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.
2023/07/11 15:23:28
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Dudeface wrote: Bad example is a bad example. It also resolves the issue being discussed.
It resolves nothing and it's not a bad example. It's a perfect example.
One of many perfect examples. All of which completely and conclusively prove the point being made: A points-based system is objectively superior to any inflexible power-level system that values different things at the same value.
I mean they've been blatantly ignoring my Tactical Squad example so I'm not surprised. Dudeface came the closest and was like "just don't let them take two Grav Guns" LMAO
LMAO fething HILARIOUS suggesting that tac squads are build the exact same way as they had been the last 6 editions might be a credible solution. or do you love this method of "pick wtf you like" now?
2023/07/11 15:25:31
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
LMAO fething HILARIOUS suggesting that tac squads are build the exact same way as they had been the last 6 editions might be a credible solution. or do you love this method of "pick wtf you like" now?
I mean the rules writers disagree with you or they would have kept Tac Squads built the exact same way as the prior six editions.
Don't hate on EviscerationPlague for the mistakes of the game designers.
I mean the mental gymnastics of:
"The game design is fine if you just ignore the game design" is pretty impressive tbh.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/11 15:27:18
2023/07/11 15:28:59
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
LMAO fething HILARIOUS suggesting that tac squads are build the exact same way as they had been the last 6 editions might be a credible solution. or do you love this method of "pick wtf you like" now?
I mean the rules writers disagree with you or they would have kept Tac Squads built the exact same way as the prior six editions.
Don't hate on EviscerationPlague for the mistakes of the game designers.
I mean the mental gymnastics of:
"The game design is fine if you just ignore the game design" is pretty impressive tbh.
I just don't get this place, "omg how can you balance 2 grav guns vs a grav gun and a grav cannon" like it's a massive example to how broken their current rules are, but when you give a perfectly logical solution of "maybe change it" I get laughed out for agreeing it's wrong?
2023/07/11 15:33:31
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
LMAO fething HILARIOUS suggesting that tac squads are build the exact same way as they had been the last 6 editions might be a credible solution. or do you love this method of "pick wtf you like" now?
I mean the rules writers disagree with you or they would have kept Tac Squads built the exact same way as the prior six editions.
Don't hate on EviscerationPlague for the mistakes of the game designers.
I mean the mental gymnastics of:
"The game design is fine if you just ignore the game design" is pretty impressive tbh.
I just don't get this place, "omg how can you balance 2 grav guns vs a grav gun and a grav cannon" like it's a massive example to how broken their current rules are, but when you give a perfectly logical solution of "maybe change it" I get laughed out for agreeing it's wrong?
No you get laughed at for your cognitive dissonance.
"The system is broken, fix it."
"NO! The system is fine!"
"Here is an example of its brokenness"
"Well it's still fine you just have to fix it"
....unless I have you mistaken and you also hate the 10th edition points system, which is possible.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/11 15:34:06
2023/07/11 15:37:10
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
LMAO fething HILARIOUS suggesting that tac squads are build the exact same way as they had been the last 6 editions might be a credible solution. or do you love this method of "pick wtf you like" now?
I mean the rules writers disagree with you or they would have kept Tac Squads built the exact same way as the prior six editions.
Don't hate on EviscerationPlague for the mistakes of the game designers.
I mean the mental gymnastics of:
"The game design is fine if you just ignore the game design" is pretty impressive tbh.
I just don't get this place, "omg how can you balance 2 grav guns vs a grav gun and a grav cannon" like it's a massive example to how broken their current rules are, but when you give a perfectly logical solution of "maybe change it" I get laughed out for agreeing it's wrong?
No it just looks like you're avoiding the point being made, which is: Some unit has multiple options, some of which are clearly worse, but the current paradigm allows fo no accounting of that clear difference in 'combat value'.
JNAProductions wrote: Which is worth more: A squad of five Devastators with five Bolters, or a squad of five Devastators with four Heavy Bolters and one Bolter?
Current points system they are the same.
They're not. The first five with the heavy weapons are 120, the second optional five with the bolters are 80.
That's one way to look at it....
But you are simply incorrect. The 1st set of 5 bodies - regardless of what you arm them with cost 120 pts.
The 2nd set of 5 bodies only cost 80 pts.
2023/07/11 15:44:01
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
LMAO fething HILARIOUS suggesting that tac squads are build the exact same way as they had been the last 6 editions might be a credible solution. or do you love this method of "pick wtf you like" now?
