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.

Hecaton 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.

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.

Brother, i have posted in this very thread that I found it useful for making a quick plan of potential armies to collect in my head. I did not really use it as a game play tool but yet it still had its uses.

I know youve had unjustified pile ons on this forum before but dont let that make you a troll poster.

Hecaton wrote:
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

actually the story of the original WK is about stupidity and not malice
as the designer made the rules to fit the model and gave it proper points costs, but the management wanted lower points that 3 models fit into a standard sized army without giving the designer the option to adjust the rules because "this will be fine"
(if the goal of 3 per army would have been there before the designer wrote the rules it would not have happned)

Hecaton 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.

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.

The PL players I've known weren't looking for underhanded advantages either, the point is that malice is being assigned to someone's intent by both groups due to a misunderstanding of their motives. the PL players often aren't looking to have a "better list" that is kinda the point. They're often the type that see a climatic battle of characters in the middle of the field, despite being a poor choice strategically, as a central ideal of their game.

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?

It's down to player mentality, if you're the sort of person who just builds stuff as they come in/on the box and don't want to have to juggle 15pts of upgrades or worry about efficiency that's what PL was for. To then stick the best of everything onto the unit to maximise efficiency requires a conscious choice to do so, which is ironically the issue we see in here. Give the PL system to people more competitively minded and ofc they'll look for the "best" and hit the duplicate button.

Dudeface wrote:
It's down to player mentality, if you're the sort of person who just builds stuff as they come in/on the box and don't want to have to juggle 15pts of upgrades or worry about efficiency that's what PL was for. To then stick the best of everything onto the unit to maximise efficiency requires a conscious choice to do so, which is ironically the issue we see in here. Give the PL system to people more competitively minded and ofc they'll look for the "best" and hit the duplicate button.

I know it isn't your intent, but 'player mentality' always strikes me as a bit of a cop-out. Sure, you'll have a better time with PL if you aren't looking to exploit it as much as possible, but 40K is fundamentally a competitively-structured game; you don't recreate a historical order of battle, you construct a list to beat your opponent, and there's a certain level of implied optimization there. Even the most casual of casual players will recognize that the Leman Russ with sponsons is objectively in every way the superior choice and there's really no reason not to take them.

In any case, my experience with PL was that it didn't just break down when casual players take on cutthroat competitive players; it broke down when you had casual players with just different approaches to army-building. One guy's got the Enemy At The Gates style human waves of dudes with nothing more than rifles and t-shirts, the other's got his sci-fi grunts armed to the teeth with special and heavy weapons and upgrades, and the rules treat these as equally powerful when that is very clearly not the case.

As I've said before, I think the real schism we're going to see is armies built before 10th (with 'modest' levels of upgrades) against ones built in 10th (with every upgrade that comes in the kit). Both players could be totally casual, neither looking for a competitive advantage, but across the entirety of an army those little upgrades add up.

Wraithknight up 105 points. I'm sure a melee wraithknight really needed that nerf.

Inclusive wargear costs are just bad.

And we have our first instance of the 10e unit upgrade approach breaking down due to nerfs - the Glaive and Suncannon WK got hit just as hard as the Wraithcannon WK. How is that at all defensible? How does one contort the facts to justify it?

(ETA Trickstick beat me to it!)

Field Ordnance Battery as well.

It's so good that the Heavy Lascannon and Malleus Rockets went up in price because the Bombast is powerful.

Yeah, this just solidifies for me that they need to change the points system back. Now we have units paying for the sins of weapons they can't take. It's insane.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Field Ordnance Battery as well.

It's so good that the Heavy Lascannon and Malleus Rockets went up in price because the Bombast is powerful.

These sort of nerfs might well produce paradox outcomes: before it, since the whole thing was cheap, some players might have added the non-optimal loadout into the army because they liked the look or for thematic reasons. Now, by pricing it according to its most broken option, that might be too expensive for the fluffy players, and (if the broken option remains good enough) the only variant you'll ever see is the one with extra cheese.

