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.

There is some potential merit in having fixed upgrade costs regardless of unit size: it encourages taking more than the minimum unit size.

Eg. 10 Tactical Marines with grenades are slightly discounted from 2x 5 Marines with grenades, so there's a benefit to not just taking whatever gives you access to the most special weapons.

Regardless, the upgrades should still cost SOMETHING because they're UPGRADES!

No one is going to take a tactical at 10 man, with non optimal rules, when you can run 5 man intercessors(cheaper), a. intercessors(cheaper and better) and both versions of the phobos dudes .A tactical was a potentialy good 5 wound lascanon, at 10 models it costs too much. For how much they cost one can start getting tanks with a lot more fire power, or actualy useful units.

Karol wrote:
No one is going to take a tactical at 10 man, with non optimal rules, when you can run 5 man intercessors(cheaper), a. intercessors(cheaper and better) and both versions of the phobos dudes .A tactical was a potentialy good 5 wound lascanon, at 10 models it costs too much. For how much they cost one can start getting tanks with a lot more fire power, or actualy useful units.

Tactical Squads are (currently) marginally cheaper than Intercessor 10 mans - but really I'd say it comes down to the Bespoke. I've made lists where I wanted the Phobos bespokes (No Deep Strike, No Shooting inside 12 or +1 to hit vs Unit for Army From Incursors) - I've made a list that just has regular Intercessors running around behind a Deathstar sticky capping. (In theory/I hope).

There are some Shenanigans with Fall Back, Shoot, Charge to be had. But there's also a reason Tacs are just a bit cheaper than the others. If they would have swapped bespokes with Assault Intercessors (and gotten the wound reroll with shooting and fighting) I think they end up all the same. I think GW is overcharging on the regular Intercessors getting the sticky capping even though its again not much.

Why would a space marine player take 10 intercessors? At 10 man they are bad too, heck out of all the "troops" options marine players have, they are probably the last ones to be taken. A marine player will first max slots/points put in to sniper scouts, support characters, desolators, tanks etc and then look for troops as a tech or cheap options, And for those 5 phobos guys are better and cheaper.

The problem is not that the 10 man intercessor or tactical squad is bad, or even over costed. The problem, from an army design point of view, is that when other 5 man squad exist they will not be taken. We already had this in 8th. When no one run over costed intercessors or tacticals, just minimal points in to scouts. Becuase they were cheap and had infiltrate.

GW decision to make certain units certain size, or only certain size are just wierd. And that is if we want to think of GW as a fresh new company that doesn't have a few decades of expirance designing games.

Karol wrote:
No one is going to take a tactical at 10 man, with non optimal rules, when you can run 5 man intercessors(cheaper), a. intercessors(cheaper and better) and both versions of the phobos dudes .A tactical was a potentialy good 5 wound lascanon, at 10 models it costs too much. For how much they cost one can start getting tanks with a lot more fire power, or actualy useful units.

While I'd never have used them, there was at least SOME merit with the 9th codex for Tacticals as you got 1 Special, 1 Heavy, and 1 extra of your choice at a 10 man squad. Theoretically that's not the worst deal in the world once you at least made them not hit like wet noodles in melee so it at least APPEARS they can do two different tasks.

In 9th tacticals were horrible, in fact after the scout nerf and move to elites, the only regular seen troop option for marines were 5 of the phobos dudes. Because they were cheap and did something. A tactical just didn't do enough for the point it costs and marines general don't have extra 200-300pts laying around to take sub part troops. That is only something either chaff armies can do or eldar.

What could a tactical melee in 9th? They couldn't reach melee unless the enemy came to them, and if he did, then it was probably some melee 9th monster, which would just clock a 10 man tactical. Nah, in order for marine troops to work, they need to be like they were at the end of 8th. Cheap, with overlaping rules, which often stacked and even then msu intercessors were prefared over everything else. I think only some RG players, before the whole faction shifted to 15 infiltrating assault centurions, used 10 man sniper intercesor as a flavour pick.

We have been having this debate for ages and nothing changes, people who like really granular points systems will find endless faults with a simple pl type system, because it doesn’t provide what they want for a game.

People who don’t care about that like a pl type system for its simplicity, because they don’t care about the added granularity of charging a few points for an upgrade. The way they play the game that doesn’t matter.

