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.

 Overread wrote:
Eh I've built lists that were 5pts over 2K. So yes sometimes you really do have only a few points worth of difference.

Now granted in most/many cases being 5pts over makes basically no difference at 2K points in a game and in a non-tournament setting many opponents might even let it slide.


That said its still missing the fundamental point. It's not about if specific options were or were not worth their points. The fact was you had the choice as a player to make those choices.
With weapons and with upgrades the performance was reflected in the variation in points.

With the current system GW got rid of the points, but kept many of the upgrades. The result is that we have a daft situation where its not a case of "how often are 5pst the killer" but a case of "well might as well take the better/all options because why not, it costs the same to field".

I get that GW is trying to make the game more accessible and trying to keep the customising that players are used too (and lets face it its actually part of what makes 40K unique in the fantasy setting - most other model ranges are 1 maybe 2 weapon options on some units and that's it. You might get an army wide upgrade or a general upgrade; but by and large units have 1 fixed set of stats)

It's possible for items to have comparative effective value, they just haven't done it. Which if they did, renders this whole debate moot.

In a world where a plasma pistol on a devastator sergeant is 5 pts, which you can choose to not take to drop your list below the points cap. You're telling me you'd be happier doing that, not having a wysiwyg mini, accepting that although it isn't worth 5 pts in the first place wholesale and all because it lets you feel like you made the choice? Surely having the two pistols either be balanced via profile, or better yet just be a "sidearm" profile is better there?

No, and a definite "hell no" to a sidearm profile.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think most Sergeant wargear wasn’t a big deal. It should cost more than nothing, but the difference between a laspistol and bolt pistol is about as close to nothing as you can get.

But taking a Heavy weapon in your Tactical or Infantry squads… THAT should cost points, and be a decision.

I rather feel that power fist is significant enough upgrade over power or chainsword that it should cost points.

 vict0988 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I don't care too much for relics (they feel about the same as enhancements, IMO),

To my mind, the differences are:

- Relics were more numerous. Even the less-generous codices generally gave you twice as many as you get Enhancements.

- Relics were largely universal (in that most of your stock was available regardless of what subfaction you were using), whereas there are no universal Enhancements. You only ever get the 4 that your detachment gives you.

- Relics had a lot more options. They could, for example, give a model a unique gun, a unique sword, a pseudo-jetpack, or other such (which was useful for characters that otherwise have very limited wargear options). Enhancements, by contrast, seem far more limited in their effects.

So you would want faction relics and detachment WL traits (assuming relics and WL traits came back)? This would allow you to have a relic version of several types of weapons, like a pistol that is actually useful because a generic ranged weapon buff wouldn't be balanced for both pistols and combi-weapons.

Honestly, I would prefer both Warlord Traits *and* artefacts to be primarily faction-based. I'm not a fan of the entire selection of either revolving around your chosen detachment.

If you want each detachment to add 1-2 specific relics/warlord traits, that's fine. I just think the main pools should be faction based.

But then, as noted in the other thread, I'm not a fan of 10th's detachment system at the best of times.

 Dysartes wrote:
No, and a definite "hell no" to a sidearm profile.

OK, so accepting impossible to balance points with obviously better options and likely none wysiwyg models for the placebo effect of decision making is preferred?

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think most Sergeant wargear wasn’t a big deal. It should cost more than nothing, but the difference between a laspistol and bolt pistol is about as close to nothing as you can get.

But taking a Heavy weapon in your Tactical or Infantry squads… THAT should cost points, and be a decision.

I rather feel that power fist is significant enough upgrade over power or chainsword that it should cost points.

It's obvious that Power Fists have almost always been considered significantly better than the alternatives because even after several attempts at nerfing them, they were practically default equipment for most Marine squad sergeants for multiple editions.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think most Sergeant wargear wasn’t a big deal. It should cost more than nothing, but the difference between a laspistol and bolt pistol is about as close to nothing as you can get.

But taking a Heavy weapon in your Tactical or Infantry squads… THAT should cost points, and be a decision.

I rather feel that power fist is significant enough upgrade over power or chainsword that it should cost points.

It's obvious that Power Fists have almost always been considered significantly better than the alternatives because even after several attempts at nerfing them, they were practically default equipment for most Marine squad sergeants for multiple editions.

