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.

Yes, the subset of values and statistics is contained by the super-set "rules", I just think that the whole side argument is kinda missing the point.

A good example of actual side grade options in the indexes is the Canoness. If she takes the weaker weapons, she gets access to different wargear. She can't take the Blessed Blade if she also wants the Rod of Office. I don't like this because I like to be able have the choice to take more things and just pay for it, but from a balance perspective, I think it is a decent way of having some variance that isn't just free stuff.

 Paimon wrote:
Yes, the subset of values and statistics is contained by the super-set "rules", I just think that the whole side argument is kinda missing the point.

A good example of actual side grade options in the indexes is the Canoness. If she takes the weaker weapons, she gets access to different wargear. She can't take the Blessed Blade if she also wants the Rod of Office. I don't like this because I like to be able have the choice to take more things and just pay for it, but from a balance perspective, I think it is a decent way of having some variance that isn't just free stuff.

But of course, isn't that restriction some inane model-based restriction anyways? Unless GW wrote the rules from the ground up to reflect that balance (which I doubt), it is simply reflecting the model assembly choices, and there's the happy accident that each buildable config is somewhat balanced against the other.

ERJAK wrote:
Marvel Crisis Protocol has team tactics cards that can make individual models absurdly powerful. You're only allowed 5 total cards per game and they're only usable once per game; but they don't cost anything.

so stratagems in MCP do not cost points, be it command points or during list building, but therefore are limited to 5 and one use only
this would also work for 40k, though with only 5 and one use only you don't really need command points to balance them

As someone who defended power levels in 8th, I can’t defend this new system. I liked having both systems since it meant I could use one or the other based on how I feel that day, and having the option never hurts IMO.

First, while it may be possible to have sidegrades for all options, the fact is that GW has not made the options as such, and secondly there are too many legacy units that depend on the upgrade system, such as sponsons. If points are too complicated then so too will be fixing those units.

Secondly, simplifying list building may be good for new players, but it has little value to experienced players. It also doesn’t help the actual flow of gameplay either. So why not keep both systems?

I’m also seeing opinions that the new system is nice since you don’t have to worry about every little detail, and can just take the units you want. Except, you were always allowed to do that. If you were burnt out from min maxing your upgrades that’s on you. Just take the grenade launcher or whatever and pay whatever points it is. And you were never forced to fill the last 20 odd points of a list; if redoing the list is too hard just leave it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
And you can't make it better, because you suddenly have to scale everything else accordingly

Yeah, I'm starting to see a pattern here: "this sucks but fixing it would take work and that sucks even more so let's just leave it alone." Free to add some kind of cheap excuse like "it would only turn out worse anyway" and the like.

This is a super lazy argument that tries the to make the dichotomy something that it isn't.

This isn't a problem that has to be solved. You don't actually need to pay points for the plasma pistol. I can't think of any game that has units with model to model weapon options like 40K does ( except OPR ) and also charges points for them.

Infinity? You don't have options.
Warmachine? Nope.
Any fantasy system? Nope.

Speaking to the ones I know OK,

Infinity has both weapon and upgrade options, and you pay for them, and has certainly used otherwise identical units with different loadouts to sell more toy soldiers.
Warmachine has definitely had, encouraged, and sold cosmetic changes, and has had both unit upgrades and additions, which have had costs.
Malifaux at least since their early plastics has had cosmetic options, upgrades, alternates, etc.

nekooni wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I can't think of any game that has units with model to model weapon options like 40K does ( except OPR ) and also charges points for them.

Infinity? You don't have options.
Warmachine? Nope.
Any fantasy system? Nope.
Model agnostics? Nope.
WW2 systems? None of them cost points.
Starwars? Nope.
Dust? Nope.

Battletech.
There are preconfigured units, and there's an entire unit building system (technically more than one, as every basic unit category has their own construction rules, but they share most equipment / weapon rules) that is way more complicated.

Dropfleet Commander
Only for one faction but there's still a unit building process available that uses points for weapon and wargear options.