At least these point increases sort of prove that the colossus should be indirect, as it was caught up in the blanket "indirect = +20% points" that we got.

How can any clown defend the stupid “points” system after this??

(I’m sure there will still be the blindly positive fanboys that will try)

See this vibro cannon, that’s a D cannon. That wraith knight with suncannon and shield, no, you’re mistaken, 2 wraith cannons. This box of tissues, might as well be a land raider.
This points approach is terrible for the game.

nemesis464 wrote:
How can any clown defend the stupid “points” system after this??

(I’m sure there will still be the blindly positive fanboys that will try)

I'm sure we'll see exactly how on short notice

But no, you can't defend it: equipment and abilities that are entirely unrelated got more expensive because of one broken option among many, without reason. Undefendable. It's an issue that would haven been entirely preventable if at least major upgrades had associated points costs.

nemesis464 wrote:
How can any clown defend the stupid “points” system after this??

(I’m sure there will still be the blindly positive fanboys that will try)

Not going to defend it, but you can also be a little more respectful to others.

I'm actually mildly surprised that heavy weapon squads didnt go up 10 points because one of the options is a mortar.

I'm sure the "casual people" who don't want to spend their time with fiddly upgrade costs and just want to play with what they think looks cool, appreciate the price increase on their units that were caused by completely different wargear options.

And by the way... if the price increase for a loadout now puts you above 2000 points, enjoy making a new army list as well.

a_typical_hero wrote:
I'm sure the "casual people" who don't want to spend their time with fiddly upgrade costs and just want to play with what they think looks cool, appreciate the price increase on their units that were caused by completely different wargear options.

And by the way... if the price increase for a loadout now puts you above 2000 points, enjoy making a new army list as well.

Did your list going up 100+ points not mean you needed a new army list before?

Dudeface wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
I'm sure the "casual people" who don't want to spend their time with fiddly upgrade costs and just want to play with what they think looks cool, appreciate the price increase on their units that were caused by completely different wargear options.

And by the way... if the price increase for a loadout now puts you above 2000 points, enjoy making a new army list as well.

Did your list going up 100+ points not mean you needed a new army list before?

I suspect they may have been thinking more about how hard it is to account for changes like that now that you can't just drop wargear to make up the difference.

Dudeface wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
I'm sure the "casual people" who don't want to spend their time with fiddly upgrade costs and just want to play with what they think looks cool, appreciate the price increase on their units that were caused by completely different wargear options.

And by the way... if the price increase for a loadout now puts you above 2000 points, enjoy making a new army list as well.

Did your list going up 100+ points not mean you needed a new army list before?

You had a lot more levers to pull before, so even 100 point swings (which is a strawman - if your list went up by 100 points, you were either running OP stuff or needlessly caught in the crossfire because your unit shares an option/rule with something OP) were easier to deal with.

There's no point making a comment like this if it's going to be so comically easy to rebut.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
I'm sure the "casual people" who don't want to spend their time with fiddly upgrade costs and just want to play with what they think looks cool, appreciate the price increase on their units that were caused by completely different wargear options.

And by the way... if the price increase for a loadout now puts you above 2000 points, enjoy making a new army list as well.

Did your list going up 100+ points not mean you needed a new army list before?

You had a lot more levers to pull before, so even 100 point swings (which is a strawman - if your list went up by 100 points, you were either running OP stuff or needlessly caught in the crossfire because your unit shares an option/rule with something OP) were easier to deal with.

There's no point making a comment like this if it's going to be so comically easy to rebut.

So yes, your list needed to change when point changed. Thanks for the needlessly long and aggressive answer.

Dudeface wrote:


So yes, your list needed to change when point changed. Thanks for the needlessly long and aggressive answer.

You can't, with a straight face, act like an update to remove 20 or 50 or 100 points is as simple to do optimally in 10th as it was in 9th. If you're actually trying to make that dishonest comparison, the "aggressive answer" was justified.

 bullyboy wrote:
See this vibro cannon, that’s a D cannon. That wraith knight with suncannon and shield, no, you’re mistaken, 2 wraith cannons. This box of tissues, might as well be a land raider.
This points approach is terrible for the game.