The two types of people will never agree because to them 40K is 2 different experiences. Nobody here is going to convince one side or the other that their way is better, because it isn’t, for them.

I suggest that those who want to, go and find ways to squeeze the most optimum builds out of the new system and those who want to just build pretty armies and play games go do that.

I like that all weapons are free and "equal", with different roles. It makes it a tactical choice what you bring (it just needs some balance so there is no obvious best option).
But I don't like that you have to have a fixed amount of troops pr unit. That takes away from the tactical choices.
And special/heavy/different weapon choices should always increase with the size of the squad. Looking at noisemarines, they get one blastmaster pr unit, not one pr 5 models.

Andykp wrote:
We have been having this debate for ages and nothing changes, people who like really granular points systems will find endless faults with a simple pl type system, because it doesn’t provide what they want for a game.

People who don’t care about that like a pl type system for its simplicity, because they don’t care about the added granularity of charging a few points for an upgrade. The way they play the game that doesn’t matter.

One problem with this idea is it's not actually true. HBMC's experience they mentioned on the last page matches with mine on this. The new points system actually makes it more difficult to build armies, not less. Even if we put aside the annoying cross-referencing of Leader abilities with units abilities, and which units they can legally join (which aren't to do with the points system anyway), it's still annoying to build lists.

In every list I've tried to build so far I've ended up either slightly over or slightly under 2k points, and never by 5 or 10 points. It's always been 50-60 points under/over or - worse - 20 points over. With no granularity the only approach is to remove an entire unit, often costing 100 points or more, and reorganise everything to try to fit into the limit. Not being able to remove that unit upgrade to get under the limit, or add a couple of models to a unit to fill out the last 40 points is really frustrating.

H.B.M.C. wrote:What didn't you like about 10th?

This is a hard question to answer concisely but here I go, picking the top 3 from each of my games.

Superheavy Company
1) No terrain guidelines or allowance for large models. My opponent set the board with ruins such that my tanks could not make meaningful forward progress. While this could be blamed on the player, I know him pretty well and it wasn't really deliberate (he doesn't know how wide a Baneblade is and graciously offered to move the terrain when I arrived, but I declined. I wanted to test the system as-is).

The real issue here is GW failed to give terrain guidelines that allow Baneblades to maneuver - OR, perhaps a better way, would have been to adopt the 4th edition rule where Baneblades ignore terrain less than 6" (iirc) in height when moving.

2) Tank durability. As I predicted when we saw the tank article, GW nerfing anti-tank weapons did not result in people taking more anti-tank (or paying more for the "real" anti-tank). Rather, it resulted in people using wombo-combos to buff small arms and other non-AT weapons (heavy bolters, plasma) with additional AP and rerolls, etc.

A worthy note is that my Baneblade did survive into Turn 2 (with 3 wounds left) after popping smoke. But it was still badly damaged and took 0 shots from anti-tank weapons - this was achieved with weapons from Plasma on down purely. Feels weird.

3) Wombo-combos. The game felt more like a flowchart, just like 8th and 9th. "Perform X. If successful, perform Y. If not successful, play stratagem Z.". This came from a wider variety of places, moving off the stratagem traincar and spreading out into the "Enhancements, Unit Bespoke Rules, Army Rules, Detachment Rules" traincars, but I wasn't defeated by excellent tactical play. I was defeated by my opponent executing on a series of decisions made before the game (with contingencies at certain steps where he thought I could - and did - disrupt his combos).

Imperial Guard Defense Company/PDF
1) Aircraft rules. Brought a plane to this game as the "scrambled fighter" to help a beleaguered PDF force under attack at a distant outpost. My opponent brought one as well, since he also wanted to test it (this was unplanned, and hilarious). I had 3 Hydras, he had some War Walkers. BOTH of our planes died on overwatch the turn they arrived without firing a shot, because he was halfway up the board by Turn 1, and Hydras have a 72" range and reroll ALL THE THINGS against planes.

2) Actual anti-tank weapons suck now. I was also testing a Malcador, the big brutish FW tank with built-in AoC. Eventually, he was able to get a Sword-Wraithlord into it... and meh. I have never seen a more pathetic example of something that used to be scary to a tank doing nothing. He did 5 wounds to the Malcador (including some stray shooting) over five rounds of combat. Any other edition, the tank would have been zapped. Damage 1 AP0 weapons that wound on 6s are more scary than Wraithlord swords, because they can be buffed to [Lethal Hits] and the like to do far more to a tank than actual antitank weapons (lol, damn Corsairs) and the Malcador's own buffed durability is meaningless.