Horus Heresy
7th edition 40k on steroids when it comes to wargear / weapon options

Black Seas
has wargear options for points

X-Wing / Armada
both have wargear and weapon upgrades / bolt on weapons (not sure if i am remembering this correctly) for points

Bolt Action 2.0
has wargear and weapon upgrades for points

Flames of War
has wargear and weapon upgrades / swaps for points

Just because you can't think of any of these games does not mean they don't exist.
And honestly, I can't think of a game where choices that increase a units power are NOT paid for, outside of 40k 10th and AoS - but I am certainly biased by prefering games that allow customization of units, so that's probably not saying too much.

Battletech definitely has dud weapons. One shots are a waste of tonnage and the AC2 leaves a lot to be desired. Same vein as heresy where a PG is 10 and a PP is 10. I'd be curious to see if anyone bothers to take PP on non-CQC squads. Any upgrades in Bolt Action are well and clearly better guns and otherwise the only thing different about the guns there are the range or the # of shots as opposed to range, bs, s, ap, damage, and special rules.

And this steers a bit away into upgrades in general as opposed to upgrades that don't may not need to be points, because of their net effect. The former comes with a whole host of other discussion points.

so just ignoring everything around and say it does not exist for the sake of the argument that no game uses points that way
yeah....

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 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.

Tell me you're posting in bad faith without telling me you're posting in bad faith. :/

Yes, there will always be complaints. But GW isn't even f***ing trying with the indexes. "GW did their best". . . Yeah, right.

Tell me you're posting in bad faith, where did I say they tried their best with this rules set?

Dudeface wrote:
I also finding it interesting there are a few praises for the state of the game and balance at the tail of 9th. That same meta with multiple units or armies with free upgrades included.

It was a fluke. Otherwise 10th would have been halfway balanced. 9th at launch was GW serving children hard boiled eggs covered in gravy and then being flabbergasted that that the kids want chicken nuggets instead, now they try to serve mussels and clams to children because that's what the adults want, but us kids still want our chicken nuggets. We'll settle for chicken with a side of vegetables, so it's not like we're impossible.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I can't think of any game that has units with model to model weapon options like 40K does ( except OPR ) and also charges points for them.

Infinity? You don't have options.
Warmachine? Nope.
Any fantasy system? Nope.
Model agnostics? Nope.
WW2 systems? None of them cost points.
Starwars? Nope.
Dust? Nope.

Battletech.
There are preconfigured units, and there's an entire unit building system (technically more than one, as every basic unit category has their own construction rules, but they share most equipment / weapon rules) that is way more complicated.

Dropfleet Commander
Only for one faction but there's still a unit building process available that uses points for weapon and wargear options.

Horus Heresy
7th edition 40k on steroids when it comes to wargear / weapon options

Black Seas
has wargear options for points

X-Wing / Armada
both have wargear and weapon upgrades / bolt on weapons (not sure if i am remembering this correctly) for points

Bolt Action 2.0
has wargear and weapon upgrades for points

Flames of War
has wargear and weapon upgrades / swaps for points

Just because you can't think of any of these games does not mean they don't exist.
And honestly, I can't think of a game where choices that increase a units power are NOT paid for, outside of 40k 10th and AoS - but I am certainly biased by prefering games that allow customization of units, so that's probably not saying too much.

Battletech definitely has dud weapons. One shots are a waste of tonnage and the AC2 leaves a lot to be desired. Same vein as heresy where a PG is 10 and a PP is 10. I'd be curious to see if anyone bothers to take PP on non-CQC squads. Any upgrades in Bolt Action are well and clearly better guns and otherwise the only thing different about the guns there are the range or the # of shots as opposed to range, bs, s, ap, damage, and special rules.

And this steers a bit away into upgrades in general as opposed to upgrades that don't may not need to be points, because of their net effect. The former comes with a whole host of other discussion points.

Okay but dude do those games have upgrades that cost points or not?? That was the question and you claimed the answer was "no", but now here you're saying it's "yes but upgrades aren't balanced!"

