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:

 vict0988 wrote:
More than 0.

I'm not sure if you misunderstood what I was responding to, completely missed the point, or are just trying to strawman my position.

I didn't disagree with your post. I think when it comes to balancing if you make sure there is an upside to every choice and there are as few auto-includes and perma-shelved units as possible you are doing good. So what if a lot of Necron lists are fielding Orikan? It's only a problem if the lists not fielding Orikan are bad or if the lists with Orikan are OP. That means aura units need some level of investment to be worthwhile to ensure they are not auto-includes, I think the PL fans and designers that can't be bothered with boring things like math and rigorous testing overemphasise the problem. Orikan isn't balanced at a points cost, he is balanced at a points range, on the edges of that points range he is less balanced and will either be rarely worth it or worth it exceedingly often, but there is still a range that is okay where at both the top and bottom he is taken because he's worth it but not always taken because players aren't compelled by a ridiculously low cost (like with 0 pt thunder hammers) to take him.

 LunarSol wrote:
I don't believe there is a points value that makes it an interesting choice, so I don't really consider it an interesting option in either scenario. Of the two, I think sgts having cool weapons is more interesting than them being a wound marker.

2 pt upgrades are never that interesting, the impact on the game is minimal, but it's also not something you have to spend 5 minutes thinking about. If you like the thing you can pay a couple of points and take it, we have demonstrated countless times that points are necessary, at the very very least on things like Leman Russ sponsons and I'd argue that it is very clearly worth it to have points on every straight upgrade to have some kind of reason not to take the gun with the biggest numbers every time, even if it is just saving a couple of pts.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

unless as a player, you value NOT taking that option and instead bring something else with the points you saved, which is now a non-option.

So true. this was a problem with Power Points in 9th too. GK in power armour were costed as if they took the heavy weapon, only the heavy weapon was bad, you never wanted to take it, because it was both in efficient and removed the melee weapon from the GK, but didn't make him cheaper. In 10th it gets so wierd, that GK purgators, somehow end up with a higher point cost then sm desolators. That is with worse weapons, worse unit rules, no characters that can efficiently buff the unit and no true out of LoS shoting. If that benefit for such downgrades is the fact that people don't have to add 18 three times in their mind, then I don't think it is a big enough benefit.

 LunarSol wrote:
Right, so that's now a feature of the unit. If it wasn't, the unit should cost 118 points instead of 120.

Previously a Devastator Sgt was just an ablative wound (or 2). Now he's a functional piece of the unit with an interesting purpose.

Why does it matter if he was just an extra wound though? That was the players choice to make. Your logic is the same Jervis "nooooo you're playing my army wrong".

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Right, so that's now a feature of the unit. If it wasn't, the unit should cost 118 points instead of 120.

Previously a Devastator Sgt was just an ablative wound (or 2). Now he's a functional piece of the unit with an interesting purpose.

Why does it matter if he was just an extra wound though? That was the players choice to make. Your logic is the same Jervis "nooooo you're playing my army wrong".

It's STILL the player's choice to make and there is just as much a right or wrong choice as before. All that's really changed is which choice is correct and of the two, I prefer seeing more Thunder Hammers.

Arguably, there's more choice now than before because spending any points on the Sgt was the wrong choice where no there's a bit of value in a few of the melee options and not just the Thunder Hammer.

Must be nice to have thunder hammer with thunder hammer rules, or twink linked weapons with actual twink linked rules.

@Karol, there will be overcosted units whether we are talking PL or pts, I don't think one Grey Knight unit being awful really matters to the discussion. Your problem can be fixed in PL, it's just a question of lowering the PL cost enough to make the unit worth taking.

 LunarSol wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Right, so that's now a feature of the unit. If it wasn't, the unit should cost 118 points instead of 120.

Previously a Devastator Sgt was just an ablative wound (or 2). Now he's a functional piece of the unit with an interesting purpose.

Why does it matter if he was just an extra wound though? That was the players choice to make. Your logic is the same Jervis "nooooo you're playing my army wrong".

It's STILL the player's choice to make and there is just as much a right or wrong choice as before. All that's really changed is which choice is correct and of the two, I prefer seeing more Thunder Hammers.

Arguably, there's more choice now than before because spending any points on the Sgt was the wrong choice where no there's a bit of value in a few of the melee options and not just the Thunder Hammer.

Spending points on the Sgt was not wrong, it provided value. Not taking anything other than weapon with the biggest numbers is now a mistake, there just isn't a discussion to be had.

 catbarf wrote:
The points cost for a unit isn't an objective measure of its value. It can't be. There are too many variables to ever guarantee that any two 2000pt armies will be evenly balanced in practice, let alone that any two 5pt upgrades are equally effective. The points cost is simply an opportunity cost for taking that unit in your army, and the designer sets these opportunity costs to shape army composition, giving the player some freedom to assemble their force while providing natural incentives towards how they want armies to be constructed. And because points are a rough, heuristic measurement, prone to edge cases and perverse incentives, points must work hand in hand with other structuring mechanisms (like forcebuilding restrictions) and rules adjustments to make the units and army work as it should and achieve balance.

