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:

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.

Sure it does. PL with sidegrade options allows more roads to get to the same destination. It provides the capacity for far more variety than taking the 2,000 best points of the best options with the best upgrades.

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.

Both have strengths and weaknesses, just like weapon options. And if one is better (overall, not just in pure stats) than the other, it's what'll mostly be used if you leave the choice to the players.

Examples:
Grav cannon vs grav gun in 10th
PL vs PTS in 9th

5 more minutes to calculate my 2k pts list is absolutely worth it to me, especially since after building a few lists in 10th I get the feeling that the time I'm saving on not having to calculate weapon option prices (really not that hard) is wasted on trying to play tetris with the fixed unit sizes and inability to fine-tune so I'm not sitting at 1950pts without any usable options left to fill those last 50 pts.
Especially using a List Builder made the calculations an absolute non-issue (not that it's hard to begin with) anyway, so what's left is "PL removed an important option for balancing the hours of gameplay in order to (maybe) save a few minutes during list building".

Breton wrote:
Sure it does. PL with sidegrade options allows more roads to get to the same destination. It provides the capacity for far more variety than taking the 2,000 best points of the best options with the best upgrades.

But we don't have PL with sidegrades. We have PL with straight up upgrades. With points you had to make a decision on where to spend them on which upgrades. 30 points left after you covered everything you wanted? Then give your Russ some sponsons for example. Or get a couple extra bodies to make some squads more resilient.

Now? Objectively speaking, there is no in game reason on why you shouldn't bling out everybody and everything. So on an "ideal" tabletop where both players have all the model variants, you would see less of it.

Breton wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

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.

Sure it does. PL with sidegrade options allows more roads to get to the same destination. It provides the capacity for far more variety than taking the 2,000 best points of the best options with the best upgrades.

The problem is we don't have sidegrades, for the most part. People seem to be really keen to talk about some mythical system where all the options are equal in value, but that's not the system we have and it's pretty clear GW have fethed this up massively. Given the sheer amount of weapons and other options in 40k I don't think it can ever work without throwing out the well-established lore of the setting in many places.

In the current system you'll only ever see the absolute best option because there's no reason not to take it. In a points system you can see more variety because there is an extra variable that determines what is best, and it can change depending on the cost of an item and the make-up of your army. The constraint of points may mean you can't always afford the absolute best options so you have to trim points somewhere, leading to more variety. You also get more granularity, enabling little changes to get closer to the points limit. Take Death Company as an example. Right now there's no reason to take BP/CS as an option. The plasma pistol and power weapon are just better. In 9th you generally gave them hammers, but one or two would get the basic BP/CS loadout to give you some sacrificial wounds and to allow you to string out the unit to get crucial buffs. My larger unit if DC was equipped with a bunch of THs and a load of guys with BP/CS. I had one guy with a power axe. Why? Because I had some points left over and there was a small value in having one DC with a slightly better attack because I'd often find myself in a situation where I needed to do 1 extra wound to allow the TH to swing more effectively and not waste their 3 damage attacks.

These kind of edge cases existed in lots of places, often more than once or twice per list. The loss of even the possibility of making that sort of choice is a huge weakness of the current system, on top of the really, really obvious one that it completely eliminates a huge number of builds unless you enjoy taking units that are just objectively worse. Even if you do want to do that, the possibility still existed in the old system, but with the added advantage of the additional flexibility for both players and designers.

Breton wrote:

Sure it does. PL with sidegrade options allows more roads to get to the same destination. It provides the capacity for far more variety than taking the 2,000 best points of the best options with the best upgrades.

But what we have now is PL without sidegrade options. Therefore we get less variety as people taking anything other than the best options are not compensated by paying fewer points like they were previously.

Breton wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

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.

Sure it does. PL with sidegrade options allows more roads to get to the same destination. It provides the capacity for far more variety than taking the 2,000 best points of the best options with the best upgrades.

Pts can have sidegrades, so PL does not offer something better here.

