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.

Open Play, Narrative Play, Matched Play, three types of play. Crusade is Narrative, not Matched.

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.

What's wrong with Combat Patrol? Points are never going to be equally balanced for 500 and 2k. Set lists for 500 removes a lot of complications and making the box sets playable without extra purchases is great. The imbalance between Combat Patrols is just stock GW laziness, but it has a lot more validity than PL. With PL you have to do everything you have to do in pts, select units and wargear, the only step you skip is adding up 20 1 digit numbers (assuming you're not using an app that does it automatically). Set lists let you skip list-building completely.

nou wrote:
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 Farstalkerd 8,75ppm and so on.

So I expect you to now all 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.

Those models should all cost 20 pts each, how many Kroot Hounds do you have in a list? Like 5 or something right? Who cares, it's just 100 pts, why do you care so much you tryhard /sarcasm.

 vipoid wrote:

 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.

PL changed the cost of Stratagems and how many units you could put into reserves.

nou wrote:
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 Farstalkerd 8,75ppm and so on.

So I expect you to now all 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.

Nothing inherent to points prevented them from using fractional points before, just like nothing inherent to points prevented them from costing things in increments other than 5.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

nou wrote:
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 Farstalkerd 8,75ppm and so on.

So I expect you to now all 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.

Nothing inherent to points prevented them from using fractional points before, just like nothing inherent to points prevented them from costing things in increments other than 5.

To points, no. To playerbase? Yes. Current system allows for hidden fractions, something previous system could not do. You now get all the benefits of fractional system without added clutter. Current system could readily handle 8th ed Consctripts problem via points adjustment alone.

And I want to kindly remind you, that on previous 80 pages of this thread potential of either point system archetype was unimportant, it was the GW’s implementation that mattered to the discussion.

I have now trully objectively proven, that not only GW now utilises fractional costs, but also that all of you didn’t even bothered to try to understand why GW designers chose to switch to fixed squad sizes. This was not due to supposed imcompetence of those guys, quite the opposite.

 vict0988 wrote:

What's wrong with Combat Patrol?

Seconded. As per usual it's not a bad concept executed with a lack of finesse, but EP you can't seriously argue it's harder to balance set lists than make the game work with options that small.

You want balance? Less options, less variance, fewer places to balls up = combat patrol. Magic does great out of the commanders format afaik, so it's hardly a foreign concept either.

Or is it now "granular points only, one army building method only, 1 game size only"?

I'm sure Jervis is sat at home growing in power, waiting for you to invoke his name again until you summon him.

Dudeface wrote:

Or is it now "granular points only, one army building method only, 1 game size only"?

This is exactly what EP and few other posters argue all the time is „true 40k”. Heck, some pages ago they argued, that if two guys play with unoptimised lists, they play by houserules.

nou wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Or is it now "granular points only, one army building method only, 1 game size only"?

This is exactly what EP and few other posters argue all the time is „true 40k”. Heck, some pages ago they argued, that if two guys play with unoptimised lists, they play by houserules.

Would you agree that you can have a house rule not to play netlists?

 vict0988 wrote:

nou wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Or is it now "granular points only, one army building method only, 1 game size only"?

This is exactly what EP and few other posters argue all the time is „true 40k”. Heck, some pages ago they argued, that if two guys play with unoptimised lists, they play by houserules.

Would you agree that you can have a house rule not to play netlists?

Can have? Yes. Must have? No. No edition of 40k had a rule that states, that you must minmax to play by the rules. Both players may play the gakkiest lists they can come up with and will still play rules as written, to the letter. Same as they can play mixed level armies, narrative asymmetric scenarios, especially those supplied directly by GW outside of Matched GT.

Minmax competitive mindset is as much social contract, as relaxed mindset is. Don’t even bother to repeat those dozens of pages of arguing otherwise. Warmachine had page 5(?) rule, 40k never had it. What is more - at countless ocasions GW stressed very clearly, that you are encouraged to play this game anyway that means fun to you and has always encouraged you to play it in modes other than 2000pts Matched (in addition or exclusively. just as you and your opponent wish).

nou wrote:
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.

I don't think you understand what granular actually means.

Slipspace wrote:

nou wrote:
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.

I don't think you understand what granular actually means.

I think I do. I also think most people in this thread confuse granularity of point system with modularity of list building.

nou wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

nou wrote:
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.

I don't think you understand what granular actually means.

I think I do. I also think most people in this thread confuse granularity of point system with modularity of list building.

