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.

Timmy builds all 3 of his LR without sponsons for the look.

Jimmy builds all 3 of his LR with sponsons.

They have similar armies, but Timmy got the worse weapons. If both are of equal skill level, Timmy will lose more than he wins and his units will perfom worse for the same cost. I'm sure he will have fun getting dunked on regularely while the system does nothing to compensate him for picking the "wrong" loadouts.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Timmy builds all 3 of his LR without sponsons for the look.

Jimmy builds all 3 of his LR with sponsons.

They have similar armies, but Timmy got the worse weapons. If both are of equal skill level, Timmy will lose more than he wins and his units will perfom worse for the same cost. I'm sure he will have fun getting dunked on regularely while the system does nothing to compensate him for picking the "wrong" loadouts.

If it did something to compensate that wasn't points, would be a reasonable outcome for you? If there was fair compensation rules wise instead?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

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?

So that when GW 180 and put wagear costs on and leave power weapons and combi whatevers (sorry don't know sisters) with crap points values you've accidentally gotten the most efficient build whilst we get the sister thread to this full of people complaining they made points granular after they went and shoved the most expensive optional upgrades on everything they own.

Dudeface wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Timmy builds all 3 of his LR without sponsons for the look.

Jimmy builds all 3 of his LR with sponsons.

They have similar armies, but Timmy got the worse weapons. If both are of equal skill level, Timmy will lose more than he wins and his units will perfom worse for the same cost. I'm sure he will have fun getting dunked on regularely while the system does nothing to compensate him for picking the "wrong" loadouts.

If it did something to compensate that wasn't points, would be a reasonable outcome for you? If there was fair compensation rules wise instead?

Subject to implementation, yes.

Dudeface wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Timmy builds all 3 of his LR without sponsons for the look.

Jimmy builds all 3 of his LR with sponsons.

They have similar armies, but Timmy got the worse weapons. If both are of equal skill level, Timmy will lose more than he wins and his units will perfom worse for the same cost. I'm sure he will have fun getting dunked on regularely while the system does nothing to compensate him for picking the "wrong" loadouts.

If it did something to compensate that wasn't points, would be a reasonable outcome for you? If there was fair compensation rules wise instead?

This is harder to get right with rules that with points. If you make the bonus to not running sponsions too good, then taking sponsons then becomes the 'wrong' choice.

It's easier to fix these kind of problems by adjusting points than it is to adjust rules. Rules changes can introduce unintended consequences that a point change is less likely too. If your game has historically a lot of balance problems, you want to stick with points cause you're going to have to make lots of small adjustments. If you are a design shop that generally get's it right the first time, you can get away with less points granularity and just fix the rules on an ad-hoc basis.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Timmy builds all 3 of his LR without sponsons for the look.

Jimmy builds all 3 of his LR with sponsons.

They have similar armies, but Timmy got the worse weapons. If both are of equal skill level, Timmy will lose more than he wins and his units will perfom worse for the same cost. I'm sure he will have fun getting dunked on regularely while the system does nothing to compensate him for picking the "wrong" loadouts.

If it did something to compensate that wasn't points, would be a reasonable outcome for you? If there was fair compensation rules wise instead?

This is harder to get right with rules that with points. If you make the bonus to not running sponsions too good, then taking sponsons then becomes the 'wrong' choice.

It's easier to fix these kind of problems by adjusting points than it is to adjust rules. Rules changes can introduce unintended consequences that a point change is less likely too. If your game has historically a lot of balance problems, you want to stick with points cause you're going to have to make lots of small adjustments. If you are a design shop that generally get's it right the first time, you can get away with less points granularity and just fix the rules on an ad-hoc basis.

I mean that also works on the premise that there isn't going to be a "right" choice with points as there almost certainly will be. The better question would be how far right or wrong would they get, but the additional risks are correct, more rules options are harder to balance.

