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.

 Lobokai wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
No, it's a new problem and you are another person who doesn't understand the concept of systemic errors.

Then you proceed to explain how it’s an old problem… brilliant. Ironically I explained to you how the new concept is solid but it has systemic errors and it went over your head. The very thing you’re frustrated people aren’t getting is also what you’re failing to understand.

Leman Russ Battle Tank with sponsons in 9th: A tier
Leman Russ Battle Tank without sponsons in 9th: A tier
Leman Russ Vanquisher with sponsons in 9th: D tier
Leman Russ Vanquisher without sponsons in 9th: D tier

Wow, 9th was so broken points don't balance the game hahaha.

Leman Russ Battle Tank with sponsons in 10th: A tier
Leman Russ Battle Tank without sponsons in 10th: C tier
Leman Russ Vanquisher with sponsons in 10th: D tier
Leman Russ Vanquisher without sponsons in 10th: F tier

What?! 10th has all the problems of 9th and additional problems like people have been trying to explain 100 times?

I just find it astounding that this thread is still going on and people are arguing that 10th's approach is better.

Truly unhinged behaviour.

 Lobokai wrote:
Then you proceed to explain how it’s an old problem… brilliant. Ironically I explained to you how the new concept is solid but it has systemic errors and it went over your head. The very thing you’re frustrated people aren’t getting is also what you’re failing to understand.

No, you just didn't bother to read what I wrote and see that I very clearly talked about 10th adding additional errors.

And "the system is solid but it has systemic errors" is a contradiction! It's like talking about how water is dry even though it is wet. Systemic errors are by definition flaws in the system, a system with systemic errors is not a solid system.

XWing is light years away from 40K in list building. Seriously?!

Yes, seriously. Prior to AMG's complete destruction of the game X-Wing used the exact same point system as 40k. Units have a point cost, and if you want upgrades for those units you pay additional points to buy them.

If you had a 50% retention rate with X-Wing and a 10% retention rate with 40k the problem was not 40k's point system.

And we all know the Leman Russ is a worst case example that will soon be a legend.

"PL is fine, GW will just turn a de facto ban on bad options into actually removing them from the rules" is not the defense of PL you think it is.

You can’t have it both ways: advocating that our unapproachable legacy points system is good, but not been used well while refusing to see that the set cost system is good too just isn’t being implemented well.

PL isn't just bad because it isn't implemented well, it's bad because it contains systemic errors which will exist no matter how well you implement the system. Making a LRBT cost 150 points when it should cost 170 points is an implementation error and can be fixed by better implementation. Making adding a hunter-killer missile to a unit cost zero points (and de facto removing the ability to not take one) is a systemic error that can not be fixed without changing the system to no longer be PL.

When you do, 9th ed drove people away.

People were not driven away by 9th continuing to use the same point system that existed in 8th edition, 7th edition, 6th edition, 5th edition, 4th edition, 3rd edition, 2nd edition, and Rogue Trader. They were driven away by 9th edition's obscene rules bloat, power creep, and complete lack of balance.

 Bosskelot wrote:
I just find it astounding that this thread is still going on and people are arguing that 10th's approach is better.

Truly unhinged behaviour.

We had one person here say they'd love to get insight into game design from Jervis. That should tell you everything right there.

Imagine the game exists not only for guard players and not only for veterans

 Lobokai wrote:
Imagine the game exists not only for guard players and not only for veterans

PL has flaws in armies other than guard, the LRBT sponson issue is just a convenient one where even the most fanatical PL defender can't argue that the two options are equivalent or that the difference is too small to matter.

As for veterans, PL is worse for newbies than veterans. Veterans, especially competitive players, just take the obvious most powerful stuff and often have enough spare models to swap in the required options with minimal effort. Long-time guard players who magnetized their Baneblades don't care about the sponson issue nearly as much as the newbie who assembled a cool tank with the armor plates covering the sponson mounts and is now stuck paying an extra 100 points for the missing guns. And newbies are far more likely to fail to understand that many of the "options" in PL are a trap, meaning their bolt pistol + chainsword sergeants contribute to them losing against the veteran players who immediately understand that plasma pistol + thunder hammer is the mandatory configuration.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
We had one person here say they'd love to get insight into game design from Jervis. That should tell you everything right there.

To be fair, I'd love to get insight from Jervis. I think it would be a very efficient way to compile a "things to avoid in designing your game" list and produce a lot of unintentional comedy.

