Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 vict0988 wrote:
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.

It's problematic depending on the investment of time and effort. They've half asked this current environment so heavily I don't think it can be saved as such. I don't think a change every 3 years is bad by default so much as the degree of change and the relative supporting acts define if they're a good move or not.

I wouldn't say anyone is "demanding" people load up on upgrades, it's just people spent forever telling GW if upgrades are free everyone will take them, so that's what they did, they made that assumption based on communities comments.

If they'd gone the step further and made sponsors mandatory base equipment for example, the problem.is dramatically lessened.

Unless you have Russes without sponsons... then it's a whole new problem.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Unless you have Russes without sponsons... then it's a whole new problem.

Russes without sponsons are fake news and any and all pictures provided in this thread are fabricated!/S

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Unless you have Russes without sponsons... then it's a whole new problem.

Sort of? As they'd be base equipment they don't necessarily need to be modelled on arguably.

What I predict will happen:

Now - total disadvantage for having sponsons
- people attach sponsons
- GW reintroduced some points for sponsons
Then - people angry at the fact they now have them on but can remove them to reduce points

Removed - stop it.

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Unless you have Russes without sponsons... then it's a whole new problem.

Sort of? As they'd be base equipment they don't necessarily need to be modelled on arguably.

I'd dispute that they are base equipment. I think there is a difference between base equipment that is always part of a model, and free equipment that you can add on without cost.
The turret (of whatever variant) is base equipment because there's no way to build the tank without one. Someone wanting to put a unique/third party/dioramic turret does nothing to alter that it is still a Leman Russ (variant) underneath.
It is absolutely possible to build one without sponsons however, and there are many different weapon types available.

I think the Leman Russ is a bad example to use simply because it has so many variants, so I'm going to use Chaos Marines instead. Suggesting that my Bolter-equipped guy is actually holding a (free!) Lascannon, is to me a very different situation to a Shrivetalon actually just having a Pistol and Chainsword in rules.

I'm non-competitive enough not to care and would happily give my opponent whatever leeway they wanted, but I do think it falls outside of WYSIWYG and would not be at all surprised to hear that it was enforced in a tournament setting.

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?

Posted this earlier in the thread, but its a long thread:

The main issue with PL has always been that the weapon options underneath it were designed with points in mind. The vast majority of stuff was designed with a Standard, Standard+, Deluxe structure that required points to create meaningful choices. The redesign puts more emphasis on options serving different roles, so while there's no longer a cost element to consider, there's still a sense that you are making an informed choice in your loadout. Obviously there are still winners and losers in this, just as there were in a points driven system, but they have at least taken steps to make PL an interesting system.

Removed - stop it.

Mozzamanx wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Unless you have Russes without sponsons... then it's a whole new problem.

Sort of? As they'd be base equipment they don't necessarily need to be modelled on arguably.

I'd dispute that they are base equipment. I think there is a difference between base equipment that is always part of a model, and free equipment that you can add on without cost.
The turret (of whatever variant) is base equipment because there's no way to build the tank without one. Someone wanting to put a unique/third party/dioramic turret does nothing to alter that it is still a Leman Russ (variant) underneath.
It is absolutely possible to build one without sponsons however, and there are many different weapon types available.

I think the Leman Russ is a bad example to use simply because it has so many variants, so I'm going to use Chaos Marines instead. Suggesting that my Bolter-equipped guy is actually holding a (free!) Lascannon, is to me a very different situation to a Shrivetalon actually just having a Pistol and Chainsword in rules.

I'm non-competitive enough not to care and would happily give my opponent whatever leeway they wanted, but I do think it falls outside of WYSIWYG and would not be at all surprised to hear that it was enforced in a tournament setting.

As a novelty you can build a land raider with out sponsons if you wish, but they've always been base equipment. Whether someone considers the sponsons of a russ to be mandatory ruleswise is not the same as modelling however, which ultimately is the problem.

If your chaos marines must come with a heavy weapons guy and you only have bolter armed guys, then what else are you supposed to do for example? That's likely the way this is heading.

 LunarSol wrote:

Boosykes wrote:

How is this not powerlevel?

Posted this earlier in the thread, but its a long thread:

The main issue with PL has always been that the weapon options underneath it were designed with points in mind. The vast majority of stuff was designed with a Standard, Standard+, Deluxe structure that required points to create meaningful choices. The redesign puts more emphasis on options serving different roles, so while there's no longer a cost element to consider, there's still a sense that you are making an informed choice in your loadout. Obviously there are still winners and losers in this, just as there were in a points driven system, but they have at least taken steps to make PL an interesting system.

