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.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

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.

Yes, which is why you saying "that was fine" is incredibly hypocritical.

Dudeface wrote:
Yes, which is why you saying "that was fine" is incredibly hypocritical.

It's not hypocritical because the two situations are entirely different. Relics are few in number (or at least should be) and always have lore of "this super-cool thing is the best possible weapon/armor/etc". So it's far easier to balance the small set of choices as sidegrades and you don't have any equivalent to the laspistol vs. plasma pistol problem, where the lore says an option needs to be weaker but the point system requires it to be equal to the best gun. And you don't have any equivalent to the sponson problem where you have to balance "take the extra gun" vs. "take nothing" because all relics have a cost, you never have a situation where you get one for free but have a fake option to opt out of taking it.

The real issue with relics costing CP is that the entire CP/stratagem system is a profoundly stupid and anti-lore concept invented by GW to compensate for the lack of depth in the core mechanics. The entire thing should be scrapped but if you accept as a premise that it must exist then having relics cost CP is fine.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Yes, which is why you saying "that was fine" is incredibly hypocritical.

It's not hypocritical because the two situations are entirely different. Relics are few in number (or at least should be) and always have lore of "this super-cool thing is the best possible weapon/armor/etc". So it's far easier to balance the small set of choices as sidegrades and you don't have any equivalent to the laspistol vs. plasma pistol problem, where the lore says an option needs to be weaker but the point system requires it to be equal to the best gun. And you don't have any equivalent to the sponson problem where you have to balance "take the extra gun" vs. "take nothing" because all relics have a cost, you never have a situation where you get one for free but have a fake option to opt out of taking it.

The real issue with relics costing CP is that the entire CP/stratagem system is a profoundly stupid and anti-lore concept invented by GW to compensate for the lack of depth in the core mechanics. The entire thing should be scrapped but if you accept as a premise that it must exist then having relics cost CP is fine.

And for the record I'm 100% fine with Relics costing points, just merely pointing out that it helps with making generic Characters more appealing vs the named ones, but allowing multiple relics to be bought for one character would help alleviate the issue as well.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Yes, which is why you saying "that was fine" is incredibly hypocritical.

It's not hypocritical because the two situations are entirely different. Relics are few in number (or at least should be) and always have lore of "this super-cool thing is the best possible weapon/armor/etc". So it's far easier to balance the small set of choices as sidegrades and you don't have any equivalent to the laspistol vs. plasma pistol problem, where the lore says an option needs to be weaker but the point system requires it to be equal to the best gun. And you don't have any equivalent to the sponson problem where you have to balance "take the extra gun" vs. "take nothing" because all relics have a cost, you never have a situation where you get one for free but have a fake option to opt out of taking it.

The real issue with relics costing CP is that the entire CP/stratagem system is a profoundly stupid and anti-lore concept invented by GW to compensate for the lack of depth in the core mechanics. The entire thing should be scrapped but if you accept as a premise that it must exist then having relics cost CP is fine.

And for the record I'm 100% fine with Relics costing points, just merely pointing out that it helps with making generic Characters more appealing vs the named ones, but allowing multiple relics to be bought for one character would help alleviate the issue as well.

I mean, on that front, perhaps the concept of relics in general needs rethinking?

As mentioned previously, in the past relics were only different from normal wargear in that they were one-per-army, to represent them being especially rare and/or powerful. However, there weren't any limits beyond that (you weren't prevented from having multiple relics on the same character, or limited to a maximum number of relics per army). What's more, there was plenty of generic wargear so you could still customise characters a lot even if you'd already used your relics elsewhere.

However, in 8th/9th, most non-relic wargear was dropped. So suddenly the items that were once just ordinary wargear with an extra limitation were now the main avenue of customisation, meaning the extra limits were felt much more strongly. And now in 10th we've gone even further - removing even warlord traits and limiting customisation to just 4 relics, often with even more limitations as to which characters can even take them.

