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.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
and maybe stop bandying around phrases like "objective" or "empirical" when they refer to matters of opinion.

They are not matters of opinion.

The LRBT sponson issue is objective fact (which is why I use it, unlike cases like flamer vs. plasma gun where the answer is clear to almost everyone but can be dismissed as opinion).

That the LRBT sponson issue is a systemic error that is a direct result of PL's deliberate design decisions is objective fact.

That the systemic error does not exist in the traditional point system is objective fact.

PL is an objectively worse point system than the traditional point system and that's why every defense of it comes down to "but I like it and that should be enough".

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
They are not matters of opinion.

Given who just joined the thread, I have a feeling that this'll be closed within 6 pages as the insults and accusations start to fly. You have been warned.

I'm waking away...

I wasn't expecting my point about a new poster barging in without reading anything to be proven right away lol. Fwiw I get not wanting to read 75 pages before commenting. It's just that I had this realisation when the thread was still in the 30-40 page range, and that many pages of this "I didn't read your reasoning for disliking the current way but I don't like your conclusion so I'm going to try to dismiss it as an opinion" stuff is just saddening.

and yes 30+ pages is also too much homework, but it's how we ended up with a 75+ page thread of repeated arguments.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
They are not matters of opinion.

Given who just joined the thread, I have a feeling that this'll be closed within 6 pages as the insults and accusations start to fly. You have been warned.

I'm waking away...

Get. Ready. For. Each. And. Every. Sentence. You. Write. To. Be. Picked. Apart. And. Taken. Out. Of. Context. In. Their. Own. Individual. Quote. Block.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
They are not matters of opinion.

Given who just joined the thread, I have a feeling that this'll be closed within 6 pages as the insults and accusations start to fly. You have been warned.

Oh, like this, you mean?

Grimtuff wrote:Get. Ready. For. Each. And. Every. Sentence. You. Write. To. Be. Picked. Apart. And. Taken. Out. Of. Context. In. Their. Own. Individual. Quote. Block.

Not exactly very on-topic, is it? Or really productive to anything except being insulting.

Honestly, sounds like a skill issue on your end about not being able to actually defend your arguments under proper scrutiny. But, thankfully for all of you, as I mentioned:

I'm waking away...

as well.

I mean, honestly, for saying I've only made four posts in this thread, stating that I'm not getting involved, the amount of you who couldn't read that - maybe all this talk about reading 74 pages is too much for y'all if you can't read four posts! As I mentioned, I remain unimpressed by the quality of the discussion here (as evidenced literally by the ad hom positions that you've both taken at my *mere appearance*), and I've got better things to do.

TTFN.

PenitentJake wrote:

For the record, the most egregious thread (and the one I was thinking of when I wrote the post you quoted), was a straight up Points vs. PL thread that happened I think somewhere around December of 2021. CadianSgtBob, Blndmage and Smudge got locked into a super battle- people ended up ripping on people with disabilities, Cadian SGT came back as three different alts to try and boost up the pro-Bob post count, and we caught him all three times... It was just a dumpster fire of a thread- it might have even been locked by the end of it.

...

And of course, a bunch of folks (though primarily ThePaintingOwl) tried to undermine my point; he wasn't rude or offensive about it at all, but his attempt at invalidation was off the mark, because this is MY story, MY perspective... And I'm not trying to force it on anyone. Like I keep saying, I advocate for the continued existence of BOTH conventional, granular points AND PL... And if GW HAD to pick one or the other, granular points would have been the healthier choice for the game despite my personal preference for PL.

If you hadn't noticed yet, ThePaintingOwl is CadianSgtbob.

 Altruizine wrote:

If you hadn't noticed yet, ThePaintingOwl is CadianSgtbob.

I thought so too, but he's gotten a little bit better at varying his tone when he changes his name than he was in the dumpster fire thread I'm referring to, so I didn't bother calling him out. I mentioned him in the posted you quoted specifically because I was suspicious.