 LunarSol wrote:
It's for sure better, but it's never been worth a single point more. There's not a cost that makes it a compelling choice, IMO.

Completely untrue. Your choice not to take it doesn't make the plasma pistol not worth more than a Laspistol.

The Plasma Pistol is superior to the Laspistol, therefore it should have a cost associated with it otherwise there's no reason not to take it.

 Lobokai wrote:
Imagine the game exists not only for guard players and not only for veterans

And now any new player building Chainswords for their Death Company finds out they assembled their models wrong.

Solid thought there, dude. Cruddace and Jervis would be proud of you.

 Lobokai wrote:
Imagine the game exists not only for guard players and not only for veterans

Like certain others in this thread, you've gotten lost in the woods looking for trees.

Leman Russ sponsons are not the issue. They're an example of the issue, just one of many that completely and conclusively proves the objective superiority of granular points systems over generalised power level systems.

For my part, I own 1 Stormblade, 1 Hellhammer, 2 Shadowswords and 3 Baneblades, and not one of them has double sponsons. I don't like that I'm paying for something that isn't there. I shouldn't have to pay extra for something I never wanted to model. If someone wants to take double sponsons, they should have to pay for the privilege.

Just from Marines, off the top of my head:
1. Death Company pistol and melee options
2. Predator sponsons
3. Literally any Manlet Marine vehicle in regards to HK Missiles
4. Firestrikes on the Lastalon vs Autocannon
5. Manlet Marines that can take a Grav Cannon vs a Heavy Bolter or Grav Gun
6. Vanguard Vets with any Pistol options

And that's definitely just scratching the surface.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Just from Marines, off the top of my head:
1. Death Company pistol and melee options
2. Predator sponsons
3. Literally any Manlet Marine vehicle in regards to HK Missiles
4. Firestrikes on the Lastalon vs Autocannon
5. Manlet Marines that can take a Grav Cannon vs a Heavy Bolter or Grav Gun
6. Vanguard Vets with any Pistol options

And that's definitely just scratching the surface.

Basically the entirety of Deathwatch before they decided "feth it, we can't balance it, put them all together, get rid of what we can't justify"

 Bosskelot wrote:
I just find it astounding that this thread is still going on and people are arguing that 10th's approach is better.
Truly unhinged behaviour.

by now it is not only that it is better, but it is also the only way GW can make profit

The army building for 10th is so boring and bland I haven't played a game and feel like selling most of my stuff.

I was gonna downsize anyway, but I might get rid of almost everything now.

I know someone who started in 9th and also began an Aeldari army towards the latter half of the edition. Not a comp player and someone who only played tempest and wanted to build a jetbike-focused army because he likes Saim-Hann.

He glued scatter lasers onto his Vypers and Shuriken Catapults onto his Windriders.

Now he's been left looking at those units and their costs and been dissuaded from using them because they're not being priced according to what they're physically armed with, but what the ideal and optimal loadout is. He absolutely hates it.*




*not to mention he also wanted to start an Aeldari army because he liked the idea of running a psychic army as his first army was Sisters so it was a nice change of pace. That's also now been taken away.

 Bosskelot wrote:
I just find it astounding that this thread is still going on and people are arguing that 10th's approach is better.

Truly unhinged behaviour.

There seems to be 5 groups:

- love it, no problems, don't care for it changing from how it is now

- it's a passable concept they haven't fully implemented but serves a purpose, has potential

- not a fan, the vision and design is understood but they didn't implement it in a way that's good or complete enough to work

- hate it the idea behind it is silly and should not even be worked towards

- hate it as it is now and unable to see or understand how it was supposed to work, will only take it at face value as it exists noe

 Bosskelot wrote:
I just find it astounding that this thread is still going on and people are arguing that 10th's approach is better.

Truly unhinged behaviour.

Every 10-15 pages a new poster barges in, doesn't bother to read any previous posts and starts spouting pro-current-system arguments that have already been thoroughly answered earlier in the thread. It's like watching groundhog day.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
I just find it astounding that this thread is still going on and people are arguing that 10th's approach is better.

Truly unhinged behaviour.

We had one person here say they'd love to get insight into game design from Jervis. That should tell you everything right there.

Yes?

I mean, I'd enjoy speaking with game design people at pp, warlord, corvus beli etc as well.

Insight and other perspectives always have value.

But hey, you do you.

shortymcnostrill wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
I just find it astounding that this thread is still going on and people are arguing that 10th's approach is better.

Truly unhinged behaviour.

