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.

Desilators should be removed on account o dB their horrible uglyness.

PenitentJake wrote:
There was nothing toxic about PL advocacy, because unlike Points advocacy, almost none of us ever suggest eliminating points. (According to HBMC, there was one poster who did).

There was more than one of you. Fezzik and Blindmage, at least. And probably you but I don't remember.

PenitentJake wrote:
Toxicity consists not in advocating for what you want, but in advocating for what you want at someone else's expense.

No, it also consists in advocating for things which are objectively bad, lying about the downsides, and refusing to admit it when you're called out on it.

PenitentJake wrote:
PL worked better for my crew.

I don't believe you. What would you do if someone rolled up with a parking lot of voidweavers in 9e? Tell their opponent sorry, part of good sportsmanship is giving your opponent unearned victories because we like this unbalanced points system?

PenitentJake wrote:
The game was better when both options existed.

Sure, and it'd be even better if it was just points and not PL.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:
The problem with a lot of indirect fire isn't just the points. It's the sheer number of them that ignore the indirect penalties that GW introduced late on in 9th and continue to use in 10th. It's idiotic to me that they carried those restrictions forward, then gave the majority of indirect fire weapons ways around it.

It's clear that a number of the index writers disagreed with the way the core rules were written in 10th and tried to make workaround for their favorite factions to "cheat."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
*snip*

Is a Tactical Squad with 2 Grav Guns equal to a Tactical Squad with 1 Grav Gun and 1 Grav Cannon, yes or no?

Hecaton wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
The game was better when both options existed.

Sure, and it'd be even better if it was just points and not PL.

Its not toxic when I do it!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:
The problem with a lot of indirect fire isn't just the points. It's the sheer number of them that ignore the indirect penalties that GW introduced late on in 9th and continue to use in 10th. It's idiotic to me that they carried those restrictions forward, then gave the majority of indirect fire weapons ways around it.

It's clear that a number of the index writers disagreed with the way the core rules were written in 10th and tried to make workaround for their favorite factions to "cheat."

I'd say it was more likely that they all worked in a vaccuum except for possibly a Push These Kits list.

There are way too many infantry units that have to preroll too many dice for the number of hits. That should/would have been caught in playtesting and feedback meetings. But Desolation Squads are just about due for their debut release. Fate/Miracle dice are another example, as is the Sisters anti-tank/monster issues.

Breton wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
The game was better when both options existed.

Sure, and it'd be even better if it was just points and not PL.

Its not toxic when I do it!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:
The problem with a lot of indirect fire isn't just the points. It's the sheer number of them that ignore the indirect penalties that GW introduced late on in 9th and continue to use in 10th. It's idiotic to me that they carried those restrictions forward, then gave the majority of indirect fire weapons ways around it.

It's clear that a number of the index writers disagreed with the way the core rules were written in 10th and tried to make workaround for their favorite factions to "cheat."

I'd say it was more likely that they all worked in a vaccuum except for possibly a Push These Kits list.

There are way too many infantry units that have to preroll too many dice for the number of hits. That should/would have been caught in playtesting and feedback meetings. But Desolation Squads are just about due for their debut release. Fate/Miracle dice are another example, as is the Sisters anti-tank/monster issues.

Yeah, true. Especially at larger squad sizes, 10D3 or 20D3 is barely random anymore anyway, and it get's put through the blender of the whole attack sequence afterwards. Just give these D3 shot weapons 2 shots per, nobody is going to complain. Or re-introduce rapid fire dice, where you do just one attack, but that can generate 1-3 hits afterwards. That option would be useful from a couple of other perspectives as well, and preferable to that 'random number of shot' nonsense.

Tsagualsa wrote:
[
Yeah, true. Especially at larger squad sizes, 10D3 or 20D3 is barely random anymore anyway, and it get's put through the blender of the whole attack sequence afterwards. Just give these D3 shot weapons 2 shots per, nobody is going to complain. Or re-introduce rapid fire dice, where you do just one attack, but that can generate 1-3 hits afterwards. That option would be useful from a couple of other perspectives as well, and preferable to that 'random number of shot' nonsense.

