systems wasn't affecting them at all. But they assumed that their system would be the one GW picked if they ever decided to pay attention to all the whining about "Mental Load" and the development time devoted to maintaining two system.

NO ONE who liked PL EVER advocated that only PL should exist- we were always more than happy to have two systems, and if someone who liked PL ever did say points shouldn't exist, I certainly didn't see it.

And to be fair, many tourney "points-or-death" balance-at-all-cost types were okay with two systems. But there were a whole lot of other points people who absolutely insisted that the game should only have one system.

I betcha they'd take it all back and live and let live now if they could. The object lesson here is that the next time GW tries to give us an "everyone wins" solution to a problem, we should take it, instead of insisting that "our way" should be the only way.

PenitentJake wrote:
NO ONE who liked PL EVER advocated that only PL should exist- we were always more than happy to have two systems, and if someone who liked PL ever did say points shouldn't exist, I certainly didn't see it.

Kan did.

And I can't say I've ever heard "balance-at-all-costs" before.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
NO ONE who liked PL EVER advocated that only PL should exist- we were always more than happy to have two systems, and if someone who liked PL ever did say points shouldn't exist, I certainly didn't see it.

Kan did.

And I can't say I've ever heard "balance-at-all-costs" before.

Kan was and is very much an outlier.

Speaking as someone who prefers points to PL, I definitely heard way more "PL shouldn't exist, points only!" than "PL only, points shouldn't exist!"

And, as I said before, I don't care if PL exists. Some people like it, even if not myself, so let them enjoy it.
I do care if PL and points are merged into PL with three digits. And I hate it.

I'm just not super happy they did half the work necessary to get to power level with 3 digits. Take this from a player who likes more aspects of unit selection being baked into the basic cost of the unit.

I can accept and even like every Infantry Squad should include a Vox Caster and a special weapon. I don't agree with every Leman Russ must have Sponsons.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
NO ONE who liked PL EVER advocated that only PL should exist- we were always more than happy to have two systems, and if someone who liked PL ever did say points shouldn't exist, I certainly didn't see it.

Kan did.

And I can't say I've ever heard "balance-at-all-costs" before.

Kan was and is very much an outlier.

Speaking as someone who prefers points to PL, I definitely heard way more "PL shouldn't exist, points only!" than "PL only, points shouldn't exist!"

Yeah, because the 5 second effort put into PL gives secondhand embarrassment on behalf of the rules writers as you read it.

It's legit as bad as AoS 1.0. You can proclaim all you want about "nooooo it does offer structure!!!1!" but at least AoS 1.0 borders on being so bad it's good with no structure and getting bonuses for literally having a beard. 40k PL doesn't even have that honor.

Tsagualsa wrote:

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,

Well there's always the possibility that 11e will go back to full pts use.
We'll know this time 3 years from now.

Somewhere game design shifted into planned obsolescense. :/

 Insectum7 wrote:
Somewhere game design shifted into planned obsolescense. :/

About 15 years ago ×/-

ccs wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Somewhere game design shifted into planned obsolescense. :/

About 15 years ago ×/-

Is that 5th edition? There were definitely some things in there that were . . . Dubious. Sort of obviously off, design-wise.

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.

Alright, I'll stop. I just need to get a post-it note to add to my monitor "no angry rants on Dakka" I'll put it next to my "don't mention the knife-ears outside the private message group" post-it note.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

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.

I appreciate you.

PenitentJake wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

No, the point is power level fans should have kept their mouths shut about liking their terrible system .

Balance-at-all-cost tourney types also should have kept THEIR mouths shut about wanting only a single system when having two systems wasn't affecting them at all. But they assumed that their system would be the one GW picked if they ever decided to pay attention to all the whining about "Mental Load" and the development time devoted to maintaining two system.

NO ONE who liked PL EVER advocated that only PL should exist- we were always more than happy to have two systems, and if someone who liked PL ever did say points shouldn't exist, I certainly didn't see it.

