Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2023/07/14 06:11:08
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
PenitentJake wrote: You know what would have made me happy (and still will)? If at any point in the discussion, any of the people who HATE nupoints would just say "You know what Jake? I would rather have both PL and Granular Points than be stuck with nupoints."
I think I already said that, I just don't think PL should be the default and used for things like Reinforcements or be the only thing printed on datasheets, I want points on datasheets too. The reason why I wanted to remove PL was to avoid it being the only option, yeah it's objectively bad but I don't mind if people play it and I admit it is a decent way to get competitive people to stay away from your narrative stuff or even just to get a good switch between one and the other. I'm sorry but I still don't buy people having any benefit from PL, they might think they do but there isn't any logical reason why it is true, they just feel like it suits them better. Like with your Sisters army, you could have just paid for the more expensive option and downgraded as you wished, that was effectively what you were doing in PL, no reason why not to do the same in pts, except it becomes obvious how you're throwing free pts away, but you were throwing free pts away in PL as well. It's like serving a meal on a small plate or a large plate, you might prefer how the food looks like more on the small plate because it is filled up, but the amount of food could be the exact same and the bigger plate is objectively better for making sure the food does not leave your plate and hit the table or floor, a plate is for making sure your food does not hit the table or ground so selecting a plate that is big enough for the portion of food you're serving is logical. Exactly when a plate becomes too large is debatable, but choosing a 6" plate for a main course is just wrong, now the 11" plate I prefer is excessive to most, but the 8" plate GW has been using for ages for main courses is the least we need to ensure food does not fall off the plate and the extra room in your cabinet that the bigger plates take up makes using that as an excuse not to use bigger plates just that, an excuse.
2023/07/14 06:12:51
Subject: Re:Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Real News wrote: We're discussing the rules as a product for sale
No, the "take away the rules and GW is a dead company" comment was about the existence of the rules. Even if GW doesn't make one cent of profit from them those rules need to exist and need to be good enough for people to play the game. Without the game GW dies, the few people who would collect the models purely as art pieces are nowhere near enough to sustain the company.
2023/07/14 06:16:31
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
60 page hate thread? Trying to categorise dislike of the 10th "points" system as just "hate" is about as dishonest as it gets.
You're better than that.
Be better.
So I've been thinking this over and combing through this particular thread... And you're right that this thread has been more reasonable than many. But in the post you quoted, I wasn't referring to THIS thread. I was referring to the the ones that came before 10th was announced.
But in the process of combing through this thread, I realized that the bad threads, or the bad posts within certain threads tend to stick with me, while the threads that are more reasonable, or the posts within threads which are more reasonable, don't tend to stick in my head as much, even though they do outnumber the bad ones. My confirmation bias, my bad.
For the record, the most egregious thread (and the one I was thinking of when I wrote the post you quoted), was a straight up Points vs. PL thread that happened I think somewhere around December of 2021. CadianSgtBob, Blndmage and Smudge got locked into a super battle- people ended up ripping on people with disabilities, Cadian SGT came back as three different alts to try and boost up the pro-Bob post count, and we caught him all three times... It was just a dumpster fire of a thread- it might have even been locked by the end of it.
But again, even in that case, I think there's a lot of legitimacy to your calling me out on my post because not all posters in that thread were being offensive or unreasonable... Despite the fact that the thread as a whole was enough to severely dent my participation in Dakka conversation for a good long while.
So for what it's worth (not much, I know) allow me to retract my statement.
However....
I still want to try and say a few things here.
First off, I think one of my specific difficulties with THIS thread, is that a lot of people are using terms like "better" or "superior" to describe the granular points system, and I think the terms "better" and "superior" aren't specific enough for the word "objective" to be attached to them. I was once told in a creative writing class to never use the adjective "nice" because it isn't specific enough to actually mean anything, and I feel like "better" and "superior" suffer from the same shortcoming.
And again, remember, I believe that if GW was going to give us only one army building system, that system should have been granular points.
But I can't abide people saying that granular points are objectively better. I also wouldn't agree with the proPL side saying granular points are objectively worse... But I don't think any of them are actually claiming that. I think that many of them are saying "It's a better fit for my personal needs," and that is a statement I can support.
