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.

 Lobokai wrote:

Funny, on my app a bike squad without an attack bike is 160 points, and with it the cost is 215. Options do matter and we've added an additional level of points beyond PL.

thats not the argument you think it is lol. In 9th, adding an attack bike cost +2 PL...

 Lobokai wrote:


Until the codex inflation starts, I am thrilled to have a very easy-to-teach and easy-to-introduce official 40k ruleset

Jervis would be proud of you, which is not a good thing.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Lobokai wrote:

Funny, on my app a bike squad without an attack bike is 160 points, and with it the cost is 215. Options do matter and we've added an additional level of points beyond PL.

thats not the argument you think it is lol. In 9th, adding an attack bike cost +2 PL...

I'm making the point that options do matter and showing that there is a way to use them to improve sponsons... I even then admitted that he likely meant weapon options and then addressed that. I also explained that I meant the significant digits at play was the "level of points" I was talking about. But take an isolated quote out of context and pretend there weren't sentences right after that framing my point if you so desire.

 Lobokai wrote:

Funny, on my app a bike squad without an attack bike is 160 points, and with it the cost is 215. Options do matter and we've added an additional level of points beyond PL. I'll pretend you said "weapon options", and yes. That this isn't working simply means that some of the weapon profiles should have be altered and GW being pigheaded about not adding A or BS improvements to many weapons was foolish.

You can add in all of the Deathwatch Killteams to the problem units as their extra guys are all charged at a flat rate despite being potentially vastly different. So a completely different approach to the bike squads, showing the lack of thought GW put into the system. There are likely loads of others but I think the point stands even with a handful of them.

Again (for maybe the 20th time in this thread) the problem isn't that a system of sidegrades can't work. The problem is it's obvious the implementation GW has chosen won't work because they didn't do the groundwork when designing the units and weapons to make it work. There's no solution to that except either redesigning a huge number of options and upgrades (hey, a new edition would be the perfect time to do that!) or charging points for them like they used to. One of those solutions will work with the current set-up. One will not. Whether you label that error systemic or systematic is irrelevant. It's the fact there is an error inherent in the system itself, that is not present in the points system, that matters. Sure, you could try to eliminate the error in the PL system by moving it closer to granular points, at which point I'm wondering why we don't just go the whole way anyway.

None of the examples you cite of the system working as designed are precluded under the old points system. So we're back to advocating for a system that's demonstrably worse. The fact it could be better if the game were designed completely differently is irrelevant.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Lobokai wrote:

Funny, on my app a bike squad without an attack bike is 160 points, and with it the cost is 215. Options do matter and we've added an additional level of points beyond PL.

thats not the argument you think it is lol. In 9th, adding an attack bike cost +2 PL...

The MFM has a Model + cost 6 times within it. Each time it adds a significantly different model to a unit. It is never used for wargear cost. The two Astartes bike squads are 2 of those 6 instances.

"Systematic error means that your measurements of the same thing will vary in predictable ways: every measurement will differ from the true measurement in the same direction, and even by the same amount in some cases.

Systematic error is also referred to as bias because your data is skewed in standardized ways that hide the true values. This may lead to inaccurate conclusions."

If an Infantry Squad stays with las pistol it is missing out on 3 pts, if it upgrades to bolt pistol it is missing out on 2 pts. There is also no guarantee that the replacement is not a downgrade, I'm sure we could find a few examples. This is not systematic. If a Leman Russ takes no sponsons it is missing out on 30 pts. If a Leman Russ does not take the free storm bolter it is missing out on 5 pts. This is not systematic.

Inherent and pervasive are synonyms of systemic and apt descriptions for the problems in 10th's balance, we know that a lot of the pts costs for replacements and upgrades are wrong, but whether up or down or by how much we cannot tell, that's what makes the problem systemic rather than systematic. If all upgrade pts costs were half as large as they ought to be then there would be a systematic error because GW's system led them to always undervalue upgrades by half. Why are you nitpicking the word choice anyway? Even if we were using the words wrong (which I don't think is evident), you yourself say that sponsons need to cost points.

PenitentJake wrote:
It doesn't explicitly state that he would be willing to accept a system in which players can choose to use either points or PL, but it heavily implies he'd be okay with it.

No, PL should be removed and there is no more reason for a dual system than for having a dozen different point systems catering to every possible niche. Rules bloat is bad and redundant point systems are an excellent example of rules bloat that has minimal practical value and can be streamlined away without any consequences.