Meh, not Rapid Fire, that just places the Pre-Roll after the Hit Roll instead of eliminating it - and reintroducing JAM is also to be avoided.

Hecaton wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
*snip*

Is a Tactical Squad with 2 Grav Guns equal to a Tactical Squad with 1 Grav Gun and 1 Grav Cannon, yes or no?

I expect them all to strictly ignore that question LOL

I mean they already deflected to the players on the sponson issue:

"It's your fault for being unwilling to add magnets/sponsons/social contract relitigation to every game. GW is faultless."

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Hecaton wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
*snip*

Is a Tactical Squad with 2 Grav Guns equal to a Tactical Squad with 1 Grav Gun and 1 Grav Cannon, yes or no?

I expect them all to strictly ignore that question LOL

What's the point? I mean if the russ/pred sponsons argument doesn't work then neither will this. They'll ignore it, dance around it or come up with some farfetched explanation about why it's actually ok/the only possible way. It's always the same.

How can we be sure some of these accounts aren't just the gw social media team and/or cruddace himself? It'd explain a lot.

Some people are just too invested to see any faults with the game, no matter how glaringly obvious.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean they already deflected to the players on the sponson issue:

"It's your fault for being unwilling to add magnets/sponsons/social contract relitigation to every game. GW is faultless."

But they also deflected via "give them rules if they don't have sponsons". This example is about strictly superior loadouts and how they would handle it.

Queue the responses of "don't let Tacticals take Grav Cannons" LMAO

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean they already deflected to the players on the sponson issue:

"It's your fault for being unwilling to add magnets/sponsons/social contract relitigation to every game. GW is faultless."

But they also deflected via "give them rules if they don't have sponsons". This example is about strictly superior loadouts and how they would handle it.

Queue the responses of "don't let Tacticals take Grav Cannons" LMAO

On the contrary, don't let them take 2 grav guns, 1 special, 1 heavy.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean they already deflected to the players on the sponson issue:

"It's your fault for being unwilling to add magnets/sponsons/social contract relitigation to every game. GW is faultless."

But they also deflected via "give them rules if they don't have sponsons". This example is about strictly superior loadouts and how they would handle it.

Queue the responses of "don't let Tacticals take Grav Cannons" LMAO

On the contrary, don't let them take 2 grav guns, 1 special, 1 heavy.

But they could in 9th, and it was fine. I'm not surprised you'd want to take that option though.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Hecaton wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
*snip*

Is a Tactical Squad with 2 Grav Guns equal to a Tactical Squad with 1 Grav Gun and 1 Grav Cannon, yes or no?

I expect them all to strictly ignore that question LOL

A Tactical Squad with a Grav Cannon and Grav-gun is more effective than one with 2 Grav-guns. Depending on the unit usage, the increase in effectiveness varies given that a Grav Cannon is most effective Stationary, but still averages slightly more hits than the Grav-gun even on the move.

That being said, a Multi-melta is better than a Grav Cannon within 1/2 range and is much better when firing at a tough Monster rather than a Vehicle.

Which leads us back to how many more points are weapon X versus weapon Y and at what point does that marginal points difference matter over an entire army?

 alextroy wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Hecaton wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
*snip*

Is a Tactical Squad with 2 Grav Guns equal to a Tactical Squad with 1 Grav Gun and 1 Grav Cannon, yes or no?

I expect them all to strictly ignore that question LOL

A Tactical Squad with a Grav Cannon and Grav-gun is more effective than one with 2 Grav-guns. Depending on the unit usage, the increase in effectiveness varies given that a Grav Cannon is most effective Stationary, but still averages slightly more hits than the Grav-gun even on the move.

That being said, a Multi-melta is better than a Grav Cannon within 1/2 range and is much better when firing at a tough Monster rather than a Vehicle.

Which leads us back to how many more points are weapon X versus weapon Y and at what point does that marginal points difference matter over an entire army?

The marginal points differences can matter very quickly when you're talking about the potential amounts to upgrade from one unit to another. A Razorback at 100 is only 30 points shy of a Predator Annihilator at 130. If pulling a few Powerfists and downgrading a Heavy Weapon a touch can open up those 30 extra points to get that Predator, it can be a very meaningful deal.