I mean the rules writers disagree with you or they would have kept Tac Squads built the exact same way as the prior six editions.
Don't hate on EviscerationPlague for the mistakes of the game designers.
I mean the mental gymnastics of:
"The game design is fine if you just ignore the game design" is pretty impressive tbh.
I just don't get this place, "omg how can you balance 2 grav guns vs a grav gun and a grav cannon" like it's a massive example to how broken their current rules are, but when you give a perfectly logical solution of "maybe change it" I get laughed out for agreeing it's wrong?
No it just looks like you're avoiding the point being made, which is: Some unit has multiple options, some of which are clearly worse, but the current paradigm allows fo no accounting of that clear difference in 'combat value'.
LMAO fething HILARIOUS suggesting that tac squads are build the exact same way as they had been the last 6 editions might be a credible solution. or do you love this method of "pick wtf you like" now?
I mean the rules writers disagree with you or they would have kept Tac Squads built the exact same way as the prior six editions.
Don't hate on EviscerationPlague for the mistakes of the game designers.
I mean the mental gymnastics of:
"The game design is fine if you just ignore the game design" is pretty impressive tbh.
I just don't get this place, "omg how can you balance 2 grav guns vs a grav gun and a grav cannon" like it's a massive example to how broken their current rules are, but when you give a perfectly logical solution of "maybe change it" I get laughed out for agreeing it's wrong?
No you get laughed at for your cognitive dissonance.
"The system is broken, fix it."
"NO! The system is fine!"
"Here is an example of its brokenness"
"Well it's still fine you just have to fix it"
....unless I have you mistaken and you also hate the 10th edition points system, which is possible.
I've repeatedly said in this thread I voted no but the games is sufficient for my needs overall, but the current points system is broken. Further more I took EP's example and showed a quick fix for the problem. If I was happy with it why would I suggest a fix to the one example?
To that end, why is an obvious fix to the problem something to laugh at like it's some smooth brained solution, especially when it's something the unit has had for decades.
This does not cover all points, but as is a recurring theme it's a bad example with an easy solution for that example specifically.
Yet I am the one with cognitive dissonance despite supporting the same stance as the person mocking my solution, to the problem they posed?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/11 15:45:15
2023/07/11 15:48:50
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
To that end, why is an obvious fix to the problem something to laugh at like it's some smooth brained solution, especially when it's something the unit has had for decades.
Because most people in this thread are no longer discussing the question in good faith, but instead angling for possibilities to dunk on each other and deliver hot takes, to the point that they no longer bother with reading the entries for longer than they need to find a cue for the next snide remark. This discussion is probably done for, it's only moving in circles and leading to bad blood.
2023/07/11 15:53:03
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
CaulynDarr wrote: And GW has generally always been great at product execution and quality. It's their saving grace. The guys running the rules department are the issue. I don't think they are good enough or have the resources to intentionally build games with good learning curves. They are a 'throw gak at the wall and see what sticks' levels of designer.
It’s clear the rules and everything else are there to sell more models. They are quite open about that and don’t think you will find many if anyone who says 40K is the “best” wargame out there. It’s the models and the lore and the history that have kept me hooked for over 30 years now.
If we all admit they aren't good at rules. That they don't focus on making good rules. Why can't we all agree that PL is another bad rule? Why are people defending it as some good thing to make the game simpler? Cause it really doesn't. It's a bad attempt at simplification that generates more problems to reduce some basic grade school addition.
(Also I don't believe the thing about the rules not being a primary focus, or that they are ok with bad quality. I think it's a post hoc rationalization to cover for them consistently putting out bad rules. If their rules department put out consistently good quality, you can bet their marketing would be playing that up.)
I will happily admit they don’t the best rules, but sorry, I still like power levels even though it’s gone, so I can’t say it’s a bad rule. Said this a million times already but it didn’t cause problems for everyone, for me it worked and made playing simpler. But that’s why it was a choice. (It’s exhausting repeating that I enjoyed my games with power levels more than the ones I played with points but it seems too alien for some to grasp).
2023/07/11 15:53:18
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Andykp wrote: If this reasonable senior GW worker is saying this was the case when he was there and he had access to that data I choose to believe him. Why would he lie, he is no longer with the company and isn’t protecting anything?? There’s no reason to make that up. So I will trust the international plc and their research over your anecdotal evidence.