And to be fair, many tourney "points-or-death" balance-at-all-cost types were okay with two systems. But there were a whole lot of other points people who absolutely insisted that the game should only have one system.

I betcha they'd take it all back and live and let live now if they could. The object lesson here is that the next time GW tries to give us an "everyone wins" solution to a problem, we should take it, instead of insisting that "our way" should be the only way.

I did not assume GW would favour pts over PL, that was my exact argument for getting rid of PL in 9th, so that GW would not have the option to choose the easy way. I have maintained that GW are lazy and incompetent rather than malevolent for the past at least 3 years, probably 6. People did argue pts should be removed so that balance at all costs people would leave the game, this was a thing, don't deny it. Tournament players are going to take plasma pistols on/off if either is more pts-effective, but casual people are going to feel pressured by the game rules to bling out their squads. How many of the people who say they like the new system do you think are competitive? I'd wager that at least some of them are Timmy casuals that are just happy that their bling isn't utter trash like it has been in many editions (GW are bad at everything so some options were mandatory, some were awful and some were balanced, same as today, now a lot fewer upgrades are awful so it's great to be a Timmy). On the other hand there are plenty of the 60% of people who want pts that are casuals as well, they just don't like spamming hunter-killer missiles.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
NO ONE who liked PL EVER advocated that only PL should exist- we were always more than happy to have two systems, and if someone who liked PL ever did say points shouldn't exist, I certainly didn't see it.

Kan did.

And I can't say I've ever heard "balance-at-all-costs" before.

Kan was and is very much an outlier.

Speaking as someone who prefers points to PL, I definitely heard way more "PL shouldn't exist, points only!" than "PL only, points shouldn't exist!"

Yeah, because the 5 second effort put into PL gives secondhand embarrassment on behalf of the rules writers as you read it.

It's legit as bad as AoS 1.0. You can proclaim all you want about "nooooo it does offer structure!!!1!" but at least AoS 1.0 borders on being so bad it's good with no structure and getting bonuses for literally having a beard. 40k PL doesn't even have that honor.

Ignore Legacy Factions for AoS, that was meant as a joke and nothing more, GW just did not expect that people actually want to play with Legacy Models and still does not understand that
AoS worked with scenarios, just that those were only available for the starter factions and if you only played those it was a fun game (same as 10th 40k is a fun game as long as you do not insist on playing the legacy army list from past editions but buy new stuff and play the first wave armies)

and we have the same problem now, Powerlevel work, but GW did not put in the afford to update all units of all factions to PL but just some of them
Which let me to believe this was a rushed release as the designers themselves believed the marketing speech that it will be easier and simpler and after Marines a Necrons found out that it is the same amount of work to get things done and just literally gave up and copy&paste the rest
so there is the option that PL are not here to stay but we are going back to points within this Edition after the first Codex wave is out

Insectum7 wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Somewhere game design shifted into planned obsolescense. :/

About 15 years ago ×/-

Is that 5th edition? There were definitely some things in there that were . . . Dubious. Sort of obviously off, design-wise.

think with the 5th Edition Daemons it started to go down (also for Fantasy)

 vict0988 wrote:

I did not assume GW would favour pts over PL, that was my exact argument for getting rid of PL in 9th, so that GW would not have the option to choose the easy way.

???
A) Once upon a time there was no such thing as PL. Then they dreamed it up and implemented it.
B) They saw it work well enough in casual play & Crusade. Despite people like you complaining about it.
C) Then it was introduced into AoS as a generally a 2-3 digit pts system along side the buying of units in set blocks of models vs one at a time. People complained, but overall they have seen these things work well enough.
D) And finally? They gave you all a preview of what was to come with the WE Codex, the pts balance sheet with it's no-cost upgrades, & the AoO detachment system. And they saw, despite complaints, that all work well enough. (of course at that point it was already set in stone for 10e, you just didn't know it/more likely want to admit it.)
So how exactly were you aiming to block their design options??

 vict0988 wrote:
Tournament players are going to take plasma pistols on/off if either is more pts-effective,

Yep, tourney players will do whatever they think will win them more games.

 vict0988 wrote:
but casual people are going to feel pressured by the game rules to bling out their squads.