For a designer, the ideal points system is one where armies that fit their vision of how the factions should work have a roughly even shot of winning, armies that egregiously violate this vision are weaker (not more powerful), and within each army the options presented all have value and reason to be worth considering. If those lofty goals have been achieved, the designer doesn't care one iota about how individual units and weapons stack up point-for-point in a vacuum- getting the numbers to represent 'objective' value isn't the goal, getting the game to function well while fitting their vision is.

All this to say that there is nothing wrong from a design perspective with 'cheating' the points a bit as long as it achieves the desired end state. Heavy weapons troops can have the costs for heavy weapons baked in or provided at a discount, Epic gives you a free commissar per 500pts (its value baked into the costs of all the other units), or older editions of 40K give Chaos Marines a free upgrade if the squad size is their patron deity's favorite number. The points cost are as arbitrary and fictional as prices at the grocery store, where buy-four-get-one-free is an incentive to get you to buy five lemons, not a failure of the grocery store to appropriately value a single lemon. The designer wants you taking heavy weapons on your Devastators, fielding Commissars with your Guardsmen, and fielding Plague Marines in squads of 7; how exactly that is accomplished is immaterial as long as the end result is that the armies look like they should, provide relevant and interesting options, and are adequately balanced.

Thanks for this post - its very interesting.

So the idea being that the designer identifies a number of list "Archetypes" that fit their vision of the fluff (or "how this army should be"), then uses points to make them mathematically superior versus some non-archetype build, and (theoretically) give every unit in the roster a "spot" in at least one archetype even if they aren't viable in another.

I can see how that works in theory - but I think you'd still need an "idea" of points at that heuristic sort of level for your first objective - that is to say having a roughly even chance of winning.

Because (for instance...) you may have a clear idea of how you think an Eldar force should be. Its fluffy, opens up the roster and dare I say is fun to play. Unfortunately, if its utterly wiping the floor with your equally clear and fluffy vision of (idk...) Death Guard or Sisters etc, you are going to have a problem. This is a 2k points vs 2k points problem - not one lemon being out of place - but the solution though remains the same. You can change points or change rules.

 LunarSol wrote:
I'm not sure it actually is. A thunder hammer never used should probably cost as much as a combat knife that is also never used.

That's a false premise. A devastator sergeant's thunder hammer isn't a weapon that is never used. You would certainly prefer to keep that unit out of melee but your opponent often has other ideas and charges the unit, at which point an improved melee weapon may do additional damage. Is it a ton of value? Of course not. Obviously this isn't a 50-point upgrade we're talking about. But it indisputably has non-zero value and that means it can and should have an appropriate point cost assigned.

(Well, at least if you aren't using the objectively worse point system where this isn't possible.)

Given that its an option that you should never pay anything for, I'm personally a fan of a world in which Sgts have Thunder Hammers over one where they have combat knives. That's more interesting to me.

And to me the world where devastator sergeants always have the chapter's best melee weapons while melee squads have only basic chainswords is much less interesting than a more lore-accurate one where devastator sergeants get lower priority for cool melee weapons. This is why the objectively superior point system is the one where each of us gets to build our armies the way we prefer and neither of us is penalized for failing to take advantage of every possible free upgrade.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:
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.

Once again you are ignoring the difference between user error and systemic error.

People not taking LRBTs with sponsons because they cost too much (which isn't true, sponsons were a highly debated subject and many people did take them) is a user error not a systemic error. The system is perfectly capable of having a correct point cost for the upgrade, the user simply made a mistake in assigning it.

People not taking LRBTs without sponsons because they cost zero points and it's an objectively incorrect choice is a systemic error. The system is, by deliberate design, not capable of assigning the correct point cost to the upgrade. No amount of user skill or effort can fix the error because the system will not allow it.

It is objective fact that both PL/pseudo-PL and the traditional point system have user errors but PL has additional systemic errors, errors like the LRBT example.

ccs wrote:

Spoiler:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
And nothing was stopping you paying points to take wargear on your sergeants under points if that is what you wanted to do.

But now the people who didn't are effectively paying to do it anyway, so they might as well take the stuff. So now everyone is nudged closer to uniformity by rhe way the rules are written.

Like how nothing in the Tau army that can take drones will choose not to take them as there is literally no reason you wouldn't take them, again making everybody slightly more uniform and removing choices which, while admittedly small, were still choices.

And yet I'm still not feeling any need to go re-arming any of my existing Dev Sgts with Thunderhammers.

Mine are getting alternate Sarge models with Powerfists and combi-weapons/plasma pistols because they're free upgrades, and I know they'll get to use them now and again.

 vict0988 wrote:
@Karol, there will be overcosted units whether we are talking PL or pts, I don't think one Grey Knight unit being awful really matters to the discussion. Your problem can be fixed in PL, it's just a question of lowering the PL cost enough to make the unit worth taking.
.