And if the pro-granular point-people were saying "It is objectively easier to balance," or even "It is objectively more balanced," I could support that... Right until they follow the unimpeachable part of their statement with the (almost) inevitable "and therefore it is objectively better."
Because better or worse is so vague that it's ALWAYS a matter of perspective and priorities.
Somewhere around the mid 40 page mark in this thread, I told the story of my Sisters Army. I mentioned that I had chosen my units with a particular loadout in mind; after the units had been chosen, because of the PLpoint system, the unit composition and number of models I was going to bring was set, regardless of any decisions I would have to make about equipment. And explained how grateful I was for that, because my story demanded that I deviate from the loadout list I had originally envisioned for the army.
Specifically, I decided that the extra five women in my Dom unit where going to be kitted up as Chamber Militant units of the Ordo Hereticus, rather than more typical Sororitas Doms; it meant giving the superior a Condemnor Boltgun and swapping out two Meltaguns for Stormbolters. Had I been using granular points, those story based changes would have necessitated changes elsewhere in the list. The changes even had the possibility to force a situation where I couldn't take one of the units I planned to take... So I'd have to either sacrifice my narrative needs and stick with my Meltaguns and Plasma Superior (losing my Inquisition link) or I'd have to modify the other units in the army... Which were already perfect for the narrative.
And of course, a bunch of folks (though primarily ThePaintingOwl) tried to undermine my point; he wasn't rude or offensive about it at all, but his attempt at invalidation was off the mark, because this is MY story, MY perspective... And I'm not trying to force it on anyone. Like I keep saying, I advocate for the continued existence of BOTH conventional, granular points AND PL... And if GW HAD to pick one or the other, granular points would have been the healthier choice for the game despite my personal preference for PL.
Literally, someone asked me how I could prefer PL. I told the story to explain why. I does very clearly illustrate why PL works better FOR ME; I make story choices for a unit or two that affect their loadout, and I don't want that affecting the loadout or composition of the other units in the army. In a PL system, the load out of any given unit(s) has ZERO impact on the loadout of any other unit(s) in the army; in a granualar points system it does. This makes PL better for MY NEEDS.
I understand the this does not make PL better for Owl's needs, or your needs; that's why I think we need both systems to keep the greatest number of players happy. And I'm content to not invalidate any of Owl's arguments, or yours, unless those arguments try to invalidate mine first, because again, and I cannot emphasize this enough it seems, my argument is about my personal experience, and I know that.
A few pages later, the argument came up about cars... The Ferari vs. the hatchback. Someone said "The Ferari is objectively better," and Andy said "Not for me, because I need room for my dog." (BTW Andy, your dog is awesome!).
Now even Andy, who wants that hatchback, probably doesn't want to pay the Ferari price for his hatchback.. And one or two people may have pointed this out... But Andy wasn't objecting to that- he was objecting to the characterization of the Ferari as being "objectively better," because it isn't... Not to "Man with dog"; not to soccer mom of four; not to contractor who needs a hemi to drop off material at job sites.
But again, some people couldn't let that go.
You know what would have made me happy (and still will)? If at any point in the discussion, any of the people who HATE nupoints would just say "You know what Jake? I would rather have both PL and Granular Points than be stuck with nupoints."
And I know nobody will. I know that they all "HAVE TO" insist that granular points and only granular points are an acceptable option. I don't know why they have to insist that, but they do. A solution with the potential to make everyone happy can't possibly exist for these folks folks, because for some reason, being right isn't satisfying to them unless it also means that everyone else is wrong.
Most of us who prefer PL have already said that the two system solution would be acceptable to us. Heck, one or two pro-point people may have even said it. But there are some granular point diehards who will always insist that only their preferred system is valid despite the fact that a two system solution would give them back the thing they claim to want, and they won't even put effort into using words that convey more precise meaning than "better" or "superior" because they are utterly convinced that their priorities or the only priorities that could possibly matter to anyone.
Perhaps that's not fair either... But they certainly don't go out of their way to argue in a manner that would allow us to meet them halfway... And I feel like I usually do try really hard to argue in a way that would allow others to meet me halfway. And in the post you quoted, I didn't do that. I should have.