I think the overall approach GW used which is what's at fault. They could have done this slowly over time(and technically were doing with recent kits), but decided to take the "shock therapy" approach which will get more lashback than otherwise.

I mean, they could have redone the Leman Russ kit so it couldn't be without sponsons. If they had done that they would have gotten some outrage, but it would have been far less.

On the other hand I must give credit where credit is due. It takes some big courage to do the "shock therapy" method. Will be interesting to see how this all turns out in the coming year.

Why would anybody want to live in the timeline where the option to have sponsons or not just doesn't exist though?

 Eldarsif wrote:
I think the overall approach GW used which is what's at fault. They could have done this slowly over time(and technically were doing with recent kits), but decided to take the "shock therapy" approach which will get more lashback than otherwise.

I mean, they could have redone the Leman Russ kit so it couldn't be without sponsons. If they had done that they would have gotten some outrage, but it would have been far less.

On the other hand I must give credit where credit is due. It takes some big courage to do the "shock therapy" method. Will be interesting to see how this all turns out in the coming year.

This sounds and feels like the Warhammer equivalent of a guy telling me that "I just don't get it" when I say that "this is just a stupid banana on a white canvas and has nothing to do with art.".

Hecaton wrote:
Is a Tactical Squad with 2 Grav Guns equal to a Tactical Squad with 1 Grav Gun and 1 Grav Cannon, yes or no?

One is made to be on the move and the other isn't. A unit that hopes to stand still may not be ranging the GG alongside the GC.

They're effectively not at the same tactical level even if they have the same rules. A squad that wants to stand still should be PG and GC. A squad that wants to run and gun could be 2 GG.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Is a Tactical Squad with 2 Grav Guns equal to a Tactical Squad with 1 Grav Gun and 1 Grav Cannon, yes or no?

One is made to be on the move and the other isn't. A unit that hopes to stand still may not be ranging the GG alongside the GC.

They're effectively not at the same tactical level even if they have the same rules. A squad that wants to stand still should be PG and GC. A squad that wants to run and gun could be 2 GG.

A Grav Cannon scores more hits on the move than a Grav Gun, though.
It’s a straight upgrade.

This thread is weird. The title is asking whether one likes how GW handled weapon upgrades, and yet there’s a bunch of posts defending the new approach because non-existent mechanics could make it work?
Presumably GW could create some kind of trade off system for weapons (that isn’t points) but they didn’t even try to.

And regarding whether upgrades should be optional, the rogal dorn has promo art without sponsons, and the new mini Russes also don’t have sponsons, so clearly the intent is for them to be optional. And if we look at the new combat patrol, the skitarii do not have 3 special weapons even though the rules allow it, so clearly not taking max weapons is intended to be an option.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Is a Tactical Squad with 2 Grav Guns equal to a Tactical Squad with 1 Grav Gun and 1 Grav Cannon, yes or no?

One is made to be on the move and the other isn't. A unit that hopes to stand still may not be ranging the GG alongside the GC.

They're effectively not at the same tactical level even if they have the same rules. A squad that wants to stand still should be PG and GC. A squad that wants to run and gun could be 2 GG.

Holy gak you really didn't read the datasheets did you?

Dandelion wrote:
and yet there’s a bunch of posts defending the new approach because non-existent mechanics could make it work?

Can you believe the people who disagree with you are just making stuff up out of thin air while the people who agree with you describe universal thruths like an 9 inch square board that prevent knights from charging?

Dandelion wrote:
the rogal dorn has promo art without sponsons

The sponsons make it harder to scoop them up and hide them under your jacket during your opponents turn to protect them from shooting /sarcasm.

Breton wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
and yet there’s a bunch of posts defending the new approach because non-existent mechanics could make it work?

Can you believe the people who disagree with you are just making stuff up out of thin air while the people who agree with you describe universal thruths like an 9 inch square board that prevent knights from charging?

What?

 JNAProductions wrote:
A Grav Cannon scores more hits on the move than a Grav Gun, though.
It’s a straight upgrade.