Only it can't be, because the formula used by GW assumes that you are taking the upgrades. No matter if they are bad or good.
I have 4 units of 5 terminators in my army. Those are metal models. There never existed metal ancients or apothecaries. Right now, If I wanted to run my termintors the proper way aka always with an apothecary and an ancient. I would havet to buy an extra box of dudes for each squad I have. And then in potentialy 1-2 years, when GK get a codex, I could get resized GK termintors and new to rebuy the models a new. Under past systems I could run my terminators without the two upgrades, they would be less efficient, but also would cost less. Under the system we have right now, when I look at GK point costs, I get the feeling that someone did units cost as if every model is running around with a thunder hammer as melee weapon, and then another person wrote the rules removing them from unit weapon choices. They didn't even leave it as an option for unit leaders. Heck they made all double weapons melee or shoting twin linked, but not the double falchions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

For a designer, the ideal points system is one where armies that fit their vision of how the factions should work have a roughly even shot of winning, armies that egregiously violate this vision are weaker (not more powerful), and within each army the options presented all have value and reason to be worth considering. If those lofty goals have been achieved, the designer doesn't care one iota about how individual units and weapons stack up point-for-point in a vacuum- getting the numbers to represent 'objective' value isn't the goal, getting the game to function well while fitting their vision is.

Only that is not what we get. Some factions, like lets say eldar, have people at the studio who give them OP rules everytime they write rules for them. They are superior to everything AND undercosted as a bonus. An eldar codex can go through multiple nerf waves of units, and still be one of the top armies, because of that. The same kind of a work in to creating a proper army for other factions is not being done. Unless we assume that the "vision" for some armies, like lets say DG, is for the army to be bad. Also things don't have to be perfectly balanced. They have to be enough balanced, and free 700-900 or more points is not balanced. How does one point non stop respawning units or being able to get the rolls you want and proc extra rules? That is like having an I win button. And GW instead of fixing the core problems (towering, how DevWounds work etc) try to fix it with points. Which of course doesn't work at all, aside for maybe the top of the top tournament players. But knights costing more doesn't help the DG or WS player being blown off the table turn 2. On top of that this are problems not only created by GW, but problems that already existed in past editions. Non interactive rules with no counters, ignoring core rules etc We already had this in the past. After three edition of playing I am starting to think, that it isn't an accident, but a tenent by which the DT designs its rules.

 LunarSol wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Right, so that's now a feature of the unit. If it wasn't, the unit should cost 118 points instead of 120.

Previously a Devastator Sgt was just an ablative wound (or 2). Now he's a functional piece of the unit with an interesting purpose.

Why does it matter if he was just an extra wound though? That was the players choice to make. Your logic is the same Jervis "nooooo you're playing my army wrong".

It's STILL the player's choice to make

Not anymore, because now the upgrades are free. You're automatically playing wrong if you aren't getting all four heavy weapons (despite just two + Rhino bunker being a legit strategy) and at least a Power Weapon in case of being charged.

Queue the "yeah but just playing two weapons in the Rhino was playing Marines wroooooong".

Karol wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
@Karol, there will be overcosted units whether we are talking PL or pts, I don't think one Grey Knight unit being awful really matters to the discussion. Your problem can be fixed in PL, it's just a question of lowering the PL cost enough to make the unit worth taking.

Only it can't be, because the formula used by GW assumes that you are taking the upgrades. No matter if they are bad or good.
I have 4 units of 5 terminators in my army. Those are metal models. There never existed metal ancients or apothecaries. Right now, If I wanted to run my termintors the proper way aka always with an apothecary and an ancient. I would havet to buy an extra box of dudes for each squad I have. And then in potentialy 1-2 years, when GK get a codex, I could get resized GK termintors and new to rebuy the models a new. Under past systems I could run my terminators without the two upgrades, they would be less efficient, but also would cost less. Under the system we have right now, when I look at GK point costs, I get the feeling that someone did units cost as if every model is running around with a thunder hammer as melee weapon, and then another person wrote the rules removing them from unit weapon choices. They didn't even leave it as an option for unit leaders. Heck they made all double weapons melee or shoting twin linked, but not the double falchions.

I was talking about Purgators being overcosted. Have you talked to your local community about what you could do with your Terminators/Paladins? Perhaps they would say that any of your models can be upgraded to it or maybe they will accept things if you paint the helmets a different colour or if you find something from your bitz box to glue to them to signify their role. You might feel like the designer pointed the models as if they had different rules, but it has always been the case that GW got some points so wrong that you're left scratching your head, we know GW changed the dark lance profile after finalizing pts against all reason, but I don't think it makes sense to assume that for every imbalanced unit in 10th. I don't think it's doing you any favours to compare to a unit that has now been nerfed either, I don't know if you've gone back and compared after the SM nerf or if you even did it before the nerf in the first place, maybe if you only compared prior to the nerf you might feel better about your Purgators.