So you could say that them having a points cost actually didn't impact the balance of the melee weapons, or even change the layout of the unit from today for most people.

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think most Sergeant wargear wasn’t a big deal. It should cost more than nothing, but the difference between a laspistol and bolt pistol is about as close to nothing as you can get.

But taking a Heavy weapon in your Tactical or Infantry squads… THAT should cost points, and be a decision.

I rather feel that power fist is significant enough upgrade over power or chainsword that it should cost points.

It's obvious that Power Fists have almost always been considered significantly better than the alternatives because even after several attempts at nerfing them, they were practically default equipment for most Marine squad sergeants for multiple editions.

So you could say that them having a points cost actually didn't impact the balance of the melee weapons, or even change the layout of the unit from today for most people.

Why yes, GW are incompetent. Congratulations on your revelation.

Dudeface wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
No, and a definite "hell no" to a sidearm profile.

OK, so accepting impossible to balance points with obviously better options and likely none wysiwyg models for the placebo effect of decision making is preferred?

For a narrative player? Absolutely.

As far as I'm concerned, the insane mantra of balance above all else is more harmful to this game than anything except the three year edition cycle. And that's not saying that balance isn't important; it's just saying that for a narrative player, it's not THE most important thing, and sacrificing flavour to achieve it can be a fool's gambit because it takes away what makes the game special to impose a minimum standard of mediocrity.

In an uncosted equipment game:

- A competitive player will be inclined to equip the best weapon

In a costed equipment game:

- A competitive player will have many factors to consider- foregoing weapon upgrades on 3 units may allow that player to take an extra unit


In either a costed or an uncosted game, however, a narrative player will take the equipment that best suits the character's background within the context of both the army and the mission.

 PenitentJake wrote:

In either a costed or an uncosted game, however, a narrative player will take the equipment that best suits the character's background within the context of both the army and the mission.

Actually I disagree.

It depends entirely on the nature of the Narrative situation in question. There are many narrative driven games that require good understanding of the mechanics of the game to tell the narrative story within the battle. Eg an under-powered defending force against a larger attacking force requires some fundamental grasp of the rules of the game; the points disparity and the stats disparity to be able to tell the story of a valiant last defence that isn't.

a) A cake walk for the attacker that has them winning in 2 turns

b) A cake walk for the defender which has them just sitting there rolling shooting dice and not really doing anything else whilst the attacker is just being ground to a paste in the firezones.

The idea that Narrative and competitive (including, but not exclusively points) are fully separate is a false position to take.

They are both reliant on the fundamental fact that the wargames we play are basically maths driven. Every action you take in 40K is based on mathematics.
If you're using the 40K rules you're using maths so having GOOD balanced maths makes sense. It tells you tell the story you want to tell for the Narrative player; for the competitive it lets you equalise the mathematical performance of both armies as much as possible so that the win/loss is based upon player choice.

NOW yes GW get's the wrong - they get it wrong a LOT which is why there are SO many discussions about it. The 3 year cycle coupled to other elements, means that GW isn't even setup to try and succeed.



Now there ARE ways to run Narrative games with less maths; but you've got to dip into RPG territory. Where you might use maths to modify or define an event, but where your narration; or that of a 3rd party; becomes the action. Eg you might fail a defence roll. That "might" mean you take damage according to the rules or it might mean you could story your way out of it with acrobatics or something.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think most Sergeant wargear wasn’t a big deal. It should cost more than nothing, but the difference between a laspistol and bolt pistol is about as close to nothing as you can get.

But taking a Heavy weapon in your Tactical or Infantry squads… THAT should cost points, and be a decision.

I rather feel that power fist is significant enough upgrade over power or chainsword that it should cost points.

It's obvious that Power Fists have almost always been considered significantly better than the alternatives because even after several attempts at nerfing them, they were practically default equipment for most Marine squad sergeants for multiple editions.

So you could say that them having a points cost actually didn't impact the balance of the melee weapons, or even change the layout of the unit from today for most people.

Why yes, GW are incompetent. Congratulations on your revelation.

OK, so we're back to acknowledgeding it doesn't matter what they do, neither will be good and it's all just what makes people feel better subjectively. Thank you.