Every 10-15 pages a new poster barges in, doesn't bother to read any previous posts and starts spouting pro-current-system arguments that have already been thoroughly answered earlier in the thread. It's like watching groundhog day.

Then the circular arguments need to stop. If someone comes in with an opinion they like something and the evidence to the contrary is already presented, people need to not waste another 4 pages shouting down a new voice repeatedly with the same arguments.

Deadnight wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
I just find it astounding that this thread is still going on and people are arguing that 10th's approach is better.

Truly unhinged behaviour.

We had one person here say they'd love to get insight into game design from Jervis. That should tell you everything right there.

Yes?

I mean, I'd enjoy speaking with game design people at pp, warlord, corvus beli etc as well.

Insight and other perspectives always have value.

But hey, you do you.

Not all perspectives have value, hate to burst your bubble.

Dudeface wrote:
Then the circular arguments need to stop. If someone comes in with an opinion they like something and the evidence to the contrary is already presented, people need to not waste another 4 pages shouting down a new voice repeatedly with the same arguments.

Maybe you should follow your own demands and stop posting here since your own arguments are no more novel than the ones posted by anyone else, and your attempt at tone policing is far more obnoxious.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Then the circular arguments need to stop. If someone comes in with an opinion they like something and the evidence to the contrary is already presented, people need to not waste another 4 pages shouting down a new voice repeatedly with the same arguments.

Maybe you should follow your own demands and stop posting here since your own arguments are no more novel than the ones posted by anyone else, and your attempt at tone policing is far more obnoxious.

I'm happy to but when someone says "why does this keep happening" I provided an answer. You may continue to carry on your usual service.

 catbarf wrote:


Little Timmy goes and builds all his Sergeants with chainswords, because chainsaw swords are cool.

This was the same scenario that came up when I was chatting to my mates.

Timmy and Jimmy buy some Space Marines and glue them together.

Jimmy says "My sergeant has a big hammer he'll smash you to bits!".

Timmy says "Hah, you don't have a chance, mine has a freakin' CHAINSAW!"

Poor Timmy.

I return two editions later only to find the same people arguing with different bad faith actors.

Impressive.

For the same reason they cannot understand the concept of granularity is the same reason why you cannot have a faithful argument. This conversation had been tread too many times.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
I just find it astounding that this thread is still going on and people are arguing that 10th's approach is better.

Truly unhinged behaviour.

We had one person here say they'd love to get insight into game design from Jervis. That should tell you everything right there.

Yes?

I mean, I'd enjoy speaking with game design people at pp, warlord, corvus beli etc as well.

Insight and other perspectives always have value.

But hey, you do you.

Not all perspectives have value, hate to burst your bubble.

You're bursting nothing so dont worry.

I just Disagree. There is always value. Sometimes more, sometimes less. But never none. Jervis is a nice guy. He's been there for what? Thirty? Forty years? Bet he's got more than enough stories for a few rounds of beers. Id love to pick his brains, especially on the older/earlier eras of gw. I'd do the same with Soles or Seacat or any of the big names (or former names) at privateer press etc.

Understanding why someone/a group thinks a thing is just as important as what they think, in far more important things that table top wargames. If you want the big picture, This includes getting an understanding of their worldview, approach, what their aim/approach was, what top-down design constraints, and imposed limitations(time,staff #s, reaources etc), hell, even workplace politics - impeded them etc you wont get these by reading the stats in a codex. There's always something to learn. Maybe I just like people and find these things interesting.

In any case I'd rather hear what they have to say before dismissing them out of hand and claiming nothing they have to say has value - thats just incredibly small minded if you ask me.

I am happy to be exposed to different approaches and worldviews - even if its not something I'll ever keep/repeat, I've still grown and learned from the experience.

.

Regarding bringing new players into the game. In my opinion, where the disillusionment occurs is when it comes to "what to buy next".

Then you have to sit down and explain to people what GW means by "balancing". Sure you can play Guard, but even with a tournament army (which you might not want to play because you don't like the models or playstyle) you'll have a hard time against a random selection of Custodes, Eldar or Marines.

And even if you do get the models, there's no guarantee they'll survive the next balance update. We've already seen it with Guard artillery getting its first nerf, although the rest of the army could use a buff.

This is a much bigger roadblock to overcome than any kind of list building.

MongooseMatt wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

It invalidates future models too

Errrrr.... Don't think I follow...

Why would I ever build another Sister Superior with bolter and chainsword?

