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.

 CaulynDarr wrote:
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.

put it this way, the difference between the Cyclone and the AC is big enough that GW invested the time and money to make it 2 different Landspeeder versions with their own Datacard and point cost for those 2 weapons

a_typical_hero wrote:

 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?

It matters a lot less when your opponent is also taking wargear. There's always been a race to the bottom when it comes to toys in the game and I suspect if we learn that everything that has to take something is worse than the barebones stuff, we're going to learn that wargear was never really worth what it cost. In that case, reducing the cost of the units themselves is a pretty direct solution, rather than trying to admit that the cost of most of this stuff should be zero anyway.

A lot of weapon profiles are also just a lot more appealing now than they were. A lot more weapons that were clearly the best output before are wounding on 6s now. There are a lot of things a Lascannon is worse at attacking than a Missile Launcher. Is it really 10 points better? Honestly, I'm still not a fan of them, though there is definitely a role for them, particularly in a meta where people are still adapting to just how much toughness matters.

Now, I'm not under the delusion that there aren't loadouts more efficient than others; but I find the direct cost comparison more interesting than one where I'm trying to take into account a nebulous difference in price. This is particularly true when its an aggregate cost difference. I just find making changes to my list more interesting when I can get in a game, find myself a little light on tankbusting and upgrade to some higher S firepower and get right back on the table more compelling than when doing so required shuffling the points from other units. Not every theoretical best output actually plays out and trying out new configs with no changes to the unit composition of the list has me more compelled to actually test out the differences than focus on my spreadsheets.

Mostly though, for me it just comes down to prefering the game in which Sgts have cool swords and squads have that special guy with the cool gun. The choice of "nothing" has generally dominated the game, simply because the need to validate that option by making cool stuff cost something, largely just proved it was never really worth a measurable amount to begin with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
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.

put it this way, the difference between the Cyclone and the AC is big enough that GW invested the time and money to make it 2 different Landspeeder versions with their own Datacard and point cost for those 2 weapons

Those models have vastly different abilities beyond their weapon, though I will say its really weird to me the Assault Cannon doesn't have any AP. I get that Devastating Wounds is trying to make up for that, but its still kind of weird to me. Still, you could argue you're really paying 5 points for the ability to move after shooting which I think is more powerful than trying to get some mortal wounds by putting the thing in melee.

 kodos wrote:
put it this way, the difference between the Cyclone and the AC is big enough that GW invested the time and money to make it 2 different Landspeeder versions with their own Datacard and point cost for those 2 weapons

Now you see, I don't think that was the reason they did that

I have a suspicion that there have always been three Land Speeders (Vanilla, Tornado, and Typhoon) and that is why they have three Datasheets rather than one combined

Dudeface wrote:
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.

Great so any change that you personally don't find detracts from the game cannot be considered to be objectively worse. My experience of the actual game would not be worse if Genestealers cost 2001 pts. What is the likelihood I'm going to play against Genestealers this edition anyway? Sure, nerf them to 2001 pts each, that wouldn't make the game worse. The unit would be unplayable in 2000 pts so people with Genestealer models would be unable to use them, but there are plenty of bad units every edition, what's it matter if a unit is literally unplayable? You might say it's worse if you like playing with or against them, I'm ambivalent so it's not an objectively bad move. We find one person who is ambivalent about each part of the game until the game is unplayable because no units can be played because someone finally voted for each of the two last playable units in the game and made them 2001 pts. You have to show that the game is actually improved, not being bothered is not an argument against a change being objectively bad. Just because I like Monoliths does not mean making them 0 pts would be anything other than objectively bad and super silly.

 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.

When has an extended timeline or larger budget let 40k designers make something excellent?

Are game mechanics that are never used excellent?

Dudeface wrote:

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

Why would you quit doing something you love just because you're bad at it if nobody is going to call you out? You'll ruin the value of some miniatures and maybe hurt your employer a bit, but if the employer is a soulless corp who cares? You are the one assuming GW designers are cowardly experts. Everything the designers say and do point to them being happy imbeciles, otherwise, they wouldn't attend tournaments or appear on camera.

