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.

Nothing stops them changing at essentially any time, but I'd be surprised if points for options are in the codexes. This is clearly a paradigm they want to explore, and they aren't going to pivot after 2 weeks.

Tyel wrote:
Nothing stops them changing at essentially any time, but I'd be surprised if points for options are in the codexes. This is clearly a paradigm they want to explore, and they aren't going to pivot after 2 weeks.

Literally the only hope if that were the case is that they sidegarde up and consolidate options properly for the codex. If the dataslates are truly "not to be touched" it won't get better I'd wager.

Room for curveball detachments that make certain builds suddenly better might exist.

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.

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.

People convert religions, they can change their opinion on whether sponsons ought to cost pts. I have changed my mind on things I was sure of regarding 40k before, like whether Space Marines were more overpowered in 8th using the ITC Champions missions. There was data to support the claim, I experienced it myself and the arguments to support the fact eventually made sense to me. Every person who changes their mind on something is not going to post that they did so and even just making people give up arguing in favor of letting GW get away with this sloppy excuse of a launch is better than nothing.

 Wibe wrote:
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.

You can take 6-man units and pay for 10, that way you can hide the unit in smaller spaces and prevent it from being shot /sarcasm.

ccs wrote:
B) People who're joining us from Sigmar.

AoS has upgrades that cost pts, see Bastiladon. If WL traits become codex-only I'm going to flipping flip, I hope we get them back in a matched play book for all factions at once, I don't think army-specific ones add anything to the game regardless, if you want a Nurgle WL that is good at moving slightly faster or a tougher Khorne leader you should be able to get that.

Tyel wrote:
Nothing stops them changing at essentially any time, but I'd be surprised if points for options are in the codexes. This is clearly a paradigm they want to explore, and they aren't going to pivot after 2 weeks.

As a Necrons player it's not going to impact me much, I just won't run Monoliths, Wraiths, Tomb Blades or Spyders against people who want WYSIWYG. I talked to a buddy of mine who wants to get his coworkers into 10th and he was unhappy about the rules for Combat Patrols, I was clueless why until I read the datasheets for Astra Militarum, they are littered with countless upgrades which are totally inappropriate for an introductory game mode, on the other hand, because GW are pursuing PL in 10th it is objectively the right way to build your units if you want to use them outside Combat Patrol. Perhaps the Combat Patrol rules ought to have used a "Sergeant pistol" profile with just an extra couple of shots instead of a plasma pistol with a unique profile, I don't exactly remember what weapons the unit had but you get the point.

Finally the people arguing against points can admit they were wrong and the thread can move on.




What just happend highlights why you need difrent points for different options or no options and that unit only does one thing and nothing else.

 vict0988 wrote:
You can take 6-man units and pay for 10, that way you can hide the unit in smaller spaces and prevent it from being shot /sarcasm.

And this way Tactical Squads can use Razorbacks!

Dudeface wrote:
Literally the only hope if that were the case is that they sidegarde up and consolidate options properly for the codex. If the dataslates are truly "not to be touched" it won't get better I'd wager.

Room for curveball detachments that make certain builds suddenly better might exist.

Do you mean unconsolidate?

I mean if you care about people running a Sword and Board Wraithknight and feeling hard done, you could just give it a separate Dataslate. "Wraithknight Ghostglaive" - "X points".
But you easily could just not care and leave it as an inefficient option. I don't think its breaking the game as a result.

a_typical_hero wrote:
GW is in a catch 22 situation here. One, where they themselves maneuvered them into.

A) If they announce that point differentiation will come back, nobody is going to buy additional stuff to bring existing units up to snuff with all upgrades in fear that it won't be useful anymore.

B) If they don't say anything, players who are unsatisfied with the current approach will stay unhappy.

C) If they introduce it with a codex without prior announcement, it will be similar to A) and players who kitted out their stuff for that faction are mega pissed for having spent money on upgrades that they won't take anymore.

