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.

If it wasn’t for the 80 pages of the same nonsense preceding this I would think you were taking the piss but you actually think you are somehow making sensible arguments. But you’re not, you are making things up to support the idea that somehow I am being dishonest because surely I must really think the same way as you, surely!

Some made system you have just made up with zero thought is in no way something I want to to try, inventing my own system is more work then I am prepared to do, don’t get me wrong I make loads of house rules. I love making datasheets for home brewed units and models. But why on Earth would I bother spending time coming up with a system to replace on that is fine by me?? That’s truly idiotic part of your weird assertion.

10th edition points work well enough for me. It’s good enough. If my opponent goes a few over or under it’s fine. As I said, I am happy with that system, it is in no way “match play”, it’s just a way of getting roughly equal forces on the table, ROUGHLY. not exactly down to the pistols the squad leaders have.

And no, the points I liked about power levels are very valid, and no I don’t need to do anything else, I’m happy as I am. In fact I am really enjoying 10th edition. Best games in ages. If they go back to granular points I might invent my own system like power levels but no need now.

So back to what are you doing about not liking the current system, because that is what we are discussing here, not the merits of some BS system you have thought up to try and win an argument. What are you doing about the lack of granular points that are making you so unhappy?

Are you going to give up? invent your own system? Or trying in a more casual way?

I would recommend you get a group of friends together (if you have any) and write a narrative campaign, invent your own missions and back stories for your armies. Even make up a unit or two. Maybe even try your take x units system, could be good? Embrace the “casual”, get into the role playing side of the game. I have played this game for 30+years now and I can tell you that the only people I see getting upset with the state of the game are people like you. Why be unhappy?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

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.

They can be side grades, sure, it's really hard to side grade "4+ invuln" against "unit can immediately deepstrike". You might argue that innately some relics have more value to some armies and should... cost more... free relic? You also absolutely can make a laspistol close the gap with a plasma pistol without altering either weapons stats by providing ancillary buffs via the weapon, changing what can be paired with it, or if needs be consolidating it down as they doesn't have to be an obviously more powerful option. Imagine if you could only have a chainsword with a plasma pistol to balance out the options, or if a laspistol gave +1 to WS and +1A to represent it being a lot lighter and less cumbersome. You might have a decision to make then instead "gun got big number".

For my homebrew, relics are regular wargear with a limitation of 1 per army.

Depending on the relic and army in question, a single character could have all the limited items.

Relics cost points.

Weapon relics do not exist as their own entry, as that would make all the other weapons irrelevant. There is no use in even having a power sword, if you can take a power sword +1 for your 1-2 HQ beatstick characters.

Instead there is for example a "weapon relic" wargear selection that allows you to pick one of several additions to add to your weapon. Every enhacement is limited to 1 per army.

Enhancements include things like "+1 Strength", "-1 AP", "+6" range" and so on.

I don't see any reason not to point relics in a system that points individual pistols for a squad leader.

Dudeface wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

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.

They can be side grades, sure, it's really hard to side grade "4+ invuln" against "unit can immediately deepstrike". You might argue that innately some relics have more value to some armies and should... cost more... free relic? You also absolutely can make a laspistol close the gap with a plasma pistol without altering either weapons stats by providing ancillary buffs via the weapon, changing what can be paired with it, or if needs be consolidating it down as they doesn't have to be an obviously more powerful option. Imagine if you could only have a chainsword with a plasma pistol to balance out the options, or if a laspistol gave +1 to WS and +1A to represent it being a lot lighter and less cumbersome. You might have a decision to make then instead "gun got big number".

You missed the "because the lore supports it" clause then. The lore does not support limiting Plasma Piatols to chainswords-only.

Dudeface wrote:

 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.

Do you think wargear costs are under control? I think 5th edition points was like a herd of horses in a pen, the pen was rather shoddy so there was always a horse loose, sometimes several. 10th is like a herd of wild horses, there is no shoddy broken pen but the herd aren't under control at all.

You don't need pts for combat patrol, you only need them to internally balance datasheet options. The balance at the release of 10th ought to satisfy any intellectual interest you might have had as to whether ignoring internal balance would give GW the time to externally balance codexes against eachother.

a_typical_hero wrote:
I don't see any reason not to point relics in a system that points individual pistols for a squad leader.

Suppose I desire each list include 1 relic and for those relics to convey the faction's flavor. In a system with relics of various prices players might take the cheapest option to pay the relic tax, if I desire instead players to just take the one that is most synergistic I could make them all cost the same and attempt to balance the rules as much as possible.

 vict0988 wrote:

Suppose I desire each list include 1 relic and for those relics to convey the faction's flavor. In a system with relics of various prices players might take the cheapest option to pay the relic tax, if I desire instead players to just take the one that is most synergistic I could make them all cost the same and attempt to balance the rules as much as possible.

No I don't consider wargear options under control at the minute, but the snippet above is what GW was aiming for across the board. I am on board with that concept if they can deliver it and if some loadout options being weird or lost is the cost of it I'm not against that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
You missed the "because the lore supports it" clause then. The lore does not support limiting Plasma Piatols to chainswords-only.