Slipspace wrote:

The problem is we don't have sidegrades, for the most part. People seem to be really keen to talk about some mythical system where all the options are equal in value, but that's not the system we have and it's pretty clear GW have fethed this up massively. Given the sheer amount of weapons and other options in 40k I don't think it can ever work without throwing out the well-established lore of the setting in many places.

Except we do: Not all of them, but most of them. And in either system there are GW failures. Powerfist, Chainfist, Thunder Hammer are all pretty equivalent with thematic/strategic changeups. Same with Grav, Melta and Lascannon. Superfrag and Superkrak. Chaplains with +1 to wound, Librarians with a 4++, Captains with a free strat - all the various Dreads with their different Bespokes, Tanks getting far more involved in a Take All Comers List as Tanks are often more capable vs other Tanks. Wings vs No Wings and an extra wound. And so on.

In the current system you'll only ever see the absolute best option because there's no reason not to take it. In a points system you can see more variety because there is an extra variable that determines what is best, and it can change depending on the cost of an item and the make-up of your army. The constraint of points may mean you can't always afford the absolute best options so you have to trim points somewhere, leading to more variety. You also get more granularity, enabling little changes to get closer to the points limit.

Thus why so many of those Tournament lists were never just iterations of the same list.

Take Death Company as an example. Right now there's no reason to take BP/CS as an option. The plasma pistol and power weapon are just better. In 9th you generally gave them hammers, but one or two would get the basic BP/CS loadout to give you some sacrificial wounds and to allow you to string out the unit to get crucial buffs. My larger unit if DC was equipped with a bunch of THs and a load of guys with BP/CS. I had one guy with a power axe. Why? Because I had some points left over and there was a small value in having one DC with a slightly better attack because I'd often find myself in a situation where I needed to do 1 extra wound to allow the TH to swing more effectively and not waste their 3 damage attacks.

These kind of edge cases existed in lots of places, often more than once or twice per list. The loss of even the possibility of making that sort of choice is a huge weakness of the current system,

Pretty sure the new system still allows for wasted wounds from D3 weapons.

on top of the really, really obvious one that it completely eliminates a huge number of builds unless you enjoy taking units that are just objectively worse. Even if you do want to do that, the possibility still existed in the old system, but with the added advantage of the additional flexibility for both players and designers.

Which unit is objectively worse? Phobos Librarian and Infiltrators? Captain with Intercessors? 5TH/SS Terminators or 6 Bladeguard Vets?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Slinky wrote:

Breton wrote:

Sure it does. PL with sidegrade options allows more roads to get to the same destination. It provides the capacity for far more variety than taking the 2,000 best points of the best options with the best upgrades.

But what we have now is PL without sidegrade options. Therefore we get less variety as people taking anything other than the best options are not compensated by paying fewer points like they were previously.

I wonder why you clipped the part where I said we had a lot of sidegrades, but some were flubbed....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

Pts can have sidegrades, so PL does not offer something better here.

So what you're saying is, if we continue to pay points.. say 100 points for 3 Eliminators with Sniper Rifles or 3 Eliminators with Las Fusil as a sidegrade, that's points? Like 5 Terminators with TH/SS or 5 Terminators with Double Lightning Claws? Or Devastators for 120 with 4 of anything?

I found use for both power level and points previously. Pl was good for quickly knocking together an army or potential army that i might want to collect. Making lists with more granularity with points i just find a fun thing to do, whether for a game or not.

What we have now is worst of both worlds.

I can't tell if you're being deliberately disingenuous or just not understanding what people are saying. Nobody has said there aren't sidegrades in the new system. The problem is there are far too many situations where there are obviously better choices and we're not paying for them. Death Company are the perfect example - there's no situation where BP/CS is the right choice. That applies to many, many units across the entire game. You can't point to a handful of examples that are sidegrades and then just declare the whole system as implemented by GW works. In addition, if the points system was more granular there is at least the opportunity to make things more balanced by adjusting the points. The PL approach doesn't allow for that.

