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 19:24:31
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.
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.
I just want to point out that this is a perfect and unintentional dunk on pseudo-PL. Jake is building a new force to try out his sisters. He's got some models, it's a pretty reasonable grouping for skirmish level games. How many points is it? *525*. A 525 point force. Sorry dude, but that's not a thing. Maybe you get lucky and you have a group that lets you go 25 points over (which, BTW, is 5% - that's a pretty significant handicap). Or maybe the people you play with also optimize to 525. Again, that's lucky. In the vast majority of cases, people will play 500 points or 600 or 750 points. So what do you do? Basically, you have to drop the palatine or the canoness. Which SUCKS. In a more granular system, you'd have bunches of easy ways to fix this issue.
Anyway, what are you going to do, Jake? I know you're a fan of PL and you seem to be a fan of pseudo-PL as well.
2023/07/08 20:27:49
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).
How is it any better than points? It's not like you're changing equipment and point costs during the game and your army list contains a final point cost for each unit. Adding up those costs with PL isn't any meaningfully faster than adding up any other points, at most you're saving a few seconds out of a 2-4 hour game because you have fewer digits to type into a calculator.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: It was an adequate army design mechanism for my needs.
And that right there sums up the pro-PL argument: it was an adequate point system as long as you didn't care about its flaws. It wasn't a better system because it didn't do anything that couldn't be done just as well with the conventional point system. It was completely redundant and should have been dropped but GW's ego wouldn't let them admit their error and move on from it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alextroy wrote: 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.
That may be what they're trying to do but their actions have the exact opposite effect. In the conventional point system list optimization is less important because in theory every choice comes with an appropriate point cost. You can't gain value by putting sponsons on your LRBT or taking a 7-man squad unless GW makes an error in assigning point costs to those things. But with PL you have all of the same errors in assignment creating balance issues to exploit but then you also have the inherent errors where by design some options are more powerful than others. Suddenly you can add value to your list by taking the correct option. Putting sponsons on your LRBT adds considerable value in the list building phase, taking a 7-man squad subtracts considerable value. List optimization is vital because if you don't identify and take the most powerful choices you're putting yourself at a significant disadvantage.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/07/08 20:38:25
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).
How is it any better than points? It's not like you're changing equipment and point costs during the game and your army list contains a final point cost for each unit. Adding up those costs with PL isn't any meaningfully faster than adding up any other points, at most you're saving a few seconds out of a 2-4 hour game because you have fewer digits to type into a calculator.
Why would we need the granularity of points for determining the cost of placing something in Reserves? Joe McSergeant having a plasma pistol matters on the level of determining the overall value of the force, but I'm not convinced it matters when determining whether he gets to join the flanking force or not.
2023/07/08 21:28:14
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
to be honest the best way of deciding "what goes into reserve" is to make it a meaningful tactical choice, not an arbitrary limit
e.g. put 25% in reserve, put 50% in reserve, heck put 75% in reserve if you want - but there has to be a cost of doing so
to be honest anything with progressive scoring throughout the game does it nicely, too much in reserve and while yes it may come in on the flanks etc could cripple you early on, especially if you have some area denial mechanic (say, oh "no arriving with 9" of an enemy unit")
at that point you don't really need points or power level, or unit count or whatever - its a tactical choice
2023/07/08 21:55:30
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
waefre_1 wrote: Why would we need the granularity of points for determining the cost of placing something in Reserves? Joe McSergeant having a plasma pistol matters on the level of determining the overall value of the force, but I'm not convinced it matters when determining whether he gets to join the flanking force or not.
Why not use that granularity? You already have a list where it says the squad costs 125 points, including the plasma pistol, so how is adding +125 points any worse than adding +6 points? It's still just adding one number to your reserves total, PL doesn't make things any simpler.
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.
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.
I just want to point out that this is a perfect and unintentional dunk on pseudo-PL. Jake is building a new force to try out his sisters. He's got some models, it's a pretty reasonable grouping for skirmish level games. How many points is it? *525*. A 525 point force. Sorry dude, but that's not a thing. Maybe you get lucky and you have a group that lets you go 25 points over (which, BTW, is 5% - that's a pretty significant handicap). Or maybe the people you play with also optimize to 525. Again, that's lucky. In the vast majority of cases, people will play 500 points or 600 or 750 points. So what do you do? Basically, you have to drop the palatine or the canoness. Which SUCKS. In a more granular system, you'd have bunches of easy ways to fix this issue.
