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.

 catbarf wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

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.

Admittedly the loyalist Space Marines are among the most rigidly structured forces in 40K, but even then we've seen cases throughout the editions where people take less than the maximum number of heavy weapons allowed for some reason or another. Also, Devastators are at the end of the day also just regular Marines, so while their primary duty might be deploying heavy weapons, by their very nature they could go without and use their holy bolters should it be ideal for the mission.

But we can look at a different unit, Havocs, the "dark mirror" to the Devastators. It used to be that Havocs was simply a Heavy Support choice with a very flexible selection of abilities and equipment. Not only could they take Heavy Weapons, but also Special Weapons in lieu of the Heavies, and they could also be armed with chainswords instead of their boltguns, and furthermore given Veteran Abilities or Marks. In short they were a hugely flexible unit, allowing players to create all sorts of interesting tactics or show off their individual army themes, or whatever. There's no lore that I'm aware of that says the CSM Havocs are only deployed in 5 man teams with 4 heavy weapons in the way that the more rigid way that the loyalists are, but over time we got a reduction of options anyways, and a big chunk was taken out of the "your dudes" aspect of army building for CSM.

Power Level brings with it the threat of further removing options for the sake of balance, and it's absolutely unnecessary. It removes the ability to optimize units for cost (do I want this extra wargear or not) and it also encourages available options to all be of similar value for the sake of balance, which can effect the underlying lore that everything is based on anyways, leaving no space for something to actually just "be better".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:

This doesn’t make 4th superior . . .

Yes it does. You had more viable strategic paths available for individual units. You could buy cheap line troops for minimum backfield support work, or you could upgrade them with the equipment and skills for particular missions, such as giving a CSM squad Infiltrate, the Mark of Khorne, an Icon for Summoning along with Chainswords and Special weapons for a fast assault Daemon-bomb unit.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

This doesn’t make 4th superior . . .

Yes it does. You had more viable strategic paths available for individual units. You could buy cheap line troops for minimum backfield support work, or you could upgrade them with the equipment and skills for particular missions, such as giving a CSM squad Infiltrate, the Mark of Khorne, an Icon for Summoning along with Chainswords and Special weapons for a fast assault Daemon-bomb unit.

Then you are free to play 4th edition, which is not the discussion at hand

As for 10th, it may be the designers intended to stop you from purchasing cheap, bare-bones units for backfield support work. If so, the point system certainly does that.

 alextroy wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

This doesn’t make 4th superior . . .

Yes it does. You had more viable strategic paths available for individual units. You could buy cheap line troops for minimum backfield support work, or you could upgrade them with the equipment and skills for particular missions, such as giving a CSM squad Infiltrate, the Mark of Khorne, an Icon for Summoning along with Chainswords and Special weapons for a fast assault Daemon-bomb unit.

Then you are free to play 4th edition, which is not the discussion at hand

As for 10th, it may be the designers intended to stop you from purchasing cheap, bare-bones units for backfield support work. If so, the point system certainly does that.

AKA Cruddace thought we were playing wrong for taking 5 man Tactical Marines

It is an odd choice. It isn't like 5 Tactical Marines (half of 175 would be 85 or 90) would have been cheaper than 5 Scouts (70), 5 Sniper Scouts (75), or 3 Scout Bikes (75). It is a head-scratcher.

 alextroy wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

This doesn’t make 4th superior . . .

Yes it does. You had more viable strategic paths available for individual units. You could buy cheap line troops for minimum backfield support work, or you could upgrade them with the equipment and skills for particular missions, such as giving a CSM squad Infiltrate, the Mark of Khorne, an Icon for Summoning along with Chainswords and Special weapons for a fast assault Daemon-bomb unit.

Then you are free to play 4th edition, which is not the discussion at hand

As for 10th, it may be the designers intended to stop you from purchasing cheap, bare-bones units for backfield support work. If so, the point system certainly does that.

