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.

 alextroy wrote:
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.

And mathematically, unless it's the Oath target, it's worse. Saying "but you could get lucky" isn't some plus side.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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

Of course we can. The index rules present certain weapons as optional, and promo pictures support those options and are crucial for new players to see what is allowed.
Meanwhile the guard combat patrol has a sentinel without the chainsaw, even though that is objectively worse than the light. Why is that? Because it’s what’s shown on the box. The same goes for the every combat patrol. Locking new players into bad load outs seems like a sure fire way to upset people in the long run.

If you want to argue that certain weapons are sidegrades, that’s fine and reasonable, however going from a lasgun to plasma gun is not a sidegrade and can never be one. Some things are just inherently upgrades and that’s fine. Just make them cost a little extra, it’s not complicated. Even GW gave every variant of the leman Russ a different price, so clearly some weapons are better than others.

Dandelion wrote:
Even GW gave every variant of the leman Russ a different price, so clearly some weapons are better than others.

Which makes the tank commander a bit of a slap in the face.

The unique special rules make it hard to do a direct points comparison between different guns, but we can use them for a ballpark figure. If we assume the TC is priced for the most expensive variant, the demolisher, then we can assume that a vanquisher tank command should get around a 30 point discount over the current TC price of 240. That is a pretty significant discount, and would definitely open up some of the alternative guns for TC.

Hell, people may even use an eradicator or punisher TC if it was only 200 points.

Well, reading this thread is quite the experience, I must say

I hope that GW will release updated, preferably more granular points costs that take into account obvious upgrades and additional equipment soon-ish. I really hope so.

I welcome or tolerate most of the aspects of the 10th Edition, but their current approach to points costs and wargear is not one of them.

Breton wrote:

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

No, there is absolutely nothing a PL-like system does better than a points-like system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

No it does not. Optimization within PL (i.e. picking the best options because they're all the same cost) is the same as optimization within points. You don't know what you're talking about, or more likely, are lying because you have reasons other than its efficacy for supporting PL.

 Trickstick wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
Even GW gave every variant of the leman Russ a different price, so clearly some weapons are better than others.

Which makes the tank commander a bit of a slap in the face.

The unique special rules make it hard to do a direct points comparison between different guns, but we can use them for a ballpark figure. If we assume the TC is priced for the most expensive variant, the demolisher, then we can assume that a vanquisher tank command should get around a 30 point discount over the current TC price of 240. That is a pretty significant discount, and would definitely open up some of the alternative guns for TC.

Hell, people may even use an eradicator or punisher TC if it was only 200 points.

That is debatable. The TC does have the choice of Turret Weapons, but he doesn't benefit from any of the bespoke rules of the various Leman Russ tanks that make them individually better at their specific jobs. No firing the Demolisher Cannon at targets in Engagement Range of itself. No Devastating Hits for the Punisher Gatling Cannon. Etc and so on.

 alextroy wrote:
That is debatable. The TC does have the choice of Turret Weapons, but he doesn't benefit from any of the bespoke rules of the various Leman Russ tanks that make them individually better at their specific jobs. No firing the Demolisher Cannon at targets in Engagement Range of itself. No Devastating Hits for the Punisher Gatling Cannon. Etc and so on.

I guess then we just fall back on the argument of "is an eradicator worth the same as a demolisher?".

The answer is no.

 Trickstick wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
That is debatable. The TC does have the choice of Turret Weapons, but he doesn't benefit from any of the bespoke rules of the various Leman Russ tanks that make them individually better at their specific jobs. No firing the Demolisher Cannon at targets in Engagement Range of itself. No Devastating Hits for the Punisher Gatling Cannon. Etc and so on.

I guess then we just fall back on the argument of "is an eradicator worth the same as a demolisher?".

The answer is no.

Is the demolisher 5 points better? 15 points better? 50 points better?

You argued that based on the LR tank points that a Demolisher is 30 points better than a Vanquisher is on a TC. I just said that is debatable.

 alextroy wrote:
Is the demolisher 5 points better? 15 points better? 50 points better?

You argued that based on the LR tank points that a Demolisher is 30 points better than a Vanquisher is on a TC. I just said that is debatable.

Sorry, I guess my phrasing was more dismissive than I intended it to be.

There is definitely debate over the points costs, although I was more using 30 points as starting point, based on the points that we have from the design team. The different abilites will definitely skew that.