The example of the power weapon in the DC unit wasn't about wasting wounds with D3 weapons, so I don't know why you've brought it up. The point was, there were situations where spending a few extra points for an upgrade had real value. We don't see that now because the system is stupid.

As for your question about which unit is objectively worse out of your list, the answer is I don't know. It's not really relevant since it completely misses the point. I'm not an Ork player, but I can tell you a Battlewagon with no upgrades is objectively worse than one with all the upgrades. The problem is there are far too many of these situations in the new system. There are far too many units that either have "options" that are pure upgrades (Battlewagons, Tomb Blades, DC) or upgrades that should cost points because they're better than the alternative, but don't. How do you justify that? And I mean how do you justify it under the current system, not some mythical other system that doesn't actually exist at the moment.

Breton wrote:

 Slinky wrote:

Breton wrote:

Sure it does. PL with sidegrade options allows more roads to get to the same destination. It provides the capacity for far more variety than taking the 2,000 best points of the best options with the best upgrades.

But what we have now is PL without sidegrade options. Therefore we get less variety as people taking anything other than the best options are not compensated by paying fewer points like they were previously.

I wonder why you clipped the part where I said we had a lot of sidegrades, but some were flubbed....

That quote was your entire post...

Slipspace wrote:
[spoiler]
I can't tell if you're being deliberately disingenuous or just not understanding what people are saying. Nobody has said there aren't sidegrades in the new system. The problem is there are far too many situations where there are obviously better choices and we're not paying for them. Death Company are the perfect example - there's no situation where BP/CS is the right choice. That applies to many, many units across the entire game. You can't point to a handful of examples that are sidegrades and then just declare the whole system as implemented by GW works.

You mean like the people pointing to a handful of examples where GW failed the Sidegrade test then just declaring it doesn't work?

In addition, if the points system was more granular there is at least the opportunity to make things more balanced by adjusting the points. The PL approach doesn't allow for that.

The example of the power weapon in the DC unit wasn't about wasting wounds with D3 weapons, so I don't know why you've brought it up. The point was, there were situations where spending a few extra points for an upgrade had real value. We don't see that now because the system is stupid.

It wasn't? Who brought it up?

I had one guy with a power axe. Why? Because I had some points left over and there was a small value in having one DC with a slightly better attack because I'd often find myself in a situation where I needed to do 1 extra wound to allow the TH to swing more effectively and not waste their 3 damage attacks.

That was you, right?
You took the 1 Axe so you could not waste D3 damage. You said that.

As for your question about which unit is objectively worse out of your list, the answer is I don't know. It's not really relevant since it completely misses the point.

Sidegrades that actually are sidegrades proving the system can work isn't relevant to a discussion about whether the system works or not?

I'm not an Ork player, but I can tell you a Battlewagon with no upgrades is objectively worse than one with all the upgrades.

Oh. We're back to picking a handful of examples to prove our point?

The problem is there are far too many of these situations in the new system. There are far too many units that either have "options" that are pure upgrades (Battlewagons, Tomb Blades, DC) or upgrades that should cost points because they're better than the alternative, but don't. How do you justify that? And I mean how do you justify it under the current system, not some mythical other system that doesn't actually exist at the moment.

How do you justify shoddy work under the current system without fixing the work or the system?! You can't fix obvious problems in the first iteration of the system! Because you never saw worse options for higher points, or even entire units so bad they weren't worth their points in the old system. It was perfect and didn't need fixing. Its just this new system that ever has issues. Come on, Man.

there are more examples of were the new system does not were, compared to were it works

there are really just a handful datacards from identical units were they really cared and while the rest is off either because the different bases are not split into different cards or there is just no basic equipment

while looking at the previous point system, there were just a handful units were the points were off and that needed adjustment

this does not mean the new system cannot work in general, but also not that it is better than the previous by default

yet the main advantage of the new system is that it is easier to maintain over time but once done right
but much harder to get right in the first place because to get the sidegrade options you must either remove options or split units into different cards

Breton wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
[spoiler]
I can't tell if you're being deliberately disingenuous or just not understanding what people are saying. Nobody has said there aren't sidegrades in the new system. The problem is there are far too many situations where there are obviously better choices and we're not paying for them. Death Company are the perfect example - there's no situation where BP/CS is the right choice. That applies to many, many units across the entire game. You can't point to a handful of examples that are sidegrades and then just declare the whole system as implemented by GW works.