I've apologized a fair bit on this site; the only other person I can remember seeing apologize here is Daed... And I remember thinking, "He shouldn't be the one apologizing, because he's another guy I think tries really hard to assert his POV in away that invites compromise." Now look, OBVIOUSLY that's not true- there have to be other people on here who were civil enough to apologize, or who are mature enough to accept "Everybody wins" solutions... But the fact that I don't remember it happening might be in indicator that it should probably happen more often than it does.
I know I've apologized too. I used to be pretty heavily against PL-I don't think I was ever atrocious about it (though that might be bias talking) but I didn't see the point.
And then it was pointed out to me by Smudge and Blndmage that it really didn't hurt me
It indirectly hurts you because every second that was wasted on "developing" PL was a second more that could've went to getting points closer to correct the first time.
2023/07/14 06:19:10
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
kodos wrote: if the new players stop playing it because it is not good does not matter for GW as long as they purchased the models to test the game and spend several 100s
That's absolutely false. It doesn't matter immediately but GW depends on having veteran players around to introduce the next generation of new players. If the conversion rate from newbie starter purchase to long term player drops below the level required to replace the loss of existing long term players GW will start to see a drop in their ability to recruit new customers, and if it drops too far there is a critical mass effect where a game can collapse all at once.
well, AoS started without any Veteran players and it worked for them
also there are always enough white knights no matter how bad the rules really are, as 10th perfectly shows
there are even people saying that the competitive/tournament scene is the healthiest ever in 40k history and 10th is the most balanced version 40k ever had, you just need to wait for the Codizes
GW does not need to care about rules at all because it has the critical mass of people either making a living with the game or are so heavily invested that they will defend it no matter what as long as they rules are "official"
GW has a track record of messing it up and never get it right, yet people come here and say "but this time it will be different if we give them a chance"
GW made a full reset with the promise to make it better, it did not work but we are told that "soon (TM)" it will work because we can trust GW to do now what the failed to do the last 20 years
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/14 06:22:06
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2023/07/14 06:37:00
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
PenitentJake wrote: But I can't abide people saying that granular points are objectively better.
You can feel however you like about the claim but it's still true. I've posted this definition multiple times before but it's still true:
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.
This is a basic statement of purpose that is true across games, across genres, across play styles, etc. You use a point system because that is your goal. And when you evaluate how well PL accomplishes that goal we have example after example of objective evidence of PL failing in places where the traditional system doesn't have the same problem, and no real examples of PL succeeding where the traditional system can't other than a very small time savings. PL introduces additional systemic errors and requires additional design constraints to even attempt to succeed at its task. It is an objectively worse system.
And if the pro-granular point-people were saying "It is objectively easier to balance," or even "It is objectively more balanced," I could support that... Right until they follow the unimpeachable part of their statement with the (almost) inevitable "and therefore it is objectively better."
It's objectively better because the entire purpose of a point system is balance. "How balanced is the result" is the single most important question to ask, and a system which doesn't have a good answer to that question is failing at its primary reason for existing. If that isn't the goal and the standard by which you evaluate a point system then you shouldn't be using a point system at all.
Somewhere around the mid 40 page mark in this thread, I told the story of my Sisters Army.
And it's still a story that doesn't support the existence of PL. PL offers you nothing compared to the even simpler system of "take X units and Y characters". Yes, the simpler system has massive balance problems but they aren't any worse than paying full price for a load of melta guns and only taking bolters. If you're that flexible on balance and making all of your choices for story reason PL is extra work for no benefit.
A few pages later, the argument came up about cars... The Ferari vs. the hatchback. Someone said "The Ferari is objectively better," and Andy said "Not for me, because I need room for my dog." (BTW Andy, your dog is awesome!).
But it's a broken analogy because the real Ferrari has enough space for the dog. There is no task where PL succeeds but the alternatives fail. In every example either the traditional point system works just as well as PL or there's an even simpler system than PL which beats PL. And in the analogy where both the hatchback and the Ferrari are equally good at dog transportation the Ferrari is the objectively better choice.
I know that they all "HAVE TO" insist that granular points and only granular points are an acceptable option. I don't know why they have to insist that, but they do.
