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.

Andykp wrote:

End of the day, if you really believe the game is “objectively better” with points like they were in 9th edition, can any of you at least concede that some people still manage to enjoy the game with power levels or 10th edition style points?

Why would we need to concede this? I don't believe anyone here has claimed that no one can possibly have fun with PL.

The point is not that no one can ever have fun with PL. The point is that there are demonstrable shortcomings with PL that are not present with points. Thus, if the game has to choose a single system, it makes sense to choose the one that can better account for the intra-unit variations.

Yeah, but what is the number of people actually affected by the power points change GW made in 10th?

It is easy to say, well the tyranids, eldar, necron , knights etc players are mostly okey with it, when the change doesn't affect them that much or at all. On the other hand if you ask anyone who plays or owns a Lemman Russ without sponsons, GK termintors without apothecaries in each squad etc they are not going to be happy. People that run their squads at something else then 5 or 10 size, not happy about the change. SoB for some reason glued to 10 man squads in units they want at 5, and to 5 in units they may actualy do want to have at 10 models etc.

Plus it is just another thing to pile in for the have not and have armies. Will a GSC player be unhappy about the need for seismic canons? No his units never not had them, plus his army is doing great. A votan player on the other hand is probably not very happy that his squads cost as much as they do, no matter what gear they have.

Are more people affected positive or negativ by the points change?

Andykp wrote:

End of the day, if you really believe the game is “objectively better” with points like they were in 9th edition, can any of you at least concede that some people still manage to enjoy the game with power levels or 10th edition style points?

I have fun playing Warpath Firefight so it would be best 40k is removed and all people play Firefight instead, I don't see the point why other would want to still play 40k instead of Firefight so don't see why that system should exist
/S

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Any extra time you save on army assembly using power level is nullified by the extra time it takes to resolve all the different weapons that someone can take under that system. That's a fair chunk of extra rolling.

Also, there is no universal rule that points have to be integer values. If a bolt pistol isn't worth 1 point, then is it worth 0.5?

Try rolling for a squad of primaris sword brethren. You can have like 5 different melee weapons and 4 different ranged weapons in a 5 man squad. Then you add Helbrecht and Apothecary or Castellan and it takes 10 minutes to resolve attacks for 1 squad every turn.

Andykp wrote:

End of the day, if you really believe the game is “objectively better” with points like they were in 9th edition, can any of you at least concede that some people still manage to enjoy the game with power levels or 10th edition style points?

People managed to enjoy the gak show that was the end of 7th. People can enjoy objective garbage, but that doesn't mean it should continue.

Toofast 810334 11573239 wrote:

Try rolling for a squad of primaris sword brethren. You can have like 5 different melee weapons and 4 different ranged weapons in a 5 man squad. Then you add Helbrecht and Apothecary or Castellan and it takes 10 minutes to resolve attacks for 1 squad every turn.

And? I am assuming the person is coming prepared and doesn't have different coloured dice for different weapons. Still where is the problem. And how is it better then all your weapon are unifited and now suddenly you don't have a melee weapon over the strenght of 6, in an army with bad shoting and the only way of dealing with tanks being historicaly melee, only now you can't do it, because tanks are t8-12, so with strenght 4 ap- guns and str 6 melee weapons you are not even scratching paint. And God help you if they have FnP or a way to fix wounds.

Deadnight wrote:
...the guy who did the astartes videos being run out of the hobby by 'fans'. And he wasn't even in gw!

Can you expand on that? Last I heard he was just working for GW in some capacity.

 Trickstick wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
...the guy who did the astartes videos being run out of the hobby by 'fans'. And he wasn't even in gw!

Can you expand on that? Last I heard he was just working for GW in some capacity.

Iirc didn't he rescind the acceptance based on the response after he accepted? I remember a big hoo-ha on the forum at the time.

dug up a link on spiky bits (apologies - sb is akin to a tabloid for me but its the first link on the google!). Don't know if stuff happened after though.

https://spikeybits.com/2021/07/prolific-warhammer-40k-youtube-animator-shamed-into-quitting.html

That wasn't the Astartes animator, it was another one.