And GW instead of fixing the core problems (towering, how DevWounds work etc) try to fix it with points. Which of course doesn't work at all, aside for maybe the top of the top tournament players.

Points absolutely does work, I can point to rules changes that weren't of the appropriate size and did not have the intended impact as well. If GW wants Wraithknights to do a tonne of mortal wounds then that is okay as long as the points cost is appropriate and Wraithknights do not become too much of a glass cannon.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Right, so that's now a feature of the unit. If it wasn't, the unit should cost 118 points instead of 120.

Previously a Devastator Sgt was just an ablative wound (or 2). Now he's a functional piece of the unit with an interesting purpose.

Why does it matter if he was just an extra wound though? That was the players choice to make. Your logic is the same Jervis "nooooo you're playing my army wrong".

It's STILL the player's choice to make

Not anymore, because now the upgrades are free. You're automatically playing wrong if you aren't getting all four heavy weapons (despite just two + Rhino bunker being a legit strategy) and at least a Power Weapon in case of being charged.

Queue the "yeah but just playing two weapons in the Rhino was playing Marines wroooooong".

Paying too much for unnecessary options is the same "choice" as paying for options and not taking them. The choices remain, the illusion that they are equal has largely vanished.

Karol wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
@Karol, there will be overcosted units whether we are talking PL or pts, I don't think one Grey Knight unit being awful really matters to the discussion. Your problem can be fixed in PL, it's just a question of lowering the PL cost enough to make the unit worth taking.
.

Only it can't be, because the formula used by GW assumes that you are taking the upgrades. No matter if they are bad or good.
I have 4 units of 5 terminators in my army. Those are metal models. There never existed metal ancients or apothecaries. Right now, If I wanted to run my termintors the proper way aka always with an apothecary and an ancient. I would havet to buy an extra box of dudes for each squad I have. And then in potentialy 1-2 years, when GK get a codex, I could get resized GK termintors and new to rebuy the models a new. Under past systems I could run my terminators without the two upgrades, they would be less efficient, but also would cost less. Under the system we have right now, when I look at GK point costs, I get the feeling that someone did units cost as if every model is running around with a thunder hammer as melee weapon, and then another person wrote the rules removing them from unit weapon choices. They didn't even leave it as an option for unit leaders. Heck they made all double weapons melee or shoting twin linked, but not the double falchions.

I think maybe the biggest example of this is min-sized Deathwatch veterans, compared min-sized Proteus Kill Teams.

Both consist of 5 deathwatch vets with the same statlines, the only difference is that in the proteus kill team vets can't take missile launchers, and the sarge can't take a xenophase blade. The Proteus kill team also has a worse ability in that it's rerolls of 1 to hit on half-stength units (as opposed to rerolls of 1 to hit all the time, full rerolls against Xenos).

A Deathwatch Veterans squad, is 100pts.

A deathwatch Proteus kill team is 165 pts, for less wargear and a worse ability.

Why? Because all the half squad prices in this game are calculated around half of the total costs for full squads.

A 10 man Veteran squad is 200pts, and a 10 man Proteus kill team is 330pts, as the latter is balanced around you taking 4 terminators and one of something else (because of box restrictions).

This is maybe the most obvious example of you penalized for not taking the best possible options in the squad because of the lack of granularity in the system. Especially since Vanguard vets in the squad are useless (they forgot their pistols at home and have 2 less attacks), and the Bikers are only really good for movement and charge shenanigans with the oblong base. For regular vets might as well just take the vet squad.

 vict0988 wrote:
@Karol, there will be overcosted units whether we are talking PL or pts, I don't think one Grey Knight unit being awful really matters to the discussion. Your problem can be fixed in PL, it's just a question of lowering the PL cost enough to make the unit worth taking.

 LunarSol wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Right, so that's now a feature of the unit. If it wasn't, the unit should cost 118 points instead of 120.

Previously a Devastator Sgt was just an ablative wound (or 2). Now he's a functional piece of the unit with an interesting purpose.

Why does it matter if he was just an extra wound though? That was the players choice to make. Your logic is the same Jervis "nooooo you're playing my army wrong".

It's STILL the player's choice to make and there is just as much a right or wrong choice as before. All that's really changed is which choice is correct and of the two, I prefer seeing more Thunder Hammers.

Arguably, there's more choice now than before because spending any points on the Sgt was the wrong choice where no there's a bit of value in a few of the melee options and not just the Thunder Hammer.

Spending points on the Sgt was not wrong, it provided value. Not taking anything other than weapon with the biggest numbers is now a mistake, there just isn't a discussion to be had.

The time & effort it'd take to re-arm my Dev Sgts to now be holding 0 pt hammers - that will in no way influence whether or not I pull them as the first casualty vs shooting - is what determines if its a mistake.
If that effort is greater than 0? Then giving them hammers is a mistake.

 LunarSol wrote:
Paying too much for unnecessary options is the same "choice" as paying for options and not taking them. The choices remain, the illusion that they are equal has largely vanished.