The lore supports a lot of things that aren't readily represented on the tabletop in fairness, I don't think one more feather in that cap would really be a problem.

Aye, i agree with Dudefaces point. Especially since we are missing nowadays whole factions and formations which would be required by an galaxy spanning empire? Like droptroopers because there's not enough marines to go around to support all landings.

NVM the mortal and mortal led aspect of Chaos

Andykp wrote:


If it wasn’t for the 80 pages of the same nonsense preceding this I would think you were taking the piss but you actually think you are somehow making sensible arguments. But you’re not, you are making things up to support the idea that somehow I am being dishonest because surely I must really think the same way as you, surely!

Some made system you have just made up with zero thought is in no way something I want to to try, inventing my own system is more work then I am prepared to do, don’t get me wrong I make loads of house rules. I love making datasheets for home brewed units and models. But why on Earth would I bother spending time coming up with a system to replace on that is fine by me?? That’s truly idiotic part of your weird assertion.

10th edition points work well enough for me. It’s good enough. If my opponent goes a few over or under it’s fine. As I said, I am happy with that system, it is in no way “match play”, it’s just a way of getting roughly equal forces on the table, ROUGHLY. not exactly down to the pistols the squad leaders have.

And no, the points I liked about power levels are very valid, and no I don’t need to do anything else, I’m happy as I am. In fact I am really enjoying 10th edition. Best games in ages. If they go back to granular points I might invent my own system like power levels but no need now.

So back to what are you doing about not liking the current system, because that is what we are discussing here, not the merits of some BS system you have thought up to try and win an argument. What are you doing about the lack of granular points that are making you so unhappy?

Are you going to give up? invent your own system? Or trying in a more casual way?

I would recommend you get a group of friends together (if you have any) and write a narrative campaign, invent your own missions and back stories for your armies. Even make up a unit or two. Maybe even try your take x units system, could be good? Embrace the “casual”, get into the role playing side of the game. I have played this game for 30+years now and I can tell you that the only people I see getting upset with the state of the game are people like you. Why be unhappy?

There's a perfectly valid way of playing the game, a way that many of us have been playing for decades, that becomes very challenging to do under the current point system.

I'm glad you like it, but it's just a really really really bad implementation for a lot of us. Getting back to where we want to be from here, is way harder than it is for you to get to something you want from the previous iterations of points.

I also don't see many competitive players telling casuals they are playing the game wrong. The general argument is better balance is better for everybody.

Don't assume competitive players don't know how to casual. I personal play all kinds of games casually, but there are certain games I like to put more into. I wish 40k failed me a lot less in that regards, but it's ubiquitous. Better games rise and fall in popularity, and sometimes it's just easier to play 40k than to chase every fad.

Andykp wrote:
Some made system you have just made up with zero thought is in no way something I want to to try

And yet you're perfectly happy to use 10th's system, which is equally made up and with next-to-zero thought, because GW did it?

Andykp wrote:
10th edition points work well enough for me. It’s good enough. If my opponent goes a few over or under it’s fine. As I said, I am happy with that system, it is in no way “match play”, it’s just a way of getting roughly equal forces on the table, ROUGHLY. not exactly down to the pistols the squad leaders have.

"I'm alright, Jack. I've got mine"

Andykp wrote:
And no, the points I liked about power levels are very valid, and no I don’t need to do anything else,

Your points are subjective. You happen (for whatever bizarre reason) to like Power Level/NuPoints. That is the only defence you or any other PL/NP advocate has, because there is not one tangible, objective benefit to PL/NP. It does precisely zero better than granular points do.

Andykp wrote:
What are you doing about the lack of granular points that are making you so unhappy?

I suspect 'not play it' is quite a common response to that, particularly among potential new players who will be understandably annoyed to build their models only to find that they've fallen into 'trap' choices and disadvantaged themselves significantly. And like it or not, losing players is not good for the game nor anyone involved with it. The loss of visibility translates to a loss in recruitment, and as we have seen in the past, neglecting existing players too much and focusing too hard on new sales (rather than players) can hurt GW.

Andykp wrote:
I would recommend you get a group of friends together (if you have any) and write a narrative campaign, invent your own missions and back stories for your armies. Even make up a unit or two. Maybe even try your take x units system, could be good? Embrace the “casual”, get into the role playing side of the game. I have played this game for 30+years now and I can tell you that the only people I see getting upset with the state of the game are people like you. Why be unhappy?

Nothing quite like rounding off your post with a large dose of condescention.
People are unhappy because they have invested a lot of time and money into the game and therefore *care* about it. 'Just accept mediocrity' and 'just ignore all the numerous flaws' are not strong arguments, and for the prices GW charge they should be held to a higher standard than they are.
There are plenty of games out there (model agnostic ones, too, for those who arn't willing to divorce themselves from the 40k setting) with far more thought and effort put into their design, so why should anyone just settle for whatever GW slaps together?

 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?