Dudeface wrote:

I mean that also works on the premise that there isn't going to be a "right" choice with points as there almost certainly will be. The better question would be how far right or wrong would they get, but the additional risks are correct, more rules options are harder to balance.

There's also another external 'cost' to consider. That's how the change is presented to the players. Points are already communicated in a living document. The changes are expected. Rules changes requires errata for printed and shipped product.

I don't think GW plans to change the actual unit data slate rules that much. Not when they just shipped all those printed index cards. We'll see when the Marine Codex comes out, but I expect we don't see many changes to wats on the cards.

They basically created a situation where they have to eat crow at some point. Heavy changes to the printed product or start adding back individual upgrade costs.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

I mean that also works on the premise that there isn't going to be a "right" choice with points as there almost certainly will be. The better question would be how far right or wrong would they get, but the additional risks are correct, more rules options are harder to balance.

There's also another external 'cost' to consider. That's how the change is presented to the players. Points are already communicated in a living document. The changes are expected. Rules changes requires errata for printed and shipped product.

I don't think GW plans to change the actual unit data slate rules that much. Not when they just shipped all those printed index cards. We'll see when the Marine Codex comes out, but I expect we don't see many changes to wats on the cards.

They basically created a situation where they have to eat crow at some point. Heavy changes to the printed product or start adding back individual upgrade costs.

I imagine it'll be the latter, but I suspect as I mentioned, it'll come with a fresh wave of malcontent.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

It's still a game though. People still play games to win them.

I mean, people also go overboard trying to win.competitive-at-all-costs and win-at-all-costs are things that aren't exactly net positives.

 CaulynDarr wrote:


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.

In this example, isn't 'not taking the best cards' for magic kinda synonymous with 'not taking the best loadout' in the chainsword v thunder hammer question? If the tools are available but you choose not to use them, there's not much difference?

 CaulynDarr wrote:

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?

I think its fair to say its often synonymous with 'winning isn't a priority' or even its well down the list. Usually we play our games as an excuse to get together at the end of the week, roll some dice and wind down for the weekend.

And by the way, not taking optimum gear and not taking bleeding-edge lists does not mean folks don't care about winning. Ive often found the most fun games are the low power, less-than-optimised ones.

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.

You don't need to be a cutthroat competitive tournament player to be disappointed when your lovingly assembled and painted dudes get walloped. Not many players are invested in the narrative of their guys getting trounced over and over again. The cooler Timmy thinks his chainsword sergeants are, the more it's going to sting when they get turned to paste.

And when the solution is 'break apart your models and build them correctly this time, dumbass', that's when I find new players tend to bail out.

I've seen this more than once, in 40K and other systems. Balance is not just a competitive thing.

 catbarf wrote:

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.

You don't need to be a cutthroat competitive tournament player to be disappointed when your lovingly assembled and painted dudes get walloped. Not many players are invested in the narrative of their guys getting trounced over and over again. The cooler Timmy thinks his chainsword sergeants are, the more it's going to sting when they get turned to paste.

And when the solution is 'break apart your models and build them correctly this time, dumbass', that's when I find new players tend to bail out.

I've seen this more than once, in 40K and other systems. Balance is not just a competitive thing.

Quoting myself from the "how's 10th going for you" thread:

Agreed, this is such a weird argument that keeps popping up. I'd imagine a tournament player would just take whatever is powerful. They'd easily spot weak units and simply wouldn't take them. A casual player will buy models they like the look or fluff of, only to find out on the tabletop that that unit has garbage rules. That's a feelsbad moment, and something I've experienced more than once. In fact, those experiences led me to start mathhammering in an attempt to gauge a unit's true effectiveness, since gw's points turned out to be less than reliable.

As a casual player trap choices are the worst.

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.

bruh, nobody is gonna read 74 fething pages lol

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
"Superior" is subjective to the goals of the hobbyist.

We're not talking about the goals of the hobbyist though. We're talking about points vs power level.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

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.

bruh, nobody is gonna read 74 fething pages lol

Bruh that's fine bruh but don't come in here with a stupid fething argument then lol lmao

Deadnight wrote:

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.