And I think there are far more problems with the TC unit than just wargear points. I would make more sweeping changes, like giving them more orders in trade for their last gasp. It really is just a unit that has not done well in 10th, from their rather overperforming position in the past.

Fair enough.

Now can anyone tell me why they thought giving the LM Vanquisher a special run to Re-Roll the Wound Roll? I have 1 BS 4+ S 18 Attack. I don't think I'm worried about wounding a Monster or Vehicle. I'm worried about my ability to miss the broadside of a barn.

 alextroy wrote:
Fair enough.

Now can anyone tell me why they thought giving the LM Vanquisher a special run to Re-Roll the Wound Roll? I have 1 BS 4+ S 18 Attack. I don't think I'm worried about wounding a Monster or Vehicle. I'm worried about my ability to miss the broadside of a barn.

Well you can get 2+ reroll to hit with a scout sentinel and an order, buffing a 3+ to wound is harder.

 kodos wrote:

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

So your plan is to dismiss any points about variety, and balance unless it directly supports your position?

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

Codex Space Marines don't have hundreds of units - this new PDF has 252 pages, 2 pages per unit and some rules pages, its probably about a hundred or so units, some special characters and some rules.. How many units do you think are covered by the Librarian or Chaplain keyword, the category "Vehicles that aren't new Dreads or old Speeders" or the category "Non-Infiltrator Phobos"? Out of that hundred or so units only about 20 different units showed up in the last 5 winning Ultramarines lists with about 70 units between them - that's 4 or 5 Guillimans, 4 or so Dreads, 6 or so Speeders, 8-10 Incursors, 6 or so Eradicators, and 12 or so Desolation Squads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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.

In the thread about the changing points cost system? While including a line about how you were 40 points short of 2,000 exactly? What exactly was your off-topic point then that must have had nothing to do with the 10th edition specific changes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Trickstick wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Fair enough.

Now can anyone tell me why they thought giving the LM Vanquisher a special run to Re-Roll the Wound Roll? I have 1 BS 4+ S 18 Attack. I don't think I'm worried about wounding a Monster or Vehicle. I'm worried about my ability to miss the broadside of a barn.

Well you can get 2+ reroll to hit with a scout sentinel and an order, buffing a 3+ to wound is harder.

That and - What is more deflating in a FML kind of way?

A) Rolling a 2 to miss your shot on a BS 4+

B) Rolling a 1 to wound on a S18 vs T8 2+?


People expect to miss a 50/50 roll. When you miss an Anything-But-A-One it sticks with you, and that's harder on satisfaction than missing a 50/50.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:

Breton wrote:

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

No, there is absolutely nothing a PL-like system does better than a points-like system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

No it does not. Optimization within PL (i.e. picking the best options because they're all the same cost) is the same as optimization within points. You don't know what you're talking about, or more likely, are lying because you have reasons other than its efficacy for supporting PL.

PL with Sidegrade. Sidegrade means optimization is thematic not mathematic. Tell me more about this lying thing.

Breton wrote:
So your plan is to dismiss any points about variety, and balance unless it directly supports your position?

No, I just don't acknowledge that GW has done a good job here and created the superior system

this kind of points system can work well, if done right, same as the old point system
yet GW has given up in between and created a system that combines the worst of both worlds, this is not the problem of Powerlevel but what have has done with it

and until GW starts solving this by either splitting up units or adds points for upgrades, this will be a problem

and if a unit is competitive viable has nothing to do with the point system, this is simply a problem of the amount of units GW added to the game
if there are 20 units for the same job, they will be either the same (and than you can just merge them into 3 different ones) or one will be the competitive choice, no matter the point system.

Breton wrote:

 kodos wrote:

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

So your plan is to dismiss any points about variety, and balance unless it directly supports your position?

Because variety isn't a point. There's no downside to taking a chaos icon, so anyone that didn't build one in the first place is behind, yes or no?

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

Battletech with largely unchanged rules longer then you've proably been alive and a progressive storyline better then anything GW's done says hello.

BrianDavion wrote:

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

Battletech with largely unchanged rules longer then you've proably been alive and a progressive storyline better then anything GW's done says hello.

in case you don't know, /s means sarcasm

and not only Battletech, nearly all other games as well and if you compare what an Edition change means for other games and what changes we see here, the changes of 40k are like a new game with each

Breton wrote:


PL with Sidegrade. Sidegrade means optimization is thematic not mathematic. Tell me more about this lying thing.

