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.
2023/07/08 03:37:17
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
IMHO it is harder to make sidegrades balanced than it is to balance points costs.
If GW cannot do the latter, why would they do the former?
As for list optimization, more granular points don't force you to optimize.
Taking 0 upgrades means you can just add the units cost to your list, no further addition or worry required. Just add unupgraded units to your lists and you'll be gravy, just like now. Not really sure why it is such a problem if no one cares about balance.
2023/07/08 03:48:24
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Unit1126PLL wrote: IMHO it is harder to make sidegrades balanced than it is to balance points costs.
If GW cannot do the latter, why would they do the former?
Don't know, but they're working on it and I like seeing significantly different lists more than the same list only with a Techmarine instead of a Libby, or 3 Min Size Scout squads for the Troop Tax etc.
As for list optimization, more granular points don't force you to optimize.
Taking 0 upgrades means you can just add the units cost to your list, no further addition or worry required. Just add unupgraded units to your lists and you'll be gravy, just like now. Not really sure why it is such a problem if no one cares about balance.
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2023/07/08 03:49:48
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Interesting to note though that this is the first time they've ever tried it this way, whereas conventional costed equipment has been tried nine times.
I don't know- I started building my plastic sisters tonight because I'm putting together a plastic sisters force to try out the new rules.
Just a little 525 point force- Canoness + BSS and Palatine + Doms + Immolator.
Didn't want to play another edition with classic metal when I have a huge army of Sisters still on sprues.
2023/07/08 03:53:57
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
PenitentJake wrote: Interesting to note though that this is the first time they've ever tried it this way, whereas conventional costed equipment has been tried nine times.
If you've tried nine times to do the easier thing trying hard mode instead is unlikely to get better results. Conventional point costs require correct evaluation of the strengths of each option, PL with sidegrades requires that exact same evaluation except now with the added constraint of requiring that all of the options be equal in strength. If GW can succeed with PL/sidegrades then they could have done even better with the conventional system.
And that's on top of the issue that a sidegrades-only system requires aggressively culling options that don't fit the concept. In a normal points system you can have hunter-killer missiles as an optional upgrade for +X points. In a sidegrade system the missile is mandatory and the option to omit one is effectively removed from the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote: With costed equipment, once I've chosen the units I want to use, I'm not yet done with list building- I now have to figure out whether or not the load out I want for one unit interferes with whether or not I can get the ideal load out for the next unit and the next, and the wrong choice could mean I have to drop a unit in order to get the loadout I want on another unit.
But an even worse thing happens with PL/pseudo-PL. If you're at 1980 points out of 2000 in 10th and your cheapest unit is 50 points you either play below the point limit or you have to go through your list and try to find a combination of fixed-price units that line up correctly to get to 2000 points. In the conventional point system you end up at 1980/2000, you add a power fist to a sergeant and upgrade a flamer to a plasma gun and you go play the game.
And in practice what you do with the conventional point system is build a partial list starting with certain core units you know you're going to take, including their upgrades, and then you only start fiddling with the details when you get to the last 10-25% of your points. So it's rare that you end up having to sacrifice upgrades on a unit you care about.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/08 04:02:48
ThePaintingOwl wrote: the added constraint of requiring that all of the options be equal in strength.
No they have to be equivalent in value. Something really good at TEQ can be equivalent to something really good at Anti-Tank without being equal in strength. That was somewhat the point of expanding the S/T bands.
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2023/07/08 04:36:20
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
ThePaintingOwl wrote: the added constraint of requiring that all of the options be equal in strength.
No they have to be equivalent in value. Something really good at TEQ can be equivalent to something really good at Anti-Tank without being equal in strength. That was somewhat the point of expanding the S/T bands.
By strength I mean "how much value does this add to your list", not the strength attribute.
I think part of the reason for these PL Points is that GW is actively discouraging optimizing your list. You can no longer manipulate your unit's value by minimizing upgrades and carefully calibrating the number of models in your unit. You generally get 1-3 choices on how much your unit cost and that is it. Upgrades are free, which is both a blessing and a curse depending on how you chose to approach the game.