That quote is merely stating the obvious: that I am not forcing anyone to use any particular point system, and that it's absurd to argue that my criticism of PL is somehow oppressing the poor fans of the system.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lobokai wrote:
A system not working the way it is intended and causing equal harm to all parts of the greater system is a "systemic error". Now a SYSTEMATIC error is when there is a problem occurring somewhere in the system due to its design.

Thanks for admitting that you have no better argument than nitpicking about whether the exact term is "systemic" or "systematic", despite knowing what type of error I'm referring to and how it contrasts with the random error of GW using the system incorrectly and assigning inaccurate costs to individual units.

Sponsons are a large enough alteration to the game impact of almost every unit with them, that treating them as change in points does make sense.

Thank you for conceding that PL is a fundamentally broken system and the only way to prevent the errors it creates is to remove its core principle and make it no longer PL.

But wait, you are exactly taking a position on a design question.

I am taking a position on A design question (that PL is a broken system) but not the particular design question in your ridiculous straw man argument. The game no longer representing things like which forge world a particular LRBT came from or what load of ammunition it carries has nothing to do with PL vs. traditional points. The point system is about how units and options are evaluated, your straw man is about what options exist. The two are entirely independent questions.

Until the codex inflation starts, I am thrilled to have a very easy-to-teach and easy-to-introduce official 40k ruleset that I can have a new player loving and comfortable with by the end of game 1 at a much higher rate than I've ever seen with this current generation of new players.

What does any of that have to do with PL vs. traditional points? You aren't introducing the point system at all in game 1 so your success rate with other aspects of 10th has nothing to do with this topic.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:


No, PL should be removed and there is no more reason for a dual system than for having a dozen different point systems catering to every possible niche. Rules bloat is bad and redundant point systems are an excellent example of rules bloat that has minimal practical value and can be streamlined away without any consequences.

That quote is merely stating the obvious: that I am not forcing anyone to use any particular point system, and that it's absurd to argue that my criticism of PL is somehow oppressing the poor fans of the system.

You can't have it both ways.

You can a) not advocate for the removal of a costed equipment alternative, and get credit for not depriving a portion of the player base its preference, or b) advocated for the removal of a costed equipment alternative and admit that this would be depriving someone of their preference.

The two are mutually exclusive. Advocating that everyone who doesn't want to use a costed equipment system has to houserule an alternative IS the same as denying them the option, or to be more precise, it's advocating that GW deprive them of it.

PenitentJake wrote:
You can't have it both ways.

There is no "both ways" here. The statement you quoted was about the (absurd and confrontational) accusation that I'm not allowing people to like a thing without having to fight about it here, by someone who refuses to acknowledge the difference between liking a thing and joining a discussion of the merits of that thing. IOW, it's pure tone policing and "positive vibes only" nonsense. It has nothing to do with system preferences or advocating changes by GW.

But here's a question: why do you advocate denying me the game that I want so that you can have the one you want?

(And why do you care so much about points-based matched play games and the systems that enable them when you claim to be entirely focused on the story?)

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

But here's a question: why do you advocate denying me the game that I want so that you can have the one you want?

I don't. In my best case scenario, both points and PL exist. You get to play points, I get to play PL. I'm not advocating for you to lose anything.

And as I've said several times, if GW insists on a single system, I think they should have chosen costed equipment because it's better for the game as a whole. Tournaments absolutely require balance, and even though I don't participate in tournaments, many players do, and it is an important part of the hobby. Quite a few narrative players place a higher priority on balance than I do too.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:


(And why do you care so much about points-based matched play games and the systems that enable them when you claim to be entirely focused on the story?)

I don't care about matched play games at all- for me, stand-alone games aren't worth the time it takes to paint the army build the terrain and play.

PL isn't just about the size of an army; it is the way you measure escalation, and it is connected to other Crusade mechanics, as well as 40k's scaling mechanics (which have been diminished significantly in the new edition with its single detachment army structure and fixed CP). And while not all games in a campaign require balance, some will need more than others, so having a system that allows you to get balanced enough when you need it is helpful.

PenitentJake wrote:
I don't. In my best case scenario, both points and PL exist. You get to play points, I get to play PL. I'm not advocating for you to lose anything.

I want a game where rules bloat is culled, and any two-system proposal is anathema to that. You can only have the game you want at the expense of me not having the game I want.

(Not that this is a problem, everyone wants the game they prefer even if it means other people don't get what they want.)

