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.

nekooni wrote:

 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.

Leave it to Daedalus to blame the players and use the social contract as the problem instead of, ya know, the rules writers themselves.

I mean, even if we want to stay with the current approach to points, the solution is quite obvious, isn't it? (And it is not to work again on long finished models)

Units have a base cost of x with all the default basic wargear and get access to all the upgrades available for another cost of y.

If GW is not able or willing to make all possible upgrades just sidegrades, then get tiers of upgrades.

Example:
For +10pts, an Infantry squad unlocks pistols and special weapons. For a total of +20pts they unlock heavy weapons. And so on.

Any rules changes that force me to alter completed models (and previously legal models) are bad. I can handle nerfs or imbalance, but it sucks when the hours I spent on the hobby are invalidated. 9th was particularly brutal to my skitarii and was a major reason why I skipped it entirely. 10th just made that worse.

chaos0xomega wrote:
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.

I hate to be that guy, but that's not irony.

chaos0xomega wrote:
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.

I don’t see how the two are related?

Casual players and tournament grinders alike can both think these new rules are ridiculous.

Likewise these changes don’t necessarily make the game less competitive, they just completely feth with the balance

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

If people have a bunch of models with no upgrades then it would seem the old system wasn't working very well.

I imagine the vast majority of people here likely have a collection broad enough to accommodate these issues.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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

If people have a bunch of models with no upgrades then it would seem the old system wasn't working very well.

I imagine the vast majority of people here likely have a collection broad enough to accommodate these issues.

Why is an un-upgraded unit bad?
Does every Death Company member get a Thunder Hammer?
Every single sergeant a Power Fist?
There’s not a single squad without a heavy weapon in it?

 vict0988 wrote:

Bencyclopedia wrote:


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.

Ok, but that is not a new problem or a unique one to 10th. People have always been able to bring a list to a game that is strictly inferior than their opponents for one reason or another, and old lists have become invalid or uncompetitive with new editions and codex releases in the past.

It seems to me that this is more a modelling issue than an issue with the 'not power level' system in general. People don't want to be 'forced' to add upgrades to old models or to build new ones in a particular way to be competitive. I can certainly sympathise with that, building and painting models is not a trivial time investment and having your work 'undone' by rules changes suck.

Is the better solution for WYSIWYG to be abandoned, then the modelling issue simply goes away regardless of what GW does with the point system in the future?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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

If people have a bunch of models with no upgrades then it would seem the old system wasn't working very well.

I imagine the vast majority of people here likely have a collection broad enough to accommodate these issues.

Why would people choosing not to take upgrades be a failure of the old system? Also, not everyone has that large of a collection, and no one should be penalized for not spending that much money on the hobby.

Bencyclopedia wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Bencyclopedia wrote:


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.

Ok, but that is not a new problem or a unique one to 10th. People have always been able to bring a list to a game that is strictly inferior than their opponents for one reason or another, and old lists have become invalid or uncompetitive with new editions and codex releases in the past.

It seems to me that this is more a modelling issue than an issue with the 'not power level' system in general. People don't want to be 'forced' to add upgrades to old models or to build new ones in a particular way to be competitive. I can certainly sympathise with that, building and painting models is not a trivial time investment and having your work 'undone' by rules changes suck.

Is the better solution for WYSIWYG to be abandoned, then the modelling issue simply goes away regardless of what GW does with the point system in the future?

No, it is not. This is a visual game. It always has been.
The models (and the details of those models) SHOULD matter.
If it doesn't? Then just go buy a box of whatever & claim they are SM, Tau, Custodes, etc as desired day-to-day.
If you want a model to be armed with a certain option? Put in the effort to represent that.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
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.

I hate to be that guy, but that's not irony.

Try reading the next sentence, champ. That goes for you too nemesis.

Granular points don’t induce competitiveness.
Having a defined winner and loser do that.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Try reading the next sentence, champ.

Twice as many words still doesn't make it irony, mate.

PenitentJake wrote:
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.

As someone who administered a Crusade campaign of about 20 people in 9th... nah, we used points. Voidweavers were 5 PL, that gak was busted. Points were objectively better for Crusade too. Nothing about PL made narrative play easier; the only people who were advocating for PL were toxic CAAC players who wanted to be able to avoid having to play without an unearned advantage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
"Gw has said so, therefor it has to be so."

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

Careful, the mods hand out bans for pointing that out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
I don't appreciate when I'm at a tangible disadvantage before the game even begins.

People like Daed think you should suck it up and get with GW's program.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Right - that's what I called out as an edge case. I would hope it is a problem that can be solved socially.

