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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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.

Sometimes I think that people here want others to own 8000pts of an army with all load outs and all units, no matter good or bad, just waiting that maybe in this or next edition they get good. That is not a very good way to entice new players or those people who just want a 2000pts list that works.

 vict0988 wrote:

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

Ah, so you're the reason each datasheet has to have a bespoke rule that does the same thing as some other bespoke rule on another datasheet instead of making the rule a USR.

 Arschbombe wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

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

Ah, so you're the reason each datasheet has to have a bespoke rule that does the same thing as some other bespoke rule on another datasheet instead of making the rule a USR.

Yeah, unable to understand the concept of abstraction.

Just do it like 30k:

Psychic power: (does a thing. Can do more things on an ld check. Failure, psyker suffers perils of the Warp)

Mechanicum Cybertheurgy: (does a thing. Can do more things on an ld check. Failure, cybertheurgist suffers effects identical to perils but called Feedback).

They're different mechanics guys, honest!!

(To be fair, things that deny/shut off psychic powers don't shut off Cybertheurgy).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Just do it like 30k:

Psychic power: (does a thing. Can do more things on an ld check. Failure, psyker suffers perils of the Warp)

Mechanicum Cybertheurgy: (does a thing. Can do more things on an ld check. Failure, cybertheurgist suffers effects identical to perils but called Feedback).

They're different mechanics guys, honest!!

(To be fair, things that deny/shut off psychic powers don't shut off Cybertheurgy).

I'd honestly be fine with this approach.

There are a number of races with abilities that aren't psychic but which would probably still be best represented with psychic mechanics.

Necrons, obviously, with C'tan powers. DE also come to mind with stuff like Mandrakes, as well as some of their arcane technology that's even said to resemble magic.

Dudeface wrote:

 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.

I beg you to PLEASE read my post at least once.

 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.

Let me help you understand.
Some of us, like me, have been playing for a long (long) time.
We play WYSIWYG.
We have finished armies. We are not going to re-arm all of our decades finished (and often metal) Guard Sgts with plasma pistols just because today that option costs zero pts. That's simply more work than it's worth & it could easily change again.
So I have some sgts Bolt Pistols, some with plasma, and most with Las. Why? Because that's what the metal models were cast with & the time to change those guns out would've been prior to having painted them.
Same with my Baneblades & related chasis. Extra sponsons were not an option back then. My 'Blades? They've been finished models for 20+ years.....

Likewise for many other armies we have.
Unless an option becomes illegal it's often just NOT WORTH THE EFFORT.

Now if I build a new unit? Yes, I'd consider equipment g it optimally for the edition it's getting built in (or for - some of us do play older editions)

There's also the asthesics. If I don't like how an option looks? I'm fine with forgoing it. No matter how effective it might be.
I know that I'm not alone in this.

All of these things are true for me too. I like simpler points too. I’m fine taking a 10% handicap for my aesthetic choices.

 Lobokai wrote:
All of these things are true for me too. I like simpler points too. I’m fine taking a 10% handicap for my aesthetic choices.

Why stop there? Are you fine with a 15% or 20% handicap?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Lobokai wrote:
All of these things are true for me too. I like simpler points too. I’m fine taking a 10% handicap for my aesthetic choices.

Why stop there? Are you fine with a 15% or 20% handicap?

They possibly are.

But don't pretend "Okay with small amounts of imbalance," is the same as "Doesn't care about balance at all."

 Lobokai wrote:
All of these things are true for me too. I like simpler points too. I’m fine taking a 10% handicap for my aesthetic choices.

Then why play with points-based list construction at all when a "take X units and Y characters each" system is just as accurate and even simpler to use?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Lobokai wrote:
All of these things are true for me too. I like simpler points too. I’m fine taking a 10% handicap for my aesthetic choices.

Then why play with points-based list construction at all when a "take X units and Y characters each" system is just as accurate and even simpler to use?

Because we have that system. So we use it. What a stupid question.

Andykp wrote:
Because we have that system. So we use it. What a stupid question.

Why would you use a subpar system just because it exists when you also have the "take X units and Y characters" system that does what you want and is even simpler to use? It seems like you've fallen for the "officialness" trap where endorsement by GW matters more than how well a system works for your needs.

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Lobokai wrote:
All of these things are true for me too. I like simpler points too. I’m fine taking a 10% handicap for my aesthetic choices.