Except here's the difference:

The traditional point system can in theory set the correct point cost for each option and make every choice viable.

PL by deliberate design can not.

This makes PL an objectively worse system.

 LunarSol wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Right, so that's now a feature of the unit. If it wasn't, the unit should cost 118 points instead of 120.

Previously a Devastator Sgt was just an ablative wound (or 2). Now he's a functional piece of the unit with an interesting purpose.

Why does it matter if he was just an extra wound though? That was the players choice to make. Your logic is the same Jervis "nooooo you're playing my army wrong".

It's STILL the player's choice to make

Not anymore, because now the upgrades are free. You're automatically playing wrong if you aren't getting all four heavy weapons (despite just two + Rhino bunker being a legit strategy) and at least a Power Weapon in case of being charged.

Queue the "yeah but just playing two weapons in the Rhino was playing Marines wroooooong".

Paying too much for unnecessary options is the same "choice" as paying for options and not taking them. The choices remain, the illusion that they are equal has largely vanished.

So once again, you're just on the side of "nooooo I don't like when people play their army like that".

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Paying too much for unnecessary options is the same "choice" as paying for options and not taking them. The choices remain, the illusion that they are equal has largely vanished.

Except here's the difference:

The traditional point system can in theory set the correct point cost for each option and make every choice viable.

PL by deliberate design can not.

This makes PL an objectively worse system.

In theory but not in practice has little value for me. I'll have more faith in the possibility when I actually see it happen.

What I have seen is a reduction in granularity force developers to focus on greater diversity in roles, which leads to more interesting choices in gameplay and list building. That's a direction I've routinely seen games benefit from and personally, has made list building in 10th more interesting for me than prior editions. There are absolutely problems with its implementation, but the resulting armies are more interesting to me than the ones created under the previous set of problems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

Paying too much for unnecessary options is the same "choice" as paying for options and not taking them. The choices remain, the illusion that they are equal has largely vanished.

So once again, you're just on the side of "nooooo I don't like when people play their army like that".

I don't even know what this means.

I prefer seeing units with more wargear on them in general and therefore prefer a system that incentivizes taking it. You prefer that people are incentivized to cut extraneous options. I'm not saying you're wrong to prefer that; just stating why I prefer this incentive system.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Paying too much for unnecessary options is the same "choice" as paying for options and not taking them. The choices remain, the illusion that they are equal has largely vanished.

Except here's the difference:

The traditional point system can in theory set the correct point cost for each option and make every choice viable.

PL by deliberate design can not.

This makes PL an objectively worse system.

I think the words are you are looking for is less precise. PL is less precise than Points, which can be worse depending upon the level of precision required to meet the desired result.

A ruler is less precise than a laser measurer. The laser measurer is less precise than an electron microscope. However, I don't think we need an electron microscope to measure how precisely apart two model are in a game of 40K.

So the question is, can PL Points provide the necessary level of precision to produce a balanced game of 1000/2000/3000 Warhammer 40,000? If so, then Granular Points are not necessary.

Of course, execution is always an issue, but it PL Points or Granular Points. Unfortunately, GW has always succeeded in doing a less than great job at both. My question is, after 9 Editions of GW getting Granular Points wrong, why can't you give a little PL Points a try and see if the game doesn't fall apart if you don't try to exploit it?

 alextroy wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Paying too much for unnecessary options is the same "choice" as paying for options and not taking them. The choices remain, the illusion that they are equal has largely vanished.

Except here's the difference:

The traditional point system can in theory set the correct point cost for each option and make every choice viable.

PL by deliberate design can not.

This makes PL an objectively worse system.

I think the words are you are looking for is less precise. PL is less precise than Points, which can be worse depending upon the level of precision required to meet the desired result.

A ruler is less precise than a laser measurer. The laser measurer is less precise than an electron microscope. However, I don't think we need an electron microscope to measure how precisely apart two model are in a game of 40K.

So the question is, can PL Points provide the necessary level of precision to produce a balanced game of 1000/2000/3000 Warhammer 40,000? If so, then Granular Points are not necessary.

Of course, execution is always an issue, but it PL Points or Granular Points. Unfortunately, GW has always succeeded in doing a less than great job at both. My question is, after 9 Editions of GW getting Granular Points wrong, why can't you give a little PL Points a try and see if the game doesn't fall apart if you don't try to exploit it?

This is like the perfect set in volleyball. Allow me to spike it, please; do PL Points provide the necessary level of precision to produce a balanced game of 1000/200/3000 Warhammer 40,000?

...

...