Yes, let's just be silly and say nonsense. If you've played 40k for any real time at all, I feel confident that you've fielded a unit that wasn't the most optimized or didn't have the most meta build because of one of the following:
a) kit changed, you had the old version, you were fine not having the new upgrade
b) you really liked the way something looked/felt on the battlefield
c) you found a great deal on a model you normally wouldn't go get, so you were fine with it as built
d) your force had a theme and you were leaning into that
e) pure aesthetic joy of the unit

So we all have played with "less than" choices at times and that was our choice. But that doesn't mean you'd leave some massive points gap or aren't trying to build a force that can have a reasonable chance to win a game. There's a balance between:
Ease of play
Learning curve
Budget
Customization
Power balance

While I'm not saying the last two are unimportant to me, I am certain we're all well aware that GW has really struggled with these in the past and there have been numerous times that parallel units have not had the same net points. But sometimes making the learning curve and ease of play better means customization and power balance become more abstract.

We clearly have different desires on which features matter more to us, but this "proving things" attitude or the constant insisting on it being "systemic" flaws both is subjective and untrue. Clearly ALL units aren't affected by the errors you see in the system in the same way, and the system itself is not malfunctioning or flawed, it's just making compromises and priorities that YOU don't like. I agree with some of your complaints, but I think it's easy to see that the system needs some relatively minor tweaks to work better, not that they system itself in malfunctioning and needs to be abandoned.

I hope you've played Battletech, because then this has a decent analogous relationship. I get you wanting 40k's equivalent of "Battletech classic". But the market now and the need for the game to thrive requires that there be a more "Alpha Strike" edition of 40k. As someone who views tons of games a year and splits his time between big competitive events like Adepticon and week-long beginners' campaigns, I have advocated (along with many others in the Warhammer Alliance) for a more Alpha Strike-like edition to 40k. With a little under 1000 different units and roughly 26 factions (factions and subfactions get a little blurry) there's just too much already going on. Battletech currently has 3-ish factions and dozens of subfactions. They only have (if looking at currently produced models and cards) 400 units and many of those are subtle variations of the same model, so the number is smaller than that. The game is SO much faster to learn, so much easier to play, yet still gives an incredible amount of modular options while list building and in force construction. It's selling like hotcakes and its getting played.

Now, I fully concede that there are still big problems with 10th edition's datasheets (or whatever we're calling them now).
-I'd love to see separate cards for tanks with and w/o sponsons (good for balance, good for list building) or at least cost variability for it (we have different costs for some unit size changes, definitely should have them for sponsons)
-Some sort of better balance for lighter hitting weapons (like a laspistol vs a plasma pistol), whether that is a stat bump in A or in BS or whatever

And while I know someone will hate this for "lore" reasons, having a limit on 1 weapon because you took another in the more modular squads would make sense for balance too. The approach is a great improvement. It needs to be done better (which is pretty much the motto for 40k rules the last 20 years)

 MalusCalibur wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Some made system you have just made up with zero thought is in no way something I want to to try

And yet you're perfectly happy to use 10th's system, which is equally made up and with next-to-zero thought, because GW did it?

Andykp wrote:
10th edition points work well enough for me. It’s good enough. If my opponent goes a few over or under it’s fine. As I said, I am happy with that system, it is in no way “match play”, it’s just a way of getting roughly equal forces on the table, ROUGHLY. not exactly down to the pistols the squad leaders have.

"I'm alright, Jack. I've got mine"

Andykp wrote:
And no, the points I liked about power levels are very valid, and no I don’t need to do anything else,

Your points are subjective. You happen (for whatever bizarre reason) to like Power Level/NuPoints. That is the only defence you or any other PL/NP advocate has, because there is not one tangible, objective benefit to PL/NP. It does precisely zero better than granular points do.

Andykp wrote:
What are you doing about the lack of granular points that are making you so unhappy?

I suspect 'not play it' is quite a common response to that, particularly among potential new players who will be understandably annoyed to build their models only to find that they've fallen into 'trap' choices and disadvantaged themselves significantly. And like it or not, losing players is not good for the game nor anyone involved with it. The loss of visibility translates to a loss in recruitment, and as we have seen in the past, neglecting existing players too much and focusing too hard on new sales (rather than players) can hurt GW.

Andykp wrote:
I would recommend you get a group of friends together (if you have any) and write a narrative campaign, invent your own missions and back stories for your armies. Even make up a unit or two. Maybe even try your take x units system, could be good? Embrace the “casual”, get into the role playing side of the game. I have played this game for 30+years now and I can tell you that the only people I see getting upset with the state of the game are people like you. Why be unhappy?

Nothing quite like rounding off your post with a large dose of condescention.
People are unhappy because they have invested a lot of time and money into the game and therefore *care* about it. 'Just accept mediocrity' and 'just ignore all the numerous flaws' are not strong arguments, and for the prices GW charge they should be held to a higher standard than they are.
There are plenty of games out there (model agnostic ones, too, for those who arn't willing to divorce themselves from the 40k setting) with far more thought and effort put into their design, so why should anyone just settle for whatever GW slaps together?

The fact that I prefer it and it’s purely subjective has been my whole point, all along.

My “condescending” comments were aimed purely at painting owl because that is all he has been doing now for a long time. And he seems content to tell me how I should play but incapable of seeing how anyone could like something he doesn’t.