...from the company who proudly announced in the past that they don't do market research. I'm not saying that the guy is lying. I say that the claim does not line up with the people you can actually see in retail stores. I'm not going through a 2h video without time stamps to look for that particular statement, but what he might have meant, is, that moms are the biggest demographic who spends the most money in one go. Which seems plausible enough that kids go to the store with their parents for Christmas or birthdays and buy a lot. Individually though? Fat chance in hell. How do you even want to track the data from 3rd party or your own online shop?
Tsagualsa wrote: Women have hobbies too... maybe on average, they enjoy other facets of the general hobby more than men, less tournament gaming, more painting and modelling or something like that, and are thus not that visible from the point of view of your typical gaming club or tournament scene, but surely they exist. Look at youtube, or past Golden Demon entries, and you see a lot of women doing professional painting and related activities. Also, it might be a question of available spending money in a given age bracket, men around that age are usually dividing their attention between a lot of things, that's something that's not quite as extreme for women due to cultural norms etc.
It's not "women spend the most money on GW products" (another claim I would HIGHLY doubt without numbers to back it up), it is "mothers spend the most money (for their kids, otherwise the notion they were mothers would be irrelevant..)". Since GW does not give any demographic numbers, the next best thing I could find is this: https://www.similarweb.com/website/games-workshop.com/#geography
~80% / ~20% male to female ratio for visitors of the website. Which is incidentally almost the same as for dakkadakka. I doubt 20% outspend the other 80% without further numbers that would prove otherwise.
2023/07/11 15:54:24
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
To that end, why is an obvious fix to the problem something to laugh at like it's some smooth brained solution, especially when it's something the unit has had for decades.
Because most people in this thread are no longer discussing the question in good faith, but instead angling for possibilities to dunk on each other and deliver hot takes, to the point that they no longer bother with reading the entries for longer than they need to find a cue for the next snide remark. This discussion is probably done for, it's only moving in circles and leading to bad blood.
I kinda thought the same after my last response. I think it's time to leave this thread for me, it's reached the "don't want to talk about what we can do, let's make the same gakky examples and wave our arms in the air and curse GW, then heckle anyone who doesnt sheep" phase
2023/07/11 15:54:34
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
To that end, why is an obvious fix to the problem something to laugh at like it's some smooth brained solution, especially when it's something the unit has had for decades.
Because most people in this thread are no longer discussing the question in good faith, but instead angling for possibilities to dunk on each other and deliver hot takes, to the point that they no longer bother with reading the entries for longer than they need to find a cue for the next snide remark. This discussion is probably done for, it's only moving in circles and leading to bad blood.
True.
With this moment of clarity I’m out. This is pointless.
2023/07/11 15:54:47
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
LMAO fething HILARIOUS suggesting that tac squads are build the exact same way as they had been the last 6 editions might be a credible solution. or do you love this method of "pick wtf you like" now?
I mean the rules writers disagree with you or they would have kept Tac Squads built the exact same way as the prior six editions.
Don't hate on EviscerationPlague for the mistakes of the game designers.
I mean the mental gymnastics of:
"The game design is fine if you just ignore the game design" is pretty impressive tbh.
I just don't get this place, "omg how can you balance 2 grav guns vs a grav gun and a grav cannon" like it's a massive example to how broken their current rules are, but when you give a perfectly logical solution of "maybe change it" I get laughed out for agreeing it's wrong?
No it just looks like you're avoiding the point being made, which is: Some unit has multiple options, some of which are clearly worse, but the current paradigm allows fo no accounting of that clear difference in 'combat value'.
LMAO fething HILARIOUS suggesting that tac squads are build the exact same way as they had been the last 6 editions might be a credible solution. or do you love this method of "pick wtf you like" now?
I mean the rules writers disagree with you or they would have kept Tac Squads built the exact same way as the prior six editions.
Don't hate on EviscerationPlague for the mistakes of the game designers.
I mean the mental gymnastics of:
"The game design is fine if you just ignore the game design" is pretty impressive tbh.
I just don't get this place, "omg how can you balance 2 grav guns vs a grav gun and a grav cannon" like it's a massive example to how broken their current rules are, but when you give a perfectly logical solution of "maybe change it" I get laughed out for agreeing it's wrong?
No you get laughed at for your cognitive dissonance.
"The system is broken, fix it."
"NO! The system is fine!"