3) Wombo-combos. The game didn't feel much like maneuver was key. My Hydras killed his plane thanks to Ursula Creed letting them overwatch twice, and my plane died thanks to Fate Dice. There wasn't much to be done except bring the planes outside of 24" of everything that might want to shoot them, which is sort of silly because then they do nothing, anyways, and can be zapped in the opponent's turn before doing anything either way AND you haven't consumed an enemy CP. Additionally, the corsairs were very powerful because they combined all kinds of odd weapons with Lethal Hits and a Farseer providing Fate Dice buffs (the auto-6) in a very visibly pre-planned way that didn't have much tactical brilliance to execute.

Chaos Daemons Game
1) Glass cannons are more like glass featherdusters. My Daemons hit with reduced lethality (witstealer sword at Str 8 still on my 330 pt Keeper), but barely got more durable (keeper got 2 more wounds and is T10). Daemonettes are still easier to kill than guard (guard have lots of durability tools). This was especially apparent when Daemonettes get overwatched by flamers - it's unavoidable and it's extremely painful.

2) Lots of really strange shenanigans makes the army almost not want to play the game. The stratagems (pulling units off the table to redeploy them, making objectives "sticky", etc.) combined with the frailty of the units meant I could very easily and obviously win the game by not engaging my opponent for 5 turns while he slowly lumbered around the board (custodes/sisters of silence footslogging). I agreed with him I wouldn't do this because neither of us would have had much fun. Shadow of Chaos gave me his deployment zone because there were no objectives there, meaning I owned at least half of them... (Wut).

3) Wombo combos. I can explain it but at this point it is probably just repetitive.

Oh that's interesting, I hadn't noticed that you can fire overwatch based on a regular move as well as a charge move, so you can overwatch twice in a turn now...

The stratagem specifies you can only use it once per turn

Although there is the interaction with the free stratagem abilities that may allow a second overwatch.

Karol wrote:
Why would a space marine player take 10 intercessors? At 10 man they are bad too, heck out of all the "troops" options marine players have, they are probably the last ones to be taken. A marine player will first max slots/points put in to sniper scouts, support characters, desolators, tanks etc and then look for troops as a tech or cheap options, And for those 5 phobos guys are better and cheaper.

The problem is not that the 10 man intercessor or tactical squad is bad, or even over costed. The problem, from an army design point of view, is that when other 5 man squad exist they will not be taken. We already had this in 8th. When no one run over costed intercessors or tacticals, just minimal points in to scouts. Becuase they were cheap and had infiltrate.

GW decision to make certain units certain size, or only certain size are just wierd. And that is if we want to think of GW as a fresh new company that doesn't have a few decades of expirance designing games.

10 men tactical squad is not a weird decision. If you don’t want it you want somethings else, a primaris squad they are pushing

 Tyran wrote:
The stratagem specifies you can only use it once per turn

Although there is the interaction with the free stratagem abilities that may allow a second overwatch.

Oh yeah, so it does - always read all the text!!!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I had 3 Hydras, he had some War Walkers. BOTH of our planes died on overwatch the turn they arrived without firing a shot, because he was halfway up the board by Turn 1, and Hydras have a 72" range and reroll ALL THE THINGS against planes.

Just want to point out how unlikely this is.

4 shots each on 2 hydras, fishing for 6s is likely 1 hit each factoring rerolls. Wounding on 3s with rerolls, sure both might wound. Ap-1 into 3+ save, 1 gets through and you did a total of 3 damage out of 12.

How on earth did you dump 12 wounds onto that plane with 2 sets of overwatch via 2 hydras without god rolling? Even if you did, that's not necessarily indicative of a problem with 10th, it's just an extremely unlikely set of rolls.

Dudeface wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I had 3 Hydras, he had some War Walkers. BOTH of our planes died on overwatch the turn they arrived without firing a shot, because he was halfway up the board by Turn 1, and Hydras have a 72" range and reroll ALL THE THINGS against planes.