...

vict0988 wrote:I didn't disagree with your post. I think when it comes to balancing if you make sure there is an upside to every choice and there are as few auto-includes and perma-shelved units as possible you are doing good. So what if a lot of Necron lists are fielding Orikan? It's only a problem if the lists not fielding Orikan are bad or if the lists with Orikan are OP. That means aura units need some level of investment to be worthwhile to ensure they are not auto-includes, I think the PL fans and designers that can't be bothered with boring things like math and rigorous testing overemphasise the problem. Orikan isn't balanced at a points cost, he is balanced at a points range, on the edges of that points range he is less balanced and will either be rarely worth it or worth it exceedingly often, but there is still a range that is okay where at both the top and bottom he is taken because he's worth it but not always taken because players aren't compelled by a ridiculously low cost (like with 0 pt thunder hammers) to take him.

My bad, I misunderstood your intent.

The bit you're mentioning about the character being balanced at a points range, rather than a single value, is also why I keep bristling at the people pointing out that GW never got the balance 'perfect'. There's a lot of leeway within which the number-crunchers might be able to work out the mathematically optimal solution (for a very narrowly defined problem), but there's still a choice that doesn't unduly punish players for not taking the optimal setup. Maybe a power fist is '''perfectly''' balanced at 10pts, but even at 5pts you might choose to pinch pennies or at 20pts you might really feel you need that extra power.

Whereas in the current system you either take the powerfist or you're a chump. If there were some alternative to taking a powerfist that provided comparable utility then you could have free wargear and still present an interesting choice, but there isn't.

Tyel wrote:Thanks for this post - its very interesting.

So the idea being that the designer identifies a number of list "Archetypes" that fit their vision of the fluff (or "how this army should be"), then uses points to make them mathematically superior versus some non-archetype build, and (theoretically) give every unit in the roster a "spot" in at least one archetype even if they aren't viable in another.

I can see how that works in theory - but I think you'd still need an "idea" of points at that heuristic sort of level for your first objective - that is to say having a roughly even chance of winning.

Because (for instance...) you may have a clear idea of how you think an Eldar force should be. Its fluffy, opens up the roster and dare I say is fun to play. Unfortunately, if its utterly wiping the floor with your equally clear and fluffy vision of (idk...) Death Guard or Sisters etc, you are going to have a problem. This is a 2k points vs 2k points problem - not one lemon being out of place - but the solution though remains the same. You can change points or change rules.

More or less.

Incentivizing particular builds through points alone is a ham-handed way to do it that often breaks down. If you decide that Tau should be a shooty army and so you give a discount on Fire Warriors and a price hike on Kroot, you don't get a shooty army, you get Fire Warrior spam from hell while the Kroot sit on the shelf as overpriced garbage. If you instead make Fire Warriors min-maxed into shooting while Kroot are hybrid shooting/melee and price both units appropriately, then the archetype of a pure melee Tau army does not exist; you've narrowed their design space to push a shooting archetype while still allowing some flexibility in the exact ratio of gunline to mixed-capability. You can then also ensure that the army's auras, stratagems, and other force-multipliers are geared towards shooting, so you could make a melee-heavy Tau army, but when all your buffs are shooting-oriented, why would you? Basically it's design that should be used to push the favored archetype, with points serving to massage the result as needed.

The points optimization approach tends to work better at a smaller scale, like individual unit entries. If you want the elite troops to be armed to the teeth, not fielded as naked objective-sitters, you can bump up their cost a bit while reducing the cost of their upgrades. The option to field the naked squad still exists, but there's a natural incentive to take wargear. Or if you have a heavy weapons squad that just outright shouldn't be fielded without heavy weapons, you can roll the weapon cost into the base cost and let them take their pick of heavy weapons for free.

The gist of it is that weapons aren't balanced against one another in a vacuum, nor are units. It's armies that are tweaked to reach parity against one another, and then within an army the purpose of points is to make the different options worth considering, so both points and design are leveraged to adjust relative power levels as needed. The points don't have to objectively represent anything or be consistent across factions (or even within the same faction) so long as they achieve the desired end result.

And yeah, the fact that you can't just enter your stats into the Balance-O-Tron and have it spit out the Objectively Correct Perfect Points Values is why games with free-form list construction need a gakload of playtesting and iteration and tweaking. GW doesn't do that, and then they're somehow surprised when armies vary wildly in power or some weird archetype utterly dominates the game.

 LunarSol wrote:
In theory but not in practice has little value for me. I'll have more faith in the possibility when I actually see it happen.

Then why do you have any faith in PL? If GW can't get costs right with the easier system then why would you expect them to do any better with a system that has more difficult constraints to work with, fewer tools for adjusting unit strengths, and a non-trivial list of options which simply can not be done correctly?

What I have seen is a reduction in granularity force developers to focus on greater diversity in roles, which leads to more interesting choices in gameplay and list building.

It's the exact opposite though in 10th. We've seen a reduction in diversity because options have been removed entirely, other options have been made so obviously inferior that they're de facto removed, and things that used to be options have been consolidated into generic "assorted cool melee weapons" profiles. And while we can't prove beyond any doubt that this was all because of PL (some of it is "no model no rules" idiocy) it's certainly in line with what a PL system requires to function.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
I prefer seeing units with more wargear on them in general and therefore prefer a system that incentivizes taking it. You prefer that people are incentivized to cut extraneous options. I'm not saying you're wrong to prefer that; just stating why I prefer this incentive system.