It just feels like the only real difference between a lot of generic characters and special characters at this point is that you can only take 1 of each special character.

Agreed. At this point you could name Ursula Creed into "Valeria Yarrick" and just call it a day.

Gone are the days when generic characters did (or could do) something truly unique (or at least, something rare that it took a very specific set of traits, items, and upgrades to do).

You want to order Baneblades? Better be Guy On Horse Man, or you can't. Because everyone knows unless the High Lord himself is around, Baneblades are just wild animals, roaming feral and free, taking orders from no one and grazing on the field of battle oblivious to the world.

(A group of Baneblades travelling together is called a "Shelf" if you must know, if there are more than three in the group).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Agreed. At this point you could name Ursula Creed into "Valeria Yarrick" and just call it a day.

Gone are the days when generic characters did (or could do) something truly unique (or at least, something rare that it took a very specific set of traits, items, and upgrades to do).

You want to order Baneblades? Better be Guy On Horse Man, or you can't. Because everyone knows unless the High Lord himself is around, Baneblades are just wild animals, roaming feral and free, taking orders from no one and grazing on the field of battle oblivious to the world.

(A group of Baneblades travelling together is called a "Shelf" if you must know, if there are more than three in the group).

If there's one thing Ward's codex did correctly, it was not limit the characters to specific Chapters in that regard.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
If there's one thing Ward's codex did correctly, it was not limit the characters to specific Chapters in that regard.

Ward did a lot of things right in terms of rules writing. His codizes were excellent - them being OP was a collective failure of the rules team, not on Ward alone.

The background in his books... a whole different story.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Yes, which is why you saying "that was fine" is incredibly hypocritical.

It's not hypocritical because the two situations are entirely different. Relics are few in number (or at least should be)

Meh. This relic is from 5,000 years ago. It is the pinky finger of a guy who immolated a Greater Daemon of Khorne. And himself. Well except for this pinky finger which is now a polished bone. So it must be lucky. Which makes people who feel lucky perform better.

This relic is a 10,000 year old tank. That we never use because it's 10,000 years old. And a Relic. So when we do take it out, everyone around it works better to keep it alive.

Meanwhile this Relic is a matched pair of Powerfists and super strong bolters fit for a Primarch. Or at least a Chapter Master.

What I'm getting at is the word "relic" covers a lot of ground to be considered rare.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Yes, which is why you saying "that was fine" is incredibly hypocritical.

It's not hypocritical because the two situations are entirely different. Relics are few in number (or at least should be) and always have lore of "this super-cool thing is the best possible weapon/armor/etc". So it's far easier to balance the small set of choices as sidegrades and you don't have any equivalent to the laspistol vs. plasma pistol problem, where the lore says an option needs to be weaker but the point system requires it to be equal to the best gun. And you don't have any equivalent to the sponson problem where you have to balance "take the extra gun" vs. "take nothing" because all relics have a cost, you never have a situation where you get one for free but have a fake option to opt out of taking it.

The real issue with relics costing CP is that the entire CP/stratagem system is a profoundly stupid and anti-lore concept invented by GW to compensate for the lack of depth in the core mechanics. The entire thing should be scrapped but if you accept as a premise that it must exist then having relics cost CP is fine.

And for the record I'm 100% fine with Relics costing points, just merely pointing out that it helps with making generic Characters more appealing vs the named ones, but allowing multiple relics to be bought for one character would help alleviate the issue as well.

I mean, on that front, perhaps the concept of relics in general needs rethinking?

As mentioned previously, in the past relics were only different from normal wargear in that they were one-per-army, to represent them being especially rare and/or powerful. However, there weren't any limits beyond that (you weren't prevented from having multiple relics on the same character, or limited to a maximum number of relics per army). What's more, there was plenty of generic wargear so you could still customise characters a lot even if you'd already used your relics elsewhere.

