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.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

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

Especially when the "basic" product is literally free

 alextroy wrote:

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?

I could agree with this, but I'm having trouble labeling anyone who had the audacity of glueing sponsons to their tanks as "exploiting the game". Especially since that includes whoever at gw gave us official names for the predator loadouts (eg. annihilator). Damn those waac gw cheesemongers.

Exploiting a game usually means intentionally jumping through some janky hoops to leverage an unexpected interaction to gain some sort of advantage. If taking a unit as described in fluff and rules is now "exploiting the game", then maybe the game should have been designed so that it can at least perform core functions such as list building without crashing and burning. Maybe the game is at fault instead of the player.

In the end this leaves me at the same conclusion though, sadly. The game is broken (mild shock), so it's up to the players to try and balance it. Where else can we turn? I just wouldn't call trying to take basic legal units "exploiting".

Not Online!!! wrote:

 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.

It's amusing watching people claim that they couldn't get things right in the past using pts because they're too (stupid/lazy/unskiled/whatever) insist that they get it right THIS TIME using pts.

ccs wrote:
It's amusing watching people claim that they couldn't get things right in the past using pts because they're too (stupid/lazy/unskiled/whatever) insist that they get it right THIS TIME using pts.

It's more likely than GW getting it right THIS TIME using an even harder to work with point system with less margin for error.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

ccs wrote:
It's amusing watching people claim that they couldn't get things right in the past using pts because they're too (stupid/lazy/unskiled/whatever) insist that they get it right THIS TIME using pts.

It's more likely than GW getting it right THIS TIME using an even harder to work with point system with less margin for error.

In the old system you could have discussed whether a plasma pistol should be 5 or 10 points(in 8th Edition also 3 or 7 points ) to make it worthwhile on a given unit.
In the new system you'll have to write a whole new profile or special rule for, say, a Bolt pistol to make it in any way worth the same as a Plasma Pistol.

Overall GW wasn't that wrong with their old points costs, if anything we needed more granularity instead of less. Some weapons could have had become more expensive the more you took of them (chaincannons come to mind), squad members on the other hand could have had become cheaper the more you took like in HH to prevent MSU all the time. Alas, GW just threw it all out.

 alextroy wrote:
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 it isn't necessary to try out the new system to know that it is less balanced than traditional points, regardless of whether someone is trying to exploit it.

Six naked tactical marines will never be worth the same cost as ten tactical marines with a plasma gun, plasma cannon, Combi-weapon, and power weapon, no matter how much you give it a try.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

ccs wrote:
It's amusing watching people claim that they couldn't get things right in the past using pts because they're too (stupid/lazy/unskiled/whatever) insist that they get it right THIS TIME using pts.

It's more likely than GW getting it right THIS TIME using an even harder to work with point system with less margin for error.

In the old system you could have discussed whether a plasma pistol should be 5 or 10 points(in 8th Edition also 3 or 7 points ) to make it worthwhile on a given unit.
In the new system you'll have to write a whole new profile or special rule for, say, a Bolt pistol to make it in any way worth the same as a Plasma Pistol.

Overall GW wasn't that wrong with their old points costs, if anything we needed more granularity instead of less. Some weapons could have had become more expensive the more you took of them (chaincannons come to mind), squad members on the other hand could have had become cheaper the more you took like in HH to prevent MSU all the time. Alas, GW just threw it all out.

This.

Heck you could've increased pts for things like chaincannons on havocs and left it at a lower level on CSM due to diffrent effectiveness and saturation. Actually they'd have had to do so because of stratagems.
GW should've also stopped the soft cap of atleast 5 pts and opted to actually use the numbers between the 0-5 but no.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

It's amusing watching people claim that they couldn't get things right in the past using pts because they're too (stupid/lazy/unskiled/whatever) insist that they get it right THIS TIME using pts.

Nobody did that. But when they fail already in the easier to manage system due to a sever case of skill issue, what makes people believe that the far more skill dependant system would work somehow better ? And not worse, as we have already seen with multiple exemples and emergency interventions crippling unit entries already?