I don't care about matched play games at all- for me, stand-alone games aren't worth the time it takes to paint the army build the terrain and play.

You absolutely care about matched play. You're advocating for a matched play point system for use in a matched play format (Crusade) and rejecting the idea of using a narrative-based system with collaborative army building. In fact, you prioritize the concept of equal-points matched play games so much that you're willing to accept significant inaccuracies in the point system as long as it makes it easier to arrange a game where both sides have an equal point total.

Crusade is not a Matched play format, and this time, I am done with this thread.

PenitentJake wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

But here's a question: why do you advocate denying me the game that I want so that you can have the one you want?

I don't. In my best case scenario, both points and PL exist. You get to play points, I get to play PL. I'm not advocating for you to lose anything.

And as I've said several times, if GW insists on a single system, I think they should have chosen costed equipment because it's better for the game as a whole. Tournaments absolutely require balance, and even though I don't participate in tournaments, many players do, and it is an important part of the hobby. Quite a few narrative players place a higher priority on balance than I do too.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:


(And why do you care so much about points-based matched play games and the systems that enable them when you claim to be entirely focused on the story?)

I don't care about matched play games at all- for me, stand-alone games aren't worth the time it takes to paint the army build the terrain and play.

PL isn't just about the size of an army; it is the way you measure escalation, and it is connected to other Crusade mechanics, as well as 40k's scaling mechanics (which have been diminished significantly in the new edition with its single detachment army structure and fixed CP). And while not all games in a campaign require balance, some will need more than others, so having a system that allows you to get balanced enough when you need it is helpful.

I think the point and power level can work fine as well, if they do the game in points and Avg out for a power level it works fine for those wanting a power level as a base.

Would prefer them not trying to tie it into a campaign system, or them doing more than one campaign system. But that’s probably a lot to ask for.
For a campaign I would rather them do a resource management campaign, and focus on better shared narrative.

A lot of issues is mixed messaging and general issues of what GW is really focused on, and if they are building systems to be built upon.
Also generally a lack of any care for the systems they used, I find it almost comical how little people in support of the current system bring up other game systems use things that are similar. But often have other supporting systems within the games to arrive at a better balance.

Also for all the supposed talk of the devs likening narrative games, they suck at it…like bare minimum narrative support in the game, every other game meets this. And with better balance supports narrative better without the GW marketing needing to pull it up.

PenitentJake wrote:
Crusade is not a Matched play format, and this time, I am done with this thread.

Crusade is absolutely matched play. Everything about the system is built on the matched play concept of points-based list construction to an equal total for each player, standardized symmetrical missions, balance restrictions to keep armies equal, and extreme importance placed on being able to have pickup games against random strangers at your local store/club. And in many cases it makes these design choices at the expense of narrative elements. Crusade is a good matched play format that a lot of people like but it is very much a matched play format.

Why does seeing the argument that Crusade is a matched play format make you so angry that you're done with this thread? Do you think that matched play is somehow morally inferior, and that Crusade is tainted by being associated with it? Do you think the possibility that you enjoy playing a matched play format makes you a bad person?

Apple fox wrote:


I think the point and power level can work fine as well, if they do the game in points and Avg out for a power level it works fine for those wanting a power level as a base.

How do you average out the cost of a versatile unit like Crisis Suits where the range of potential points costs for different loadouts is potentially very large?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Apple fox wrote:


I think the point and power level can work fine as well, if they do the game in points and Avg out for a power level it works fine for those wanting a power level as a base.

How do you average out the cost of a versatile unit like Crisis Suits where the range of potential points costs for different loadouts is potentially very large?

1upgrade, 2 and 3.
That PL can be used as a quick get it on the table for friendly games I don’t think is a big problem. Some units may need some special care, but I think that’s ok for a non serious style of gameplay.

It’s more that the game isn’t at all designed for it, and GW went for it anyway. Honestly it’s Dropping some of the main reasons I enjoy 40K still as a game. But I also lucky, I can play better games easy enough
There are things GW could have done, but GW is stuck in a self imposed one big change an edition it seems. And no one wanted the effort to make it work to go in.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Apple fox wrote:


I think the point and power level can work fine as well, if they do the game in points and Avg out for a power level it works fine for those wanting a power level as a base.