MongooseMatt wrote:

 kodos wrote:
put it this way, the difference between the Cyclone and the AC is big enough that GW invested the time and money to make it 2 different Landspeeder versions with their own Datacard and point cost for those 2 weapons

Now you see, I don't think that was the reason they did that

I have a suspicion that there have always been three Land Speeders (Vanilla, Tornado, and Typhoon) and that is why they have three Datasheets rather than one combined

Correct. There are 3 different kits (4 if you include the scout speeder). Each kit gets a unique datasheet.

I don't know why people are purposely ignoring the fact that it's a different kit when discussing why one has a different datasheet (as if GW exclusively did it because they wanted the 2 loadouts to be different costed).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

You keep using the term objective, but I do not think you know what it means.

 vict0988 wrote:

When has an extended timeline or larger budget let 40k designers make something excellent?

I am not sure we are aware if the designers have ever had an extended timeline or larger budget?

However, you do touch on an interesting point here, and I want to make sure I understand you properly - is this a suggestion that, regardless of budget or timeline over the years in 40k, the designers have not made something excellent? Or am I misreading you?

Because my next question would be (and I apologise if I have misread you)... why are we doing this game?

MongooseMatt wrote:

... why are we doing this game?

Mostly because of the fantastic miniatures and setting

 BertBert wrote:

Mostly because of the fantastic miniatures and setting

And the rules are tolerated. Interesting.

You could certainly have painted me with that brush in 8th and 9th. Not so much 7th and 10th, I think.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
You keep using the term objective, but I do not think you know what it means.

I would appreciate if you point out where I've used it wrong and why.

MongooseMatt wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

When has an extended timeline or larger budget let 40k designers make something excellent?

I am not sure we are aware if the designers have ever had an extended timeline or larger budget?

However, you do touch on an interesting point here, and I want to make sure I understand you properly - is this a suggestion that, regardless of budget or timeline over the years in 40k, the designers have not made something excellent? Or am I misreading you?

Because my next question would be (and I apologise if I have misread you)... why are we doing this game?

The minis and lore are excellent. If GW have never produced something excellent because they got enough time to do the job properly then why do we think they will be able to? There are tonnes of games that have had enough time to be completed and were still garbage and tonnes of games that were mismanaged and still ended up awesome, of course I agree that more time generally equals more better. But when you squeeze a lemon you should expect lemon juice not vodka.

MongooseMatt wrote:

 kodos wrote:
put it this way, the difference between the Cyclone and the AC is big enough that GW invested the time and money to make it 2 different Landspeeder versions with their own Datacard and point cost for those 2 weapons

Now you see, I don't think that was the reason they did that

I have a suspicion that there have always been three Land Speeders (Vanilla, Tornado, and Typhoon) and that is why they have three Datasheets rather than one combined

My working theory is that the Marine Indexes were the only ones done with the new point system fully in mind. And most of the weirdness left over there is historical, box based restrictions, and then not being able to understand why Desolation Marines are broken.

After that they ran out of time and we just got whatever state the other indexes happened to be in. That's why the Gladiator has 3 separate entries and the Wraithknight has 1.

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
the reduced granularity doesn't make me enjoy my games any less, so decide I'm not bothered

Spoiler:

Great so any change that you personally don't find detracts from the game cannot be considered to be objectively worse. My experience of the actual game would not be worse if Genestealers cost 2001 pts. What is the likelihood I'm going to play against Genestealers this edition anyway? Sure, nerf them to 2001 pts each, that wouldn't make the game worse. The unit would be unplayable in 2000 pts so people with Genestealer models would be unable to use them, but there are plenty of bad units every edition, what's it matter if a unit is literally unplayable? You might say it's worse if you like playing with or against them, I'm ambivalent so it's not an objectively bad move. We find one person who is ambivalent about each part of the game until the game is unplayable because no units can be played because someone finally voted for each of the two last playable units in the game and made them 2001 pts. You have to show that the game is actually improved, not being bothered is not an argument against a change being objectively bad. Just because I like Monoliths does not mean making them 0 pts would be anything other than objectively bad and super silly.