"Here is an example of its brokenness"
"Well it's still fine you just have to fix it"
....unless I have you mistaken and you also hate the 10th edition points system, which is possible.
I've repeatedly said in this thread I voted no but the games is sufficient for my needs overall, but the current points system is broken. Further more I took EP's example and showed a quick fix for the problem. If I was happy with it why would I suggest a fix to the one example?
To that end, why is an obvious fix to the problem something to laugh at like it's some smooth brained solution, especially when it's something the unit has had for decades.
This does not cover all points, but as is a recurring theme it's a bad example with an easy solution for that example specifically.
Yet I am the one with cognitive dissonance despite supporting the same stance as the person mocking my solution, to the problem they posed?
So I think the issue is that the point of the example isn't to ask for solutions, but to illustrate the problem. Any of us can solve the problem trivially. But we shouldn't have to, so providing a solution is distracting from the fundamental issue that the system is broken and needs fixing. When the solution is simply "fix the system for the designers, duh" then of course it makes the other side facepalm.
It looks like you are trying to say their example is bad, but what you are really saying is their example is perfect. It's a great example. The solution is so smoothbrain even us Dakkaites can grasp it. Indeed, I suspect that solution occured to everyone the moment they read the example! The problem is that the game designers didn't see the problem in the first place - if they had, such a smoothbrain fix would have occured to them in an instant, as it did the rest of us.
So the example is actually 100% perfect, and dismissing it because the solution is trivial appears to folks like you are trying to say it is a bad example. When really, you're making the point FOR the example, but also doing it from a stance of (appearing to) defend the game designers. And that cognitive dissonance is hilarious.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/11 15:56:58
2023/07/11 15:56:49
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
LMAO fething HILARIOUS suggesting that tac squads are build the exact same way as they had been the last 6 editions might be a credible solution. or do you love this method of "pick wtf you like" now?
I mean the rules writers disagree with you or they would have kept Tac Squads built the exact same way as the prior six editions.
Don't hate on EviscerationPlague for the mistakes of the game designers.
I mean the mental gymnastics of:
"The game design is fine if you just ignore the game design" is pretty impressive tbh.
I just don't get this place, "omg how can you balance 2 grav guns vs a grav gun and a grav cannon" like it's a massive example to how broken their current rules are, but when you give a perfectly logical solution of "maybe change it" I get laughed out for agreeing it's wrong?
No it just looks like you're avoiding the point being made, which is: Some unit has multiple options, some of which are clearly worse, but the current paradigm allows fo no accounting of that clear difference in 'combat value'.
LMAO fething HILARIOUS suggesting that tac squads are build the exact same way as they had been the last 6 editions might be a credible solution. or do you love this method of "pick wtf you like" now?
I mean the rules writers disagree with you or they would have kept Tac Squads built the exact same way as the prior six editions.
Don't hate on EviscerationPlague for the mistakes of the game designers.
I mean the mental gymnastics of:
"The game design is fine if you just ignore the game design" is pretty impressive tbh.
I just don't get this place, "omg how can you balance 2 grav guns vs a grav gun and a grav cannon" like it's a massive example to how broken their current rules are, but when you give a perfectly logical solution of "maybe change it" I get laughed out for agreeing it's wrong?
No you get laughed at for your cognitive dissonance.
"The system is broken, fix it."
"NO! The system is fine!"
"Here is an example of its brokenness"
"Well it's still fine you just have to fix it"
....unless I have you mistaken and you also hate the 10th edition points system, which is possible.
I've repeatedly said in this thread I voted no but the games is sufficient for my needs overall, but the current points system is broken. Further more I took EP's example and showed a quick fix for the problem. If I was happy with it why would I suggest a fix to the one example?
To that end, why is an obvious fix to the problem something to laugh at like it's some smooth brained solution, especially when it's something the unit has had for decades.
This does not cover all points, but as is a recurring theme it's a bad example with an easy solution for that example specifically.
Yet I am the one with cognitive dissonance despite supporting the same stance as the person mocking my solution, to the problem they posed?
So I think the issue is that the point of the example isn't to ask for solutions, but to illustrate the problem.
Providing a solution is distracting from the fundamental issue that the system is broken and needs fixing - so when the solution is simply "fix the system" then of course it makes the other side facepalm.