How do you average out the cost of a versatile unit like Crisis Suits where the range of potential points costs for different loadouts is potentially very large?

you split it into several units that have a basic loadout and options that are sidegrades

see the (now legendary) Landspeeders and Stormspeeders as example on how to do it

 kodos wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Apple fox wrote:


I think the point and power level can work fine as well, if they do the game in points and Avg out for a power level it works fine for those wanting a power level as a base.

How do you average out the cost of a versatile unit like Crisis Suits where the range of potential points costs for different loadouts is potentially very large?

you split it into several units that have a basic loadout and options that are sidegrades

see the (now legendary) Landspeeders and Stormspeeders as example on how to do it

and by doing that, you kill the option of running mixed weapons crisis suits.

Just bring back points, it's litterally that easy. And with GW themselves providing an app, the whole "too much math" argument is a joke

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Apple fox wrote:


I think the point and power level can work fine as well, if they do the game in points and Avg out for a power level it works fine for those wanting a power level as a base.

How do you average out the cost of a versatile unit like Crisis Suits where the range of potential points costs for different loadouts is potentially very large?

you split it into several units that have a basic loadout and options that are sidegrades

see the (now legendary) Landspeeders and Stormspeeders as example on how to do it

and by doing that, you kill the option of running mixed weapons crisis suits.

Just bring back points, it's litterally that easy. And with GW themselves providing an app, the whole "too much math" argument is a joke

You will find most PL fans or what ever we are being called are actually in favour of the old two system approach. I said it pages ago and it s been said on this page. Tournament/match play need granular points, I don’t, the best solution would be bring back the two systems and everyone is happy.

Andykp wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Apple fox wrote:


I think the point and power level can work fine as well, if they do the game in points and Avg out for a power level it works fine for those wanting a power level as a base.

How do you average out the cost of a versatile unit like Crisis Suits where the range of potential points costs for different loadouts is potentially very large?

you split it into several units that have a basic loadout and options that are sidegrades

see the (now legendary) Landspeeders and Stormspeeders as example on how to do it

and by doing that, you kill the option of running mixed weapons crisis suits.

Just bring back points, it's litterally that easy. And with GW themselves providing an app, the whole "too much math" argument is a joke

You will find most PL fans or what ever we are being called are actually in favour of the old two system approach.

You don't explain why there NEEDS to be a two system approach though. If y'all don't think GW gets regular points right, why are you going to advocate for a second system that does it worse? And why do we need to stop at two systems? Why not throw a third in?

Oh wait they did with Combat Patrol and that's absolutely laughable. I'm sure you'll defend it though.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Apple fox wrote:


I think the point and power level can work fine as well, if they do the game in points and Avg out for a power level it works fine for those wanting a power level as a base.

How do you average out the cost of a versatile unit like Crisis Suits where the range of potential points costs for different loadouts is potentially very large?

you split it into several units that have a basic loadout and options that are sidegrades

see the (now legendary) Landspeeders and Stormspeeders as example on how to do it

and by doing that, you kill the option of running mixed weapons crisis suits.

Just bring back points, it's litterally that easy. And with GW themselves providing an app, the whole "too much math" argument is a joke

You will find most PL fans or what ever we are being called are actually in favour of the old two system approach.

You don't explain why there NEEDS to be a two system approach though. If y'all don't think GW gets regular points right, why are you going to advocate for a second system that does it worse? And why do we need to stop at two systems? Why not throw a third in?

Oh wait they did with Combat Patrol and that's absolutely laughable. I'm sure you'll defend it though.

Need is a strong word, it’s a game, we NEED anything.

I have said so many times now, points as they have been the last two editions were a pain in the ass with the constant tweaking and changing. A pain I did not need or get any benefit from. A simpler system worked for me just fine.

So if there are two groups of players, one who need granular constantly changing points to balance the meta and all that and another group who don’t care about that and are happy with a more vague points system why not make both groups happy and do that. Why make one group deal with a points system that doesn’t suit their needs?

I’ll answer that for you, there is no reason. None at all. If you want to argue we only can have one way and that’s your way then that’s pretty crappy of you. Because why would having two systems impact you at all?

Now we have a system that doesn’t do what either side want too well, I can live with it but have had to make adjustments to how I do things to keep track of potential point changes. I preferred power levels.

simple reasons not to have two different point systems :

-It doubles the dev's workload when it comes to pointing units
-Points and PL aren't more or less of a pain to use when there is an app provided for your listbuilding

Which I think is part of the point with non-granular points. Done well, the developers only need to decide on a small number (1-3) of points levels for a unit. No need to spend time deciding exactly how many points each individual upgrade needs to be for best balance.