Karol wrote:
...becase games are all about removing the random aspect from them to garentee a result as often as possible.

That sounds really boring, a degree of randomness is fun.

 Trickstick wrote:

Karol wrote:
...becase games are all about removing the random aspect from them to garentee a result as often as possible.

That sounds really boring, a degree of randomness is fun.

And who is having more fun right now, and eldar player who gets exactly the roll he wants at the time he wants or a GK player fishing for 6s ?

Why train then, why hire couches, whey learn the rules of your and other armies, tricks for the given meta or obscure rules interactions etc When all you need is to roll well. I mean I guess it is a bit less work, because all you have to do is get a few sets of loaded dice to manipulate those results and learn how to pick the dice based on rougness and weight to properly roll required avarges without drawing too much suspicion. Still by this time, other games are better for it.

 kodos wrote:
Are more people affected positive or negativ by the points change?

Andykp wrote:

End of the day, if you really believe the game is “objectively better” with points like they were in 9th edition, can any of you at least concede that some people still manage to enjoy the game with power levels or 10th edition style points?

I have fun playing Warpath Firefight so it would be best 40k is removed and all people play Firefight instead, I don't see the point why other would want to still play 40k instead of Firefight so don't see why that system should exist
/S

I have never argued for the removal of a points system system, quite the opposite, I have argued for the two system solution. That way both sides get what they want, most people who have argued in defence of power levels have said that.

I can manage to get my head around someone enjoying a different thing from me, I can imagine the current situation isn’t great for them. I am not just assuming that because I like a thing anyone else who says they don’t like it is either stupid or a liar. You don’t see that consideration or respect from the other side. The very fact that there are sides is stupid as feth.

If gw did a you turn and went back to the old way of having only points like they were before, I could live with that, like I can with this half way house we have now. I played for 7 editions before power levels were an option. It’s not make or break for me.

There are downsides to classic points, and downsides to power level. I can see that and say it without contradicting anything I have said on here before. All I am asking that the pro points side (power level deniers) open their minds a bit and see that what matters to them doesn’t to others. What is frustrating and has been since power levels came in is the dismissal of others experiences and rudeness that is directed at anyone who said as much as “l like them”.






Who the hell is hiring coaches for 40K?? Does that really happen. If so that is the stupidest thing I ever heard.

Karol wrote:
Why train then, why hire couches, whey learn the rules of your and other armies, tricks for the given meta or obscure rules interactions etc When all you need is to roll well.

Because it is all based on risk management, which takes thought and planning. You do your best to weigh the probabilities in your favour, but actions always carry a risk. Even fate dice carry that now, to an extent. Which dice roll do you guarantee in a phase? The number of shots? Do you take a risk there, so you can guarantee a high damage roll? It is all about playing the probabilities. Without risk, things can quickly become stale.

The best moments are when something unexpected happens. 9 times out of 10, Angron may stomp Straken. But that time that Straken wins will be the one that you remember for years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
Who the hell is hiring coaches for 40K?? Does that really happen. If so that is the stupidest thing I ever heard.

Not seen the youtubers and tournament players offering "coaching services", I guess?

Karol wrote:
.. becase games are all about removing the random aspect from them to garentee a result as often as possible.

Thats not true, like at all.

There's plenty wargames out there, particularly in historicals that have a very important 'fog of war' component which is facilitated by randomness which seeks to represent elements of the battle outside of the players control.

Warlords bolt action and test of honour are two good examples where the order of activation, or which player activates next are down chance. Firestorm armada was very janky and random (and fun!).Plenty other historicals require a leadership test in order for a unit to activate in the first place - effectively a scenario where you don't fully control your own army and it reflects the absolute chaos of a battlefield where so much is out of your hands .