The problem with that argument is it's blatantly false. Whether that's by design, and GW are just paying lip service to redesigning the system or - more likely - through incompetence due to a lack of understanding or time, isn't really relevant. Theoretically you can design a system that exclusively uses sidegrades, which then allows fixed points for every unit. GW are nowhere near achieving that. There are so many obvious examples of where they've failed it's hard to take such an argument seriously. We still have "options" that are literally just upgrades for no points, as we see with Ork Battlewagons or Necron Tomb Blades. Or "options" that are clearly not, like Death Company plasma pistols and power weapons. Then there are the slightly more nuanced, but no less stupid, scenarios like Crisis Suits. Yes, it's not always immediately clear what the very best options are, but we can tell there are better weapons and systems among the options.

Slipspace wrote:

It's almost like this isn't the real reason at all,

When multimillion dollar companies make decisions, there is no "THE reason."

There is a cost benefits analysis, which list dozens, if not hundreds of reasons, and dozens, if not hundreds of "reasons not."

The two lists are compared, and if the "good" outweigh the "bad" by a wide enough margin to merrit upsetting the status quo, change is made; if not, it isn't. What's more, none of us will ever know all the "reasons" or all the "reasons not" that were in GW's list. By crowd sourcing on a forum, we'd probably hit 90-95% of them... That is, if (and only if) any of us are ever willing to admit that nobody ever does anything for just one reason, and that things are always more complicated than we make them when we're having casual discussions online.

Slipspace wrote:

there really wasn't any thought or effort put into this change from GW?

Really? Because it seems to me they've been planning this change and slowly implementing it for seven years across three editions. Same with Primaris implementation... though that still isn't fully implemented yet, even though Gravis can finally ride in Corvus Blackstars. GW does not think in years. They think in editions and decades.

 nurgle5 wrote:


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.

Really? So you don't think the Whopper and the Big Mac have been competing since 1954? You don't think there's a reason that the Whopper became the Whopper family when they added, say, the Angry Whopper or the Mushroom Swiss Whopper to the menu? These are absolutely cases where toppings were modified for the purpose of competing with other burgers. Remember the one where McDonald's put the lettuce and tomato in a separate compartment of the burger box so they could stay cold and crunchy?

No look, sorry guys... I'm on the bus and I'm bored, so I'm kinda shitposting here, because I agree with the overall point that most of you are trying to make: many, or possibly even most, upgrades probably should be pointed. I preferred PL and used it exclusively in 9th, but IMHO it only works as an optional system for the minority of us for whom balance is not the highest priority.

And let me address that too: when I say balance isn't my priority, I'm not saying it isn't important- obviously it is.

I

PenitentJake wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

It's almost like this isn't the real reason at all,

When multimillion dollar companies make decisions, there is no "THE reason."

GW having large revenues is really tangential or even in spite of their rules decisions. And even if the rules decisions were part of what led to their large revenues... I can tell you (from working at a company with a much larger revenue), you'd be pretty unimpressed at some of the logic that is used to make decisions, let's leave it at that. There's no big brain 4D chess actually going on here; ironically, GW's behavior is pretty WYSIWYG, unlike what they've done to the game.

Slipspace wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

Boosykes wrote:

How is this not powerlevel?

Posted this earlier in the thread, but its a long thread:

The main issue with PL has always been that the weapon options underneath it were designed with points in mind. The vast majority of stuff was designed with a Standard, Standard+, Deluxe structure that required points to create meaningful choices. The redesign puts more emphasis on options serving different roles, so while there's no longer a cost element to consider, there's still a sense that you are making an informed choice in your loadout. Obviously there are still winners and losers in this, just as there were in a points driven system, but they have at least taken steps to make PL an interesting system.

The problem with that argument is it's blatantly false. Whether that's by design, and GW are just paying lip service to redesigning the system or - more likely - through incompetence due to a lack of understanding or time, isn't really relevant. Theoretically you can design a system that exclusively uses sidegrades, which then allows fixed points for every unit. GW are nowhere near achieving that. There are so many obvious examples of where they've failed it's hard to take such an argument seriously. We still have "options" that are literally just upgrades for no points, as we see with Ork Battlewagons or Necron Tomb Blades. Or "options" that are clearly not, like Death Company plasma pistols and power weapons. Then there are the slightly more nuanced, but no less stupid, scenarios like Crisis Suits. Yes, it's not always immediately clear what the very best options are, but we can tell there are better weapons and systems among the options.

There's definitely some weird "can takes" that I suspect entirely comes down to trying to cover people concerned that their model doesn't have that because they chose not to include it in the past. I don't think anyone is getting those upgrades for "free" though.

