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.

Dudeface wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Ok, so whilst you're both on here dumpstering their teams for being incompetent yes men, can you categorically prove they didn't raise concerns or objections?

Obviously I can't prove it, I've even suggested the alternative that the designers themselves are just incompetent. I was responding to the specific claim that "I know the guys at GW they're smart" and therefore the bad rules must be the right of management dictating how things will be and these brilliant writers having no choice but to comply with the demands. But we know that the bad rules exist, and we know that GW prefers to hire yes men.

Well maybe we can stop calling people incompetent yes men then, given that you also don't know anything of their working parameters, whether they spoke up or if they're happy with the end result even?

By all means criticise the product and if someone comes on record going "err yeah I made that, I wanted a sandwich so I just copied and pasted some stuff wrong", then by all means give them your thoughts. Bit unfair without knowing what their thoughts or process are though.

Are you just like Mongoose and have a personal vested interest because you personally know some of these "rules writers"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:


If you are really interested in where GW is coming from with new editions/core markets/that 90-10 rule, I can point you to a recent YouTube video made by some ex-staffers. It is an hour-odd long, but it is quite fascinating and comes from a period in the company after my conversations with designers.
.

I'd genuinely be interested in this as well Matt, thank you.

Back home I knew a few guys who got their names in the 'special thanks' sections of the 40k rulebooks and a few others who knew the designers at pp well enough to be occasional drinking buddies and met jervis once at a convention - nice guy. I do quite enjoy these insights into game design.

Jervis is the last person one should ask to get insight into game design.

Uptonius wrote:


It was also rather interesting that GWs main customers are 50+ year old women. Keep that in mind, guys. The reason the rules aren't perfect is because moms and wives don't care about buying rules. End of discussion.
.

Meh, speaking for some of the very casual folks I sometimes play with (my wife occasionally has had friends over who were persuaded to play bloodbowl with :p) - 'the rules' were definately not the thing they were obsessed over. Most important thing was the humies were painted in her football teams colours (the warriors of Tyne castle) and mine were after my nfl team (axe devil's jagged waaaghs)

Uptonius wrote:

Other fun facts:
'Eavy Metal has been using Vallejo purples the entire time. They actually say the painting studio is mostly lies lol.

I am not surprised. Knew a guy who painted professionally (for war zone, iirc) and some of the stories and goings on he hinted at were ridiculous. Using vallejo wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

Uptonius wrote:

The studio painting space is basically a walk in closet.

Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

Uptonius wrote:

It took 5 years for Contrast Paints to get developed.
.

I mean, working in pharmaceuticals, spending 5 years to get anything done sounds about normal for a corporate timeline. Guess I'm.just cynical.

Uptonius wrote:

GW almost closed it's doors in 2014 or 2016... They actually locked up and couldn't pay employees. Contrast Paints saved the company.

Peak kirby era. Remember it well. If you think gw dislikes their customers know, things were worse then.

Do you remember back then there was a guy who wrote about 20 articles (that got a lot of interest here) basically examining gw's leadership and leadership structure and release policy from a corporate pov? Some things made sense but a lot of it was poorly conceived. Damn, wish I could remember his name/articles because they were fascinating.

By the way, are you sure it was contrast that saved them? Maybe I'm misremembering (contrast paints were more recent, no? 2019?), but I do remember at that time there was one year where gw were looking like they were starting to circle the drain (after a lot of misteps on their part and it didnt look like they had anything good left to release - this was prior to the roundtree turnabout) and it was 'betrayal at calth' that saved them?

Thanks for the insight!

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Jervis is the last person one should ask to get insight into game design.

Disagree. Its always worth something to understand both what people do, the 'why' behind it and the mentality/influences informing said approach. Guy might be off his rocker, or just have a view of gaming rooted in a different era/perspective. Ive rarely found anything completely devoid of worth - there is always something useful to take away, even if its 'don't do it this way'.

Ultimately its the same principal as 'know your enemy'.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Are you just like Mongoose and have a personal vested interest because you personally know some of these "rules writers"?

My personal vested interest is in the games, not the people who made them.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Ok, so whilst you're both on here dumpstering their teams for being incompetent yes men, can you categorically prove they didn't raise concerns or objections?

Obviously I can't prove it, I've even suggested the alternative that the designers themselves are just incompetent. I was responding to the specific claim that "I know the guys at GW they're smart" and therefore the bad rules must be the right of management dictating how things will be and these brilliant writers having no choice but to comply with the demands. But we know that the bad rules exist, and we know that GW prefers to hire yes men.