Totally, but if you only have GG I don't imagine you'd suffer greatly missing out on maybe one wound from a single squad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dandelion wrote:
This thread is weird. The title is asking whether one likes how GW handled weapon upgrades, and yet there’s a bunch of posts defending the new approach because non-existent mechanics could make it work?
Presumably GW could create some kind of trade off system for weapons (that isn’t points) but they didn’t even try to.

And regarding whether upgrades should be optional, the rogal dorn has promo art without sponsons, and the new mini Russes also don’t have sponsons, so clearly the intent is for them to be optional. And if we look at the new combat patrol, the skitarii do not have 3 special weapons even though the rules allow it, so clearly not taking max weapons is intended to be an option.

I don't think we can really infer intent from promo images - especially for models that were probably painted over a year ago.

They have certainly modified some weapons to make trade-offs more palatable. Some don't get there though. Not talking about sponsons here though.

Breton wrote:
Its not toxic when I do it!

The difference is one of the point systems is objectively better.

Breton wrote:
I'd say it was more likely that they all worked in a vaccuum except for possibly a Push These Kits list.

Nah, it's like Skorne in Mk3 Warhamhordes - certain factions (Like Death Guard) don't have advocates on the design team, and so nobody cares if they're underpowered or uninteresting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Is a Tactical Squad with 2 Grav Guns equal to a Tactical Squad with 1 Grav Gun and 1 Grav Cannon, yes or no?

One is made to be on the move and the other isn't. A unit that hopes to stand still may not be ranging the GG alongside the GC.

They're effectively not at the same tactical level even if they have the same rules. A squad that wants to stand still should be PG and GC. A squad that wants to run and gun could be 2 GG.

Do the math for how effective they are on the move vs. stationary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Totally, but if you only have GG I don't imagine you'd suffer greatly missing out on maybe one wound from a single squad.

Well why should those options be pointed the same if they're different?

Hecaton wrote:

Breton wrote:
Its not toxic when I do it!

The difference is one of the point systems is objectively better.

No, the difference is you like one of the systems better - OR - you just really hate change. Both have strengths and weaknesses.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I think the overall approach GW used which is what's at fault. They could have done this slowly over time(and technically were doing with recent kits), but decided to take the "shock therapy" approach which will get more lashback than otherwise.

I mean, they could have redone the Leman Russ kit so it couldn't be without sponsons. If they had done that they would have gotten some outrage, but it would have been far less.

On the other hand I must give credit where credit is due. It takes some big courage to do the "shock therapy" method. Will be interesting to see how this all turns out in the coming year.

This sounds and feels like the Warhammer equivalent of a guy telling me that "I just don't get it" when I say that "this is just a stupid banana on a white canvas and has nothing to do with art.".

Quite. Nothing like someone patronising the peons to tell them about GW's genius that only they can see...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
A Grav Cannon scores more hits on the move than a Grav Gun, though.
It’s a straight upgrade.

Totally, but if you only have GG I don't imagine you'd suffer greatly missing out on maybe one wound from a single squad.

You're not really going to miss 30 pts either, so why shouldn't it be 30 pts? Across 2k pts 30 pts really isn't a lot, it's not going to change the winner anyway. Grav cannons should be 30 instead of 0 then right?

Breton wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Breton wrote:
Its not toxic when I do it!

The difference is one of the point systems is objectively better.

No, the difference is you like one of the systems better - OR - you just really hate change. Both have strengths and weaknesses.

PL has no strengths, it has flaws that make it unable to function properly as a balance mechanism, therefore it is worse. We are not asking for a binomial quadratic lateral equation puzzle that takes every unit and option in your list to create a unique hash that can be compared to other list hashes to create perfectly balanced games in every scenario. Better options just ought to cost more points to make the game balanced and to give players a reason for each kind of loadout, even if the reasons for one kind of loadout will always be superior, the margin by which should be minimized. If you don't want balanced games just count wounds and stop defending GW for being and PL.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
A Grav Cannon scores more hits on the move than a Grav Gun, though.
It’s a straight upgrade.

Totally, but if you only have GG I don't imagine you'd suffer greatly missing out on maybe one wound from a single squad.

You mean an extra shot at extra strength and extra damage.

Just admit you didn't read the datasheets and continue to go on about how one squad is more mobile LOL