.

Jervis thought that, because his 10 YO son couldn't do math, we couldn't and therefore did the 4th edition Dark Angels travesty. That's not someone worth gaining insight from.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

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.

bruh, nobody is gonna read 74 fething pages lol

If you refuse to read what others have said before don't expect anyone to bother to read what you say. it's completely normal not wanting to read so many pages but then you shouldn't assume that you have something to say that hasn't been said already before. Forum threads have an ephemeral character but that doesn't mean that they are exactly the same that an oral conversation.

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.

I keep seeing the defenders of power level saying that making a list is faster now, as the example above shows, so let’s break the process step by step as it was from 2nd edition to 9th edition.

1) You choose the unit you want to add to your list. You need to read the datasheets from your army to know what each unit does and what options does it have. You make a rough list of units you want in your list or add them one by one and revise later.
2) You read the options that it has. Then you choose between them. You note the options chosen and their costs.
3) You add the basic cost of the unit and the cost of each option.
4) You repeat the 3 steps above for each unit that you want in your list and add the total costs. Then as you have overshoot or fall short of the points limit you make some small changes in upgrades or replace an unit with another. You keep iterating until you get a list you are happy with.


Then in 10th edition the changes in this process are that the upgrades are all free so the 2nd step becomes

2) You read the options that it has. Then you choose between them.

You still need to consider what every option does and what do you want, the only difference is that the cost of each one is 0. I don’t think there is a meaningful difference in the time that it takes to decide between picking a flamer, a melta gun or a plasma gun if they each cost 0, 3 and 5 points and the time it takes to pick one if each one costs 0 points. There is of course a case where it takes less time, when one is so clearly superior that picking the others is gimping yourself. This is the case with all the upgrades that lack an opportunity cost as has been said before so many time, this system homogenizes units and in a game where the visual spectacle is an important part I would guess that variety is a virtue.


But this isn’t the only change as many have pointed before. In 10th edition the 4th step becomes

4) You repeat the 3 steps above for each unit that you want in your list and add the total costs. Then as you have overshoot or fall short of the points limit you start replacing units until you get a list you are happy with or play with a small or great handicap.

This takes more time that fiddling a bit with updates to get close to the time limit.

Now, if what you are making is picking the miniatures you want to play and make a list with them the only difference is that you need to add a small number for each costed upgrade that you take to an addition that already has an element for each unit you have. The difference is negligible if you are using an app or a spreadsheet, and if you find these kind of additions where some elements are changed in each iteration tedious, and they are for many me included, you should use one of these programs.

If you care about the efficiency of your list you are making a mathhammer analysis anyway, so then, how the hell such small changes turn the process from a chore into something fast? Simplifying is fine when the changes produced in the game are small enough to make the reduction in time worthwhile, but here we have a minute change in the time it takes to make a list in exchange for strong deleterious effects in the game. I can only see an advantage of the current system, it’s faster for whomever writes the datasheets. Now, I don’t think that makes it rational for GW to behave this way because the quality of the game influence sales, but that isn’t worth much if competence isn’t rewarded in the company.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

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.

.

Jervis thought that, because his 10 YO son couldn't do math, we couldn't and therefore did the 4th edition Dark Angels travesty. That's not someone worth gaining insight from.

An example of inferior reasoning can still be useful, ironically enough.

Dudeface wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

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?

So that when GW 180 and put wagear costs on and leave power weapons and combi whatevers (sorry don't know sisters) with crap points values you've accidentally gotten the most efficient build whilst we get the sister thread to this full of people complaining they made points granular after they went and shoved the most expensive optional upgrades on everything they own.

I mean it took GW two decades to finally figure out a Plasma Pistol wasn't worth 15 points for any army and turned them into a reasonable 5 points for a short period of time. It's hard to imagine they'd do that again, but then again the GW "rules designers" aren't terribly smart so they don't require you to defend them.

