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.

In theory, GW has balanced the either/or options and included most of the optionals in the cost. You therefore do not get cases of purely better units from the same points cost.

Let's use my favorite example, the Terminator Squad. A Terminator Squad of 5 models is 205 points. For that you get:

1 Terminator Sergeant with Powerweapon and Storm Bolter

1 Terminator with your choice of: Assault Cannon; Heavy Flamer; Storm Bolter and Cyclone Missile

3 Terminators with Storm Bolter

Any of the Terminators (excluding the Terminator Sergeant) can have either a Power Fist or a Chainfist

Every option available in this unit is a lateral move to a piece of equipment that is better against some targets and worst against others. Short of deciding you don't want a heavy weapon Terminator, this unit is roughly equivalent no matter how you outfit it. This means placing the points at 205 is Points not Power Level in disguise.

The problem is that the Terminator Squad seems to be more of an outlier than the process of determining points allows. That is a shame, because I think the game would be the better for not having a long list of upgrade cost that allow for too much cost-benefit analysis on unit composition based on points efficiency.

 alextroy wrote:
In theory, GW has balanced the either/or options and included most of the optionals in the cost. You therefore do not get cases of purely better units from the same points cost.

Let's use my favorite example, the Terminator Squad. A Terminator Squad of 5 models is 205 points. For that you get:

1 Terminator Sergeant with Powerweapon and Storm Bolter

1 Terminator with your choice of: Assault Cannon; Heavy Flamer; Storm Bolter and Cyclone Missile

3 Terminators with Storm Bolter

Any of the Terminators (excluding the Terminator Sergeant) can have either a Power Fist or a Chainfist

Every option available in this unit is a lateral move to a piece of equipment that is better against some targets and worst against others. Short of deciding you don't want a heavy weapon Terminator, this unit is roughly equivalent no matter how you outfit it. This means placing the points at 205 is Points not Power Level in disguise.

The problem is that the Terminator Squad seems to be more of an outlier than the process of determining points allows. That is a shame, because I think the game would be the better for not having a long list of upgrade cost that allow for too much cost-benefit analysis on unit composition based on points efficiency.

What happens if you take a Terminator Sergeant with Power Sword and 4 Terminators with Storm Bolters and Power Fists?

Is that unit roughly equivalent?

Is a Leman Russ without sponsons roughly equivalent to one with sponsons?

I our latest example of cope is "Well, actually, Dakka doesn't represent the gaming community, so... the results don't really mean anything!".

I've been reading comments in random places - Auspex Videos, Facebook, Bricky's videos - and the lamentations over these "points" and the inflexible (and nonsensical) squad size limitations are widespread and universal. This is not just a Dakka thing.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
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.

Again, you're not seeing the woods for the trees. Those are symptoms of the overall issues. Simply examples of why this new system is so flawed.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
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.

So now you're against variable squad sizes - something that has been part of most races in the game since it started, and basically every faction in the game since 1998 - and are going to claim it's because people would use it just to avoid blast penalties? Are you for real?

We really are reaching 1984 levels of "We've always been at war with Eastasia!" when it comes to your instant and total support for whatever changes GW makes.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
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.

And...? That's a choice players can make for themselves. A choice these "points" take away from them.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
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.

Who is making that argument?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
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 can't think of an example of ever going "Well I guess I'll take Melta because it's cheaper...". Who designed armies like that? What kind of straw-filled argument is this, Daed?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I totally hated Power Level. This isn't that.

It's an inflexible system that doesn't account for options and costs everything the same regardless of what's taken. It is Power Level with the serial number filed off.

Bencyclopedia wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
So why not keep both systems?

Power level was left to languish in 9th with (afaik) only a single update, presumably the development team didn't have or didn't want to allocate the time to it.

