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:

So for me, an increase in balance achieved by making the points system more complicated is going to have an over all negative effect on my gaming experience. A small if any gain in enjoyment caused by an increase in something I don’t care about but a large decrease in enjoyment by Pre battle prep time become more complicate than I like. So a net decrease in enjoyment.

This reads so crazy to me.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Andykp wrote:

So for me, an increase in balance achieved by making the points system more complicated is going to have an over all negative effect on my gaming experience. A small if any gain in enjoyment caused by an increase in something I don’t care about but a large decrease in enjoyment by Pre battle prep time become more complicate than I like. So a net decrease in enjoyment.

This reads so crazy to me.

same, we're already doing basic addition to list build (and theres litterally an app to take off that "complex task").

But at this point we've been going in circles forever, this thread is wayyyyy past its life expectancy and shouldve been locked like 80 pages ago.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Andykp wrote:

So for me, an increase in balance achieved by making the points system more complicated is going to have an over all negative effect on my gaming experience. A small if any gain in enjoyment caused by an increase in something I don’t care about but a large decrease in enjoyment by Pre battle prep time become more complicate than I like. So a net decrease in enjoyment.

This reads so crazy to me.

To be honest your description of peak 40K on the last page read crazy to me, I can think no worse way to play the game. But as I have had to say many times, people enjoy different things in different ways.

People always assume it’s the maths that’s the problem, it’s the book keeping that bothers me. Points in separate documents, changing them every 3 months. Now I don’t get to play all the time, it might be weeks between games, so pregame when designing my army list I would have to go on the community sites, and download the latest up to date points, then make a my army list using the new points. All to tweak how much a gretchin is.

Simple question, which maths is easier?

14x5+12+6+8+25

Or

5


All the balance updates over every edition never made an impact on the game I played. All the changes to help balance and counter act loopholes found by tournament players never made a bit of difference.

For example the rule of 3. That caused such a scene to try and stop comp players spamming powerful units, there was internet rage all over place for it. It had zero impact on how we played in our group. We didn’t spam things, that’s dull. But if we wanted to use more than 3 of a given unit for a good narrative reason we ignore that rule and do.

The balance patch that stopped the loyal 32, not effect, we didn’t use that as it was just a power move.

The nerf to conscripts, no impact because we only ever used conscripts as they are in the fluff.

All these big changes that were made in order increase balance had no impact on improving the game for me.

I’m not keen on using apps either, much rather have a pen and paper. I’ve adjusted and trying out apps this edition now.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Andykp wrote:

So for me, an increase in balance achieved by making the points system more complicated is going to have an over all negative effect on my gaming experience. A small if any gain in enjoyment caused by an increase in something I don’t care about but a large decrease in enjoyment by Pre battle prep time become more complicate than I like. So a net decrease in enjoyment.

This reads so crazy to me.

same, we're already doing basic addition to list build (and theres litterally an app to take off that "complex task").

But at this point we've been going in circles forever, this thread is wayyyyy past its life expectancy and shouldve been locked like 80 pages ago.

Agree this thread is done, at least it’s ending in a more civil tone than it carried on before the mod arrived.

Andykp wrote:
Points in separate documents, changing them every 3 months. Now I don’t get to play all the time, it might be weeks between games, so pregame when designing my army list I would have to go on the community sites, and download the latest up to date points, then make a my army list using the new points. All to tweak how much a gretchin is.

I'm sympathetic to wanting ease of listbuilding over theoretically improved balance, but I don't understand this at all.

You play with like-minded casual players. You don't feel the points tweaks affected your games. You already ignore rules that you don't feel are necessary. You can just not use points updates. Why do you feel that if points were updated more frequently, you'd be compelled to use them? Why is it necessary for GW to return to the old days of never fixing egregious balance errors to accommodate the way you want to play?

I don't get it.

So consensus seems to be let the thread go... sorry, I don't mean to prolong this. This is just to respond to the folks who responded to me. It's a tangent, so I don't expect it to ignite another 88 pages of rage, and that's not my intention.

Okay, here goes:

a_typical_hero wrote:
The Dhrukari player should have an equal chance of winning games as everybody else.

This isn't what I meant. I meant that sometimes Crusaders will CHOOSE to complete Agendas (which don't award VP, and therefore get you no closer to winning) rather than trying to win. It was a response to your assertion that external balance is a must because the game defines a winner. My point is that campaign play has the potential to create games where a player isn't actively trying to win, but rather to complete Agendas for the sake of building the narrative across a SERIES of games. The Drukhari were just one of the easiest armies to talk about WHY a player might CHOOSE to pursue in-game goals that are not connected to winning the current game.

In no way was I talking about going after Agendas because an army isn't strong enough to win... Though to be fair, I have talked about doing that in other posts, and it is one of the advantages I see to Crusude over matched- in Crusade, it is possible to walk away from a game you didn't win and still be absolutely thrilled with what your army achieved during the game. Matched play does not allow for this, because VP and winning are the only measures of success available in a stand-alone Matched play game.

a_typical_hero wrote:

If the rules are set in a way that your Archon gets annihilated every.single.game without being able to bring anything of interest home, there is a disconnect between what is happening on the table and what is supposed to happen in the background.