So GW has radically changed how you have to approach army constructions via points. It does mean it is much harder to get to exactly your points limit. But let's be honest, is being at 1980 points rather than 2000 really going to decide if you win or lose the game? Or is it just your OCD kicking in that you have to use every available point?
2023/07/08 05:52:49
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Yeah, instead of choosing wether an upgrade is worth it to your list or not is not a decision anymore. It changed to "do I have the model for the optimal loadout?"
Designer's Note: Hardened Veterans can be represented by any Imperial Guard models, but we've really included them to allow players to practise their skills at making a really unique and individual unit. Because of this we won't be making models to represent many of the options allowed to a Veteran squad - it's up to you to convert the models. (Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition)
2023/07/08 07:01:19
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
stonehorse wrote: The game is meant to be a casual tea and crumpets sort of game.
Sure isn't sold or advertised that way.
Funny, as 9th was quite clearly "40k- tournament edition" as the rot had set in fully from GW bowing down to the tournament "celebrities" and the utter cancer they bring to this game. People were still in denial when Chapter Approved was called the "Grand Tournament Pack". The 10th points are just more examples of this and cookie cutter 40k brought on by inattentive Gen Z players with zero attention spans who worship at the feet of these tournament players is the end result.
Pack it up lads, we're in the last days of Rome...
Literally nobody in the comp scene likes the new points system and 10th was apparently not externally playtested at all.
You wanna know who to blame for the mess that is 10th?
Facebook dads loudly complaining how complicated the game is, how they struggle to do basic mathematics and how they couldn't get their 8 year old into 40k because there was too much complexity. That's who GW has catered the game to. Or tried to.
Nazi punks feth off
2023/07/08 07:09:16
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
stonehorse wrote: The game is meant to be a casual tea and crumpets sort of game.
Sure isn't sold or advertised that way.
Funny, as 9th was quite clearly "40k- tournament edition" as the rot had set in fully from GW bowing down to the tournament "celebrities" and the utter cancer they bring to this game. People were still in denial when Chapter Approved was called the "Grand Tournament Pack". The 10th points are just more examples of this and cookie cutter 40k brought on by inattentive Gen Z players with zero attention spans who worship at the feet of these tournament players is the end result.
Pack it up lads, we're in the last days of Rome...
Literally nobody in the comp scene likes the new points system and 10th was apparently not externally playtested at all.
You wanna know who to blame for the mess that is 10th?
Facebook dads loudly complaining how complicated the game is, how they struggle to do basic mathematics and how they couldn't get their 8 year old into 40k because there was too much complexity. That's who GW has catered the game to. Or tried to.
There was very obviously plenty of comments on Dakka (unless you consider here to be full of Facebook dads) who felt the game was too complex, bloated and hard to keep track of.
2023/07/08 07:17:48
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
I have a feeling people were talking about pages upon pages of stratagems, sub-factions and datasheets instead of elementary school maths during list creation (which could be assisted with tools like Battlescribe, anyway).
Designer's Note: Hardened Veterans can be represented by any Imperial Guard models, but we've really included them to allow players to practise their skills at making a really unique and individual unit. Because of this we won't be making models to represent many of the options allowed to a Veteran squad - it's up to you to convert the models. (Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition)
2023/07/08 07:20:30
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
a_typical_hero wrote: I have a feeling people were talking about pages upon pages of stratagems, sub-factions and datasheets instead of elementary school maths during list creation (which could be assisted with tools like Battlescribe, anyway).
Yes, but I don't ever remember seeing anyone talk about the game being too complicated due to adding points bar a couple of niche cases. The complaints direct to GW were always about rules bloat and layered complexity.
2023/07/08 08:05:13
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Dudeface wrote: There was very obviously plenty of comments on Dakka (unless you consider here to be full of Facebook dads) who felt the game was too complex, bloated and hard to keep track of.
And GW learned the wrong lessons, taking "remove bloat" to mean "remove different combi-weapons" or "do we need a whole psychic phase" to mean "let's gut psychic powers so they're set per model!", and "there should be USRs" to mean "let's add a few USRs, but put in hundreds if not over a thousand** unit-specific bespoke rules into the game!".
If there was more iteration on their rules writing processes, this sort of pendulum swinging nonsense could be avoided, or at least lessened.