From my perspective, and the perspective of at least some other people who favoured PL, that was a FEATURE not a bug. I hate that in the new system, every little ripple that hits competitive play will hit Crusade. The idea that the value of my Crusade roster has to change 2-4 times a year is another one of my beefs with 10th; part of what I loved about Crusade and PL is that they steered free of all that constant change. Cripple air cavalry cuz one Ork flyer and one Admech flyer are broken? Not in Crusade. No dual Brotherhood GK? Not in Crusade. Change the value of your Crusade Roster every time Nick Nanavati gets hiccups? Not a chance.

But now 10th is here. Getting "updated" as regularly as Matched was in 9th is not my idea of fun; I think it's the second worst thing to happen to Crusade in 10th. Separate systems was the way to go.

Bencyclopedia wrote:

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.

Agree to disagree.

I mean, objectively, in the business sense? Maybe.

But I think of Inquisitor 28, or Blanchitsu, and I think a lot is lost when you don't leave room for the storytellers to grow and breathe. Giving us a sandbox where the narrative takes priority over the futile quest for perfect balance. And to do it in a way that didn't interfere with what a larger portion of the fanbase was doing? Great strategy.

Oh well. 1091 days 'til 11th. /s

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
In theory, GW has balanced the either/or options and included most of the optionals in the cost. You therefore do not get cases of purely better units from the same points cost.

Let's use my favorite example, the Terminator Squad. A Terminator Squad of 5 models is 205 points. For that you get:

1 Terminator Sergeant with Powerweapon and Storm Bolter

1 Terminator with your choice of: Assault Cannon; Heavy Flamer; Storm Bolter and Cyclone Missile

3 Terminators with Storm Bolter

Any of the Terminators (excluding the Terminator Sergeant) can have either a Power Fist or a Chainfist

Every option available in this unit is a lateral move to a piece of equipment that is better against some targets and worst against others. Short of deciding you don't want a heavy weapon Terminator, this unit is roughly equivalent no matter how you outfit it. This means placing the points at 205 is Points not Power Level in disguise.

The problem is that the Terminator Squad seems to be more of an outlier than the process of determining points allows. That is a shame, because I think the game would be the better for not having a long list of upgrade cost that allow for too much cost-benefit analysis on unit composition based on points efficiency.

What happens if you take a Terminator Sergeant with Power Sword and 4 Terminators with Storm Bolters and Power Fists?

Is that unit roughly equivalent?

Is a Leman Russ without sponsons roughly equivalent to one with sponsons?

Your choice to leave the heavy weapon at home is on you. It's a one off choice in the unit that GW is basing the game on you actually taking. I mean, why would you leave it at home? The only reason I can think of is to save points, which I don't think they want you to be able to do.

As for the Leman Russ without sponsons, that is a great example of where their implementation of the concept has failed miserably. They would have been better off just saying all Leman Russ have Sponsons and leaving the players to decide what to do with the Sponsonless models than the free choice to take them. Or they could have not made 7 different datasheets for every turret weapon and given us Leman Russ and Leman Russ with Sponson datasheets. I guess they wanted the different abilities for every individual weapon to make them cool.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 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.

You don't get bigger variability than sponsons on a Predator, there might be more cases where weapon swaps should cost 0 pts or all weapon swaps should cost the same number of pts instead of different values like 0, 3, 5, 7 and 10. Not acknowledging that those cases will still exist despite GW's best effort with the indexes is insanity and closing off the option (like GW closed off the option of 4 pt models in 9th) would be like insisting all units and upgrades should be costed in prime numbers only. GW tried to make bad profiles better and strong profiles weaker in the past, look at dark lances and multimeltas, but balancing weapon profiles is hard, making weapon profiles thematic is much easier, then problems in balance can be fixed with pts, that's what pts are for. They're tiny and easily adjustable, they love making options as balanced against each other as possible and there is no Pistol 4 laspistol nonsense involved. Whether flamers, plasma, grav, etc. are going to be viable we don't know yet, the only thing we do know is that naked units will not be viable. Considering the perception of many people was that GW heavily encouraged naked units in the rules of previous editions or for other reasons prefer naked units, that should be a viable strategy.