You mean like the people pointing to a handful of examples where GW failed the Sidegrade test then just declaring it doesn't work?

In addition, if the points system was more granular there is at least the opportunity to make things more balanced by adjusting the points. The PL approach doesn't allow for that.

The example of the power weapon in the DC unit wasn't about wasting wounds with D3 weapons, so I don't know why you've brought it up. The point was, there were situations where spending a few extra points for an upgrade had real value. We don't see that now because the system is stupid.

It wasn't? Who brought it up?

I had one guy with a power axe. Why? Because I had some points left over and there was a small value in having one DC with a slightly better attack because I'd often find myself in a situation where I needed to do 1 extra wound to allow the TH to swing more effectively and not waste their 3 damage attacks.

That was you, right?
You took the 1 Axe so you could not waste D3 damage. You said that.

Yes, and you've missed the point of the example. I'm talking about how the old system allows for what many people would have thought of as sub-optimal options to actually play a role.

Breton wrote:

As for your question about which unit is objectively worse out of your list, the answer is I don't know. It's not really relevant since it completely misses the point.

Sidegrades that actually are sidegrades proving the system can work isn't relevant to a discussion about whether the system works or not?

Not when there are dozens, more likely hundreds, of examples where there aren't sidegrades, just pure upgrades. Again, nobody is saying a system of sidegrades with fixed points can't work. We're saying that's not the system we have and it's not a system we're ever going to have unless GW does some serious pruning of options or rewrites swatches of rules and statlines for weapons.

Breton wrote:

I'm not an Ork player, but I can tell you a Battlewagon with no upgrades is objectively worse than one with all the upgrades.

Oh. We're back to picking a handful of examples to prove our point?

How many do we need to list before you see that the current system is fundamentally flawed in its execution? It's an example, not the totality of the argument. But it's an example that in itself proves the flaws of the system, which is different to an example that shows the system working as intended because you don't need to show many examples of failure before the whole system is called into question.

Breton wrote:

The problem is there are far too many of these situations in the new system. There are far too many units that either have "options" that are pure upgrades (Battlewagons, Tomb Blades, DC) or upgrades that should cost points because they're better than the alternative, but don't. How do you justify that? And I mean how do you justify it under the current system, not some mythical other system that doesn't actually exist at the moment.

How do you justify shoddy work under the current system without fixing the work or the system?! You can't fix obvious problems in the first iteration of the system! Because you never saw worse options for higher points, or even entire units so bad they weren't worth their points in the old system. It was perfect and didn't need fixing. Its just this new system that ever has issues. Come on, Man.

I never said the old system didn't have issues. The difference is it had the possibility to be corrected using that same system and those corrections were very simple to implement since you were just adjusting some points values. GW never got it entirely correct, of course, but the PL system doesn't include the possibility for that sort of correction. Furthermore, the presence of obvious screw-ups like the aforementioned Battlewagon upgrades, or Tomb Blades, or sponsons on Russes, or hunter killer missiles, or Havoc launchers (I could go on if you really want, but hopefully you get the point now)shows GW have no clue what they're doing with this new system and haven't given it any thought at all, which somewhat reduces the likelihood they'll fix it.

Last night I played my Slaanesh Daemons. I was 40 points down after the enhancement (960), and on top of that...

My keeper of secrets didn't have an upgrade. There used to be an upgrade called Sinistrous Hand, giving a total of 4. Having modeled her with the hand, GW has inexplicably removed the wargear so the only options are the shield, whip, and knife.

Graciously, my opponent let me run her with a shield as a Proxy (yay social contract)...

..but on top of being 40 pts down because the lack of granularity (there are no 55/40 point Slaanesh Daemon units and the enhancement is 15 pts), It felt like I was basically 75/1000 points down or more, until my.opponent graciously let me proxy my model as something it isn't.