D) If they don't introduce it with a codex, it will be similar to B).

I agree and the 2 least painful options are either continue to make options of equal worth, which seems a big stretch at this stage. Or they go with A as that annoys the fewest as a guess.

But options aren't of equal worth. They never have been. There are always choices that are better than others, and that's not even factoring in choices above basic standard equipment. They should all have an associated and separate cost, rather than taking the most expensive option and costing the unit assuming that the most expensive one is always taken.

Tyel wrote:
I mean if you care about people running a Sword and Board Wraithknight and feeling hard done, you could just give it a separate Dataslate. "Wraithknight Ghostglaive" - "X points".

Or you could have a points system that shows differences in weapon choice via assigning numerical values that one can compare to one another and make informed choices about what to take based upon the other elements of your army, how many points you have to spend, and whether the upgrade is worth the cost. Like the game has had since it's first edition.

Just an idea.

Tyel wrote:
But you easily could just not care and leave it as an inefficient option. I don't think its breaking the game as a result.

Why would you leave a gak unit as a gak unit?

 Galef wrote:

 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.

GW could get rid of the second page of all datasheets and make it part of pts changes such that the options for which units characters can join can be expanded in the future and it'd be a couple of pages worth of text for each faction with the benefit of halving the number of pages in the index, so far less overall.

Tyel wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Literally the only hope if that were the case is that they sidegarde up and consolidate options properly for the codex. If the dataslates are truly "not to be touched" it won't get better I'd wager.

Room for curveball detachments that make certain builds suddenly better might exist.

Do you mean unconsolidate?

I mean if you care about people running a Sword and Board Wraithknight and feeling hard done, you could just give it a separate Dataslate. "Wraithknight Ghostglaive" - "X points".
But you easily could just not care and leave it as an inefficient option. I don't think its breaking the game as a result.

The wraithknight is a poor example there, the field ordnance batteries might be a better one where they could have "field artillery weapon" with 1 profile and points cost. It's boring, will upset some, but gives freedom of modelling and avoids the stupid situation we see currently. I'm not sure that's preferable to just splitting the indirect fire away from the lascannons though.

Just make all the guns generic because it's too hard to cost them correctly?

That's an awful suggestion.

That is so unbelievably awful.

Did you have a hand in writing the 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex, by any chance? Are you secretly Gavin Thorpe? Did the Generic Daemon option make you smile warmly because it solved the horrible problem of having to write rules for different daemons? Sure, it was boring. Sure, it upset some! But it sure gave freedom of modelling!

Just give them different points!

It's not rocket surgery.

 Galef wrote:

 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.

-

Yeah, something like this would have been perfectly fine.

 Crimson wrote:
Yeah, something like this would have been perfectly fine.

"Perfectly" might be a stretch, but it'd certainly be better than Power Level with a different name.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Just make all the guns generic because it's too hard to cost them correctly?

That's an awful suggestion.

That is so unbelievably awful.

Did you have a hand in writing the 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex, by any chance? Are you secretly Gavin Thorpe? Did the Generic Daemon option make you smile warmly because it solved the horrible problem of having to write rules for different daemons? Sure, it was boring. Sure, it upset some! But it sure gave freedom of modelling!

Just give them different points!

It's not rocket surgery.

It is awful, it's also the easiest option that doesn't give them multiple unit entries or individual points. If you want to find a way forwards inside of GW's current design paradigm that's how it has to go.

One of my friends whose an overly critical devils advocate about everything in life type of person actually said "cool I see a buff for the other 2 weapons being made on the datacard then", because they want to believe in the design paradigm and that there's some greater plan going on etc. However nuts you think I am others are worse.

Dudeface wrote:
It is awful, it's also the easiest option that doesn't give them multiple unit entries or individual points. If you want to find a way forwards inside of GW's current design paradigm that's how it has to go.