Plenty already do that. They've been blinging out squads as long as the games been around.

 vict0988 wrote:
How many of the people who say they like the new system do you think are competitive?

Quite a few I'd imagine as I've never met a competitive type who'd turn down cheaper upgrades.

 vict0988 wrote:
On the other hand there are plenty of the 60% of people who want pts that are casuals as well, they just don't like spamming hunter-killer missiles.

Well good news for them! They don't have to. And since they already weren't using the HK Missile option? Nothing changes for them. Didn't have it then (because they didn't like spamming it & thus wouldn't spend the extra pts), don't have it now (because they don't want to spam it). Same effect - only now it's officially day #4 of an all new edition.

The WE codex? Working well? Boy the WE codex worked so well because the points upgrades weren't an issue since it was SOO BOTCHED from a roster perspective that free upgrades for most veteran WE players didn't matter at all.

Or even new players since the codex can't be described as beeing a full army tactically speaking , especially after all the shooting available to it just got put into the "forbidden to use bin".


That'd be like complaining about a scratch on your ellbow, whilest your whole other arm is missing.

"Lascannon 20"

My Russian friend says that lascannon sponsons were 40 pts in 9th edition for World Eaters.

I tried to change opinions on whether PL was an acceptable pts system. Saying you don't have to spam hunter-killer missiles does not make sense, it's a free upgrade, so you're forced to do it the same way you are forced to pay taxes, even if you can technically avoid paying taxes by doing tax fraud or not having a job and not paying tariffs or value added tax by having other people pay those for you.

You are not forced to add salt to your ice cream in a restaurant even though there is salt at the table because salt will not undeniably improve the ice cream, like a hunter-killer missile will improve a Chimera.

@OP I don't like it because GW straight up deleted all weapon options for wulfen and many many other units to make it fit in this system. Unit upgrades worked good for many editions and i don't see a reason to do it like this other then using power levels instead of points.
This system is power level but they call it points.

The unit sizes are another bad design choice but thats a topic for another thread.

 nordsturmking wrote:
@OP I don't like it because GW straight up deleted all weapon options for wulfen and many many other units to make it fit in this system. Unit upgrades worked good for many editions and i don't see a reason to do it like this other then using power levels instead of points.
This system is power level but they call it points.

The unit sizes are another bad design choice but thats a topic for another thread.

The last few editions: "omg gw are incompetent and can't point things for balance and there are too many wargear options"

This edition: "omg GW didn't include all those wargear options or include the points they can't balance, I liked it better before"

It's a duality of man situation and ultimately people whined before, they whine now. They didn't like that points weren't correct, they don't like that points aren't there.

It doesn't matter what they did, someone somewhere would be complaining. As is the nature of humanity and the wider Internet.

On second thoughts I now see GW as dealing with a difficult young child, they did their best to get the right mix of food on the plate but it was always wrong, the brand of sauce was wrong, the knive/fork too big or too small, not facing a window etc. and they got bored of trying to placate the noise so just did the "you get what you're given" routine as they've had enough.

Dudeface wrote:

 nordsturmking wrote:
@OP I don't like it because GW straight up deleted all weapon options for wulfen and many many other units to make it fit in this system. Unit upgrades worked good for many editions and i don't see a reason to do it like this other then using power levels instead of points.
This system is power level but they call it points.

The unit sizes are another bad design choice but thats a topic for another thread.

The last few editions: "omg gw are incompetent and can't point things for balance and there are too many wargear options"

This edition: "omg GW didn't include all those wargear options or include the points they can't balance, I liked it better before"

It's a duality of man situation and ultimately people whined before, they whine now. They didn't like that points weren't correct, they don't like that points aren't there.

It doesn't matter what they did, someone somewhere would be complaining. As is the nature of humanity and the wider Internet.