A unit of 8 has a starting strength of 8, half of 8 is 4, not 3.

 alextroy wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
In theory, GW has balanced the either/or options and included most of the optionals in the cost. You therefore do not get cases of purely better units from the same points cost.

Let's use my favorite example, the Terminator Squad. A Terminator Squad of 5 models is 205 points. For that you get:

1 Terminator Sergeant with Powerweapon and Storm Bolter

1 Terminator with your choice of: Assault Cannon; Heavy Flamer; Storm Bolter and Cyclone Missile

3 Terminators with Storm Bolter

Any of the Terminators (excluding the Terminator Sergeant) can have either a Power Fist or a Chainfist

Every option available in this unit is a lateral move to a piece of equipment that is better against some targets and worst against others. Short of deciding you don't want a heavy weapon Terminator, this unit is roughly equivalent no matter how you outfit it. This means placing the points at 205 is Points not Power Level in disguise.

The problem is that the Terminator Squad seems to be more of an outlier than the process of determining points allows. That is a shame, because I think the game would be the better for not having a long list of upgrade cost that allow for too much cost-benefit analysis on unit composition based on points efficiency.

What happens if you take a Terminator Sergeant with Power Sword and 4 Terminators with Storm Bolters and Power Fists?

Is that unit roughly equivalent?

Is a Leman Russ without sponsons roughly equivalent to one with sponsons?

Your choice to leave the heavy weapon at home is on you. It's a one off choice in the unit that GW is basing the game on you actually taking. I mean, why would you leave it at home? The only reason I can think of is to save points, which I don't think they want you to be able to do.

That's an absolutely bad reason.

It's not a bad reason, it's a design choice.

They have chosen to price the Terminator Squad in a way that includes 1 Heavy Weapon per 5 models. They leave the choice to take it or not to you, the player. If we assume it isn't a lazy choice (a stretch, I know), then it must be to get you to take that Heavy Weapon. This lets them better gauge the relative power of a Terminator Squad in the army without worrying about the relative cost of the weapons on the models.

Many don't agree with the choice, but we are not on the ones who get to make the decision.

Or we can all rebel as a gaming community and make our own points values for units the include cost for individual upgrades. GW did give us a starting point

It's a bad design choice. If you don't take an upgrade, you shouldn't have to pay for it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's a bad design choice. If you don't take an upgrade, you shouldn't have to pay for it.

Yeah, well, ya know, that's just like your opinion man.

Most of the people who responded to the poll appear to agree with you, but saying it's bad is still subjective.

There are certainly some datasheets where GW appear to have gotten this wrong, but is it so wrong on enough datasheets to warrant throwing it all out and starting again?

Yes.

It's a horrifically flawed system. They abdicated their responsibility to create a points system for their new game and then gas-lit everyone with their explanations.

Bencyclopedia wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's a bad design choice. If you don't take an upgrade, you shouldn't have to pay for it.

Yeah, well, ya know, that's just like your opinion man.

Most of the people who responded to the poll appear to agree with you, but saying it's bad is still subjective.

There are certainly some datasheets where GW appear to have gotten this wrong, but is it so wrong on enough datasheets to warrant throwing it all out and starting again?

No, PL misses the core of what a points system is meant to do, balance games. *angry rant deleted*

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yes.

It's a horrifically flawed system. They abdicated their responsibility to create a points system for their new game and then gas-lit everyone with their explanations.

Well fair enough, I can't begrudge anyone their opinon.

I'm not going to hold my breath though, I doubt the designers their going to backflip on their choice without a word from on high, and I wouldn't expect that before GW's half year results come out in January.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's a bad design choice. If you don't take an upgrade, you shouldn't have to pay for it.

Not disagreeing but it has dawned on me the opposite is true of many real world examples. Buy a big mac meal and ask not to have gherkins, you don't get a discount for using fewer ingredients. If you buy a console and don't want/need the controller, no discount for that choice. Its very normal to not get a discount for opting to take the suboptimal choice in life, mostly with food.

 vict0988 wrote:

Bencyclopedia wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's a bad design choice. If you don't take an upgrade, you shouldn't have to pay for it.