However, in 8th/9th, most non-relic wargear was dropped. So suddenly the items that were once just ordinary wargear with an extra limitation were now the main avenue of customisation, meaning the extra limits were felt much more strongly. And now in 10th we've gone even further - removing even warlord traits and limiting customisation to just 4 relics, often with even more limitations as to which characters can even take them.

It just feels like the only real difference between a lot of generic characters and special characters at this point is that you can only take 1 of each special character.

Warlord Traits, Chapter Traits, Chapter Relics - we've lost the majority of what separated the X Legion/Chapter from the Y Legion/Chapter. Some of that is good - they did need to take a step back and figure out the best way to do this without it becoming a caricature. The wolf cloak with an animatronic tail that whips around the wolf teeth embedded into the tip is probably a bridge too far. But that's where they were headed. And trying to hammer the square peg of Chapter Traits into the Round Hole of Ork Society didn't work either. IF and I mean IF this is just a pause for the cause as they try and bring those ideas back in a way that works better hooray. Even chapter Command was getting silly. For 2 CP pre-game you can then run this "strat" for free and/or that ability twice a round at max level - but without those two CP the unit itself isn't really worth taking. But I do hope they bring back more of the individuality/flavor soon.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Yes, which is why you saying "that was fine" is incredibly hypocritical.

It's not hypocritical because the two situations are entirely different. Relics are few in number (or at least should be) and always have lore of "this super-cool thing is the best possible weapon/armor/etc". So it's far easier to balance the small set of choices as sidegrades and you don't have any equivalent to the laspistol vs. plasma pistol problem, where the lore says an option needs to be weaker but the point system requires it to be equal to the best gun. And you don't have any equivalent to the sponson problem where you have to balance "take the extra gun" vs. "take nothing" because all relics have a cost, you never have a situation where you get one for free but have a fake option to opt out of taking it.

The real issue with relics costing CP is that the entire CP/stratagem system is a profoundly stupid and anti-lore concept invented by GW to compensate for the lack of depth in the core mechanics. The entire thing should be scrapped but if you accept as a premise that it must exist then having relics cost CP is fine.

It absolutely is hypocritical, stating that the exact thing you're shouting people down for is fine because it happens fewer times or with smaller gaps with relics doesn't alter the fact that if you want to press for granular points of everything, you press for everything.

If you'd noted EP's post they were also ok with 1 free relic, so no, they didn't all have a cost all the time. They also acknowledge that all relics were not made equal.

Have fun parsing

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.

Now tell me how granular in value those relics are when they're free or cost CP. yes EP has stated they're fine with them costing points. Now compare it to a summary of what a lot of people in here have said:

I actually think 10ths approach for unit selection is fine. Using pseudo-PL gives me the ability to model as I please without faffing about with points. Most units either have or should have sidegrades and special rules to get the same efficiency.

Then again I've said I'm for one building system that's simpler and second one from a granular points list.

Which is what you've been both shouting down repeatedly.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Agreed. At this point you could name Ursula Creed into "Valeria Yarrick" and just call it a day.

Gone are the days when generic characters did (or could do) something truly unique (or at least, something rare that it took a very specific set of traits, items, and upgrades to do).

You want to order Baneblades? Better be Guy On Horse Man, or you can't. Because everyone knows unless the High Lord himself is around, Baneblades are just wild animals, roaming feral and free, taking orders from no one and grazing on the field of battle oblivious to the world.

(A group of Baneblades travelling together is called a "Shelf" if you must know, if there are more than three in the group).

Ah yes - these group nouns that are so seldomly used nowadays, because the youth just doesn't learn them: a Shelf of Baneblades. a Tangle of Hierophants. An Insolvency of Warlords

My view of relics is this. If they are a must have on a unit and taken 100% of time, then they should be build in to the unit. Otherwise if they are an option, especialy of the some sort skew meta choice, then I think they generate more trouble then they do good for the game.

Now if GW was good at writing rules and I truested them enough, I could imagine stuff like relics and warlord traits opening specific builds. But A I do not trust them and B the detachments are suppose to do it. So I don't think it matters much.