Well maybe we can stop calling people incompetent yes men then, given that you also don't know anything of their working parameters, whether they spoke up or if they're happy with the end result even?

By all means criticise the product and if someone comes on record going "err yeah I made that, I wanted a sandwich so I just copied and pasted some stuff wrong", then by all means give them your thoughts. Bit unfair without knowing what their thoughts or process are though.

Are you just like Mongoose and have a personal vested interest because you personally know some of these "rules writers"?

Not at all, I'm just capable of identifying that the release and design as a whole aren't defined or contained to "dumb designers" and that what you're wanting to insult is "games workshop" not just "the game designers".

I'm also capable of understanding business driven decisions impact on release quality. There's a lot of people on here, yourself included, that act like the designers exist in some weird state and they're incompetent morons who faceroll the keyboard to generate rules. The idea that a competent employee can make something of poor quality simply doesn't compute for you for some reason. The company doesn't have to listen, to give them the time they need or extra people. If they don't, that competent staff member will not produce quality work, but it doesn't make them an inept yes person.

But I imagine you'll somehow decide to attack that stance and suggest GW writers quit from shame or something.

Game design is hard. It's one of those things that requires a pretty broad and flexible skill set: writing, communication, psychology, much much more math than you think. It's not paid what it deserves by anybody. The people who can do it well end up marketing their skills into other jobs unless they are super passionate about it. And those people are probably least willing to work a corporate gig. Not when Kickstarter is right there to fund making a game the way they want.

I don't buy that GW intentionally is weak in that aspect of their business as a conscious decision. More like they succeed despite it because of their other legitimate strengths, so their culture rationalizes their weakness as not important. That probably leads to a self fulfilling prophecy after a while. It's not obvious how to get better at it, and improvement is gonna look like failure as you iterate to the right answer. But you know if they got lucky and released a banger of rule set, suddenly the marketing speak would change to something along the lines of "GW has always been the leader in releasing the best game rules on the planet!"

GW used to be way behind in digital and web, and eventually they figured out they couldn't ignore that aspect of modern business. The right case for game design probably hasn't been made internally at GW. Could be stubbornness from management, could be they don't have the right people in the design studio that know how to best advocate for themselves. But someone went out on a limb with this points system, and it's flopped. It was a change that they knew most players didn't want. It's close to other things they've tried and failed at. And while it could of worked, the execution fell way short(time, budget, or incompetence, who knows?). I hope what's happening with 10th convinces them they need to invest more in the game part of Games Workshop.

 CaulynDarr wrote:
Game design is hard. It's one of those things that requires a pretty broad and flexible skill set: writing, communication, psychology, much much more math than you think. It's not paid what it deserves by anybody. The people who can do it well end up marketing their skills into other jobs unless they are super passionate about it. And those people are probably least willing to work a corporate gig. Not when Kickstarter is right there to fund making a game the way they want.

I don't buy that GW intentionally is weak in that aspect of their business as a conscious decision. More like they succeed despite it because of their other legitimate strengths, so their culture rationalizes their weakness as not important. That probably leads to a self fulfilling prophecy after a while. It's not obvious how to get better at it, and improvement is gonna look like failure as you iterate to the right answer. But you know if they got lucky and released a banger of rule set, suddenly the marketing speak would change to something along the lines of "GW has always been the leader in releasing the best game rules on the planet!"

GW used to be way behind in digital and web, and eventually they figured out they couldn't ignore that aspect of modern business. The right case for game design probably hasn't been made internally at GW. Could be stubbornness from management, could be they don't have the right people in the design studio that know how to best advocate for themselves. But someone went out on a limb with this points system, and it's flopped. It was a change that they knew most players didn't want. It's close to other things they've tried and failed at. And while it could of worked, the execution fell way short(time, budget, or incompetence, who knows?). I hope what's happening with 10th convinces them they need to invest more in the game part of Games Workshop.

This is a well written and very reasonable post. More of this please.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Ok, so whilst you're both on here dumpstering their teams for being incompetent yes men, can you categorically prove they didn't raise concerns or objections?

Obviously I can't prove it, I've even suggested the alternative that the designers themselves are just incompetent. I was responding to the specific claim that "I know the guys at GW they're smart" and therefore the bad rules must be the right of management dictating how things will be and these brilliant writers having no choice but to comply with the demands. But we know that the bad rules exist, and we know that GW prefers to hire yes men.