No, we prefer a system where taking it and not taking it are both valid options. PL by design can not accomplish this and that makes it an objectively worse system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
PL is less precise than Points

It is, but that is not its only problem. PL had a major precision problem because its smallest increment size was 1/50th of a typical game size, nowhere near enough resolution to accurately evaluate units. 10th edition's pseudo-PL fixes this, with a theoretical increment size of 1/2000th of a typical game size and a practical implementation of 1/400th.

What PL has a problem with is refusing to do the measurement at all. For example, adding +1 Sentinel costs 50 points and is accounted for but adding 100 points worth of sponsons to a Baneblade is not. That's not a resolution error, the system is clearly capable of representing a 100 point difference between two options. GW just refuses to take the measurement.

Or, to go with a physical measurement analogy, it's like using a ruler to cut wood for construction but with a policy that you only measure once every three cuts. The ruler clearly has enough precision for the task, you're just using it in a very bad way that creates inevitable errors as a result of your refusal.

My question is, after 9 Editions of GW getting Granular Points wrong, why can't you give a little PL Points a try and see if the game doesn't fall apart if you don't try to exploit it?

Because there is literally zero reason to believe that GW, having failed to get points right with the easier system, will somehow make it work with a significantly harder system that includes systemic errors which do not exist in the traditional system. It's like seeing someone constantly making errors cutting wood with a ruler marked in 1mm increments and suggesting that they fix their problem by eyeballing the measurement instead.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
... making everybody slightly more uniform...

This is the end goal. This is the ultimate final form that GW wants the game to take.

I said this a few years back as Warcry was starting to get bigger. It's what they wish Necromunda could be: Set lists with models that have no options, set rosters, no individuality, the missions have set terrain layouts and everything. I'm sure many people here dismissed this notion out of hand. But look what we have now:

Combat Patrol. Set lists. Set equipment. No variation. No choices.

"But It's for new players!"

Uh-huh. Sure it is. Ignore the fact that it's yet another game where the choices and options have been completely removed from the players.

And now 10th has this "points" system... hmm...

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
In theory but not in practice has little value for me. I'll have more faith in the possibility when I actually see it happen.

Then why do you have any faith in PL? If GW can't get costs right with the easier system then why would you expect them to do any better with a system that has more difficult constraints to work with, fewer tools for adjusting unit strengths, and a non-trivial list of options which simply can not be done correctly?

I don't have faith in it, but I appreciate the structure points give in general. I don't feel like hyper granularity creates very many viable options, but having broad categories gives you an exchange rate for things like a tank being worth 3 units or whatever. There's value in the broad structure, I just don't see it as a very effective dial. I also think it gets significantly worse when you start trying to equate toyz and boyz. How many power swords are worth a unit is a comparison that is just never going to come out right.

I'm not one to advocate for a game without points. Guild Ball is a game that didn't have points..... but you could take 1 captain, 1 mascot and 4 squadies. There's 3 unique currencies at play and everything is worth 1 of one of them, but they're still effectively "pointed". Games that have less uniform unit composition need a standard to compare them against. I just find myself enjoying games more when a unit is designed to fit their points, rather than given rules and "priced" later.

 catbarf wrote:

vict0988 wrote:I didn't disagree with your post. I think when it comes to balancing if you make sure there is an upside to every choice and there are as few auto-includes and perma-shelved units as possible you are doing good. So what if a lot of Necron lists are fielding Orikan? It's only a problem if the lists not fielding Orikan are bad or if the lists with Orikan are OP. That means aura units need some level of investment to be worthwhile to ensure they are not auto-includes, I think the PL fans and designers that can't be bothered with boring things like math and rigorous testing overemphasise the problem. Orikan isn't balanced at a points cost, he is balanced at a points range, on the edges of that points range he is less balanced and will either be rarely worth it or worth it exceedingly often, but there is still a range that is okay where at both the top and bottom he is taken because he's worth it but not always taken because players aren't compelled by a ridiculously low cost (like with 0 pt thunder hammers) to take him.

My bad, I misunderstood your intent.

The bit you're mentioning about the character being balanced at a points range, rather than a single value, is also why I keep bristling at the people pointing out that GW never got the balance 'perfect'. There's a lot of leeway within which the number-crunchers might be able to work out the mathematically optimal solution (for a very narrowly defined problem), but there's still a choice that doesn't unduly punish players for not taking the optimal setup. Maybe a power fist is '''perfectly''' balanced at 10pts, but even at 5pts you might choose to pinch pennies or at 20pts you might really feel you need that extra power.

Whereas in the current system you either take the powerfist or you're a chump. If there were some alternative to taking a powerfist that provided comparable utility then you could have free wargear and still present an interesting choice, but there isn't.

^ Yes, exactly this. There's no " perfect balance" in points, but there are varying levels of price incentives for wargear and that players can navigate in accordance with their army contexts and personal preferences.