 Overread wrote:


It depends entirely on the nature of the Narrative situation in question.

Absolutely true.

 Overread wrote:


The idea that Narrative and competitive (including, but not exclusively points) are fully separate is a false position to take.

Also true; my personal take is that competitive and narrative are the extreme ends of a spectrum... Meaning that they CAN be played in ways that feel completely separate, but most often are played somewhere between the extremes with varying elements of either style present in any given game.

 Overread wrote:


Now there ARE ways to run Narrative games with less maths; but you've got to dip into RPG territory.

Yep- and that's pretty much where I live. The error in my original post was not acknowledging that mine is only one small slice of the spectrum. Adding in other factors- Map based play, escalation, progression... They warp the calculus in unpredictable ways. In a map based campaign, victory can be as much about knowing which battles to fight when is actually winning or losing missions, and sometimes Agendas will be more important than victory points... meaning that losing battles might enable you to win the war.

In most of the games I play, I'm far into RPG territory.

Narrative can be separate from competitive though.

It only takes one participant in a narrative campaign to go a bit WAAC, Math Hammering everything to start to derail it.

We see that in Necromunda, a game well suited to heavy narrative. And like Necromunda, such a player refusing to enter into the spirit of that campaign (not game! Campaign!) is a problem for the GM.

 Overread wrote:
Eh I've built lists that were 5pts over 2K. So yes sometimes you really do have only a few points worth of difference.

Now granted in most/many cases being 5pts over makes basically no difference at 2K points in a game and in a non-tournament setting many opponents might even let it slide.


That said its still missing the fundamental point. It's not about if specific options were or were not worth their points. The fact was you had the choice as a player to make those choices.
With weapons and with upgrades the performance was reflected in the variation in points.

With the current system GW got rid of the points, but kept many of the upgrades. The result is that we have a daft situation where its not a case of "how often are 5pst the killer" but a case of "well might as well take the better/all options because why not, it costs the same to field".

I get that GW is trying to make the game more accessible and trying to keep the customising that players are used too (and lets face it its actually part of what makes 40K unique in the fantasy setting - most other model ranges are 1 maybe 2 weapon options on some units and that's it. You might get an army wide upgrade or a general upgrade; but by and large units have 1 fixed set of stats)

If everything is well balanced internally, then it doesn’t matter if there are bespoke point costs for wargear or not.
Just have to make a chainsword actually useful, or do something to make las pistol slightly better.

How do you propose to make a Laspistol equal to a Plasma pistol?

Or to make a Bolter equal a Heavy Bolter in a Devastator Squad?

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think most Sergeant wargear wasn’t a big deal. It should cost more than nothing, but the difference between a laspistol and bolt pistol is about as close to nothing as you can get.

But taking a Heavy weapon in your Tactical or Infantry squads… THAT should cost points, and be a decision.

I rather feel that power fist is significant enough upgrade over power or chainsword that it should cost points.

It's obvious that Power Fists have almost always been considered significantly better than the alternatives because even after several attempts at nerfing them, they were practically default equipment for most Marine squad sergeants for multiple editions.

So you could say that them having a points cost actually didn't impact the balance of the melee weapons, or even change the layout of the unit from today for most people.

Why yes, GW are incompetent. Congratulations on your revelation.

OK, so we're back to acknowledgeding it doesn't matter what they do, neither will be good and it's all just what makes people feel better subjectively. Thank you.

Ok, so we're back to hilarious mental gymnastics to justify whatever gw's direction in the current edition is, as is tradition. Thank you.

Regarding points, it's frustrating to hear people say that GW will never do it right because they actually did.

GW spent most of 8th edition tweaking point costs, and late into the edition they actually achieved a very good balance.

It might not have been absolutely perfect (I'm sure a few things were still off here and there), but it meant that, for example, just about every option on an IG squad was potentially worth taking.

The issue was that GW then proceeded to do what they always do - take everything they've learned and throw it into a furnace before starting the new edition. So, naturally, 9th's point costs bore no resemblance to the carefully-tuned points of late-8th and instead had to be multiples of 5pts.

And then even that low-effort system was itself thrown in the bin when 10th came around.

And that's the problem - ever since GW started doing faster codex, FAQ, Errata and other updates to balance it was a GOOD Step in the right direction.