Or GW could solve it with how their rules are structured. Why don't you want them to do that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I imagine the vast majority of people here likely have a collection broad enough to accommodate these issues.

No. I don't own multiples of each unit in every wargear permutation. Most 40k players have 1 army.

 catbarf wrote:

 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,

Pretty sure that was sarcasm.

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?

The other thing to remember is this problem isn't going away. They just shipped out how many Terminator models that don't have chain fists or Cyclone Missile Launchers. We're actually in an edition where at least some Chainfists are desired, and we're probably an edition or two away from Cyclones being auto take vs Assault Cannons again. These Terminator models didn't come with the other bits so you can't magnetize them, and go back to your sprue. That's just the nature of the beast. Its not good, but it's what it is.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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

If people have a bunch of models with no upgrades then it would seem the old system wasn't working very well.

I imagine the vast majority of people here likely have a collection broad enough to accommodate these issues.

This is giving me "dont you guys have phones?!" vibes, to be honest.

The old system allowed units with and without upgrades to be viable choice, and the new one does not.

I have close to 20k pts of Salamanders, and quite a few models are now basically unusable. Sure, i can "accommodate", but thats not the average collection size, and the new system benches a ton of my models for absolutely no good reason. Thats a failure of the new system, not the old one.

Bencyclopedia wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Bencyclopedia wrote:


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.

Ok, but that is not a new problem or a unique one to 10th. People have always been able to bring a list to a game that is strictly inferior than their opponents for one reason or another, and old lists have become invalid or uncompetitive with new editions and codex releases in the past.

GW not having pts is an issue that is new to 10th edition. I complained when dark lances were -5 instead of +5 pts when the 9th edition Drukhari codex came out and GW made a spur of the moment change to the dark lance profile without updating the pts. I complained when Monoliths were 381 pts, when they were actually worth less than 350, making that last 1 pt over 380 completely silly. 10th has worse internal balance than most editions, using PL is not the only flaw in the system, it's clear that they haven't done the math, done the playtesting and revised things before release. But it's free and I expected GW to go in this direction so I'm not mad. I found out in 9th that I actually care more about rules and verisimilitude than I do balance and pts. Unfortunately there is probably no way that the CAAC edition is going back to simple but deep charge/fight mechanics of 8th/9th edition.

nekooni wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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

If people have a bunch of models with no upgrades then it would seem the old system wasn't working very well.

I imagine the vast majority of people here likely have a collection broad enough to accommodate these issues.

This is giving me "dont you guys have phones?!" vibes, to be honest.

The old system allowed units with and without upgrades to be viable choice, and the new one does not.

I have close to 20k pts of Salamanders, and quite a few models are now basically unusable. Sure, i can "accommodate", but thats not the average collection size, and the new system benches a ton of my models for absolutely no good reason. Thats a failure of the new system, not the old one.

They're still a viable choice, it's a decision you can come to and legally field them with rules. If you mean your unit of bolters and nothing else isn't competitively viable, then yeah sure.

I'm being pedantic but there's some people who will literally think their units aren't field able now because of the changes, which isn't true.

feel remembered to 7th edition were people claimed that playing without using the formations is still a viable choice and one could still field their army without buying new stuff to compensate (just don't expect to win any game, but you play for fun anyway and not to win)

Dudeface wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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

If people have a bunch of models with no upgrades then it would seem the old system wasn't working very well.

I imagine the vast majority of people here likely have a collection broad enough to accommodate these issues.

This is giving me "dont you guys have phones?!" vibes, to be honest.

The old system allowed units with and without upgrades to be viable choice, and the new one does not.

I have close to 20k pts of Salamanders, and quite a few models are now basically unusable. Sure, i can "accommodate", but thats not the average collection size, and the new system benches a ton of my models for absolutely no good reason. Thats a failure of the new system, not the old one.

They're still a viable choice, it's a decision you can come to and legally field them with rules. If you mean your unit of bolters and nothing else isn't competitively viable, then yeah sure.

I'm being pedantic but there's some people who will literally think their units aren't field able now because of the changes, which isn't true.

And having things fade in and out of competitively viable has been a thing for quite some time with or without points.

Dudeface wrote:
I'm being pedantic but there's some people who will literally think their units aren't field able now because of the changes, which isn't true.

No, nobody thinks it's literally impossible, but it is metaphorically impossible, because there's no in-game reason to do it. You can field 3 Land Raiders for 500 pts, it's not literally impossible that does not change the fact that 500 pt Land Raiders would be useless perma-shelf trash.