I'm still lurking this thread... I'm not sure why. Is my life really that boring?

Ahhh, feth it, maybe I'll respond to one of the posts I saw yesterday....

 Matthew Flamen wrote:

Spoiler:

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.

I respond because I feel like there might be the potential for sensible conversation around this point.

In MY experience (and yours might well be different), that isn't actually how list building with conventional points feels for me. It feels like this:

I pick a unit I want to use and its load out at the same time... But every time I do, I second guess every choice I make, because its load out is going to effect what I can take with the next, and that second guessing (not optimization, not efficiency, not fluff- just the impact that the choice has on what else I'll be able to afford) is what slows ME down.


And when I get to the end of the list and I find out it doesn't fit, now I have to go back and modify at least one of the units that I thought I had finalized... And I have to figure out which one I can modify with the least damage to my original idea. This sucks for ME because my choices tend to based on the narrative I want to explore via the game, not efficiency, so having to respec the second unit I chose in order to be able to fit the last unit in with all the gear it needs messes with my story.

With PL, I pick all the units I want without even thinking about their equipment. Once they're picked, I the list is built, because none of the decisions I make from here on in have any effect on any other unit.

I'm now free to personalize each unit as the story demands, without worrying that it might make me have to rethink the loadout of any of the other choices I've made. The example I gave back on page 45 was deciding to reflect a fire-team's affiliation with the Ordo Hereticus by giving my Superior a Condemnor boltgun. I was 100% free to make that choice without having to modify any other unit's load out to do it.

I cited this as an Objective benefit to a PL type system, and one that matters more to ME than the obvious advantages for balance that a costed equipment system would provide. Story freedom is worth the difference in granularity for ME. For the majority of other players, despite being an objective advantage to a PL system, story freedom ISN'T worth the difference in granularity that a costed equipment system provides, which is why the two system solution is objectively the best choice for the game.

It's also why, if GW ISN'T willing to give us a two system solution, I think they should have stuck with costed equipment, despite my personal preference.

Now my theory, Matt, is that while I am responding to YOU, and while I am agreeing with everyone who likes costed equipment better than PL by saying "In a one system solution, points feels like a better choice for balance than PL," a bunch of people won't be satisfied with me agreeing with them because I also believe that there is an objective advantage in PL type system.

They hate so very much anyone saying a single good thing about PL that even though I am agreeing points are better for balance, they will still want to fight with me. I have compromised with and acknowledged their point of view, that Points is more effective at balance. It won't be enough to make them happy. It never is.

PenitentJake wrote:
It's also why, if GW ISN'T willing to give us a two system solution, I think they should have stuck with costed equipment, despite my personal preference.

Now my theory, Matt, is that while I am responding to YOU, and while I am agreeing with everyone who likes costed equipment better than PL by saying "In a one system solution, points feels like a better choice for balance than PL," a bunch of people won't be satisfied with me agreeing with them because I also believe that there is an objective advantage in PL type system.

They hate so very much anyone saying a single good thing about PL that even though I am agreeing points are better for balance, they will still want to fight with me. I have compromised with and acknowledged their point of view, that Points is more effective at balance. It won't be enough to make them happy. It never is.

PenitentJake shares my opinion on this. There should be two systems in place, but *if* only one system can exist, then it should be points.

However, there doesn't need to be one system.

Having the option there for players that can use it should be the way.

Since they haven’t really done it right with this edition, this really needed a full overhaul that management probably didn’t want.

Bare minimum design, not the best output.

It’s not even upcoming across gaming to do what they try, GW just sucks!
And they know people will pay anyway.

Apple fox wrote:
Having the option there for players that can use it should be the way.

Since they haven’t really done it right with this edition, this really needed a full overhaul that management probably didn’t want.

Bare minimum design, not the best output.

It’s not even upcoming across gaming to do what they try, GW just sucks!
And they know people will pay anyway.

until they don't anymore... like what happened during 6-7th

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

However, there doesn't need to be one system.