Ah and for all d2 swords, non -1 to hit fists etc If they exist for heroes , then they should be baked in to the stat line.

Breton wrote:
What I'm getting at is the word "relic" covers a lot of ground to be considered rare.

Not really. In all of those cases the lore can be summed up as "this is the coolest {sword/gun/tank/random finger bone/etc} and it is so badass because Reasons". The exact mechanics can be whatever, in all cases the lore is that it's clearly better than the thing it replaces. You don't have the plasma pistol problem, where if you want to avoid balance issues in PL you have to somehow make a plasma pistol and a laspistol equally effective on the tabletop despite the lore clearly saying that the plasma pistol is a far better gun. Relics can be straight upgrades of stuff because their lore is never "this basic piece of mediocre standard-issue equipment is only used by losers who can't get anything better" like a laspistol.

PenitentJake wrote:


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.

PL has the same problem, but worse. If you get to the end of your list and you're 25 points over, but your cheapest unit is 90 points, you now have no flexibility to try to adjust. The same is true if you're 50 points under, but the minimum unit cost is 55 points. In this sense the current system is somehow even worse than the old PL system, because at least the old PL system squashed the values together to the extent that reconfiguring a list was a little bit easier. This system has all the worst parts of the old PL system and adds new terrible ideas at the same time. It's really quite impressive.

PenitentJake wrote:

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.

A PL-style system isn't required to allow you to do what you want. There's absolutely no issue using the traditional points system to create your initial list and then having the rules of the campaign system simply allow you to make these sort of upgrades to units without paying the points for them if that's a goal of the system. You cna tie it to various experience systems or game-related goals if you want. You can then either assume everyone will be doing the same so the balance works out OK, or build in a system of compensation that doesn't have to revolve around points. The original Necromunda did this to deal with the differences in power between gangs with different levels of experience.

This is one of the frustrations the pro-points people are having in these arguments, I think. None of the "advantages" of the current system that its proponents mention are really features of the system itself. They always seem to be tied to narrative games, or at least gaming where balance isn't as important to the players. The possibility of using those narrative systems themselves to provide what those players need rather than forcing everyone into one system that doesn't seem to offer exactly what either side needs (and in the case of the people looking for balance, is absolutely terrible) never seems to occur to them.

PenitentJake wrote:

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.

See above. The problem is, I don't think the advantages you want are actually inherent to the PL system. That's the reason those who are against it are getting frustrated.

I miss the FW relic classification to aptly represent how rare some of these tanks were.

You required specific charachters to be allowed to field certain tanks. And apptly CSM got one such infernal relic slot for free / list....

Better days of rulesdesign.. alas GW 40k gonna GW 40k.

Dudeface wrote:
It absolutely is hypocritical, stating that the exact thing you're shouting people down for is fine because it happens fewer times or with smaller gaps with relics doesn't alter the fact that if you want to press for granular points of everything, you press for everything.

The point is that it isn't the same thing.

The core point system has to account for a huge range of options, including things like plasma pistols and LRBT sponsons where there are very clear differences in value between the choices (and those difference must exist for lore reasons). A granular point system is required to represent those differences in value and avoid having certain options become auto-take or never-take choices.

The relic system only has to account for a very small pool of options and none of them are forced by lore or other factors to be more or less powerful than the others. It's possible to use a much simpler pricing system as long as they are all genuinely sidegrades, and it's possible to make them all sidegrades.

I don't think that relics can't be included in the normal point system but it's simply false to argue that they must be or that they function the same way as the rest of list building. It isn't a double standard to apply different point systems to very different situations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Of course I am. I'm also EviscerationPlague, vict0988, Unit1126PLL, madtankbloke, H.B.M.C, a_typical_hero, CaulynDarr, and probably several others except I got tired of scrolling back to find names. All of us are sock puppets of the same person and you can absolutely dismiss everything we're saying based on grudges you hold against anyone you have ever argued about PL with. I even made 503 sock puppets (as of right now) to rig the outcome of the poll so don't worry about that over 3:1 ratio of people agreeing that pseudo-PL is bad, that's also fake news.