Anyway, what are you going to do, Jake? I know you're a fan of PL and you seem to be a fan of pseudo-PL as well.
Sort of. Here's the full story:
When I first built the army, models came to 485. At that point, I could have dropped in the Blade of Ellynor to make the extra 15 points. But I didn't... Because I'm a Crusader... A storyteller... And if she wants a Blade of Ellynor, she's going to have to earn it. And it might not turn out to be the Blade of Ellynor- certainly those are the rules it will have, but on the planet of Orison's Wake, a sparsely populated Agriworld, it's more likely to take the form of a power farming scythe which would be known as the Grain Maiden's Reaper. It's an artifact that's coveted by one of Orison's Wake's Death Cults, and if she finds it in battle, they will become part the army's fledgling battle conclave.
But then I had to build the DE army they're fighting against. I wanted an Alliance of Agony, so that's what I added to the list: Archon + 10 Kabalites, Succubus + 10 Wyches, Haemonculus + 5 Wracks = 525. And you can't take anything out- that's the bare minimum for AoA.
At that point though, it became an easy matter to add a 40 point Imagifier to the Sisters list, so everybody wins.
I was totally prepared to play 485 vs. 500 though; the Grain Maiden subplot would have been worth the wait... I even have the models on deck- there's an annual harvest festival where one of the Noblewomen of the Thresher Houses is chosen as a vessel for the spirit of the Grain Maiden; I'll be using one of the Escher Death Maiden models. The festival predates the Age of Apostasy, but when the planet came under the rule of the Ministorum during the Thorian Crusade, rather than execute the Thresher Houses as Heretics, the Order of the Fiery Heart embraced the Grain Maiden and declared her a saint. One of the settlements has a Chapel devoted to the Grain Maiden that was built and continues to be funded by one of the six Thresher Houses (Jendaro).
I still found list construction to be less stressful without costed gear, but I have the benefit of a circle of players who are pretty casual about such things, and I know that not everyone is so lucky- which is why, as I said before, if GW is going to insist on a single system for army building, I think some form of costed equipment- even if vehicles only- is better for the game as a whole despite my personal preference.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/08 22:23:05
2023/07/08 22:23:01
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
PenitentJake wrote: I still found list construction to be less stressful without costed gear
How? You literally just described a scenario where you had to change the game size and re-design your list because of pseudo-PL. The only reason your DE list concept had a minimum of 525 points is because of pseudo-PL. In the conventional point system the units would have had a cheaper base cost (since their expensive equipment costs extra) and you could have built a 500 point list.
waefre_1 wrote: Why would we need the granularity of points for determining the cost of placing something in Reserves? Joe McSergeant having a plasma pistol matters on the level of determining the overall value of the force, but I'm not convinced it matters when determining whether he gets to join the flanking force or not.
Why not use that granularity? You already have a list where it says the squad costs 125 points, including the plasma pistol, so how is adding +125 points any worse than adding +6 points? It's still just adding one number to your reserves total, PL doesn't make things any simpler.
note this is the same logic that saw Battlefront wreak Flames of Wars points system where 1,500 - 2,000 was a normal game, to a system where "100 nupoints" was a game with all the granularity gone
along with most of the options
2023/07/08 23:56:48
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
PenitentJake wrote: I still found list construction to be less stressful without costed gear
How? You literally just described a scenario where you had to change the game size and re-design your list because of pseudo-PL. The only reason your DE list concept had a minimum of 525 points is because of pseudo-PL. In the conventional point system the units would have had a cheaper base cost (since their expensive equipment costs extra) and you could have built a 500 point list.
The whole process took less than five minutes. The DE list was literally built by adding the 6 units I needed to field AoA- it required no thought at all. And as I said, I would have been fine with 485 vs 500, but the minimum value for AoA pleasantly allowed me exactly what I needed to field the Imagifier.