Yes there does because, when GW can hardly do points right, any time taking away from that is bad. As well, the PL system is just bad regardless of your virtue signaling of "look how casual I am!"

You can be filthy casual with points, so let's not pretend PL offers anything.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

However, there doesn't need to be one system.

Yes there does because, when GW can hardly do points right, any time taking away from that is bad. As well, the PL system is just bad regardless of your virtue signaling of "look how casual I am!"

You can be filthy casual with points, so let's not pretend PL offers anything.

Hey now, don't discount your (and others) bitter tears, angst, & rage over its existence. Because it's definitely amusing how upset this makes some of you.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

However, there doesn't need to be one system.

Yes there does because, when GW can hardly do points right, any time taking away from that is bad. As well, the PL system is just bad regardless of your virtue signaling of "look how casual I am!"

You can be filthy casual with points, so let's not pretend PL offers anything.

Anyone with a calculator can take the base cost of the squad, double it, add all the costs of all the most expensive upgrades, and divide by 40. You now have a Power Level representing the 'average' points cost of the squad where 1PL is roughly equivalent to 20pts.

It is not an accurate representation of the relative value of each unit, but it is a quick-and-dirty heuristic that reduces listbuilding to adding fixed single-digit values. It allows you to throw something on the table faster than fully mathing it out, or rough out a list and then refine with exact points. An intern or community volunteer could bang out values for the whole game in an afternoon without taking anything away from the points balancing.

I'm pretty strongly opposed to PL or the current pseudo-PL as the only system but some of you guys are being a little unreasonable here.

 catbarf wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

However, there doesn't need to be one system.

Yes there does because, when GW can hardly do points right, any time taking away from that is bad. As well, the PL system is just bad regardless of your virtue signaling of "look how casual I am!"

You can be filthy casual with points, so let's not pretend PL offers anything.

Anyone with a calculator can take the base cost of the squad, double it, add all the costs of all the most expensive upgrades, and divide by 40. You now have a Power Level representing the 'average' points cost of the squad where 1PL is roughly equivalent to 20pts.

It is not an accurate representation of the relative value of each unit, but it is a quick-and-dirty heuristic that reduces listbuilding to adding fixed single-digit values. It allows you to throw something on the table faster than fully mathing it out, or rough out a list and then refine with exact points. An intern or community volunteer could bang out values for the whole game in an afternoon without taking anything away from the points balancing.

I'm pretty strongly opposed to PL or the current pseudo-PL as the only system but some of you guys are being a little unreasonable here.

That intern could do the efficiency math for a faction instead and help set the foundation for balance for that faction for the entire edition.

It also fractures the community, of course some fractures are desirable, you don't want efficiency gamers in your campaigns because campaigns aren't and shouldn't be balanced enough for that, but while PL can scare them away if they do show up it's going to be twice as bad if you're using PL compared to if you are using pts. If you are using pts it's also very easy to notice tournament net lists, but where are you going to find the cheesiest PL lists? You're not, Spike is just going to win all his campaign games because he went oops all TH and you might think "we'd notice and kick him out" but then we have a PL advocate in this thread who might go all TH, not to mention the other places where PL can be abused like with breakpoints where the courseness means you get more value than you're supposed to. No where it really hurts is for casual campaigners that want pts, but most campaigners will be suspicious because they want to signal "no powergamers allowed".

How many pts systems should the game have? Let's say the right amount is 2 as we had in 9th edition, is pts but worse really the best secondary balancing system we could have? Nothing more interesting could be added? How about Decurions as was suggested in 9th as an alternative to the Detachment system? It could be fluffy and the kind of involved and weird system that could fit right into Crusade. You get the core of your Decurion with x units inside and then you can add y number of auxiliaries to the decurion and bam, that's your list. It's not balanced whatsoever, but it'd be a fluffy varied list and Decurions with each faction's auxiliary limit could be roughly balanced against each other.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
PL is an objectively worse point system than the traditional point system and that's why every defense of it comes down to "but I like it and that should be enough".