Here's a related question:

Now that GW has put everyone through the "It's all PL now" experience, if they later return to granular points and costed equipment,

Will the Ineternet STFU about every points ripple, or will there still be 60 page hate threads about points being fethed up?

Because if you write enough 60 page hate threads about how points are fethed up over nine fething editions, you may have contributed to GW's decision to change things. ESPECIALLY when no consensus about the right points value is ever reached in ANY of the 60 page hate threads.

GW did granulise points in 9th, (or was it 8th). Or was it rounding to the nearest 5 points.

Whatever, when the codexes come out, they might split the dataslates, or change points for loadouts.

The indexes are stop-gap, to do for now.

PenitentJake wrote:
Here's a related question:

Now that GW has put everyone through the "It's all PL now" experience, if they later return to granular points and costed equipment,

Will the Ineternet STFU about every points ripple, or will there still be 60 page hate threads about points being fethed up?

Because if you write enough 60 page hate threads about how points are fethed up over nine fething editions, you may have contributed to GW's decision to change things. ESPECIALLY when no consensus about the right points value is ever reached in ANY of the 60 page hate threads.

are you really going there?

No sorry, are you really going to defend the designers fething up repeatedly and severly over say at the least late 4th edition, of a multi billion dollar company. And disallowing criticism on the points front when they were granular but made 0 sense? Like traitor guardsmen and cultists.

PenitentJake wrote:
Here's a related question:

Now that GW has put everyone through the "It's all PL now" experience, if they later return to granular points and costed equipment,

Will the Ineternet STFU about every points ripple, or will there still be 60 page hate threads about points being fethed up?

Because if you write enough 60 page hate threads about how points are fethed up over nine fething editions, you may have contributed to GW's decision to change things. ESPECIALLY when no consensus about the right points value is ever reached in ANY of the 60 page hate threads.

The only thing that GW can and should do to prevent such rantings are (better) unified design guidelines and refinement of iterations, instead of change for change's sake every couple years. For example having a calculator for profile and weapon values would prevent Retribution squads from being more expensive than Devastators.

Not Online!!! wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Here's a related question:

Now that GW has put everyone through the "It's all PL now" experience, if they later return to granular points and costed equipment,

Will the Ineternet STFU about every points ripple, or will there still be 60 page hate threads about points being fethed up?

Because if you write enough 60 page hate threads about how points are fethed up over nine fething editions, you may have contributed to GW's decision to change things. ESPECIALLY when no consensus about the right points value is ever reached in ANY of the 60 page hate threads.

are you really going there?

No sorry, are you really going to defend the designers fething up repeatedly and severly over say at the least late 4th edition, of a multi billion dollar company. And disallowing criticism on the points front when they were granular but made 0 sense? Like traitor guardsmen and cultists.

I mean there is a point in here. Given people seem adamant GW reads these threads and acts on the comments, if all they see is "we hate the points and GW can't get them right" they might just...not bother?

Not saying that's correct thing to do, but it certainly might have led them here.

Somebody at GW may read some of these threads (I doubt the Crudd has read all 60 of this one, for instance), but I don't believe for a second that GW acts on the comments. Look at that Jervis piece - they are so high on their own supply, seeing the scrubs at dakka reeee about the PL-ification probably gives Cruddace a sense of smug vindication.

No, I think the only people GW listens to are select influencers. Maybe not directly, but I really do believe they care what, say, Lawrence at Tabletop Tactics thinks, and may or may not take actions based off of that. But the problem I see is that those influencers are so dependent on GW now that they are no longer trustworthy. I am astounded at the gak that gets justified or hand-waved away in the battle reports I've seen so far in 10th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:
Here's a related question:

Now that GW has put everyone through the "It's all PL now" experience, if they later return to granular points and costed equipment,

Will the Ineternet STFU about every points ripple, or will there still be 60 page hate threads about points being fethed up?