Well maybe we can stop calling people incompetent yes men then, given that you also don't know anything of their working parameters, whether they spoke up or if they're happy with the end result even?

By all means criticise the product and if someone comes on record going "err yeah I made that, I wanted a sandwich so I just copied and pasted some stuff wrong", then by all means give them your thoughts. Bit unfair without knowing what their thoughts or process are though.

Are you just like Mongoose and have a personal vested interest because you personally know some of these "rules writers"?

Not at all, I'm just capable of identifying that the release and design as a whole aren't defined or contained to "dumb designers" and that what you're wanting to insult is "games workshop" not just "the game designers".

I'm also capable of understanding business driven decisions impact on release quality. There's a lot of people on here, yourself included, that act like the designers exist in some weird state and they're incompetent morons who faceroll the keyboard to generate rules. The idea that a competent employee can make something of poor quality simply doesn't compute for you for some reason. The company doesn't have to listen, to give them the time they need or extra people. If they don't, that competent staff member will not produce quality work, but it doesn't make them an inept yes person.

But I imagine you'll somehow decide to attack that stance and suggest GW writers quit from shame or something.

Why shouldn't they quit? If you think it's really all management just being abusive and interfering with their work, shouldn't they leave?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Why shouldn't they quit? If you think it's really all management just being abusive and interfering with their work, shouldn't they leave?

I mean, rent and food are things....

MongooseMatt wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

You are disagreeing with points being objectively superior to PL. By saying they're equal but different, you are saying we are wrong.

I am sorry, my friend, I am not saying you are wrong with wanting granular points. What I would question here is your use of the word 'objectively' because if a game system is working well for one group of gamers but not for another, it cannot be objective.

I do understand where you are coming from because I have been a proponent of granular points in the past and have happily used them. But our gaming journeys are all different and we are obviously at different places - this is not a surprise as damn near every group, of any game, plays it differently. That is just one of those things in creative games, that are capable of covering such a massively broad base.

The issue I have here is it's never been shown the reason the system works for you is because of anything to do with PL. Any time anyone says the PL system works better for them I find myself at a loss to identify any advantage inherent to PL themselves. Often it's the idea of points being "close enough", to not need extra granularity, but that doesn't require PL at all. It doesn't even require any form of points system. Anyone who's been playing games for a while will have had times when they've just quickly thrown together a rough army list without worrying too much about calculating every last point because you just need to get a 1k game finished in the next 90 minutes, for example. My problem is, I don't see how PL is offering anything that points don't in a situation like that.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Ok, so whilst you're both on here dumpstering their teams for being incompetent yes men, can you categorically prove they didn't raise concerns or objections?

Obviously I can't prove it, I've even suggested the alternative that the designers themselves are just incompetent. I was responding to the specific claim that "I know the guys at GW they're smart" and therefore the bad rules must be the right of management dictating how things will be and these brilliant writers having no choice but to comply with the demands. But we know that the bad rules exist, and we know that GW prefers to hire yes men.

Well maybe we can stop calling people incompetent yes men then, given that you also don't know anything of their working parameters, whether they spoke up or if they're happy with the end result even?

By all means criticise the product and if someone comes on record going "err yeah I made that, I wanted a sandwich so I just copied and pasted some stuff wrong", then by all means give them your thoughts. Bit unfair without knowing what their thoughts or process are though.

Are you just like Mongoose and have a personal vested interest because you personally know some of these "rules writers"?

Not at all, I'm just capable of identifying that the release and design as a whole aren't defined or contained to "dumb designers" and that what you're wanting to insult is "games workshop" not just "the game designers".

I'm also capable of understanding business driven decisions impact on release quality. There's a lot of people on here, yourself included, that act like the designers exist in some weird state and they're incompetent morons who faceroll the keyboard to generate rules. The idea that a competent employee can make something of poor quality simply doesn't compute for you for some reason. The company doesn't have to listen, to give them the time they need or extra people. If they don't, that competent staff member will not produce quality work, but it doesn't make them an inept yes person.

But I imagine you'll somehow decide to attack that stance and suggest GW writers quit from shame or something.

Why shouldn't they quit? If you think it's really all management just being abusive and interfering with their work, shouldn't they leave?