Just want to point out how unlikely this is.

4 shots each on 2 hydras, fishing for 6s is likely 1 hit each factoring rerolls. Wounding on 3s with rerolls, sure both might wound. Ap-1 into 3+ save, 1 gets through and you did a total of 3 damage out of 12.

How on earth did you dump 12 wounds onto that plane with 2 sets of overwatch via 2 hydras without god rolling? Even if you did, that's not necessarily indicative of a problem with 10th, it's just an extremely unlikely set of rolls.

This is one of those "roll 3 6s and win" spiky situations, but I calculate:

1) Hit rolls with full rerolls =about 1.5 for 4 dice, so 3 for the two Hydra autocannons and about 2 hits with full rerolls from the Heavy Bolters. I also specifically remember 1 of the 2 Hunter Killer missiles hit, because full rerolls. The Heavy Bolter hits sustained into 4 hits.

2) Hydras remained stationary so Lethal Hits means the hits wound.

3) 2 failed saves vs Hydra Autocannon hits and 2 failed saves against bolter hits is 10 wounds and not too far from average (1.5 and 2 respectively).

4) only a 6+ save against the HK missile meant I only needed a 2 for damage to declare victory.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Okie dokie. I'm done engaging. You didn't have a perfect system then. You won't have a perfect system now, but you'll jump through your own hoops to pretend like you had something more functional then. Ring me when you've solved it.

I'll be honest, Daed- and this isn't directed squarely at you, because I see several people doing it- but I'm really frustrated with this argument that basically goes 'the old system wasn't perfect, the new one isn't either, you have no grounds to complain'. It's a false equivalence.

The old system was far from perfect, but in a lot of ways the new system is worse. Before we complained that certain options were too expensive or too cheap, now we complain about options that might as well not exist at all because there's either no downside or because there's an obvious correct choice and an obvious incorrect one.

I don't want or expect 'perfect', just good enough that I can field a casual army without feeling like I'm deliberately handicapping myself. It's not a big ask. GW has gotten pretty close, but in the effort to simplify things that genuinely needed simplification they've also thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

They can fix the new system to make it work. They could have fixed the old system with less effort. At this point I suspect we'll get neither.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I had 3 Hydras, he had some War Walkers. BOTH of our planes died on overwatch the turn they arrived without firing a shot, because he was halfway up the board by Turn 1, and Hydras have a 72" range and reroll ALL THE THINGS against planes.

Just want to point out how unlikely this is.

4 shots each on 2 hydras, fishing for 6s is likely 1 hit each factoring rerolls. Wounding on 3s with rerolls, sure both might wound. Ap-1 into 3+ save, 1 gets through and you did a total of 3 damage out of 12.

How on earth did you dump 12 wounds onto that plane with 2 sets of overwatch via 2 hydras without god rolling? Even if you did, that's not necessarily indicative of a problem with 10th, it's just an extremely unlikely set of rolls.

This is one of those "roll 3 6s and win" spiky situations, but I calculate:

1) Hit rolls with full rerolls =about 1.5 for 4 dice, so 3 for the two Hydra autocannons and about 2 hits with full rerolls from the Heavy Bolters. I also specifically remember 1 of the 2 Hunter Killer missiles hit, because full rerolls. The Heavy Bolter hits sustained into 4 hits.

2) Hydras remained stationary so Lethal Hits means the hits wound.

3) 2 failed saves vs Hydra Autocannon hits and 2 failed saves against bolter hits is 10 wounds and not too far from average (1.5 and 2 respectively).

4) only a 6+ save against the HK missile meant I only needed a 2 for damage to declare victory.

That's fair, I hadn't considered the HK or HB tbh as I didn't expect them to pull weight, I was also looking at the unit without the detachment, which is a lesson learned and something that could otherwise trip me up. Good points all round though.

Andykp wrote:


People who don’t care about that like a pl type system for its simplicity, because they don’t care about the added granularity of charging a few points for an upgrade. The way they play the game that

No, PL is not meaningfully any simpler than points. Its supporters like it *because* it produces less balanced, less fair games, when you get down to it.

 catbarf wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Okie dokie. I'm done engaging. You didn't have a perfect system then. You won't have a perfect system now, but you'll jump through your own hoops to pretend like you had something more functional then. Ring me when you've solved it.