Because if you write enough 60 page hate threads about how points are fethed up over nine fething editions, you may have contributed to GW's decision to change things. ESPECIALLY when no consensus about the right points value is ever reached in ANY of the 60 page hate threads.

This is just the gakky "perfect game balance is impossible so better balance doesn't matter" argument wearing a different shirt.

And no, dakka has never fixed 40k by committee. That's not how any of this works, what a silly thing to say.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Somebody at GW may read some of these threads (I doubt the Crudd has read all 60 of this one, for instance), but I don't believe for a second that GW acts on the comments. Look at that Jervis piece - they are so high on their own supply, seeing the scrubs at dakka reeee about the PL-ification probably gives Cruddace a sense of smug vindication.

No, I think the only people GW listens to are select influencers. Maybe not directly, but I really do believe they care what, say, Lawrence at Tabletop Tactics thinks, and may or may not take actions based off of that. But the problem I see is that those influencers are so dependent on GW now that they are no longer trustworthy. I am astounded at the gak that gets justified or hand-waved away in the battle reports I've seen so far in 10th.

Yeah, why aren't we more mad at the influencers? The problems were pretty clear as soon as things were released to the public, but all these guys with early access where hyping it up. The early hype got me back into the game after a long hiatus.

Maybe they didn't see points early, or maybe they where shown a different version. Still, if that were the case for me personally, I would probably be ranting about GW pulling a fast one over me as well as the community. But the lure of access and free stuff is strong.

But that is what i brought up already.

IF GW designers were interested at honest criticism to design a better product they'd have to release the Beta / alpha for the public for free.

Not just under NDA to influencers depending for their food upon the preaccess to such betas behind closed doors.

Its fundamentally the same in the gaming industry, in which the hallmark of a good reviewer is actually how many publishers have banned that person from preaccess, preciscly because preaccess leads to corruption of the data and feedback provided.
just take a look at redfall marketing coopted feedback of inflencers and basically covered up the utter horrific state of the game.

 alextroy wrote:
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?

I have. How am I supposed to know what is intended and what is 'exploiting' it?

All my Tyranids bigger than Gaunts are magnetized. Am I supposed to keep fielding armies exactly like I would in previous editions and deliberately downtune my army? New players starting in 10th are going to take all the upgrades, are they exploiting the game? Do I need to sit down and have a pre-game discussion with my opponent to gauge relative power levels before the game begins and adjust my army to compensate? If so and the onus of balancing is on me, exactly what the feth benefit is the new system providing?

It's not a complete shitshow and I've seen worse matchups in prior editions, but it's a noticeable downgrade from where 9th wound up balance-wise (even if I am much happier with the playability of 10th). Plus I'm already seeing players at the local shops abandoning WYSIWYG, and it's becoming a real headache to keep track of who has what.

Dudeface wrote:
... if all they see is "we hate the points and GW can't get them right" they might just...not bother?

Luckily that's not the argument being made by anyone. Phew!

PenitentJake wrote:
Here's a related question:

Now that GW has put everyone through the "It's all PL now" experience, if they later return to granular points and costed equipment,

Will the Ineternet STFU about every points ripple, or will there still be 60 page hate threads about points being fethed up?

Because if you write enough 60 page hate threads about how points are fethed up over nine fething editions, you may have contributed to GW's decision to change things. ESPECIALLY when no consensus about the right points value is ever reached in ANY of the 60 page hate threads.

There was lots of praise for the balance before SM2.0 and at the end of 9th. The answer to constructive criticism is to do better, not to do worse. Do you know why this thread is so long? Because PL fans can't agree that the sky is blue and insist on all sorts of nonsense that gets debunked in waves before coming back to be debunked again. I don't think designers should be reading what people write to them directly, it should be filtered into constructive stuff by a media relations team and by influencers. Let's say Lawrence sees a lot of comments on his video complaining about 10th basically forcing PL down everybody's throats, hopefully he can relay that information in an adult and professional way without screeching like an internet goblin. There just isn't any way to avoid people being goblins on the internet, it happens in every community.

a_typical_hero wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Here's a related question:

Now that GW has put everyone through the "It's all PL now" experience, if they later return to granular points and costed equipment,

Will the Ineternet STFU about every points ripple, or will there still be 60 page hate threads about points being fethed up?