The lack of stress from a PL style system came when I was equipping my Doms. Originally, I had wanted 4 meltas, the Simulacrum and the Palatine riding in the Immo for potential Scout/ Alphastrike/ Giant Killer shenanigans. But then I had to think about what to do with the other 5 Doms, and leaving the leader with 4 bolter women didn't sit right with me storywise. So I played around with all the equipment permutations to find the battlefield role for the extra five, and low and behold, the story hook revealed itself to me:
The reason this Superior stands alone is that she is the Mission's Liaison officer to the Ordo Hereticus- making the Condemnor Boltgun a fitting upgrade. Guess how much thought I gave to whether or not I could afford it? That's right... ZERO. Free to tell a story about a character in the making because of the free upgrade that would represent that narrative choice on the field.
I also decided that two Storm Bolters were the best fit to accompany her- the five woman sub-unit of Doms are all essentially Agents of the Inquisition. Guess how much I worried about what to do with the points I got from trading Meltaguns for Storm Bolters? ZERO. Free upgrades don't give you back points when the story demands a sub-optimal load-out
This was easily the longest part of the list building process (other than naming the characters and writing up the army history). But it boggles my mind to think about how much harder it would have been to play around with these story-based choices if equipment costs had been part of the process.
Your point about the base cost of the Alliance of Agony being lower is a good point though- I hadn't previously considered that, and it would have been my preference to stay at 500, or as close as possible. As I said, I continue to believe that costed equipment (at least for vehicles) is better for the game despite my personal preference. Expecting other people to have the same set of priorities when they build their armies as I have when I build mine would be pretty closed minded, wouldn't it?
2023/07/09 00:42:12
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
PenitentJake wrote: The whole process took less than five minutes. The DE list was literally built by adding the 6 units I needed to field AoA- it required no thought at all. And as I said, I would have been fine with 485 vs 500, but the minimum value for AoA pleasantly allowed me exactly what I needed to field the Imagifier.
I didn't say it was a huge problem, it's just amusing that the sole inconvenience in your story explaining the value of PL was caused by PL. Obviously the solution was quick and easy but the solution with conventional points is usually also quick and easy, you're usually only adjusting a small number of upgrades. Compared to the total time to create a list, including figuring out what units you want, coming up with lore for them, etc, the last bit of fine-tuning is pretty trivial.
As for the SoB list, if you're so unconcerned about balance that you're fine with paying for all melta but taking only storm bolters why use PL/pseudo-PL at all? Why not just count units and be done with it? The DE force has three units and three characters, give the SoB three units and three characters and play the game. It seems like that would be an even easier system to use, taking every supposed advantage PL offers and doing it better.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/09 00:43:13
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.".
I only ever used power level because it was there and the things I liked. They could have called it what they wanted and done differently as long as it solved the issues I had I would have liked it. What you say at the end of your post is exactly my position put very succinctly. Thank you.
The reason I was reluctant to rehash why I like power levels was the response I knew it would get, because this isn’t my first rodeo here. I have had this discussion many many times on here. And it did get it and power level isn’t even a thing anymore. In the past anyone likening power levels was genuinely accused of ruining the game for everyone else by sucking design time and taking up valuable space on the datasheet with things people didn’t like. We were even accused of lying and making things up, so it’s safe to say I was a bit defensive.
The new points system isn’t power levels, it handles upgrades in the same way and I am fine with that, but it is getting updated all too often for my liking and the way the points are presented it will be tricky to ignore that. So I would say this new system is worse than the old because at least with the last two editions you had a choice of how to cost your armies.
2023/07/09 01:18:05
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
PL was already presented the same way as the conventional point system: a free pdf download with a table of point values for all of your faction's units. The old system of PL on unit datasheets was removed well before the end of 9th.
Hmmm....the biggest takeaway that I'm getting from the thread is that the majority of respondents (not everyone, but the majority), even those that prefer PL, seem to prefer the previous iteration where you had the option to choose your preferred system. Now, there is no option. It's PL whether you like it or not. Definitely a step back IMHO.
2023/07/09 02:16:39
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
As for the SoB list, if you're so unconcerned about balance that you're fine with paying for all melta but taking only storm bolters why use PL/pseudo-PL at all? Why not just count units and be done with it? The DE force has three units and three characters, give the SoB three units and three characters and play the game. It seems like that would be an even easier system to use, taking every supposed advantage PL offers and doing it better.
