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.

Andykp wrote:
So how is pl not better for me?? Baffling.

I get more enjoyment out of watching Tommy Wiseau's The Room than <insert generic, by the numbers Hugh Grant romcom here>.

That doesn't mean that The Room is not an objectively worse film than the alternative. I get enjoyment out of the ways it is in fact objectively worse, but that does not mean that those things are not still objectively inferior.

Dudeface wrote:
I think the real question here is why can you have a unit of 5 bolter armed Devastators? Seems an oversight not to make the first 4 guys forced to pick a heavy weapon.

My guess is legacy phrasing maintenance for when they inevitably recycle back. The real question is why was it ever optional to have less than four?

Breton wrote:
The real question is why was it ever optional to have less than four?

Why wouldn't it be? It's a perfectly fine option under the conventional point system, it only becomes a problem when you introduce a dysfunctional alternate system which is incapable of handling it.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Breton wrote:
The real question is why was it ever optional to have less than four?

Why wouldn't it be? It's a perfectly fine option under the conventional point system, it only becomes a problem when you introduce a dysfunctional alternate system which is incapable of handling it.

Its an objective fact that Devastators are represented by 1 Sergeant, 4 Heavy Weapons, and 5 Bolter Marines and that dysfunctional original system should have forced it.

Breton wrote:
Its an objective fact that Devastators are represented by 1 Sergeant, 4 Heavy Weapons, and 5 Bolter Marines

The objective fact of the unit's rules across multiple editions of the codex would like to disagree with your claim.

The objective fact is that GW has always representend a Devastator Squad as exactly 5 guys with either 4 different weapons or 2 heavy bolters and 2 other different weapons.
Hoenstly why are you even able to field 10 of them with 4 Lascannons anyway? NuPoints are such a dysfunctional system for letting you do that.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Breton wrote:
Its an objective fact that Devastators are represented by 1 Sergeant, 4 Heavy Weapons, and 5 Bolter Marines

The objective fact of the unit's rules across multiple editions of the codex would like to disagree with your claim.

Doesn't matter I said it's an objective fact. Plus I've got edition after edition of the Ultramarine's second company with 2 Dev Squads with 4 heavy weapons each.

Andykp wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
PL = You buy your Nissan but pay for the Ferrari anyway. Despite one being unable to transport your dog in the same way, they are not equal. Don't let the salesman and his price tag fool you.

Yeah that doesn’t work, because I pay the same for points or power levels. I’m not out of pocket here.

But you don't? Points would price Nissan and Ferrari differently. PL price them the same. Nissan is a specific configuration of the car, which you prefer for whatever reason. But you pay for a Ferrari and you are expected to take the Ferrari.

Breton wrote:
Doesn't matter I said it's an objective fact. Plus I've got edition after edition of the Ultramarine's second company with 2 Dev Squads with 4 heavy weapons each.

Ah yes, the "that's just your opinion man" defense where if I say that a LRBT without sponsons is objectively less powerful than a LRBT with sponsons you get to call any random opinion "objective fact".

What was that condescending quote you said about knowing the difference between objective and subjective?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Breton wrote:
Its an objective fact that Devastators are represented by 1 Sergeant, 4 Heavy Weapons, and 5 Bolter Marines

The objective fact of the unit's rules across multiple editions of the codex would like to disagree with your claim.

5th edition codex space marines:

These Space Marines are armed with the squad's four heavy weapons, an honour earned only after the Marine has proven himself steady and dependable in the heat of battle.

Again, their sole reason for existence is as a heavy weapon squad, why would you ever be arguing for 5 bolter armed devastators. As people keep pointing out the box contents are a driver for rules, the box contents are 4 guys with heavy weapons, always has been. There is 0 reason for 5 bolter armed devs to be an option at this point.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Breton wrote:
Doesn't matter I said it's an objective fact. Plus I've got edition after edition of the Ultramarine's second company with 2 Dev Squads with 4 heavy weapons each.

Ah yes, the "that's just your opinion man" defense where if I say that a LRBT without sponsons is objectively less powerful than a LRBT with sponsons you get to call any random opinion "objective fact".

No you said it was a failure directly resulting from the system and cannot be fixed, which it isn't and it can.

What was that condescending quote you said about knowing the difference between objective and subjective?

Its right next to the sarcasm one.

How do you propose to fix crisis suits under the current system, Breton?