(In B4 "it's not a problem because all your opponents should let you do this"/"it is your fault for not butchering your models to do surgery")

Breton wrote:

Sure it does. PL with sidegrade options allows more roads to get to the same destination. It provides the capacity for far more variety than taking the 2,000 best points of the best options with the best upgrades.

Nobody was discussing the merits of PL *with sidegrades*, that's something you added. They were discussing PL vs points.

You don't even need PL for sidegrades; if you can make sidegrades work in PL then you can by definition make them work in points. So that leaves us with "PL with sidegrades vs Points with sidegrades". The two "with sidegrades" cancel each other out, resulting in "PL vs Points" once again



**mandatory "yes perfect balance is impossible, nobody is asking for that" disclaimer (not aimed at you Breton. Just trying to pre-empt that annoying strawman. Someone always manages to whip it out when balance is being discussed)**

 kodos wrote:
there are more examples of were the new system does not were, compared to were it works

I wouldn't agree with that, there are a lot more "competitively viable" units - as it was coined on here a little while ago - out there now than there were in the last edition. How many Ultramarine Lists are going to have Guilliman and a crapton of Desolation Squads, Devastator Squads, Aggressor Squads, BGV squads, and a handful of cheap objective camper chaff? Now you're seeing tank heavy lists, you're seeing Sniper Scouts, you're seeing Librarians. I myself am working on "Invisibility" Guilliman with a Phobos Libby and Infiltrators. I just opened the most recent 5 Ultramarine Lists from Blood of Kittens. Most of them were some version of 3x Relic Contemptors, 3x Desolation, Guilliman, or 3X Aggressors/Terminators, 3X Bladeguard, Guilliman - and some Infiltrators for objective camping - the only difference between them were a couple hundred points of extras. Now sure, you may still see people beating the Rule of Three like a dead horse in a glue factory, but I think you'll see more and different threes - especially if the meta ends up containing more T12 Monsters and Tanks.

there are really just a handful datacards from identical units were they really cared and while the rest is off either because the different bases are not split into different cards or there is just no basic equipment

while looking at the previous point system, there were just a handful units were the points were off and that needed adjustment

I would disagree here too: If they weren't being taken their points were off: Librarians, Chaplains, more Phobos than a couple units of phobos consisting of Incursors as the roughly cheapest Troop-tax, (Plain) intercessors, Assault intercessors, Reivers, Assault Squads, Outriders, Inceptors, Vehicles that weren't New Dreads or Old Speeders, Hellblasters, TF Cannon, Firestrikes - all not very popular. And that's before we get into Heavy Bolters vs Grav Cannon, or Missile Launchers vs anything else, Plasma Cannon vs anything else, Lascannon over Melta... and so on. Rhinos could be free, and I'm not sure people would take them.

this does not mean the new system cannot work in general, but also not that it is better than the previous by default

yet the main advantage of the new system is that it is easier to maintain over time but once done right
but much harder to get right in the first place because to get the sidegrade options you must either remove options or split units into different cards

I don't know if it's going to be easier to maintain. I have little faith in GW when it comes to maintenance. But I also keep in mind that 9th was basically 8th Version 2.0 with multiple codex releases per most factions, while we're in Freebie PDF territory after the first balance pass. Some of the things they missed was pretty boneheaded, some of the things I can't blame them for because I wouldn't have done any better. The stats for Chainswords vs Power weapons and the stats for 2 Lightning Claws vs anything feels off - like they have too many CCW on the "ground floor" so there wasn't room for differentiation. But at the same time I would have totally missed the Sponson thing. I haven't played with a vehicle for years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

shortymcnostrill wrote:

Breton wrote:

Sure it does. PL with sidegrade options allows more roads to get to the same destination. It provides the capacity for far more variety than taking the 2,000 best points of the best options with the best upgrades.

Nobody was discussing the merits of PL *with sidegrades*, that's something you added. They were discussing PL vs points.

Sidegrades have been part of the discussion since pretty much Page 1.