Breton wrote:
And having things fade in and out of competitively viable has been a thing for quite some time with or without points.

Don't play dumb, we all know that not taking sponsons on your Predators does not merely preclude them from tournament viability, but from any kind of viability, just like Monoliths at the start of 8th. GW pts are usually somewhere between bad and awful and right now they're awful and we are trying to argue people should stop being white knights and ask GW to get pts to a decent place, like they've done in the past or to elevate a fan team to handle balance and just officiate the values the fan team comes to so we can have reasonable casual pick up games.

 vict0988 wrote:

Breton wrote:
And having things fade in and out of competitively viable has been a thing for quite some time with or without points.

Don't play dumb,

Who is playing dumb here, me for pointing out various units have always faded in and out of viability, or you for trying to dismiss that point for reasons. Maybe.

we all know that not taking sponsons on your Predators does not merely preclude them from tournament viability, but from any kind of viability, just like Monoliths at the start of 8th.

You mean like I JUST pointed out and you tried to dodge by calling it "playing dumb"? Things fade in and out, it has nothing to do with points vs PL vs this hybrid.

GW pts are usually somewhere between bad and awful and right now they're awful and we are trying to argue people should stop being white knights and ask GW to get pts to a decent place, like they've done in the past or to elevate a fan team to handle balance and just officiate the values the fan team comes to so we can have reasonable casual pick up games.

Should GW have seen the Negative-upgrade issue and prevented the problem? Yeah. Is this the first time some units have been bad compared to others and essentially no longer viable? No.

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I'm being pedantic but there's some people who will literally think their units aren't field able now because of the changes, which isn't true.

No, nobody thinks it's literally impossible, but it is metaphorically impossible, because there's no in-game reason to do it. You can field 3 Land Raiders for 500 pts, it's not literally impossible that does not change the fact that 500 pt Land Raiders would be useless perma-shelf trash.

Maybe those are the models they have, maybe their local meta isn't built around competitive demolition of the opponent. In that way do the points matter that much really if you consider a sub-optimal model as "perma-shelf trash", because there will always be worse or better options.

Breton wrote:

we all know that not taking sponsons on your Predators does not merely preclude them from tournament viability, but from any kind of viability, just like Monoliths at the start of 8th.

You mean like I JUST pointed out and you tried to dodge by calling it "playing dumb"?

Breton wrote:
And having things fade in and out of competitively viable has been a thing for quite some time with or without points.

I believe you are playing dumb when you confuse tournament viability for casual viability. For something to be spammed in tournaments is very different from something not being an obviously pants on head option evident to a casual player just looking through their codex. Sponsonsless Predators are that right now and that is obviously terrible game design.

Things fade in and out, it has nothing to do with points vs PL vs this hybrid.

Saying that sponsonsless Predators being bad has nothing to do with PL is silly, pts is sometimes bad on accident, PL is bad on purpose. There is nothing hybrid about the PL we are currently using, wargear is free, that's PL. If the current PLs were more coarse nothing would change, the game would not be noticeably worse, fine points is first and foremost important when upgrading wargear and adding single models to a unit.

Is this the first time some units have been bad compared to others and essentially no longer viable? No.

Is this the first time GW's points have been criticized? No. So why are you white knighting this garbage now? Just admit that it's garbage and GW should give us pts. Divide all the pts by 20 and don't pay for your wargear, I don't give a rat, I just want a proper pts system to balance my games.

 vict0988 wrote:

Breton wrote:

we all know that not taking sponsons on your Predators does not merely preclude them from tournament viability, but from any kind of viability, just like Monoliths at the start of 8th.

You mean like I JUST pointed out and you tried to dodge by calling it "playing dumb"?

Breton wrote:
And having things fade in and out of competitively viable has been a thing for quite some time with or without points.

I believe you are playing dumb when you confuse tournament viability for casual viability. For something to be spammed in tournaments is very different from something not being an obviously pants on head option evident to a casual player just looking through their codex. Sponsonsless Predators are that right now and that is obviously terrible game design.

Viability is viability. Tournament players are not the only ones looking to make good/efficient lists.

Things fade in and out, it has nothing to do with points vs PL vs this hybrid.

Saying that sponsonsless Predators being bad has nothing to do with PL is silly, pts is sometimes bad on accident, PL is bad on purpose. There is nothing hybrid about the PL we are currently using, wargear is free, that's PL. If the current PLs were more coarse nothing would change, the game would not be noticeably worse, fine points is first and foremost important when upgrading wargear and adding single models to a unit.