In a balanced environment this can still happen based on player skill, but I'm not convinced that it should be possible to become the head honcho of Commoragh without winning any game at all in the first place.

First, in Crusade games, removal of a model from the table top =/= death. Could mean injury, incapacitation, terror or strategic retreat from an untenable melee. But even if that weren't the case, as I mentioned above, it was never about the army being weak- is was about balance having lesser value in a game that promotes goals that aren't connected to victory. And as for your thoughts on what's happening being disconnected from the background, or whether or not you SHOULD be able to take over Commorragh without winning a fight:

My Agendas involved sending out the Wyches to capture slaves to take back to the arena and then convincing someone back in Commorragh that I should be granted controlling rights in a territory by taking all the credit for the wyches work.

To win, I would have to hold an objective/ hold more objectives than my opponent.

Which seems more in tune with the background to you?

Not Online!!! wrote:

Clearly the Drukhari that advances to head honcho without a win, has done so without a fight, else it wouldn't be a possibility

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

The archon took that clearly to heart and so should we.

But that begs the question: What happens if we do so?
Why are we playing a wargame then in the first place

Not Online!!! wrote:

As the poster above stated. Nobody is going to accept an Archon in a place of power that can't walk the walk so to speak.

"Hey, I don't trust this guy's leadership because I've never seen him win a battle; let's take him out! Boys, freshen up the poison on those splinter rifles!"
"Uh, master? The poison distiller says he doesn't work for us anymore."
"Fine, where are my Wyches?"
"Uh... They're all fighting at another guy's arena."
"I'll have to hire extra Scourges!"
"Uhhhm, sorry master, but he controls the Eyries too!"

If I'm not mistaken, this is kinda how Vect rose to power- he ensured that his enemies were already defeated before he actually revealed himself and attacked. The blade you see is never as deadly as the blade you don't.

Not Online!!! wrote:

And the same is true with the GSC system. then fact that the campaign faction system is so disconected not just from the battle but also from your opponent is another point why crusade comparativly to a decently made community campaign fails, and doesn't even compare to some of the old campaigns.

Bit of a misinterpretation going on here: Crusade on its own ISN'T a campaign system as much as it is an open ended progression system. It is Campaign agnostic, meaning that it can work with any campaign system you want to use. Wanna go map based? Crusade still works. Tree campaigns? Crusade still works. Play the missions in a campaign book? Crusade still works.

As for the the faction goals being disconnect from either the game or the other player, it's only written that way in the book so that people understand you can score Agendas and pursue your faction goals even if the people you play with aren't interested in campaign play.

When you ARE in a campaign, the wise GM will use the faction goals from the dexes of each of the players and use those as tools in the story. We used the Tau Crusade rules to generate our star system... But once it was generated, we then found a planet type equivalent in the GSC book (so a Shrine World in the Tau dex = a Cardinal World in the GSC).

Now we know how much military power and how much diplomacy power the Tau need to seize control of the planet, but we ALSO know which four institutions the GSC has to infiltrate to take control of the same planet. So both of them are trying to take control while the Sisters are looking to prevent either player from taking control. The cool dynamic here is that the Tau are doing their thing in the open, but the GSC are trying to stay under the radar. So it's possible for the Tau to win control of a planet which is already partially controlled by the GSC and not even know that 2/4 of the planet's institutions have already been infiltrated.

Imagine winning a planet from Imperial defenders, only to have an uprising on that planet a week or two later. That's hella interactive, and a wicked campaign.

You could also track detection of the GSC separately for the Imperials and the Tau- so that the Sisters, being aware of the Tau, might actually decide to retreat from the planet knowing that there's a GSC lurking in the shadows- a sort of Kryptman's gambit, wherein the aliens weaken and destroy each other, and then the sisters return to mop up the weakened victor before they have a chance to recover.

And remember, all those old campaign systems from previous editions that you think might have an edge over Crusade?

Well, Crusade is actually campaign agnostic, so Crusade can work with those. The easiest example is Urban Conquest, because as an 8th ed product, it shares enough rules with 9th that it can be ported over with little to no effort. Planet Strike was Octarius- you can just ignore the planet specific lore and content, but port the Planet Strike piece to your own worlds.

Campaign systems from older editions can be difficult if they include or reference game rules which are incompatible with the current edition, but with the right group of people it could work.

 catbarf wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Points in separate documents, changing them every 3 months. Now I don’t get to play all the time, it might be weeks between games, so pregame when designing my army list I would have to go on the community sites, and download the latest up to date points, then make a my army list using the new points. All to tweak how much a gretchin is.

I'm sympathetic to wanting ease of listbuilding over theoretically improved balance, but I don't understand this at all.

You play with like-minded casual players. You don't feel the points tweaks affected your games. You already ignore rules that you don't feel are necessary. You can just not use points updates. Why do you feel that if points were updated more frequently, you'd be compelled to use them? Why is it necessary for GW to return to the old days of never fixing egregious balance errors to accommodate the way you want to play?

I don't get it.

I can and did before power level, then power level came in and made it even simpler. The issue by then Was points weren’t on the data sheets, but crammed at the back of the book and such like. Lots of page flipping. Rubbish. Power levels were right there on the datasheet. Just lovely.