You don't even need PL for sidegrades; if you can make sidegrades work in PL then you can by definition make them work in points. So that leaves us with "PL with sidegrades vs Points with sidegrades". The two "with sidegrades" cancel each other out, resulting in "PL vs Points" once again

That's what they did/aimed for now. Some people are calling Points with freebie options - generally called "sidegrades" here - PL. We could argue the semantics or just let people call the system PL or Points whichever the difference between PL and Points with Freebie Sidegrades is pretty minimal. Some of us even figured this out with the last 9th MFM when freebie upgrades were introduced.

**mandatory "yes perfect balance is impossible, nobody is asking for that" disclaimer (not aimed at you Breton. Just trying to pre-empt that annoying strawman. Someone always manages to whip it out when balance is being discussed)**

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Last night I played my Slaanesh Daemons. I was 40 points down after the enhancement (960), and on top of that...

My keeper of secrets didn't have an upgrade. There used to be an upgrade called Sinistrous Hand, giving a total of 4. Having modeled her with the hand, GW has inexplicably removed the wargear so the only options are the shield, whip, and knife.

Graciously, my opponent let me run her with a shield as a Proxy (yay social contract)...

..but on top of being 40 pts down because the lack of granularity (there are no 55/40 point Slaanesh Daemon units and the enhancement is 15 pts), It felt like I was basically 75/1000 points down or more, until my.opponent graciously let me proxy my model as something it isn't.

(In B4 "it's not a problem because all your opponents should let you do this"/"it is your fault for not butchering your models to do surgery")

About two years ago I had a game, but I felt like I was 200-300 points down because my Intercessors weren't in Gravis Armor, and Heavy Intercessors just released. About 6 years ago I could fit an entire company of 100 marines and company command and more in 2000 points. Now it costs closer to 2500. Does it suck that your options - available or preferred - have changed from that edition to this edition? Yes. Is that the fault of the switch from the old price system to this one? No. Does it happen to pretty much every faction pretty much every edition? Yes. No, I'm not saying its your fault for not changing your model, I'm saying its part of the hobby, happens to everyone, and isn't caused by the pricing switch despite the attempt to conflate the two.

GW understands that upgrades should cost points because Enhancements cost points.

That they haven't done it for everything else in the game shows that they're lazy.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
GW understands that upgrades should cost points because Enhancements cost points.

That they haven't done it for everything else in the game shows that they're lazy.

Now that is unfair. There are also the options that they are incompetent to do it at scale, or that they don't care

Breton wrote:

About two years ago I had a game, but I felt like I was 200-300 points down because my Intercessors weren't in Gravis Armor, and Heavy Intercessors just released. About 6 years ago I could fit an entire company of 100 marines and company command and more in 2000 points. Now it costs closer to 2500. Does it suck that your options - available or preferred - have changed from that edition to this edition? Yes. Is that the fault of the switch from the old price system to this one? No. Does it happen to pretty much every faction pretty much every edition? Yes. No, I'm not saying its your fault for not changing your model, I'm saying its part of the hobby, happens to everyone, and isn't caused by the pricing switch despite the attempt to conflate the two.

"GW has fethed up in the past, therefore, fethups should be expected. In fact, they should be tolerated! Nay, even encouraged! Shut up and eat your gak sandwich, because it's your fault for being upset about these fethups!

It is this way as it always has been and ever shall be, GW without end, amen."

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breton wrote:

About two years ago I had a game, but I felt like I was 200-300 points down because my Intercessors weren't in Gravis Armor, and Heavy Intercessors just released. About 6 years ago I could fit an entire company of 100 marines and company command and more in 2000 points. Now it costs closer to 2500. Does it suck that your options - available or preferred - have changed from that edition to this edition? Yes. Is that the fault of the switch from the old price system to this one? No. Does it happen to pretty much every faction pretty much every edition? Yes. No, I'm not saying its your fault for not changing your model, I'm saying its part of the hobby, happens to everyone, and isn't caused by the pricing switch despite the attempt to conflate the two.