Have some fething integrity and use the full quote.

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".

 LunarSol wrote:
There's always been a race to the bottom when it comes to toys in the game and I suspect if we learn that everything that has to take something is worse than the barebones stuff, we're going to learn that wargear was never really worth what it cost. In that case, reducing the cost of the units themselves is a pretty direct solution, rather than trying to admit that the cost of most of this stuff should be zero anyway.

I do not understand why you and some of the other pro-PL people keep pretending that the game we were all playing just a month ago was totally different from how it actually was.

The idea that bare-bones units have always been superior to ones that took advantage of upgrades is nonsense.

The idea that a lascannon wouldn't be viable unless it cost 0pts, that even a 1pt cost would be too much, is nonsense.

This entire argument that wargear has to be free because upgrades like, say, tripling a unit's firepower is of so little consequence that it doesn't even warrant a single point and the only way to balance it is to make all the wargear free, is downright absurd.

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.

Well good for you! Let's all hope that over the next 30 years or so of your working life you and your spine never have to compromise your standards.
Good luck.

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
the reduced granularity doesn't make me enjoy my games any less, so decide I'm not bothered

Spoiler:

Great so any change that you personally don't find detracts from the game cannot be considered to be objectively worse. My experience of the actual game would not be worse if Genestealers cost 2001 pts. What is the likelihood I'm going to play against Genestealers this edition anyway? Sure, nerf them to 2001 pts each, that wouldn't make the game worse. The unit would be unplayable in 2000 pts so people with Genestealer models would be unable to use them, but there are plenty of bad units every edition, what's it matter if a unit is literally unplayable? You might say it's worse if you like playing with or against them, I'm ambivalent so it's not an objectively bad move. We find one person who is ambivalent about each part of the game until the game is unplayable because no units can be played because someone finally voted for each of the two last playable units in the game and made them 2001 pts. You have to show that the game is actually improved, not being bothered is not an argument against a change being objectively bad. Just because I like Monoliths does not mean making them 0 pts would be anything other than objectively bad and super silly.

Have some fething integrity and use the full quote.

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".

Wait have you finally admitted that PL is objectively worse? Sorry, I missed that, thank you for the intellectual honesty, now we just need the rest of the PL apologists to do the same. Are you going to agree that 40k designers are inept as well?

To be fair, we must make some assumptions about the GW design team:

1) employees that are truly skilled find ways to obey management directives and do good quality work at the same time.

For the Eldar example, if Management says "make Eldar delete all enemy armies!" then the designer does exactly that - and then makes all their units OC 0 so that they still lose the game (and don't write a rule that says you lose if you are tabled).

The only time the designer's hands are tied so badly that he has NO ABILITY to change ANYTHING to improve balance is when his job is redundant, because clearly he isn't the designer at all. He's just the interpreter taking dictation from management.

When people say the designers are incompetent, they mean the people making game design decisions. If that's management, then they're incompetent. If that's the "credited" design studio, then they're incompetent.

If it's management, though, I question the need for them to pay the design team at all - management is making all the design decisions anyways and therefore are the designers themselves! Paying other designers is just burning money.

TL;DR:
I think it is safe to say the design team has control over the majority of game design (otherwise why even have them on payroll?), and a smart and competent design team can use that control to pull various levers and write various rules to mitigate the impacts of stupid and disastrous management imperatives.