We insist because elegance in game design is a virtue. GW should not add additional rules bloat to satisfy an incredibly tiny minority of people who have such hyper-specific needs that PL is the best fit. The game should have one point system and it should be the traditional point system, the one that works better for the vast majority of players.
And really, if you advocate having two systems where do you draw the line? Why not have three systems: traditional points, pseudo-PL points, and 8th/9th edition PL? Why not a fourth system where some upgrades cost points (LRBT sponsons, for example) but otherwise it's PL with free upgrades? Why not have a fifth system and make "X units and Y characters" an official system? Why not a sixth system, where it's the traditional point system but everything is multiplied by 10 because one guy really likes having all numbers end in 0s? Why should your preferred system be supported but not every other conceivable point system? That last one may be a bit silly but I bet you can find at least one person who would like each of the other five.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: well, AoS started without any Veteran players and it worked for them
Only by strict technicality. AoS worked by leveraging the existing WHFB players and models as well as 40k players who could be convinced to start a second game while in a GW store. And despite that the game still nearly died before GW managed to get it established.
GW does not need to care about rules at all because it has the critical mass of people either making a living with the game or are so heavily invested that they will defend it no matter what as long as they rules are "official"
GW only has that critical mass because they do care about the rules. Not enough, but not zero. It can get far worse and if it did GW would lose the critical mass. Maybe some of them would keep their existing collections and hope that GW will turn things around so they can play again someday but they wouldn't be going out to the store and helping to get new customers engaged.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/14 06:43:27
JNAProductions wrote: [They did not take away the rules. They took away PAYING for rules (temporarily), but the rules are very much there.
We're discussing the rules as a product for sale. Right now there are no rules that you can buy.
How much money are they currently making off of selling the 10th edition core rules and Munitorum Field Manual, entirely by themselves, independently of miniatures sales?
The answer is zero, because you can't pay for the rules. GW is making no money directly from the sale of 10th edition rules. Why bother releasing them at all? To help sell the miniatures.
Looks like I could spend a fair bit if I wanted all of it....
As for how much GWs making on rules sales sans any attached minis sales? Only they might know....
But out here in the real world? I know a good # of players who've got plenty of minis already & have only invested in a big rulebook, a pack of Index cards, & the missions deck. Or some combo of, depending on app use or download & print. I even know three people who bought the Crusade book - one of wich has no plans on playing 10e.
2023/07/14 06:59:49
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
ThePaintingOwl wrote: Why not have a fifth system and make "X units and Y characters" an official system?
I'm 90% sure some people here defended Combat Patrol and the rules associated with it
Sure. I'll even defend it myself. It's a great system in its one specific niche of ~500 point games from a single box. 500 point games are so inherently unbalanced that you pretty much need a fixed list system to make them work. The difference with combat patrol is that, unlike PL, it is not even attempting to be a general-purpose point system for normal games.
It's actually a good example of what I said about "if balance in open-ended list construction isn't your goal you shouldn't be using a point system". GW had other priorities with combat patrol and so they didn't use a point system at all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/14 07:09:39
Combat patrol is great, other games just call this a starter / intro game mode. Its a great way to introduce new players to game, and then give them the full rules to advance to once theyre comfortable with the basics.
2023/07/14 09:28:32
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
PenitentJake wrote: But I can't abide people saying that granular points are objectively better. I also wouldn't agree with the proPL side saying granular points are objectively worse... But I don't think any of them are actually claiming that. I think that many of them are saying "It's a better fit for my personal needs," and that is a statement I can support.
And if the pro-granular point-people were saying "It is objectively easier to balance," or even "It is objectively more balanced," I could support that... Right until they follow the unimpeachable part of their statement with the (almost) inevitable "and therefore it is objectively better."
Because better or worse is so vague that it's ALWAYS a matter of perspective and priorities.
I think as certain people have said - the issue is that with granular points you can (theoretically) get to the point where the same unit can have multiple efficient (or seemingly efficient) answers.