Because if you write enough 60 page hate threads about how points are fethed up over nine fething editions, you may have contributed to GW's decision to change things. ESPECIALLY when no consensus about the right points value is ever reached in ANY of the 60 page hate threads.

The only thing that GW can and should do to prevent such rantings are (better) unified design guidelines and refinement of iterations, instead of change for change's sake every couple years. For example having a calculator for profile and weapon values would prevent Retribution squads from being more expensive than Devastators.

It wouldn't they have different abilities, so the pricing of the abilities could be off even if you got the base prices right. I will admit your points calculator is impressive, I expected to quickly find a flaw but the few things I checked were all pretty spot on in terms of mathhammer. It's also pretty easy to make a terrible calculator, look at the old GW ones which were exploitable, this is very often the case at the ends of the spectrum, with chaff, trash vehicles, elite units or knights, one formula to balance them all leads to disasters. I am actually having trouble with doing the efficiency math for Necrons because there are so many abilities, re-rolls, sustained hits, etc.

@CaulynDarr I lost all faith in the influencers when the Drukhari Codex was released in 9th, they said that the codexes were going to be supes balanced so the initial dartboard algorithm points that made 9th a flustercluck didn't actually matter, only for the fourth codex released to be hilariously broken. 10th has more of an excuse because there was nothing to compare to due to the magnitude of changes made to datasheets across the board.

PenitentJake wrote:
Here's a related question:

Now that GW has put everyone through the "It's all PL now" experience, if they later return to granular points and costed equipment,

Will the Ineternet STFU about every points ripple, or will there still be 60 page hate threads about points being fethed up?

Because if you write enough 60 page hate threads about how points are fethed up over nine fething editions, you may have contributed to GW's decision to change things. ESPECIALLY when no consensus about the right points value is ever reached in ANY of the 60 page hate threads.

Ah, so it's really our fault?

No...just, no. Feth off with that "blame the players" gak. I can't actually remember too many massively long threads in previous editions talking about points. Can you point to any? Sure, there would be discussions and it wasn't that uncommon for GW to be criticised over some points that were way out, but I don't think they ever got to the length of the PL/points threads. Necron players, for example, lamented the Reanimator and Obelisk costs for an entire edition, but I think the total amount of actual criticism over the points probably didn't amount to 10 pages total. I also recall a fair amount of praise for GW at the end of 8th (just before SM 2.0) and 9th when the game was pretty balanced overall. This is likely because people understand points will never be perfect and a few outliers here or there are usually fine, but (most) people also understand the problems with PL are inherent to the system so the only way to fix them is to lobby for the return of points.

One of the main reasons these threads are so long is because the PL advocates spend so much time trying to defend clearly indefensible positions (like Death Company having the "option" for chainsword and BP, or tanks without sponsons) or wilfully missing the point.

Regardless of all that, taking on and reacting to criticism is part of improving your product. Yes, the internet tends to amplify the bad and you often have to cut through a lot of hyperbole, but companies shouldn't shy away form taking criticism on board. The response to criticism shouldn't be to just throw your hands up and stop giving a damn by going with the lowest effort solution.

Another thing I've noticed - B&C, as a sister board to dakka, has been pretty negative about the PL changes. In general, I think of them as less whiny and chicken little-y than dakka (probably because it's still mostly Marine players who have less to complain about ). It's one thing when the ToXiC board complains; it's another when it's B&C.

(Note that I make the comparison to another forum because reddit and FB users often don't have the same venerability/dedication to the hobby. Most people posting about 40k on a forum have been around the block a time or two and, for better or worse, are invested in the game.)

 alextroy wrote:
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?

One does not need to eat dog gak to know it will taste bad...