 LunarSol wrote:
Those models have vastly different abilities beyond their weapon, though I will say its really weird to me the Assault Cannon doesn't have any AP. I get that Devastating Wounds is trying to make up for that, but its still kind of weird to me. Still, you could argue you're really paying 5 points for the ability to move after shooting which I think is more powerful than trying to get some mortal wounds by putting the thing in melee.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:

 kodos wrote:
put it this way, the difference between the Cyclone and the AC is big enough that GW invested the time and money to make it 2 different Landspeeder versions with their own Datacard and point cost for those 2 weapons

Now you see, I don't think that was the reason they did that

I have a suspicion that there have always been three Land Speeders (Vanilla, Tornado, and Typhoon) and that is why they have three Datasheets rather than one combined

Correct. There are 3 different kits (4 if you include the scout speeder). Each kit gets a unique datasheet.

I don't know why people are purposely ignoring the fact that it's a different kit when discussing why one has a different datasheet (as if GW exclusively did it because they wanted the 2 loadouts to be different costed).

MongooseMatt wrote:

 kodos wrote:
put it this way, the difference between the Cyclone and the AC is big enough that GW invested the time and money to make it 2 different Landspeeder versions with their own Datacard and point cost for those 2 weapons

Now you see, I don't think that was the reason they did that

I have a suspicion that there have always been three Land Speeders (Vanilla, Tornado, and Typhoon) and that is why they have three Datasheets rather than one combined

yeah, at least now it is clear that everything was done to fit the model kits and no other reason
there is no argument for balance, being faster, having any benefit for the player, game design etc

the only reason Powerlevel exist the way GW uses them is that they have one fixed amount of point per model kit so they can easier sell that kit no matter what is in there

hurry, and we have people that are defending corporate bs as peak game design and benefit for the players

I don't know how much GW pays, but I hope you get paid for that and don't defend that stuff for free

 catbarf wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
There's always been a race to the bottom when it comes to toys in the game and I suspect if we learn that everything that has to take something is worse than the barebones stuff, we're going to learn that wargear was never really worth what it cost. In that case, reducing the cost of the units themselves is a pretty direct solution, rather than trying to admit that the cost of most of this stuff should be zero anyway.

I do not understand why you and some of the other pro-PL people keep pretending that the game we were all playing just a month ago was totally different from how it actually was.

The idea that bare-bones units have always been superior to ones that took advantage of upgrades is nonsense.

The idea that a lascannon wouldn't be viable unless it cost 0pts, that even a 1pt cost would be too much, is nonsense.

This entire argument that wargear has to be free because upgrades like, say, tripling a unit's firepower is of so little consequence that it doesn't even warrant a single point and the only way to balance it is to make all the wargear free, is downright absurd.

Sorry, that's not what I'm trying to say.

Upgrades certainly have never been useless, but they've been something pretty sparsely taken compared to the number of options available. Particularly notable are the stuff that only one model in the unit could take because in that capacity it doesn't really add to the unit's overall role. For every upgrade slot available in an army where you could take something, there's probably 3-4 where you left it empty to save points.

I just like how prominent this stuff is in the armies I've seen this edition. Units are more colorful in my opinion and where options aren't cutting it in the current system, I'd prefer they big fixed by trying to make them more interesting rather than make the interesting stuff prohibitively priced.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The only time the designer's hands are tied so badly that he has NO ABILITY to change ANYTHING to improve balance is when his job is redundant, because clearly he isn't the designer at all. He's just the interpreter taking dictation from management.

from my experience, thats often what management asks of their workers, i've had jobs where i told my manager that something was done poorly and that we could do it another way, only to get told "lol no, do as i say".

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
the reduced granularity doesn't make me enjoy my games any less, so decide I'm not bothered

Spoiler:

Great so any change that you personally don't find detracts from the game cannot be considered to be objectively worse. My experience of the actual game would not be worse if Genestealers cost 2001 pts. What is the likelihood I'm going to play against Genestealers this edition anyway? Sure, nerf them to 2001 pts each, that wouldn't make the game worse. The unit would be unplayable in 2000 pts so people with Genestealer models would be unable to use them, but there are plenty of bad units every edition, what's it matter if a unit is literally unplayable? You might say it's worse if you like playing with or against them, I'm ambivalent so it's not an objectively bad move. We find one person who is ambivalent about each part of the game until the game is unplayable because no units can be played because someone finally voted for each of the two last playable units in the game and made them 2001 pts. You have to show that the game is actually improved, not being bothered is not an argument against a change being objectively bad. Just because I like Monoliths does not mean making them 0 pts would be anything other than objectively bad and super silly.