So you can take a small unit with no upgrades that can be pointed to act as efficient chaff. You can take max-sized unit with all the upgrades that you are going to burn stratagems and other synergy on that's an efficient damage dealer. Maybe a unit with 2 of this special weapon seems good for some specific purpose - while taking the 2 of another can do something else. If you take the cheaper upgrades (even if this is less points efficient because they are worse) you at least get compensated by having points to spend elsewhere etc. If it all costs the same, it feels like you are explicitly making a bad choice - mainly because you are.
And then as catbarf flagged, you just have a clash over losing things which is always more annoying than not getting stuff you never had. So for example having to run a unit of Kabalites as 10 man or nothing - versus the 5-20 we've had forever(?). Someone starting from scratch might well ask "why can't I have units of 1-3 kabalites - or some giant blob of 30-50? Why can't I arm them all with plasma guns rather than splinter rifles?" But I've got used to the idea that such isn't an option and so its not in scope.
I'm not that bothered on some of this stuff. "You can only take what's in the box" doesn't produce some terrible outcry... when I've built my army largely through buying boxes. Sure, a unit probably would be better if I could take multiple copies of the same special weapon etc - but I'm not overly bothered if this just isn't allowed, like the examples above. To a degree I don't mind consolidating profiles. I think it could go too far - but I can understand writing rules so say 7 weapons on crisis suits are all theoretically attractive (whether with points or without) is basically impossible. "Sorry, the CIB is no longer an option for crisis suits" is probably going to provoke rage from someone who's carefully harvested the bitz - or 3d printed them - but it doesn't really produce much from me.
But I feel the problem is that if you are going to prune back options, you kind of need to ensure there's depth elsewhere in the list building. I don't think its "objectively bad" - but the indexes with "nupoints" feel very sterile to me - because you are left with "this is all the unit can be, take it or leave it." (And some indexes have very poor character attachment synergy which might at least have made things more interesting.) I imagine if people applied the same critical eye to PL you might have ended up with the same situation - but for the most part people didn't, so it didn't matter as much.
2023/07/14 10:10:59
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
ThePaintingOwl wrote: GW only has that critical mass because they do care about the rules. Not enough, but not zero. It can get far worse and if it did GW would lose the critical mass. Maybe some of them would keep their existing collections and hope that GW will turn things around so they can play again someday but they wouldn't be going out to the store and helping to get new customers engaged.
they once cared about the rules
everything they have now is build on goodwill of the people and the historical base
if this would be a new game without the "but it is still 40k, the game we always loved" crowed from 5-10 years ago it would fail like AoS did at the start
they don't care at all because they don't need to care as sells anyway because the community tries to keep it running and pretends it is perfectly fine
what GW learned from AoS launch is not, that they need to care or do better, but that change needs to be slowly with small steps each Edition and maybe with 11th GW will launch the game that they wanted to have already with 8th
because what else should they do, play a different game? rather pretend that everything is fine and carry on as the game will be done in 2 years anyway and maybe it gets better
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2023/07/14 10:16:36
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
vict0988 wrote: 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.
You are right, special rules might lead to a unit with a weaker profile to still end up being more expensive than one with stronger base stats. I picked the example as - purely from reading about it here on Dakka - Sisters seem to have gotten the short end of the stick in regards to special rules, too. The more conditional and esoteric (read utility, not directly damage related) a special rule is, the harder it is to gauge the power and cost right. At least for me, it is. But thanks for checking my calculator and the compliment .
EviscerationPlague wrote: It indirectly hurts you because every second that was wasted on "developing" PL was a second more that could've went to getting points closer to correct the first time.
I think there is an argument to be made similar to software piracy. It only hurts if the pirate was going to pay for it in the first place. In the same way, it would only hurt points, if GW decided to allocate the ressources to them instead of PL. Something we can't possibly know. I mean they released weird skirmisher warbands for years now in a row while there were still lots of Finecast or just plain outdated kits in all armies. So while GW could do it, it is not guaranteed that they would.
Designer's Note: Hardened Veterans can be represented by any Imperial Guard models, but we've really included them to allow players to practise their skills at making a really unique and individual unit. Because of this we won't be making models to represent many of the options allowed to a Veteran squad - it's up to you to convert the models. (Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition)
2023/07/14 11:15:17
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
PenitentJake wrote: But I can't abide people saying that granular points are objectively better.