Anyway this is o/t

Deadnight wrote:
Warlords bolt action and test of honour are two good examples where the order of activation, or which player activates next are down chance. Firestorm armada was very janky and random (and fun!).Plenty other historicals require a leadership test in order for a unit to activate in the first place - effectively a scenario where you don't fully control your own army and it reflects the absolute chaos of a battlefield where so much is out of your hands .

Anyway this is o/t

Firestorm Armada was janky?

Those are fighting word, sir! There was a definite mathematical beauty to that game that 40K could only dream of emulating.

Pistols at dawn!

More on point, Jarvis Johnson hasn’t been employed by GW for years. How about we leave him and his kid out of this discussion? Is that too much to ask for?

alextroy 810334 11573313 wrote:Firestorm Armada was janky?

Those are fighting word, sir! There was a definite mathematical beauty to that game that 40K could only dream of emulating.

Pistols at dawn!

More on point, Jarvis Johnson hasn’t been employed by GW for years. How about we leave him and his kid out of this discussion? Is that too much to ask for?

^grabs super soaker^

Rest assured I mean it in the best way possible. :p I enjoy FA immensely. Its memorable. But it is very luck dependent with the exploding 6s, hence janky. That said, when you finish a game with a triple crit against a battleship and roll a 10, 11 and 12 (true story, I swear) and read out the crit descriptions, you have the potential for a great narrative.

And yes, more than happy to leave him and his kid out of it. Should never have been raised. Hence my outrage and the initial raising of this tangent.

 Trickstick wrote:

Karol wrote:
Why train then, why hire couches, whey learn the rules of your and other armies, tricks for the given meta or obscure rules interactions etc When all you need is to roll well.

Because it is all based on risk management, which takes thought and planning. You do your best to weigh the probabilities in your favour, but actions always carry a risk. Even fate dice carry that now, to an extent. Which dice roll do you guarantee in a phase? The number of shots? Do you take a risk there, so you can guarantee a high damage roll? It is all about playing the probabilities. Without risk, things can quickly become stale.

The best moments are when something unexpected happens. 9 times out of 10, Angron may stomp Straken. But that time that Straken wins will be the one that you remember for years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
Who the hell is hiring coaches for 40K?? Does that really happen. If so that is the stupidest thing I ever heard.

Not seen the youtubers and tournament players offering "coaching services", I guess?

No I have not….what a sorry state we are in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How would anyone feel about bringing back random equipment tables that you pay the same for regardless of what you roll like we had in first edition? I enjoyed them, made designing your army into a game all of its own, I’m guessing it’s going to be “objectively” worse than choosing your equipment.

Andykp wrote:
How would anyone feel about bringing back random equipment tables that you pay the same for regardless of what you roll like we had in first edition? I enjoyed them, made designing your army into a game all of its own, I’m guessing it’s going to be “objectively” worse than choosing your equipment.

Worst part of 6th/7th. Got no place in a game that is supposed to put two evenly matched forces against each other. I even despise every P&P game that forces this kind of crap during character creation.

Karol wrote:

Why train then, why hire couches, whey learn the rules of your and other armies, tricks for the given meta or obscure rules interactions etc When all you need is to roll well. I mean I guess it is a bit less work, because all you have to do is get a few sets of loaded dice to manipulate those results and learn how to pick the dice based on rougness and weight to properly roll required avarges without drawing too much suspicion. Still by this time, other games are better for it.

Guess if you have money to waste.

No point hiring coaches since gw games are easy enough to figureout on quick read.

Money spent on coach more effective buying models gw marketingdepartment wantsto sell you ifyou want to be exploited by gw marketing derpartment though.

tneva82 wrote:

Karol wrote:

Why train then, why hire couches, whey learn the rules of your and other armies, tricks for the given meta or obscure rules interactions etc When all you need is to roll well. I mean I guess it is a bit less work, because all you have to do is get a few sets of loaded dice to manipulate those results and learn how to pick the dice based on rougness and weight to properly roll required avarges without drawing too much suspicion. Still by this time, other games are better for it.