Having tried to parse your arguments in several of your posts, I'm going to suggest that your arguments are not as clear to others as they are to you.

I will say that fixed unit sizes is a minor concern in this discussion. There's far less consensus on it. The major issue is mostly about 10th edition not even bothering to balance wargear in most indices, and the current implementation of pseudo power level making it harder to correct balance issues in the game than just returning to the previous system.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

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.

Honestly I don't think making (old) PL took them that much time, a couple of days in total tops. Especially as they didn't update it during the editions, there's hardly any time investment there. I'm fully with you on why the current system is worse than points, but this feels pretty "my way or the highway" said against someone who is trying to find compromise.

I'd be fine with old PL returning. I'm far more worried about each unit having a bespoke rule when it comes to rules bloat, or the ever-expanding power armor range.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

nou wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

nou wrote:
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.

I don't think you understand what granular actually means.

I think I do. I also think most people in this thread confuse granularity of point system with modularity of list building.

Having tried to parse your arguments in several of your posts, I'm going to suggest that your arguments are not as clear to others as they are to you.

I will say that fixed unit sizes is a minor concern in this discussion. There's far less consensus on it. The major issue is mostly about 10th edition not even bothering to balance wargear in most indices, and the current implementation of pseudo power level making it harder to correct balance issues in the game than just returning to the previous system.

You mean go back to the system, that couldn’t handle balance over 9 different editions and 40 years of it’s existence?

nou wrote:

You mean go back to the system, that couldn’t handle balance over 9 different editions and 40 years of it’s existence?

It was never perfect, but it has been better. A less flexible systems is not going to give you better results.

Edit: This is also at least the 20th time in this thread that, "The old system wasn't perfect either, nyah, nyah" has been invoked.

nou wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

nou wrote:
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 Farstalkerd 8,75ppm and so on.

So I expect you to now all 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.

Nothing inherent to points prevented them from using fractional points before, just like nothing inherent to points prevented them from costing things in increments other than 5.

To points, no. To playerbase? Yes. Current system allows for hidden fractions, something previous system could not do. You now get all the benefits of fractional system without added clutter. Current system could readily handle 8th ed Consctripts problem via points adjustment alone.

And I want to kindly remind you, that on previous 80 pages of this thread potential of either point system archetype was unimportant, it was the GW’s implementation that mattered to the discussion.

I have now trully objectively proven, that not only GW now utilises fractional costs, but also that all of you didn’t even bothered to try to understand why GW designers chose to switch to fixed squad sizes. This was not due to supposed imcompetence of those guys, quite the opposite.

That is such a bs claim. the same could be done and is still done HH and 40k with the R&H list f.e.

I think we are close to all agreeing that a two system solution is the answer, only a truly miserable person could argue that power level as an option diminished the game for anyone who did not want to use it. It did not soak up tons of time for the devs as had been claimed, it was a quick calculation after working out the points cost from what I read, but could easily see it just been a meeting with tea and biscuits assigning power levels.

I have also heard claims it took up valuable space on datasheets, that’s real straw clutching there. Either way there is loads of room on new datasheets now.

But….in the real world GW will likely stick with the new system (it’s worked for AoS for ages) and we will all have to adapt and get used to it. I have embraced list building on an app, others will have to do what they will (change the way they play or add plasma pistols and sponsons to everything). Not what I want but what they will do.

nou wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

nou wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Or is it now "granular points only, one army building method only, 1 game size only"?

This is exactly what EP and few other posters argue all the time is „true 40k”. Heck, some pages ago they argued, that if two guys play with unoptimised lists, they play by houserules.

Would you agree that you can have a house rule not to play netlists?

Can have? Yes. Must have? No. No edition of 40k had a rule that states, that you must minmax to play by the rules. Both players may play the gakkiest lists they can come up with and will still play rules as written, to the letter. Same as they can play mixed level armies, narrative asymmetric scenarios, especially those supplied directly by GW outside of Matched GT.

Minmax competitive mindset is as much social contract, as relaxed mindset is. Don’t even bother to repeat those dozens of pages of arguing otherwise. Warmachine had page 5(?) rule, 40k never had it. What is more - at countless ocasions GW stressed very clearly, that you are encouraged to play this game anyway that means fun to you and has always encouraged you to play it in modes other than 2000pts Matched (in addition or exclusively. just as you and your opponent wish).

