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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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?

Well you've got hits on 4's vs hits on 3's with their primary attack, plus the specials are of different value.

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.

On the bright side, at least with all those merged weapons they've reduced some bloat and rules. That's what you wanted right?

Objectively speaking Melee and Ranged Warriors are probably backwards on pricing. The Ranged warriors should be more expensive than the melee - They'll be able to shoot far more often than the melee warriors can punch: especially after adding in that the ranged Warriors have almost the same melee output at the melee warriors.

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.

I'm pretty sure increasing the transport capacity of a Land Raider had nothing to do with the box size of any of the Land Raider, Terminator, Terminator (Character) Intercessor etc boxes beyond they're in the fairly standard 5/10 unit/box sizes and can add up to two characters. Especially since 5 Terminators and 2 characters don't fit, nor do two boxes of Terminators. I'm also pretty sure none of the transports I mentioned can transport War Walkers or Sentinels whether they're squadroned or not. I'm almost as sure no character can join War Walkers or Sentinels whether they're squadroned or not. I'm even more sure no wargear upgrade - free or not - changes how many models can fit in most transports. But at least you got to mention it again. To summarize, nothing about what you're complaining about relates to whether they gave a little or a lot of thought to the transport capabilities of Transports in this edition.

Conversely, I'm not sure what the point of preventing 5 Terminators and two characters (Say Belial, a Deathwing Strikemaster and 5x Deathwing Command Squad) from riding in a Land Raider (But they can ride in a Crusader or Redeemer which ALSO allows them to hop out and charge) while they still have Deep Strike. The Transport Capacity between Land Raider variant to Land Raider variant itself may be an artefact of previous editions they didn't really do a deep enough dive on.

I fail to see why you keep bringing up transport amounts. That has nothing to do with unit size limitations. Bladeguard were not locked at 6 to prevent them from joining a character in a Repulsor. They are max 6 to a unit because they come 3 to a box.

Breton wrote:
On the bright side, at least with all those merged weapons they've reduced some bloat and rules. That's what you wanted right?

Bloat was having 30+ Strats, two pages of relics, and then strats and relics and Warlord traits and psychic powers for a further 6 sub-factions. And then Synaptic Imperatives on top of that. And then unit-specific abilities on top of that.

A Bonesword being different to a set of Rending Claws was not 'bloat'.

Bencyclopedia wrote:

 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.

The maximum amount of points you can place in reserves in a 2k game is 500 points. Crisis Commander+Full Strength Crisis Suits is exactly 500 points. Coldstars/Enforcers/Crisis Commanders with Enhancements push the unit over the limit.

 DominayTrix wrote:

Bencyclopedia wrote:

 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.

The maximum amount of points you can place in reserves in a 2k game is 500 points. Crisis Commander+Full Strength Crisis Suits is exactly 500 points. Coldstars/Enforcers/Crisis Commanders with Enhancements push the unit over the limit.

The point limit is only for strategic reserves, it doesn't apply to deep striking units.

Boosykes wrote:
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.

It's monetary for squad sizes and upgrades. It's spiteful because a lot of us made it known to Cruddace his ideas are fething garbage, and he wants to keep pushing his ideas regardless of the consequences.

Bencyclopedia wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:

Bencyclopedia wrote:

 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.

The maximum amount of points you can place in reserves in a 2k game is 500 points. Crisis Commander+Full Strength Crisis Suits is exactly 500 points. Coldstars/Enforcers/Crisis Commanders with Enhancements push the unit over the limit.

The point limit is only for strategic reserves, it doesn't apply to deep striking units.

Huh, so it does. Well, that is a lot better than I thought it was. Thank you

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Boosykes wrote:
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.

It's monetary for squad sizes and upgrades. It's spiteful because a lot of us made it known to Cruddace his ideas are fething garbage, and he wants to keep pushing his ideas regardless of the consequences.

1) Cruddace, however bad his ideas are in your opinion, doesn't answer to you. So long as his bosses are happy.....