(/s)

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
It absolutely is hypocritical, stating that the exact thing you're shouting people down for is fine because it happens fewer times or with smaller gaps with relics doesn't alter the fact that if you want to press for granular points of everything, you press for everything.

The point is that it isn't the same thing.

The core point system has to account for a huge range of options, including things like plasma pistols and LRBT sponsons where there are very clear differences in value between the choices (and those difference must exist for lore reasons). A granular point system is required to represent those differences in value and avoid having certain options become auto-take or never-take choices.

The relic system only has to account for a very small pool of options and none of them are forced by lore or other factors to be more or less powerful than the others. It's possible to use a much simpler pricing system as long as they are all genuinely sidegrades, and it's possible to make them all sidegrades.

I don't think that relics can't be included in the normal point system but it's simply false to argue that they must be or that they function the same way as the rest of list building. It isn't a double standard to apply different point systems to very different situations.

Nope, if you can make relics of equal strength and usefulness, you can certainly do it elsewhere. There is no way you can excuse relics being free or using "not points" but not wargear, you fell back on las pistol vs plasma pistol, but a relic plasma pistol is obviously better than a standard one. It is worth more points than an ordinary plasma pistol as they are a direct comparison. What isn't a direct comparison is a plasma pistol vs an on demand re-roll or a -1 to hit on a unit.

Dudeface wrote:
Nope, if you can make relics of equal strength and usefulness, you can certainly do it elsewhere. There is no way you can excuse relics being free or using "not points" but not wargear, you fell back on las pistol vs plasma pistol, but a relic plasma pistol is obviously better than a standard one. It is worth more points than an ordinary plasma pistol as they are a direct comparison. What isn't a direct comparison is a plasma pistol vs an on demand re-roll or a -1 to hit on a unit.

I already explained how this isn't the same thing.

A plasma pistol must be better than a laspistol and so the only way to balance it is with a point cost to upgrade from a laspistol to a plasma pistol. The traditional point system handles this just fine (and PL can't).

A relic plasma pistol must be better than a basic plasma pistol so it must also have an upgrade cost. And it does, only paid in CP instead of points.

A relic plasma pistol and a relic finger bone of a saint don't have to have equal strength and can be designed as sidegrades. Yes, giving -1 to hit on a whole unit is (probably) more powerful than the relic plasma pistol but there's nothing that inherently requires the relic finger bone to be a -1 to hit buff. It works just fine if you make it equal in power to the relic plasma pistol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:
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.

And this is the part I still don't understand. You claim to be here purely for narrative play and make all of your choices based on the needs of the story, without any concern given to list strength. You claim to not care about the nuances of balance. So why is it a problem if you have your 500 point list, upgrade to that condemnor boltgun, and just play a 520 point list against your opponent's 500 point list (or 485 point list or 530 point list)? Why is it so important that both lists have to have the same number, even if the only way to do so is to make the number an obvious error? How is the game improved by pretending that your 520 point list actually costs 500 points and your opponent's 485 point list also costs 500 points? Why not just be honest about it and play 520 points vs. 485 points?

The issue here doesn't seem to be PL, it's that you're very stuck on this concept of points-based matched play gaming that is intended for pickup games and tournaments, not narrative play. I don't know if it's because you've bought into the myth that matched play is synonymous with "better" or because you haven't seen what real narrative games look like (and you sadly wouldn't be alone in this) but you'd be far better served by dumping the entire concept of points-based matched play and embracing the narrative. And you don't need PL/pseudo-PL for that, it's a needlessly complicated system that has all the drawbacks you object to with the traditional point system. A simple "take about 5 units and 3 characters each" structure to set the rough size of the battle combined with collaboratively deciding what units would be in the battle according to the story is going to work far better for your goals than PL.