When did I say abusive or interfering? If they're asked to re-write every unit and test them in a 3 month window for a small team of 5 or less, good luck hitting that quality as an example. Yes they can quit but they still need a job/income, or maybe they're just doing the job to the best they can inside the confines of the limitations given and don't want to leave.

Are you in a position where you're willing to understand someone's job may require them to do something sub-optimal? That having to comply with that might not make them incompetent?

MongooseMatt wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

You are disagreeing with points being objectively superior to PL. By saying they're equal but different, you are saying we are wrong.

I am sorry, my friend, I am not saying you are wrong with wanting granular points.

You are mistaking what I want because of my subjective preferences with what I believe I have logical proof is superior. You might be at a place in your life where you just sort of feel it is right for you to use homoeopathy instead of modern medicine, but I can still logically say that medicine is superior to homoeopathy because homoeopathy does not work logically. Diluting something more does not logically increase its potency, most homoeopathic medicines are so diluted that they contain not a molecule of what was originally being diluted, just water. Homoeopathic medicine does have proven effects against ailments, medicine, exercise and other things do logically work and have been proven to work. You want the government to spend money on homoeopathic medicines (water) and their practitioners (snake oil salesmen) and I say pfah! Pfah, Sir! Such is nonsense, we ought to use the logical solution to the problem of how to balance games between players and that Sir is points, not PL! This is not my mere opinion, this is logical fact and you ought to engage with it as such, prove my logic faulty but do not say our mere preferences differ for such is an affront to all logic and reason I say.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Are you just like Mongoose and have a personal vested interest because you personally know some of these "rules writers"?

Not at all, I'm just capable of identifying that the release and design as a whole aren't defined or contained to "dumb designers" and that what you're wanting to insult is "games workshop" not just "the game designers".

I'm also capable of understanding business driven decisions impact on release quality. There's a lot of people on here, yourself included, that act like the designers exist in some weird state and they're incompetent morons who faceroll the keyboard to generate rules. The idea that a competent employee can make something of poor quality simply doesn't compute for you for some reason. The company doesn't have to listen, to give them the time they need or extra people. If they don't, that competent staff member will not produce quality work, but it doesn't make them an inept yes person.

But I imagine you'll somehow decide to attack that stance and suggest GW writers quit from shame or something.

Starcraft 2 is excellent in a lot of ways, I can say the same thing for 40k miniatures, but I don't know how you can say that about 40k rules. What is excellent about 40k rules writing? Maybe you can come up with some statements that prove deep insight into game design instead of "durr, do the dartboard" or "rolling 2D6 isn't the same as a coinflip" or "you used BOTH Stratagems? At the SAME time?!" This almost total lack of excellence and the pervasive stink of gak about the rules released and in particular the balance makes me entitled to call the designers inept.

Slipspace wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

You are disagreeing with points being objectively superior to PL. By saying they're equal but different, you are saying we are wrong.

I am sorry, my friend, I am not saying you are wrong with wanting granular points. What I would question here is your use of the word 'objectively' because if a game system is working well for one group of gamers but not for another, it cannot be objective.

I do understand where you are coming from because I have been a proponent of granular points in the past and have happily used them. But our gaming journeys are all different and we are obviously at different places - this is not a surprise as damn near every group, of any game, plays it differently. That is just one of those things in creative games, that are capable of covering such a massively broad base.

The issue I have here is it's never been shown the reason the system works for you is because of anything to do with PL. Any time anyone says the PL system works better for them I find myself at a loss to identify any advantage inherent to PL themselves. Often it's the idea of points being "close enough", to not need extra granularity, but that doesn't require PL at all. It doesn't even require any form of points system. Anyone who's been playing games for a while will have had times when they've just quickly thrown together a rough army list without worrying too much about calculating every last point because you just need to get a 1k game finished in the next 90 minutes, for example. My problem is, I don't see how PL is offering anything that points don't in a situation like that.

It's the vernacular in question. I might find that the reduced granularity doesn't make me enjoy my games any less, so decide I'm not bothered (before people take things out of context, this is a hypothetical) and the new system therefore isn't detracting for me. It's subjectively "good enough".