It looks like you are trying to say their example is bad, but what you are really saying is their example is perfect. It's a great example. The solution is so smoothbrain even us Dakkaites can grasp it. The problem is that the game designers didn't see the problem in the first place - if they had, such a smoothbrain fix would have occured to them in an instant.
So the example is actually 100% perfect, and dismissing it because the solution is trivial appears to folks like you are trying to say it is a bad example. When really, you're making the point FOR the example, but also doing it from a stance of (appearing to) defend the game designers. And that cognitive dissonance is hilarious.
You've had 56 pages of people bringing up the same or better examples with no real discussion beyond battering "I like it" and "I don't like it". There is no more want or need for circular examples at this stage.
2023/07/11 15:58:21
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
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?
Cost was on the datacard in 7th, so that's not a PL thing. Pts did not change during 7th, so that's not a PL thing. It really seems like you are looking for an excuse to love PL and saying "I save a non-zero amount of time adding pts together" is just a justification after the fact because you like PL. For most of 9th pts were not much better than PL, preferring it back then was perfectly fine and in 8th the format for pts costs was a huge hassle because weapons and units were separated. But we are talking from a theoretical and logical point of view here, here it is true that PL cannot balance sponsons, pts can. Saving a non-zero amount of time isn't a valid defence of any change that simplifies list building, like making Infantry Squads cost 0 would speed calculation up up but it'd obviously be awful, here you have to display that the time gained is actually meaningful or that the increased balance would be minimal, like with the 9th edition Crisis costs, it'd be pretty trivial to show that the balance that system brought was not so great that it is a must-include for all future editions the same way having pts for sponsons is a must-have.
shortymcnostrill wrote: It might also be productive to not name the current iteration PL, because this isn't even PL. PL at least took an average cost for all loadouts iirc, mitigating the issue somewhat. This is just paying the points for the most expensive loadout you could take and having the "freedom" of taking less effective loadouts.
Can't come up with a new name that's both derisive and catchy though, a little help?
The problem with PL was always not taking upgrades into account, whether the current iteration assumes people powergame and take all the best options or assumes people take no options or assumes something in the middle the system will be wrong much of the time. Assuming people will powergame is a pretty reasonable outlook for most players, PL only worked because only casuals ended up playing it despite GW pandering to PL by making it the default.
2023/07/11 15:59:43
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
LMAO fething HILARIOUS suggesting that tac squads are build the exact same way as they had been the last 6 editions might be a credible solution. or do you love this method of "pick wtf you like" now?
I mean the rules writers disagree with you or they would have kept Tac Squads built the exact same way as the prior six editions.
Don't hate on EviscerationPlague for the mistakes of the game designers.
I mean the mental gymnastics of:
"The game design is fine if you just ignore the game design" is pretty impressive tbh.
I just don't get this place, "omg how can you balance 2 grav guns vs a grav gun and a grav cannon" like it's a massive example to how broken their current rules are, but when you give a perfectly logical solution of "maybe change it" I get laughed out for agreeing it's wrong?
No it just looks like you're avoiding the point being made, which is: Some unit has multiple options, some of which are clearly worse, but the current paradigm allows fo no accounting of that clear difference in 'combat value'.
LMAO fething HILARIOUS suggesting that tac squads are build the exact same way as they had been the last 6 editions might be a credible solution. or do you love this method of "pick wtf you like" now?
I mean the rules writers disagree with you or they would have kept Tac Squads built the exact same way as the prior six editions.
Don't hate on EviscerationPlague for the mistakes of the game designers.
I mean the mental gymnastics of:
"The game design is fine if you just ignore the game design" is pretty impressive tbh.
I just don't get this place, "omg how can you balance 2 grav guns vs a grav gun and a grav cannon" like it's a massive example to how broken their current rules are, but when you give a perfectly logical solution of "maybe change it" I get laughed out for agreeing it's wrong?
No you get laughed at for your cognitive dissonance.
"The system is broken, fix it."
"NO! The system is fine!"
"Here is an example of its brokenness"
"Well it's still fine you just have to fix it"
....unless I have you mistaken and you also hate the 10th edition points system, which is possible.
I've repeatedly said in this thread I voted no but the games is sufficient for my needs overall, but the current points system is broken. Further more I took EP's example and showed a quick fix for the problem. If I was happy with it why would I suggest a fix to the one example?
You know that's not the only squad with that problem, right?