2) Speaking of his bosses being happy..... Well, here you are. Still buying & playing his stuff.
So you must not be too unhappy.

ccs wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Boosykes wrote:
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.

It's monetary for squad sizes and upgrades. It's spiteful because a lot of us made it known to Cruddace his ideas are fething garbage, and he wants to keep pushing his ideas regardless of the consequences.

1) Cruddace, however bad his ideas are in your opinion, doesn't answer to you. So long as his bosses are happy.....

2) Speaking of his bosses being happy..... Well, here you are. Still buying & playing his stuff.
So you must not be too unhappy.

I'm not buying his stuff, haven't for years now, and I've been encouraging other people to do the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That was literally the worst attempt at a "Gotcha!" I've seen here so far.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

ccs wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Boosykes wrote:
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.

It's monetary for squad sizes and upgrades. It's spiteful because a lot of us made it known to Cruddace his ideas are fething garbage, and he wants to keep pushing his ideas regardless of the consequences.

1) Cruddace, however bad his ideas are in your opinion, doesn't answer to you. So long as his bosses are happy.....

2) Speaking of his bosses being happy..... Well, here you are. Still buying & playing his stuff.
So you must not be too unhappy.

I'm not buying his stuff, haven't for years now, and I've been encouraging other people to do the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That was literally the worst attempt at a "Gotcha!" I've seen here so far.

Sales and profits stay high despite whatever Cruddace does, so obviously plenty of people aren't that upset, commercially he's a success for them.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

ccs wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Boosykes wrote:
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.

It's monetary for squad sizes and upgrades. It's spiteful because a lot of us made it known to Cruddace his ideas are fething garbage, and he wants to keep pushing his ideas regardless of the consequences.

1) Cruddace, however bad his ideas are in your opinion, doesn't answer to you. So long as his bosses are happy.....

2) Speaking of his bosses being happy..... Well, here you are. Still buying & playing his stuff.
So you must not be too unhappy.

I'm not buying his stuff, haven't for years now, and I've been encouraging other people to do the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That was literally the worst attempt at a "Gotcha!" I've seen here so far.

Sales and profits stay high despite whatever Cruddace does, so obviously plenty of people aren't that upset, commercially he's a success for them.

And Gucci makes TONS of profit just by selling 2 overpriced purses. Your point?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

ccs wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Boosykes wrote:
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.

It's monetary for squad sizes and upgrades. It's spiteful because a lot of us made it known to Cruddace his ideas are fething garbage, and he wants to keep pushing his ideas regardless of the consequences.

1) Cruddace, however bad his ideas are in your opinion, doesn't answer to you. So long as his bosses are happy.....

2) Speaking of his bosses being happy..... Well, here you are. Still buying & playing his stuff.
So you must not be too unhappy.

I'm not buying his stuff, haven't for years now, and I've been encouraging other people to do the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That was literally the worst attempt at a "Gotcha!" I've seen here so far.

Sales and profits stay high despite whatever Cruddace does, so obviously plenty of people aren't that upset, commercially he's a success for them.

And Gucci makes TONS of profit just by selling 2 overpriced purses. Your point?

Because:

It's spiteful because a lot of us made it known to Cruddace his ideas are fething garbage, and he wants to keep pushing his ideas regardless of the consequences.

First of all how did you make it known directly to him? Alongside that the "consequences" are that GW continues to make bank, so I don't think you've really dissuaded them of his viability. Same way Gucci stay very profitable by selling their product to people that like it.

Dudeface wrote:
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.

I don't think I called you an idiot. All I did was highlight where I understood Insectum to be coming from. I suppose you either mistook me for someone else or took my red text to be more aggressive than I meant it, red is just a high contrast colour, I could have bolded or made it green. But you're right, they're not the same thing and I missed that. As far as the end of 8th being balanced? I don't remember that, it must have been less than 6 months before the release of 9th because SM were still broken in January. 9th had terrible internal balance at the end of 9th as GW tried to ease us into PL, Flying Transports were garbage because of the new starts in reserve rule.