Maybe I'm the one taking crazy pills and should back out of this thread, but the cognitive dissonance that just continues to proliferate and grow like Nurgle's Gift is something else.

 kodos wrote:
so just ignoring everything around and say it does not exist for the sake of the argument that no game uses points that way
yeah....

I think you're missing a key piece that my argument is focused on a particular piece and not the entire system.

There's three issues as I see them ( which may not match the head space of others ) :

1) Minor upgrades that aren't always relevant or used
2) Sponsons
3) Units with swaps that aren't all comparable ( e.g. Death Company )

Across all three of these some people want to save points.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Okay but dude do those games have upgrades that cost points or not?? That was the question and you claimed the answer was "no", but now here you're saying it's "yes but upgrades aren't balanced!"

Maybe I'm the one taking crazy pills and should back out of this thread, but the cognitive dissonance that just continues to proliferate and grow like Nurgle's Gift is something else.

It came up like that, because I wasn't very precise with my language and I keep trying to add caveats at the end of posts, but people still seem to miss them. Yes, other games have upgrades for points, but rarely in the quantity and variety of 40K. Battletech and Horus Heresy are perhaps the only ones with upgrades similar to 40K and both of those have balance issues - Battletech less so, because you're not playing with a lot of models.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 Paimon wrote:
Yes, the subset of values and statistics is contained by the super-set "rules", I just think that the whole side argument is kinda missing the point.

A good example of actual side grade options in the indexes is the Canoness. If she takes the weaker weapons, she gets access to different wargear. She can't take the Blessed Blade if she also wants the Rod of Office. I don't like this because I like to be able have the choice to take more things and just pay for it, but from a balance perspective, I think it is a decent way of having some variance that isn't just free stuff.

But of course, isn't that restriction some inane model-based restriction anyways? Unless GW wrote the rules from the ground up to reflect that balance (which I doubt), it is simply reflecting the model assembly choices, and there's the happy accident that each buildable config is somewhat balanced against the other.

I think you're probably right, though the Blessed Blade and the Power Sword are identical parts as far as I'm aware.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
This is a super lazy argument that tries the to make the dichotomy something that it isn't.

But it's the type or argument you've been making here for years. That's why AtoMaki mentioned it as recognising a 'pattern'.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
There's three issues as I see them ( which may not match the head space of others ) :

1) Minor upgrades that aren't always relevant or used
2) Sponsons
3) Units with swaps that aren't all comparable ( e.g. Death Company )

Much like points are not rules, but simply values within a rules system, these three items are not the issues but rather they are examples of the issue.

They are indicative of the issue regarding points and upgrades. You don't solve this by working out how to make Death Company with Plasma Pistols/Power Weapons and Russ Sponsons work, because all that does is fix those two parts of the issue.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yes, other games have upgrades for points, but rarely in the quantity and variety of 40K.

And? So? But? Therefore?

Figuring out that things that make you better should come with an associated cost isn't some revelatory new idea that we've yet to encounter. It's literally been part of 40k since the days when it was a semi-RPG. Why are people suddenly acting like what GW is done is not only the best way, but also that going back to upgrade costs is some impossible or unnecessary task?

Dandelion wrote:
So why not keep both systems?

The simple answer to this is development time. Power level was left to languish in 10th with (afaik) only a single update, presumably the development team didn't have or didn't want to allocate the time to it.

Plus at the end of the day whatever the competetive 'points' system, it will end up being the default to most people, which makes spending development time on a second system mostly a waste. It makes more sense to pick and stick with a single system.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Okay but dude do those games have upgrades that cost points or not?? That was the question and you claimed the answer was "no", but now here you're saying it's "yes but upgrades aren't balanced!"

Maybe I'm the one taking crazy pills and should back out of this thread, but the cognitive dissonance that just continues to proliferate and grow like Nurgle's Gift is something else.

It came up like that, because I wasn't very precise with my language and I keep trying to add caveats at the end of posts, but people still seem to miss them. Yes, other games have upgrades for points, but rarely in the quantity and variety of 40K. Battletech and Horus Heresy are perhaps the only ones with upgrades similar to 40K and both of those have balance issues - Battletech less so, because you're not playing with a lot of models.