Look at CSM. Are you going to say with a straight face that a squad with a Heavy Bolter and Flamer is equal to a squad with a Heavy Bolter and Chaincannon for dealing with infantry? Queue the "welllll Flamer ignore cover so different situation so equal"
2023/07/11 16:00:02
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Dudeface wrote: You've had 56 pages of people bringing up the same or better examples with no real discussion beyond battering "I like it" and "I don't like it". There is no more want or need for circular examples at this stage.
Well, yes there is, because examples work on different people.
Someone who has a Leman Russ cares about the sponsons but doesn't care about the tac squad. Someone who has a WK cares about the shield and sword but doesn't care about the Leman Russ. Someone who has a tac squad might not care about the Russ or the WK but does care about the grav gun issue.
If it can be demonstrated that a problem affects someone personally, they are more likely to perceive and understand the problem than if you just speak of it in abstracts or about things they have no investment in or concern for.
So it's just another totem on the pole of "please understand why the system is broken and bad and stop defending gakky game design". But it is necessary.
By arguing that "the mountain of evidence is big enough, stop adding evidence", you appear to be arguing that "the game design is fine and your evidence means nothing because others (myself?) will defend it no matter how high the mountain gets" which is ... again, cognitive dissonance.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/11 16:02:03
2023/07/11 16:17:02
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Breton wrote: 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.
Update the choices how? Change the kit how? Crisis suits are a swiss army knife kit, they are designed such that you have 4 points of attachment for weapons/upgrades. One on each arm and one on each shoulder. There are enough bits for each suit to have 3 weapons and a support system, so no more bits are required, nor are new models required as the unit had a model update not that long ago and nothing with regards to options has really changed since (except for the scrapping of all the individual support systems). The only thing that has meaningfully changed to this unit since they first introduced is the points system.
I didn't say change the kit, I said buy more, and make alternate/new versions of the models for the current ruleset. It happens fairly often: New sculpt, new rules, new meta, new whatever - things change with how to best build a model. Make new ones, or play with something else until your build comes back into fashion. I didn't see this much complaining when Las/Plas went out of fashion and people were taking 4x Missile Launchers on Dev Squads. They just made new ones, or played something different.
JNAProductions wrote: Which is worth more: A squad of five Devastators with five Bolters, or a squad of five Devastators with four Heavy Bolters and one Bolter?
Current points system they are the same.
They're not. The first five with the heavy weapons are 120, the second optional five with the bolters are 80.
That's one way to look at it....
But you are simply incorrect. The 1st set of 5 bodies - regardless of what you arm them with cost 120 pts.
The 2nd set of 5 bodies only cost 80 pts.
The first set of bodies have the heavies. The second set of bodies can't have the heavies. Even the other PL is broken because - even though these things happened during points - there are balance issues because GW didn't think things through enough people aren't getting behind the 5 Bolter guys as a Dev Squad ridiculousness.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/11 16:21:03
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2023/07/11 16:37:09
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Insisting on taking a unit defined by its ability to take heavy weapons without the heavy weapons and demanding it be a problem is a really weird hill to die on.
2023/07/11 16:41:47
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
To that end, why is an obvious fix to the problem something to laugh at like it's some smooth brained solution, especially when it's something the unit has had for decades.
Because most people in this thread are no longer discussing the question in good faith, but instead angling for possibilities to dunk on each other and deliver hot takes, to the point that they no longer bother with reading the entries for longer than they need to find a cue for the next snide remark. This discussion is probably done for, it's only moving in circles and leading to bad blood.
I'd argue the example of bad faith is the poster that refuses to answer simple, direct questions, such as "Should these two configurations of wargear, with clearly different 'combat value', be priced the same?"
Hint: The answer is "no"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunarSol wrote: Insisting on taking a unit defined by its ability to take heavy weapons without the heavy weapons and demanding it be a problem is a really weird hill to die on.
1: Forest through the trees.
2: Posting again because maybe it was missed:
Actually . . . There were lists that popped up in 8th where only one Heavy was taken in the Devastator squad, because they were just there to leverage a Stratagem, but otherwise save points.
If the current "points" system wasn't r******d and Heavy Weapons actually cost points, there's a reasonable move of taking a 5 man Devastator Squad with only 2 Heavies, and putting them inside a Rhino, which allows two models to fire out of it.
Now, personally I'm not the type to not pack my Devs full with Heavies, but some people have done it from time to time in order to save some points, and providing the option to do so is good, imo.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/11 16:43:27
Breton wrote:I didn't see this much complaining when Las/Plas went out of fashion and people were taking 4x Missile Launchers on Dev Squads.