Yeah, well, ya know, that's just like your opinion man.

Most of the people who responded to the poll appear to agree with you, but saying it's bad is still subjective.

There are certainly some datasheets where GW appear to have gotten this wrong, but is it so wrong on enough datasheets to warrant throwing it all out and starting again?

No, PL misses the core of what a points system is meant to do, balance games. *angry rant deleted*

So just to extrapolate your assertion is that free upgrades creates imbalanaced games? Is that correct?

I understanding that this system creates inbalance within datasheets, i.e. a no sponson Leman Russ is clearly worse than one with sponsons, but that doesn't mean that any given game is imbalanced or that most games will be imbalanced.

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's a bad design choice. If you don't take an upgrade, you shouldn't have to pay for it.

Not disagreeing but it has dawned on me the opposite is true of many real world examples. Buy a big mac meal and ask not to have gherkins, you don't get a discount for using fewer ingredients. If you buy a console and don't want/need the controller, no discount for that choice. Its very normal to not get a discount for opting to take the suboptimal choice in life, mostly with food.

this is a perfect example as it proofs the point, the system is flawed as you should not pay for it
just that it happens does not change the fact that you should not pay for it

that the BigMac is not discounted if you don't want 1 ingredient but you have to pay extra if you want 1 more should not be the case
and therefore in some places you can make your own burger by paying for the single ingredient and you don't have to pay for anything you did not take

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's a horrifically flawed system. They abdicated their responsibility to create a points system for their new game and then gas-lit everyone with their explanations.

I would not call the system itself flawed, simply because other games use a similar one and it works really well

the problem is simply that GW does not want to invest enough time and money into it to make it work, maybe because it will be replaced with 11th anyway or because they saw that with that system the number of units for NPC factions would be similar to Marines and this was not allowed

The example would make more sense if the burger had 10 additional toppings one could get (bacon, extra bacon, extra cheese, extra meat, etc.), and it was costed as though it had all of them, but by default had none of them.

Dudeface wrote:
Not disagreeing but it has dawned on me the opposite is true of many real world examples. Buy a big mac meal and ask not to have gherkins, you don't get a discount for using fewer ingredients. If you buy a console and don't want/need the controller, no discount for that choice. Its very normal to not get a discount for opting to take the suboptimal choice in life, mostly with food.

Excuse my french, but what kind of nonsense argument is this?

Is a PS5 without a disc drive the same price as one with it?
Have you ever bought a car and had to pay the same price no matter what configuration you wanted?
Do you live in a place where extra toppings on sandwiches and pizzas are free?

And none of this is in any way connected to tabletop gaming.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The example would make more sense if the burger had 10 additional toppings one could get (bacon, extra bacon, extra cheese, extra meat, etc.), and it was costed as though it had all of them, but by default had none of them.

there is a reason why you won't find such an example, because any other company but GW pulling something like this off will result in a shitstorm

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's a bad design choice. If you don't take an upgrade, you shouldn't have to pay for it.

Not disagreeing but it has dawned on me the opposite is true of many real world examples. Buy a big mac meal and ask not to have gherkins, you don't get a discount for using fewer ingredients. If you buy a console and don't want/need the controller, no discount for that choice. Its very normal to not get a discount for opting to take the suboptimal choice in life, mostly with food.

McDonalds are profit-maximizing, not balancing value against price, although profit-maximizing might sometimes look like a balancing act. My Necron Lord isn't trying to profit off his Tomb Blade sales by shorting me my change for getting the model without all the bells and whistles. I've engaged in similar anologies before and I think that was a mistake, it's not the same thing and should not be treated as such.

Bencyclopedia wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Bencyclopedia wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's a bad design choice. If you don't take an upgrade, you shouldn't have to pay for it.

Yeah, well, ya know, that's just like your opinion man.

Most of the people who responded to the poll appear to agree with you, but saying it's bad is still subjective.

There are certainly some datasheets where GW appear to have gotten this wrong, but is it so wrong on enough datasheets to warrant throwing it all out and starting again?