Now, no power levels, no points on the data sheet. So, I’ve gone all modern and taken to an app. So far so good with the gw one, better than battle scribe for now and I have a warhammer+ account already so no extra cost.

Bear in mind none of these things were deal breakers. If they had never done power level I would have kept on playing and using points but being annoyed by the stupid layout. None of it was that big a deal real.

If I had to choose a favourite army design time it would have been first edition. I loved the random tables of equipment. Designing an army felt like a game in itself. Then trying to build models that represented what ever you rolled up was a great challenge. But they definitely wouldn’t have gone down well with the anti power level crowd, no balance at all, a lascannon cost exactly the same as heady Webber.

Plus, penitentjake, your campaigns sound amazing, jealous of the fun you’re having. Oh for more free time to do that.

Andykp wrote:


So fed up of hearing this, it’s been around for years, better balance is better for everyone! It’s not true.

Balance is one factor towards enjoyment. It will vary between individuals how important a factor it is. Because balance is normally achieved by adding complexity, eg granular points updated very often or removing complexity, eg less units or less specific weapons profiles that are easier to balance.

For the points specific discussion balance seems to equal a more complex point system. It has been said a million times that granular points equals better balance/

Not necessarily. ASOIAF is typically played at 40 points and has much tighter balance than 40k. The issue is that the game is designed from the ground up to be a better balanced, more enjoyable experience than 40k is.

Balance is an incredibly important factor towards enjoyment *if you are sportsmanlike*; that is, if you are interested in both players having a "sporting chance." Most people do have a sense of this. Hell, studies with mice show they have a sense of this when they play with each other.

And everyone I know who poo-poos balance irl are the types most likely to fly off the handle if they lose a game; they just want the outcome of the game decided by their social environment (i.e. can they ostracize or kick out everyone who beats them) rather than rules and tactics.

Hecaton wrote:
You know what's interesting to me? In 9th the pro-PL advocates talked about how the math was easier, that much granularity wasn't needed, etc. Now we've got nobody bringing it up, almost like that argument was made in bad faith back in 9th and it's really about something else. I wonder which of the current arguments are being made in bad faith...

Neither.
Those who like PL for whatever reason like PL .
Those who like more granular pts for whatever reason like more granular pts.

The difference is who's happy here in 10e concerning how pts are done.
Those who are happy/happy enough with the current pt scheme? They really don't have to say anything. Life is good enough.
But those who like more granular pts? Oh boy.... They feel they've "lost" here in 10e. They're aggrieved & they feel the need to go on & on about what they perceive the pros of thier preferred method are vs what the cons of the other are. They've no problem insulting the developers & any who tell them why they prefer the PL style are accused of lying about thier reasons. And sometimes insulted.
This 80-some page salt monument is just the granular pts fans trying to come to terms with how this edition works. It's almost like one of the stages of grief.
Eventually they'll hopefully either accept it as what is for the time being & decide to have as much fun as possible, go away (for an edition? For longer?), or at least get tired of typing the same stuff day after day.
Otherwise it's going to be a looong 3 years.

In any event? Those who like the current pts style still don't need to say much on the subject.

Andykp wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Points in separate documents, changing them every 3 months. Now I don’t get to play all the time, it might be weeks between games, so pregame when designing my army list I would have to go on the community sites, and download the latest up to date points, then make a my army list using the new points. All to tweak how much a gretchin is.

I'm sympathetic to wanting ease of listbuilding over theoretically improved balance, but I don't understand this at all.

You play with like-minded casual players. You don't feel the points tweaks affected your games. You already ignore rules that you don't feel are necessary. You can just not use points updates. Why do you feel that if points were updated more frequently, you'd be compelled to use them? Why is it necessary for GW to return to the old days of never fixing egregious balance errors to accommodate the way you want to play?

I don't get it.

I can and did before power level, then power level came in and made it even simpler. The issue by then Was points weren’t on the data sheets, but crammed at the back of the book and such like. Lots of page flipping. Rubbish. Power levels were right there on the datasheet. Just lovely.

So the problem was GWs formatting?

Andykp wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Doesn't matter if you play pickup games, or with a select group of friends, or if you do matched play, or narrative games. Better balance is better for everyone. And the current system is pretty unbalanced. Both externally and internally.

So better balance does NOT mean better experience. It all depend on at what cost the balance comes and from who experience you view that balance.

I agree, up to a point. Obviously, you could make balancing the game much easier by restricting al factions to a single army, and that would suck for pretty much everyone even though it could easily be much better balanced.

The problem I have with your reasoning is I just can't see how making points more granular is too great a cost. The logic just doesn't hold up. If you and your group are not too concerned about balance you can still not bother to pay for every last pistol and random upgrade. I'm pretty sure most people will have done that before if they had to throw together a rough list for a quick game, and if balance isn't your concern it works fine. I also think people massively overstate the extra time more granular points would take when writing a list even if you decide to use the full costs for everything. We're not talking about advanced mathematics here, and the bulk of the time spent on list construction is figuring out what to take, not how much it costs.

If you use an app it automatically updates the points for you and you can either then adjust lists accordingly or - again - not bother. One advantage of the app is it might give an indication that your list is maybe too powerful if it jumps from 1000 points to 1200 points after an update.