Have some fething integrity and use the full quote.

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".

Wait have you finally admitted that PL is objectively worse? Sorry, I missed that, thank you for the intellectual honesty, now we just need the rest of the PL apologists to do the same. Are you going to agree that 40k designers are inept as well?

I don't know, I voted no and reiterated repeatedly that the current implementation doesn't work. But clearly you're too inept to read the posts, so maybe either grow a spine or quit? That's what the message seems to be today.

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
the reduced granularity doesn't make me enjoy my games any less, so decide I'm not bothered

Spoiler:

Great so any change that you personally don't find detracts from the game cannot be considered to be objectively worse. My experience of the actual game would not be worse if Genestealers cost 2001 pts. What is the likelihood I'm going to play against Genestealers this edition anyway? Sure, nerf them to 2001 pts each, that wouldn't make the game worse. The unit would be unplayable in 2000 pts so people with Genestealer models would be unable to use them, but there are plenty of bad units every edition, what's it matter if a unit is literally unplayable? You might say it's worse if you like playing with or against them, I'm ambivalent so it's not an objectively bad move. We find one person who is ambivalent about each part of the game until the game is unplayable because no units can be played because someone finally voted for each of the two last playable units in the game and made them 2001 pts. You have to show that the game is actually improved, not being bothered is not an argument against a change being objectively bad. Just because I like Monoliths does not mean making them 0 pts would be anything other than objectively bad and super silly.

Have some fething integrity and use the full quote.

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".

Wait have you finally admitted that PL is objectively worse? Sorry, I missed that, thank you for the intellectual honesty, now we just need the rest of the PL apologists to do the same. Are you going to agree that 40k designers are inept as well?

I don't know, I voted no and reiterated repeatedly that the current implementation doesn't work. But clearly you're too inept to read the posts, so maybe either grow a spine or quit? That's what the message seems to be today.

1. vict0988 say PL is objectively bad.
2. Mongoose says it's okay to subjectively prefer pts.
3. Slipspace says PL is never better (supporting my idea that PL is objectively bad).
4. You take issue with the vernacular used (presumably that PL is objectively bad), you make a hypothetical about someone having a subjective preference for PL.
5. I highlight how your hypothetical does not work to prove that one person's subjective opinions about a thing does not change whether that thing is objectively good or bad.
6. You get mad because I quoted the hypothetical to show how it is silly without including the rest of the post.

Tell me what I misunderstood in this sequence of events and how the rest of your post changes the meaning of my response.

ccs wrote:

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.

Well good for you! Let's all hope that over the next 30 years or so of your working life you and your spine never have to compromise your standards.
Good luck.

Any work place that asks you to compromise morals or standards or ethics or quality isn't a place to work in. So yeah, I won't ever have that problem.

Learn definitions of words before you use them.

Objective: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

PL or Points is subjective... not objective. There are a lot of people that play these games, not everyone likes the points system, in fact there's a ton of people that prefer PL system which is why they gravitated towards Age of Sigmar over 40k.

There's also many people who use to like points, but now prefer PL or (simpler point brackets) because the size of the game has grown exponentially since the early editions both in terms of standard points for play and amount of models fielded.

People need to understand that not every hobbyist has the same expectations. While you may value striving for perfect balance and granular points, that is a preference. Others may not value these factors when playing the game and actually prefer the simpler points scheme.

 vict0988 wrote:

1. vict0988 say PL is objectively bad.
2. Mongoose says it's okay to subjectively prefer pts.
3. Slipspace says PL is never better (supporting my idea that PL is objectively bad).
4. You take issue with the vernacular used (presumably that PL is objectively bad), you make a hypothetical about someone having a subjective preference for PL.