I'll be honest, Daed- and this isn't directed squarely at you, because I see several people doing it- but I'm really frustrated with this argument that basically goes 'the old system wasn't perfect, the new one isn't either, you have no grounds to complain'. It's a false equivalence.

The old system was far from perfect, but in a lot of ways the new system is worse. Before we complained that certain options were too expensive or too cheap, now we complain about options that might as well not exist at all because there's either no downside or because there's an obvious correct choice and an obvious incorrect one.

I don't want or expect 'perfect', just good enough that I can field a casual army without feeling like I'm deliberately handicapping myself. It's not a big ask. GW has gotten pretty close, but in the effort to simplify things that genuinely needed simplification they've also thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

They can fix the new system to make it work. They could have fixed the old system with less effort. At this point I suspect we'll get neither.

Perfect summary I think, have a /thread from me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:

Andykp wrote:


People who don’t care about that like a pl type system for its simplicity, because they don’t care about the added granularity of charging a few points for an upgrade. The way they play the game that

No, PL is not meaningfully any simpler than points. Its supporters like it *because* it produces less balanced, less fair games, when you get down to it.

Do you have any citations for people liking PL because it's unbalanced? I can certainly see how some people might want to do that, but nline I saw that usually PL users were just there to build units however they think looked cool, rock up and throw dice with a generally equivalent sum of stuff.

Dudeface wrote:

Perfect summary I think, have a /thread from me.

It's also very telling that Daed walked away from the thread - if he actually has to justify his points, and he can't get the mods to go after the people arguing against him, he can't handle it.

It's been some time since I've had to purchase a chaos rhino kit, but as far as I remember, it isn't physically possible to put a havoc missile launcher and two combi-bolters on the model. All three things go on the two turret spots on the front top of the vehicle.

Meanwhile, the parts for optional spot lights, and smoke launchers do nothing at all according to the game.



That's how I feel about how 10th has approached vehicle upgrades.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I had 3 Hydras, he had some War Walkers. BOTH of our planes died on overwatch the turn they arrived without firing a shot, because he was halfway up the board by Turn 1, and Hydras have a 72" range and reroll ALL THE THINGS against planes.

Just want to point out how unlikely this is.

4 shots each on 2 hydras, fishing for 6s is likely 1 hit each factoring rerolls. Wounding on 3s with rerolls, sure both might wound. Ap-1 into 3+ save, 1 gets through and you did a total of 3 damage out of 12.

How on earth did you dump 12 wounds onto that plane with 2 sets of overwatch via 2 hydras without god rolling? Even if you did, that's not necessarily indicative of a problem with 10th, it's just an extremely unlikely set of rolls.

This is one of those "roll 3 6s and win" spiky situations, but I calculate:

1) Hit rolls with full rerolls =about 1.5 for 4 dice, so 3 for the two Hydra autocannons and about 2 hits with full rerolls from the Heavy Bolters. I also specifically remember 1 of the 2 Hunter Killer missiles hit, because full rerolls. The Heavy Bolter hits sustained into 4 hits.

2) Hydras remained stationary so Lethal Hits means the hits wound.

3) 2 failed saves vs Hydra Autocannon hits and 2 failed saves against bolter hits is 10 wounds and not too far from average (1.5 and 2 respectively).

4) only a 6+ save against the HK missile meant I only needed a 2 for damage to declare victory.

Moral of this story is don't bring you Flyer onto the board and place it within 24" of the enemy Hydra if you want it to live.

Also, Born Soldiers only works until the End of the Turn. It therefore isn't active when you Overwatch.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Imperial Guard Defense Company/PDF
1) Aircraft rules. Brought a plane to this game as the "scrambled fighter" to help a beleaguered PDF force under attack at a distant outpost. My opponent brought one as well, since he also wanted to test it (this was unplanned, and hilarious). I had 3 Hydras, he had some War Walkers. BOTH of our planes died on overwatch the turn they arrived without firing a shot, because he was halfway up the board by Turn 1, and Hydras have a 72" range and reroll ALL THE THINGS against planes.