I am sorry you are unhappy with it, and if you could bothered to scroll through the 80 page horror that is this thread (I don’t blame you if you don’t) my position on points this edition is that it worse then last edition. I liked the choice, the option people had for points or power levels. I used power levels but am grown up enough to see that doesn’t suit everyone. The way pick) to had got in the last 30 years they were an unnecessary pain in the arse. Not for me but if you played competitive or pick up games with strangers then they were probably better.

But I also spent 2 editions being told that I was laying the game wrong, l didn’t even know what I liked or why and that I was ruining the game using power levels. Now the same thing is going on, because I find this system good enough.

I get that you are upset but don’t go telling me that I would be better off playing with super granular points updated all the time to reflect the “meta”. This system isn’t exactly as I would want it but I can live with it. I will adapt and make it work. I am just suggesting you and the other angry people try a different way. If you have a didn’t like it or can’t because of your gaming group then that’s a shame. But if you can, it is surely better than polluting the internet with your disappointment.

Either way you do what you like, my comment was not directed at you at all, in fact I dint think I have ever encountered you in here before. But maybe try and a bit a little bit less judgmental.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lobokai 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?

Yes, let's just be silly and say nonsense. If you've played 40k for any real time at all, I feel confident that you've fielded a unit that wasn't the most optimized or didn't have the most meta build because of one of the following:
a) kit changed, you had the old version, you were fine not having the new upgrade
b) you really liked the way something looked/felt on the battlefield
c) you found a great deal on a model you normally wouldn't go get, so you were fine with it as built
d) your force had a theme and you were leaning into that
e) pure aesthetic joy of the unit

So we all have played with "less than" choices at times and that was our choice. But that doesn't mean you'd leave some massive points gap or aren't trying to build a force that can have a reasonable chance to win a game. There's a balance between:
Ease of play
Learning curve
Budget
Customization
Power balance

While I'm not saying the last two are unimportant to me, I am certain we're all well aware that GW has really struggled with these in the past and there have been numerous times that parallel units have not had the same net points. But sometimes making the learning curve and ease of play better means customization and power balance become more abstract.

We clearly have different desires on which features matter more to us, but this "proving things" attitude or the constant insisting on it being "systemic" flaws both is subjective and untrue. Clearly ALL units aren't affected by the errors you see in the system in the same way, and the system itself is not malfunctioning or flawed, it's just making compromises and priorities that YOU don't like. I agree with some of your complaints, but I think it's easy to see that the system needs some relatively minor tweaks to work better, not that they system itself in malfunctioning and needs to be abandoned.

I hope you've played Battletech, because then this has a decent analogous relationship. I get you wanting 40k's equivalent of "Battletech classic". But the market now and the need for the game to thrive requires that there be a more "Alpha Strike" edition of 40k. As someone who views tons of games a year and splits his time between big competitive events like Adepticon and week-long beginners' campaigns, I have advocated (along with many others in the Warhammer Alliance) for a more Alpha Strike-like edition to 40k. With a little under 1000 different units and roughly 26 factions (factions and subfactions get a little blurry) there's just too much already going on. Battletech currently has 3-ish factions and dozens of subfactions. They only have (if looking at currently produced models and cards) 400 units and many of those are subtle variations of the same model, so the number is smaller than that. The game is SO much faster to learn, so much easier to play, yet still gives an incredible amount of modular options while list building and in force construction. It's selling like hotcakes and its getting played.

Now, I fully concede that there are still big problems with 10th edition's datasheets (or whatever we're calling them now).
-I'd love to see separate cards for tanks with and w/o sponsons (good for balance, good for list building) or at least cost variability for it (we have different costs for some unit size changes, definitely should have them for sponsons)
-Some sort of better balance for lighter hitting weapons (like a laspistol vs a plasma pistol), whether that is a stat bump in A or in BS or whatever

And while I know someone will hate this for "lore" reasons, having a limit on 1 weapon because you took another in the more modular squads would make sense for balance too. The approach is a great improvement. It needs to be done better (which is pretty much the motto for 40k rules the last 20 years)

Love this post! Very calmly and concisely put. Wish I could manage such a thing. Thank you.

 Lobokai 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?

Yes, let's just be silly and say nonsense. If you've played 40k for any real time at all, I feel confident that you've fielded a unit that wasn't the most optimized or didn't have the most meta build because of one of the following:
a) kit changed, you had the old version, you were fine not having the new upgrade
b) you really liked the way something looked/felt on the battlefield
c) you found a great deal on a model you normally wouldn't go get, so you were fine with it as built
d) your force had a theme and you were leaning into that
e) pure aesthetic joy of the unit

So we all have played with "less than" choices at times and that was our choice. But that doesn't mean you'd leave some massive points gap or aren't trying to build a force that can have a reasonable chance to win a game. There's a balance between:
Ease of play
Learning curve
Budget
Customization
Power balance

While I'm not saying the last two are unimportant to me, I am certain we're all well aware that GW has really struggled with these in the past and there have been numerous times that parallel units have not had the same net points. But sometimes making the learning curve and ease of play better means customization and power balance become more abstract.