On second thoughts I now see GW as dealing with a difficult young child, they did their best to get the right mix of food on the plate but it was always wrong, the brand of sauce was wrong, the knive/fork too big or too small, not facing a window etc. and they got bored of trying to placate the noise so just did the "you get what you're given" routine as they've had enough.

I think some of the complaints are merited - in my opinion, 'free upgrades' is mostly fine for most of the ranges, but some examples should still have an associated points cost, mostly because it's effectively a free add-on that does not replace anything. Examples include sponson weapons, hunter-killer missiles, straight add-ons like on the Battlewagon, and such. Some extraordinary good weapons like Assault Cannons in Terminator Squads and such probably should also have additional costs, but that's debatable. I think the changes would have been received much better, and people would complain less about pistols and whatever, if these obvious cases were handled in a more sensible way.

Tsagualsa wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 nordsturmking wrote:
@OP I don't like it because GW straight up deleted all weapon options for wulfen and many many other units to make it fit in this system. Unit upgrades worked good for many editions and i don't see a reason to do it like this other then using power levels instead of points.
This system is power level but they call it points.

The unit sizes are another bad design choice but thats a topic for another thread.

The last few editions: "omg gw are incompetent and can't point things for balance and there are too many wargear options"

This edition: "omg GW didn't include all those wargear options or include the points they can't balance, I liked it better before"

It's a duality of man situation and ultimately people whined before, they whine now. They didn't like that points weren't correct, they don't like that points aren't there.

It doesn't matter what they did, someone somewhere would be complaining. As is the nature of humanity and the wider Internet.

On second thoughts I now see GW as dealing with a difficult young child, they did their best to get the right mix of food on the plate but it was always wrong, the brand of sauce was wrong, the knive/fork too big or too small, not facing a window etc. and they got bored of trying to placate the noise so just did the "you get what you're given" routine as they've had enough.

I think some of the complaints are merited - in my opinion, 'free upgrades' is mostly fine for most of the ranges, but some examples should still have an associated points cost, mostly because it's effectively a free add-on that does not replace anything. Examples include sponson weapons, hunter-killer missiles, straight add-ons like on the Battlewagon, and such. Some extraordinary good weapons like Assault Cannons in Terminator Squads and such probably should also have additional costs, but that's debatable. I think the changes would have been received much better, and people would complain less about pistols and whatever, if these obvious cases were handled in a more sensible way.

Oh I 100% agree, but the level of emotional response from some is telling as to why GW do things like this.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
It's legit as bad as AoS 1.0. You can proclaim all you want about "nooooo it does offer structure!!!1!" but at least AoS 1.0 borders on being so bad it's good with no structure and getting bonuses for literally having a beard. 40k PL doesn't even have that honor.

I always find these comments strange. AoS 1.0 had points and General's Handbook.

I assume you are referring to AoS 0.0 which did not have points.

AoS 0.0 - Release AoS with no points and silly rules. Released at the height of the Kirby era where he believed you bought GW models only for the models and that rules were unnecessary.
AoS 1.0 - The start of the General's Handbook era and all units got points. Don't remember completely but I think it was around the same time Roundtree became CEO. This is the real start of AoS as an actual game.
AoS 2.0 - New edition. Dubbed second edition and had Stormcast vs. Nighthaunt. Very competitive edition building on what was started in 1.0.
AoS 3.0 - New edition. Dubbed Third edition and had Stormcast vs. Krule Boyz. Very competitive, but decided to add seasonal changes to the tournament mode.
AoS 4.0 - New edition. Rumored to drop in the summer of 2024.

 Eldarsif wrote:
AoS 0.0 - Release AoS with no points and silly rules.

Leontus should get an extra order if I pretend to ride a horse.

Dudeface wrote:

 nordsturmking wrote:
@OP I don't like it because GW straight up deleted all weapon options for wulfen and many many other units to make it fit in this system. Unit upgrades worked good for many editions and i don't see a reason to do it like this other then using power levels instead of points.
This system is power level but they call it points.

The unit sizes are another bad design choice but thats a topic for another thread.