But that's the thing: They are.
It's like the old episodes of Stargate I used to download back in the early 2000's. They were 30MB each - for a 43 minute television program - so you can imagine what the resolution and sound quality was like! There was artifacting - sometimes quite heavy - and there was always a tinny rolling ringing noise in the background that affected higher pitched ranges so could wash out gunfire or explosions.
Oh sure, I enjoyed watching them, because that's what was available to someone living in a country that considered airing Stargate on actual television something of a joke. But when I got my DVDs, or when I now see episodes in HD or even higher, it's just superior. Ultimately it's the same episode I've watched a dozen times, and the same episode I watched back in low resolution with terrible sound, but it is objectively better than those original downloaded copies.
In every respect it is better than the alternative. There is literally nothing about the ancient low-res, bad sound episodes that isn't completely improved upon by the superior higher res versions with proper sound.
The same applies to Power Level and Points. There is nothing PL does that Points doesn't do better.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/14 11:16:10
PenitentJake wrote: But I can't abide people saying that granular points are objectively better.
You can feel however you like about the claim but it's still true. I've posted this definition multiple times before but it's still true:
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.
You have said this several times. But what you fail to realize is that "Better at its ended purpose" does not mean "better." It means better at it its intended purpose.
When I play the game, my goal is to have fun telling a story with models. A system in which changing the loadout of one unit affects the composition and loadout of other units interferes with my ability to do that, so whether or not it is better at its intended purpose, it is still not the system I prefer to use. It is not better for me. It is not better for Andy. It is not better for Axel. And we don't care if it's better at it's intended purpose, because none of us ascribe as much value to the accomplishment of that purpose is you do.
Is points better at providing 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?
Well I wont speak for Andy and Axel on this one, but for me, I'll give that a big Hell yeah! That's we I believe that if we're only going to have one system, it should be granular points.
But does that make it better? No. Just better at achieving a single goal.
I care more about other goals than I do about the goal it is better at achieving.
As for your obstinance on the Ferari; in Andy's post, he said he puts his dog in the boot of a car- a hatchback in his case. If the car were not a hatchback, keeping a dog in the boot of the car would be unethical, not matter how big the boot is. The hatchback is what Andy needs, not just because it's big enough for his dog, but also because it allows him to take a quick glace at his dog in the rearview to check in on him, and also because it allows the dog to see, hear and smell Andy at all times.
I don't think Ferari makes hatchbacks. How big the trunks of their sports cars are doesn't really matter.
Points is better at being a system that provides balance. To some of us, that doesn't matter either.
So you're right, big guy... It's just that the thing you're right about is irrelevant to our points of view- as irrelevant to our points of view now as it was the first time you said it. And by the way, it will be just as irrelevant to our points of view next time you say it.
Better at intended purpose =/= better.
I have a friend who prefers pens to pencils, not because pens are better at writing, but because ink can be extracted from pens and used in painting, print making and other arts that are not it's intended use. I buy Raisin Bran at the grocery store because it's my favourite cereal that comes in a family size box. Is it my favourite cereal? Hell no. But my favourite cereal only comes in tiny boxes, and doesn't leave me with the amount of carboard I need to build the central dias in my Wych cult arena.
Better at intended purpose =/= better.
Are you getting it yet?
2023/07/14 11:36:43
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
PenitentJake wrote: But I can't abide people saying that granular points are objectively better.
But that's the thing: They are.
It's like the old episodes of Stargate I used to download back in the early 2000's. They were 30MB each - for a 43 minute television program - so you can imagine what the resolution and sound quality was like! There was artifacting - sometimes quite heavy - and there was always a tinny rolling ringing noise in the background that affected higher pitched ranges so could wash out gunfire or explosions.
Oh sure, I enjoyed watching them, because that's what was available to someone living in a country that considered airing Stargate on actual television something of a joke. But when I got my DVDs, or when I now see episodes in HD or even higher, it's just superior. Ultimately it's the same episode I've watched a dozen times, and the same episode I watched back in low resolution with terrible sound, but it is objectively better than those original downloaded copies.