We clearly have different desires on which features matter more to us, but this "proving things" attitude or the constant insisting on it being "systemic" flaws both is subjective and untrue. Clearly ALL units aren't affected by the errors you see in the system in the same way, and the system itself is not malfunctioning or flawed, it's just making compromises and priorities that YOU don't like. I agree with some of your complaints, but I think it's easy to see that the system needs some relatively minor tweaks to work better, not that they system itself in malfunctioning and needs to be abandoned.

I hope you've played Battletech, because then this has a decent analogous relationship. I get you wanting 40k's equivalent of "Battletech classic". But the market now and the need for the game to thrive requires that there be a more "Alpha Strike" edition of 40k. As someone who views tons of games a year and splits his time between big competitive events like Adepticon and week-long beginners' campaigns, I have advocated (along with many others in the Warhammer Alliance) for a more Alpha Strike-like edition to 40k. With a little under 1000 different units and roughly 26 factions (factions and subfactions get a little blurry) there's just too much already going on. Battletech currently has 3-ish factions and dozens of subfactions. They only have (if looking at currently produced models and cards) 400 units and many of those are subtle variations of the same model, so the number is smaller than that. The game is SO much faster to learn, so much easier to play, yet still gives an incredible amount of modular options while list building and in force construction. It's selling like hotcakes and its getting played.

Now, I fully concede that there are still big problems with 10th edition's datasheets (or whatever we're calling them now).
-I'd love to see separate cards for tanks with and w/o sponsons (good for balance, good for list building) or at least cost variability for it (we have different costs for some unit size changes, definitely should have them for sponsons)
-Some sort of better balance for lighter hitting weapons (like a laspistol vs a plasma pistol), whether that is a stat bump in A or in BS or whatever

And while I know someone will hate this for "lore" reasons, having a limit on 1 weapon because you took another in the more modular squads would make sense for balance too. The approach is a great improvement. It needs to be done better (which is pretty much the motto for 40k rules the last 20 years)

How dare you! This post is way, way too sensible for this thread! Don’t interrupt this perfect flow of hate, ignorance and bad manners with your carefully written and well thought post!

 Lobokai 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?

Yes, let's just be silly and say nonsense. If you've played 40k for any real time at all, I feel confident that you've fielded a unit that wasn't the most optimized or didn't have the most meta build because of one of the following:
a) kit changed, you had the old version, you were fine not having the new upgrade
b) you really liked the way something looked/felt on the battlefield
c) you found a great deal on a model you normally wouldn't go get, so you were fine with it as built
d) your force had a theme and you were leaning into that
e) pure aesthetic joy of the unit

So we all have played with "less than" choices at times and that was our choice. But that doesn't mean you'd leave some massive points gap or aren't trying to build a force that can have a reasonable chance to win a game. There's a balance between:
Ease of play
Learning curve
Budget
Customization
Power balance

While I'm not saying the last two are unimportant to me, I am certain we're all well aware that GW has really struggled with these in the past and there have been numerous times that parallel units have not had the same net points. But sometimes making the learning curve and ease of play better means customization and power balance become more abstract.

Free sponsons are not abstractly balanced, they're not balanced at all. The only way to make balance worse is if taking sponsons gave you extra points.

We clearly have different desires on which features matter more to us, but this "proving things" attitude or the constant insisting on it being "systemic" flaws both is subjective and untrue. Clearly ALL units aren't affected by the errors you see in the system in the same way, and the system itself is not malfunctioning or flawed, it's just making compromises and priorities that YOU don't like. I agree with some of your complaints, but I think it's easy to see that the system needs some relatively minor tweaks to work better, not that they system itself in malfunctioning and needs to be abandoned.

Whereever a unit can take something extra I predict there will be an imbalance in 10th, I will be right in every case because I know that part of PL is not accounting for such extra equipment is inherent to what makes PL PL, if it accounted for those extra somethings with some kind of cost then it would not be PL. This is true in every codex in the game, it is an inherent and systemic flaw. The fact that some point values are right does not mean the system has no systemic flaws, that is ridiculous. It is widespread and affects many parts of the system. Adding pts costs to every upgrade is not a minor tweak and that is what is needed. PL needs to be gone, pts need to come back.

-I'd love to see separate cards for tanks with and w/o sponsons (good for balance, good for list building) or at least cost variability for it (we have different costs for some unit size changes, definitely should have them for sponsons)
-Some sort of better balance for lighter hitting weapons (like a laspistol vs a plasma pistol), whether that is a stat bump in A or in BS or whatever

That's points, you are arguing in favour of scrapping PL and bringing back pts.

Andykp wrote:
The fact that I prefer it and it’s purely subjective has been my whole point, all along.

Why should I care that you subjectively prefer 3,2 to using Pi for calculating circumferences of circles? You're objectively wrong about the value of Pi and your circumference calculations are all objectively wrong as well. You're not saving any time because your calculator has a Pi sign, you're just being argumentative and denialist. Stop propagating bad math on the internet and nobody will care about your hobby of doing math wrong for your own enjoyment. A Leman Russ with sponsons > Leman Russ without sponsons at the same price, objectively imbalanced, inherent to the system of PL because PL does not have pts costs for upgrades which creates a systemic issue of naked units being unviable.