*No seriously, I'm going through them right now and I'm at 200 bespoke rules and I'm not even through the Marine indices yet!!!
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2023/07/08 08:07:47
Dudeface wrote: There was very obviously plenty of comments on Dakka (unless you consider here to be full of Facebook dads) who felt the game was too complex, bloated and hard to keep track of.
And GW learned the wrong lessons, taking "remove bloat" to mean "remove different combi-weapons" or "do we need a whole psychic phase" to mean "let's gut psychic powers so they're set per model!", and "there should be USRs" to mean "let's add a few USRs, but put in hundreds if not over a thousand** unit-specific bespoke rules into the game!".
If there was more iteration on their rules writing processes, this sort of pendulum swinging nonsense could be avoided, or at least lessened.
*No seriously, I'm going through them right now and I'm at 200 bespoke rules and I'm not even through the Marine indices yet!!!
Which is a fair observation, but to claim this happened because of "Facebook dads who can't do maths" is just pants on head.
2023/07/08 08:30:30
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Andykp wrote: The fact that you are asking this question makes my point perfectly. If you cannot get your head around the basic principle of a group of like minded people being able to get together and play each other at a wargame and none of them care about the winning/losing and all want the same thing from the game then you will not ever understand why points as granular as you want them don’t matter to that group of people. It doesn’t matter what I tell you, it won’t make sense because you seem incapable of appreciating another way of doing things.
Again, you keep saying "PL is better for me" but all of the things you say in defense of that statement are really arguing "PL is not worse for me". The two are not the same.
Okay... Let me explain my interpretation of Andy's point in different words:
My buddies and I agree on a 1k game. I pick units that I like that add up to 1k. And that's all I do, because regardless of what equipment I put on them, the list is going to work. Like Andy's crew, my circle don't optimize- some are rule of coolers, some make odd choices for story reasons, and some build on a budget and can't afford to buy an extra box.
But with a PL, regardless of what load-out you bring, or why you choose to bring that load out, once you've picked your units, you're done worrying about achieving the desired point threshold.
With costed equipment, once I've chosen the units I want to use, I'm not yet done with list building- I now have to figure out whether or not the load out I want for one unit interferes with whether or not I can get the ideal load out for the next unit and the next, and the wrong choice could mean I have to drop a unit in order to get the loadout I want on another unit.
I get where Andy's coming from, because I loved PL in 9th ed escalation Crusade play.
However, I still think that the two-system solution is the best option, and I think it was a HUGE mistake to try to make EVERYONE swallow PL-style-points or rage quit. The little time it took GW to derive a PL number from points was well worth the effort to keep the greatest number of people reasonably happy.
If the best of both worlds solution wasn't on the table and I had to pick one or the other though?
I'd pick points... Because even though I see where Andy's coming from, and I lived there for all of 9th, I don't believe that this PL-style-point system is good for the health of the game. Even if you just assign costs for vehicle load-outs that would be something... It would solve the melee Wraith Knight and the sponson problem, which are the most egregious issues. And if GW decided to take it all the way back to costed upgrades for infantry? Well, that's certainly better than doing nothing.
I agree whole heartedly that two system way was best, because like I said many times, PL didn’t work for everyone and would be a nightmare for some, but it was only ever an option.
What we have now is the worst of both worlds really, it’s not bad enough to be a major problem for me, I can adapt to it easy enough.
The bloat definitely needed to go, it had got so stupid, and I am a dad who has Facebook. But points weren’t the issue, it was stratagems etc.
Dudeface wrote: There was very obviously plenty of comments on Dakka (unless you consider here to be full of Facebook dads) who felt the game was too complex, bloated and hard to keep track of.
And GW learned the wrong lessons, taking "remove bloat" to mean "remove different combi-weapons" or "do we need a whole psychic phase" to mean "let's gut psychic powers so they're set per model!", and "there should be USRs" to mean "let's add a few USRs, but put in hundreds if not over a thousand** unit-specific bespoke rules into the game!".
If there was more iteration on their rules writing processes, this sort of pendulum swinging nonsense could be avoided, or at least lessened.
*No seriously, I'm going through them right now and I'm at 200 bespoke rules and I'm not even through the Marine indices yet!!!