Right, we can agree that if you just play all kinds of lists, no pre-game talk about what tier list you are bringing, but one or both of you happen to bring a terrible list no house rule is involved. We also agree that if you have a sign hanging at your local club that says "no netlists" and nobody plays netlists then you've got a house rule. Inbetween those two is where some might say there is a house rule, when netlists aren't strictly banned but you're expected to warn your opponents that you will be bringing a netlist, even if you're just looking for a laid back game of 40k. Some places, like the boar infested jungles of Tamriel might not have the social contract you're used to, so players feel the sting of imbalance more than you might in a place with what we might call a healthy social contract where you're looking for both players to have fun.

nou wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

nou wrote:
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 Farstalkerd 8,75ppm and so on.

So I expect you to now all 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.

Nothing inherent to points prevented them from using fractional points before, just like nothing inherent to points prevented them from costing things in increments other than 5.

To points, no. To playerbase? Yes. Current system allows for hidden fractions, something previous system could not do. You now get all the benefits of fractional system without added clutter. Current system could readily handle 8th ed Consctripts problem via points adjustment alone.

And I want to kindly remind you, that on previous 80 pages of this thread potential of either point system archetype was unimportant, it was the GW’s implementation that mattered to the discussion.

I have now trully objectively proven, that not only GW now utilises fractional costs, but also that all of you didn’t even bothered to try to understand why GW designers chose to switch to fixed squad sizes. This was not due to supposed imcompetence of those guys, quite the opposite.

I don't think you have proven that fractional costs actually matter. If you did prove the fraction of a point matters despite being a 1/10 fraction of the model's cost, you'd have to concede that sponsons that used to cost 1/3 of the model's cost are 3 times as important which makes points 3 times as good as PL.
*Edit: Objectively /sarcasm.

Not Online!!! wrote:

nou wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

nou wrote:
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 Farstalkerd 8,75ppm and so on.

So I expect you to now all 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.

Nothing inherent to points prevented them from using fractional points before, just like nothing inherent to points prevented them from costing things in increments other than 5.

To points, no. To playerbase? Yes. Current system allows for hidden fractions, something previous system could not do. You now get all the benefits of fractional system without added clutter. Current system could readily handle 8th ed Consctripts problem via points adjustment alone.

And I want to kindly remind you, that on previous 80 pages of this thread potential of either point system archetype was unimportant, it was the GW’s implementation that mattered to the discussion.

I have now trully objectively proven, that not only GW now utilises fractional costs, but also that all of you didn’t even bothered to try to understand why GW designers chose to switch to fixed squad sizes. This was not due to supposed imcompetence of those guys, quite the opposite.

That is such a bs claim. the same could be done and is still done HH and 40k with the R&H list f.e.

Last time I checked, HH is a specialist game not aimed at little Timmies and thus doesn’t have to adhere to the same accessibility goals as 40k.

nou wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

nou wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

nou wrote:
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 Farstalkerd 8,75ppm and so on.

So I expect you to now all 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.

Nothing inherent to points prevented them from using fractional points before, just like nothing inherent to points prevented them from costing things in increments other than 5.

To points, no. To playerbase? Yes. Current system allows for hidden fractions, something previous system could not do. You now get all the benefits of fractional system without added clutter. Current system could readily handle 8th ed Consctripts problem via points adjustment alone.

And I want to kindly remind you, that on previous 80 pages of this thread potential of either point system archetype was unimportant, it was the GW’s implementation that mattered to the discussion.

I have now trully objectively proven, that not only GW now utilises fractional costs, but also that all of you didn’t even bothered to try to understand why GW designers chose to switch to fixed squad sizes. This was not due to supposed imcompetence of those guys, quite the opposite.

That is such a bs claim. the same could be done and is still done HH and 40k with the R&H list f.e.

Last time I checked, HH is a specialist game not aimed at little Timmies and thus doesn’t have to adhere to the same accessibility goals as 40k.

What accessibility goals? Are you 4 years old and can't add?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

What's wrong with Combat Patrol?

Seconded. As per usual it's not a bad concept executed with a lack of finesse, but EP you can't seriously argue it's harder to balance set lists than make the game work with options that small.

You want balance? Less options, less variance, fewer places to balls up = combat patrol. Magic does great out of the commanders format afaik, so it's hardly a foreign concept either.

Or is it now "granular points only, one army building method only, 1 game size only"?

I'm sure Jervis is sat at home growing in power, waiting for you to invoke his name again until you summon him.