I have always viewed both points and PL as guidelines, but they are important as the game scales up. In a 525 army, it's easy to just pick units because none of the high cost units are actually viable in such a small game.
It's harder to go unit for unit in a 1k force once tanks, walkers, jetbikes and mass transports become possibilities. That's when the balance guideline, whether points or PL, becomes important. That said, composition does sometimes follow the whims of the story, just like equipment. Asymmetrical missions are common enough.
It's going to be a while before we play- I've got a lot of painting to do, and my track record isn't great- I used all classic metal Sisters throughout 8th and 9th, and I don't want to do it for 10th. I didn't get as many DE painted in 9th as I had planned. So I have to start sisters from scratch, and I'm still trying to finish off DE too.
May bite the bullet and play grey plastic.
2023/07/09 02:51:59
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
PenitentJake wrote: It's harder to go unit for unit in a 1k force once tanks, walkers, jetbikes and mass transports become possibilities.
I don't think it's harder at all. Sure, there's clearly a difference between a 150 point marine squad and a 200 point LRBT and counting them both as "one unit" ignores that 33% difference in power but that's no worse than counting a 150 point LRBT with no upgrades and a 200 point LRBT with sponsons/stubber/missile as "200 points". And in the rare cases where you have something beyond that level of imbalance it's very obvious and easy to say "that Baneblade counts as three units". Over an entire army list chosen for narrative reasons, not to exploit the greatest power possible for "one unit", some units will be below "one unit" in strength and some will be above it with the total balance error being no worse than the net imbalance in a PL/pseudo-PL list.
And yeah, you can argue that PL can add separate pricing for vehicles so you fix the LRBT problem but once you've added separate upgrade costs for LRBTs, crisis suits, squads with mass heavy weapons, etc, you've thrown out the simplicity of PL and you might as well play with the conventional point system.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/09 02:52:24
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.".
I only ever used power level because it was there and the things I liked. They could have called it what they wanted and done differently as long as it solved the issues I had I would have liked it. What you say at the end of your post is exactly my position put very succinctly. Thank you.
The reason I was reluctant to rehash why I like power levels was the response I knew it would get, because this isn’t my first rodeo here. I have had this discussion many many times on here. And it did get it and power level isn’t even a thing anymore. In the past anyone likening power levels was genuinely accused of ruining the game for everyone else by sucking design time and taking up valuable space on the datasheet with things people didn’t like. We were even accused of lying and making things up, so it’s safe to say I was a bit defensive.
The new points system isn’t power levels, it handles upgrades in the same way and I am fine with that, but it is getting updated all too often for my liking and the way the points are presented it will be tricky to ignore that. So I would say this new system is worse than the old because at least with the last two editions you had a choice of how to cost your armies.
Ah, true, you're getting the frequent updates too now. I didn't even think of that, sorry to hear it.
Thanks for replying, and I can understand being hesitant to get into the PL discussion. These subjects can get pretty heated here :p
2023/07/09 09:19:28
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
NinthMusketeer wrote: As an AoS player who had ton come to terms with this starting 7 years ago... I don't like the changes, but I can tolerate them.
Agree. We Sigmar players see this pts system & go "Eh, ok."
People complaining about the pts system should be gratefull damage isn't done Sigmar style.
well, if the system would be the same as with AoS, I would not see a big problem here
as in AoS for Example there are 5 different units of Dracothian Guard, costing 120/210/20/220/240 points, if this would be the 40k System, there would be just one and the single Fulminator would cost the same 240 points as the unit of 2, same as the Desolators would cost 240 points
and people would say that there is no problem as you can still play that single Fulminator you just pay the 240 points, no problem there, same as you still can play Desolators for 30 points more
the system works much better than having granular points for different weapons and and such a minor differente of 30 points on a unit does not have an impact to the game at all
So no, AoS does not have the same point system as 40k, they might wanted 40k to have the same, but did not made it that way
and this alone is the problem, not the idea behind the point system, but the execution
PS: but this is something general the "defenders" don't get about the complains, same as the local TO praises 10th because the core rules have so many good ideas and when people complain that the execution of those ideas does not work, he just says "wait for the Codex, you cannot judge the ideas on the index"
don't care if the idea is good or not, but only of the execution is or not
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2023/07/09 10:08:44
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.".