So you are pro-option reduction then, I take it?

 alextroy wrote:
It is an odd choice. It isn't like 5 Tactical Marines (half of 175 would be 85 or 90) would have been cheaper than 5 Scouts (70), 5 Sniper Scouts (75), or 3 Scout Bikes (75). It is a head-scratcher.

But it would allow people to put Tacticals into Razorbacks . . . another option now gone.

Hell, I'm still annoyed that they made Fire Warrior teams into units of 10. They had been 6 minimum up to 12 max for years then suddenly nope, they come in tens.

 alextroy wrote:
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.

You're really going to sit there and attempt to say that the restrictions on construction in the previous 9 edition's worth of points system aren't so different to 10th?

 alextroy wrote:
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.

That's blatantly false because there's no variability in cost. At best the cost of the highest point upgrades have been factored in (prime example being the Tank Commander), which is an awful way to write rules and balance options. It doesn't hold a candle to what a proper points system allows.

 alextroy wrote:
This doesn’t make 4th superior, it makes 10th different.

No, it makes it superior, because the points system can account for differences in relative power by allowing for differences in relative cost. 10th's pseudo-Power Level system is completely and utterly incapable of such distinctions, thus it is objectively inferior as a measure of relative value/worth. And that's before we even get into its inherent lack of flexibility.

Hmmm...

- The oversimplification is bland and creates imbalance or over-costed units as they try to price in the best possible options. It creates an assumption that units will likely always be equipped with the 'best' options rather than necessarily picking the right tool for the job OR it does the complete opposite and ignores what possible upgrades there can be.

- I like the simplification because it saves time and means I don't always need to do WYSIWG.

- I don't like the underhanded way of forcing 'power levels' onto the game under the mask of 'points'.

I can clearly see a good effort to try and balance weapons, making them adept at different tasks but I don't think it's quite come through (for example, Custodes spears vs Axes). In some cases, some weapons are just better at their task than other options so it ends up being a case of just having squads do one job even if they COULD do multiple. I think this is just a symptom of it being difficult to balance such a diverse game though.

Could they do better? Sure... but I do think they've done a decent job, I just want them to bring back a drop of granularity.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 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.

Not really.

While I'm firmly in the camp of granular points being better for 40K, points alone can not ensure balance, because points cannot objectively measure the overall power of a force. The actual utility of any unit or upgrade depends on the battlefield, the mission, the enemy, the composition of your force (in particular, synergistic abilities like auras), and a whole host of other factors that make the points value at best a heuristic representation of relative value. Even in a well-balanced game, an army list constructed with synergy and a cohesive battle plan in mind is not, nor should it be, equal in power to an army list constructed by random number generation.

Nowadays it's pretty well-accepted among game designers that the goal of a point system is to serve as a structuring mechanism for force-building, allowing players to optimize within the constraints of a limited resource. Other force-building constraints historically used in 40K include:
-The old FOC
-The new FOC (6 per Battleline, 3 per non-Battleline)
-Flyer limits
-Deep strike/Reserves limits
-0-1 limits
-Minimum army sizes to field certain units
-Limited unit sizes
-Only being able to choose units from your own faction
-Only being able to choose certain weapons for any given unit

The purpose of these constraints is to A) Contribute to balance by limiting the choices that the player can make, because points alone don't do enough, and B) Ensure that the forces and units you can field align with what the designer has in mind, whether that's based on history or an imagined fictional narrative. 40K has always, for the entire time it has existed as a game, imposed listbuilding restrictions either to promote balance or to force adherence to the fluff.

Nobody complains that their Devastators aren't allowed to take shuriken cannons, field squads of 30, or be armed with nothing but knives to save points- they're already subject to strict limitations on how they can be fielded, including mandatory equipment. Expecting the dedicated heavy weapons troopers to bring along heavy weapons is neither an unprecedented requirement nor contrary to the purpose of a points system.