I reject that notion completely. It's not the easiest option.

Giving them points is the easiest option. It is the only solution that makes any sense.

Making things generic is anti-fun. It is the opposite of good design. It is a horrific suggestion.

Dudeface wrote:
One of my friends whose an overly critical devils advocate about everything in life type of person actually said "cool I see a buff for the other 2 weapons being made on the datacard then", because they want to believe in the design paradigm and that there's some greater plan going on etc. However nuts you think I am others are worse.

I don't think you're nuts. I think that you're making a "just accept it because it's what GW is doing" argument that we've seen here (and that I've seen in other places).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
It is awful, it's also the easiest option that doesn't give them multiple unit entries or individual points. If you want to find a way forwards inside of GW's current design paradigm that's how it has to go.

I reject that notion completely. It's not the easiest option.

Giving them points is the easiest option. It is the only solution that makes any sense.

Making things generic is anti-fun. It is the opposite of good design. It is a horrific suggestion.

Dudeface wrote:
One of my friends whose an overly critical devils advocate about everything in life type of person actually said "cool I see a buff for the other 2 weapons being made on the datacard then", because they want to believe in the design paradigm and that there's some greater plan going on etc. However nuts you think I am others are worse.

I don't think you're nuts. I think that you're making a "just accept it because it's what GW is doing" argument that we've seen here (and that I've seen in other places).

I'm just here for the ride really, as mentioned earlier the game suffices for my wants but dislike the current pointing structure. The entire nature of the debate is whether GW will move away from their design scope and what they can do to make things better inside of it.

So yes, going "oh the indirect one is +15 per model" is the obvious and easy solution, but that doesn't fit the criteria of living in pants on heads land where all builds are one cost.

I think what you perceive as "just accept it because it's what GW is doing" are people trying to talk around what they can do with it if they aren't going to change their minds. Totally understand that's not a plausible situation for you and that is itself a good and valid opinion, but it's not to say people trying to work within the parameters are happy having to do so. The same is likely true of the staff in GW as well.

Dudeface wrote:


One of my friends whose an overly critical devils advocate about everything in life type of person actually said "cool I see a buff for the other 2 weapons being made on the datacard then", because they want to believe in the design paradigm and that there's some greater plan going on etc. However nuts you think I am others are worse.

See, I actually think better of them as they are an actual true believer, however deluded that belief is.

You, on the other hand, have heen arguing for this system despite not having that belief.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


One of my friends whose an overly critical devils advocate about everything in life type of person actually said "cool I see a buff for the other 2 weapons being made on the datacard then", because they want to believe in the design paradigm and that there's some greater plan going on etc. However nuts you think I am others are worse.

See, I actually think better of them as they are an actual true believer, however deluded that belief is.

You, on the other hand, have heen arguing for this system despite not having that belief.

Come again?

Dudeface wrote:I'm just here for the ride really, as mentioned earlier the game suffices for my wants but dislike the current pointing structure.

When have I ASKED for this exact outcome at any point in this thread?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Why would you leave a gak unit as a gak unit?

In this case because its a Knight and I think it shouldn't really be in the game. Much like Flyers.
Every time Knights have been competitively priced they've completely skewed the meta into "can your list deal with knights y/n". Because they are, by design, a hard skew, and can't be anything else.
If you want them in a casual game then go nuts - but don't have them clogging up every table because GW thought gluing 3 dreadnoughts together was a fun idea.

Its far healthier for them not to be meta relevant.

Tyel wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Why would you leave a gak unit as a gak unit?

In this case because its a Knight and I think it shouldn't really be in the game. Much like Flyers.
Every time Knights have been competitively priced they've completely skewed the meta into "can your list deal with knights y/n". Because they are, by design, a hard skew, and can't be anything else.
If you want them in a casual game then go nuts - but don't have them clogging up every table because GW thought gluing 3 dreadnoughts together was a fun idea.