Slipspace wrote:

The problem I have with your reasoning is I just can't see how making points more granular is too great a cost. The logic just doesn't hold up.

From a different perspective -(warmachine/hordes), going from mk1s high granularity to mk2's low granularity was a step forward in every way for me. I vastly preferred mk2s points-costings to mk1's and found they contributed to a better game- though obviously there were a lot more elements at play.

Even now, nearly 15 years later, I'd prefer low granularity to high.

Slipspace wrote:


If you use an app it automatically updates the points for you and you can either then adjust lists accordingly or - again - not bother. One advantage of the app is it might give an indication that your list is maybe too powerful if it jumps from 1000 points to 1200 points after an update.

Youre not wrong but What if you simply don't want to use an app? Considering my job is computer based for example, I put a lot of value on non-screen based activities outside of my working hours. I value a hobby where I don't need a Tablet/phone element involved and can 'switch off' and 'disconnect' for an evening.

Deadnight wrote:

Slipspace wrote:


If you use an app it automatically updates the points for you and you can either then adjust lists accordingly or - again - not bother. One advantage of the app is it might give an indication that your list is maybe too powerful if it jumps from 1000 points to 1200 points after an update.

Youre not wrong but What if you simply don't want to use an app? Considering my job is computer based for example, I put a lot of value on non-screen based activities outside of my working hours. I value a hobby where I don't need a Tablet/phone element involved and can 'switch off' and 'disconnect' for an evening.

I was specifically responding to AndyKP here as they said they did now use one. If you don't, that's fine too. I don't think it really changes anything significantly if you're not too bothered about balance anyway. You still have to add up the points somehow and as I said above I just don't think the time saving is anywhere near significant enough to warrant the removal of the old points system. I've stated a few times that in many cases the new system actually makes building lists more time consuming, not less, as a direct result of the lack of granularity.

Deadnight wrote:

Youre not wrong but What if you simply don't want to use an app? Considering my job is computer based for example, I put a lot of value on non-screen based activities outside of my working hours. I value a hobby where I don't need a Tablet/phone element involved and can 'switch off' and 'disconnect' for an evening.

I guess 40k is not for those kind of people any more because there is no possibility to get the point costs and create an army list without

 kodos wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

Youre not wrong but What if you simply don't want to use an app? Considering my job is computer based for example, I put a lot of value on non-screen based activities outside of my working hours. I value a hobby where I don't need a Tablet/phone element involved and can 'switch off' and 'disconnect' for an evening.

I guess 40k is not for those kind of people any more because there is no possibility to get the point costs and create an army list without

Also, even if you use an app to make your list, that is what, 15 minutes, maybe, out of the hours you will be playing for?

It's not like after you make the list you have to have your phone screen in view the entire time you play. Once you have put together the list you do not need to look at it ever again for that evening of play.

It's akin to complaining that your friends text/whatsapp/whatever you to organise the when/where of the game. You don't want to look at a screen as part of the prep for your game of 40k dammit! People should send their queries and suggestions by the good ol' postal service!

1. Why isn't a Plasma Pistol/Power Sword worth more than a Bolt Pistol/Chainsword?
2. Why shouldn't a Leman Russ with sponsons cost more than one without?
3. How come a vehicle with a hunter-killer missile and a multi-melta is the same cost as one that doesn't take these upgrades?
4. Why should I pay so much for a Baneblade when I'm not bringing double sponsons?
5. Why should a weapon without indirect fire get a price increase because it has the option for indirect, but isn't taking said option?

... and many more like it.

When you can finally answer those questions, then maybe we'll have a proper discussion.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

1. Why isn't a Plasma Pistol/Power Sword worth more than a Bolt Pistol/Chainsword?
2. Why shouldn't a Leman Russ with sponsons cost more than one without?
3. How come a vehicle with a hunter-killer missile and a multi-melta is the same cost as one that doesn't take these upgrades?
4. Why should I pay so much for a Baneblade when I'm not bringing double sponsons?
5. Why should a weapon without indirect fire get a price increase because it has the option for indirect, but isn't taking said option?

... and many more like it.

When you can finally answer those questions, then maybe we'll have a proper discussion.

Do they have to be answers that you agree with?

I believe there is one easy answer for all of these "why does it cost X when the 'strongest' and 'weakest' options have a disparity in perceived efficacy."

The answer is:
Games Workshop has chosen to take the game in a direction that is less focused on matched play balance, and instead favor supporting customers who casually pick up models here and there, build them however they want and throw them down to play. Their metrics for these decisions are likely not driven by anything other than pure bottom line. GW is in the business of selling models, and if this direction facilitates and increase in that, then they are accomplishing their mission statement.

You and many others may feel betrayed, let down, or otherwise abrasive towards these design decisions, that's fine, vent away, you as a paying customer have that right. But on the opposite side of that coin, you/others are not the arbiter of fun within the hobby.

There's a few reasons I enjoy the new system over the old, I've expressed them within the thread.
Every time I get ridiculed by the same handful of individuals because I dare to like something they do not. As a matter of FACT, my first foray into these discussions was on page 3, where I expressed that my play group enjoys these changes, and that we always preferred the Age of Sigmar method to the 40k 8th/9th. YOU (H.B.M.C.) then proceeded to show your true virtue and dismissed the notion of liking something with a common AoS hater slur.