Dudeface wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
It absolutely is hypocritical, stating that the exact thing you're shouting people down for is fine because it happens fewer times or with smaller gaps with relics doesn't alter the fact that if you want to press for granular points of everything, you press for everything.

The point is that it isn't the same thing.

The core point system has to account for a huge range of options, including things like plasma pistols and LRBT sponsons where there are very clear differences in value between the choices (and those difference must exist for lore reasons). A granular point system is required to represent those differences in value and avoid having certain options become auto-take or never-take choices.

The relic system only has to account for a very small pool of options and none of them are forced by lore or other factors to be more or less powerful than the others. It's possible to use a much simpler pricing system as long as they are all genuinely sidegrades, and it's possible to make them all sidegrades.

I don't think that relics can't be included in the normal point system but it's simply false to argue that they must be or that they function the same way as the rest of list building. It isn't a double standard to apply different point systems to very different situations.

Nope, if you can make relics of equal strength and usefulness, you can certainly do it elsewhere. There is no way you can excuse relics being free or using "not points" but not wargear, you fell back on las pistol vs plasma pistol, but a relic plasma pistol is obviously better than a standard one. It is worth more points than an ordinary plasma pistol as they are a direct comparison. What isn't a direct comparison is a plasma pistol vs an on demand re-roll or a -1 to hit on a unit.

I've literally said Relics weren't usually equal strength and need different opportunity costs. Did you read my post or were you super stuck on a particular wording to try to garner your win for PL?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
It absolutely is hypocritical, stating that the exact thing you're shouting people down for is fine because it happens fewer times or with smaller gaps with relics doesn't alter the fact that if you want to press for granular points of everything, you press for everything.

The point is that it isn't the same thing.

The core point system has to account for a huge range of options, including things like plasma pistols and LRBT sponsons where there are very clear differences in value between the choices (and those difference must exist for lore reasons). A granular point system is required to represent those differences in value and avoid having certain options become auto-take or never-take choices.

The relic system only has to account for a very small pool of options and none of them are forced by lore or other factors to be more or less powerful than the others. It's possible to use a much simpler pricing system as long as they are all genuinely sidegrades, and it's possible to make them all sidegrades.

I don't think that relics can't be included in the normal point system but it's simply false to argue that they must be or that they function the same way as the rest of list building. It isn't a double standard to apply different point systems to very different situations.

Nope, if you can make relics of equal strength and usefulness, you can certainly do it elsewhere. There is no way you can excuse relics being free or using "not points" but not wargear, you fell back on las pistol vs plasma pistol, but a relic plasma pistol is obviously better than a standard one. It is worth more points than an ordinary plasma pistol as they are a direct comparison. What isn't a direct comparison is a plasma pistol vs an on demand re-roll or a -1 to hit on a unit.

I've literally said Relics weren't usually equal strength and need different opportunity costs. Did you read my post or were you super stuck on a particular wording to try to garner your win for PL?

You also said you're fine with them being free and not costing points....

Tbf, I would prefer such cost points.

Heck, they are basically wargear. The 4th edition IG codex had warlord traits (essentially) in the armory (like the Honorifica Imperialis or Macharian Cross).

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
It absolutely is hypocritical, stating that the exact thing you're shouting people down for is fine because it happens fewer times or with smaller gaps with relics doesn't alter the fact that if you want to press for granular points of everything, you press for everything.

The point is that it isn't the same thing.

The core point system has to account for a huge range of options, including things like plasma pistols and LRBT sponsons where there are very clear differences in value between the choices (and those difference must exist for lore reasons). A granular point system is required to represent those differences in value and avoid having certain options become auto-take or never-take choices.

The relic system only has to account for a very small pool of options and none of them are forced by lore or other factors to be more or less powerful than the others. It's possible to use a much simpler pricing system as long as they are all genuinely sidegrades, and it's possible to make them all sidegrades.