I made a statement not aimed at anyone to show that saying something is "better" without context often isn't objective. We're also not talking about PL, we're talking about the current GW design process which isn't complete nor is as simple as just "oops free upgrades".

5. I highlight how your hypothetical does not work to prove that one person's subjective opinions about a thing does not change whether that thing is objectively good or bad.
6. You get mad because I quoted the hypothetical to show how it is silly without including the rest of the post.

Tell me what I misunderstood in this sequence of events and how the rest of your post changes the meaning of my response.

The point is you took the part where I posted a not that hypothetical subjective statement, treated it like it was a random statement in favour of PL, used some horrendous strawman about making units 0 or 2001 points instead of addressing a ~<100 point difference of wargear costs for most people.

You're so hell bent on "PL bad, granular points good. People are either for one or the other." That you miss the point of the topic. PL doesn't exist, this isn't PL, people aren't saying PL is better, they're saying it's fine for them. Where you and others keep going wrong is being so stuck on having to be right, that you need to tell people they are wrong.

The misunderstanding comes from A. Not quoting a full post to misrepresent the intent. B. Not actually checking my posting history in this thread before tagging me with some half assed group and C. Because like some others you are so keen to throw someone under the bus for something you don't like without half a care as to what they do.

Let's be clear 10th editions core rules are really not that bad at all, what you're aggrieved about is the imbalances caused by a rushed and ill-conceived set of indexes & points.

That's fine. Other people are happy with it. That's also fine.

Dudeface wrote:

That's fine. Other people are happy with it. That's also fine.

"Let people enjoy things" is the ultimate cop-out and an excuse when you have nothing else to back you up.

People enjoyed late 7th edition. Should we not criticize it?

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
Learn definitions of words before you use them.

Objective: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

PL or Points is subjective... not objective. There are a lot of people that play these games, not everyone likes the points system, in fact there's a ton of people that prefer PL system which is why they gravitated towards Age of Sigmar over 40k.

There's also many people who use to like points, but now prefer PL or (simpler point brackets) because the size of the game has grown exponentially since the early editions both in terms of standard points for play and amount of models fielded.

People need to understand that not every hobbyist has the same expectations. While you may value striving for perfect balance and granular points, that is a preference. Others may not value these factors when playing the game and actually prefer the simpler points scheme.

You can like something that is objectively inferior, you might cheer for a soccer team that is objectively inferior to another soccer team. If team A has lost 3 games to team B and team A has won 0 trophies and team B has won 43 trophies then team B is the superior team. No matter how much you cheer for or love your team A does not make it superior to team B.

PL is points except wargear is free and instead of being able to add 1 model to a unit you add a number of models to the unit and pay for the batch even you only want one. These are objectively worse ways to measure the power of a list because a list two lists that are the same in all ways except one has a 10-man Devastator Squad with 4 of the best special weapon is superior to a 7-man Devastator Squad with 2 of the worst special weapon. I don't care about your expectations, I care that you actively resist my efforts to improve the game. Nobody strives for perfect balance, but if you don't care about balanced games then you don't need a pts system and your efforts to keep GW's pts system from effectively balancing games is pointless griefing.

Why should I give a rat whether it's fine for them any more than Genestealer players should give a rat whether I have any interest in Genestealers being playable?

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

1. vict0988 say PL is objectively bad.
2. Mongoose says it's okay to subjectively prefer pts.
3. Slipspace says PL is never better (supporting my idea that PL is objectively bad).
4. You take issue with the vernacular used (presumably that PL is objectively bad), you make a hypothetical about someone having a subjective preference for PL.

I made a statement not aimed at anyone to show that saying something is "better" without context often isn't objective. We're also not talking about PL, we're talking about the current GW design process which isn't complete nor is as simple as just "oops free upgrades".

5. I highlight how your hypothetical does not work to prove that one person's subjective opinions about a thing does not change whether that thing is objectively good or bad.
6. You get mad because I quoted the hypothetical to show how it is silly without including the rest of the post.