No, it's still mathematic. Even if the different options for a given unit were of exactly the same efficacy... points could support that too, *and* support upgrades of different efficacy at the same time that cost more points. It's just better and can do more.

Your idea that PL is some kind of shangri-la of no-stress thematic gameplay is just wrong; in 9th it was consistently less balanced than points, and you insist it was better despite that. And it's looking to have similar problems in 10th.

You can design for sidegrades and then any cases that fall outside of being sidegrades on accident you can fix with points. You can design for sidegrades and then any cases that fall outside of being sidegrades on accident are garbage because PL cannot fix option imbalance.

Breton wrote:


PL with Sidegrade

What does PL with sidegrades do that points with sidegrades doesn't?

Sidegrades means a unit's options are of equal value to their other options, nothing more. There's no dependency on power levels there, if options are sidegrades then they'll be sidegrades whether the unit costs points or PL.

Again: this turns into "pts with sidegrades vs PL with sidegrades". Meaning we can drop the "with sidegrades" and just look at "points vs PL".

 kodos wrote:

Breton wrote:
So your plan is to dismiss any points about variety, and balance unless it directly supports your position?

No, I just don't acknowledge that GW has done a good job here and created the superior system

I didn't say it was a superior system. Or an Inferior system. Its just a different one with different strengths and weaknesses. Its also the system we've got now and for the duration. They're not going to scrap 10th straight into 11th just to change the system, and I really hope they're not going to swap systems 1 codex at a time for the next year and a half.

this kind of points system can work well, if done right, same as the old point system
[/spoiler] So we get to hypothesize the points system as "if done right" but this new system cannot be?
[spoiler]
yet GW has given up in between and created a system that combines the worst of both worlds, this is not the problem of Powerlevel but what have has done with it

I think the new system is better than power level was. Power Level did not try and side-grade the upgrades. They HAVE tried to do that here. They missed a ton most of us would have caught, and they missed a few things most of us would have missed too. But that's a function of the old GW not the new system. Blame where the blame belongs.

and until GW starts solving this by either splitting up units or adds points for upgrades, this will be a problem

and if a unit is competitive viable has nothing to do with the point system, this is simply a problem of the amount of units GW added to the game

And if an upgrade is competitively viable has nothing to do with the point system, this is simply a problem of the ammount of uprades GW has added to the game. You can see these double standards right?

if there are 20 units for the same job, they will be either the same (and than you can just merge them into 3 different ones) or one will be the competitive choice, no matter the point system.

Except there aren't 20 units for the same job. Those 20 units were pretty much the same 2(3) jobs over and over - Camper, Hitter,( Warlord). Incursors are not heavy hitters, they are (or were) objective campers with infitrate. And they were the cheapest. Now you've got thematic choices between the infiltrators with a force multiplier that cost the same (or nearly so) as the Sticky Cappers, as the Deep Strike Preventers, as the punchy objective sword guys, (sort of) as the tried and true Tactical Squad, as the Terror Troops that (may) no longer suck. You've got a somewhat less equivalently priced choice between a Land Raider that lets your punchy guys charge from average ~20 inches away to a Repulsor that lets the shooty guys climb back in if enemy punchy guys get too close.

One of the best things about this new edition isn't specifically points/PL related - but is part of the balanced sidegrade thing - is how many units have their same primary role (troop tax units), and a different "claim to fame"(their bespoke addon rule) that can be tailored around the various themes/holes in the rest of your list. Running a big death star? Put Ventris in some Sticky Capping Intercessors to Deepstrike and Sticky Cap behind them after they've laid waste to whatever your opponent had in the area. Running a midfield bloodbath? Stick some HINTS up there to soak the D1 bolter equivalents. Want to infiltrate one of those Deep Field hard to reach objectives? Do you want to do it with a unit that's almost impossible to shoot at, or a unit that's almost impossible to deep strike into? Or as a third option, do you want to spend a little more for a combined unit that's almost impossible to shoot at AND almost impossible to deep strike into? As I pointed out this works with points (few of these units had any significant upgrade/sidegrade choices at all) and it wasn't a direct result of the change to PL with a third digit - but it was brought about by working this Sidegrade phiolosphy that is the ground work for 3 Digit PL.