The problem is they didn't do a good job with the vast majority of units. That leaves us with the system being badly received by those who love high degrees of balance and customization.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
simple reasons not to have two different point systems :

-It doubles the dev's workload when it comes to pointing units
-Points and PL aren't more or less of a pain to use when there is an app provided for your listbuilding

I don't think it's that much work knock our PL for the whole game. It's a system that only has to be good enough for a player base that expressly does not care too deeply about game balance. The time it would take them to do it is a bargin compared to getting wargear cost back. And the two system approach probably has a greater chance of working than them following though and making the current psudo-pl system workable.

 alextroy wrote:
Which I think is part of the point with non-granular points. Done well, the developers only need to decide on a small number (1-3) of points levels for a unit. No need to spend time deciding exactly how many points each individual upgrade needs to be for best balance.

The problem is they didn't do a good job with the vast majority of units. That leaves us with the system being badly received by those who love high degrees of balance and customization.

It's not just the pointing of the units that's the problem.
Those systems running successfully on a PL type system in historicals have mechanics on a tactical level and stricter list building requirements through other mechanics implemented that facilitate severe opportunity cost not just in ammount of x you can take but with what x can deal realistically.

Since GW contrary decided to dumb 40k down mechanically in search of the broader audience those opportunity cost questions don't arise. Since they don't it is inevitably a worse system with GW's current facilitation of spam through basically not implementing limits at all that makes this system DOA for people that want a decent ammount of balance.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
simple reasons not to have two different point systems :

-It doubles the dev's workload when it comes to pointing units
-Points and PL aren't more or less of a pain to use when there is an app provided for your listbuilding

I don't think it's that much work knock our PL for the whole game. It's a system that only has to be good enough for a player base that expressly does not care too deeply about game balance. The time it would take them to do it is a bargin compared to getting wargear cost back. And the two system approach probably has a greater chance of working than them following though and making the current psudo-pl system workable.

The same thing can be said about points.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
simple reasons not to have two different point systems :

-It doubles the dev's workload when it comes to pointing units
-Points and PL aren't more or less of a pain to use when there is an app provided for your listbuilding

I don't think it's that much work knock our PL for the whole game. It's a system that only has to be good enough for a player base that expressly does not care too deeply about game balance. The time it would take them to do it is a bargin compared to getting wargear cost back. And the two system approach probably has a greater chance of working than them following though and making the current psudo-pl system workable.

The same thing can be said about points.

That's craaaaaazy.

Quick question: is a Plasma Pistol better than a Laspistol, yes or no?

You're welcome to disagree, but the simple fact is that as much braying as there is about points changes--they're basically uncared about unless they affect "The Meta". There's a weird satisfaction in simply points changes happening, not that they're done well.

The funniest thing about this thread is that over 80 pages of „objectively prooving” that oldPoints are more granular and thus better than nuPoints you guys didn’t notice, that it is the nuPoints that are more granular. Theoretically up to 10x more granular, and exactly where the added granularity may indeed make a difference.

You guys, in all this hatred of change didn’t notice, that e.g. Tzangors are now 6,5ppm, Kroot Hounds 7,5ppm, Kroot Farstalkers 8,75ppm and so on. Even fething Guardsmen, the basic reference unit is now 6,5ppm.

So I expect you all to now switch sides, since over the last 80 pages you have „objectively proven”, that granular is better in all regards and greater granularity trumps all other traits of a point system.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

No, PL should be removed and there is no more reason for a dual system than for having a dozen different point systems catering to every possible niche. Rules bloat is bad and redundant point systems are an excellent example of rules bloat that has minimal practical value and can be streamlined away without any consequences.

I would have to disagree with this line of thinking.

Whilst a parallel points system is a little redundant, I wouldn't consider it rules-bloat per se. The reason being that If you choose to use points, the existence of Power Level has no impact on your games whatsoever (unlike, say, the addition of Stratagems).

The only exception I can think of would be stuff like costing artefacts/WLTs with CP, which (while not rules bloat) seems to be a obvious compromise to save having to cost artefacts differently between the systems. Though this is GW so it could just be general laziness.

Even in terms of time, PL is just Points with much greater rounding errors, so once you've done the former you've basically done the latter as well.

If the aforementioned compromises are rectified, and points is cemented as the primary system, I'd consider the existence of PL as a secondary system to be pretty inoffensive, all things considered.