 Insectum7 wrote:
But we can look at a different unit, Havocs, the "dark mirror" to the Devastators. It used to be that Havocs was simply a Heavy Support choice with a very flexible selection of abilities and equipment. Not only could they take Heavy Weapons, but also Special Weapons in lieu of the Heavies, and they could also be armed with chainswords instead of their boltguns, and furthermore given Veteran Abilities or Marks. In short they were a hugely flexible unit, allowing players to create all sorts of interesting tactics or show off their individual army themes, or whatever. There's no lore that I'm aware of that says the CSM Havocs are only deployed in 5 man teams with 4 heavy weapons in the way that the more rigid way that the loyalists are, but over time we got a reduction of options anyways, and a big chunk was taken out of the "your dudes" aspect of army building for CSM.

Power Level brings with it the threat of further removing options for the sake of balance, and it's absolutely unnecessary. It removes the ability to optimize units for cost (do I want this extra wargear or not) and it also encourages available options to all be of similar value for the sake of balance, which can effect the underlying lore that everything is based on anyways, leaving no space for something to actually just "be better".

Now that I 100% agree with. Havocs in particular represent a disappointing loss of options, and are a great example of how removing the constraint of relative value ultimately reduces the amount of player choice rather than increasing it. I'm reminded of the Carnifex, which used to be anything from a 100pt Elites choice up to a 300pt regenerating murder-machine, and now it's reduced to just a handful of weapon options.

I just don't think the Devastators having to take heavies was a good example. That's all.

It's an example of how the new "points" don't account for upgrades correctly (5 Devs w/bolters vs 5 Devs w/1 bolter and 4 heavy bolters = same cost, which is ludicrous). The fact that you'd never actually take 5 Devs with just bolters is immaterial.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's an example of how the new "points" don't account for upgrades correctly (5 Devs w/bolters vs 5 Devs w/1 bolter and 4 heavy bolters = same cost, which is ludicrous). The fact that you'd never actually take 5 Devs with just bolters is immaterial.

And there's plenty of justification for taking just two Heavy Weapons as well

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's an example of how the new "points" don't account for upgrades correctly (5 Devs w/bolters vs 5 Devs w/1 bolter and 4 heavy bolters = same cost, which is ludicrous). The fact that you'd never actually take 5 Devs with just bolters is immaterial.

But you might! For example, I have X points left, enough to buy a Tactical Squad, or maybe a Devastator Squad of 6, with 3 Lascannons.

(4th ed points off memory)
195 Tactical Squad (10) 150, Lascannon 15, Plasma 15, Powerfist 15

Vs.
195 Devastator Squad (6) 90, Lascannons (3) 105

Points may be off, it's been a minute.

Edit:
OR!
90 Tactical (5) 75, Lascannon 15

105 Tactical (5) 75, Lascannon 15, Plasmagun 15

Total 195 again, in a different configuration.

None of those things are 5 Devs with just bolters?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
None of those things are 5 Devs with just bolters?

But one of them is Devs without full Heavy weapon allotment.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
None of those things are 5 Devs with just bolters?

But one of them is Devs without full Heavy weapon allotment.

Right, I get'cha.

Truth be told, I've never taken a Dev Squad without its full allotment of heavy weapons. I have taken Dev Squads that weren't full size, as the ability to have variable squad sizes was sometimes required (I can afford a Dev Squad, but not all 10 men) or it was a sacrifice to get something else (10 men with 4 MLs or 8 with 4 LCs?).

Of course, that choice is gone in 10th.

 catbarf wrote:
and yet every other squad just gets the heavy weapon at no cost. It's bizarre.

Heavy Intercessors can take 1 HB per 5, and their price per 5 is the same. How do you know the HB isn't included?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
It is an odd choice. It isn't like 5 Tactical Marines (half of 175 would be 85 or 90) would have been cheaper than 5 Scouts (70), 5 Sniper Scouts (75), or 3 Scout Bikes (75). It is a head-scratcher.

It is punishment for the people who were "playing wrong" taking a 5 Man Tac Squad with Sgt and Heavy, then another 5 man Tac Squad with Sgt and Special because the "Veteran" didn't get the Sgt Stat line and upgrade path.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:

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.