Those granular alterations give the writers more levers to pull and can be used to create a more balanced game accordingly. It's not the only method but it's the one that's easiest to achieve and people are used to. It's objectively better for game balance as it stands now. However that doesn't make it objectively better to someone who is happy without it unless they see a notable improvement in quality of life/game, so it's subjectively "better" as a catch all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

Starcraft 2 is excellent in a lot of ways, I can say the same thing for 40k miniatures, but I don't know how you can say that about 40k rules. What is excellent about 40k rules writing? Maybe you can come up with some statements that prove deep insight into game design instead of "durr, do the dartboard" or "rolling 2D6 isn't the same as a coinflip" or "you used BOTH Stratagems? At the SAME time?!" This almost total lack of excellence and the pervasive stink of gak about the rules released and in particular the balance makes me entitled to call the designers inept.

You do understand they don't just take all the time they need with an unlimited budget right?

How many gambits have you seen win games so far, you keep bringing them up but I've never seen one used.

Deadnight wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Why shouldn't they quit? If you think it's really all management just being abusive and interfering with their work, shouldn't they leave?

I mean, rent and food are things....

You think the company that refuses to post salary for positions because they want you emotionally invested in the job (AKA a yesman) is going to be paying your bills in any significant way?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:


Are you in a position where you're willing to understand someone's job may require them to do something sub-optimal?

I just want to point out your defense of "but what if management wants them to suck" is absolutely hilarious. That definitely falls into the camp of the writers being incompetent, because I sincerely doubt you wrote that post seriously.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Why shouldn't they quit? If you think it's really all management just being abusive and interfering with their work, shouldn't they leave?

I mean, rent and food are things....

You think the company that refuses to post salary for positions because they want you emotionally invested in the hob (AKA a yesman) is going to be paying your bills in any significant way?

Are you implying the main income of a GW rules writer doesn't come from their job at GW? How do you think they pay the bills right now?

According to the post last year about rules writers and pay, we know at least some of the designers were on close to £30k a year. That's not going to make you a millionaire, but it's not exactly poverty level pay.

Slipspace wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

You are disagreeing with points being objectively superior to PL. By saying they're equal but different, you are saying we are wrong.

I am sorry, my friend, I am not saying you are wrong with wanting granular points. What I would question here is your use of the word 'objectively' because if a game system is working well for one group of gamers but not for another, it cannot be objective.

I do understand where you are coming from because I have been a proponent of granular points in the past and have happily used them. But our gaming journeys are all different and we are obviously at different places - this is not a surprise as damn near every group, of any game, plays it differently. That is just one of those things in creative games, that are capable of covering such a massively broad base.

The issue I have here is it's never been shown the reason the system works for you is because of anything to do with PL. Any time anyone says the PL system works better for them I find myself at a loss to identify any advantage inherent to PL themselves. Often it's the idea of points being "close enough", to not need extra granularity, but that doesn't require PL at all. It doesn't even require any form of points system. Anyone who's been playing games for a while will have had times when they've just quickly thrown together a rough army list without worrying too much about calculating every last point because you just need to get a 1k game finished in the next 90 minutes, for example. My problem is, I don't see how PL is offering anything that points don't in a situation like that.

I think the problem is trying to compare points and PL when both are points. The real distinction is whether Wargear is priced individually.

For me, the reason I don't care for the granularity of priced Wargear is because it makes list adjustments rather tedious. Lets say I have a 5 man terminator squad. They currently cost 205 points and if I want to put Terminators in a list, I have to find 205 points for them, but once I do, I can test out all the different loadouts I want without having to make changes elsewhere. Previously, if I wanted Terminators in my list, it depended on a lot of things. You could easily have a 40 point variance in cost, which means depending on what I'm looking to run, I either have to find 185 or 225 points in my list, which means any changes I make to the squad, requires changes to something else, and my resulting test games have to ask the question of whether the change was worth the other changes.

Now, none of this would work without some tradeoffs in the weapons themselves, which is why PL really isn't the same thing. If Chainfists are just Powerfists with the Anti-Vehicle keyword, they're just better, but when you reduce their WS it becomes a significant choice again. Making things cost the same but servce different roles is a far more interesting direction, IMO and I also think its more interesting having a game where you take all the heavy weapons and optional bits over one in which they are largely absent. There was never a question of which heavy weapon to take in a Terminator squad. You just didn't take the heavy weapon. For its advantages, pointed wargear mostly just served to reinforce a game in which wargear wasn't worth its points.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Why shouldn't they quit? If you think it's really all management just being abusive and interfering with their work, shouldn't they leave?

I mean, rent and food are things....

You think the company that refuses to post salary for positions because they want you emotionally invested in the job (AKA a yesman) is going to be paying your bills in any significant way?
[

What, and internet snark will?