 Slinky wrote:

 catbarf wrote:


Little Timmy goes and builds all his Sergeants with chainswords, because chainsaw swords are cool.

This was the same scenario that came up when I was chatting to my mates.

Timmy and Jimmy buy some Space Marines and glue them together.

Jimmy says "My sergeant has a big hammer he'll smash you to bits!".

Timmy says "Hah, you don't have a chance, mine has a freakin' CHAINSAW!"

Poor Timmy.

The "Poor Timmy" sentiment is only applicable if Timmy and Jimmy are seeking a balanced game. If they are looking for cool narrative and pick what they think is cool and have fun, then I think it matters not.

Most people I know that play are not tournament players, and don't bring what is "meta" they specifically bring what models they think look the coolest, regardless of competitive viability. I would wager, there are far more people like this than there are people who try to eek out every ounce of value from their lists.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

 Slinky wrote:

 catbarf wrote:


Little Timmy goes and builds all his Sergeants with chainswords, because chainsaw swords are cool.

This was the same scenario that came up when I was chatting to my mates.

Timmy and Jimmy buy some Space Marines and glue them together.

Jimmy says "My sergeant has a big hammer he'll smash you to bits!".

Timmy says "Hah, you don't have a chance, mine has a freakin' CHAINSAW!"

Poor Timmy.

The "Poor Timmy" sentiment is only applicable if Timmy and Jimmy are seeking a balanced game. If they are looking for cool narrative and pick what they think is cool and have fun, then I think it matters not.

Most people I know that play are not tournament players, and don't bring what is "meta" they specifically bring what models they think look the coolest, regardless of competitive viability. I would wager, there are far more people like this than there are people who try to eek out every ounce of value from their lists.

If you're not bothered about balance then the nature of the points system is irrelevant to you. At which point you might as well go with the superior system over the one that's strictly worse.

Even if they're not necessarily seeking a balanced game, good balance and effective methods to achieve that balance benefit everyone.

Slipspace wrote:

If you're not bothered about balance then the nature of the points system is irrelevant to you. At which point you might as well go with the superior system over the one that's strictly worse.

Even if they're not necessarily seeking a balanced game, good balance and effective methods to achieve that balance benefit everyone.

"Superior" is subjective to the goals of the hobbyist. My play group enjoys that list building is fast and not a chore anymore, to us, it is a point towards superiority over the granular point system before. People who value as close to semblance of balance and believe that the granular points structure provides that more effectively than the block point structure we currently have would likely feel that the previous structure was superior. It all depends on what your play group is trying to get out of the hobby. I do not believe anyone can blanket one system superior over the other since everyone's goals/objectives with the hobby are different.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

The "Poor Timmy" sentiment is only applicable if Timmy and Jimmy are seeking a balanced game. If they are looking for cool narrative and pick what they think is cool and have fun, then I think it matters not.

Most people I know that play are not tournament players, and don't bring what is "meta" they specifically bring what models they think look the coolest, regardless of competitive viability. I would wager, there are far more people like this than there are people who try to eek out every ounce of value from their lists.

It's still a game though. People still play games to win them. You expect the game to be fair and not broken. You want something a bit deeper than Candyland and a bit more mature than lining up your models on the carpet and make pew-pew noises.

I have a group that plays a lot of Magic Commander. Which is utterly broken at competitive levels, so we consciously play with lower power cards(also we aren't spending $8K on our decks). That doesn't mean that when the decks are on the table we aren't trying our best to use all the tools available to win the game.


I just find it a little hard to take seriously people that say they don't care about winning. Like, c'mon. You do a little. Otherwise why play a game at all?

That's entirely separate from only caring about winning. A healthy outlook on competitiveness and winning is not a "plays in tournaments" versus "not plays in tournaments" thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
[
"Superior" is subjective to the goals of the hobbyist. My play group enjoys that list building is fast and not a chore anymore, to us, it is a point towards superiority over the granular point system before. People who value as close to semblance of balance and believe that the granular points structure provides that more effectively than the block point structure we currently have would likely feel that the previous structure was superior. It all depends on what your play group is trying to get out of the hobby. I do not believe anyone can blanket one system superior over the other since everyone's goals/objectives with the hobby are different.

Playgroups could have always house ruled to meet their particular temperaments. It's nice that this change meets your groups needs, but it kind of shafts anyone with less formal groups or do want to play in tournaments. You need 'word of god' level agreed upon rules for those types of play to function., Your nice to have comes at the cost of a baseline requirement for other players.