You want a more precise example? Star wars legion. Most units have multiple upgrades, even if it's just "add a dude" and "Add a special weapon". As an example, lets use one of the most basic, spammable grunts in the game, the humble B1 battle droid squad.

A single squad of B1 battledroids is 5 B1s and a sergeant. The are all armed with Bludgeon, and the E-5 blaster rifle stock. The unit has 4 upgrade slots, in their case each with a specific upgrade though some other units can have more, and doubles. (BX-Command droids come to mind, which, among other slots have two Training slots like most "commando" units).

The first of these slots is Heavy weapons, of which there are four (2 in the box, 2 as part of a dedicated B1 upgrade set). The E-5C (SMG, 16pts), E-5S (Sniper rifle, 18pts), E-60R (rocket launcher, 18pts), and the Radiation Cannon (cancer gun for killing multi-wound models or units with damage mitigation, 16pts), and all of these add a unit bearing them to the unit, bringing the squad to 7 droids.

The next slot is personnel, which is for attaching specialists and such to the unit. There are 8 options, an extra B1(4pts), EV-Series Medical Droid(Organics healer droid, 14pts), OOM-series battle droid (basically like upgrading to a veteran sergeant, allows the unit to spread it's activation tokens further, 8pts), Pk-series worker droid (Vehicle/droid repair droid, 12 pts), Security droid (allows the unit to ignore their automated attacking protocol, 6pts), T-series tactical droid (like attaching a Lieutenant too a squad, does the same as the security droid but also gives buffs, 18pts), and finally the viper droid(gives out observe tokens, 6pts).

Next is the Comms, of which there are 7, I won't go through them all but basically they give certain buffs centering around the activation and order systems.

Finally, a slot they technically don't have, which is Gear. Basically there are two gear upgrades that B1 droids can take, even though they have no slots, namely the Electrobinoculars, and the Portable Scanner, both of which call droids out on the sheet.


All of this to say, is that here is a system, which in a full 800pt game is generally on a model count level of 1000pts in 40k, that not only has wargear, has a lot of it, and they all cost points. and, most of them barring a couple are regularly used by various units,with a couple being only niche takes, and any "squad" or vehicle units usually have a few that are unique to it.

I don't think you even need to compare to other rulesets. Even within 40K itself, the approach is inconsistent.

Want to take a pair of plasma cannon sponsons on your tank? Plasma pistol and power fist for your character? Upgrade literally 2/3 of your Tyranid Warriors squad to heavy weapons? Throw a lascannon on every squad that can take one? Sure, go ahead, it's free.

Want a slightly different main gun on your Leman Russ? Fancier armor for your Captain? Melee weapons instead of ranged weapons on your Tyranid Warriors? WHOAH BUCKO, you can't just have that for free- you gotta pay a different points cost for it.

The distinction between free upgrades on the same datasheet versus upgrades represented as different datasheets with different costs is completely arbitrary. You can't tell me with a straight face that giving Jump Packs to a squad of VanVets is so important that it warrants a 10pt cost increase, but giving out 10+ plasma pistols and a half-dozen hunter-killer missiles and tank sponsons across an Astra Militarum army isn't impactful enough to be worth accounting for.

 oni wrote:
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.

I don't mind it, but it runs into an OCD thing for me because many of the Primaris units are 3/6 or 3 and only 3 - and 3 does not divide into 100 - which drives me bonkers on the fluff aspect. If those units jumped to 5/10 or 5 only I'd be much more on board.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I can't think of any game that has units with model to model weapon options like 40K does ( except OPR ) and also charges points for them.

Infinity? You don't have options.
Warmachine? Nope.
Any fantasy system? Nope.
Model agnostics? Nope.
WW2 systems? None of them cost points.
Starwars? Nope.
Dust? Nope.

Battletech.
There are preconfigured units, and there's an entire unit building system (technically more than one, as every basic unit category has their own construction rules, but they share most equipment / weapon rules) that is way more complicated.