Working at gw, like any company of that size, will pay the bills. And its better than being unemployed in post-brexit UK mate. You really dont want to be in that position. Especislly of you have kids. Job security is a thing.

And fyi, not posting salaries over here is far from uncommon. Usually that gets negotiated after.

 LunarSol wrote:


Now, none of this would work without some tradeoffs in the weapons themselves, which is why PL really isn't the same thing. If Chainfists are just Powerfists with the Anti-Vehicle keyword, they're just better, but when you reduce their WS it becomes a significant choice again. Making things cost the same but servce different roles is a far more interesting direction, IMO and I also think its more interesting having a game where you take all the heavy weapons and optional bits over one in which they are largely absent. There was never a question of which heavy weapon to take in a Terminator squad. You just didn't take the heavy weapon. For its advantages, pointed wargear mostly just served to reinforce a game in which wargear wasn't worth its points.

This Terminator example highlights the problem perfectly for me. Heavy weapons were fairly common in Terminator squads in 9th (though Terminators themselves weren't hugely common for the most part). The question of which one was something you had to answer based on army need and available points. Now the answer is the Cyclone. Always. It's the same cost as the other two and better. The other options have been removed, which is the exact opposite of the advantage you're claiming about being able to swap in whatever loadout you want. Sure, you can, but you're just short-changing yourself if you do.

With granular points it's at least possible to make the 3 heavy weapon options (or no heavy weapon at all) all viable options. I really just don't see how some miniscule time saving in a PL system is worth losing that possibility. That's to say nothing of the problem that PL has when it comes to adjusting a list that's just short or - worse - just over the points limit. It's actually a worse system in that situation because it can't be easily adjusted in relatively small increments.

Slipspace wrote:
Now the answer is the Cyclone. Always.

Is it? The Cyclone has range over the Assault Cannon and is better against vehicles and heavy characters. However, the Assault Cannon is going to be better against horde infantry and more consistent than the frag option of the Cyclone.

The Heavy Flamer will be the 'challenging' one, but will be a decent choice in tight terrain such as a city fight, a teleport drop into tight terrain or (especially) a boarding action, dropping a hit compared to the Assault Cannon but getting the AP benefit. Plus works well in Space Hulk, but I digress.

In general, I think I would be opting for a mix of Assault Cannon and Cyclones across Terminator Squads, with maybe a Heavy Flamer in one for situational battles (and the aforementioned Space Hulk).

I fear this may go round the houses - whether or not you agree with the above, we all know there will be other examples that are skew-whif. But I am not sure Terminators are a completely awful example that at least points the way to how 'even but different' wargear choices could be constructed.

We are playing power level disguised as points.
There is no wargear selection.
Its lazy and stupid on GW's part.

You always take the best options.
If the options gave units different purposes or changed how they worked, there would be a point to it.

Slipspace wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:


Now, none of this would work without some tradeoffs in the weapons themselves, which is why PL really isn't the same thing. If Chainfists are just Powerfists with the Anti-Vehicle keyword, they're just better, but when you reduce their WS it becomes a significant choice again. Making things cost the same but servce different roles is a far more interesting direction, IMO and I also think its more interesting having a game where you take all the heavy weapons and optional bits over one in which they are largely absent. There was never a question of which heavy weapon to take in a Terminator squad. You just didn't take the heavy weapon. For its advantages, pointed wargear mostly just served to reinforce a game in which wargear wasn't worth its points.

This Terminator example highlights the problem perfectly for me. Heavy weapons were fairly common in Terminator squads in 9th (though Terminators themselves weren't hugely common for the most part). The question of which one was something you had to answer based on army need and available points. Now the answer is the Cyclone. Always. It's the same cost as the other two and better. The other options have been removed, which is the exact opposite of the advantage you're claiming about being able to swap in whatever loadout you want. Sure, you can, but you're just short-changing yourself if you do.

With granular points it's at least possible to make the 3 heavy weapon options (or no heavy weapon at all) all viable options. I really just don't see how some miniscule time saving in a PL system is worth losing that possibility. That's to say nothing of the problem that PL has when it comes to adjusting a list that's just short or - worse - just over the points limit. It's actually a worse system in that situation because it can't be easily adjusted in relatively small increments.