Dudeface wrote:
Sales and profits stay high despite whatever Cruddace does, so obviously plenty of people aren't that upset, commercially he's a success for them.

Sales fell in 7th, if GW messes up badly enough people will stop playing and paying.

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
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.

I don't think I called you an idiot. All I did was highlight where I understood Insectum to be coming from. I suppose you either mistook me for someone else or took my red text to be more aggressive than I meant it, red is just a high contrast colour, I could have bolded or made it green. But you're right, they're not the same thing and I missed that. As far as the end of 8th being balanced? I don't remember that, it must have been less than 6 months before the release of 9th because SM were still broken in January. 9th had terrible internal balance at the end of 9th as GW tried to ease us into PL, Flying Transports were garbage because of the new starts in reserve rule.

Dudeface wrote:
Sales and profits stay high despite whatever Cruddace does, so obviously plenty of people aren't that upset, commercially he's a success for them.

Sales fell in 7th, if GW messes up badly enough people will stop playing and paying.

Fair, apologies then if the tone was misunderstood

I suspect we might see the sales slow down this edition to be honest as they've dug themselves into a hole with the unit loadouts I can't see a nice way out of and I suspect it'll impact the community image a little.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

ccs wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Boosykes wrote:
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.

It's monetary for squad sizes and upgrades. It's spiteful because a lot of us made it known to Cruddace his ideas are fething garbage, and he wants to keep pushing his ideas regardless of the consequences.

1) Cruddace, however bad his ideas are in your opinion, doesn't answer to you. So long as his bosses are happy.....

2) Speaking of his bosses being happy..... Well, here you are. Still buying & playing his stuff.
So you must not be too unhappy.

I'm not buying his stuff, haven't for years now, and I've been encouraging other people to do the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That was literally the worst attempt at a "Gotcha!" I've seen here so far.

Then you're on a fools errand as most players dont give a crap who the designer of a game is. Or what their design sins (real or imagined) are - so long as theyre currently having fun with it.
And despite all the complaining you & others are doing? There's still plenty of fun to be had with 40k.

for now I don't see a reason why sales should go down

we already have big tournaments running, and a lot of people who started painting in 9th that are now going to play the game and buying the models to do so

until the Codex drops there won't be a big change as this is still the "marketing told us this is the best game ever" phase and it is still free.

things that might have an impact are no free access to the rules and a list builder, but the russian archives are still there and an alternative to BS is worked on
as well as Codizes making things worse and not better, but therefore we need several books released and by the time people are upset enough in large enough numbers to impact sales, 11th will be announced

there are reasons why the cycle is kept short, and one is to keep the hype going and offer a "solution" to the problem if people are unhappy

nekooni wrote:
BA is out because it is well balanced?

I wouldn't call BA well balanced. It's definitely infantry heavy, you need recce, and flamers are quite good. It's just played in a manner where people do tournaments, but just for the opportunity to play games and not to be competitive in the same sense as 40K.

But a lot of these other games call into question the differences between systems. I doubt most people here would want their weapons to look like historical systems, right? Every army has essentially the same stats.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

nekooni wrote:
BA is out because it is well balanced?

I wouldn't call BA well balanced. It's definitely infantry heavy, you need recce, and flamers are quite good. It's just played in a manner where people do tournaments, but just for the opportunity to play games and not to be competitive in the same sense as 40K.

But a lot of these other games call into question the differences between systems. I doubt most people here would want their weapons to look like historical systems, right? Every army has essentially the same stats.

I wouldn't mind assuming the fluff is represented, I'd rather gauss and bolt weapons share the same profile than bolt weapons having re-roll 1s to hit because of exploding bolts and gauss having exploding 6s because of reasons. Abilities are for when stats alone cannot convey a narrative.

ccs wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

ccs wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Boosykes wrote:
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.

It's monetary for squad sizes and upgrades. It's spiteful because a lot of us made it known to Cruddace his ideas are fething garbage, and he wants to keep pushing his ideas regardless of the consequences.