Dropfleet Commander
Only for one faction but there's still a unit building process available that uses points for weapon and wargear options.

Horus Heresy
7th edition 40k on steroids when it comes to wargear / weapon options

Black Seas
has wargear options for points

X-Wing / Armada
both have wargear and weapon upgrades / bolt on weapons (not sure if i am remembering this correctly) for points

Bolt Action 2.0
has wargear and weapon upgrades for points

Flames of War
has wargear and weapon upgrades / swaps for points

Just because you can't think of any of these games does not mean they don't exist.
And honestly, I can't think of a game where choices that increase a units power are NOT paid for, outside of 40k 10th and AoS - but I am certainly biased by prefering games that allow customization of units, so that's probably not saying too much.

Battletech definitely has dud weapons. One shots are a waste of tonnage and the AC2 leaves a lot to be desired. Same vein as heresy where a PG is 10 and a PP is 10. I'd be curious to see if anyone bothers to take PP on non-CQC squads. Any upgrades in Bolt Action are well and clearly better guns and otherwise the only thing different about the guns there are the range or the # of shots as opposed to range, bs, s, ap, damage, and special rules.

And this steers a bit away into upgrades in general as opposed to upgrades that don't may not need to be points, because of their net effect. The former comes with a whole host of other discussion points.

I struggle to see your point, to be honest. These games have exactly what you claimed to not exist, and youre clearly familiar with some of them. BT is out because its not perfectly balanced, and BA is out because it is well balanced?

Breton wrote:

 oni wrote:
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.

I don't mind it, but it runs into an OCD thing for me because many of the Primaris units are 3/6 or 3 and only 3 - and 3 does not divide into 100 - which drives me bonkers on the fluff aspect. If those units jumped to 5/10 or 5 only I'd be much more on board.

Same!

Over 500 votes and clearly the people that like the change are a minority. What's more games workshop knew people wouldn't like the change that's why you saw no news about it untill the edition droped. So the real question is what monetary reason drove them to piss of most thier players and will the players allow them to get away with it.

Time will tell.

 catbarf wrote:
I don't think you even need to compare to other rulesets. Even within 40K itself, the approach is inconsistent.

Want to take a pair of plasma cannon sponsons on your tank? Plasma pistol and power fist for your character? Upgrade literally 2/3 of your Tyranid Warriors squad to heavy weapons? Throw a lascannon on every squad that can take one? Sure, go ahead, it's free.

Want a slightly different main gun on your Leman Russ? Fancier armor for your Captain? Melee weapons instead of ranged weapons on your Tyranid Warriors? WHOAH BUCKO, you can't just have that for free- you gotta pay a different points cost for it.

The distinction between free upgrades on the same datasheet versus upgrades represented as different datasheets with different costs is completely arbitrary. You can't tell me with a straight face that giving Jump Packs to a squad of VanVets is so important that it warrants a 10pt cost increase, but giving out 10+ plasma pistols and a half-dozen hunter-killer missiles and tank sponsons across an Astra Militarum army isn't impactful enough to be worth accounting for.

While there are many free upgrades that need something to balance not taking them (such as points), you have a bunch of bad examples here:

Vanguard Veterans have Scout 6" while Vanguard Veterans with Jump Packs have Deep Strike and a 12" move. I think that is worth a points difference.

Melee Warriors have a different ability and much improved melee weapon when compared to Ranged Warriors. So they have different datasheets and unit cost.

Did the divisions have to be made that way? No. But in these cases the different datasheets are actually different.

But LR Sponson and Ork Battlewagon upgrades are just too much free stuff on too little models.

Boosykes wrote:
Over 500 votes and clearly the people that like the change are a minority. What's more games workshop knew people wouldn't like the change that's why you saw no news about it untill the edition droped. So the real question is what monetary reason drove them to piss of most thier players and will the players allow them to get away with it.

Time will tell.