Why stop there? Are you fine with a 15% or 20% handicap?

They possibly are.

But don't pretend "Okay with small amounts of imbalance," is the same as "Doesn't care about balance at all."

10% is NOT something small. That's a difference of 2000 vs 2200, and 1000 vs 1100. You know how much you can do with those extra free points?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Lobokai wrote:
All of these things are true for me too. I like simpler points too. I’m fine taking a 10% handicap for my aesthetic choices.

Why stop there? Are you fine with a 15% or 20% handicap?

They possibly are.

But don't pretend "Okay with small amounts of imbalance," is the same as "Doesn't care about balance at all."

10% is NOT something small. That's a difference of 2000 vs 2200, and 1000 vs 1100. You know how much you can do with those extra free points?

Enough to counter GW's imbalance in just being crap at assigning points?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Enough to counter GW's imbalance in just being crap at assigning points?

Maybe, but also enough to make GW's errors worse. The systemic error in PL doesn't oppose the assignment error. The two are entirely independent, sometimes they cancel and sometimes they stack. So sometimes you have effectively 2200 points vs. 1800 points because of GW's errors in assigning costs, and then free gear adds another 10% on top of that so you're playing with 2400 points vs. 1600 points. Good luck getting a fun game out of that one.

Andykp wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Lobokai wrote:
All of these things are true for me too. I like simpler points too. I’m fine taking a 10% handicap for my aesthetic choices.

Then why play with points-based list construction at all when a "take X units and Y characters each" system is just as accurate and even simpler to use?

Because we have that system. So we use it. What a stupid question.

Open play exists and you don't use it, why?
why must there be PL instead of points when open play offers that version of the game as well?

Also, if GWs bad at assigning points values, why would anybody sane assume that they'd somehow be better at assigning power level values?

Ah, yes, tell me again how many people were using Ogryn Bodyguards with their insane power level costs in 9th...

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Lobokai wrote:
All of these things are true for me too. I like simpler points too. I’m fine taking a 10% handicap for my aesthetic choices.

Why stop there? Are you fine with a 15% or 20% handicap?

They possibly are.

But don't pretend "Okay with small amounts of imbalance," is the same as "Doesn't care about balance at all."

10% is NOT something small. That's a difference of 2000 vs 2200, and 1000 vs 1100. You know how much you can do with those extra free points?

Enough to counter GW's imbalance in just being crap at assigning points?

Would you say the Gladius bonus for two Demi Company Formations was fine with all the free points you got via the transports?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Because we have that system. So we use it. What a stupid question.

Why would you use a subpar system just because it exists when you also have the "take X units and Y characters" system that does what you want and is even simpler to use? It seems like you've fallen for the "officialness" trap where endorsement by GW matters more than how well a system works for your needs.

I think this is also why better rulesets than 40k made by non-gw makers have a hard time gaining traction

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I beg you to PLEASE read my post at least once.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

I actually think 8-9's approach for Relics was fine.

Did not cost points, everyone got a free one.

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.

So, why didn't the generic characters pay points? Why is a cp as anymore of an acceptable currently than PL? You acknowledge not all relics were made equal.

Then again I've said I'm for one free relic per character

Free upgrades!

from a specific list and then adding a second one from a different list to cost points or CP.

Again, why is CP acceptable as a made up currency compared to points, beyond the free upgrades, you manage to list points as an option alongside a 2nd currency. Imagine that!

So, what did I miss?

Relics are not strict upgrades of other relics and relics don't have to be trash as the lore dictates. Las pistols are supposed to be trash. Plasma pistols are supposed to be superior to las pistols, even if they weren't a strict upgrade they should still be superior.

Having 75% of relics cost 20 pts and 25% cost 15 pts or 25 pts makes the question which one is more cost-efficient instead of which one fits my list better if they all had the same cost. That answer would often be the one that has a value of 25 pts and it would rarely be one that has a value of 15 pts, but it could be the case sometimes. I can dig up Phreak's video on why they try to make League of Legends items that compete against each other the same price so they compete on stats and abilities instead of price if you want a professional communicator and designer to explain it, I'm doing it poorly.

Whether the plasma pistol is worth it is the only way to make the choice between plasma pistol and las pistol interesting because with no cost the plasma pistol is the automatic choice. The only time Relics costing pts matters is when you want useless 5-pt non-Relics to be called Relics and I don't, so PL was fine for Relics, pts is also fine. PL is not fine for plasma guns.