I agreed. It SHOULD have been a mixed approach.
MOST wargear free (or rather included in the base unit cost) with a select handful of upgrades treated as...well, upgrades.

Vibro cannon/Shadow weaver - base unit cost. D-cannon, +25
WK with Shield and Suncannon or Sword - base cost. +25pts per HWC

Want a Multi-melta on that Land Raider? +10pts

I think it would be fairly easy to identify just 1 wargear option for about half the units in 40k that are obvious choices and put a price on it.
GW could still have MOST units with all free wargear, but at least a few with 1 upgrade points cost.
For most armies this would still keep the Points sheet to 1 page.

-

So my 1000pt Eldar list went up 25pts due to the Fire Prism change. Ok, so I drop my Rangers.
What do I do with the extra 30pts? Maybe add an enhancement I didn’t really want, or start from scratch?
That’s the issue, there are no small adjustments anymore.

- Not every unit got slammed with another 100 points on top this time.
- Further point increases might not feature any change of this magnitude at all.
- Under the old list building rules, I would have been completely unaffected if my WK was equipped accordingly. So yes, one option going up 100pts at a time would NOT cause me to rebuild my list.
- Smaller point changes gave the very easy wiggle room to just add/remove a single model or special weapon here and there. Or switch them out for a better/worse weapon.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


So yes, your list needed to change when point changed. Thanks for the needlessly long and aggressive answer.

You can't, with a straight face, act like an update to remove 20 or 50 or 100 points is as simple to do optimally in 10th as it was in 9th. If you're actually trying to make that dishonest comparison, the "aggressive answer" was justified.

Have you stopped to consider that maybe it's meant to be less trivial to work around points changes by design? The point is and was that when a balance pass takes place, you generally need a new list. It was as true at any point in the games history as it is now, that's not related to the relative complexity of doing so.

Your justification for being aggressive is "someone doesn't think the exact same as me", which really isn't justifiable.

a_typical_hero wrote:

And by the way... if the price increase for a loadout now puts you above 2000 points, enjoy making a new army list as well.

I'm curious how this ends up looking for Imperial Knights armies. Most of the units went up in points (but I'm not sure by how much). Will it actually effect the armies that were previously on tables? Or were they already going into games short of their points limit? Do they just drop an enhancement and have the same army? Or were the points raises large enough that most armies will actually need to do something like swap a big knight for a little one?

 Trickstick wrote:
Wraithknight up 105 points. I'm sure a melee wraithknight really needed that nerf.

Inclusive wargear costs are just bad.

And back to slaanesh-obliterator-syndrome.



It's not like people didn't warn about this happening.

 Altruizine wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

And by the way... if the price increase for a loadout now puts you above 2000 points, enjoy making a new army list as well.

I'm curious how this ends up looking for Imperial Knights armies. Most of the units went up in points (but I'm not sure by how much). Will it actually effect the armies that were previously on tables? Or were they already going into games short of their points limit? Do they just drop an enhancement and have the same army? Or were the points raises large enough that most armies will actually need to do something like swap a big knight for a little one?

They were enough to have to drop an armiger/wardog in some cases.

Dudeface wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


So yes, your list needed to change when point changed. Thanks for the needlessly long and aggressive answer.

You can't, with a straight face, act like an update to remove 20 or 50 or 100 points is as simple to do optimally in 10th as it was in 9th. If you're actually trying to make that dishonest comparison, the "aggressive answer" was justified.

Have you stopped to consider that maybe it's meant to be less trivial to work around points changes by design? The point is and was that when a balance pass takes place, you generally need a new list. It was as true at any point in the games history as it is now, that's not related to the relative complexity of doing so.

Your justification for being aggressive is "someone doesn't think the exact same as me", which really isn't justifiable.

Okay, you win. Your nonsensical, contorted logic has bested me. Thanks for the needlessly long and aggressive answer.

At least the app has already been updated, one positive I guess