Many have said that this system can work if each option that an unit has is a sidegrade and weapons that are clearly better turn the unit into a new unit with its own datasheet, but , isn’t this just the old points system presented in an obtuse way?

Let’s take the land speeder as it was in the 3rd edition codex. The plastic model had just came out in the 3rd edition starter box and the only weapon it has is either a heavy bolter or a multi melta for the gunner. Then you could add a heavy flamer, assault cannon or the typhoon missile launcher with metal bits. Since they updated the land speeder everything is in the same kit, GW loves to present different datasheets as different kits in the webstore but the tornado, typhoon and the basic land speeder are the same kit.

In the codex you have

Land Speeder Squadron (1-3 landspeeders) can only be armed with the gunner weapons.

Land Speeder Tornado, you can add 1 assault cannon or 1 heavy flamer.

Land Speeder Typhoon, it has a Typhoon missile launcher and the gunner weapons.

The squadron is a bit different in that you can take 3 barebones speeders in a single slot in the same way that in the current index each landspeeder is different due to their wargear and their bespoke abilities, but I dont’ think that each speeder having a different bespoke rule is a virtue at all.

The tornado and the Typhoon are basically the same that saying, you can add either an heavy flamer, assault cannon or Typhoon missile launcher to a land speeder but then each one occupies a fast attack slot. In the 4th edition codex they combined the 3 types in a single entry and you can field a 1-3 squadron of Land speeders where each one can be of any of the 3 types. This is for my taste better writing where you don’t need to compare the stats of each datasheet to know that they are identical and you don’t need to flip from one page to another unnecessarily.

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've really never read something & thought "What the Hell were they thinking?? Why did they do it that way?"

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

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?

So that when GW 180 and put wagear costs on and leave power weapons and combi whatevers (sorry don't know sisters) with crap points values you've accidentally gotten the most efficient build whilst we get the sister thread to this full of people complaining they made points granular after they went and shoved the most expensive optional upgrades on everything they own.

I mean it took GW two decades to finally figure out a Plasma Pistol wasn't worth 15 points for any army and turned them into a reasonable 5 points for a short period of time. It's hard to imagine they'd do that again, but then again the GW "rules designers" aren't terribly smart so they don't require you to defend them.

Well given I defended sweet nothing in my post, I'm sure they're quivering in their pj's right now. Maybe they'll check in with Jervis in the morning for a communal cry.

Matthew Flamen wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
bruh, nobody is gonna read 74 fething pages lol

If you refuse to read what others have said before don't expect anyone to bother to read what you say. it's completely normal not wanting to read so many pages but then you shouldn't assume that you have something to say that hasn't been said already before. Forum threads have an ephemeral character but that doesn't mean that they are exactly the same that an oral conversation.

Sorry, so no-one else should contribute now in this thread unless they've read *74 whole pages* just in case someone weeks back made a comment that related to what they were going to say? What do they do if they want to reply to that comment? Dredge it up from page 12? Page 1?

Sorry, but Vladimir's got the point here. We'll keep seeing the same perspectives cropping up until people can learn to accept them, or change their minds. As the second is doubtful, why not live and let live, and accept that people want different things - and maybe stop bandying around phrases like "objective" or "empirical" when they refer to matters of opinion.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Matthew Flamen wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
bruh, nobody is gonna read 74 fething pages lol

If you refuse to read what others have said before don't expect anyone to bother to read what you say. it's completely normal not wanting to read so many pages but then you shouldn't assume that you have something to say that hasn't been said already before. Forum threads have an ephemeral character but that doesn't mean that they are exactly the same that an oral conversation.

Sorry, so no-one else should contribute now in this thread unless they've read *74 whole pages* just in case someone weeks back made a comment that related to what they were going to say? What do they do if they want to reply to that comment? Dredge it up from page 12? Page 1?