Its far healthier for them not to be meta relevant.

Have you written for GW before? That's some ass logic they would certainly use.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Have you written for GW before? That's some ass logic they would certainly use.

Have Knights ever been good and not a problem?

Tyel wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Have you written for GW before? That's some ass logic they would certainly use.

Have Knights ever been good and not a problem?

I'd argue 7th and part of 9th, actually.

Which part of 9th, when walk the dogs with Abadond was top tier, and it was mostly because of Abaddon ?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


One of my friends whose an overly critical devils advocate about everything in life type of person actually said "cool I see a buff for the other 2 weapons being made on the datacard then", because they want to believe in the design paradigm and that there's some greater plan going on etc. However nuts you think I am others are worse.

See, I actually think better of them as they are an actual true believer, however deluded that belief is.

You, on the other hand, have heen arguing for this system despite not having that belief.

Ironically I feel the same way about people who have so much faith in points.

That said, I'll reiterate that I'm of the belief that towering is a terrible rule and making it "cost more" is undoubtably the worst way to fix it.

The thing with points is that they could do a much better job. Now GW does its own thing with points though, that often makes no sense, but it is still better then saying unit X should cost the same what ever it has basic guns or All the guns.

Karol wrote:
The thing with points is that they could do a much better job. Now GW does its own thing with points though, that often makes no sense, but it is still better then saying unit X should cost the same what ever it has basic guns or All the guns.

I think the goal is to make more units have all the guns, which personally I find has made for far more interesting armies and games than when you really had to cut all the interesting stuff out for more efficient bodies.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I'd argue 7th and part of 9th, actually.

Do you remember Wraithknights in 7th edition?

I guess late 9th has seen Knights be capable (well, not the Wraithknight so much), but not explicitly oppressive. But that's due to it being an unusually balanced period in 40k's history.

Tyel wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I'd argue 7th and part of 9th, actually.

Do you remember Wraithknights in 7th edition?

Thought we were talking Imperial Knights.

Which is good if you just made a new game or system, people don't have 30-20-10-5-etc year old collections and now you are telling that that in order to play that some need to rebuy their armies, because they made the choice of putting sponsos on their tanks (because of points) or they build one vexila (because he wasn't a unit upgrade, but rather a one per army used buff bot). And you totaly don't do that after you had pointed upgrades for 30+ years.

And efficiency happens on its own anyway, mostly because GW undercosted eldar rules in every edition. Or make the error of puting LoSless shoting in the game. I don't know how many times they did it in the past. I only know 8th, 9th and 10th. And each time, each edition they do the same things. And then sprinkle it with "fixing" things that weren't broken and breaking things that needed fixing.

Now GW is in their full right to do what ever they want. It is their game, and with the turn over of players, they don't really have to worry about hordes of people with invalidated armies from 8th. Mostly because few people stay for longer then 1-2 editions. It doesn't make it any less bad for people that do get affected by it. Plus GW is inconsistent with their changes, as always. The paladin box is the same box as the termintor box. Why can the terminators take an apothecary and an ancient, and the paladins only an ancient?

Why are armies like Votan or SoB, with mechanics build around their units dieing, pointed like elite armies? I what world are 5 GK purgators more costly 5 desolators?

 LunarSol wrote:

Karol wrote:
The thing with points is that they could do a much better job. Now GW does its own thing with points though, that often makes no sense, but it is still better then saying unit X should cost the same what ever it has basic guns or All the guns.

I think the goal is to make more units have all the guns, which personally I find has made for far more interesting armies and games than when you really had to cut all the interesting stuff out for more efficient bodies.

Chalk up another tally for 'GW didn't get it perfect therefore throwing it all out is just as good' on the board.

If an upgrade was never worth taking over more bodies, that means it was overpriced. But that was hardly a universal issue, since anyone who played 3rd-7th knows that most armies were not just about spamming as many un-upgraded squads as possible.