I don't think that relics can't be included in the normal point system but it's simply false to argue that they must be or that they function the same way as the rest of list building. It isn't a double standard to apply different point systems to very different situations.

Nope, if you can make relics of equal strength and usefulness, you can certainly do it elsewhere. There is no way you can excuse relics being free or using "not points" but not wargear, you fell back on las pistol vs plasma pistol, but a relic plasma pistol is obviously better than a standard one. It is worth more points than an ordinary plasma pistol as they are a direct comparison. What isn't a direct comparison is a plasma pistol vs an on demand re-roll or a -1 to hit on a unit.

I've literally said Relics weren't usually equal strength and need different opportunity costs. Did you read my post or were you super stuck on a particular wording to try to garner your win for PL?

You also said you're fine with them being free and not costing points....

Some of them and only the first one off a list. Please read the full post for content before I bother to reply to you again

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
It absolutely is hypocritical, stating that the exact thing you're shouting people down for is fine because it happens fewer times or with smaller gaps with relics doesn't alter the fact that if you want to press for granular points of everything, you press for everything.

The point is that it isn't the same thing.

The core point system has to account for a huge range of options, including things like plasma pistols and LRBT sponsons where there are very clear differences in value between the choices (and those difference must exist for lore reasons). A granular point system is required to represent those differences in value and avoid having certain options become auto-take or never-take choices.

The relic system only has to account for a very small pool of options and none of them are forced by lore or other factors to be more or less powerful than the others. It's possible to use a much simpler pricing system as long as they are all genuinely sidegrades, and it's possible to make them all sidegrades.

I don't think that relics can't be included in the normal point system but it's simply false to argue that they must be or that they function the same way as the rest of list building. It isn't a double standard to apply different point systems to very different situations.

Nope, if you can make relics of equal strength and usefulness, you can certainly do it elsewhere. There is no way you can excuse relics being free or using "not points" but not wargear, you fell back on las pistol vs plasma pistol, but a relic plasma pistol is obviously better than a standard one. It is worth more points than an ordinary plasma pistol as they are a direct comparison. What isn't a direct comparison is a plasma pistol vs an on demand re-roll or a -1 to hit on a unit.

I've literally said Relics weren't usually equal strength and need different opportunity costs. Did you read my post or were you super stuck on a particular wording to try to garner your win for PL?

You also said you're fine with them being free and not costing points....

Some of them and only the first one off a list. Please read the full post for content before I bother to reply to you again

LMAO ok, so because there's a list of free upgrades that means they suddenly aren't worth points? Is the first lascannon upgrade in an army better than a bolter? How's life with the boot on the other foot? This is exactly what anyone who doesn't gak on things has to go through replying to you.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

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

Of course I am. I'm also EviscerationPlague, vict0988, Unit1126PLL, madtankbloke, H.B.M.C, a_typical_hero, CaulynDarr, and probably several others except I got tired of scrolling back to find names. All of us are sock puppets of the same person and you can absolutely dismiss everything we're saying based on grudges you hold against anyone you have ever argued about PL with. I even made 503 sock puppets (as of right now) to rig the outcome of the poll so don't worry about that over 3:1 ratio of people agreeing that pseudo-PL is bad, that's also fake news.

(/s)

Truth. You're also the holder of the 190 accounts that voted "yes" or "mixed", the operator of all accounts posting in the current point system's defense, all other posters and the mod team. Weird that you felt the need to expose yourself through the altruizine puppet though, what's the point? Everyone already knows this, we're all you anyways... Wait, that doesn't sound right, I'm you too. You're all me? I'm all you? No, still weird. I'm all me? Yeah, that's it. I'm all me anyways

It's been a long time since i've played, but I really don't understand this. Things costing points was a way to balance and mean players had to put some thought into choosing things. Like reading through a few of the new rules there are things like "can be equipped with up to", but I don't know why anyone would ever take less than the maximum, or leave out things that are just objectively the better choice like bolt/plasma pistol VS Laspistol or not giving everything sponsons and pintle weapons if they can take them.