1) Cruddace, however bad his ideas are in your opinion, doesn't answer to you. So long as his bosses are happy.....

2) Speaking of his bosses being happy..... Well, here you are. Still buying & playing his stuff.
So you must not be too unhappy.

I'm not buying his stuff, haven't for years now, and I've been encouraging other people to do the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That was literally the worst attempt at a "Gotcha!" I've seen here so far.

Then you're on a fools errand as most players dont give a crap who the designer of a game is. Or what their design sins (real or imagined) are - so long as theyre currently having fun with it.
And despite all the complaining you & others are doing? There's still plenty of fun to be had with 40k.

People have fun spending money on terrible products all the time. How is this a defense for you?

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.

I'm a new player so the simplicity is nice, but even I'm surprised they would alter the system so drastically. My guess is it's an Overton Window shift to foreshadow a more moderate change later. "Look we fixed that awful simplification (that we made in the first place). See we're the good guys!" But I can't think of anything that wouldn't have been better just implementing immediately. Maybe to formally kill off WYSIWYG?

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.

As much as we want to believe it, Dakkadakka does not represent the community at large. In short, there is no data of who likes and who hates the new design, except maybe when GW does their next questionnaire and even then I am not sure if they reveal the outcome(especially if it is damning for them).

So the correct assumption is:

62% are against the change of people on Dakka.
20% like the change of people on Dakka.
18% is mixed/neutral of people on Dakka.

Which means that 62% on Dakka are absolutely against the change, and although a majority it is not a by a large margin of all players on dakka. A follow up question would be: Do these 62% still buy models and are their opinions actually affecting GW sales, and so on and so on. Endless factors that are hard to parse out of a rather simple online poll.

I think it would be more telling whether people like/hate it when it comes to overall sales, but that will take time to gather/mount up. I'll probably follow up with my FLGS over the coming months to see the trends over time.

So true. One question pool are good for getting the mood, but rarely answer anything. 62% of Dakka poll respondents don’t like the change but will they play 10th? Will they buy Leviathan? Will they buy any GW product related to 10th?

That’s just a handful of follow up questions. At the risk of bring up politics, US Voters hated Obamacare in polls, but they loved the individual elements of Obamacare in those same polls. The overall mood was not the whole story.

 Clanan wrote:

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.

I'm a new player so the simplicity is nice, but even I'm surprised they would alter the system so drastically. My guess is it's an Overton Window shift to foreshadow a more moderate change later. "Look we fixed that awful simplification (that we made in the first place). See we're the good guys!" But I can't think of anything that wouldn't have been better just implementing immediately. Maybe to formally kill off WYSIWYG?

Your guess on that will prove wrong.

 Clanan wrote:

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.

I'm a new player so the simplicity is nice, but even I'm surprised they would alter the system so drastically. My guess is it's an Overton Window shift to foreshadow a more moderate change later. "Look we fixed that awful simplification (that we made in the first place). See we're the good guys!" But I can't think of anything that wouldn't have been better just implementing immediately. Maybe to formally kill off WYSIWYG?

WYSIWYG is no longer theirs to kill or feed. They gave birth to it, but it now belongs to the players and their zeitgeist will keep it pretty much exactly where its at. Smaller than absolute, yet big enough to keep people "honest". Even when it was in the rulebook, it was not absolute - few people demanded to see the grenades on your model at a time when Tactical Squads actually had optional grenade bits on the sprue and in the rules. Most people expect to see a Plasma Cannon where a Plasma Cannon should be, but a holstered pistol can be bolt, plasma, grav, flame, melta, or even potentially invisible.

They also telegraphed this paradigm shift mutliple times. One of the first times was when Hellblasters got zero point weapon swaps vs smaller assault plasma, medium rapid plasma, and big heavy plasma. That one may even predate/release simultaneous with Power Level, I'd have to look. Hard to see then, easier now. The obvious one of course was the last MFM of 9th where most of the Marine armies got the same treatment across 90% of their swaps - with one of the few exclusions being Thunderhammers on a Vanguard Vets squad that has been absolutely bent over by this Index, or multi-meltas on a handful of units but that went away.