Its not perfect, no system will be. Especially not one run by GW. But there are some aspects everyone should like. And this is just the first pass. Revision 2 and 3 should be better. Version 2.0 (AKA 11th) may turn out pretty good, and then probably by 12th, we'll go back to points and Armor Value. If GW is anything they're cyclical. I wonder if by 20th Edition we'll have seen so many combinations/iterations it'll just be pick Option A or Option B on some 40 point Checklist to mix and match the system you like. Do you like Points or Power Level? USR or Bespoke? Armor Value or Vehicle Toughness? Grenades for Damage, or Fights First?

Breton wrote:
I think the new system is better than power level was. Power Level did not try and side-grade the upgrades. They HAVE tried to do that here. They missed a ton most of us would have caught, and they missed a few things most of us would have missed too. But that's a function of the old GW not the new system. Blame where the blame belongs.

You are confusing the balancing system with datasheet design. The fewer strict upgrades the game has the less terrible PL is, that doesn't change that PL is just pts with fewer abilities and you can have datasheets with sidegrades in both balancing systems. As we saw in 8th and 9th, PL has nothing to do with sidegrades, the greater amount of sidegrades in 10th has nothing to do with PL, GW could have made the exact same changes and still gave us pts.

A seemingly better internal balance right now is no argument in favor of PL or points. Datasheets have been altered across the board and while they are currently paid for with PL in disguise, they could be the exact same profile with points.

Revision 2 and 3 should be better he says... NVM that the release now patch later attitude is fething asinine from a multi-billion dollar company operating internationally and is so for far smaller games studios in the videogame industry where that practice stems from too. GW taking over worst practices from that industry isn't something we should accept but considering how much GW has developped a cult following that sucks up everything gw tells it it is no wonder nothing will happen.

We talk GW here, no revsion of an edition is going to help it because ultimatly revision 4 will inevitably be an whole new edition and GW doesn't do iteration, it does reinventing the wheel as H.B.M.C pointed out.

For the record, i have no issue with GW handing out the rules in an open beta before an edition release for free, so that it can actually get worked on, preferably with a designer commentary to allow feedback to be accurate. But GW don't do that. I am fairly sure GW don't playtest at all considering wraithknight D-cannon shenanigans with the core rules.

 vict0988 wrote:

Breton wrote:
I think the new system is better than power level was. Power Level did not try and side-grade the upgrades. They HAVE tried to do that here. They missed a ton most of us would have caught, and they missed a few things most of us would have missed too. But that's a function of the old GW not the new system. Blame where the blame belongs.

You are confusing the balancing system with datasheet design. The fewer strict upgrades the game has the less terrible PL is, that doesn't change that PL is just pts with fewer abilities and you can have datasheets with sidegrades in both balancing systems. As we saw in 8th and 9th, PL has nothing to do with sidegrades, the greater amount of sidegrades in 10th has nothing to do with PL, GW could have made the exact same changes and still gave us pts.

They go hand in hand. You even make the point yourself while trying to argue against it. More Sidegrades makes PL style systems more functional. They know it. The last MFM in 9th was a step in that direction. I wish I could call it the Alpha Test, but it feels like we just bought the Alpha Test.
It continued into 10th and even went from the upgrades inside the unit to the various units themselves. Vanguard Vets went from paying for upgrades, to some upgrades like TH/SS, to everybody gets a bolt pistol and an "heirloom weapon". Sure sounds like a pretty easily connected set of dots: Options for points, a few options for points, all options the same price. Now, I'm not particularly fond of the result in this case, but the dots are there. You can see it in the Command Squad too, going from Company Vets who pay for everything, to company vets that pay for a few things - again Stormshields and Thunderhammers being a common theme in that MFM - to now the return of the three specialists with gear and bespokes, plus two guys with a smorgasbord of free choices for some tailoring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:
A seemingly better internal balance right now is no argument in favor of PL or points. Datasheets have been altered across the board and while they are currently paid for with PL in disguise, they could be the exact same profile with points.

History says they wouldn't have been.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Revision 2 and 3 should be better he says... NVM that the release now patch later attitude is fething asinine from a multi-billion dollar company operating internationally and is so for far smaller games studios in the videogame industry where that practice stems from too. GW taking over worst practices from that industry isn't something we should accept but considering how much GW has developped a cult following that sucks up everything gw tells it it is no wonder nothing will happen.

They've been making FAQs, Errata, Balance Dataslates, and MFM PDFs for quite some time now.

We talk GW here, no revsion of an edition is going to help it because ultimatly revision 4 will inevitably be an whole new edition and GW doesn't do iteration, it does reinventing the wheel as H.B.M.C pointed out.