I think there is something to be said for the 'it isn't less balanced than before' argument, since when GW introduces more variables they tend to end up as more ways for them to fail at properly balancing things.

I've seen the arguments regarding a Leman Russ with and without Sponsons, and I raise you:

Crisis Battlesuits are 195 points for 3, have highly customisable loadouts, and can take a selection of Drones. I struggle to think of any other unit in the game that has more options and different configurations, and they are also, in my opinion, the Signature Tau Unit.

Stock they come with a burst cannon.

Alternatively you can upgrade them with a wide selection of upgrades. A current top configuration is 3 Ion blasters, a shield generator, and a pair of shield drones each.

Both loadouts cost you 195 points in 10th edition.

in 9th edition you would pay 150 points for the first, and 405 points for the second loadout (I would not recommend it, since you pay through the nose for doubling and tripling up on weapons)

using a more granular system you could at least make arguments as to which loadout is better, given that you would get what you paid for. having a fixed points cost means that you are deliberately placing yourself at a disadvantage by NOT using the best configuration you can think of.

 vict0988 wrote:
That intern could do the efficiency math for a faction instead and help set the foundation for balance for that faction for the entire edition.

If a tabletop wargame can be reduced to efficiency math, you might as well not bother trying to balance it too hard because it's as shallow as a game of Yahtzee.

 vict0988 wrote:
It also fractures the community, of course some fractures are desirable, you don't want efficiency gamers in your campaigns because campaigns aren't and shouldn't be balanced enough for that, but while PL can scare them away if they do show up it's going to be twice as bad if you're using PL compared to if you are using pts. If you are using pts it's also very easy to notice tournament net lists, but where are you going to find the cheesiest PL lists? You're not, Spike is just going to win all his campaign games because he went oops all TH and you might think "we'd notice and kick him out" but then we have a PL advocate in this thread who might go all TH, not to mention the other places where PL can be abused like with breakpoints where the courseness means you get more value than you're supposed to. No where it really hurts is for casual campaigners that want pts, but most campaigners will be suspicious because they want to signal "no powergamers allowed".

I played casually all through 8th and most of 9th and I never observed this. It doesn't have to be billed as an equally legitimate way to play, it is okay if it's just a heuristic tool to help get armies on the table.

 catbarf wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
That intern could do the efficiency math for a faction instead and help set the foundation for balance for that faction for the entire edition.

If a tabletop wargame can be reduced to efficiency math, you might as well not bother trying to balance it too hard because it's as shallow as a game of Yahtzee.

To be fair this is modern 40k, I think Yahtzee has harder decision points (though admittedly much less frequently)

 catbarf wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
That intern could do the efficiency math for a faction instead and help set the foundation for balance for that faction for the entire edition.

If a tabletop wargame can be reduced to efficiency math, you might as well not bother trying to balance it too hard because it's as shallow as a game of Yahtzee.

1. Almost anything can be reduced to math, even Monopoly.
2. People can deny Mathhammer all they want, and those are the same people that would think 15 point per model Cultists are fine and it's "all about how you use them!!!1!"

Mathematical analysis is valid to answer specific questions in specific scenarios.

'Efficiency math for a faction' is boiling the entire game down to raw offense and defense- no positioning, no movement, no synergies, just line 'em up and knock 'em down. If that's a useful metric then the game is gak.

The point is that working out derived power level as a secondary task is something that requires no real effort and comes at zero cost to balance. It's on the level of looking for typos or text fitting for readability. Actual design and balancing requires a lot more work than points value derivatives or idealized efficiency in a vacuum.

In what case isn't mathematical analysis a valid tool for balance?