Tell me again, who here truly desires honest discussion, and who here just want's to whine that they don't get their way?

And then they get to the table and find they built their model wrong, because their bolt pistol and chainsword is inferior to the plasma pistol and power sword their friend is using, or their tank without sponsons does so much less than their friend's that does, or they build their leader illegally because it can only be armed with The Shiny Stick if they have The Sparkly Cap and not The Dark Hood they thought looked cooler when building it.
Ok that last part is more of a problem with datasheet options than 10th's points, but it shows that GW really doesn't favour those sorts of customers like you claim they do.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

Every time I get ridiculed by the same handful of individuals because I dare to like something they do not. As a matter of FACT, my first foray into these discussions was on page 3, where I expressed that my play group enjoys these changes, and that we always preferred the Age of Sigmar method to the 40k 8th/9th. YOU (H.B.M.C.) then proceeded to show your true virtue and dismissed the notion of liking something with a common AoS hater slur.

Tell me again, who here truly desires honest discussion, and who here just want's to whine that they don't get their way?

What, Sigmarines? What is wrong with sigmarines? Hell there wasn't anything wrong with chaos marines in WHFB because that is what armored Chaos warriors were

also see above. You don't actually resolve the issue, because there is still a points system, just one that thinks you'll have picked all the fancy stuff instead, it therefore still feths with the casual. Probably even moreso considering a scenario were one runs Dragon warriors CSM full with melta into SoB with flamers because fluff.

Not that it was a fair matchup beforehand seemingly as sisters don't do well ATM but that is a diffrent debate about quality controll and the lack of oversight and coordination.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:


The answer is:
Games Workshop has chosen to take the game in a direction that is less focused on matched play balance, and instead favor supporting customers who casually pick up models here and there, build them however they want and throw them down to play. Their metrics for these decisions are likely not driven by anything other than pure bottom line. GW is in the business of selling models, and if this direction facilitates and increase in that, then they are accomplishing their mission statement.

GW is in the business of selling models

models

Ugh not this again! You have been a good faith participant in this thread so please take my question in good faith. Why does GW sell rules then? Why did they roll out their metawatch articles? Why the explicit catering to tournaments with MTG-style (an explicitly competitive oriented game, mind you) tournament packs for LGSes? Focusing less on matched play balance undermines this concerted effort on their part to make the game more appealing to competitive-minded players.

Rules obviously don't lead to recuring and spreadable revenue Gene.

And 6 - 7th edition of 40k has proven that rules don't matter.

/sarcasm.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

The answer is:
Games Workshop has chosen to take the game in a direction that is less focused on matched play balance, and instead favor supporting customers who casually pick up models here and there, build them however they want and throw them down to play. Their metrics for these decisions are likely not driven by anything other than pure bottom line. GW is in the business of selling models, and if this direction facilitates and increase in that, then they are accomplishing their mission statement.

That doesn't actually favor "supporting customers who casually pick up modols here and there, build them however they want...", though, because if they build the unit "wrong" they're at a disadvantage. Under points with each option costed, different options for the same unit could be relatively balanced. Donyou understand?

H.B.M.C. wrote:
1. Why isn't a Plasma Pistol/Power Sword worth more than a Bolt Pistol/Chainsword?
2. Why shouldn't a Leman Russ with sponsons cost more than one without?
3. How come a vehicle with a hunter-killer missile and a multi-melta is the same cost as one that doesn't take these upgrades?
4. Why should I pay so much for a Baneblade when I'm not bringing double sponsons?
5. Why should a weapon without indirect fire get a price increase because it has the option for indirect, but isn't taking said option?

1. As it stands it likely is, is it possible to make them parallel? Yes.
2. As it stands, yes it should cost more, again it could be made to not or be remedied other ways.
3. This is stupid, they should either be mandatory extras and baked in or cease to exist in absence of a points value.
4. Again, you shouldn't, make them mandatory to waive wysiwyg.
5. The biggest issue and 100% agree, this cantbe resolved without granular coats.

I've had this talk with H.B.M.C. elsewhere and sidegrades or a different implementation is possible.

Not Online!!! wrote:What, Sigmarines? What is wrong with sigmarines? Hell there wasn't anything wrong with chaos marines in WHFB because that is what armored Chaos warriors were

also see above. You don't actually resolve the issue, because there is still a points system, just one that thinks you'll have picked all the fancy stuff instead, it therefore still feths with the casual. Probably even moreso considering a scenario were one runs Dragon warriors CSM full with melta into SoB with flamers because fluff.

Not that it was a fair matchup beforehand seemingly as sisters don't do well ATM but that is a diffrent debate about quality controll and the lack of oversight and coordination.

I admit this new system has it's flaws. My counterpoint is that most systems GW has produced will have strengths and flaws. I genuinely believe there are strengths to the new system, and I am aware that many on Dakka do not share in those beliefs. I just wish we could be a little more accepting of different perspectives without demanding a flawless argument.