Tell me what I misunderstood in this sequence of events and how the rest of your post changes the meaning of my response.

The point is you took the part where I posted a not that hypothetical subjective statement, treated it like it was a random statement in favour of PL, used some horrendous strawman about making units 0 or 2001 points instead of addressing a ~<100 point difference of wargear costs for most people.

You're so hell bent on "PL bad, granular points good. People are either for one or the other." That you miss the point of the topic. PL doesn't exist, this isn't PL, people aren't saying PL is better, they're saying it's fine for them. Where you and others keep going wrong is being so stuck on having to be right, that you need to tell people they are wrong.

The misunderstanding comes from A. Not quoting a full post to misrepresent the intent. B. Not actually checking my posting history in this thread before tagging me with some half assed group and C. Because like some others you are so keen to throw someone under the bus for something you don't like without half a care as to what they do.

What do you mean it wasn't aimed at anyone? You were responding to Slipspace saying you had a problem with the vernacular used. If you're not talking about PL you're in the wrong thread. Are you an inept reader? Upgrades do not cost pts in 10th, options did not cost pts in PL, hence calling the system used for 10th PL. The same kinds of issues exist, there might be fewer of them, but the number of upgrades that should cost pts being lower does not mean there are no upgrades that should cost pts. If there is even a single upgrade that should cost pts in the game and everything else was a sidegrade I'd still want pts for that one upgrade instead of sweeping it under the rug because it'd be the only thing that needed to cost pts.

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.

With this part here you also show that you did indeed believe that your one hypothetical person who doesn't care for better balance is enough to mean that we cannot say anything objective about which is superior. I showed how that is ridiculous with my own hypothetical person who doesn't care about Genestealers, when it is obvious that making Genestealers unplayable is objectively bad for balance even if a hypothetical person doesn't care about Genestealers being playable. Perhaps you don't know what a strawman is? It's when you misrepresent someone's argument, now please tell me which of your arguments I misrepresented. Because my Genestealer argument was my own, not yours.

I don't give a rat whether pts are objectively better to every single person, I care about whether the system is objectively better and it is, pts are a logically better system because it is PL except you also pay for things that are worth something. The thing about objective fact is that it doesn't matter what one person thinks, you coming to the conclusion that Pi is 3.2 does not change objective fact that can be mathematically proven that Pi is not 3.2, your kindergarten teacher that taught you how to use PL also having taught you that Pi is 3.2 also doesn't change objective fact, your hypothetical person who doesn't care about the errors in his results that comes from assuming Pi is 3.2 does not change the fact that Pi is not 3.2.

Let's be clear 10th editions core rules are really not that bad at all, what you're aggrieved about is the imbalances caused by a rushed and ill-conceived set of indexes & points.

That's fine. Other people are happy with it. That's also fine.

Are the 10th edition core rules excellent? What part of them or in their entirety?

You are being deliberately obtuse, no amount of extra time is going to make 0 pt sponsons fair for the sake of all that is holy. That is the problem, no matter how much GW balanced the pts costs they could never get everything right without pts costs for upgrades. Making everything into a sidegrade is impossible without giving up on the fluff.

 LunarSol wrote:
I just like how prominent this stuff is in the armies I've seen this edition. Units are more colorful in my opinion and where options aren't cutting it in the current system, I'd prefer they big fixed by trying to make them more interesting rather than make the interesting stuff prohibitively priced.

And now we're right back to acknowledging that a balance error exists but excusing it because the overpowered thing is the thing you personally prefer to see and the underpowered thing is the style of unit/army you don't like. That is an incredibly self-centered point of view and not even remotely a defense of PL/pseudo-PL.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
PL or Points is subjective... not objective.

It absolutely is objective. We have presented numerous examples of systemic errors in PL as well as additional design constraints GW has to work with to even attempt to make the system work, neither of which exist in the traditional point system. We have also pointed out that the claim to time savings is weak at best, with the point system used making a very small difference in list creation time and PL often making it slower to create a list. PL objectively fails at its goals and is a bad system and no amount of "but I find it fun" will change that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
Correct. There are 3 different kits (4 if you include the scout speeder). Each kit gets a unique datasheet.