But what size hammer and what size nails? A maul for driving stakes isn’t useful for driving small nails for hanging a picture frame. The same goes vice versa.
But we aren’t talking about anywhere near that level of difference, even if some of you like to think we are. That is why you keep on rolling out ridiculous, but legal, comparisons to try and win an agreement when we could be having a discussion.
2023/07/14 13:51:01
Subject: Re:Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
alextroy wrote: But what size hammer and what size nails? A maul for driving stakes isn’t useful for driving small nails for hanging a picture frame. The same goes vice versa.
But we aren’t talking about anywhere near that level of difference, even if some of you like to think we are. That is why you keep on rolling out ridiculous, but legal, comparisons to try and win an agreement when we could be having a discussion.
That's an example to deal with objective versus subjective. It's in the context of saying that because you gain no use of something, doesn't negate the objective statements of it's usability to those that do.
A discussion about points is almost always a game balance discussion. To say it's better you can just assume we are talking about better at balance. To say you don't care about balance so it's not better is a non sequitur.
It's generally frustrating in this discussion how people miss the point and context of examples. I've see pro-PL people get lost in the weeds when the example is specific. When the example is general, they complain it isn't specific enough. Oh, you used a metaphor? Well that's just ridiculous.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/07/14 13:51:55
2023/07/14 13:56:27
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
You can argue that the second has benefits in accounting for every upgrade and allowing different stuff to be balanced against alternatives by assigning varying points costs, but it certainly takes more time to add up with a pencil at the table when you're about to start a game.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/07/14 13:57:50
2023/07/14 14:04:12
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Your first list still needs to have the wargear that you selected and that is not default spelled out.
It is still faster, probably, but the amount of time saved does not equal the granularity in balance lost. Cue: One of the many examples of this thread.
Designer's Note: Hardened Veterans can be represented by any Imperial Guard models, but we've really included them to allow players to practise their skills at making a really unique and individual unit. Because of this we won't be making models to represent many of the options allowed to a Veteran squad - it's up to you to convert the models. (Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition)
2023/07/14 14:11:59
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
It's like the old episodes of Stargate I used to download back in the early 2000's. They were 30MB each - for a 43 minute television program - so you can imagine what the resolution and sound quality was like! There was artifacting - sometimes quite heavy - and there was always a tinny rolling ringing noise in the background that affected higher pitched ranges so could wash out gunfire or explosions.
Oh sure, I enjoyed watching them, because that's what was available to someone living in a country that considered airing Stargate on actual television something of a joke. But when I got my DVDs, or when I now see episodes in HD or even higher, it's just superior. Ultimately it's the same episode I've watched a dozen times, and the same episode I watched back in low resolution with terrible sound, but it is objectively better than those original downloaded copies.
In every respect it is better than the alternative. There is literally nothing about the ancient low-res, bad sound episodes that isn't completely improved upon by the superior higher res versions with proper sound.
stop coming to the Starget Forum and spread hate about Stargate, it has always been a great show and even is there were some minor issues in the past it has always improved and became the greatest show ever made
just because you don't like that show does not mean to spread hate and act like the things in the past were bad or that the early season are superior to the new ones if you re-watch them today
this is just not true and you will the that Starget is becoming even better when Universe Season 2 is released
/s
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2023/07/14 14:19:34
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
a_typical_hero wrote: Your first list still needs to have the wargear that you selected and that is not default spelled out.
It is still faster, probably, but the amount of time saved does not equal the granularity in balance lost. Cue: One of the many examples of this thread.
If there's no points for it and the models are there in front of you, you can just say everything is WYSIWYG and not bother writing down the wargear.
In 9th ed. Crusade you chose the units from your roster after rolling for the mission, so the time savings was more relevant than it would be in conventional matched play with fixed lists. You'd pull the units from your roster that fit the mission and add up on the fly at the table.
PL was a useful tool in that specific context.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/07/14 14:19:53
2023/07/14 14:35:40
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
a_typical_hero wrote: Your first list still needs to have the wargear that you selected and that is not default spelled out.
It is still faster, probably, but the amount of time saved does not equal the granularity in balance lost. Cue: One of the many examples of this thread.
If there's no points for it and the models are there in front of you, you can just say everything is WYSIWYG and not bother writing down the wargear.