Isn't it ironic then that HH which frontloads the core rules doesn't suffer from this, despite being an iteration of an iteration of the single worst edition to date? And comparativly plays quickly with AA elements incorporated?
That is the level of questionable that we have reached on the 40k rulesdesign
I will wait for people to tell me I am wrong and I didn’t actually enjoy myself at all….
People enjoy themselves with garbage all the time, but at least those people usually understand it's trash.
Oooh, edgy.
Is he wrong though. F.e. I like WHTW 3. But i know that from a mechanical point of view both the campaign map is seriously lackluster (no population, no actual economy simulation, no fortification, no nothing) and on the field of battle the Engine introduced with Empire total war does a massive disservice to all melee centric TW's afterwards?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/08 08:38:17
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2023/07/08 08:45:22
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Dudeface wrote: There was very obviously plenty of comments on Dakka (unless you consider here to be full of Facebook dads) who felt the game was too complex, bloated and hard to keep track of.
And GW learned the wrong lessons, taking "remove bloat" to mean "remove different combi-weapons" or "do we need a whole psychic phase" to mean "let's gut psychic powers so they're set per model!", and "there should be USRs" to mean "let's add a few USRs, but put in hundreds if not over a thousand** unit-specific bespoke rules into the game!".
If there was more iteration on their rules writing processes, this sort of pendulum swinging nonsense could be avoided, or at least lessened.
*No seriously, I'm going through them right now and I'm at 200 bespoke rules and I'm not even through the Marine indices yet!!!
Isn't it ironic then that HH which frontloads the core rules doesn't suffer from this, despite being an iteration of an iteration of the single worst edition to date? And comparativly plays quickly with AA elements incorporated?
That is the level of questionable that we have reached on the 40k rulesdesign
because the core rules were never the problem, but always the solution, which basically shows the main problem of GW rules design
their new core rules are fixing problems from the last Edition Codizes, but the new Codizes don't follow the new core design but have the freedom to do whatever they want and instead of keeping them in line, the core rules are adjusted to fit that rules
so to play a GW game, you need the faction rules of the previous edition with the core rules of the next one to understand what they wanted to do
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bosskelot wrote: Facebook dads loudly complaining how complicated the game is, how they struggle to do basic mathematics and how they couldn't get their 8 year old into 40k because there was too much complexity. That's who GW has catered the game to. Or tried to.
and there is the problem
what people meant by complex was a too complicated gameplay that needs to learn a lot of text that adds nothing to the game
what GW understood was that there is too much math, because kids don't like math, and that they need to replace the math with more text that adds nothing to the game because kids like when every of their units is unique and because kids don't like to learn text, they wrote that on the cards instead of the rulebook
started to play wargames with my 12 year old, just having the difference in how to teach a game of Kings of War and Deadzone or 40k is a universe away, were we have the basic rules and the necessary USR remembered after a single turn and for 40k you still need to look up some basic interactions 3 games later because it is still not clear (specially if you don't play on a weekly bases)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/08 08:46:16
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2023/07/08 08:47:51
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
He is insisting that his opinion is fact, as per. I am well aware of power levels limitations and have never claimed anyone else should use it. It was an adequate army design mechanism for my needs. So yeah, he is wrong in implying I can’t see the down sides to PL and wrong in implying there are downsides that affect everyone equally or at all.
2023/07/08 08:49:51
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Dudeface wrote: There was very obviously plenty of comments on Dakka (unless you consider here to be full of Facebook dads) who felt the game was too complex, bloated and hard to keep track of.
And GW learned the wrong lessons, taking "remove bloat" to mean "remove different combi-weapons" or "do we need a whole psychic phase" to mean "let's gut psychic powers so they're set per model!", and "there should be USRs" to mean "let's add a few USRs, but put in hundreds if not over a thousand** unit-specific bespoke rules into the game!".
If there was more iteration on their rules writing processes, this sort of pendulum swinging nonsense could be avoided, or at least lessened.
*No seriously, I'm going through them right now and I'm at 200 bespoke rules and I'm not even through the Marine indices yet!!!