If the Cyclone is strictly better (I mostly see Assault Cannons to be honest) then its probably worth bringing down the shot count on the Krak rounds or something to make it in line with the other two. I'm more interested in making the weapons more interesting than trying to make one less appealing because its harder to take.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I just want to point out your defense of "but what if management wants them to suck" is absolutely hilarious. That definitely falls into the camp of the writers being incompetent, because I sincerely doubt you wrote that post seriously.

Nah I wrote it seriously. It's really not hard to understand or believe, it happens a lot within all industries. I'm starting to question your age and work experience at this point, making sacrifices to scope or quality of products to meet quotas/deadlines/budgets is really common and at no point does it mean the staff making those things are incompetent.

 Elminster wrote:

If the options gave units different purposes or changed how they worked, there would be a point to it.

For what it is worth, I agree with this gentleman right here. I would very much like to see happen with the coming Codexes.

 LunarSol wrote:
I think the problem is trying to compare points and PL when both are points. The real distinction is whether Wargear is priced individually.

For me, the reason I don't care for the granularity of priced Wargear is because it makes list adjustments rather tedious. Lets say I have a 5 man terminator squad. They currently cost 205 points and if I want to put Terminators in a list, I have to find 205 points for them, but once I do, I can test out all the different loadouts I want without having to make changes elsewhere. Previously, if I wanted Terminators in my list, it depended on a lot of things. You could easily have a 40 point variance in cost, which means depending on what I'm looking to run, I either have to find 185 or 225 points in my list, which means any changes I make to the squad, requires changes to something else, and my resulting test games have to ask the question of whether the change was worth the other changes.

Now, none of this would work without some tradeoffs in the weapons themselves, which is why PL really isn't the same thing. If Chainfists are just Powerfists with the Anti-Vehicle keyword, they're just better, but when you reduce their WS it becomes a significant choice again. Making things cost the same but servce different roles is a far more interesting direction, IMO and I also think its more interesting having a game where you take all the heavy weapons and optional bits over one in which they are largely absent. There was never a question of which heavy weapon to take in a Terminator squad. You just didn't take the heavy weapon. For its advantages, pointed wargear mostly just served to reinforce a game in which wargear wasn't worth its points.

You realise that not all weapon options of a squad have the same output (even in their niche) in 10th edition, just like some weeks ago when you played 9th, right?

Because some weeks ago, it was totally normal for you to get as close to 2000 points as possible. If you swapped out wargear, you added something else to your list. You didn't just take a missile launcher instead of a lascannon and then played with 10 points less.

Because now, if you show up with that missile launcher instead of the lascannon, you are playing with the same 10 point deficit. You just don't see it anymore as all loadouts cost the same for a given unit.

Why does this not bother you? Why did you not play with 10 points down during 9th edition? You could have just build your armylist with all the most expensive upgrades back then as well. If you then decided to bring 4 missile launcher in your Devastator squad instead of 4 lascannons, you would not have needed to change anything? Why was this a crazy idiotic idea some weeks ago and is now seen as the better way of building armies?

MongooseMatt wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Now the answer is the Cyclone. Always.

Is it? The Cyclone has range over the Assault Cannon and is better against vehicles and heavy characters. However, the Assault Cannon is going to be better against horde infantry and more consistent than the frag option of the Cyclone.

Sadly, frag has the Blast keyword, which is what pushes it over the edge as being better anti-horde than the assault cannon. There are some extreme edge cases where the assault cannon is better (tiny remnant squads of large units, for example) but they are few and far between. The same applies to the heavy flamer.

If only there was a way to try to balance out this disparity...

MongooseMatt wrote:

I fear this may go round the houses - whether or not you agree with the above, we all know there will be other examples that are skew-whif.

Yes, and PL can't handle that situation, while points can. Personally, I think GW should probably have kept the frag profile of the cyclone at D6 shots with Blast, and it might not have been so obvious which is better, but they didn't.

The fact they didn't is part of the problem with PL. It's a system that can work well, but never will because GW have implemented it so badly and fixing it would require a complete rewrite of weapon profiles and roles. The best time to do that is at the start of an edition. That's obviously not happening any time soon.

Slipspace wrote:

Sadly, frag has the Blast keyword, which is what pushes it over the edge as being better anti-horde than the assault cannon.

Point.

Slipspace wrote:

Personally, I think GW should probably have kept the frag profile of the cyclone at D6 shots with Blast,

Again, point. Quite like that.

Slipspace wrote:

The fact they didn't is part of the problem with PL. It's a system that can work well, but never will because GW have implemented it so badly and fixing it would require a complete rewrite of weapon profiles and roles.