Overwatch itself has a 24" max range, can only be used once a turn, and Hyrdas only reroll the hit roll

2) Actual anti-tank weapons suck now. I was also testing a Malcador, the big brutish FW tank with built-in AoC. Eventually, he was able to get a Sword-Wraithlord into it... and meh. I have never seen a more pathetic example of something that used to be scary to a tank doing nothing. He did 5 wounds to the Malcador (including some stray shooting) over five rounds of combat. Any other edition, the tank would have been zapped. Damage 1 AP0 weapons that wound on 6s are more scary than Wraithlord swords, because they can be buffed to [Lethal Hits] and the like to do far more to a tank than actual antitank weapons (lol, damn Corsairs) and the Malcador's own buffed durability is meaningless.

3) Wombo-combos. The game didn't feel much like maneuver was key. My Hydras killed his plane thanks to Ursula Creed letting them overwatch twice, and my plane died thanks to Fate Dice. There wasn't much to be done except bring the planes outside of 24" of everything that might want to shoot them, which is sort of silly because then they do nothing, anyways, and can be zapped in the opponent's turn before doing anything either way AND you haven't consumed an enemy CP. Additionally, the corsairs were very powerful because they combined all kinds of odd weapons with Lethal Hits and a Farseer providing Fate Dice buffs (the auto-6) in a very visibly pre-planned way that didn't have much tactical brilliance to execute.

I get that planes are pretty bad, planes that transport are even worse - you bring them in 6" on the second turn and they just stop there, plus they're next to worthless in the corners. But they move 20+, overwatch is within 24" of the start or stop, while the plane is usually outside 24 range, and/or a "moved over" bespoke. The biggest problems with planes probably isn't overwatch - its their entry rules as Strategic Reserves required, and GW giving out Anti-Fly like candy.

Hecaton wrote:

Andykp wrote:


People who don’t care about that like a pl type system for its simplicity, because they don’t care about the added granularity of charging a few points for an upgrade. The way they play the game that

No, PL is not meaningfully any simpler than points. Its supporters like it *because* it produces less balanced, less fair games, when you get down to it.

You know how people are always telling others not to ascribe malice to GWs actions when incompetence will suffice?

I think your guilty of doing just that concerning people liking PL/the current pts scheme.
Except you should substitute the word lazy for incometent.
Most people who like this system don't really want to, or even see value in. Micromanaging pts.
Open the book, see unit costs x. Good enough. Let's get this game going.

For ex:
While there's a few people grumbling about the loss of more granular pts at the local shops?
Most really don't care. Especially:
A) the older, established, players who've been pushing small pts back & forth for editions/years/decades.
Our existing armies are set option wise. The only times we change them are when a new edition makes some combo illegal (not less optimal. Illegal).
So if edition x says the unit will cost xx pts? That's what it costs. If the next edition. CA, errata, balance sheet says it mow costs y?? Then it costs you.
But it's the same units we've been playing with in the past & having decent games with. So it doesn't matter to any of us that the unit now costs a flat x pts for a 1/2 squad or y pts for a full size.
B) People who're joining us from Sigmar. They are perfectly used to units having a simple set cost for x modules.
The only real complaint any of us have (for either 40k or Sigmar) is that you have to buy models in blocks, vs individualy.

ccs wrote:
You know how people are always telling others not to ascribe malice to GWs actions when incompetence will suffice?

I think your guilty of doing just that concerning people liking PL/the current pts scheme.
Except you should substitute the word lazy for incometent.
Most people who like this system don't really want to, or even see value in. Micromanaging pts.
Open the book, see unit costs x. Good enough. Let's get this game going.

First of all, we have some examples of actual "malice" (or something close to it) in how GW has managed balance at certain points - the pointing on the wraithknight at release, Matt Ward and Cruddace's approach to balance, etc. Second of all, when some of the pro-PL advocates broke it down, fundamentally they wanted PL because they thought it kept "competitive" players away from them, and by implication they wanted games against less skilled opponents they could farm wins against. Nobody cares more about winning, or is incapable of enjoying the game without an unearned advantage, than a CAAC player.

ccs wrote:
For ex:
While there's a few people grumbling about the loss of more granular pts at the local shops?
Most really don't care. Especially:
A) the older, established, players who've been pushing small pts back & forth for editions/years/decades.
Our existing armies are set option wise. The only times we change them are when a new edition makes some combo illegal (not less optimal. Illegal).
So if edition x says the unit will cost xx pts? That's what it costs. If the next edition. CA, errata, balance sheet says it mow costs y?? Then it costs you.
But it's the same units we've been playing with in the past & having decent games with. So it doesn't matter to any of us that the unit now costs a flat x pts for a 1/2 squad or y pts for a full size.
B) People who're joining us from Sigmar. They are perfectly used to units having a simple set cost for x modules.
The only real complaint any of us have (for either 40k or Sigmar) is that you have to buy models in blocks, vs individualy.