Do you really expect to be taken seriously while claiming GW made PL bad on purpose? as justification/proof for your constant complaints about the "free wargear" system to counter/ignore the fact that this sort of thing still happened under an all points all the time time system, so while it can be GW's fault, its not a "feature" or a "bug" of the current system?

Is this the first time some units have been bad compared to others and essentially no longer viable? No.

Is this the first time GW's points have been criticized? No. So why are you white knighting this garbage now? Just admit that it's garbage and GW should give us pts. Divide all the pts by 20 and don't pay for your wargear, I don't give a rat, I just want a proper pts system to balance my games.

You just want a proper points system as determined by you? I hadn't gotten that from how you keep dragging everything back to it being the fault of this new system that I was mistakenly thinking you were in love with. There's also a difference between being honest and white knighting. I'm honest. GW made some whoppers of a boneheaded whoopsie. The new system isn't inherently bad. The Point system we used to have isn't inherently bad. They made the same general mistakes and probably intentional design decisions under both systems to rotate the Flavor Of The Month from edition to edition. I'm assuming nobody here thinks Terminators being just a little better than Aggressors for the same basic role wasn't a fluke right? I'm assuming MOST of us don't actually blame "free wargear" for Terminators being a little bit better than Aggressors?

It's very simple to me.

If upgrades cost points, there's more opportunity to balance units/choices against each other, as well as not punishing players as much for assembly choices they may have made a decade ago.

The justifications in this thread for the 10th edition approach seem to go off at tangents.

 catbarf wrote:



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.

Well you see, you're actually looking at it from the wrong perspective. The price would be $6 instead of $8, but the business has to build in the cost of wasteage from expiring ingredients as well as losses to theft into the price, so the cost actually ends up being inflated to account for unsold and unsellable product.

Breton wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Things fade in and out, it has nothing to do with points vs PL vs this hybrid.

Saying that sponsonsless Predators being bad has nothing to do with PL is silly, pts is sometimes bad on accident, PL is bad on purpose. There is nothing hybrid about the PL we are currently using, wargear is free, that's PL. If the current PLs were more coarse nothing would change, the game would not be noticeably worse, fine points is first and foremost important when upgrading wargear and adding single models to a unit.

Do you really expect to be taken seriously while claiming GW made PL bad on purpose? as justification/proof for your constant complaints about the "free wargear" system to counter/ignore the fact that this sort of thing still happened under an all points all the time time system, so while it can be GW's fault, its not a "feature" or a "bug" of the current system?

Is this the first time some units have been bad compared to others and essentially no longer viable? No.

Is this the first time GW's points have been criticized? No. So why are you white knighting this garbage now? Just admit that it's garbage and GW should give us pts. Divide all the pts by 20 and don't pay for your wargear, I don't give a rat, I just want a proper pts system to balance my games.

You just want a proper points system as determined by you? I hadn't gotten that from how you keep dragging everything back to it being the fault of this new system that I was mistakenly thinking you were in love with. There's also a difference between being honest and white knighting. I'm honest. GW made some whoppers of a boneheaded whoopsie. The new system isn't inherently bad. The Point system we used to have isn't inherently bad. They made the same general mistakes and probably intentional design decisions under both systems to rotate the Flavor Of The Month from edition to edition. I'm assuming nobody here thinks Terminators being just a little better than Aggressors for the same basic role wasn't a fluke right? I'm assuming MOST of us don't actually blame "free wargear" for Terminators being a little bit better than Aggressors?

I did not say GW is making PL bad on purpose, PL is bad regardless of what efforts you take to make it better, that was my point. Sometimes sponsons are overcosted or undercosted, sometimes they are balanced. Right now all options that aren't sidegrades are undercosted or overcosted, that's very close to the theoretically worst balance a game can have. The only thing that would be worse is having more powerful options cost less than weaker options instead of merely costing the same.

More than half of players want proper pts, this is not "as defined by me", this is as defined by GW's approach to balancing 40k for decades, PL is only 6 years old, not having pts at all is brand new.

 vict0988 wrote:

I did not say GW is making PL bad on purpose,

Color added by me:

 vict0988 wrote:

Saying that sponsonsless Predators being bad has nothing to do with PL is silly, pts is sometimes bad on accident, PL is bad on purpose.

Somewhat hidden within their Tournament Mission article is the errata for the Index Decks: https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/8NI7qfP9dx5tLCkQ.pdf

Mostly stuff we expected like missing keywords etc.

A lot of stuff is still missing though - missing equipment options still persist, that one Ork Stratagem still does nothing etc.