Guess if you have money to waste.

No point hiring coaches since gw games are easy enough to figureout on quick read.

Money spent on coach more effective buying models gw marketingdepartment wantsto sell you ifyou want to be exploited by gw marketing derpartment though.

Does seem crazy that anyone would want to compete in a game that is so unbalanced and objectively not good as a competitive game, let alone pay for coaching and stuff. Proper mind boggling!

Andykp wrote:


Who the hell is hiring coaches for 40K?? Does that really happen. If so that is the stupidest thing I ever heard.

Sometime back in 9th one of the pro-players was selling coaching services. I remember reading about it here & seeing a link to thier site or something. Don't know how it worked out.

Andykp wrote:
How would anyone feel about bringing back random equipment tables that you pay the same for regardless of what you roll like we had in first edition? I enjoyed them, made designing your army into a game all of its own, I’m guessing it’s going to be “objectively” worse than choosing your equipment.

God no. That would be a profoundly stupid thing to do, the rare change that manages to be bad for everyone: bad for competitive players, bad for narrative players, bad for anyone who cares about WYSIWYG. RNG replacing player agency is something best left in the past.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
Who the hell is hiring coaches for 40K?? Does that really happen. If so that is the stupidest thing I ever heard.

People with more money than sense. Pay a "coach" to copy/paste the latest netlist so you don't have to bother reading tournament results, pay a commission painter to build and paint it for you, then pay the coach to teach you how to execute all the buff stacking combos. It's the fastest way to go from zero to winning your local store's 5-person monthly tournament every time!

Also, people with weird parasocial relationships with "celebrities" who will pay money to have any interaction with them, no matter how minor or absurd.

Andykp wrote:
How would anyone feel about bringing back random equipment tables that you pay the same for regardless of what you roll like we had in first edition? I enjoyed them, made designing your army into a game all of its own, I’m guessing it’s going to be “objectively” worse than choosing your equipment.

As someone that played Daemons in 6th and 7th... God no.
Especially not with all the wargear we have.
You'd have to be smoking crack to think random wargear is "objectively good", especially in a game where people have fun modeling their own guys.
"Sorry Steve the Tactical Marine, I know you're holding a Grav-cannon, but I rolled on the 'Heavy Weapons Table' and it's actually a Heavy Flamer for this battle"

What if GW handled weapons closer to the way Infinity does it for their special weapons. Every unit costs what it costs and can take any weapons they want as it is now, but certain weapons have a special weapon cost and each game size has a pre determined limit on special weapon cost. It would be a way to add some kind of inherent extra value to certain weapons and also be a limiting factor to how much fire power a list can bring, so also doubles down on making the game a little less lethal.

I think it would be easy to make an argument in favour of random wargear tables, at that point it becomes a subjective preference whether you prefer 5th ed pts or 1st ed pts. As soon as someone makes a logical argument in favour 10th ed PL I will concede that pts are not objectively better.

I think wargear lists are a bad idea for the most part, but I liked the personality table for Transcendent C'tan, it was very limited, optional and fit thematically with the unit. Custodes running out of storm shields seems silly and immersion-breaking, not to mention the time it takes.

Certainly the very busy PL players with 20 posts in this thread wouldn't have time for rolling on any tables /sarcasm.

Look at how much time people spend discussing lists on Dakka, it really isn't that weird to skip all of that to get the help of a professional. Supporting artists you like is also a cool thing to do, people being able to make a career out of the thing they love is cool. I pay for video games and books, but I've sent a donation to a gaming streamer once, I asked a question that I wanted answered about the game but I really just wanted to support someone whose videos I had watched and enjoyed. I'd rather patronage that and my local pizzeria (best I've had outside Italy) than support GW's inept and lazy designers when they gak on me by punishing me for not having Wraiths armed to da teef.