The last few editions: "omg gw are incompetent and can't point things for balance and there are too many wargear options"

This edition: "omg GW didn't include all those wargear options or include the points they can't balance, I liked it better before"

The difference is in one system you can potentially make adjustments fairly easily in an attempt to arrive at something approaching balance. In the other, you can't because you either have to change a whole bunch of rules, delete options or consolidate options. GW could have done this with the 10th edition reset, but they failed. It's almost like it's not a binary situation with two equal and competing systems.

I'd argue the end of 9th was approaching pretty good balance, so I don't think it's fair to say GW can't balance using points. It just takes them a while to get it right.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
AoS 0.0 - Release AoS with no points and silly rules.

Leontus should get an extra order if I pretend to ride a horse.

Only if you rhythmically click you tongue to imitate the clopping of hooves.

Dudeface wrote:
The last few editions: "omg gw are incompetent and can't point things for balance and there are too many wargear options"

This edition: "omg GW didn't include all those wargear options or include the points they can't balance, I liked it better before"

It's a duality of man situation and ultimately people whined before, they whine now. They didn't like that points weren't correct, they don't like that points aren't there.

It doesn't matter what they did, someone somewhere would be complaining. As is the nature of humanity and the wider Internet.

On second thoughts I now see GW as dealing with a difficult young child, they did their best to get the right mix of food on the plate but it was always wrong, the brand of sauce was wrong, the knive/fork too big or too small, not facing a window etc. and they got bored of trying to placate the noise so just did the "you get what you're given" routine as they've had enough.

GW could get less criticism for their rules if they would stop changing things for change's sake. The last meta of 9th seemed to be pretty healthy, going by tournament results. You could take that as a base and look at the complaints:
- Implementation of Stratagems
- Lethality
- Internal balance
- Inconsistent and unwanted consolidation in some places, while inconsistent and unwanted expansion in others

... and then go from there. You don't have to reinvent the wheel every 3 years in order to keep your audience. But GW wants to do it anyway. I don't think there is a single person in the universe thinking "man, I HATE that every character model can be near my Hellblasters, it would be SO MUCH BETTER if only Captains with a Plasma pistol could join them.". And look at the mess we got with characters joining units. Why? This isn't a smart decision or some 3d chess GW is playing. It is a design guideline somebody came up with and it now gets implemented without any logic or reason to it.

It is similar with other changes, where points/PL is one of them.

Tsagualsa wrote:
I think some of the complaints are merited - in my opinion, 'free upgrades' is mostly fine for most of the ranges, but some examples should still have an associated points cost, mostly because it's effectively a free add-on that does not replace anything. Examples include sponson weapons, hunter-killer missiles, straight add-ons like on the Battlewagon, and such. Some extraordinary good weapons like Assault Cannons in Terminator Squads and such probably should also have additional costs, but that's debatable. I think the changes would have been received much better, and people would complain less about pistols and whatever, if these obvious cases were handled in a more sensible way.

I am actually horrified people bought Leman Russes and did not attach sponsons. It kind of illustrates that the old system was somewhat barbaric in its approach. People went with the lowest cost because of efficiency for 9 editions.

Hunter-Killer missiles were one shot "maybe" hits and people all skipped them as you could probably either get more bodies on the floor or buy a multi-use weapon on another vehicle or person.

Which illustrates a point I have probably repeated in the past: If people didn't buy the upgrade/weapon for 9 editions, then it was always worth 0 points.Thinking that some master game designer will finally succeed in pointing things correctly in the 10th iteration of the game is just insanity.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I am actually horrified people bought Leman Russes and did not attach sponsons. It kind of illustrates that the old system was somewhat barbaric in its approach. People went with the lowest cost because of efficiency for 9 editions.

Hunter-Killer missiles were one shot "maybe" hits and people all skipped them as you could probably either get more bodies on the floor or buy a multi-use weapon on another vehicle or person.

Which illustrates a point I have probably repeated in the past: If people didn't buy the upgrade/weapon for 9 editions, then it was always worth 0 points.Thinking that some master game designer will finally succeed in pointing things correctly in the 10th iteration of the game is just insanity.