 Lobokai wrote:

And while I know someone will hate this for "lore" reasons, having a limit on 1 weapon because you took another in the more modular squads would make sense for balance too. The approach is a great improvement. It needs to be done better (which is pretty much the motto for 40k rules the last 20 years)

We're beyond any reasonable thought now.

You're the person that "build only what's in the box" is for, and you're the person defending it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But that's okay, because I'm sure you hope Jervis sees your post or something.

How is limiting the choice for only some faction an improvment? Especialy when with the other hand other factions are being handed out extra rules, more powerful rules, actual options. And on top of that GW doesn't give an option to "fix" your army, besides rebuying it almost in total. There is no upgrade X, Y or Z upgrade kit. No, now if your army has a unit that misses a crucial option X, then you have to rebuy the whole unit.

 CaulynDarr wrote:
...
I also don't see many competitive players telling casuals they are playing the game wrong. The general argument is better balance is better for everybody.
...

This statement is the crux of most people's vitrol in this thread, and I believe it is a misconception.

Better balance is not necessarily better for everyone, if to achieve that perceived balance, you must sacrifice other factors that an individual values more. There are many players that want imbalance since it leads to more diverse concepts being introduced within the system. I know the competitive crowd disfavor rules like "hatred of chaos" that provides bonuses to a faction or unit when fighting a specific enemy, because it is hard to balance something so niche. But there are probably more non-competitive players in the world of wargaming that prefer having zany rules that fit the theme of the armies lore, aesthetics or a multitude of other rational for why a more casual player would choose to spend time collecting a specific faction of their chosen game.

I've been a long proponent that the only way to truly satiate the competitive crowd and the narrative/casual crowd is to offer two separate core rule systems for the same game. This is something that will likely never be done, since Logistically GW cannot seem to handle this. So the game system will continually have pendulum swings between casual stint and competitive stint alienating one crowd or the other. There is no true healthy medium where everyone is happy, but there is a medium where no one is. I believe decisions like the points change in 10th are made to the betterment of the majority of players, and it is a shame the competitive players feel slighted, but that's pretty much how 9th felt to many casual groups that wanted a fun system and we received the "tournament edition" with a half-assed tacked on crusade bloat.

The pendulum will swing back. It's just a matter of time.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
...
I also don't see many competitive players telling casuals they are playing the game wrong. The general argument is better balance is better for everybody.
...

This statement is the crux of most people's vitrol in this thread, and I believe it is a misconception.

Better balance is not necessarily better for everyone, if to achieve that perceived balance, you must sacrifice other factors that an individual values more. There are many players that want imbalance since it leads to more diverse concepts being introduced within the system. I know the competitive crowd disfavor rules like "hatred of chaos" that provides bonuses to a faction or unit when fighting a specific enemy, because it is hard to balance something so niche. But there are probably more non-competitive players in the world of wargaming that prefer having zany rules that fit the theme of the armies lore, aesthetics or a multitude of other rational for why a more casual player would choose to spend time collecting a specific faction of their chosen game.

I've been a long proponent that the only way to truly satiate the competitive crowd and the narrative/casual crowd is to offer two separate core rule systems for the same game. This is something that will likely never be done, since Logistically GW cannot seem to handle this. So the game system will continually have pendulum swings between casual stint and competitive stint alienating one crowd or the other. There is no true healthy medium where everyone is happy, but there is a medium where no one is. I believe decisions like the points change in 10th are made to the betterment of the majority of players, and it is a shame the competitive players feel slighted, but that's pretty much how 9th felt to many casual groups that wanted a fun system and we received the "tournament edition" with a half-assed tacked on crusade bloat.

The pendulum will swing back. It's just a matter of time.

It is way easier to unbalance a balanced game than to balance and unbalanced one. If you want to set up a narrative campaign where your army has "hatred of chaos" You say "my army has +1 WS against Chaos" and boom, your army has +1 WS against Chaos so long as your couple of buddies you play with agree. It's much harder to unilaterally agree on balance for an GT that's hosting 200 players. Competitive gaming needs critical mass-- that you loose as soon as you get ah-hoc tournament specific balance adjustments. Balance is absolutely necessary for us, and it gives you a starting point for doing whatever you want to do for your narrative.

You can go forth and narrative without the blessing of GW. Competitive players feel slighted, because we have been. You have gained no real appreciative benefit (except maybe feeling validated by GW's design team) while we've been crippled with a broken game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Honestly, whatever narrative support GW puts out, it will always be insufficient compared to whatever you can come up with on your own. If you want to tell a story, tell the story you want. GW can't put out a framework to cover everything. It's not an RPG system. Not to mention that people house rule on top of RPG systems all.the.time. I've never been in a group that didn't just come up with stuff on the fly for the fun of it. The rules are only ever going to be a jumping off point for narrative gaming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Addendum to the addendum. GW did once put out a narrative miniature game without points. It was called Inquisitor and it bombed hugely. The minis were cool though.

If Inquisitor bombed (and I'm not sure I agree that it did), it was as much because of 54mm scale as anything else.