I don't know why people are purposely ignoring the fact that it's a different kit when discussing why one has a different datasheet (as if GW exclusively did it because they wanted the 2 loadouts to be different costed).

We aren't ignoring anything, it's just a false claim. The three "different" kits are all the same box being sold under three different names to match the three separate datasheets. If you look at the sprue pictures they're all exactly the same thing. GW indisputably did split the datasheets to give each weapon configuration a separate cost and then made three different store pages for the same box so a customer looking for a "Land Speeder Typhoon" based on the datasheet name doesn't see "Land Speeder" in the store and get confused.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

That's an utterly nonsensical claim to make. A non-playing mom doesn't care about rules but they aren't the real customer, they're just pulling out the credit card and paying for whatever their kid says to buy. And that kid's buying choices absolutely do involve the rules. It's a funny trivia thing to laugh at but only an idiot would make business decisions for 40k based on "what 50+ year old women want".

(And even GW isn't that stupid, we very clearly see them NOT making decisions based on what those women want.)

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

That is a significant misunderstanding. The original claim was that they were a month or two away from locking up, not that they ever failed to pay employees, and it's highly questionable given GW's lack of debt and easy access to credit to solve the problem (at least temporarily). And the idea that contrast paints saved the company is hilariously wrong. Contrast paints were launched in 2019, long after GW had started the recovery from their 2014-16 low.

As I'm going to bed and cba replying at length, I'll proposition this to you both: you've made your point repeatedly, you've made your stance clear. Anyone that comes in this thread knows you want the old points structure back, warts and all and dislike anything else GW has tried.

You've made that clear, you accept no other solutions or explanations.

So why are you still here brow beating anyone that doesn't agree with you? What more will it add?

 LunarSol wrote:

I just like how prominent this stuff is in the armies I've seen this edition. Units are more colorful in my opinion and where options aren't cutting it in the current system, I'd prefer they big fixed by trying to make them more interesting rather than make the interesting stuff prohibitively priced.

I think you'll ultimately end up disappointed at the amount of sameness you're going to see. There will be new standard loadouts for every datasheet and they will just happen to be the ones with the best gubbins because that's what the new point system encourages. Sergeant Blastus Maximus has a plasma pistol because of course he does. As do all the other sergeants. Plasma pistols go from cherished chapter relics to ubiquitous.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The only time the designer's hands are tied so badly that he has NO ABILITY to change ANYTHING to improve balance is when his job is redundant, because clearly he isn't the designer at all. He's just the interpreter taking dictation from management.

from my experience, thats often what management asks of their workers, i've had jobs where i told my manager that something was done poorly and that we could do it another way, only to get told "lol no, do as i say".

Right but this isn't that creative situation. Game designers are authors - if a publisher/manager is telling the author exactly what story beats, characters, and writing style to put in their book, the author isn't the author anymore. They're just taking dictation.

It is immensely bad to claim to be an author of all you are doing is putting someone else's intent on paper. Furthermore, it is a bad business decision for them to pay you an author's salary to do so (chatgpt does the same thing!).

Dudeface wrote:
As I'm going to bed and cba replying at length, I'll proposition this to you both: you've made your point repeatedly, you've made your stance clear. Anyone that comes in this thread knows you want the old points structure back, warts and all and dislike anything else GW has tried.

You've made that clear, you accept no other solutions or explanations.

So why are you still here brow beating anyone that doesn't agree with you? What more will it add?

As I'm going to bed and cba replying at length, I'll proposition this to you both: you've made your point repeatedly, you've made your stance clear. Anyone that comes in this thread knows you like the new point system, warts and all and dislike anything else GW has tried in the past.

You've made that clear, you accept no other solutions or explanations.

So why are you still here brow beating anyone that doesn't agree with you? What more will it add?