I don't think this is true. Wether you want to take sponsons or not is not a simple question about points, unless they are ridiculously cheap. Over the years, the things I took into consideration where:

- The general rules for vehicles -> How durable is this unit? How likely am I going to use the sponson profile? Can I shoot the sponsons after moving? Can I split my fire? Do they mesh well with my main weapon?
- The point costs of the sponsons -> Regardless of everything else, do I think the cost is worth the upgrade?
- The point costs of the rest of the army -> Do I rather have some additional heavy bolter shots or do I hand out special weapons to my Shock troopers?

Local anecdote: In my homebrew a Hunter killer missile costs 5pts. It has the chance to kill a regular Marine, which costs 40pts, or go against vehicles up to AV12 with moderate chance of doing something. Most players take them on their vehicles. For comparison, a quad Lascannon Predator hovers around 450pts.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Which illustrates a point I have probably repeated in the past: If people didn't buy the upgrade/weapon for 9 editions, then it was always worth 0 points.

I think it is a pretty funny implication that just dropping the points to 0 because it sucks anyways (literally a push of a button during rules development) is somehow as good as making the item worth its assigned cost (much more than a push of a button during rules development).

I would agree with that if all those upgrades that were not taken in the past and therefore are worth 0 points, would still have the same rules

people not paying points for a one use 5+/5+ weapon is something different than adding a 2+/2+ weapon for free
if we have a reset, it is not possible to use experience from the past to "balance" the new version

so we have not 9 Editions to look back at but 0 for everything in 10th
for everything at the end of 9th there were 2 Editions to look back at why things were taken or how many points they were worth
and for 7th there are 5 Editions

saying HK Missiles must cost 0 points because no one used them in 3rd is a stupid argument because this is a different game now

maybe we should look at Kill Team and Horus Heresy, what people use there and base the point cost on units on those games
makes as much sense as arguing with any pre-reset edition of 40k

This thread has now had the claim that everybody took sponsons on their Russes, and any evidence to the contrary is a deepfake AND the claim that nobody took sponsons.

 Eldarsif wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:
I think some of the complaints are merited - in my opinion, 'free upgrades' is mostly fine for most of the ranges, but some examples should still have an associated points cost, mostly because it's effectively a free add-on that does not replace anything. Examples include sponson weapons, hunter-killer missiles, straight add-ons like on the Battlewagon, and such. Some extraordinary good weapons like Assault Cannons in Terminator Squads and such probably should also have additional costs, but that's debatable. I think the changes would have been received much better, and people would complain less about pistols and whatever, if these obvious cases were handled in a more sensible way.

I am actually horrified people bought Leman Russes and did not attach sponsons. It kind of illustrates that the old system was somewhat barbaric in its approach. People went with the lowest cost because of efficiency for 9 editions.

Hunter-Killer missiles were one shot "maybe" hits and people all skipped them as you could probably either get more bodies on the floor or buy a multi-use weapon on another vehicle or person.

Which illustrates a point I have probably repeated in the past: If people didn't buy the upgrade/weapon for 9 editions, then it was always worth 0 points.Thinking that some master game designer will finally succeed in pointing things correctly in the 10th iteration of the game is just insanity.

Your conclusion does not follow your premise, a logical conclusion would be that the points cost was too high, you cannot make a conclusion about the exact right points value based on people not taking something, like you said it'd be folly to expect a game designer to suddenly get things exactly right, so why is assuming the worth to be exactly 0 different from assuming it is worth exactly 5 or 10? Points aren't correct or wrong, it's a spectrum or curve and the goal is perfect imbalance, not perfect balance. Flamers being good against hordes in jungles, plasma sponsons being good against MEQ if the tank isn't blown up too quickly, melta being good against vehicles if the unit can get in range.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
This thread has now had the claim that everybody took sponsons on their Russes, and any evidence to the contrary is a deepfake AND the claim that nobody took sponsons.

We have always been at war with Eurasia
GW has never given costs to wargear