The primary reason probably isn't directly monetary. They wanted to make this switch. They tried to entice us into it with Power Level as a parallel system. They tried to cajole us into it by making it the default system for Crusades. They tried to pretty much force us into it with the last MFM from 9th. Now they're just trying to replace points with it and hope we didn't notice it was PL with another name. 3 digit PL is probably better than 2 Digit PL, so I guess that's a plus. A secondary or tertiary reason may have been monetary in that people will buy new/replacement/etc models to have units with more options - not everything is magnetizable.

 alextroy wrote:
Melee Warriors have a different ability and much improved melee weapon when compared to Ranged Warriors. So they have different datasheets and unit cost.

They also have greatly inferior ranged attacks (ie. none) to the Ranged Warriors... so... why is one worth more than the other?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Melee Warriors have a different ability and much improved melee weapon when compared to Ranged Warriors. So they have different datasheets and unit cost.

They also have greatly inferior ranged attacks (ie. none) to the Ranged Warriors... so... why is one worth more than the other?

Usually an opportunity cost - Ranged units can attack more often than most melee units. Its part of what boned melee units so hard in the beginning of 8th when they lost the bonus attacks for charging, multiple weapons and so on.

Not a fan of limited unit sizes.. A block of 6 crisis suits costs 390, and the cheapest commander costs 110. There is no way to deep strike a full unit of crisis and a commander with enhancements or the enforcer/coldstar suit. A unit of 4 or 5 would have been perfect. I'm sure other armies have similar problems with transports or reserves.

 DominayTrix wrote:
Not a fan of limited unit sizes.. A block of 6 crisis suits costs 390, and the cheapest commander costs 110. There is no way to deep strike a full unit of crisis and a commander with enhancements or the enforcer/coldstar suit. A unit of 4 or 5 would have been perfect. I'm sure other armies have similar problems with transports or reserves.

I'm confused, both the commanders and crisis suits have deep strike. Can't the commander just be attached and they all get to deep strike together or am I missing something?

Thankfully they increased the transport capacity on lots of vehicle to accomodate a character attached to a unit so I don't believe this is a huge issue.

 DominayTrix wrote:
Not a fan of limited unit sizes.. A block of 6 crisis suits costs 390, and the cheapest commander costs 110. There is no way to deep strike a full unit of crisis and a commander with enhancements or the enforcer/coldstar suit. A unit of 4 or 5 would have been perfect. I'm sure other armies have similar problems with transports or reserves.

Some of them - which I suspect is intentional by GW in most cases. Land Raiders went from Transport:10 to Transport:12 as they made room for a 10+2 or 5+1 units+Leader(s), the Crusader stayed 16 (And the Crusader Squad can only be 5, 10, or 20 in size) - the Redeemer went from 12 to 14 but the Drop Pod stayed at 10. The Impulsor stayed 6 - probably to prevent 6 Bladeguard + 2 Leaders unless you use a Land Raider or Repulsor. Land Speeder Storms went from 5 to 6 for the Phobos Captain or Sergeant Telion. The Stormraven was already 12 + a Dread, for 10+2 or 5+1 - it lost the Dread Wound cap/requirement but still hasn't included DREADNAUGHT or MONSTER for Guilliman or Johnson to get a ride. Additionally the Land Raiders and Storm Raven can now carry Centurions - meaning 3 + a something(that can't attach) will fit in all three, but a full six will fit in none.

I'm guessing they were as.. lets say "meticulous" about what can fit in a transport as they were about what characters can join what units.

nekooni wrote:
I struggle to see your point, to be honest. These games have exactly what you claimed to not exist, and youre clearly familiar with some of them. BT is out because its not perfectly balanced, and BA is out because it is well balanced?

His point is that no other game is like 40k and therefore no other game can be an example of how things are done because those are so much different

his first claim was that no other game has options like 40k that cost points, we named some (by far not all), it was ignored and goalpost moved to "but as many as 40k" and "not like sponsons on tanks"

he has no argument except for "GW can do nothing wrong and 40k is so unique among games with so many units that it cannot be perfect no matter how much GW tries"

with the problem actual being that GW does not even try at all

Breton wrote:
Usually an opportunity cost - Ranged units can attack more often than most melee units. Its part of what boned melee units so hard in the beginning of 8th when they lost the bonus attacks for charging, multiple weapons and so on.