Probably because you could still take las/plas and they still functioned as las/plas even if they were overcosted or inefficient.
There's a big difference between your builds becoming no longer maximally meta efficient, where the benefits you get maybe aren't quite worth the cost anymore, versus your builds becoming objectively inferior with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
LunarSol wrote:Insisting on taking a unit defined by its ability to take heavy weapons without the heavy weapons and demanding it be a problem is a really weird hill to die on.
Yeah I don't think that's a big deal.
But the fact that the first five bodies with heavy weapons are more expensive than the next five with bolters allows you to calculate the exact per-model value GW has assigned to a heavy weapon, and yet every other squad just gets the heavy weapon at no cost. It's bizarre.
Breton wrote:I didn't see this much complaining when Las/Plas went out of fashion and people were taking 4x Missile Launchers on Dev Squads.
Probably because you could still take las/plas and they still functioned as las/plas even if they were overcosted or inefficient.
There's a big difference between your builds becoming no longer maximally meta efficient, where the benefits you get maybe aren't quite worth the cost anymore, versus your builds becoming objectively inferior with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
LunarSol wrote:Insisting on taking a unit defined by its ability to take heavy weapons without the heavy weapons and demanding it be a problem is a really weird hill to die on.
Yeah I don't think that's a big deal.
But the fact that the first five bodies with heavy weapons are more expensive than the next five with bolters allows you to calculate the exact per-model value GW has assigned to a heavy weapon, and yet every other squad just gets the heavy weapon at no cost. It's bizarre.
Right. I can tell by looking at the Leman Russ datasheet how much more a Demolisher cannon is worth than a Battlecannon, yet if I take a Tank Commander with a battlecannon I can't deduct those points, despite the actual Russ datasheets seeing enough of a difference to do so.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/11 16:57:06
2023/07/11 17:10:32
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
LunarSol wrote:Insisting on taking a unit defined by its ability to take heavy weapons without the heavy weapons and demanding it be a problem is a really weird hill to die on.
Yeah I don't think that's a big deal.
I'd argue it kinda is. It's ultimately a reduction of listmaking options.
To that end, why is an obvious fix to the problem something to laugh at like it's some smooth brained solution, especially when it's something the unit has had for decades.
Because most people in this thread are no longer discussing the question in good faith, but instead angling for possibilities to dunk on each other and deliver hot takes, to the point that they no longer bother with reading the entries for longer than they need to find a cue for the next snide remark. This discussion is probably done for, it's only moving in circles and leading to bad blood.
I'd argue the example of bad faith is the poster that refuses to answer simple, direct questions, such as "Should these two configurations of wargear, with clearly different 'combat value', be priced the same?"
Hint: The answer is "no"
For the record: I am personally of the opinion that the PL system is dumb and has obviously, unfixable flaws that a point-based system effortlessly solves, and that a points-based system with individually-priced options is evidently superior, and have stated that multiple times here. I'm not commenting on the question, but on the way people here are having a meta-discussion.
2023/07/11 17:38:23
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Back in 4th I used to take a 5-man Devastator Squad in my Blood Angels list with only a Veteran Sergeant upgrade (for the Death Company roll). It was useful to have a cheap Heavy Support choice to deploy aggressively and force back enemy deployment zones.
2023/07/11 19:16:18
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Dudeface wrote: I just don't get this place, "omg how can you balance 2 grav guns vs a grav gun and a grav cannon" like it's a massive example to how broken their current rules are, but when you give a perfectly logical solution of "maybe change it" I get laughed out for agreeing it's wrong?
It's because the question is "is PL/pseudo-PL a good system" not "how do we fix tactical marines". If the best/only solution to PL's inability to handle a particular set of upgrades is to remove those upgrades from the game while the conventional point system has no problem with those upgrades it's a concession that PL is an objectively worse system.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: They aren’t marketing towards veterans of the game who want granularity and all of that. It’s little Timmy who has walked into a GW store.
Except then PL is still a bad system because it is excessively complicated for new players. Something like the current Combat Patrol boxes, where you have a fixed force with no choices, is the ideal newbie system. And if you have to have customization the system I proposed where each player takes X units and Y characters is even better at giving Timmy a very simple way to put models on the table and play a game. PL only makes sense once you have reached pretty deep into the funnel and are playing the game at an advanced level, at which point it's just plain worse than the conventional point system for the people who get to that stage.