PenitentJake wrote:


Really? So you don't think the Whopper and the Big Mac have been competing since 1954? You don't think there's a reason that the Whopper became the Whopper family when they added, say, the Angry Whopper or the Mushroom Swiss Whopper to the menu? These are absolutely cases where toppings were modified for the purpose of competing with other burgers. Remember the one where McDonald's put the lettuce and tomato in a separate compartment of the burger box so they could stay cold and crunchy?

I can see now that my initial post wasn't super clear in phrasing and tone. I wasn't making the comparison in terms of marketplace competition between restaurants or anything like that. I was driving at a less-than-serious point that choosing burger toppings isn't a competitive experience for consumers in the same way that unit loadouts are for 40k players, because my Whopper toppings (or lack thereof) don't potentially put me at a competitive disadvantage against your Whopper toppings if you happen to have more

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Ah, so now you're the "silent majority".

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

How people forget that MGS posted a thread about a decade ago on how much Dakka actually represents of the community. And this was over ten years ago. I'd love to see the stats now, but for people to say the online community is just some fringe is patently false.

 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.

Have you ever been to Five Guys? Do they have Five Guys in Australia? A Bacon Cheeseburger costs $9. That gets you 2 patties, bacon, and cheese. A Bacon Cheeseburger with mayo, lettuce, pickles, tomatoes, grilled onions, grilled mushrooms, ketchup, mustard, relish, onions, jalapenos, green peppers, A1 steak sauce, BBQ sauce, and hot sauce is also $9. By default, when you ask for the bacon cheeseburger, all your get is the patties, bacon, cheese, and bun. All the other stuff needs to be asked for separately, but they don't upcharge you for any of it, and you can add as much or as little as you like (and despite the fact that its all free, most people don't ask for more than a handful of those toppings added on, I usually only get the mayo, tomato, grilled onions, grilled mushrooms, and ketchup, for example - sometimes if I'm feeling spicy ill add green pepper. Thats really about it).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:
At least we're not getting any more nonsense about [current] edition being the competitive edition will we?

The great irony - many of those complaining about the points system now are the same people who a month ago were complaining that 9th was too competitive. Granular points systems incentive more competitive listbuilding and play, so GW made the system less granular to reduce competitiveness... and they still get flak for it.

The leman russ without sponsons thing is probably an issue mostly with people trying to use the models for 40k and horus heresy games (where sponsons aren't an option).

Okay chaos what a great brilliant example.

How much does a regular cheeseburger *without bacon* cost?

Hahahahahahahaha dude let's keep making incredibly gak analogies about fast food, it's so much funnier this way

no, he has a point
that the game is designed to fit into the US market and their standards whatever this means

as such things are very different outside the US some of us fail to understand why this makes any sense

locarno24 wrote:
The leman russ without sponsons thing is probably an issue mostly with people trying to use the models for 40k and horus heresy games (where sponsons aren't an option).

Or for people who built their Russes without sponsons because they look better. Even Forge World's promo pics for the Mars-Alpha kit are all sponson-less.

Dunno why some people are making it out to all be about rules. I built my Russes without sponsons because I like them better that way, because the kit, lore, and rules all established it as valid, and it was a valid choice to save some points by forgoing the upgrade. Now it's just... the wrong choice, I guess. No redeeming benefits.

Casual and competitive aren't these wholly isolated extremes where every decision is made either without regard for the rules at all, or made entirely on the basis of what's competitively optimal. I'm not building my armies to try to win LVO, but I don't appreciate when I'm at a tangible disadvantage before the game even begins.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
How much does a regular cheeseburger *without bacon* cost?

Well you see, it's $6 instead of $8. But you might not eat half the burger, or a seagull might steal it before you eat any of it, so that 25% reduction in cost actually becomes a 5% reduction in cost. And since you're buying a hundred burgers at once, and 5% on one burger is all of forty cents, that difference amounts to a rounding error and can be ignored.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Ah, so now you're the "silent majority".

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

How people forget that MGS posted a thread about a decade ago on how much Dakka actually represents of the community. And this was over ten years ago. I'd love to see the stats now, but for people to say the online community is just some fringe is patently false.

Depends what you mean with "online community".

People that use the internet? obviously not fringe, I expect pretty much the entire community to use the internet.

People that have visited online forums? Dakka gets hundreds of thousands of (guest) visits so definitely not fringe.

But actually engaged, registered and active members? now that is entirely fringe. See the actual poll above, a 500-600 votes is pretty much fringe.