Combat Patrol is not only imbalanced (and it's honestly to believe it is), but it does the absolute most schizophrenic loadouts for units as well. There's nothing to like about Combat Patrol and everything to hate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Or is it now "granular points only, one army building method only, 1 game size only"?

This is exactly what EP and few other posters argue all the time is „true 40k”. Heck, some pages ago they argued, that if two guys play with unoptimised lists, they play by houserules.

That's not the argument. The argument is that you play with house rules because you won't let your opponent run four of the same weapon in a Havoc Squad because it's optimized.

Andykp wrote:
I think we are close to all agreeing that a two system solution is the answer, only a truly miserable person could argue that power level as an option diminished the game for anyone who did not want to use it. It did not soak up tons of time for the devs as had been claimed, it was a quick calculation after working out the points cost from what I read, but could easily see it just been a meeting with tea and biscuits assigning power levels.

I have also heard claims it took up valuable space on datasheets, that’s real straw clutching there. Either way there is loads of room on new datasheets now.

But….in the real world GW will likely stick with the new system (it’s worked for AoS for ages) and we will all have to adapt and get used to it. I have embraced list building on an app, others will have to do what they will (change the way they play or add plasma pistols and sponsons to everything). Not what I want but what they will do.

Why do you continue to berate people and shout them down for having different opinions from you? You have no more information about the time it takes GW to implement an extra points system than the rest of us. Do you think GW should come up with a pts system that adapts points costs depending on the other things in your list? Such that if you include Orikan with Immortals to boost their durability a little bit he costs one thing, but if you include him in a list with Warriors, Cryptothralls, Canoptek Reanimator, Ghost Ark and an Overlord with a reanimation orb he costs something different because the level of value he adds to your list is different.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Combat Patrol is not only imbalanced (and it's honestly to believe it is), but it does the absolute most schizophrenic loadouts for units as well. There's nothing to like about Combat Patrol and everything to hate.

That's just poor execution. Same thing with Eldar having a stupid faction ability, that doesn't mean faction abilities are a bad idea.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

nou wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

nou wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

nou wrote:
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 Farstalkerd 8,75ppm and so on.

So I expect you to now all 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.

Nothing inherent to points prevented them from using fractional points before, just like nothing inherent to points prevented them from costing things in increments other than 5.

To points, no. To playerbase? Yes. Current system allows for hidden fractions, something previous system could not do. You now get all the benefits of fractional system without added clutter. Current system could readily handle 8th ed Consctripts problem via points adjustment alone.

And I want to kindly remind you, that on previous 80 pages of this thread potential of either point system archetype was unimportant, it was the GW’s implementation that mattered to the discussion.

I have now trully objectively proven, that not only GW now utilises fractional costs, but also that all of you didn’t even bothered to try to understand why GW designers chose to switch to fixed squad sizes. This was not due to supposed imcompetence of those guys, quite the opposite.

That is such a bs claim. the same could be done and is still done HH and 40k with the R&H list f.e.

Last time I checked, HH is a specialist game not aimed at little Timmies and thus doesn’t have to adhere to the same accessibility goals as 40k.

What accessibility goals? Are you 4 years old and can't add?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

What's wrong with Combat Patrol?

Seconded. As per usual it's not a bad concept executed with a lack of finesse, but EP you can't seriously argue it's harder to balance set lists than make the game work with options that small.

You want balance? Less options, less variance, fewer places to balls up = combat patrol. Magic does great out of the commanders format afaik, so it's hardly a foreign concept either.

Or is it now "granular points only, one army building method only, 1 game size only"?

I'm sure Jervis is sat at home growing in power, waiting for you to invoke his name again until you summon him.

Combat Patrol is not only imbalanced (and it's honestly to believe it is), but it does the absolute most schizophrenic loadouts for units as well. There's nothing to like about Combat Patrol and everything to hate.

I don’t really expect you to understand, that GW does not aim at adults only, and that people are not born with the innate understanding of fractions, either natural nor decimal. I don’t know how it’s in the only country in the world that still uses natural fractions for tool sizes, but here kids only learn about decimal fractions at 12 y.o.

You may also want to do a quick search on social media for one of those „math riddles” like „2+2*2=…” and see just how many people of all ages not only answers wrong, but then endlessly discuss, that they are right.

nou wrote:

You mean go back to the system, that couldn’t handle balance over 9 different editions and 40 years of it’s existence?