I know many that may not view the phrase "Sigmarine" as a slur. But having been a major support of AoS from inception (even when there were no points), I find the two uses of the nick-name to be from supporters who are trying to reclaim the phrase, or detractors who consistently blame Sigmar for every wrongdoing within the company (8th-10th 40k included). I was a little presumptuous attributing H.B.M.C.'s usage of the phrase as a derogatory slur towards comparisons between the systems, so I will recant that he used it as a slur, until proven otherwise.

Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Why did they roll out their metawatch articles? Why the explicit catering to tournaments with MTG-style (an explicitly competitive oriented game, mind you) tournament packs for LGSes? Focusing less on matched play balance undermines this concerted effort on their part to make the game more appealing to competitive-minded players.

In the same vein that other companies sell peripherals to support their mission statement. MTG is in the card selling business, to sell packs of cards. Historically they have also sold: novels, dice, playmats, sleeves, etc to support their primary product.
Some may not consider the rules of the game a peripheral and more of a mainstay in order to play, however I believe Games Workshop has also made strides in recent years to have more and more of their rules free. I believe ccs has itemized earlier in the thread that right now for 10th, you can get the index's free, the core rules free. So someone interested in the hobby only need to spend money on models in order to play.
I am by no means discounting that eventual Codex releases, mission packs, chapter approved, campaign books etc. will be sold and not provided for free... However if Games Workshop finds that their largest growth in model sales comes from the working moms at the open end of the "trumpet" buy some model kits for their teen who will play for a year or two max, then it's rather obvious why they changed the point system to accommodate that revenue stream. Those revolving door players likely account for the vast majority of sales from models and they likely weren't buying up every codex or chapter approve or mission pack that gets released anyway.
I believe another prime example (in recent days) that these are the types of customers that GW is seeking to capitalize on as opposed to the entrenched veteran was the outrage at the culling of the space marine line. If the company's goal (as stated in their mission statement) is to sell models, who do you think they should cater too? The people with perpetual armies that make one purchase 20 years ago and rarely buy more models. Or the influx of new blood who spend the most money up front weather they stay or leave.
GW has listened to the customers and provided a more affordable entry point to the hobby. Free rules, just buy your models/hobby supply. This is a good thing in my opinion.

Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Why did they roll out their metawatch articles? Why the explicit catering to tournaments with MTG-style (an explicitly competitive oriented game, mind you) tournament packs for LGSes? Focusing less on matched play balance undermines this concerted effort on their part to make the game more appealing to competitive-minded players.

Historically GW was never match play minded. In fact the term "matched play" didn't even come about until 8th. They had some losses in the late part of 5th-7th so they readjusted their focus. One of the major complaints at that time was the lack of balance and playtesting. That is why they focused on this as part of their 8th/9th initiative. I do not believe they are going to stop with the meta watch article going into 10th, but I would also not be surprised if they become more sparse and eventually dropped.

I am being purely speculative on this, as I do not sit in their board meetings or strategy sessions, but a shift in design generally correlates to sales. Maybe the sales of 8th/9th weren't hitting targets they expected. They historically didn't listen to internet tournament grinders complaints for 7 editions, then they did for 2 editions (6 years) and maybe didn't see a meaningful change in sales. Meanwhile their other flagship games (AoS) has been increasing profit year over year. Again, this is speculation on my part, but I can rationalize a few scenarios like this as to why they choose the direction they did at the time they did, and are now backing off or shifting to a new design philosophy.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:

That doesn't actually favor "supporting customers who casually pick up modols here and there, build them however they want...", though, because if they build the unit "wrong" they're at a disadvantage. Under points with each option costed, different options for the same unit could be relatively balanced. Donyou understand?

I understand this complaint/talking point. I try to put myself in a mindset of when I was first getting into the hobbies, and I didn't really build based on what is optimal, hell I didn't know the difference between a lascannon and an autocannon. When I found out later as i got more ingrained into the gaming side, I realized some of my choices weren't optimal. But also I don't chock that up as a negative experience. Cool models are forever, rules constantly change. Also, I believe most casual players do not adhere to strict WYSIWYG so it is likely a non issue for most. At least that was my experience back in the early 2000s when I started these games.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:What, Sigmarines? What is wrong with sigmarines? Hell there wasn't anything wrong with chaos marines in WHFB because that is what armored Chaos warriors were

also see above. You don't actually resolve the issue, because there is still a points system, just one that thinks you'll have picked all the fancy stuff instead, it therefore still feths with the casual. Probably even moreso considering a scenario were one runs Dragon warriors CSM full with melta into SoB with flamers because fluff.

Not that it was a fair matchup beforehand seemingly as sisters don't do well ATM but that is a diffrent debate about quality controll and the lack of oversight and coordination.

I admit this new system has it's flaws. My counterpoint is that most systems GW has produced will have strengths and flaws. I genuinely believe there are strengths to the new system, and I am aware that many on Dakka do not share in those beliefs. I just wish we could be a little more accepting of different perspectives without demanding a flawless argument.

I know many that may not view the phrase "Sigmarine" as a slur. But having been a major support of AoS from inception (even when there were no points), I find the two uses of the nick-name to be from supporters who are trying to reclaim the phrase, or detractors who consistently blame Sigmar for every wrongdoing within the company (8th-10th 40k included). I was a little presumptuous attributing H.B.M.C.'s usage of the phrase as a derogatory slur towards comparisons between the systems, so I will recant that he used it as a slur, until proven otherwise.