"GW has fethed up in the past, therefore, fethups should be expected. In fact, they should be tolerated! Nay, even encouraged! Shut up and eat your gak sandwich, because it's your fault for being upset about these fethups!

It is this way as it always has been and ever shall be, GW without end, amen."

"I make up what I wish other people would have said after they catch me blaming something that existed before the pricing switch on the pricing switch.".

Breton wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Breton wrote:

About two years ago I had a game, but I felt like I was 200-300 points down because my Intercessors weren't in Gravis Armor, and Heavy Intercessors just released. About 6 years ago I could fit an entire company of 100 marines and company command and more in 2000 points. Now it costs closer to 2500. Does it suck that your options - available or preferred - have changed from that edition to this edition? Yes. Is that the fault of the switch from the old price system to this one? No. Does it happen to pretty much every faction pretty much every edition? Yes. No, I'm not saying its your fault for not changing your model, I'm saying its part of the hobby, happens to everyone, and isn't caused by the pricing switch despite the attempt to conflate the two.

"GW has fethed up in the past, therefore, fethups should be expected. In fact, they should be tolerated! Nay, even encouraged! Shut up and eat your gak sandwich, because it's your fault for being upset about these fethups!

It is this way as it always has been and ever shall be, GW without end, amen."

"I make up what I wish other people would have said after they catch me blaming something that existed before the pricing switch on the pricing switch.".

What *did* you say then, other than "this has happened in the past so get over it"?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What *did* you say then, other than "this has happened in the past so get over it"?

A very long paragraph that amounted to essentially a non sequitur?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


What *did* you say then, other than "this has happened in the past so get over it"?

Could you actually use the quote feature where I said "get over it"?

And what I said was it didn't happen because the price structure changed. I didn't say it outright, but you could also conclude that I meant yes points costs change between the one of edition and the beginning of the next edition and this isn't a bug.

Breton wrote:

 kodos wrote:
there are more examples of were the new system does not were, compared to were it works

I wouldn't agree with that, there are a lot more "competitively viable" units

we are not talking about competitive viable units, but units were the new point system works as all option to the basic layout are sidegrades, compared to those units were those are upgrades

this has nothing to do with competitive viable or not


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:

 kodos wrote:

there are really just a handful datacards from identical units were they really cared and while the rest is off either because the different bases are not split into different cards or there is just no basic equipment

while looking at the previous point system, there were just a handful units were the points were off and that needed adjustment

I would disagree here too: If they weren't being taken their points were off: Librarians, Chaplains, more Phobos than a couple units of phobos consisting of Incursors as the roughly cheapest Troop-tax, (Plain) intercessors, Assault intercessors, Reivers, Assault Squads, Outriders, Inceptors, Vehicles that weren't New Dreads or Old Speeders, Hellblasters, TF Cannon, Firestrikes - all not very popular. And that's before we get into Heavy Bolters vs Grav Cannon, or Missile Launchers vs anything else, Plasma Cannon vs anything else, Lascannon over Melta... and so on. Rhinos could be free, and I'm not sure people would take them.

so among several hundred units you only find those were the points are off with the old system
and only manage to get a hundful were the points are right with the new system

I see a basic flaw in the system here and not an upgrade from the previous one

Breton wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


What *did* you say then, other than "this has happened in the past so get over it"?

Could you actually use the quote feature where I said "get over it"?

And what I said was it didn't happen because the price structure changed. I didn't say it outright, but you could also conclude that I meant yes points costs change between the one of edition and the beginning of the next edition and this isn't a bug.

Points costs isn't what I am talking about though.

It's the outright changing of a model. The Sinistrous Hand used to do something, and now it does not. There is no reason to build your keeper with a Sinistrous Hand. It didn't cost points in the past, either - I think most of the upgrades since the release of the latest Keeper kit have been attempts at GW's PL-style sidegrading and it mostly worked. There was usually one clear best, but you still got something (some rule or another) for the alternatives.

Now? It still is as "free" relative to the others or not. The old rules it used to have simply don't exist anymore.