OR... and please hear me out: Just stay with the points system that was already in place. I'm more than willing to sacrifice the handful of minutes somebody saves to make their army list under PL over better balance, unneeded and unwanted consolidation as well as invalidating older models.

Yeah, that ship has sailed. Their job is to give us a rules set, and we get to figure out how to make it work for us. Or take the edition off. And again, invalidating older models was pretty much constant regardless of army creation style - so blaming PL for the "value" changes to LRBT or Crisis Suits etc is a stretch at best - doubly so while people are putting straight water in their Iwata to clean the dust film off their Assault Cents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

What GW thinks and what reality is are two different things.

As was made clear when GW claimed to own copyright on roman numerals and halberds in a court of law.

I'm sure Andy and Breton will defend this and say we just don't understand GW's vision, and the Chapterhouse debacle was a blessing for us all.

Oh cheers for letting everyone know what I think, good job you’re here to explain my own thoughts to me.

And this is why it’s pointless talking to some people on here.

Hey, if EviscerationPlague wants to lie about what other people think for a cheap and failed attempt to prove their point with a lie, that's their business. I mean I've got a 3D Printer for bits, a Jump Librarian conversion on my project table, and I've staked out a pretty well/easily defined middle ground that avoids theft while promoting variety, theme, and personality, but EviscerationPlague needed to include some sort of popularity contest to bolster an obvious lie. What can you do?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


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.

That's pretty much every discussion on here. You're going to get a few thought provoking replies throughout the life of the thread - usually early on. Most of the rest will find someway to blame it on Cheating Tournament Players/Filthy Casuals/Points/PL/Marines/Eldar/Aircraft and Vehicles/Titanic/etc - whatever their personal pet peeve is.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's an example of how the new "points" don't account for upgrades correctly (5 Devs w/bolters vs 5 Devs w/1 bolter and 4 heavy bolters = same cost, which is ludicrous). The fact that you'd never actually take 5 Devs with just bolters is immaterial.

I find it hard to take seriously and argument that the designers should point out an option that nobody would every use. Devastators bring heavy weapons. It is the entire point of the unit.

A frankly, Devastators are an aberration given that the unit options don't match the kit (there is only one bolter in the box!). Would we feel better about them if their options matched up to the kit like Havocs?:

UNIT COMPOSITION
■ 1 Havoc Champion
■ 4 Havocs
The Havoc Champion is equipped with: flamer; Astartes chainsword.
2 Havocs are equipped with: Havoc autocannon; close combat weapon.
2 Havocs are equipped with: Havoc lascannon; close combat weapon.

WARGEAR OPTIONS
■ The Havoc Champion’s Astartes chainsword can be replaced with one of the following:
◦ 1 accursed weapon
◦ 1 power fist
■ The Havoc Champion’s flamer can be replaced with one of the following:
◦ 1 boltgun*
◦ 1 meltagun*
◦ 1 plasma gun*
◦ 1 plasma pistol*
◦ 1 accursed weapon
◦ 1 power fist
* This weapon’s profile can be found on the Heretic Astartes Armoury card.
■ Any number of Havocs can each have their Havoc autocannon or Havoc lascannon replaced with one of the following:
◦ 1 Havoc autocannon
◦ 1 Havoc heavy bolter
◦ 1 Havoc lascannon
◦ 1 Havoc missile launcher
◦ 1 Havoc reaper chaincannon

Frankly, I think GW needs to bring back some Wargear Cost for the outlier upgrades, those that are significantly better than the alternatives. But I can also see reasons why they didn't want to do the rules that way. I just wish they did a better job executing their vision.

 alextroy wrote:
I find it hard to take seriously and argument that the designers should point out an option that nobody would every use. Devastators bring heavy weapons. It is the entire point of the unit.