Whilest i get what you mean, i am sorry i will remain adamant about the way how 40k is that an ungranular system is not the way forward and never was. I was in disfavour about PL in 9th because of that. And the argument about flaws and strengths, i find flawed in itself, mostly because regardless what system we pick AoS, 40k you name it the core problem remains GW. Just because GW failed at points doesn't discount the fact that it in the current state of affairs would be a better system then the PL-ified points, NVM even old school PL would be a better system because atleast it was clear. Which just goes to show the new system is flat out worse since it's a hybridised bastard with all the weaknesses of the former systems with 0 of the benefits.

as for AoS, i'll freely admit i dislike it. Mostly because it was a shoddy job for replacing WHFB with something that isn't even in the same ballpark with AoS. BUT the problem sit's hardly with people enjoying AoS, the problem is once again GW being GW. So yeah sure , Sigmarine may be derogatory torwards something, but that something is gw's design department being boring at most. And even that nowadys is inacurate consideirng the fact that said sigmarine faction nowadays has quite decent looking unique models, even if i prefer the more lower fantasy design of the former WHFB esthetique more than the AoS high ammount of fantasy elements including design.

The main thing is that if you play the game with a certain mindset it doesn’t matter if your unit has the most optimal load out even though a “better load out is free. You don’t care.

You might not have that mind set but surely at least one of you has the empathetic ability to understand someone else’s point of view!

As for apps, I’m not keen. I’m using one this edition but I’d rather not have to.

And for whoever said my issue with points was with GW formatting, yeah you are right. I played 7 editions using points quite happily. But they were all in the one book and mostly on the army list page.

And through those 7 editions I still didn’t equip my units with what was “best”. I went with what I thought was cool. That’s why I still have las pistols on my guard sergeants and no sponsons on my leman Russ tanks. And that isn’t changing.

And no I’m not lying, stop being ridiculous.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
However if Games Workshop finds that their largest growth in model sales comes from the working moms at the open end of the "trumpet" buy some model kits for their teen who will play for a year or two max, then it's rather obvious why they changed the point system to accommodate that revenue stream. Those revolving door players likely account for the vast majority of sales from models and they likely weren't buying up every codex or chapter approve or mission pack that gets released anyway.

This is just the classic "three purchase" model GW has been pursuing for years. Get a kid interested in the store (where only GW products are shown and the employee is 100% focused on recruiting new customers) and an initial purchase, get a birthday gift, get a christmas gift, and after that who cares because you've already made all the profit you expect to get. This was the driving force behind GW cutting stores back to tiny closets with a single table for demo games, cutting staff down to a single employee, evaluating (and firing) employees based on sales metrics that were overwhelmingly focused on sales of starter sets, etc. GW thought they could build the entire company on selling starter purchases to kids and take any sales to veteran players as a nice bonus.

But guess what: it didn't work. GW saw significant declines in sales, veterans weren't showing up to give new customers something to aspire to and a reason to buy stuff, and GW's rivals were taking market share. GW only turned things around when they invested more in regular balance updates, frequent FAQs, writing rules with the clarity required for competitive play, hosting their own major tournaments, partnering with third-party tournament groups, etc. And aside from the point system being one last dying gasp of the Jervis cult 40k is continuing all of these trends. GW continues to run competitive events, post competitive content regularly, partner with competitive play groups, write the rules to be suitable for competitive play, etc. The broken point system is a clear outlier in this trend.

(And outside of 40k there's the debacle of launch day AoS, where GW nearly killed the entire product line and the company with it by attempting to make your suggested "just appeal to the newbies" game with rules being an afterthought and "casual" games with cool models the emphasis.)

GW has listened to the customers and provided a more affordable entry point to the hobby. Free rules, just buy your models/hobby supply. This is a good thing in my opinion.

Except you're missing one key part here: the rules will not be free. Free rules are not an ongoing sales strategy, they're a necessary but very temporary part of launching a major update to the game. The changes in 10th were significant enough to require re-writing literally every datasheet and army rule so GW had three choices: do a "FAQ" update that was essentially a whole new release of free rules, publish every new codex on launch day and self destruct their business model, or publish free temporary rules so that people can keep playing (and buying!) until their codex is released. GW is absolutely intending to add the cost of buying rules back into the startup cost and they are releasing codices on an aggressive schedule to get there ASAP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
The issue by then Was points weren’t on the data sheets, but crammed at the back of the book and such like. Lots of page flipping. Rubbish. Power levels were right there on the datasheet. Just lovely.

This is just baffling to me. How is it more page flipping to build lists with 1-2 page points list than with point costs distributed across the entire datasheet section of the codex? With traditional points it was all in one place and you could have the entire points section for your army laid out in front of you, with PL you had to keep flipping between pages and trying to remember what order all your units were in so you could find the appropriate point cost.

(And by the end of 9th PL was presented in the exact same format, a major upgrade.)

If I had to choose a favourite army design time it would have been first edition. I loved the random tables of equipment. Designing an army felt like a game in itself. Then trying to build models that represented what ever you rolled up was a great challenge. But they definitely wouldn’t have gone down well with the anti power level crowd, no balance at all, a lascannon cost exactly the same as heady Webber.