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
It's been a long time since i've played, but I really don't understand this. Things costing points was a way to balance and mean players had to put some thought into choosing things. Like reading through a few of the new rules there are things like "can be equipped with up to", but I don't know why anyone would ever take less than the maximum, or leave out things that are just objectively the better choice like bolt/plasma pistol VS Laspistol or not giving everything sponsons and pintle weapons if they can take them.

I'm convinced SOMEONE (probably rhymes with Duddace) at GW wanted to leave a mark on 40k that would last for decades and thought PL would be it, so they pushed it despite everyone hating it and now they're trying to disguise it by sticking a zero onto the end of PL values and calling it points.

maybe we should all just play GrimDarkFuture at this point... streamlined points and rules for the PL crowd, upgrades cost points for all wargear being costed crowd

just saying

same with Warpath FireFight, or somehow any other game in that regard
it is just GW that want to be different to a point were it does not work

Dudeface wrote:
LMAO ok, so because there's a list of free upgrades that means they suddenly aren't worth points? Is the first lascannon upgrade in an army better than a bolter? How's life with the boot on the other foot? This is exactly what anyone who doesn't gak on things has to go through replying to you.

How many Veils of Darkness can a list include? Which miniature come with the Veil of Darkness?

 Lobokai wrote:
would should all just play GrimDarkFuture at this point... streamlined points and rules for the PL crowd, upgrades cost points for all wargear being costed crowd

just saying

I don't want to play Space Robot Liches with psychic powers, I want to play Necrons and they don't use psykers.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Mentlegen324 wrote:
It's been a long time since i've played, but I really don't understand this. Things costing points was a way to balance and mean players had to put some thought into choosing things. Like reading through a few of the new rules there are things like "can be equipped with up to", but I don't know why anyone would ever take less than the maximum, or leave out things that are just objectively the better choice like bolt/plasma pistol VS Laspistol or not giving everything sponsons and pintle weapons if they can take them.

I'm convinced SOMEONE (probably rhymes with Duddace) at GW wanted to leave a mark on 40k that would last for decades and thought PL would be it, so they pushed it despite everyone hating it and now they're trying to disguise it by sticking a zero onto the end of PL values and calling it points.

Jervis Johnson thought that one of the worse part of GW games like WFB or w40k, was having a point system, and that games should be played with what I can describe as people magicaly agreing with each other on balance, game size, game objective etc each game from scratch and it should somehow work. So it isn't a new concept as far as some people at GW goes. It sure as hell makes GW design team work easier. Rules changes almost never, especialy when structural ones are needed, outside of a codex. "Changes" done through point costs, which we already see the impact of with eldar going from the best to, 2ed best army in the entire game. No one has to worry about load outs, what a str 6 power fist on a IG Lt should cost and what one on a SM cpt should cost. What rules there are in FW, which the studio tries to ignore that it exists. etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lobokai wrote:
would should all just play GrimDarkFuture at this point... streamlined points and rules for the PL crowd, upgrades cost points for all wargear being costed crowd

just saying

We could all be playing PL, if all armies were designed for PL, which for GW means that the boxes of models have to be designed in a specific way. I mean there is a lot to say about the mind set of rules writers in the studio, when they make PM squads 5 or 10 models strong and only give the option of 7 after the entire internet made fun of them for selling the boxes with 7 models in it.

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
LMAO ok, so because there's a list of free upgrades that means they suddenly aren't worth points? Is the first lascannon upgrade in an army better than a bolter? How's life with the boot on the other foot? This is exactly what anyone who doesn't gak on things has to go through replying to you.

How many Veils of Darkness can a list include? Which miniature come with the Veil of Darkness?

1, any character and associated unit. Is that unit objectively better than without the veil of darkness. Yes. That's why it now costs points and correctly so.