You're lost in the woods again. It's not about taking a squad with 5 Bolters. It's about what the baseline cost of the Devastators should be given that they start with Bolters and should be upgraded to heavy weapons (whatever those weapons would be). Devastators with bolters is no more an option than Assault Marines with BP/CCW. It's default equipment.

Now you're probably thinking that their default equipment should be 4 heavy weapons, probably Heavy Bolters as they're the "weakest" of the available options. I would argue against this for three reasons:

1. Any points you add to the other weapons now has to take into account the fact that they're replacing heavy weapons. So you've got a Marine (X points), who has a Heavy Bolter by default (+Y points), who now is taking a Lascannon (Z) points, but have to factor in the points of the default Heavy Bolter (X+Z-Y). Its unnecessary. Better to just have every member of the Dev Squad start with the same weapon - the default Bolter that they've always had - and upgrade from there. That way the points cost for each heavy weapon is its own cost, and not a cost modified by the cost of replacing a default Heavy Bolter.

2. You may only have enough points to upgrade a few weapons (Insectum's example of taking 3 HWs), and you might not want a random heavy bolter in the unit by default. You might just want the 3 other guns.

3. You might not own any Marines with Heavy Bolters.

But ultimately none of these specifics matter, because the crux of the actual issue is in regards to default costs and upgraded costs. 5 Devastators with 5 Bolters should not have the same points cost as 5 Devastators with 1 Bolter and 4 Heavy Bolters, regardless of whether it's something anyone would ever do. But the specifics of the Dev Squad are not the issue, they're just an example of the issue, just like Death Company BP/CCW vs PP/PW, Leman Russ Sponsons, Crisis Suits w/1 Burst Cannon vs Crisis Suits w/3 Burst Cannons, a Towering unit getting a points increase with near-gunless close combat builds, non-indirect weapons getting a price increase because the unit can take indirect fire weapons, and so on.

I'd have thought that after this many pages that'd be obvious by now?

Breton wrote:
Yeah, that ship has sailed. Their job is to give us a rules set, and we get to figure out how to make it work for us. Or take the edition off. And again, invalidating older models was pretty much constant regardless of army creation style - so blaming PL for the "value" changes to LRBT or Crisis Suits etc is a stretch at best - doubly so while people are putting straight water in their Iwata to clean the dust film off their Assault Cents.

"Other balance issues also exist" is not a defense of PL/pseudo-PL.

If anything it's just another dodge. Or denial of stark, cold, easily and repeatably provable reality.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Hell, I'm still annoyed that they made Fire Warrior teams into units of 10. They had been 6 minimum up to 12 max for years then suddenly nope, they come in tens.

Even more non-sensical when you remember that the Tau use a base 8 counting system...

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Breton wrote:
Yeah, that ship has sailed. Their job is to give us a rules set, and we get to figure out how to make it work for us. Or take the edition off. And again, invalidating older models was pretty much constant regardless of army creation style - so blaming PL for the "value" changes to LRBT or Crisis Suits etc is a stretch at best - doubly so while people are putting straight water in their Iwata to clean the dust film off their Assault Cents.

"Other balance issues also exist" is not a defense of PL/pseudo-PL.

That those issues existed before PL is an indictment of blaming PL for things that happened before PL too.

Breton wrote:
That those issues existed before PL is an indictment of blaming PL for things that happened before PL too.

The specific issues didn't happen before PL. They are a direct result of PL making all upgrades free. Other balance issues did happen but those are not relevant here.

Breton wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Breton wrote:
Yeah, that ship has sailed. Their job is to give us a rules set, and we get to figure out how to make it work for us. Or take the edition off. And again, invalidating older models was pretty much constant regardless of army creation style - so blaming PL for the "value" changes to LRBT or Crisis Suits etc is a stretch at best - doubly so while people are putting straight water in their Iwata to clean the dust film off their Assault Cents.

"Other balance issues also exist" is not a defense of PL/pseudo-PL.

That those issues existed before PL is an indictment of blaming PL for things that happened before PL too.