Sorry, but Vladimir's got the point here. We'll keep seeing the same perspectives cropping up until people can learn to accept them, or change their minds. As the second is doubtful, why not live and let live, and accept that people want different things - and maybe stop bandying around phrases like "objective" or "empirical" when they refer to matters of opinion.

Glad you've joined us here Smudge, that means this lovely thread will go on for another 74 pages

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Matthew Flamen wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
bruh, nobody is gonna read 74 fething pages lol

If you refuse to read what others have said before don't expect anyone to bother to read what you say. it's completely normal not wanting to read so many pages but then you shouldn't assume that you have something to say that hasn't been said already before. Forum threads have an ephemeral character but that doesn't mean that they are exactly the same that an oral conversation.

Sorry, so no-one else should contribute now in this thread unless they've read *74 whole pages* just in case someone weeks back made a comment that related to what they were going to say? What do they do if they want to reply to that comment? Dredge it up from page 12? Page 1?

Sorry, but Vladimir's got the point here. We'll keep seeing the same perspectives cropping up until people can learn to accept them, or change their minds. As the second is doubtful, why not live and let live, and accept that people want different things - and maybe stop bandying around phrases like "objective" or "empirical" when they refer to matters of opinion.

Glad you've joined us here Smudge, that means this lovely thread will go on for another 74 pages

You wish have you been waiting for little old me?

 CaulynDarr wrote:


There's also another external 'cost' to consider. That's how the change is presented to the players. Points are already communicated in a living document. The changes are expected. Rules changes requires errata for printed and shipped product.

I don't think GW plans to change the actual unit data slate rules that much. Not when they just shipped all those printed index cards. We'll see when the Marine Codex comes out, but I expect we don't see many changes to wats on the cards.

They basically created a situation where they have to eat crow at some point. Heavy changes to the printed product or start adding back individual upgrade costs.

This means some armies are in for a year or more of fun, because aside for making stuff cost 50% less, which GW will not do, problems with some armies aren't fixable with points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sorry, so no-one else should contribute now in this thread unless they've read *74 whole pages* just in case someone weeks back made a comment that related to what they were going to say? What do they do if they want to reply to that comment? Dredge it up from page 12? Page 1?

Sorry, but Vladimir's got the point here. We'll keep seeing the same perspectives cropping up until people can learn to accept them, or change their minds. As the second is doubtful, why not live and let live, and accept that people want different things - and maybe stop bandying around phrases like "objective" or "empirical" when they refer to matters of opinion.

Because those that have it good will keep having it good and their way, and those that are not having fun, are suppose to live in some sort of bizzaro world, where they should ignore their armies not working and keep silent. Below 30% win rates armies are objectivly bad, armies lacking or being unable to deal with core edition mechanics or ways to play are empiricaly true. Those are not opinions, they are facts. GW, again, made a game set of rules, where the difference between the haves and have nots is gigantic. It is not like the armies that are good are just a "bit" better, in opinions of some players.Stuff like gear, simplification but only for some armies, just add to all of this. And even then we are only looking at this from day one started with a new army point of view. People have their lemman russess modeled in a way, because GW wrote rules in a specific way. Now they get punished for following GW rules. While people with armies that play armies without upgrades not only don't get punished, but actualy get rewarded.

You shouldn't care about the win rate of an army being 30%, that makes you WAAC scum!
/s

Dudeface wrote:
If it did something to compensate that wasn't points, would be a reasonable outcome for you? If there was fair compensation rules wise instead?

In theory yes, it would be fine. But remember:

PL requires the strict design constraint that all options must have equal power even when it goes directly against the lore. A laspistol must somehow be balanced against a plasma pistol despite the lore saying very clearly that the only advantage the laspistol has is that it's cheap.

The traditional point system has no such constraint. A plasma pistol can be accurate to the lore and cost +X points to upgrade to.