The reason I'm not so sure it bombed is that Inquisitor 28 rose from its ashes, which suggests that there was still interest, but we needed more to work with... Which was provided many times over by switching scale and using 40k models.

Andykp wrote:
If my opponent goes a few over or under it’s fine. As I said, I am happy with that system, it is in no way “match play”, it’s just a way of getting roughly equal forces on the table, ROUGHLY. not exactly down to the pistols the squad leaders have.

This is the fundamental issue we have: you say you don't care about minor balance differences. It's fine if upgrades aren't accurately priced, it's fine if you and your opponent don't have exactly the same point total. Having it be roughly the same is good enough, and speed of use is more important than going from "roughly the same" to "very close to the same".

So why, when I present you with a system that does a better job of accomplishing the things you claim to value, do you insist that it's "BS" and reject it?

Is it because it isn't "roughly correct"? Nope. The error in the system isn't any worse than the error with crisis suits, LRBTs, etc, and that's not even touching things like the vast power level difference between Eldar and Admech.

Is it because it doesn't meet your ease of use goals? Obviously not, it's objectively faster and easier to use than PL.

Is it because it is work? No, no matter how many times you say "why should I make up a new system" there is no extra work to be done. I already gave you the complete system. It's ready to use, all you have to do is start playing games with it.

So we have to conclude one of two things: either your claimed goals and reasons for liking PL are false or you have some other reason for liking PL (officialness, symbolic value as "the casual system", etc) that you are not willing to admit for whatever reason.

What are you doing about the lack of granular points that are making you so unhappy?

Nothing, because matched play by the standard rules is how 40k is played here. 2000 point games, standard tournament mission pack, standard rules. The choice is to either play by the standard rules or not play at all. But that's not really relevant because the topic here is "do you like the point system" not "what are you doing to convince people to change the point system".

And no, "convince people to play something else and give up on matched play" is not a solution.

 CaulynDarr wrote:
It is way easier to unbalance a balanced game than to balance and unbalanced one. If you want to set up a narrative campaign where your army has "hatred of chaos" You say "my army has +1 WS against Chaos" and boom, your army has +1 WS against Chaos so long as your couple of buddies you play with agree. It's much harder to unilaterally agree on balance for an GT that's hosting 200 players. Competitive gaming needs critical mass-- that you loose as soon as you get ah-hoc tournament specific balance adjustments. Balance is absolutely necessary for us, and it gives you a starting point for doing whatever you want to do for your narrative.
.

"competitive" players just go for next broken OP patting on their back for "figuring" out the new OP combo.

"competitive" players love the broken rules as they can then math game out pre-game. Mathematical problem to solve and remove as much of dice rolling from game as possible.

And can get to pat out on back figuring out "super secret OP combo" of the month.

PenitentJake wrote:
If Inquisitor bombed (and I'm not sure I agree that it did), it was as much because of 54mm scale as anything else.

The reason I'm not so sure it bombed is that Inquisitor 28 rose from its ashes, which suggests that there was still interest, but we needed more to work with... Which was provided many times over by switching scale and using 40k models.

Inquisitor 28 is a niche game with so little interest that GW hasn't even bothered to make a competing official version. I don't see any evidence that it's any more popular than the various third-party alternative 40k rules, or that it would be a viable product as a 28mm game.

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
You missed the "because the lore supports it" clause then. The lore does not support limiting Plasma Piatols to chainswords-only.

The lore supports a lot of things that aren't readily represented on the tabletop in fairness, I don't think one more feather in that cap would really be a problem.

Yet another move away from "your dudes" again, then. Can't field a guy with a Plasma Pistol and Powerfist anymore then, all for the sake of getting rid of those pesky point values! Sanitize away!

tneva82 wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
It is way easier to unbalance a balanced game than to balance and unbalanced one. If you want to set up a narrative campaign where your army has "hatred of chaos" You say "my army has +1 WS against Chaos" and boom, your army has +1 WS against Chaos so long as your couple of buddies you play with agree. It's much harder to unilaterally agree on balance for an GT that's hosting 200 players. Competitive gaming needs critical mass-- that you loose as soon as you get ah-hoc tournament specific balance adjustments. Balance is absolutely necessary for us, and it gives you a starting point for doing whatever you want to do for your narrative.
.

"competitive" players just go for next broken OP patting on their back for "figuring" out the new OP combo.

"competitive" players love the broken rules as they can then math game out pre-game. Mathematical problem to solve and remove as much of dice rolling from game as possible.

And can get to pat out on back figuring out "super secret OP combo" of the month.

This is where your misconception lies.

Balanced rules are not what WAAC players use to be jerks. Balanced rules are what competitive players use to defend themselves against WAAC jerks. Competitive players just want the challenge and self improvement from testing ourselves. And we like to do it without dealing with cheating cheeseballs. Just like you.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Andykp wrote:
If my opponent goes a few over or under it’s fine. As I said, I am happy with that system, it is in no way “match play”, it’s just a way of getting roughly equal forces on the table, ROUGHLY. not exactly down to the pistols the squad leaders have.

This is the fundamental issue we have: you say you don't care about minor balance differences. It's fine if upgrades aren't accurately priced, it's fine if you and your opponent don't have exactly the same point total. Having it be roughly the same is good enough, and speed of use is more important than going from "roughly the same" to "very close to the same".