Currently a crisis suit with one burst cannon costs the same as a crisis suit with 3 burst cannons, 2 drones, and a shield generator. It also costs the same as a crisis suit with 3 CIBs, 2 drones, and a shield generator.

What is your fix to make all 3 of those equally worth the points?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
How do you propose to fix crisis suits under the current system, Breton?

Currently a crisis suit with one burst cannon costs the same as a crisis suit with 3 burst cannons, 2 drones, and a shield generator. It also costs the same as a crisis suit with 3 CIBs, 2 drones, and a shield generator.

What is your fix to make all 3 of those equally worth the points?

No clue, I don't know Tau. That'd be up to someone who does.

Breton wrote:
No you said it was a failure directly resulting from the system and cannot be fixed, which it isn't and it can.

Wrong on both points.

It is objective fact that the error comes directly from PL as a system. In the LRBT case, in the devastator case, in the crisis suit case, etc, the direct cause of the error is that PL does not permit optional upgrades to have point costs. The unit with no upgrades and the unit with all of the upgrades must have the same point cost even when the two configurations have clearly different strengths.

It is also objective fact that the error can not be fixed. There is no single point cost that can be chosen for both configurations that will be accurate for both. No matter what number is chosen at least one configuration will have an inaccurate point cost. And removing the offending unit from the game is not fixing the error, it's just making the error no longer relevant.

It is also objective fact that neither of these things are true in the conventional point system. The "no upgrade costs" constraint does not exist, options have point costs, and the two configurations can have different total costs. And because it is possible to select different costs for the two different configurations it is possible to fix the error by assigning the appropriate ones to each.

Breton wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
How do you propose to fix crisis suits under the current system, Breton?

Currently a crisis suit with one burst cannon costs the same as a crisis suit with 3 burst cannons, 2 drones, and a shield generator. It also costs the same as a crisis suit with 3 CIBs, 2 drones, and a shield generator.

What is your fix to make all 3 of those equally worth the points?

No clue, I don't know Tau. That'd be up to someone who does.

You don't need to know Tau, though. It's a basic question about the value of additional wargear.
Let's transpose it to Space Marines, then, and only go with the first two to make it easier.

How would you balance it so a devastator with 1 heavy bolter was worth the same as one with 3 heavy bolters, 1 extra wound (it is 2 on a crisis suit but we'll go with 1 here so it is the same 50% increase) and a 4+ invulnerable? What extra rules should the 1 weapon devastator have to make it a sidegrade compared to triple the firepower, a 50% increase in wounds, and a 4+ invulnerable?

You claimed that such problems were not a systemic issue with the "no wargear costs" model that GW took, and were fixable within that framework. So, show us.

I kind of feel you guys are arguing chicken and egg.

With points, you create some rules and then try to assign points values to them.

With this system, you create points, and then try to assign rules to them.

Its frankly not an issue if taking 5 Devastators with boltguns is "bad" if you don't want players to do that. You could just out and out ban it (i.e. a unit of Devs is now 5 man only, and must have 4 heavy weapons). Or you can leave it with the provision that its not a terrible trap choice, because very few people are going to build a devastator squad with bolt guns.

The same logic can be extended for Sponsonless Tanks. "We think all tanks should have Sponsons now. If you don't want to take them thats on you, but we aren't balancing the game around it".

In the same way there's no problem with a Crisis Suit with 1 burst cannon being "bad" if it has the option to take 3 - because just take 3. If Burst Cannons have inferior rules to CIBs, you can buff burst cannon stats until this is no longer the case.

The question is whether GW can be expected to get their rules right any more than their points. History unfortunately isn't on their side.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Andykp wrote:
So how is pl not better for me?

Because the "advantage" it offered you is negligible. If you talk about how you love your Nissan more than a Ferrari because it has 0.1 cubic inch more trunk space pretty much anyone is going to think you're either weirdly attached to defending something that gives no meaningful advantage or there's some other advantage you're not willing to mention openly.

And because you've rejected using a system which does an even better job of accomplishing your claimed goals. If the things you say about PL are sincere then "take X units and Y characters each" is an even better system than PL. It's faster, it's simpler to keep track of, and its balance issues are no worse than the issues with PL in the context of your narrative-focused games where list optimization is not relevant. Since you reject the system which is better for your claimed goals I have to be skeptical about how much you actually value those goals.

I think if we are going to go into the advantages are negligible stage then that can be thrown right back at increased granularity when it comes down to it. Bit more balanced? Sure if working as intended, enough to nake a huge difference in games? Citation needed.