You'd have a point if PL wasn't proven to be objectively worse and your only defense is "but I like it". People liking something isn't a reason to give it validation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 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.

I'd rather the two days spent on "developing" PL be spent arguing what value a Bolt Pistol is on an Infantry Squad sergeant. PL does not have a reason to exist.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

nou wrote:

You mean go back to the system, that couldn’t handle balance over 9 different editions and 40 years of it’s existence?

You'd have a point if PL wasn't proven to be objectively worse and your only defense is "but I like it". People liking something isn't a reason to give it validation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 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.

I'd rather the two days spent on "developing" PL be spent arguing what value a Bolt Pistol is on an Infantry Squad sergeant. PL does not have a reason to exist.

You should really re-read my posts, as they are not „because I like them” line of argument at all. And no, nothing has been proven in this thread except for ignorance of some of posters here.

nou wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

nou wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

nou wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

nou wrote:
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 Farstalkerd 8,75ppm and so on.

So I expect you to now all 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.

Nothing inherent to points prevented them from using fractional points before, just like nothing inherent to points prevented them from costing things in increments other than 5.

To points, no. To playerbase? Yes. Current system allows for hidden fractions, something previous system could not do. You now get all the benefits of fractional system without added clutter. Current system could readily handle 8th ed Consctripts problem via points adjustment alone.

And I want to kindly remind you, that on previous 80 pages of this thread potential of either point system archetype was unimportant, it was the GW’s implementation that mattered to the discussion.

I have now trully objectively proven, that not only GW now utilises fractional costs, but also that all of you didn’t even bothered to try to understand why GW designers chose to switch to fixed squad sizes. This was not due to supposed imcompetence of those guys, quite the opposite.

That is such a bs claim. the same could be done and is still done HH and 40k with the R&H list f.e.

Last time I checked, HH is a specialist game not aimed at little Timmies and thus doesn’t have to adhere to the same accessibility goals as 40k.

What accessibility goals? Are you 4 years old and can't add?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

What's wrong with Combat Patrol?

Seconded. As per usual it's not a bad concept executed with a lack of finesse, but EP you can't seriously argue it's harder to balance set lists than make the game work with options that small.

You want balance? Less options, less variance, fewer places to balls up = combat patrol. Magic does great out of the commanders format afaik, so it's hardly a foreign concept either.

Or is it now "granular points only, one army building method only, 1 game size only"?

I'm sure Jervis is sat at home growing in power, waiting for you to invoke his name again until you summon him.

Combat Patrol is not only imbalanced (and it's honestly to believe it is), but it does the absolute most schizophrenic loadouts for units as well. There's nothing to like about Combat Patrol and everything to hate.

I don’t really expect you to understand, that GW does not aim at adults only, and that people are not born with the innate understanding of fractions, either natural nor decimal. I don’t know how it’s in the only country in the world that still uses natural fractions for tool sizes, but here kids only learn about decimal fractions at 12 y.o.

You may also want to do a quick search on social media for one of those „math riddles” like „2+2*2=…” and see just how many people of all ages not only answers wrong, but then endlessly discuss, that they are right.

I hate to break this to you, but you don't require PEMDAS to add up wargear costs. It's not a difficult task even for a 10 year old.

nou wrote:

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.

Except those points are mostly including wargear that adds to the base (only exception is kroot hounds in your list).

So it might very well be that tzaangors cost 6ppm, but the banner costs 2pts and the brayhorn costs 3pts for example.

Also, being able to go in increments of less than 1 for model cost isnt BECAUSE of PL, GW could very easily have the same option with points, by simply raising the amount of points from 2k to 20k or whatever



Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

I hate to break this to you, but you don't require PEMDAS to add up wargear costs. It's not a difficult task even for a 10 year old.

Yeah, 150+5+10+25+bla blabla really is simple math.

Oh and you don't even need to do the math yourself, GW provided us with an app to do that, and there was battlescribe before that did the same thing

½ is a natural fraction right? So Kroot could cost 7½ and that'd be fine for the 9YO army playing 40k outside Combat Patrol and Open Play?

 vict0988 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I think we are close to all agreeing that a two system solution is the answer, only a truly miserable person could argue that power level as an option diminished the game for anyone who did not want to use it. It did not soak up tons of time for the devs as had been claimed, it was a quick calculation after working out the points cost from what I read, but could easily see it just been a meeting with tea and biscuits assigning power levels.