Which I could almost see as being reasonable if the two units had set weapons, but they don't. The ranged ones have upgrades to heavy weapons (which you don't pay for), and in a unit of 6 you can have more with heavy weapon upgrades than those without, so why are they somehow cheaper than a unit of Melee Warriors?

Ultimately however, before we get too deep into the stupidity of that situation, the bigger issue is the sheer idiocy of the Tyranid Warrior rules in the first place. Reducing them back down to BS4+, merging 4 different types of melee weapon into a single generic profile whilst simultaneously keeping 4 distinct ranged weapons. The whole thing is a complete joke.

Breton wrote:
I'm guessing they were as.. lets say "meticulous" about what can fit in a transport as they were about what characters can join what units.

You're giving them too much credit. It's all based on box sizes, and nothing more than that. It's why we have the hair-pullingly asinine unit sizes for things like Custodes (2, 3, 5 or 6 for Allarus Terminators or Jetbikes, 4, 5, 9 or 10 for regular Custodes, but always 5 for Sagittarum because the conversion kit comes with exactly 5 guns!), 2 Spawn, Carnifexes in units of 1 to 2, and so on.

And it's also wildly inconsistent, with units that can't be in squadrons anymore (War Walkers) whilst others still can (Sentinels) for no reason. Custodian Wardens can't be in units of 5 despite coming 5 to a box.

The whole system is stupid, and I see people's frustration with that and no points for upgrades repeated time and time again, even amongst the most GW-friendly places.

They need to fix it, pronto.

 vict0988 wrote:

Spoiler:

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 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.

Tell me you're posting in bad faith without telling me you're posting in bad faith. :/

Yes, there will always be complaints. But GW isn't even f***ing trying with the indexes. "GW did their best". . . Yeah, right.

Tell me you're posting in bad faith, where did I say they tried their best with this rules set?

I'm sorry you've forced me to break a simple statement down like you have 0 reading comprehension but here we are. I was very obviously referring to their previous behaviour of making efforts to please people via tweaking the game (8th/9th ed) in red. This is a reference to historically having tried their best to appease people. The green section indicates current behaviour where I clearly state they're fed up of the crap so just did what they want. I very clearly claimed they'd been trying their best historically, then got fed up producing todays content and not caring what people thought.

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.

The rebuttal you're trying to prove is:

Yes, there will always be complaints. But GW isn't even f***ing trying with the indexes. "GW did their best". . . Yeah, right.

Which as you will note is joining a red statement to a green one, displaying a lack of understanding or reading comprehension. At no point have I said they did their best with the indexes.

Dudeface wrote:
I also finding it interesting there are a few praises for the state of the game and balance at the tail of 9th. That same meta with multiple units or armies with free upgrades included.

It was a fluke. Otherwise 10th would have been halfway balanced. 9th at launch was GW serving children hard boiled eggs covered in gravy and then being flabbergasted that that the kids want chicken nuggets instead, now they try to serve mussels and clams to children because that's what the adults want, but us kids still want our chicken nuggets. We'll settle for chicken with a side of vegetables, so it's not like we're impossible.

The tail end of 8th and 9th were both claimed to be very balanced and well maintained, so is it a fluke if the end of every edition is well balanced at that point? You also managed to use the same fething analogy I did to make the same point I did in a post calling me an idiot for it.

the whole system screams that they started of thinking about how to handle stuff and what to do but gave up because it was too much work and could not be done in the given time frame

it is not just stupid, because it shows some good ideas
but I guess the designer just faced the problem that there are too many units and too many different models to and they just gave up on it

and Tyranid Warriors are a good example of that
because it would make sense to split ranged and melee Warriors, split them for the weapons, 2 melee and 2 ranged units each with 2 options to chose from
they wrote the 4 ranged weapons, thought about needing to design 4 melee weapons, and that they need to do that for so many other units as well and just gave up