Pts: sometimes sponsons are overcosted or undercosted.
PL: sponsons are always undercosted.

The system sometimes making mistakes is better than the system being systemically flawed.

 alextroy wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's an example of how the new "points" don't account for upgrades correctly (5 Devs w/bolters vs 5 Devs w/1 bolter and 4 heavy bolters = same cost, which is ludicrous). The fact that you'd never actually take 5 Devs with just bolters is immaterial.

I find it hard to take seriously and argument that the designers should point out an option that nobody would every use. Devastators bring heavy weapons. It is the entire point of the unit.

There are at least three posts in the last two pages describing instances where people have not taken the full complement of heavy weapons on Devastators.

Also, again, forest through the trees.

Breton wrote:

It is punishment for the people who were "playing wrong" taking a 5 Man Tac Squad with Sgt and Heavy, then another 5 man Tac Squad with Sgt and Special because the "Veteran" didn't get the Sgt Stat line and upgrade path.

Shockingly, people didn't take those extra squads for free Sergeants back when the Sergeants cost extra points.

Why continue arguing with some of these folks who intentionally miss the point? The proof is that most don't like the new system. That's more than enough reason to change it.

They are arguing in bad faith. Once the system is changed I'm sure they will agree it was necessary. They just want GW to tell them what to do.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Shockingly, people didn't take those extra squads for free Sergeants back when the Sergeants cost extra points.

It's as if a better profile with better saturation of specific weapons should cost more points to make them scarcer.....

ah no, that'd be to complex, just call it a day with 200 pts for 10 legionaires...

 catbarf wrote:

While I'm firmly in the camp of granular points being better for 40K, points alone can not ensure balance, because points cannot objectively measure the overall power of a force.
I just don't think the Devastators having to take heavies was a good example. That's all.

True. But I don't think anyone was claiming points are the only way to ensure balance. The problem is PL is is a points system, just an objectively worse one thanks to its lack of granularity combined with GW not making the necessary adjustments to the datasheets to account for it. The core problem is that the current system has all the problems of regular points plus a major additional one that is systemic.

I'd also argue that GW has been slowly eroding the various other balance mechanisms by the steady removal of the Force Org chart, culminating in a free-for-all system that we have now. If you're going to make the points system worse you don't also make the other structural parts of army construction more permissive too or you end up with an unbalanced mess, almost by design. Though I suspect in this case it's not so much "design" as unintended consequence because I'm not sure GW really understand much about game design at this point.

 catbarf wrote:
Nowadays it's pretty well-accepted among game designers that the goal of a point system is to serve as a structuring mechanism for force-building, allowing players to optimize within the constraints of a limited resource.

Could you expand on this - because its a phrase that comes up often in these threads, but while I see the other things you go on to mention as "structuring", I don't really follow it with points.
Beyond the limited sense that the designer can say "we expect people to play games around 2k points, and it should take about 3 hours to play" or something like that.

You say points are "at best a heuristic representation of relative value" - but to my mind that's exactly what they are. They should be "relatively" balanced across the totality of 40k - through a combination of theory and then practice. That could produce scenarios where all heavy weapons, all indirect, all assault etc is too good because they've been systematically undervalued. But it should avoid a scenario where faction A's unit X is paying 150 points for 4 BS3+ lascannons - but faction B's unit Y is paying 100 points for (effectively) 4 BS3+ lascannons. So unit X is functionally obsolete and Faction B (if possessing enough of such units to make a 2k point list) is winning every tournament on the back of undercosted stuff.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Breton wrote:
That those issues existed before PL is an indictment of blaming PL for things that happened before PL too.

The specific issues didn't happen before PL. They are a direct result of PL making all upgrades free. Other balance issues did happen but those are not relevant here.

The issue is things aren't pointed correctly - things that got put on the shelf weren't pointed correctly. People didn't take Leman Russ with sponsons so sponsons weren't pointed correctly even though they were separate points. It's different when it doesn't support my narrative isn't an objective fact either.