If you upgrade from a boltgun to a plasma gun the unit should become more efficient against Obliterators and Rhinos, but less efficient against Cultists. If you upgrade from a boltgun to a melta gun the unit should become more efficient against Obliterators and much more efficient against Rhinos, but also much less efficient against Cultists. With the wrong point values (like 0 for plasma guns) this will not be true, doing the efficiency math ensures things stay sane.

Units should not be too efficient at killing things at long range. It's a healthy thing for GW to know for every unit when something becomes too much to ensure things aren't insanely pushed when they send out the pts to beta testers to try to break the pts, because the fewer broken pts there are the fewer broken pts will survive to release.

 catbarf wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
That intern could do the efficiency math for a faction instead and help set the foundation for balance for that faction for the entire edition.

If a tabletop wargame can be reduced to efficiency math, you might as well not bother trying to balance it too hard because it's as shallow as a game of Yahtzee.

I assume that's why Vict said to use it to set the foundations rather than be the final word on balance. You need some boundaries to start with your balancing and maths is the best way to quickly do that. Not doing any sort of calculations around the efficiency of units seems like a terrible idea. You can shortcut a lot of playtesting by starting from something that's roughly correct and iterating from there.

It seems as though GW have just plucked numbers from nowhere in many cases. Sanguinary Guard are probably the best example at 43 points each. I really want to know what they were smoking when they came up with that.

I agree to maths being the foundation.

When I started Custom40k, one of the first things I did was to take the common Imperial weaponry and adjust a point calculation formula so they all came out roughly at a 33% efficiency against their "ideal target".

I don't think I got my army balance perfectly right, but outliers are usually coming up from esoteric special rules that are difficult to point right or the interaction with themselves and not from raw stats/points efficiency.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
PenitentJake shares my opinion on this. There should be two systems in place, but *if* only one system can exist, then it should be points.

However, there doesn't need to be one system.

My only contention with the two-system approach is that it seems like a number of sacrifices were inflicted on Points to serve the PL system.

The most notable example is Artefacts. Previously, artefacts were purchased in the same manner as wargear (i.e. with points). Indeed, for many editions there was little distinction between artefacts and normal wargear, save that the former was one-per-army.

However, when 8th introduced PL, artefacts were suddenly purchased with CPs instead of points, clearly to serve the PL system which didn't have small enough increments to even try to cost artefacts. This immediately led to the problem of all artefacts having the exact same cost, even though their effectiveness fluctuated wildly - so pistols that would once have been 5-10pt flavour options were suddenly the same as 50pt mega-weapons or super support abilities.

Put simply, I'm happy for both systems to exist, but I would like to see dual costs for artefacts, WLTs and the like (in the same manner as units), so that they have a point cost for point games and then a CP or PL cost for PL games.

 vipoid wrote:

The most notable example is Artefacts.

I actually think 8-9's approach for Relics was fine. Using CP gives advantage to generic characters vs named ones. Named characters get their better weapons and special rules with points, whereas generic characters use a different resource to get the same efficiency.

Then again I've said I'm for one free relic per character from a specific list and then adding a second one from a different list to cost points or CP.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

The most notable example is Artefacts.

I actually think 8-9's approach for Relics was fine. Using CP gives advantage to generic characters vs named ones. Named characters get their better weapons and special rules with points, whereas generic characters use a different resource to get the same efficiency.

Then again I've said I'm for one free relic per character from a specific list and then adding a second one from a different list to cost points or CP.

Strong disagree, as not all traits or relics are made equal, as such making them all cost 1cp is tantamount to just giving them a PL rating.

If you suggest "make them equal" that undermines the points against what GW tried (and failed) to do with this point paradigm.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

The most notable example is Artefacts.

I actually think 8-9's approach for Relics was fine. Using CP gives advantage to generic characters vs named ones. Named characters get their better weapons and special rules with points, whereas generic characters use a different resource to get the same efficiency.

Then again I've said I'm for one free relic per character from a specific list and then adding a second one from a different list to cost points or CP.