PL is an objectively worse system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Everyone seeks a balanced game because losing in the list building or select your faction phase isn't fun. Timmy isn't stupid, he's going to see very clearly that Jimmy's sergeants are doing way more on the table than his own sergeants and didn't pay more for the privilege, he just built all of his models wrong. That gets frustrating very quickly and leads to people quitting.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
You shouldn't care about the win rate of an army being 30%, that makes you WAAC scum!
/s

Well the current 30% win rate is the same army you declared should be boycotted for 2 years until GW "learned their lesson for releasing OP armies".

I will never understand what kind of mind hoops one has to go through 10 editions to somehow arrive at the point where good rules is somehow in opposition to fun and "the narrative". What are those tournament players doing, to be non lore accurate? Are the imperial knights using eldar stratagems, maybe GSC "borrowing" some LoS launchers from marines? What is not narrative in an army of just custodes or just knights? Bar few outliers, which somehow always include eldar each edition for some reason, the way to fix problems of a lot of people in 10th, is not to make custodes or knights unplayable. GW should have done the same work they did for them, or eldar or GSC, for other armies too. Or at least they should show us how they think the factions should be played, but not with studio armies running some sort of wierd highlander list, but how you really think the armies should function. Instead we get rule set full of not just typos, but rules that seem to be writen by 2 or 3 different teams or people. There is no way, and if there is one I would like to know it, the same person or team wrote the eldar or GSC rules and then wrote the DG ones. Or if all else fails, and the studio has it likes and dislikes, then put it in the open. Say army X is just for painter, army Y is going to be bad for the next 1-2 editions, because we plan to update it and till we do that we don't want to waste time and stuff most people won't buy/play with. GW doesn't have to remove the trap units or armies, but just mark it as so. Don't make it so someone has to waste 700-800$ to find out how it is.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Matthew Flamen wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
bruh, nobody is gonna read 74 fething pages lol

If you refuse to read what others have said before don't expect anyone to bother to read what you say. it's completely normal not wanting to read so many pages but then you shouldn't assume that you have something to say that hasn't been said already before. Forum threads have an ephemeral character but that doesn't mean that they are exactly the same that an oral conversation.

Sorry, so no-one else should contribute now in this thread unless they've read *74 whole pages* just in case someone weeks back made a comment that related to what they were going to say? What do they do if they want to reply to that comment? Dredge it up from page 12? Page 1?

Sorry, but Vladimir's got the point here. We'll keep seeing the same perspectives cropping up until people can learn to accept them, or change their minds. As the second is doubtful, why not live and let live, and accept that people want different things - and maybe stop bandying around phrases like "objective" or "empirical" when they refer to matters of opinion.

Well, you can certainly intervene when you are answering an aside that has probably been forgotten in the ebbs and flows of the thread, although recognizing that you haven't read everything is still the polite thing to do, but this 74 number that agitates you so much cuts both ways, the longer the thread has gone on the higher the chance that whatever you are going to say has been said already, and let's not be dishonest it won't be "someone weeks back made a comment related to what they were going to say" it will have been exactly the same comment for practical effects. And when it's something related to the core of the thread is quite arrogant and rude to assume that nobody has made your, oh so witty, argument. And if you want to reply to a comment it's certainly the polite thing to check that your answer hasn't been made already, really I stand for what I said, if what others say it's worthless for you they should see you in the same way. Look, the rest of the thread is right there and it's easy to check it, this isn't discord where you can technically see what was said before but they don't make it easy for you.

And for your non sequitur, whether new people join the thread without reading it or not isn't the main factor in how long this keeps going on, it's more a matter of how long the patience of the participants last, or the entertainment they derive from it keeps making it worth it.

And it sounds so good leaving words like objective or empirical out of matters of opinion, it's just that a lot of the things that have been argued in the thread are quite objective as Karol already said. Whether you are punished for having a miniature that doesn't have the best option is objective, whether the process of making an army list is much faster or is more or less the same is objective and whether addition is akin to undergraduate mathematics as many seem to think is also an objective fact.