How exactly did that work? You had to write your lists weeks in advance of a game so you could build the required models? Or did you have to make your army once and then be stuck with playing the exact same list forever?

And TBH it sounds like a pretty terrible system in general. Screw the narrative, the RNG says you're equipped with this and you'll like it. I will never understand the fascination some people have with replacing player agency with RNG.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:
Crusade stuff

I'm sure all of that is a lot of fun. The question though is why you're still committed to points-based list construction for matched play when your goals are all about the story? Why do you care so much about which system makes it easier to get to exactly 500 points when balance matters so little that you'd rather lose the game than fail to accomplish your story-related objective? Why not use the simple "X units and Y characters" system I gave you to give a rough estimate for the size of the game and then build appropriate forces for the story? It's even simpler and easier to use than PL and balance isn't any worse for a situation like yours.

And really this goes for all of Crusade in general. Why embrace a matched play system where the narrative is constrained by balance concerns and an emphasis on the rules working well for pickup games against random strangers? Why have a balance constraint of having to spend RP to change equipment or add units when those are things that can be done based on if/when they're appropriate for the story? Why play symmetrical matched play missions when you can dump the entire primary scoring system and only have each side's story-related goals? Why track an arbitrary point system for the Tau and GSC fighting over the planet when you can have the GM decide based on the outcome of games (which only have story-related objectives) and set up the next games based on the consequences? Which is more engaging from a story point of view, the Tau taking the planet because they reached 5 military points or the Tau taking the planet because you collectively agreed that the next game should be a Tau assault on the planetary governor's palace?

Tittliewinks22 wrote:


I understand this complaint/talking point. I try to put myself in a mindset of when I was first getting into the hobbies, and I didn't really build based on what is optimal, hell I didn't know the difference between a lascannon and an autocannon. When I found out later as i got more ingrained into the gaming side, I realized some of my choices weren't optimal. But also I don't chock that up as a negative experience. Cool models are forever, rules constantly change. Also, I believe most casual players do not adhere to strict WYSIWYG so it is likely a non issue for most. At least that was my experience back in the early 2000s when I started these games.

You're arguing the game should have trap options, without giving a justification. That makes for a real bad game. Telling Nate the Noob "Haha! You built your unit wrong! Call it a 'learning experience!' Also I'll decry you for being a cutthroat bad sport if you point out that this gives you an unfair disadvantage!" does not make for a healthy gaming community.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Crusade stuff

I'm sure all of that is a lot of fun. The question though is why you're still committed to points-based list construction for matched play when your goals are all about the story? Why do you care so much about which system makes it easier to get to exactly 500 points when balance matters so little that you'd rather lose the game than fail to accomplish your story-related objective? Why not use the simple "X units and Y characters" system I gave you to give a rough estimate for the size of the game and then build appropriate forces for the story? It's even simpler and easier to use than PL and balance isn't any worse for a situation like yours.

And really this goes for all of Crusade in general. Why embrace a matched play system where the narrative is constrained by balance concerns and an emphasis on the rules working well for pickup games against random strangers? Why have a balance constraint of having to spend RP to change equipment or add units when those are things that can be done based on if/when they're appropriate for the story? Why play symmetrical matched play missions when you can dump the entire primary scoring system and only have each side's story-related goals? Why track an arbitrary point system for the Tau and GSC fighting over the planet when you can have the GM decide based on the outcome of games (which only have story-related objectives) and set up the next games based on the consequences? Which is more engaging from a story point of view, the Tau taking the planet because they reached 5 military points or the Tau taking the planet because you collectively agreed that the next game should be a Tau assault on the planetary governor's palace?

Especially given that in 9th you could play Crusade with points rather than PL and it was much better. There was nothing you could do with PL that you couldn't do with points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:


And through those 7 editions I still didn’t equip my units with what was “best”. I went with what I thought was cool. That’s why I still have las pistols on my guard sergeants and no sponsons on my leman Russ tanks. And that isn’t changing.

So when you play against someone who *does* have sponsons on their Leman Russes, what do you do? Just eat the loss and say "you were a better player, you modeled your units with the right stuff?"

Because if you don't, you're acknowledging that your devotion to PL is in spite of its flaws and has to do with something else than its efficacy at creating a good, balanced, or fun game.

Edited.

Andykp wrote:
I said from day one of it that there’s no convincing some, and I don’t think anyone from pro PL side has tried to convince anyone. Just to make them see there may be more than one way.

"Make the see there may be more than one way" is trying to convince people. Please don't play word games like this.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I said from day one of it that there’s no convincing some, and I don’t think anyone from pro PL side has tried to convince anyone. Just to make them see there may be more than one way.

"Make the see there may be more than one way" is trying to convince people. Please don't play word games like this.

Trying to convince someone power level is better than points is one thing, no one did that. Trying to convince people you can do things differently from them and still have a good time, while in no way invalidating their experience is a totally different thing that has been done.

The only people trying to tell anyone they are objectively wrong is you and your tribe. The only one telling anyone they are lying or not playing the game right is you.

You will find I have said that there should be points as they were just for people like you, and even said it’s a shame there isn’t anymore. So please don’t talk nonsense.