So why, when I present you with a system that does a better job of accomplishing the things you claim to value, do you insist that it's "BS" and reject it?

Is it because it isn't "roughly correct"? Nope. The error in the system isn't any worse than the error with crisis suits, LRBTs, etc, and that's not even touching things like the vast power level difference between Eldar and Admech.

Is it because it doesn't meet your ease of use goals? Obviously not, it's objectively faster and easier to use than PL.

Is it because it is work? No, no matter how many times you say "why should I make up a new system" there is no extra work to be done. I already gave you the complete system. It's ready to use, all you have to do is start playing games with it.

So we have to conclude one of two things: either your claimed goals and reasons for liking PL are false or you have some other reason for liking PL (officialness, symbolic value as "the casual system", etc) that you are not willing to admit for whatever reason.

What are you doing about the lack of granular points that are making you so unhappy?

Nothing, because matched play by the standard rules is how 40k is played here. 2000 point games, standard tournament mission pack, standard rules. The choice is to either play by the standard rules or not play at all. But that's not really relevant because the topic here is "do you like the point system" not "what are you doing to convince people to change the point system".

And no, "convince people to play something else and give up on matched play" is not a solution.

So your conclusion is that I am either lying or have some weird attraction to official rules. That is a very odd position to take. Simply because I haven’t kept up and adopted your idea of taking so many units and or characters and calling it a day….

I think it’s best just to pop you on ignore, good luck playing your unsatisfactory war game.

Andykp wrote:
So your conclusion is that I am either lying or have some weird attraction to official rules. That is a very odd position to take. Simply because I haven’t kept up and adopted your idea of taking so many units and or characters and calling it a day….

I think it’s best just to pop you on ignore, good luck playing your unsatisfactory war game.

Because your actions are not in alignment with your claimed priorities. If someone posts "god I hate 40k, such a stupid game with terrible overpriced models" all the time but keeps buying three copies of every new 40k release it's obvious that their posts are not honest.

PS: it's not an airport, you don't have to announce your departure.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Andykp wrote:
If my opponent goes a few over or under it’s fine. As I said, I am happy with that system, it is in no way “match play”, it’s just a way of getting roughly equal forces on the table, ROUGHLY. not exactly down to the pistols the squad leaders have.

This is the fundamental issue we have: you say you don't care about minor balance differences. It's fine if upgrades aren't accurately priced, it's fine if you and your opponent don't have exactly the same point total. Having it be roughly the same is good enough, and speed of use is more important than going from "roughly the same" to "very close to the same".

So why, when I present you with a system that does a better job of accomplishing the things you claim to value, do you insist that it's "BS" and reject it?

Is it because it isn't "roughly correct"? Nope. The error in the system isn't any worse than the error with crisis suits, LRBTs, etc, and that's not even touching things like the vast power level difference between Eldar and Admech.

Is it because it doesn't meet your ease of use goals? Obviously not, it's objectively faster and easier to use than PL.

Is it because it is work? No, no matter how many times you say "why should I make up a new system" there is no extra work to be done. I already gave you the complete system. It's ready to use, all you have to do is start playing games with it.

So we have to conclude one of two things: either your claimed goals and reasons for liking PL are false or you have some other reason for liking PL (officialness, symbolic value as "the casual system", etc) that you are not willing to admit for whatever reason.

What are you doing about the lack of granular points that are making you so unhappy?

Nothing, because matched play by the standard rules is how 40k is played here. 2000 point games, standard tournament mission pack, standard rules. The choice is to either play by the standard rules or not play at all. But that's not really relevant because the topic here is "do you like the point system" not "what are you doing to convince people to change the point system".

Now who's lying?
What you're doing about it is lashing out in anger & frustration like a small child. You can't get anyone to play your way IRL so you're filling page after page here with your argument that granular pts are better than the current scheme, general BS, & accusing people of lying about wether they like the current system and/or why.

ccs wrote:
Now who's lying?
What you're doing about it is lashing out in anger & frustration like a small child. You can't get anyone to play your way IRL so you're filling page after page here with your argument that granular pts are better than the current scheme, general BS, & accusing people of lying about wether they like the current system and/or why.

HOW DARE YOU POST IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MERITS OF THE POINT SYSTEM UR NOT ALLOWD TO HAVE OPIIONS I DONT LIKE.

I see that we've finished the phase of this debate where we pretend there are any reasonable arguments in defense of PL and move on to petty insults and lashing out at anyone who doesn't support PL.

And no, saying "I like it because I do" isn't a reasonable defense. There's people that listen to grindcore unironically and I'm sure as hell not going to listen to their opinions about music.

I prefer points to PL, and PL to what 10th has.

But if your stance is “Anyone who disagrees with me is lying or stupid” you should probably reevaluate.

 JNAProductions wrote:
But if your stance is “Anyone who disagrees with me is lying or stupid” you should probably reevaluate.

Fortunately that's not anyone's stance here. "If you claim to want X but your actions prioritize Y instead there's something you aren't being honest about" does not mean that everyone who supports PL is lying or stupid.