Karol wrote:
Or if all else fails, and the studio has it likes and dislikes, then put it in the open. Say army X is just for painter, army Y is going to be bad for the next 1-2 editions, because we plan to update it and till we do that we don't want to waste time and stuff most people won't buy/play with. GW doesn't have to remove the trap units or armies, but just mark it as so. Don't make it so someone has to waste 700-800$ to find out how it is.

That hits the nail in the head, GW tendency to write dreadful rules would be much more easy to forgive if they weren't always giving a description of their games that have little relationship with reality, both in how the rules actually work and how expensive a full army really is.

Really, one of the best things of threads like this is that it lets you take full advantage of the superb dakka ignore list. When someone is arguing in bad faith about something that is actually a matter of opinion you may have suspicions but only that, but when they defend truly barmy ideas you can see clearly that adding them to your ignore list is the best thing to do.

I'm not being sarcastic when I praise dakka ignore list, other pages have an approach too binary to their ignore list where they only have an all blocked or nothing blocked, but here when you need to see what others say, like when you have advanced an argument that the next answers may have refuted conclusively, you can chose easily what to see and what not to see. That's very nice.

Matthew Flamen wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Matthew Flamen wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
bruh, nobody is gonna read 74 fething pages lol

If you refuse to read what others have said before don't expect anyone to bother to read what you say. it's completely normal not wanting to read so many pages but then you shouldn't assume that you have something to say that hasn't been said already before. Forum threads have an ephemeral character but that doesn't mean that they are exactly the same that an oral conversation.

Sorry, so no-one else should contribute now in this thread unless they've read *74 whole pages* just in case someone weeks back made a comment that related to what they were going to say? What do they do if they want to reply to that comment? Dredge it up from page 12? Page 1?

Sorry, but Vladimir's got the point here. We'll keep seeing the same perspectives cropping up until people can learn to accept them, or change their minds. As the second is doubtful, why not live and let live, and accept that people want different things - and maybe stop bandying around phrases like "objective" or "empirical" when they refer to matters of opinion.

Well, you can certainly intervene when you are answering an aside that has probably been forgotten in the ebbs and flows of the thread, although recognizing that you haven't read everything is still the polite thing to do, but this 74 number that agitates you so much cuts both ways, the longer the thread has gone on the higher the chance that whatever you are going to say has been said already, and let's not be dishonest it won't be "someone weeks back made a comment related to what they were going to say" it will have been exactly the same comment for practical effects. And when it's something related to the core of the thread is quite arrogant and rude to assume that nobody has made your, oh so witty, argument. And if you want to reply to a comment it's certainly the polite thing to check that your answer hasn't been made already, really I stand for what I said, if what others say it's worthless for you they should see you in the same way. Look, the rest of the thread is right there and it's easy to check it, this isn't discord where you can technically see what was said before but they don't make it easy for you.

Politely, yeah, nah.

74 pages is 74 pages. It's not the responsibility of a new poster to search through ALL pages (hell, discord *would* be easier to search through than this), if their point can be so easily rebutted then the person who wants to rebut it could also find a post which rebukes that comment all over again. They could even link to it, if they wanted to be pithy about it.

I stand by what I said. Asking that someone check EVERY comment in any thread before posting, at risk of repeating someone else, would be a sword that swung both ways against all sides in this conversation, and only serves to limit the voices of those taking part to those most entrenched on the matter. I rather think that goes against what a forum should be about.

And for your non sequitur, whether new people join the thread without reading it or not isn't the main factor in how long this keeps going on, it's more a matter of how long the patience of the participants last, or the entertainment they derive from it keeps making it worth it.

Oh, absolutely. It's why I'm not going to be commenting further on this, because it's not a debate, not with some of the arguments being thrown out from varying perspectives. Frankly, the calibre of discussion isn't worth engaging with.

And it sounds so good leaving words like objective or empirical out of matters of opinion, it's just that a lot of the things that have been argued in the thread are quite objective as Karol already said.

An army being in a good or bad place is objective (or rather, its win rate). Which solution fixes that is not an objective matter.