Sure they do. GW rarely comes up with new. They come up with something they tried four editions ago and couldn't get to work right. We're back to characters in units instead of Look Out Sir!, but this time we're trying it while they're locked into those units. (Battle-Shock optional-)Fall Back-Desperate Escape is a clunkier, less extreme return of the old Chase Down mechanic. USRs itself pretty much went away and are now coming back. Firing Deck - Firing Ports/Open Topped with a little borrowing from the Chimera bespoke. My current favorite is Grenades are all but ignored -> Grenades negate Cover in Fights First -> 1 model can throw 1 grenade for damage -> One unit (even a one model unit) that hasn't shot yet can trigger a 1CP strat for 6D6/4+ for Mortals.

And then shoot.

For the record, i have no issue with GW handing out the rules in an open beta before an edition release for free, so that it can actually get worked on, preferably with a designer commentary to allow feedback to be accurate. But GW don't do that. I am fairly sure GW don't playtest at all considering wraithknight D-cannon shenanigans with the core rules.

They sort of did. Not by far enough considering the rulebooks and datacards were almost certainly printed out before they released the first PDF, but there have been at least a few things from the "Errata" (to use a polite category for the boneheaded and bonkers things that made it thorugh) thread on here get changed on the datacards without comment from GW. One of the first things I do lately when I sit down is refresh the PDF Download in case its been revised again.

Breton wrote:
History says they wouldn't have been.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Breton wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Revision 2 and 3 should be better he says... NVM that the release now patch later attitude is fething asinine from a multi-billion dollar company operating internationally and is so for far smaller games studios in the videogame industry where that practice stems from too. GW taking over worst practices from that industry isn't something we should accept but considering how much GW has developped a cult following that sucks up everything gw tells it it is no wonder nothing will happen.

They've been making FAQs, Errata, Balance Dataslates, and MFM PDFs for quite some time now.

We talk GW here, no revsion of an edition is going to help it because ultimatly revision 4 will inevitably be an whole new edition and GW doesn't do iteration, it does reinventing the wheel as H.B.M.C pointed out.

Sure they do. GW rarely comes up with new. They come up with something they tried four editions ago and couldn't get to work right. We're back to characters in units instead of Look Out Sir!, but this time we're trying it while they're locked into those units. (Battle-Shock optional-)Fall Back-Desperate Escape is a clunkier, less extreme return of the old Chase Down mechanic. USRs itself pretty much went away and are now coming back. Firing Deck - Firing Ports/Open Topped with a little borrowing from the Chimera bespoke. My current favorite is Grenades are all but ignored -> Grenades negate Cover in Fights First -> 1 model can throw 1 grenade for damage -> One unit (even a one model unit) that hasn't shot yet can trigger a 1CP strat for 6D6/4+ for Mortals.

And then shoot.

For the record, i have no issue with GW handing out the rules in an open beta before an edition release for free, so that it can actually get worked on, preferably with a designer commentary to allow feedback to be accurate. But GW don't do that. I am fairly sure GW don't playtest at all considering wraithknight D-cannon shenanigans with the core rules.

They sort of did. Not by far enough considering the rulebooks and datacards were almost certainly printed out before they released the first PDF, but there have been at least a few things from the "Errata" (to use a polite category for the boneheaded and bonkers things that made it thorugh) thread on here get changed on the datacards without comment from GW. One of the first things I do lately when I sit down is refresh the PDF Download in case its been revised again.

Reimplementing an old system is NOT iteration, it's reimplementing as you pointed out the same nonsense that made it problematic.

Iteration is f.e. splitting up Rending into rending and breaching in HH and making it actually granular.

And on the later. That isn't acurate Gametesting.
Frankly the preferential access of certain youtubers and the NDA / preaccess and monetary incentivies from how youtube works will lead to falsified feedback that is largely worthless due to the special connection prohibiting honest criticism of them torwards GW.

Hence if gw were actually interested in betatesting and playtesting they'd release a free beta for everyone.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Reimplementing an old system is NOT iteration, it's reimplementing as you pointed out the same nonsense that made it problematic.

Iteration is f.e. splitting up Rending into rending and breaching in HH and making it actually granular.

The Free Dictionary.com wrote:it·er·a·tion (ĭt′ə-rā′shən)
n.
1. The act or an instance of iterating; repetition.
2. A form, adaption, or version of something: the latest iteration of a popular app.