I have also heard claims it took up valuable space on datasheets, that’s real straw clutching there. Either way there is loads of room on new datasheets now.

But….in the real world GW will likely stick with the new system (it’s worked for AoS for ages) and we will all have to adapt and get used to it. I have embraced list building on an app, others will have to do what they will (change the way they play or add plasma pistols and sponsons to everything). Not what I want but what they will do.

Why do you continue to berate people and shout them down for having different opinions from you? You have no more information about the time it takes GW to implement an extra points system than the rest of us. Do you think GW should come up with a pts system that adapts points costs depending on the other things in your list? Such that if you include Orikan with Immortals to boost their durability a little bit he costs one thing, but if you include him in a list with Warriors, Cryptothralls, Canoptek Reanimator, Ghost Ark and an Overlord with a reanimation orb he costs something different because the level of value he adds to your list is different.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Combat Patrol is not only imbalanced (and it's honestly to believe it is), but it does the absolute most schizophrenic loadouts for units as well. There's nothing to like about Combat Patrol and everything to hate.

That's just poor execution. Same thing with Eldar having a stupid faction ability, that doesn't mean faction abilities are a bad idea.

Not shouting anyone down, just saying a two system solution would be nice. Everyone is happy. Just trying to apply some common sense. Can you honestly say that power level was such a development time sink that it impacted on the rest of the games development time in any significant way? I did in read in white dwarf they had a simple formula for coining up with it based on average unit cost divided by something. If that’s true (and why would they lie?) it’s hardly a massive expenditure.

I wouldn’t like a points system like you describe. Far too complicated


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And…no one is saying the maths is hard for points, it’s just unnecessary.

My biggest bug bear has always been with points always changing. If they made them and just left them alone that’d be great.

Recently played some second edition, and I could still most of the upgrade costs, because they didn’t change.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

What's wrong with Combat Patrol?

Seconded. As per usual it's not a bad concept executed with a lack of finesse, but EP you can't seriously argue it's harder to balance set lists than make the game work with options that small.

You want balance? Less options, less variance, fewer places to balls up = combat patrol. Magic does great out of the commanders format afaik, so it's hardly a foreign concept either.

Or is it now "granular points only, one army building method only, 1 game size only"?

I'm sure Jervis is sat at home growing in power, waiting for you to invoke his name again until you summon him.

Combat Patrol is not only imbalanced (and it's honestly to believe it is), but it does the absolute most schizophrenic loadouts for units as well. There's nothing to like about Combat Patrol and everything to hate.

Do you have any metrics or evidence of it's imbalance? I'm not convinced it is but have you played any? Is this just your anecdotal opinion?

It's supposed to be balanced around the unit loadouts, that's the point. In terms of the rest, it's a smaller size game for smaller spaces with quick set up and play time.

If you're done dodging the question, is it a superior concept to playing at small points, or do you suppose to dictate a game size?

Try hating less stuff, try listing things about the game you like for once.

Andykp wrote:

My biggest bug bear has always been with points always changing. If they made them and just left them alone that’d be great.

Well not wanting points to change asks that GW get it right from the start (which i agree should be the case but let's be realistic).

But i'm curious why specifically you seem to care so much that points change over the course of the editions?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Andykp wrote:

My biggest bug bear has always been with points always changing. If they made them and just left them alone that’d be great.

Well not wanting points to change asks that GW get it right from the start (which i agree should be the case but let's be realistic).

But i'm curious why specifically you seem to care so much that points change over the course of the editions?

It’s just a ball ache to keep up with, an army you designed and painted is all of a sudden over or under the points? And where are they? Online, in an app, is the pdf I have the latest version and then they tried to charge you for the points. I cannot be arsed with any of that. I like simple, and that is not simple. If I was more bothered about balance and all that it would be worth the hassle but I’m not, all that doesn’t help me have a better game.

 vict0988 wrote:

nou wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Or is it now "granular points only, one army building method only, 1 game size only"?

This is exactly what EP and few other posters argue all the time is „true 40k”. Heck, some pages ago they argued, that if two guys play with unoptimised lists, they play by houserules.

Would you agree that you can have a house rule not to play netlists?

That's not a house rule. House rules would be like the House rule my playgroup uses that allows me to run a custom made Nob in my Ork list that has 8 slugga's. (btw he has never ever done a single wound). House rules add or modify the official rules. Refusing to play against someone who copy/pasta's a list they found on BoLS is not exactly the same as imposing some form of list building restriction like a house ruled FOC.