Isn't it ironic then that HH which frontloads the core rules doesn't suffer from this, despite being an iteration of an iteration of the single worst edition to date? And comparativly plays quickly with AA elements incorporated?
That is the level of questionable that we have reached on the 40k rulesdesign
because the core rules were never the problem, but always the solution, which basically shows the main problem of GW rules design
their new core rules are fixing problems from the last Edition Codizes, but the new Codizes don't follow the new core design but have the freedom to do whatever they want and instead of keeping them in line, the core rules are adjusted to fit that rules
so to play a GW game, you need the faction rules of the previous edition with the core rules of the next one to understand what they wanted to do
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bosskelot wrote: Facebook dads loudly complaining how complicated the game is, how they struggle to do basic mathematics and how they couldn't get their 8 year old into 40k because there was too much complexity. That's who GW has catered the game to. Or tried to.
and there is the problem
what people meant by complex was a too complicated gameplay that needs to learn a lot of text that adds nothing to the game
what GW understood was that there is too much math, because kids don't like math, and that they need to replace the math with more text that adds nothing to the game because kids like when every of their units is unique and because kids don't like to learn text, they wrote that on the cards instead of the rulebook
started to play wargames with my 12 year old, just having the difference in how to teach a game of Kings of War and Deadzone or 40k is a universe away, were we have the basic rules and the necessary USR remembered after a single turn and for 40k you still need to look up some basic interactions 3 games later because it is still not clear (specially if you don't play on a weekly bases)
Which is bloody absurd because HH2.0 works fine with the HH2.0 army rules. There are some issues but not wraithknight level nonsense requireing an insta patch even before the codices got out.
Why can't GW atleast reach that level of quality on the 40k side of things? Even whilest it crippled customizability as "unnecessary bloat" and legended CSM and Admech units of all things out of the 40k comp scene because SM had too many options..
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2023/07/08 09:01:08
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Which is bloody absurd because HH2.0 works fine with the HH2.0 army rules. There are some issues but not wraithknight level nonsense requireing an insta patch even before the codices got out.
Why can't GW atleast reach that level of quality on the 40k side of things? Even whilest it crippled customizability as "unnecessary bloat" and legended CSM and Admech units of all things out of the 40k comp scene because SM had too many options..
my personal thought why:
because there are less people doing the HH stuff and the designers play their own game
you really get that from written rules if those writing it play with what they wrote or not
in addition, the different designers in 40k are not allowed to talk to each other about what they are doing to prevent leaks and keep everything secret
so we get the different level of how to follow the design guidelines
in HH there being 1 doing all the work, they know what they have written for one faction and what level the others need to be
and I have seen this in another game development, when you have a design guideline and a group working on each faction following that guide but not talking to the other group until the final product is out, with the difference that this game marked it as "alpha test" (and problem were simply going down to the guide saying factions X has a weakness in fast units and faction Y a weakness in though units, and the one design team so it as "there are no fast units allowed at all" while the other one "no though units as core units/battleline")
and looking at the indices, it most likely was that, a guideline and everyone followed it as they thought it would be best, and those that did not managed the deadline just rushed it without thinking much about it because will be replaced with the Codex anyway
and a 3 year lifetime of a game also means that you cannot put more time into making that as it will be supported
if the game would actually stay, and just being updated, they could work differently because it would be worth investing a year into something that is around for another 6 or 12 years but with already knowing that it will be gone in 3 years, why bother (and people buy it anyway)
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2023/07/08 09:48:34
Subject: Re:Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
10th is full of concepts and ideas that are good, great even, until they hit actual game mechanics.
Playing just a handful of games with said mechanics would immediately showcase the issues inherent with them. The core rules and a lot of the indexes feel exceptionally rushed, with a lot of "good ideas" and first drafts just put down and sent to the printers.
Even in situations where stuff has been playtested, GW designers themselves are playing in a very different environment to the majority of players. Giving dozens of units reactive rules sounds like a really good idea on paper, until the reality of how it actually just slows the game down to a crawl hits you in a normal game situation. For a designer playtesting the game at the Nottingham HQ during their 9-5 work day this doesn't really come off as a huge problem in of itself; Wednesday was the day they marked down as a playtest day so they can spend all day just playing a 2k game and seeing how they enjoy it. But for a normal player who only gets one chance to play a game of 40k a week and who has to travel to their LGS to do so, and will likely only have 7:00PM-10:30PM as an actual timeframe to get their game done, those kinds of rules implemented in a bad way is terrible. Not to mention tournament games which are on much stricter timeframes.