I only ever used power level because it was there and the things I liked. They could have called it what they wanted and done differently as long as it solved the issues I had I would have liked it. What you say at the end of your post is exactly my position put very succinctly. Thank you.
The reason I was reluctant to rehash why I like power levels was the response I knew it would get, because this isn’t my first rodeo here. I have had this discussion many many times on here. And it did get it and power level isn’t even a thing anymore. In the past anyone likening power levels was genuinely accused of ruining the game for everyone else by sucking design time and taking up valuable space on the datasheet with things people didn’t like. We were even accused of lying and making things up, so it’s safe to say I was a bit defensive.
The new points system isn’t power levels, it handles upgrades in the same way and I am fine with that, but it is getting updated all too often for my liking and the way the points are presented it will be tricky to ignore that. So I would say this new system is worse than the old because at least with the last two editions you had a choice of how to cost your armies.
Ah, true, you're getting the frequent updates too now. I didn't even think of that, sorry to hear it.
Thanks for replying, and I can understand being hesitant to get into the PL discussion. These subjects can get pretty heated here :p
This is something that the very vocal anti PL tribe don’t get as well, I am not married to power levels, it wasn’t a make or break thing, it was a convenient option at the time. Before them I used points for all 7 editions, with the new points it’s seems time to bite the bullet and use an app, the GW one seems ok but, but it’s free now so we will see what happens after it’s not.
2023/07/09 10:57:18
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Everything has to be a fight at all times with this. You can't just say "I liked power/like the new points because it's less effort on my part" and have that be that.
You have to justify yourself in a million ways and have insults chucked at you as if you've personally ruined 40k because people can't accept that alone is a valid position.
I used power for 8th/9th because it was way easier than going through a huge list of points and a pile of models figuring out exactly how much every cost. I could just put my stuff on a table and play a game.
I don't think it's perfect or the bee's knees and I more often play HH which has a granular points system. But when I've been at work from 9-5 with an hour of travel time each way, picking up a box of models and using a really simple points system that takes a few minutes of adding is better than sitting and crafting a list where everything has to be picked individually. When I've got more time it's not an issue but 40k is my go-to for a quick bit of fun after work and the new points system works absolutely fine for that purpose.
2023/07/09 12:43:06
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
no none is saying that power level cannot work if done right
just that GW failed to do it right and therefore we are having no improvement from the great reset and if GW does not want to do it properly, points are the better option
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2023/07/09 12:54:53
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
NinthMusketeer wrote: As an AoS player who had ton come to terms with this starting 7 years ago... I don't like the changes, but I can tolerate them.
Agree. We Sigmar players see this pts system & go "Eh, ok."
People complaining about the pts system should be gratefull damage isn't done Sigmar style.
well, if the system would be the same as with AoS, I would not see a big problem here
as in AoS for Example there are 5 different units of Dracothian Guard, costing 120/210/20/220/240 points, if this would be the 40k System, there would be just one and the single Fulminator would cost the same 240 points as the unit of 2, same as the Desolators would cost 240 points
and people would say that there is no problem as you can still play that single Fulminator you just pay the 240 points, no problem there, same as you still can play Desolators for 30 points more
the system works much better than having granular points for different weapons and and such a minor differente of 30 points on a unit does not have an impact to the game at all
So no, AoS does not have the same point system as 40k, they might wanted 40k to have the same, but did not made it that way
and this alone is the problem, not the idea behind the point system, but the execution
How you buy character enhancements not qithstanding, the pts system is exactly like AoS.
Buy units in blocks of x models for a set total of y pts.
Those Dracolinth units you claim would all become 1 unit? Maybe, maybe not.
Afterall, SM have multiple listings for variations made out of the same box - Predators & Storm Speeders to name 2 examples.
And my Necrons? I can buy units of Lokust Destroyers in #s of 1, 2, 3, OR 6.
2023/07/09 12:55:00
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
in AoS there are not upgrades for free, units have sometimes sidegrades but if the weapons are too different to be same point costs, those became new units
claiming that it is the same in 40k you have you either not looked into AoS or 40k because those are not the same
and just because both having a similar name does not make them the same
so until we get our 21 Leman Russ Datacards, it is not the same as Age of Sigmar