 Zeruel13 wrote:
What if GW handled weapons closer to the way Infinity does it for their special weapons. Every unit costs what it costs and can take any weapons they want as it is now, but certain weapons have a special weapon cost and each game size has a pre determined limit on special weapon cost. It would be a way to add some kind of inherent extra value to certain weapons and also be a limiting factor to how much fire power a list can bring, so also doubles down on making the game a little less lethal.

I'm sure it works great for infinity, but it doesn't allow the freedom 5th edition pts does, we had 100 degrees of nakedness-armed to da teef. If you want middle of the road amounts of wargear upgrades in your group then just agree to do so most of the time. If it's not your entire group that wants it then I think it's a bit unfair for the person who loves his naked Wraiths to be forced to have points that are locked out of being used on other units and for the person who loves thunder hammers it sucks that they can't get very many of them because they reach the upgrade ceiling, even if they'd be happy giving up a naked squad to get more upgrades.

 Zeruel13 wrote:
What if GW handled weapons closer to the way Infinity does it for their special weapons. Every unit costs what it costs and can take any weapons they want as it is now, but certain weapons have a special weapon cost and each game size has a pre determined limit on special weapon cost. It would be a way to add some kind of inherent extra value to certain weapons and also be a limiting factor to how much fire power a list can bring, so also doubles down on making the game a little less lethal.

Seems like a solution in need of a problem when the simpler traditional point system already covers all the things it would be trying to do.

Andykp wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Are more people affected positive or negativ by the points change?

Andykp wrote:

End of the day, if you really believe the game is “objectively better” with points like they were in 9th edition, can any of you at least concede that some people still manage to enjoy the game with power levels or 10th edition style points?

I have fun playing Warpath Firefight so it would be best 40k is removed and all people play Firefight instead, I don't see the point why other would want to still play 40k instead of Firefight so don't see why that system should exist
/S

I have never argued for the removal of a points system system, quite the opposite, I have argued for the two system solution. That way both sides get what they want, most people who have argued in defence of power levels have said that.

I can manage to get my head around someone enjoying a different thing from me, I can imagine the current situation isn’t great for them. I am not just assuming that because I like a thing anyone else who says they don’t like it is either stupid or a liar. You don’t see that consideration or respect from the other side. The very fact that there are sides is stupid as feth.

If gw did a you turn and went back to the old way of having only points like they were before, I could live with that, like I can with this half way house we have now. I played for 7 editions before power levels were an option. It’s not make or break for me.

There are downsides to classic points, and downsides to power level. I can see that and say it without contradicting anything I have said on here before. All I am asking that the pro points side (power level deniers) open their minds a bit and see that what matters to them doesn’t to others. What is frustrating and has been since power levels came in is the dismissal of others experiences and rudeness that is directed at anyone who said as much as “l like them”.

We had a 3 system solution, Powerlevel, Points and Open Play
Those were replaced by "Points but worse than Powerlevel"

So were is the advantage that everyone must play now something that is in the middle of Powerlevel and Open Play?
That some still have fun? That the others have something to look forward to 11th? That we must accept that GW made the perfect game and casuals are told by competitive player that they are just haters if they cannot see how much more fun 40k is and should stop criticise and just play the game?

Andykp wrote:
I can manage to get my head around someone enjoying a different thing from me, I can imagine the current situation isn’t great for them. I am not just assuming that because I like a thing anyone else who says they don’t like it is either stupid or a liar. You don’t see that consideration or respect from the other side. The very fact that there are sides is stupid as feth.

I don't say people are liars because they say they like PL, I say they are liars because they say it takes them seconds to make a PL list or because they say it takes them an hour to make a pts list or because they say you were allowed to switch wargear whenever you liked in PL.