This is a general reply to the myriad posts. I have lots going on at work and I'm still tool building for analysis on this edition so I don't have enough time to dive in to things directly.

This isn't a battle between whether or not GW will go back. It's a battle to comprehend the changes and effects and whether or not it produces a better game. So far plasma pistols, missing sponsons, and thrifting points have failed to convince me that that system was better at tackling issues and there's potentially significant issues as a result of breaking those boundaries. I'm speaking in general terms and not trying to ignore or dismiss niche issues that sit outside of those terms.

Allowing people to take 8 models to dodge both blast and a half strength value of 3 instead of 4 has material impact on the value of blast weapons and battleshock. Allowing Death Company to be cheaper with chainswords opens up an opportunity for Lemartes to run around with really cheap bodies with plentiful attacks granting both -1D and Lethal Hits for less points than a standard unit might be.

Taking the position that GW should just change everything to comport with each person's sensibilities...isn't sensible or practical. I don't find it to be a useful argument.

Also, I find it way more compelling to take a unit and decide that I'm taking melta over plasma, because my army supports delivering them before they die and the meta has lots of good targets rather than me saying, 'oh, well I guess I'll take melta, because it's cheaper and I might as well fill the rest of my points gap with them'.

I totally hated Power Level. This isn't that.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
This is a general reply to the myriad posts. I have lots going on at work and I'm still tool building for analysis on this edition so I don't have enough time to dive in to things directly.

This isn't a battle between whether or not GW will go back. It's a battle to comprehend the changes and effects and whether or not it produces a better game. So far plasma pistols, missing sponsons, and thrifting points have failed to convince me that that system was better at tackling issues and there's potentially significant issues as a result of breaking those boundaries. I'm speaking in general terms and not trying to ignore or dismiss niche issues that sit outside of those terms.

Allowing people to take 8 models to dodge both blast and a half strength value of 3 instead of 4 has material impact on the value of blast weapons and battleshock. Allowing Death Company to be cheaper with chainswords opens up an opportunity for Lemartes to run around with really cheap bodies with plentiful attacks granting both -1D and Lethal Hits for less points than a standard unit might be.

Taking the position that GW should just change everything to comport with each person's sensibilities...isn't sensible or practical. I don't find it to be useful.

Also, I find it way more compelling to take a unit and decide that I'm taking melta over plasma, because my army supports delivering them before they die and the meta has lots of good targets rather than me saying, 'oh, well I guess I'll take melta, because it's cheaper and I might as well fill the rest of my points gap with them'.

I totally hated Power Level. This isn't that.

Can you explain the difference between this and PL?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Can you explain the difference between this and PL?

PL was an average of the available upgrades. That created really huge gaps in very specialized units like VV, Deathwatch, etc. The whole gutting of Combis, options, and so on was an effort to cut out the huge variability that PL had. Enforcing sizes minimizes gamification of the rules themselves and an open FOC makes it so people with winners in required selections don't come out ahead.

It still HAS the elements of 'well what if I don't take sponsons', but this absolutely seems designed to use this setup and there's a lot of coming to terms with the consequences of that. And it's still messed up in other ways, but I don't think points contributes to that as much as other stuff - or, if you will, the lack of points addressing too strong detachment rules.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
This is a general reply to the myriad posts. I have lots going on at work and I'm still tool building for analysis on this edition so I don't have enough time to dive in to things directly.

This isn't a battle between whether or not GW will go back. It's a battle to comprehend the changes and effects and whether or not it produces a better game. So far plasma pistols, missing sponsons, and thrifting points have failed to convince me that that system was better at tackling issues and there's potentially significant issues as a result of breaking those boundaries. I'm speaking in general terms and not trying to ignore or dismiss niche issues that sit outside of those terms.

Allowing people to take 8 models to dodge both blast and a half strength value of 3 instead of 4 has material impact on the value of blast weapons and battleshock. Allowing Death Company to be cheaper with chainswords opens up an opportunity for Lemartes to run around with really cheap bodies with plentiful attacks granting both -1D and Lethal Hits for less points than a standard unit might be.