If all weapons were supposed to be sidegrades basic weapons would need something special so you have a reason not to swap them, but then you easily end up in DoW 2/3 territory, where you could find some special bolters that exploded or gave some ability that made a heavy bolter not a straight up improvement.
Sponsons on Leman Russes would need some serious drawbacks like -8" movement or -1 BS to not be autotakes over no Sponsons.
Alas, 10th edition hardly has that so overall it just makes you feel stupid not to take everything available when there are no points which makes it pretty clear that GW didn't think it through.

PenitentJake wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

there really wasn't any thought or effort put into this change from GW?

Really? Because it seems to me they've been planning this change and slowly implementing it for seven years across three editions. Same with Primaris implementation... though that still isn't fully implemented yet, even though Gravis can finally ride in Corvus Blackstars. GW does not think in years. They think in editions and decades.

Ah yes, it's all a plan so subtle and cunning we just can't see the endgame yet. Of course!

I've no doubt they have been planning this for a long time. It doesn't mean their execution is any less terrible. It's clear to anyone who spends any amount of time looking at the current system that it's poorly thought out and woefully executed.

I work for a very large organisation. We have sporadically been in the national news in recent months due to an IT system upgrade that has gone badly wrong. That upgrade was planned and mapped out in a project that lasted a few years. It doesn't make the outcome any less of a screw up. I don't care how long something has been planned or how gradually they attempt to implement it. If the end result shows a complete lack of thought or understanding I'll call that out for what it is.

Dudeface wrote:

What I predict will happen:

Now - total disadvantage for having sponsons
- people attach sponsons
- GW reintroduced some points for sponsons
Then - people angry at the fact they now have them on but can remove them to reduce points

Don't have sponsons on? Get your sprues and add a magnet.
Points get reintroduced? A-ok.

Glued your sponsons on? Just use them as you have for all previous point systems.

I think the only edge case are people with resin models? Or people who toss their sprues ( WHY?! ).

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

What I predict will happen:

Now - total disadvantage for having sponsons
- people attach sponsons
- GW reintroduced some points for sponsons
Then - people angry at the fact they now have them on but can remove them to reduce points

Don't have sponsons on? Get your sprues and add a magnet.
Points get reintroduced? A-ok.

Glued your sponsons on? Just use them as you have for all previous point systems.

I think the only edge case are people with resin models? Or people who toss their sprues ( WHY?! ).

My favorite thing to do with over-a-decade old, bespoke, converted, lovingly painted and preserved models is to drill a hole in the side and slap a magnet in.

I'm sure I will 100% be able to match the paint color and wear and method used in the painting after over a decade. I mean who doesn't meticulously document every step of the painting process they used in their late teens?

I am a bit sad about having all upgrades cost the same. That invalidates a lot of choices.

That beeing said it is only a big problem for units with lot of upgrades. As the game has grown it removes a lot of bloat.

Holy hell, Daedalus' cope is one of the funniest things I've seen so far here.

Also a Tactical Squad with two Grav Guns is strictly inferior to a Tactical Squad with one Grav Gun and one Grav Cannon. Almost as if the latter is worth more for some reason......

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

What I predict will happen:

Now - total disadvantage for having sponsons
- people attach sponsons
- GW reintroduced some points for sponsons
Then - people angry at the fact they now have them on but can remove them to reduce points

Don't have sponsons on? Get your sprues and add a magnet.
Points get reintroduced? A-ok.

Glued your sponsons on? Just use them as you have for all previous point systems.

I think the only edge case are people with resin models? Or people who toss their sprues ( WHY?! ).

For, like, the hundredth time, sponsons are an example, not the entirety of the problem.

Even leaving aside whether drilling finished models and magnetizing them to deal with braindead rules changes is a reasonable approach, would you seriously suggest everyone chop up and magnetize the hands of all their Sergeants, magnetize all the wargear of every member of a command squad, magnetize hunter-killer missiles onto all their vehicles, and all the other little upgrades that in aggregate make a noticeable difference?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

My favorite thing to do with over-a-decade old, bespoke, converted, lovingly painted and preserved models is to drill a hole in the side and slap a magnet in.

I'm sure I will 100% be able to match the paint color and wear and method used in the painting after over a decade. I mean who doesn't meticulously document every step of the painting process they used in their late teens?

Right - that's what I called out as an edge case. I would hope it is a problem that can be solved socially.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

My favorite thing to do with over-a-decade old, bespoke, converted, lovingly painted and preserved models is to drill a hole in the side and slap a magnet in.

I'm sure I will 100% be able to match the paint color and wear and method used in the painting after over a decade. I mean who doesn't meticulously document every step of the painting process they used in their late teens?

Right - that's what I called out as an edge case. I would hope it is a problem that can be solved socially.

Or the points system could be designed in a way not to feth over everyone that didn't pimp out their squads and rides.