Slipspace wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Here's a related question:

Now that GW has put everyone through the "It's all PL now" experience, if they later return to granular points and costed equipment,

Will the Ineternet STFU about every points ripple, or will there still be 60 page hate threads about points being fethed up?

Because if you write enough 60 page hate threads about how points are fethed up over nine fething editions, you may have contributed to GW's decision to change things. ESPECIALLY when no consensus about the right points value is ever reached in ANY of the 60 page hate threads.

Ah, so it's really our fault?

It always was. At least GW white knights are playing the blame game like Jervis intended!

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

(Note that I make the comparison to another forum because reddit and FB users often don't have the same venerability/dedication to the hobby. Most people posting about 40k on a forum have been around the block a time or two and, for better or worse, are invested in the game.)

Well, it's not just that. I've said it before, but forums are the last bastions of "free speech" as it were in this hobby. Reddit- Say something that goes against the grain? Get downvoted to hell and your comment hidden. Facebook- Little fiefdoms that are ruled with an iron fist by fanbois who just delete anything they disagree with. Twitter- Too few characters to express what you feel and suffers from the same ratioing problems Reddit does. Say something the Twittersphere doesn't like? They'll be all over you like stink on gak.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
(Note that I make the comparison to another forum because reddit and FB users often don't have the same venerability/dedication to the hobby. Most people posting about 40k on a forum have been around the block a time or two and, for better or worse, are invested in the game.)

There was a post on r/warhammer40k that got a lot of traction yesterday, asking why they would take chainswords on their Death Company. The most-upvoted comments were basically saying 'you don't, and it's a garbage system', and the comments praising the lack of points for wargear were downvoted and buried.

The 40K subreddits are a pretty relentlessly positive place, so if even they're down on the changes, it's pretty safe to assume that this is not a grognard thing.

reddit is strange because you need to be at the right sub at the right time (there is really a big difference on who is awake on up/downvotes)
and also which part of the GW subs you are, as r/warhammer is different to r/warhammercompetitive while the more specific subs for 40k or AoS are very often all about "the problem are the people not the game"

but there is an interesting comment the current state of the game that is upvoted https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/14yakkr/who_is_10th_edition_for_and_observations_on/

I don't think it is much of a old vs new player thing. A necron player will not care about power points style of 10th, because most of his stuff doesn't have or didn't have upgrade options. He can be 40 or he can be 14. On the other hand I don't think there is a GK player in existance that thinks it was good to lose different types power weapons or for razorback with heavy bolters to cost the same as one with a lascanon.

Karol wrote:
I don't think it is much of a old vs new player thing. A necron player will not care about power points style of 10th, because most of his stuff doesn't have or didn't have upgrade options. He can be 40 or he can be 14. On the other hand I don't think there is a GK player in existance that thinks it was good to lose different types power weapons or for razorback with heavy bolters to cost the same as one with a lascanon.

While I generally think Heavy Bolters could use another shot, there are plenty of targets in which sustained hits and reroll wounds is better than putting everything into a single shot that has a high chance of doing nothing against the only targets its really worth using on.

First having to rebase models because 'size change' (haven't rebased one model yet, but lessens what I can bring to the table).

Now not putting sponsons on your tanks is reducing your army's force significantly. I have all my tanks with sponsons, but my friend never liked them so build them all without. Before 10th I had to pay the points and he could take more other stuff. Now he's just screwed.

First edition since 4th I'm not hurrying to play any games.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
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?

One does not need to eat dog gak to know it will taste bad...

And if this was dog gak, you would be right. This is just the same food arranged in a different manner. Beef, potatoes, onions, and carrots can be good whether prepared separately or in a stew.

well, if someone does not manage to cook potatoes, why should we think that they will be better at cooking carrots?
because carrots are easier to cook and therefore we should wait and see?

well, if someone has the potatoes half raw because they don't take their time to cook them for 20 years
and then switch to carrots and they are also half raw for the same reason
why should someone think that another year of trying will now change that