I am wondering whether you think convincing us through arguing that choosing between a Veil of Darkness and a Sempiternal Weave is the same as choosing between las pistol and plasma pistol you can convince us that PL isn't an objectively inferior system or whether you're just trolling because you're mad you couldn't come up with a logical argument.

 vict0988 wrote:
Relics are not strict upgrades of other relics and relics don't have to be trash as the lore dictates. Las pistols are supposed to be trash. Plasma pistols are supposed to be superior to las pistols, even if they weren't a strict upgrade they should still be superior.

Having 75% of relics cost 20 pts and 25% cost 15 pts or 25 pts makes the question which one is more cost-efficient instead of which one fits my list better if they all had the same cost. That answer would often be the one that has a value of 25 pts and it would rarely be one that has a value of 15 pts, but it could be the case sometimes. I can dig up Phreak's video on why they try to make League of Legends items that compete against each other the same price so they compete on stats and abilities instead of price if you want a professional communicator and designer to explain it, I'm doing it poorly.

Whether the plasma pistol is worth it is the only way to make the choice between plasma pistol and las pistol interesting because with no cost the plasma pistol is the automatic choice. The only time Relics costing pts matters is when you want useless 5-pt non-Relics to be called Relics and I don't, so PL was fine for Relics, pts is also fine. PL is not fine for plasma guns.

I am wondering whether you think convincing us through arguing that choosing between a Veil of Darkness and a Sempiternal Weave is the same as choosing between las pistol and plasma pistol you can convince us that PL isn't an objectively inferior system or whether you're just trolling because you're mad you couldn't come up with a logical argument.

A bit of both, I'm openly applying the same bs logic that EP uses to yell at people who aren't even pro-PL but simply tolerate it's existence on a point that they themselves made in praise of not using points. I find it amusing that yourself and other "points or dead" all gang together to defend upgrades not costing points when it suits your arguments.

I'm not going to say whether a veil of darkness or sempiternal weave or any other relics are the same as choosing between any other upgrades. You're also missing the point: is a chronomancer with veil worth more points than one without? Yes, very obviously.

You lot as a wider group cannot keep saying "Not giving upgrades points is bad apart from when I say it's fine".

Dudeface wrote:
You're also missing the point: is a chronomancer with veil worth more points than one without? Yes, very obviously.

It has a higher value, but why do you insist that value be expressed by pts instead of by opportunity cost (you only get one relic) or by costing CP?

This isn't like with las pistols and plasma pistols in PL where one has a higher value, but PL fans insist that value not be expressed because the value is too low to matter. No, the value of a Veil of Darkness matters and should be expressed, but that expression can come from a number of ways and pts isn't a much better way of expressing it than any other method of expression. I actually think having Relics cost CP was the wrong choice in a PL system because having things you can add for the last points you have leftover lowers the headache of using PL, but if all Relics were 20 pts now that wouldn't bother me, the 10 pt 4+ FNP is already worth 50 pts for some armies, while the 20 pt DS is worth at most 40 I reckon so saying one is worth more than the other doesn't really make sense. But I think it was inarguable that multimeltas were worth more than heavy bolters in 9th and that sponsons add value in 10th.

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
You're also missing the point: is a chronomancer with veil worth more points than one without? Yes, very obviously.

It has a higher value, but why do you insist that value be expressed by pts instead of by opportunity cost (you only get one relic) or by costing CP?

This isn't like with las pistols and plasma pistols in PL where one has a higher value, but PL fans insist that value not be expressed because the value is too low to matter. No, the value of a Veil of Darkness matters and should be expressed, but that expression can come from a number of ways and pts isn't a much better way of expressing it than any other method of expression. I actually think having Relics cost CP was the wrong choice in a PL system because having things you can add for the last points you have leftover lowers the headache of using PL, but if all Relics were 20 pts now that wouldn't bother me, the 10 pt 4+ FNP is already worth 50 pts for some armies, while the 20 pt DS is worth at most 40 I reckon so saying one is worth more than the other doesn't really make sense. But I think it was inarguable that multimeltas were worth more than heavy bolters in 9th and that sponsons add value in 10th.