Okay, you buff the burst cannon. Now what about the flamer and airburst frag projector?

Crisis suits can, using the weapons only in their kit, take up to 3 weapons in any combination from burst cannon, flamer, plasma rifle, missile pod, fusion blaster.

There are over 30 distinct weapon loadouts from those alone, more when you factor in cibs and frags, and to make them all sidegrades to each other is, frankly, impossible.

Tyel wrote:
The same logic can be extended for Sponsonless Tanks. "We think all tanks should have Sponsons now. If you don't want to take them thats on you, but we aren't balancing the game around it".

The conventional point system does not force you to do things like this, it allows both options to exist and be real choices.

PL forces you to de facto ban the no-sponsons option because the system can't handle it.

This is why PL is an objectively worse system.

With this system, you create points, and then try to assign rules to them.

That's a completely backwards way of doing it and makes things needlessly harder for the designer. Why set an arbitrary point cost target and then try to make a unit meet that target? It's far easier to design a unit according to the lore and gameplay needs and then assign an appropriate point cost, which is why it's almost certain that GW does it that way even with PL.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dai wrote:
I think if we are going to go into the advantages are negligible stage then that can be thrown right back at increased granularity when it comes down to it. Bit more balanced? Sure if working as intended, enough to nake a huge difference in games? Citation needed.

Citation is easy. A LRBT with sponsons is about 30-40% more value than a LRBT without them, far beyond a difference that can reasonably be considered negligible. Other examples like the post-nerf Wraithknight have similar error magnitudes, the LRBT is just the best example because there is no possible argument that the two options are somehow equal in value.

I don't *want* 30% of my chaos cultist or traitor guard chaff to have special weapons (plus the leader).
It doesn't make narrative sense that they're better equipped than Imperial Guard infantry squads.
I especially don't want the rules to *force* me (either with hard rules, or otherwise being at a disadvantage) to make my armies less versimilitudinous.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The same logic can be extended for Sponsonless Tanks. "We think all tanks should have Sponsons now. If you don't want to take them thats on you, but we aren't balancing the game around it".

The conventional point system does not force you to do things like this, it allows both options to exist and be real choices.

PL forces you to de facto ban the no-sponsons option because the system can't handle it.

This is why PL is an objectively worse system.

With this system, you create points, and then try to assign rules to them.

That's a completely backwards way of doing it and makes things needlessly harder for the designer. Why set an arbitrary point cost target and then try to make a unit meet that target? It's far easier to design a unit according to the lore and gameplay needs and then assign an appropriate point cost, which is why it's almost certain that GW does it that way even with PL.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dai wrote:
I think if we are going to go into the advantages are negligible stage then that can be thrown right back at increased granularity when it comes down to it. Bit more balanced? Sure if working as intended, enough to nake a huge difference in games? Citation needed.

Citation is easy. A LRBT with sponsons is about 30-40% more value than a LRBT without them, far beyond a difference that can reasonably be considered negligible. Other examples like the post-nerf Wraithknight have similar error magnitudes, the LRBT is just the best example because there is no possible argument that the two options are somehow equal in value.

Fair points, don't get me wrong outside the gotchas and sometime people bordering on personal attacks i am finding this discussion interesting and am looking to learn not "win".

Andykp wrote:
Painting owl here is guilty of exactly what he is so upset at Jervis for doing, this thread has been the painting owl show for the last dozen pages of them ranting about how they are objectively right, there way is objectively better than anyone else’s and we are all having fun wrong. They must be seriously irony impaired not to see that.

But he is right. And his assertion that he is correct (using actual incontrovertible proof) is not the same as Jervis telling people they were having fun the wrong way.

Dai wrote:
I think if we are going to go into the advantages are negligible stage then that can be thrown right back at increased granularity when it comes down to it. Bit more balanced? Sure if working as intended, enough to nake a huge difference in games? Citation needed.

There are a lot of units where the upgrade is an actual upgrade beyond a few percent of effectiveness here and there. Wraithknights, Devastators, Crisis, Leman Russ, Guard infantry... just to name some of them. Citation? Look at the default loadout of these, look at their upgrades.

Dudeface wrote:
There is 0 reason for 5 bolter armed devs to be an option at this point.

That drastically misses the point of what's being argued.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
There are over 30 distinct weapon loadouts from those alone, more when you factor in cibs and frags, and to make them all sidegrades to each other is, frankly, impossible.