No, PL misses the core of what a points system is meant to do, balance games. *angry rant deleted*

So just to extrapolate your assertion is that free upgrades creates imbalanaced games? Is that correct?

I understanding that this system creates inbalance within datasheets, i.e. a no sponson Leman Russ is clearly worse than one with sponsons, but that doesn't mean that any given game is imbalanced or that most games will be imbalanced.

John plays his Chaos Space Marines, he has made a list specifically for 10th and between having a large collection and buying a few upgrades and doing some replacements he can field a list with all the bells and whistles at 2000 pts. Biffy plays his Space Marine list from early 9th edition, he has some upgrades, but on far from everything because that wasn't in at the time, so his 2000 pts army has an actual value of 1900. John has a leg up because PL doesn't take into account that Biffy doesn't spam upgrades, but John does. Had Biffy had another 100 pts worth of naked units the game would have been more fair.

Any simpler as vict put it, it isn't going to get.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The example would make more sense if the burger had 10 additional toppings one could get (bacon, extra bacon, extra cheese, extra meat, etc.), and it was costed as though it had all of them, but by default had none of them.

Pickles, sauce, cheese, patties, bread, lettuce etc.

You can ask to have any of those removed and it is priced to include them. Which is largely how you should view units in 10th I'd wager.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Not disagreeing but it has dawned on me the opposite is true of many real world examples. Buy a big mac meal and ask not to have gherkins, you don't get a discount for using fewer ingredients. If you buy a console and don't want/need the controller, no discount for that choice. Its very normal to not get a discount for opting to take the suboptimal choice in life, mostly with food.

Excuse my french, but what kind of nonsense argument is this?

Is a PS5 without a disc drive the same price as one with it?
Have you ever bought a car and had to pay the same price no matter what configuration you wanted?
Do you live in a place where extra toppings on sandwiches and pizzas are free?

And none of this is in any way connected to tabletop gaming.

Not an argument, its an observation. It's partly due to the psychology of the points, GW have gone from offering you a plain burger and letting you pay for toppings, to selling you a topping laden burger and people asking why it doesn't cost less when they take them off.

Honestly I think I'm wired up differently to most poster's on here, either and quite likely I'm not communicating well, or everyone is far too literal with an inability for abstract thought. Given I'm a minority probably the former.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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.

Yet many, many units are only available in sizes of either 3 or 6 models. Blast also now scales much more fairly than it did before. It's almost like this isn't the real reason at all, and is just some weak post hoc justification for a stupid change.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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.

That would be somewhat compelling if it wasn't for the fact that the current system makes BP/CS utterly pointless because it's strictly worse than the PP/PW loadout. Messing up the entire points system because one unit might be able to squeeze some synergy out of a specific loadout is not a good design approach. It also completely ignores the fact that GW were in no way compelled to give Lemartes the -1D ability they did - an ability he's never had before and is also somewhat counter-intuitive from a fluff perspective since the whole point of the Death Company is to die in battle. It's almost like this isn't the real reason at all, and is just some weak post hoc justification for a stupid change.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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.

Is anyone making that argument? Of course people argue based on their opinions and perceptions, but I don't think anyone arguing against the changes has done so purely based on "I don't like it". Everyone seems to have put forward their reasoning for it, and it's mostly the same reasoning for everyone. I've not seen a compelling argument against that reasoning yet either.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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

Yes, it is. It's utterly indistinguishable from PL in every way.

Seriously Daedalus, your arguments are getting more and more bizarre and further and further from reality as time goes on. Has it occurred to you that the reason all your weird justifications don't make sense is because there really wasn't any thought or effort put into this change from GW?

"Gw has said so, therefor it has to be so."

And people wonder where the whole "Cult of officialdom" argument came from.

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The example would make more sense if the burger had 10 additional toppings one could get (bacon, extra bacon, extra cheese, extra meat, etc.), and it was costed as though it had all of them, but by default had none of them.

Pickles, sauce, cheese, patties, bread, lettuce etc.