Nazi punks feth off
2023/07/08 12:09:50
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Andykp wrote: He is insisting that his opinion is fact, as per. I am well aware of power levels limitations and have never claimed anyone else should use it. It was an adequate army design mechanism for my needs. So yeah, he is wrong in implying I can’t see the down sides to PL and wrong in implying there are downsides that affect everyone equally or at all.
Well to be fair, none of the reasons you provided for liking PL actually require PL as a system. You also seem to misinterpret any arguments against PL as a system as "they're telling me I'm having fun wrong!" and it took multiple genuine prompts of "but why do you like pl?" for you to even provide any reasons for liking PL in the first place. That's where the confusion comes from.
You liked dodging gw's frequent balance patches (and I can totally understand that) and liked the datasheet formatting (also totally valid). None of this requires PL though. You could simply say "I dislike frequent rules updates and value well-formatted datasheets. PL provided that for me due to basically being ignored for years, so I had fun with it.".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/08 12:10:23
2023/07/08 12:14:31
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
This may have been just me, but the 9e method of pricing Reserves based on PL seemed a decent idea - that sort of quick'n'dirty assessment of a unit's average strength seems like it would have been a better fit than regular points for determining how many Command Points it would cost to have said units in position to Outflank/reinforce (and, funnily enough, that felt like a much more meaningful use of Command Points as an alleged abstraction of C&C overhead than, say, smoke launchers).
2023/07/08 16:28:56
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
waefre_1 wrote: This may have been just me, but the 9e method of pricing Reserves based on PL seemed a decent idea - that sort of quick'n'dirty assessment of a unit's average strength seems like it would have been a better fit than regular points for determining how many Command Points it would cost to have said units in position to Outflank/reinforce (and, funnily enough, that felt like a much more meaningful use of Command Points as an alleged abstraction of C&C overhead than, say, smoke launchers).
No, PL should not have any impact on games unless otherwise agreed to. You could just count wounds for these things. If the target of the Stratagem has 1-14 wounds? 1CP. 15+? 2CP.
2023/07/08 17:33:30
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
waefre_1 wrote: This may have been just me, but the 9e method of pricing Reserves based on PL seemed a decent idea - that sort of quick'n'dirty assessment of a unit's average strength seems like it would have been a better fit than regular points for determining how many Command Points it would cost to have said units in position to Outflank/reinforce (and, funnily enough, that felt like a much more meaningful use of Command Points as an alleged abstraction of C&C overhead than, say, smoke launchers).
No, PL should not have any impact on games unless otherwise agreed to. You could just count wounds for these things. If the target of the Stratagem has 1-14 wounds? 1CP. 15+? 2CP.
10 intercessors + character =/= a knight despoiler.
2023/07/08 18:56:06
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
waefre_1 wrote: This may have been just me, but the 9e method of pricing Reserves based on PL seemed a decent idea - that sort of quick'n'dirty assessment of a unit's average strength seems like it would have been a better fit than regular points for determining how many Command Points it would cost to have said units in position to Outflank/reinforce (and, funnily enough, that felt like a much more meaningful use of Command Points as an alleged abstraction of C&C overhead than, say, smoke launchers).
No, PL should not have any impact on games unless otherwise agreed to. You could just count wounds for these things. If the target of the Stratagem has 1-14 wounds? 1CP. 15+? 2CP.
10 intercessors + character =/= a knight despoiler.
Knight Despoilers aren't Space Marines, so the only Stratagems they share are the universal ones and they all cost the same currently if I recall correctly. Stratagems hit different for some units, that's okay, it can be included in the points cost of the unit. A glasscannon is going to get more out of a damage steroid than a tanky unit is and a glasscannon unit is likely to die even with a tank steroid, the only downside of using a steroid on a unit that is already good at something is overkill, a unit becoming so killy or so tanky that it is in excess of what is necessary.