We agree there, the other underlying point you comment on is regards opportunity cost etc on the upgrade itself. It's not impossible to do that for different options on everything, be it heavy bolter vs multimelta or whatever. Given GW haven't seen that through in the current version, but they have started recognising that enhancements have a relative value in points for whatever is carrying them, they've recognised that as the easier version to control.

This topic is the nearest that many on the anti-PL side of things have come to recognising that it is possible to actually have options that don't require point upgrades.

Yeah, when we are talking about competent gamedesigners and not churn and burn 3 years / edition GW 40k rulesdesign, which doesn't even manage to keep to a singular design ethos through a full 40k edition.

Which harks once again back. Why the feth are we letting GW remove granularity that would allow for unit specific pricing of weaponry (obviously a plasma gun on a traitor guardsmen is worth less than one on a Legionaire) for a system that just flat out states price regardless of contents of squad beforehand, when we know that GW doesn't do pricing good at all, nor has the mechanics in place to actually make opportunity cost count for weapon choices?

No matter how you slice it, this is a system implemented for lazyness without understanding what is required to make it work. Were the game in a state were it actually would work, now that 'd be a game that would be interesting, alas it isn't.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Lobokai wrote:
All of these things are true for me too. I like simpler points too. I’m fine taking a 10% handicap for my aesthetic choices.

Why stop there? Are you fine with a 15% or 20% handicap?

What makes you think the collections not deep/wide enough to find something to plug such a hole?
Assassins, other Imperial Agents, freeblsde Knights, demons, or just pulling additional units of the same force.
Just because I'm not altering long finished models or playing with things I don't like doesn't mean I'm not putting as near the pts limit on the table as possible.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Because we have that system. So we use it. What a stupid question.

Why would you use a subpar system just because it exists when you also have the "take X units and Y characters" system that does what you want and is even simpler to use? It seems like you've fallen for the "officialness" trap where endorsement by GW matters more than how well a system works for your needs.

What the hell are you on about? You are saying that because of how we like to play we shouldn’t use the official army design rules, even though they suit our needs…..

That’s not anyone falling for a trap you have have just made up, that’s you clutching at straws. Why would I use another system, one I would have to invent, when the one that there is ok by me?? That’s why it’s a stupid question, it’s like saying why doesn’t each person just play what ever they have painted, or why don’t you sit and work the precise “value” of each piece of wargear and invent your own points system that runs of some formula of effectiveness vs competitiveness divided by the optimisation coefficient??

You seem to forget, I’m pretty happy with the current points system, I don’t need to do anything different to enjoy a game or list building. Looks like you have the problem not me? What are you doing about it, apartment throwing your toys out the pram on the internet? Maybe you should embrace the change and try playing a bit more like jervis suggests. You might like it?

Dudeface wrote:
This topic is the nearest that many on the anti-PL side of things have come to recognising that it is possible to actually have options that don't require point upgrades.

You're still ignoring the fact that the relic case does not have the constraints of normal upgrades, where you have the plasma pistol and sponson problems. Relics can be sidegrades because the lore supports it, regular upgrades can't. A laspistol and a plasma pistol can never be equal unless you want to completely ignore the lore, and that means you either use a point system that accurate evaluates those options or you accept systemic errors from a system that is incapable of doing so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
What the hell are you on about? You are saying that because of how we like to play we shouldn’t use the official army design rules, even though they suit our needs…..

That's exactly what I'm saying. You're using a needlessly complex system instead of one that is better suited to your needs, apparently out of some misguided assumption that "official" is something that matters outside of a matched play context. The official rules may be adequate but why settle for adequate when there are far better systems for the kind of game you claim to want?

Why would I use another system, one I would have to invent, when the one that there is ok by me?

Because you claim to value the time savings of not adding up point values for equipment and don't care much about balance. If this is true then why not use a system that is even faster to build lists with and is no worse at balance? It's not like you have to invent anything, I already provided the system for you. Take 10 units, upgrade 5 of them with characters, play the game.

Or are the claimed virtues of PL not really things that are important to you?

Maybe you should embrace the change and try playing a bit more like jervis suggests.

Maybe you should do the same. You're the one arguing against the kind of game Jervis advocates and insisting that you want to play points-based matched play games instead.

(And it's fine if you want to play standard 2000 point matched play games, tournament play is 100% valid. But from what you've said previously you're more interested in narrative play and don't have any interest in tournament games.)