Why? If you believe (and I do) that its possible to assign points to a given set of rules, then in turn it must be possible to change the rules to tweak to a given level of points.

Whether you can do so in a way that's meaningful and fun is debatable - when you have 7 different weapons, and support systems, and drones etc its probably easier to consolidate a lot of these choices. But arguably that's true with points too.

If you have to consolidate options that have been there since 3rd edition because your system cannot account for the differences in them, then your system is objectively worse than every system since 3rd which could account for those differences.

Also, those more than 30 loadouts didn't take support systems into account, and support systems have already been gutted in 10th to 3 options.

It's easier to just use points though. Less chance of utterly invalidating models than consolidating.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Breton wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
How do you propose to fix crisis suits under the current system, Breton?

Currently a crisis suit with one burst cannon costs the same as a crisis suit with 3 burst cannons, 2 drones, and a shield generator. It also costs the same as a crisis suit with 3 CIBs, 2 drones, and a shield generator.

What is your fix to make all 3 of those equally worth the points?

No clue, I don't know Tau. That'd be up to someone who does.

You don't need to know Tau, though. It's a basic question about the value of additional wargear.
Let's transpose it to Space Marines, then, and only go with the first two to make it easier.

How would you balance it so a devastator with 1 heavy bolter was worth the same as one with 3 heavy bolters, 1 extra wound (it is 2 on a crisis suit but we'll go with 1 here so it is the same 50% increase) and a 4+ invulnerable? What extra rules should the 1 weapon devastator have to make it a sidegrade compared to triple the firepower, a 50% increase in wounds, and a 4+ invulnerable?

You claimed that such problems were not a systemic issue with the "no wargear costs" model that GW took, and were fixable within that framework. So, show us.

Update the choices to work with the new system - or just get people to buy new kits with more options installed. It sounds like you're trying to sneak in another LRBT No-Sponsons situation where optional bonus choices are being skipped - so the solution is pretty much the same: Make new models, Add some Bits, or GW reworks the Datasheet with the new system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
There is 0 reason for 5 bolter armed devs to be an option at this point.

That drastically misses the point of what's being argued.

That's kind of what we think of the example too.

Crisis Suit squad each armed with a "Suite of Crisis Suit Weapons" R36" 3A S6 AP-1 D2 Twin-Linked and maybe Devastating Wounds if you're luck. The full Nid Warrior treatment.

What a bleak alternate reality that some would salivate over

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Andykp wrote:
So how is pl not better for me?

Because the "advantage" it offered you is negligible. If you talk about how you love your Nissan more than a Ferrari because it has 0.1 cubic inch more trunk space pretty much anyone is going to think you're either weirdly attached to defending something that gives no meaningful advantage or there's some other advantage you're not willing to mention openly.

And because you've rejected using a system which does an even better job of accomplishing your claimed goals. If the things you say about PL are sincere then "take X units and Y characters each" is an even better system than PL. It's faster, it's simpler to keep track of, and its balance issues are no worse than the issues with PL in the context of your narrative-focused games where list optimization is not relevant. Since you reject the system which is better for your claimed goals I have to be skeptical about how much you actually value those goals.

I never said I loved my Nissan, I said I could fit my dog in it. A car can’t fit my dog in is no use to me, therefore worse.

So points as they were in 8th/9th accomplished my goals better than power level??

I have said, I wanted a system where the cost was on the datacard, didn’t change all the time and was simple (as in not having to add up the cost of each unit before adding up the cost of the army). That’s what I wanted.

You are telling me points as they were in 8th/9th did that? Because that’s not true at all. Or are you saying I didn’t want that? Because I’m pretty sure I am me and I did want that. So which is it, points as you want them do things I have set as my goals or you know better than me what I wanted?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Painting owl here is guilty of exactly what he is so upset at Jervis for doing, this thread has been the painting owl show for the last dozen pages of them ranting about how they are objectively right, there way is objectively better than anyone else’s and we are all having fun wrong. They must be seriously irony impaired not to see that.

But he is right. And his assertion that he is correct (using actual incontrovertible proof) is not the same as Jervis telling people they were having fun the wrong way.

You agreeing with him doesn’t make him right, you sharing the opinion doesn’t make it objective fact. All you do is say it’s better because it meets my stipulated criteria better. That is called being subjective, because we have different criteria for what is better.

And before you jump in saying I would have a better gaming experience with a more balanced system and points would give me that and all that garbage, I didn’t. I had more fun playing with power level than with points (used them for decades). So argument won’t work.