I don't say people are stupid because they choose PL, the system might be garbage but using it can be a way to signal that you don't want people to min-max because it is so obviously unbalanced, while in pts it's more legitimate to spam Fire Prisms despite them being undercosted because that's what GW says the price is, but in PL you know the value of a thunder hammer is more than 0. That doesn't make the system good though. The fact that you don't miscalculate the PL doesn't matter when using PL in the first place means the numerical value of your army will be off unless you arm you dudes to da teef.

The PL side has treated every argument and inquiry as an affront to their religion, stop playing the victim.

 vict0988 wrote:

The PL side has treated every argument and inquiry as an affront to their religion, stop playing the victim.

Very few people have taken any sort of "I support the official rules" or "GW knows what they're doing" or even said 10th edition's approach is balanced and flawless. There are no white knights here to unhorse, other than in the swaggery threads posted in support of 9th ed points. The question was and is "do we like the 10th ed approach to unit upgrades". The answer for some is "yes". We try to explain why... people try to prove opinions wrong (which is just dumb) and then can't comprehend why that approach is met with resistance.

If honed, and improved, say with treating sponsons like assault bikes (cost wise), and making all options more evenly compelling (at least situationally), this COULD serve as a system that just stays streamlined (which, to many people, is needed). The fixes would not need to be weird, over-contrived alterations.

Someone will yell this down with "that is points!" and I couldn't care less. If a few fixes to the 10th edition approach cross into someone's unicorn/snowflake definition of points, great. Stop trying to make every tweak binary. I've got no emotional investment in one label over the other. Deathwatch is kinda hosed by this approach, and I concede that. They should have just Grey Knighted them and moved on. Ditto with main guns on LRBTs.

Everyone I know who spends a large part of their hobby focus on bringing in new players in North America, likes the potential for the changes. You can argue all you want about how long it takes to make a list vs "PL" and you may be 100% right, unfortunately with sales and encouraging new player buy-in, their perception is reality. Many wargames have headed to cards that are largely self-contained for the tabletop. GW is mimicking this because it has had success for others.

You can insist they did it poorly, I agree. But when asked "do I like the approach", I say "yes" (and I hope they get better at it and address many obvious flaws as the codices release without undoing the good by bloating everything in the process).

 Lobokai wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

The PL side has treated every argument and inquiry as an affront to their religion, stop playing the victim.

Very few people have taken any sort of "I support the official rules" or "GW knows what they're doing" or even said 10th edition's approach is balanced and flawless.

You don't need to say that 10th is flawless to say something wrong. Saying that you like PL and therefore PL is not objectively worse is silly.

There are no white knights here to unhorse

Except for all the white knights that say that GW employees cannot be criticized for failing to do their job and the only acceptable answer to a lack of quality is money grubbers and tight schedules or a silent majority like 10th ed PL. These are veteran game designers that need to learn or let the community do the pts for them and then simply publish the results, doing PL is not good enough.

The question was and is "do we like the 10th ed approach to unit upgrades". The answer for some is "yes". We try to explain why... people try to prove opinions wrong (which is just dumb) and then can't comprehend why that approach is met with resistance.

It's not the opinions that are proven wrong, but rather the facts backing those opinions up. If you say you like PL because it lets you make a list in 59 seconds and it takes you 59 minutes to make a pts list then you are lying. If you say that you like PL because it allows you to change your wargear after selecting the mission and seeing your opponent's list you're lying. You can just say you like writing down your lists by hand and would rather cut the math for list building in half and save a minute that's fine, people's subjective preference and lack of standards for how balanced games need to be for you to have fun is 100% cool. Just don't come here and say that PL is a good system or a better system, it's clearly not and GW not knowing this is what has led to us only have PL in 10th. Do you think all 60% that answered they don't like 10th's approach cannot have fun with 10th edition? No, that'd be ridiculous. They just want sponsons to cost pts, there really is nothing to be opset at about that. When I say that a ruler with millimetre marks in addition to centimetre marks is objectively better you don't have to get mad because you use a ruler for your wood shop that only has centimetre marks and no millimetre marks.