Breton wrote:
That's what they did/aimed for now. Some people are calling Points with freebie options - generally called "sidegrades" here - PL. We could argue the semantics or just let people call the system PL or Points whichever the difference between PL and Points with Freebie Sidegrades is pretty minimal. Some of us even figured this out with the last 9th MFM when freebie upgrades were introduced.

Let us assume the following values:
Boltgun: 0 pts
Heavy bolter: 10 pts
Plasma cannon: 10 pts

this is pts because an obvious upgrade costs pts wrote:Upgrade from boltgun to plasma cannon 10 pts.

this is PL because an obvious upgrade is free wrote:Upgrade from boltgun to plasma cannon 0 PL.

sidegrade so it could be either pts or PL wrote:Upgrade from heavy bolter to plasma cannon 0 pts/0 PL.

Both can have balanced sidegrades at 0 pts/0 PL but PL cannot handle upgrades, that is the whole problem with PL. The execution as you mentioned isn't important, but we have issues that cannot be logically solved without massively bloating the game rules or ignoring the fluff. So why should we ignore fluff and massively bloat game rules to make PL work? It cannot be because of sidegrades because as explained, sidegrades have always existed with pts and could be expanded on in a system using pts.

Breton wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

The problem is we don't have sidegrades, for the most part. People seem to be really keen to talk about some mythical system where all the options are equal in value, but that's not the system we have and it's pretty clear GW have fethed this up massively. Given the sheer amount of weapons and other options in 40k I don't think it can ever work without throwing out the well-established lore of the setting in many places.

Except we do: Not all of them, but most of them. And in either system there are GW failures. Powerfist, Chainfist, Thunder Hammer are all pretty equivalent with thematic/strategic changeups. Same with Grav, Melta and Lascannon. Superfrag and Superkrak. Chaplains with +1 to wound, Librarians with a 4++, Captains with a free strat - all the various Dreads with their different Bespokes,

I stopped around here.
The melee weapons for Terminators are not equal. Thunder Hammers are luck reliant (and it arguably makes them worse than basic Power Fists). Chainfists are also not a sidegrade since, if you want that extra capability vs vehicles, you need to pay for it like it worked before with zero issues.
Superfrag and Superkrak are not worth the same amount of points because Desolators already have anti-infantry capabilities. You should pay for less vs the Superkrak.
Your HQ example is even more bizarre since they don't even cost the same points.

Also clearly you haven't payed attention to any of the math here when you bring up Grav vs Melta vs Lascannon.

I have to disagree with your terminator weapon assessment.

Chainfist and Power fist are very close in effectiveness. Power fist are better against everything except Vehicles, which is where Chainfist are vastly superior in damage output.

Power fist versus Thunderhammer is a matter of trading more reliable hits for the chance to do Mortal Wounds, math that I haven't run to see if one is really better than the other. But that only matters for characters because only they have the choice. Thunderhammers really need to be compared to Twin Lightning Claws, where you are trading power and a chance for Mortal Wounds for more attacks that produce less but more reliable wounds to weaker targets than a Thunderhammer.

But this is the side grade versus points debate written small. If GW doesn't want to assign points to options, they need to a better job balancing the options against each other. They also need to come up with an acceptable solution to the Sponson Issue. It is one thing to say "take special and heavy weapons in all your squads", but quite another to say "you should always take a sponson, but we are making it optional because your model might not have one".

 alextroy wrote:


Power fist versus Thunderhammer is a matter of trading more reliable hits for the chance to do Mortal Wounds, math that I haven't run to see if one is really better than the other.

Unless it's the Oath target, Thunder Hammer is drastically worse.

A Thunder hammer is no worst than a Chainfist going into a non-vehicle. It is worst than a Powerfist, expecting 80% the output of a Powerfist for a Terminator Captain before you factor in Devastating Wounds. That 1-in-6 Hits that produces Mortal Wounds gets to bypass the targets Toughness, Armor, and Invulnerable Save. That has output value depending on the target. It is luck based, but it is there.