Strong disagree, as not all traits or relics are made equal, as such making them all cost 1cp is tantamount to just giving them a PL rating.

If you suggest "make them equal" that undermines the points against what GW tried (and failed) to do with this point paradigm.

No gak not all relics are equal, I literally state that in the last sentence. Nobody would take the Spartean over Benediction of Fury. Also CP =/= PL. You completely didn't read my post.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

The most notable example is Artefacts.

I actually think 8-9's approach for Relics was fine. Using CP gives advantage to generic characters vs named ones. Named characters get their better weapons and special rules with points, whereas generic characters use a different resource to get the same efficiency.

Then again I've said I'm for one free relic per character from a specific list and then adding a second one from a different list to cost points or CP.

Strong disagree, as not all traits or relics are made equal, as such making them all cost 1cp is tantamount to just giving them a PL rating.

If you suggest "make them equal" that undermines the points against what GW tried (and failed) to do with this point paradigm.

How so?

Plasma pistols ought to have stronger rules than las pistols for fluff reasons.
Balance should be as good as possible.

Plasma pistols should cost more than las pistols to account for having stronger rules.

Balance should be as good as possible.
Veil of Darkness does not need to have stronger rules than Sempiternal Weave.

Veil of Darkness does not need to be more expensive than Sempiternal Weave.

The coarseness doesn't matter when it is truly one per army, even if one option is "mandatory" because it's worth 25 pts while the others are worth 15 pts it doesn't matter, it's 10 pts. Sponsons matter because they're modelled and because you can have multiple of them. Whether Orikan the Diviner (EPIC HERO) is 80 or 90 pts isn't a big deal, you have at least 80 reasons not to take him and you have at least 1 reason to take him. 0 pt plasma pistols leave no reason not to take them over las pistols.

The only reason why you need pts for wargear is if you want completely useless relics and I don't. Paying pts for it doesn't hurt though,I don't think it was worth changing then and I don't think it's worth changing now.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

The most notable example is Artefacts.

I actually think 8-9's approach for Relics was fine. Using CP gives advantage to generic characters vs named ones. Named characters get their better weapons and special rules with points, whereas generic characters use a different resource to get the same efficiency.

Then again I've said I'm for one free relic per character from a specific list and then adding a second one from a different list to cost points or CP.

Strong disagree, as not all traits or relics are made equal, as such making them all cost 1cp is tantamount to just giving them a PL rating.

If you suggest "make them equal" that undermines the points against what GW tried (and failed) to do with this point paradigm.

No gak not all relics are equal, I literally state that in the last sentence. Nobody would take the Spartean over Benediction of Fury. Also CP =/= PL. You completely didn't read my post.

You did not say that in the last sentence, you simply stated having 2 lists with a different selection method. You also stated the 8/9th approach for paying a cp was fine. A cp doesn't account for granular changes inability, hence is the same issue as PL.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

The most notable example is Artefacts.

I actually think 8-9's approach for Relics was fine. Using CP gives advantage to generic characters vs named ones. Named characters get their better weapons and special rules with points, whereas generic characters use a different resource to get the same efficiency.

Then again I've said I'm for one free relic per character from a specific list and then adding a second one from a different list to cost points or CP.

Strong disagree, as not all traits or relics are made equal, as such making them all cost 1cp is tantamount to just giving them a PL rating.

If you suggest "make them equal" that undermines the points against what GW tried (and failed) to do with this point paradigm.

No gak not all relics are equal, I literally state that in the last sentence. Nobody would take the Spartean over Benediction of Fury. Also CP =/= PL. You completely didn't read my post.

You did not say that in the last sentence, you simply stated having 2 lists with a different selection method. You also stated the 8/9th approach for paying a cp was fine. A cp doesn't account for granular changes inability, hence is the same issue as PL.

CP is a finite resource, so using it during list construction wasn't the end of the world. The problem was pretending pistol relics were ever as good as support relics or melee relics. GW making them all the same is literally the PL you defend.