In 9th ed. Crusade you chose the units from your roster after rolling for the mission, so the time savings was more relevant than it would be in conventional matched play with fixed lists. You'd pull the units from your roster that fit the mission and add up on the fly at the table.
PL was a useful tool in that specific context.
You can't just say everything is WYSIWYG, that'd allow cheating as you change wargear from game to game. "... This means that you cannot change the number of models in that unit, the wargear they are equipped with..." 9th ed core rules on the order of battle/roster.
How to play Crusade Mission pack:
1 SELECT BATTLE SIZE
2. MUSTER ARMIES
3. DETERMINE MISSION
Either I am mistaken about something about the rules (never played Crusade so pretty likely), you mistook your house rules for GW's rules or you were trying to mislead us with the benefits of PL for who knows what reason, care to explain which?
2023/07/14 14:40:15
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
When I play the game, my goal is to have fun telling a story with models. A system in which changing the loadout of one unit affects the composition and loadout of other units interferes with my ability to do that, so whether or not it is better at its intended purpose, it is still not the system I prefer to use. It is not better for me. It is not better for Andy. It is not better for Axel. And we don't care if it's better at it's intended purpose, because none of us ascribe as much value to the accomplishment of that purpose is you do.
Ok. So why are you using any kind of points system at all?
It sounds like you are closer to a historical gamer replicating the great battles of history with the historical forces involved. Those battles were never balanced. So why are you looking for a green check mark from the current system when you clearly prioritize your vision of the forces in play and you know the current system isn't particularly accurate? Wouldn't you be better off designing scenarios with mismatched forces and asymmetrical objectives to allow for a reasonably fair fight in service of your on-going narrative? Like a desperate rearguard action where the outnumbered sisters have to hold the enemy back long enough for some relic to be extracted through a gate or something?
The Imperial Navy, A Galatic Force for Good.
2023/07/14 15:09:52
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
You can argue that the second has benefits in accounting for every upgrade and allowing different stuff to be balanced against alternatives by assigning varying points costs, but it certainly takes more time to add up with a pencil at the table when you're about to start a game.
That second list is 35 points over the 500 points limit. You need to trim some wargear. I hope you have enough non-visible wargear or extra models to do that
2023/07/14 15:19:59
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
You can argue that the second has benefits in accounting for every upgrade and allowing different stuff to be balanced against alternatives by assigning varying points costs, but it certainly takes more time to add up with a pencil at the table when you're about to start a game.
That second list is 35 points over the 500 points limit. You need to trim some wargear. I hope you have enough non-visible wargear or extra models to do that
Vectored engines, star engines, and spirit stones are all unmodeled IIRC. So yeah, in the old paradigm of pointed upgrades, you could do this and still be WYSIWYG. In 10th, you'd just be screwed, say bye to the Vyper I guess.
2023/07/14 15:36:27
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Asmodai wrote: If there's no points for it and the models are there in front of you, you can just say everything is WYSIWYG and not bother writing down the wargear.
list building is faster and works better if you buy more models is the perfect take on this and is most likely the reason why GW wants that system over any other one
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2023/07/14 15:44:31
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
Asmodai wrote: If there's no points for it and the models are there in front of you, you can just say everything is WYSIWYGand not bother writing down the wargear.
Does your Captain in Gravis armour got a master-crafted power weapon, a power fist, a relic fist, a relic blade or a relic chainsword?
Designer's Note: Hardened Veterans can be represented by any Imperial Guard models, but we've really included them to allow players to practise their skills at making a really unique and individual unit. Because of this we won't be making models to represent many of the options allowed to a Veteran squad - it's up to you to convert the models. (Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition)
2023/07/14 16:27:34
Subject: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?
I'm pretty sure the entire framework of the conversation here is about using points/PL to arrive at roughly equivalent "force value" between opposing gaming armies.
So sure, if you're artsy friend wants to use lower resolution point systems because it's easier to use feed values into a point light matrix for an installation, great.
But nobody is f***ing talking about that. And when it comes to achieving balance between armies, it's perfectly arguable that point systems where you pay for upgrade options are objectively superior.
.