The Grenade Strat is the latest iteration of GW's attempt to make grenades work as a special rule.
The new USR's are the latest iteration of GW's stab at a USR system.
Open Topped is a previous iteration of Firing Deck
GW has concepts they love but can't make work and/or lose favor for an edition or two. These concepts keep coming back in different iterations.

And on the later. That isn't acurate Gametesting.
Frankly the preferential access of certain youtubers and the NDA / preaccess and monetary incentivies from how youtube works will lead to falsified feedback that is largely worthless due to the special connection prohibiting honest criticism of them torwards GW.

Hence if gw were actually interested in betatesting and playtesting they'd release a free beta for everyone.

GW does iterate. GW does recycle (ideas). This does not mean they do it well - in fact most often the reason they're iterating is because it failed.

If we want them to listen to us as beta testers, we need to do better than GW sucks and so does this new thing - for example:
Cent Devs have been in an awkward spot since the creation of CORE. Twin Linking their Lascannon and Heavy Bolter instead of giving them two Unlinked (or one bespoke named equivalency with 2 Lascannon shots) has probably continued that as Cent Devs lose a Rate Of Fire race to regular Devs.

Librarians that give a 4++ to their entire unit, unless they're no longer leading a unit feels pretty weird - as does many of the "While leading a unit" abilities that stop when the unit is gone.

Why can't Lieutenants attach behind Chaplains as well? It'd be kinda fluffy while Lethal Hits and +1 to Wound will work together, but not compound each other, almost certainly not in a game breaking way.

the trouble GW has with grenades is they either make them useful, and then have to work out a way to give Nids a counter thats also useful, but then everyone has them so whats the point?

or they make them borderline useless for everyone

at this point I'd honestly get rid of them and just say the effect of such and the training to use them is baked into the stat lines and be done with it

Breton wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Breton wrote:
I think the new system is better than power level was. Power Level did not try and side-grade the upgrades. They HAVE tried to do that here. They missed a ton most of us would have caught, and they missed a few things most of us would have missed too. But that's a function of the old GW not the new system. Blame where the blame belongs.

You are confusing the balancing system with datasheet design. The fewer strict upgrades the game has the less terrible PL is, that doesn't change that PL is just pts with fewer abilities and you can have datasheets with sidegrades in both balancing systems. As we saw in 8th and 9th, PL has nothing to do with sidegrades, the greater amount of sidegrades in 10th has nothing to do with PL, GW could have made the exact same changes and still gave us pts.

They go hand in hand. You even make the point yourself while trying to argue against it. More Sidegrades makes PL style systems more functional. They know it. The last MFM in 9th was a step in that direction.

The last MFM in 9th did not increase the number of sidegrades, it just replaced pts with PL for some units. The only time when PL is good is when it is pts, when all options are sidegrades and would therefore cost 0 pts, PL is perfect as well because there is no upgrades to cost pts.

It continued into 10th and even went from the upgrades inside the unit to the various units themselves. Vanguard Vets went from paying for upgrades, to some upgrades like TH/SS, to everybody gets a bolt pistol and an "heirloom weapon". Sure sounds like a pretty easily connected set of dots: Options for points, a few options for points, all options the same price. Now, I'm not particularly fond of the result in this case, but the dots are there. You can see it in the Command Squad too, going from Company Vets who pay for everything, to company vets that pay for a few things - again Stormshields and Thunderhammers being a common theme in that MFM - to now the return of the three specialists with gear and bespokes, plus two guys with a smorgasbord of free choices for some tailoring.

What if GW had pts in 10th, what would you then have said about these changes? GW are trying to make sidegrades, not just to make PL as tolerable as possible, but because sidegrades are more interesting to them and some players such as yourself.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Hence if gw were actually interested in betatesting and playtesting they'd release a free beta for everyone.

How is what we got different from a free beta?

leopard wrote:
the trouble GW has with grenades is they either make them useful, and then have to work out a way to give Nids a counter thats also useful, but then everyone has them so whats the point?

or they make them borderline useless for everyone

at this point I'd honestly get rid of them and just say the effect of such and the training to use them is baked into the stat lines and be done with it

Suicidal spore mine grenade symbiotes 3+ Major Hive Mind Invasion Fleets into the narrative wouldn't be too hard to work in. And it would be good to work it in as an anti-tank option for the "troops" like the Gants, Gaunts, and Assault Intercessors and such.