The PL paradigm offers a lot of just bad vs. better choices with no downside to taking the superior options.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
... making everybody slightly more uniform...

This is the end goal. This is the ultimate final form that GW wants the game to take.

I said this a few years back as Warcry was starting to get bigger. It's what they wish Necromunda could be: Set lists with models that have no options, set rosters, no individuality, the missions have set terrain layouts and everything. I'm sure many people here dismissed this notion out of hand. But look what we have now:

Combat Patrol. Set lists. Set equipment. No variation. No choices.

"But It's for new players!"

Uh-huh. Sure it is. Ignore the fact that it's yet another game where the choices and options have been completely removed from the players.

And now 10th has this "points" system... hmm...

But what if a player enjoys rolling 4 different weapons for Havocs? Checkmate, haters!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

Paying too much for unnecessary options is the same "choice" as paying for options and not taking them. The choices remain, the illusion that they are equal has largely vanished.

So once again, you're just on the side of "nooooo I don't like when people play their army like that".

I don't even know what this means.

I prefer seeing units with more wargear on them in general and therefore prefer a system that incentivizes taking it. You prefer that people are incentivized to cut extraneous options. I'm not saying you're wrong to prefer that; just stating why I prefer this incentive system.

And that's why it's hard to take your argument seriously. There should be nothing wrong with sticking with a Bolter and Plasma Pistol for your Devastator Sgt, yet there's no reason to do so vs a Storm Bolter and Plasma Pistol.

Your argument has no basis in reality.

This whole debate mystifies me. I mean, aren't these the slapdash "get you by" rules? It's in GW's interests to make them unsatisfying and incomplete. That gives players an incentive to buy the codices when they come out. I doubt the free upgrades or fixed unit sizes are the start of a whole new paradigm. I think GW either put no effort whatsoever into writing these rules, or they intentionally wrote bad rules to compound the urgency of buying a new codex as soon as possible. You'll get your granular points costs, variable squad sizes and bespoke armies when/if your codex comes out.

I'm thinking if you're a Sisters, Admech, or Death Guard player or whatever, you're going to ask yourself: do I want to keep losing for the next 2 to 5 years? Or do I want to buy the shiny new SM or Nid books and lots of new minis so I can win occasionally? It's the same wringer they put players through with every edition, and arguably the main reason for releasing new editions. With 9th ed they refined this to a science, making each new flavor of the month so dominant that everyone had to jump on the bandwagon or give up on remotely competitive play. Definitely not the peak of GW's cynicism, though. With 7th ed it was all about formations, ie "buy the exact models we tell you to buy = win!"

Real News wrote:
This whole debate mystifies me. I mean, aren't these the slapdash "get you by" rules?

I don't think so, I think PL is GW's cup of tea and if few enough people complain they'll stick with it.

Real News wrote:
I think GW either put no effort whatsoever into writing these rules, or they intentionally wrote bad rules to compound the urgency of buying a new codex as soon as possible.

"Deliberately damage your product and hope that people pay to upgrade instead of quitting" is definitely a business plan one could use.

But no, the answer is that this is Jervis-style "casual at all costs" attitudes at work. There's an element in GW that hates competitive play on principle and has wanted PL to be the only system for years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
How many power swords are worth a unit is a comparison that is just never going to come out right.

Why not? There's nothing inherently unsolvable about the problem. It's very clear that power swords are an auto-take if you can equip every model in your army with one for a single point (total, not per sword). It's equally clear that they're a never-take if each power sword costs 100 points. Therefore there must be some cost in between that accurately represents the value of the upgrade. It may require iterative playtesting to figure out that value and GW may get it wrong but trying is certainly better than saying "power swords are mandatory and if you don't take them you're an idiot" like in PL.

I just find myself enjoying games more when a unit is designed to fit their points, rather than given rules and "priced" later.

What does that have to do with PL though? GW isn't saying "we need a 200 point tank" and then making rules to fit. It's an absurd way to do things and there's no reason that tank should be 200 points vs. 180 points or 230 points. Regardless of which system is used we know that GW, like virtually every company, starts with a fluff/art concept for a new model, adds rules that make sense for that concept, and then sets an appropriate point cost. This is true in both PL and the traditional point system.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Real News wrote:
I think GW either put no effort whatsoever into writing these rules, or they intentionally wrote bad rules to compound the urgency of buying a new codex as soon as possible.

"Deliberately damage your product and hope that people pay to upgrade instead of quitting" is definitely a business plan one could use.

But no, the answer is that this is Jervis-style "casual at all costs" attitudes at work. There's an element in GW that hates competitive play on principle and has wanted PL to be the only system for years.

Which again, if you look at certain historicals wouldn't be the problem if they actually had the necessary skill and common vision to design the corerules in a decent enough way.

They don't and weren't able under points to fix their issues, what makes people believe that they can successfully use the far more difficult system like PL and design the game at it's core decent enough?

That is what get's me.