You can ask to have any of those removed and it is priced to include them. Which is largely how you should view units in 10th I'd wager.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Not disagreeing but it has dawned on me the opposite is true of many real world examples. Buy a big mac meal and ask not to have gherkins, you don't get a discount for using fewer ingredients. If you buy a console and don't want/need the controller, no discount for that choice. Its very normal to not get a discount for opting to take the suboptimal choice in life, mostly with food.

Excuse my french, but what kind of nonsense argument is this?

Is a PS5 without a disc drive the same price as one with it?
Have you ever bought a car and had to pay the same price no matter what configuration you wanted?
Do you live in a place where extra toppings on sandwiches and pizzas are free?

And none of this is in any way connected to tabletop gaming.

Not an argument, its an observation. It's partly due to the psychology of the points, GW have gone from offering you a plain burger and letting you pay for toppings, to selling you a topping laden burger and people asking why it doesn't cost less when they take them off.

Honestly I think I'm wired up differently to most poster's on here, either and quite likely I'm not communicating well, or everyone is far too literal with an inability for abstract thought. Given I'm a minority probably the former.

I would just like to add that in this McDonalds allegory Eldar are McFlurries (-machines), because they're just always broken

Dudeface wrote:


Pickles, sauce, cheese, patties, bread, lettuce etc.

You can ask to have any of those removed and it is priced to include them. Which is largely how you should view units in 10th I'd wager.

A key difference between 40k lists and burger toppings is that your burger doesn't have to compete with other burgers which have all the toppings in conditions where toppings make a material difference as to which burger is going to win. The idea of points isn't just to make a 40k list that is to your tastes, but to ensure that list is roughly on par in terms of strength against other lists.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I our latest example of cope is "Well, actually, Dakka doesn't represent the gaming community, so... the results don't really mean anything!".

I've been reading comments in random places - Auspex Videos, Facebook, Bricky's videos - and the lamentations over these "points" and the inflexible (and nonsensical) squad size limitations are widespread and universal. This is not just a Dakka thing.

I am also on multiple Facebook groups, reddit, and other places, and there was initial outrage threads here and there, but there was also a lot people who were really tired of the rage and did not want to engage. People who complain tend to be louder than people who move on with their lives. That's not a Warhammer thing, just real life.

The groups now are rather silent. My guess people moved on. I have also found out that a lot of competitive people and narrative people(hell, Crusade groups I played with in 9th loved PL) really don't mind upgrades being free. Hosted a RTT last week and people had a lot of fun. Some were like "They made it all free?", but no outrage.

The only real metric is how this affect sales, and that is something that takes time to gather. So in 6 months we should probably have a better picture. I fear the overpowered Desolators, Wraithknight and Fate Dice will do far more damage to the game than upgrades being free.

Ah, so now you're the "silent majority".

I guess goal posts are lighter than I thought...

At least we're not getting any more nonsense about [current] edition being the competitive edition will we?

Dudeface wrote:
Not an argument, its an observation. It's partly due to the psychology of the points, GW have gone from offering you a plain burger and letting you pay for toppings, to selling you a topping laden burger and people asking why it doesn't cost less when they take them off.

Honestly I think I'm wired up differently to most poster's on here, either and quite likely I'm not communicating well, or everyone is far too literal with an inability for abstract thought. Given I'm a minority probably the former.

Would you agree that changing it every 3 years is problematic? I think history has a precedent here because most people haven't been loading up 100% on upgrades, so demanding that now is a little late.

Edition change is something good and needed to evolve the story line
GW has no other option than to release a new one every 3 years to have a progressive storyline /s

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Ah, so now you're the "silent majority".
I guess goal posts are lighter than I thought...

well, most of those communities are

go by the other polls you get from Reddit/FB/YT ~50% of the people hardly play games but just want a list so they have a plan on what to buy and paint
and those people don't care what the points are or even if the game itself is working, but they also cannot understand why people who play don't like the rules

so you want here anything from those groups regarding points or rules but just "what I need to buy to upgrade my Marines to 10th"