No. There's plenty of people complaining about it.

I built a battlewagon with a kannon, deffrolla, and no shootas or extra bits. That's now basically useless. The kits were never designed with no-points options in mind, and thus it creates a situation where models are basically unplayable from an effectiveness on the table perspective. That's objectively bad; if they kept to a points-like system, they could have accomplished this. I have a Trukk without the grabba klaw on it. Gee, should I just play without the grabba klaw from now on? Purposefully nerf myself because GW can't write a good ruleset?

The problem is the unit upgrades and modeling. I get it that you're gleeful about other people's model builds being invalidated, but the rest of us actually want a positive gaming experience for the community.

Hecaton wrote:
Second of all, when some of the pro-PL advocates broke it down, fundamentally they wanted PL because they thought it kept "competitive" players away from them, and by implication they wanted games against less skilled opponents they could farm wins against. Nobody cares more about winning, or is incapable of enjoying the game without an unearned advantage, than a CAAC player.

Oddly I took their take to be "we like games with weird units with odd loadouts and don't want some egoistical donkey-cave rocking up with every upgrade under the sun to dunk us repeatedly", so the exact opposite from where you're at.

Dudeface wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Second of all, when some of the pro-PL advocates broke it down, fundamentally they wanted PL because they thought it kept "competitive" players away from them, and by implication they wanted games against less skilled opponents they could farm wins against. Nobody cares more about winning, or is incapable of enjoying the game without an unearned advantage, than a CAAC player.

Oddly I took their take to be "we like games with weird units with odd loadouts and don't want some egoistical donkey-cave rocking up with every upgrade under the sun to dunk us repeatedly", so the exact opposite from where you're at.

Nothing stops you from taking weird units with odd loadouts under points. "Egotistical donkey-cave" doesn't describe people I know who play tournaments, but it *does* describe people who get furious that someone with a better strategy and better list beats them.

Dudeface wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Second of all, when some of the pro-PL advocates broke it down, fundamentally they wanted PL because they thought it kept "competitive" players away from them, and by implication they wanted games against less skilled opponents they could farm wins against. Nobody cares more about winning, or is incapable of enjoying the game without an unearned advantage, than a CAAC player.

Oddly I took their take to be "we like games with weird units with odd loadouts and don't want some egoistical donkey-cave rocking up with every upgrade under the sun to dunk us repeatedly", so the exact opposite from where you're at.

I don't understand the logic here, though, under a points system, the "odd loadouts" should have more of a chance, whereas in PL, the "every upgrade under the sun" unit now costs the same, so dunking seems MORE likely to ensue?

 Slinky wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Hecaton wrote:
Second of all, when some of the pro-PL advocates broke it down, fundamentally they wanted PL because they thought it kept "competitive" players away from them, and by implication they wanted games against less skilled opponents they could farm wins against. Nobody cares more about winning, or is incapable of enjoying the game without an unearned advantage, than a CAAC player.

Oddly I took their take to be "we like games with weird units with odd loadouts and don't want some egoistical donkey-cave rocking up with every upgrade under the sun to dunk us repeatedly", so the exact opposite from where you're at.

I don't understand the logic here, though, under a points system, the "odd loadouts" should have more of a chance, whereas in PL, the "every upgrade under the sun" unit now costs the same, so dunking seems MORE likely to ensue?

That is the key issue. See PL type systems can work for better, mechanically deeper designed wargames because the mechanics facilitate that weapons like a flamer / NL / Sniper rifle, Lascannon etc don't directly compete against each other as that isn't their job.
Since 40k nowadays lacks severly in mechanical depth they all compete with each other directly, hence when they all cost the same regardless (even against barebones equippment) it becomes a farce. E.g. when the melta is the same as the flamer and the bolter, sure it's not an anti infantry weaponry, but since you anyways pay for the AT weapon, why not just stack up on the most effective choice there?