Taking the position that GW should just change everything to comport with each person's sensibilities...isn't sensible or practical. I don't find it to be useful.

Also, I find it way more compelling to take a unit and decide that I'm taking melta over plasma, because my army supports delivering them before they die and the meta has lots of good targets rather than me saying, 'oh, well I guess I'll take melta, because it's cheaper and I might as well fill the rest of my points gap with them'.

I totally hated Power Level. This isn't that.

Can you explain the difference between this and PL?

It's 10× the amount of course LOL

I think it’s pretty clear that spending time on a revised point system was pretty much at the bottom of the heap for two reasons:

A) we’re giving it away for free
B) we’ll change it in six months with a pay-for points guide or in the codexes anyway

So they half-assed something to throw out with the new edition to give people at least something to play with, and might be arsed to put some thought into it down the road.

Frankly, I don’t expect the current point situation without upgrade costs will last very long at all.

The 5/10 squad thing? That’ll probably stick around.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
This is a general reply to the myriad posts. I have lots going on at work and I'm still tool building for analysis on this edition so I don't have enough time to dive in to things directly.

This isn't a battle between whether or not GW will go back. It's a battle to comprehend the changes and effects and whether or not it produces a better game. So far plasma pistols, missing sponsons, and thrifting points have failed to convince me that that system was better at tackling issues and there's potentially significant issues as a result of breaking those boundaries. I'm speaking in general terms and not trying to ignore or dismiss niche issues that sit outside of those terms.

Allowing people to take 8 models to dodge both blast and a half strength value of 3 instead of 4 has material impact on the value of blast weapons and battleshock. Allowing Death Company to be cheaper with chainswords opens up an opportunity for Lemartes to run around with really cheap bodies with plentiful attacks granting both -1D and Lethal Hits for less points than a standard unit might be.

Taking the position that GW should just change everything to comport with each person's sensibilities...isn't sensible or practical. I don't find it to be a useful argument.

Also, I find it way more compelling to take a unit and decide that I'm taking melta over plasma, because my army supports delivering them before they die and the meta has lots of good targets rather than me saying, 'oh, well I guess I'll take melta, because it's cheaper and I might as well fill the rest of my points gap with them'.

I totally hated Power Level. This isn't that.

How is this not powerlevel?

Boosykes wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
This is a general reply to the myriad posts. I have lots going on at work and I'm still tool building for analysis on this edition so I don't have enough time to dive in to things directly.

This isn't a battle between whether or not GW will go back. It's a battle to comprehend the changes and effects and whether or not it produces a better game. So far plasma pistols, missing sponsons, and thrifting points have failed to convince me that that system was better at tackling issues and there's potentially significant issues as a result of breaking those boundaries. I'm speaking in general terms and not trying to ignore or dismiss niche issues that sit outside of those terms.

Allowing people to take 8 models to dodge both blast and a half strength value of 3 instead of 4 has material impact on the value of blast weapons and battleshock. Allowing Death Company to be cheaper with chainswords opens up an opportunity for Lemartes to run around with really cheap bodies with plentiful attacks granting both -1D and Lethal Hits for less points than a standard unit might be.

Taking the position that GW should just change everything to comport with each person's sensibilities...isn't sensible or practical. I don't find it to be a useful argument.

Also, I find it way more compelling to take a unit and decide that I'm taking melta over plasma, because my army supports delivering them before they die and the meta has lots of good targets rather than me saying, 'oh, well I guess I'll take melta, because it's cheaper and I might as well fill the rest of my points gap with them'.

I totally hated Power Level. This isn't that.

How is this not powerlevel?

Well, you see, GW did this free-upgrades thing as the sole cost mechanism for army building in Tenth. Since GW can do no wrong, this free upgrades thing must not be wrong. Since PL was wrong, then that cannot be what GW is doing.

Ergo, this free upgrades thing is not PL.