Why would he lie, he is no longer with the company and isn’t protecting anything?
It's not necessarily a lie. GW has employed some genuinely stupid people over the years. Remember them saying "Pokemon is just a fad" in an official financial report, at a time when Pokemon had been consistently out-earning GW for an extended period with no signs of slowing down? It wouldn't surprise me one bit for GW to insist that a simple point system is required because kids don't do numbers and ignore those same kids playing number-heavy CCGs (including number-heavy CCGs that give you the numbers right up front) because they don't pay any attention to anything outside of the GW bubble.
Andykp wrote: 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.
Once again: PL was not on the datasheet in 9th and PL was not a fixed cost with no updates in 9th. The datasheet values were no longer valid and PL was published as a pdf download formatted exactly the same way as the traditional point system. And it was updated just like the traditional point system, only at a reduced frequency.
The only thing PL gave you was a minute or so of time saved in adding up your point costs to make a list, time which is apparently so precious to you that you're happy to spend all of it and more arguing online about the merits of PL.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/11 19:34:35
LunarSol wrote:Insisting on taking a unit defined by its ability to take heavy weapons without the heavy weapons and demanding it be a problem is a really weird hill to die on.
Yeah I don't think that's a big deal.
I'd argue it kinda is. It's ultimately a reduction of listmaking options.
I guess it depends on what your expectations are. I definitely understand that it rules out some of the gameplay-effective builds that you could muster in prior editions, resulting in a net loss of player choice.
But when I play Chain of Command, it doesn't bother me that an American infantry platoon has a fixed loadout, because the force that it is depicting actually did have a generally fixed loadout, and the company's Captain couldn't just say 'hey, ditch your machine guns and then you can bring a few extra dudes to the battle'. A force is going to have some sort of TOE that dictates what capabilities it has. As far as I'm aware, Devastators taking just one heavy weapon and loading up on bolters isn't a thing in the fluff, so I don't mind the rules eliminating that. You still have the option of which heavy weapon to take, which is both a significant decision and fitting to the fluff.
I think you could make a stronger case for, say, having optional heavy weapons on Infantry Squads, since light infantry and poorly-armed conscripts both exist in the fluff and aren't served by a datasheet that assumes you're getting a special and a heavy weapon.
catbarf wrote: But when I play Chain of Command, it doesn't bother me that an American infantry platoon has a fixed loadout, because the force that it is depicting actually did have a generally fixed loadout, and the company's Captain couldn't just say 'hey, ditch your machine guns and then you can bring a few extra dudes to the battle'. A force is going to have some sort of TOE that dictates what capabilities it has. As far as I'm aware, Devastators taking just one heavy weapon and loading up on bolters isn't a thing in the fluff, so I don't mind the rules eliminating that. You still have the option of which heavy weapon to take, which is both a significant decision and fitting to the fluff.
As I said before:
The goal of a point system is to provide an open-ended force construction system by evaluating the strength of each option, assigning a numerical value to it, and allowing balanced forces for each side to be constructed by taking options up to an equal point total without strict constraints from historical force lists or similar scope reductions.
If you are operating within historical constraints of real-world forces then the 40k-style approach of an open-ended point system is not necessary or appropriate. The entire purpose of using a 40k-style point system is so that you don't need those constraints, and the fact that PL requires that you impose them makes it an objectively worse system.
Even the Points System you want is not so open-ended as to not have historical constraints on your force composition.
Tactical Squads consist of 5-10 Marines armed with Boltgun, Bolt Pistol with curtained limited wargear options regardless of the Edition.
The difference between 10th and 4th is when and how you pay for those upgrades. In 4th, everything was at the model level. In 10th it is at the unit level. In 4th, every model and wargear choice cost points. In 10th, it is all baked in at two levels, 5 or 10 models with any wargear choices you want.
This doesn’t make 4th superior, it makes 10th different. If you assume no ill intent by the designers, it means they are sculpting game play differently based on how they chose to assign points.
Now there are issues based on some wargear being too superior to other options. Wraith Cannon Wraithlords prenerf were insane because of rules. Now some would say non-WC Wraithlords are now unplayable because of points. If you get one wrong, the results are the same either way.
I said I could fit my dog in it. A car can’t fit my dog in is no use to me, therefore worse.