See, this is my argument - implementation The Codexes will be the next chance to start squaring things away (yeah, I know...).

If the efficiency difference between a Cyclone Launcher and an Assault Cannon on a Terminator squad was the worst offender of the current system, the game would be in a much better place. Yeah, the Cyclone is better, but it doesn't make me feel like I'm bad at games if I still field my old Assault Cannon squads. The problem is there so many other just busted choices.

The thing is a functional system to balance the game is a requirement for how a lot of people play the game. I'm not packing up my models driving 45 minutes through the suburbs(In the US it takes a minimum of 45 minutes to get anywhere in the suburbs) to play a game against a guy I just met on the local 40K discord unless I know it's going to be a real game. Doing that so I can watch the other player roll dice while I pick up my models is a non-starter.

It's nice if you don't need that. I do. And a lot of others do to. It's not even about tournaments or maximum competitive balance. It's about wanting to play fair games and not always having a stable play group for the entire time your in the hobby.

I disagree with the theory behind the change, but I'd be ok with it if the execution was good. It's not. It's a mess. And It's a hard to fix mess.

I'm going to make an assumption in that I think the pro-PL people like it a lot because it makes them feel seen by the designers. It's a nod to their playstyle. Fine. Not judging that. But that nice to have is at the expense of a base level of requirement the game has to meet for the anti-PL side.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I just want to point out your defense of "but what if management wants them to suck" is absolutely hilarious. That definitely falls into the camp of the writers being incompetent, because I sincerely doubt you wrote that post seriously.

Nah I wrote it seriously. It's really not hard to understand or believe, it happens a lot within all industries. I'm starting to question your age and work experience at this point, making sacrifices to scope or quality of products to meet quotas/deadlines/budgets is really common and at no point does it mean the staff making those things are incompetent.

I'm in my 30s, I'm not a NEET thank you very much. I've also never had any trouble telling employers if they were doing something poorly and leaving a job if it required me to create shoddy output. I have a spine unlike the supposed "they're totally intelligent trust me" GW "rules writers" if they're not incompetent.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I just want to point out your defense of "but what if management wants them to suck" is absolutely hilarious. That definitely falls into the camp of the writers being incompetent, because I sincerely doubt you wrote that post seriously.

Nah I wrote it seriously. It's really not hard to understand or believe, it happens a lot within all industries. I'm starting to question your age and work experience at this point, making sacrifices to scope or quality of products to meet quotas/deadlines/budgets is really common and at no point does it mean the staff making those things are incompetent.

I'm in my 30s, I'm not a NEET thank you very much. I've also never had any trouble telling employers if they were doing something poorly and leaving a job if it required me to create shoddy output. I have a spine unlike the supposed "they're totally intelligent trust me" GW "rules writers" if they're not incompetent.

I'm glad you've found that luxury, it might not be as simple for others in that circumstance, I can't imagine there are endless opportunities for games designers if they opted to leave.

I think GW do approach the game differently to those online. We know they go "someone has to be best, someone has to be worst, oh well, we'll change it at some point". Arguably its a reasonable point (that applies to almost every game you can think of) - although whether someone has to be "this much better" or "this much worse" than the average can clearly be debated.

We also don't know how many people are doing the rules. Because its one thing for me to crawl all over "my index" (along with thousands of people online doing the same) and get a feel for it. But I haven't gone over every single faction in anything like the same detail.

I feel some directed playtesting would help - but undirected playtesting likely wouldn't. There's always going to be the fact that Tacoma saw more games played over a weekend than a team of 20-30 people at GW could run and analyze in six months.

Tyel wrote:
I think GW do approach the game differently to those online. We know they go "someone has to be best, someone has to be worst, oh well, we'll change it at some point". Arguably its a reasonable point (that applies to almost every game you can think of) - although whether someone has to be "this much better" or "this much worse" than the average can clearly be debated.

We also don't know how many people are doing the rules. Because its one thing for me to crawl all over "my index" (along with thousands of people online doing the same) and get a feel for it. But I haven't gone over every single faction in anything like the same detail.

I feel some directed playtesting would help - but undirected playtesting likely wouldn't. There's always going to be the fact that Tacoma saw more games played over a weekend than a team of 20-30 people at GW could run and analyze in six months.

I feel like you're applying fair and balanced logic, which seems to not be the order for the day. Just be angry at some people, call them stupid for making something you don't like and assume they're cowards for not quitting