But the 3 year cycle completely invalidates it. It throws the entire amount of work out the window.

What GW should be doing is a cycle where each new release of codex+rulebook is just an updated edition - all the adjusted points, stats and new models all added into one publication. People would still pay for it (and lets face it they give away the big rulebook in a box of models and its 100% the models that drive sales of edition starter sets). If they did that then all the rest that they've set in place would start to create a really well balanced game system.


However if GW continues with the 3 year cycle then they'll never win because they'll never get a settled system.

Nobody wants a settled system. People were bored with the state of 40k in the fall / post the June balance-slate, not because balance was bad or needed something else, but because it was "settled" and thus stale.

Grotmas & December-balance slate have revived it for the early spring, but it'll need a shake again in April or so, 100%. Settled = dead.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Nobody wants a settled system. People were bored with the state of 40k in the fall / post the June balance-slate, not because balance was bad or needed something else, but because it was "settled" and thus stale.

Grotmas & December-balance slate have revived it for the early spring, but it'll need a shake again in April or so, 100%. Settled = dead.

I don't think I really agree with that at all. If it were true games like Chess would have died out centuries ago.

Also you can "shake up the meta" within a balanced system because you'll never achieve "perfect" balance. However there's a vast difference from a system which aims toward good balance and makes minor adjustments which shake the meta along with new models, new armies and such additions; and a system that just throws itself out the window every 3 years. Heck for many people who play casually (the overwhelming majority) you are just about getting to grips with how the game plays before its all change.

It actually hinders the development of higher skill and deeper learning for many people who aren't able to game very regularly and invest a lot of time into the game.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Nobody wants a settled system.

Citation needed.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
People were bored with the state of 40k in the fall / post the June balance-slate, not because balance was bad or needed something else, but because it was "settled" and thus stale.

Grotmas & December-balance slate have revived it for the early spring, but it'll need a shake again in April or so, 100%. Settled = dead.

If people are bored, I suspect it has more to do with 10th edition having all but deleted the army-building element of the game, annihilated any semblance of flavour, and killed customisation stone-dead. And all of that was done so players could have a game with the tactical depth of a puddle.

It's like looking at a chess board with a massive dog-turd smeared over it, and assuming that the reason people aren't using it is that they must be bored of chess.

Chess is a good example, actually.

If you wanna play peak competitive chess or even innovate new strategies and tactics, you can easily spend 20+ years studying established moves, openings, strategies, counters, etc.. before you even begin to scratch the surface.

On a smaller scale, that is true for miniature wargames that are 1 or 2 or 3 years into an edition. The back-log of "knowledge" you have to climb coming in new is quite daunting. Not getting to Magnus Carlson-levels of chess daunting, but still daunting for a 14-year old buying a box of Marines.

Re-set the edition, you level the playing field again and bring back people that fell off for a couple of months as well as completely new customers again for a fresh start.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Chess is a good example, actually.

If you wanna play peak competitive chess or even innovate new strategies and tactics, you can easily spend 20+ years studying established moves, openings, strategies, counters, etc.. before you even begin to scratch the surface.

On a smaller scale, that is true for miniature wargames that are 1 or 2 or 3 years into an edition. The back-log of "knowledge" you have to climb coming in new is quite daunting. Not getting to Magnus Carlson-levels of chess daunting, but still daunting for a 14-year old buying a box of Marines.

Re-set the edition, you level the playing field again and bring back people that fell off for a couple of months as well as completely new customers again for a fresh start.

I don't agree and I also don't see evidence for this.

If it were true then who plays and who wins at the top end of competitive events would be constantly making huge changes and swings - which honestly it doesn't. People who do well at 7th edition can do well in 8th and 9th and 10th. They swap armies for the new meta (oft secondhand not firsthand profiting GW).

Meanwhile the casual player who was just getting to grips with 7th has to start over and has less to bring forward; plus their once high meta army is now low meta so suddenly they are losing way more with the same skillset.


It actually hinders the casual player getting any deeper into the game and every 3 years they get hit with a brick in the face of a new system that they HAVE to go learn to keep up with the local games. As opposed to having the choice of learning so far and then either going all out for competitive or keeping more casual.


Again you seem to be thinking that shaking everything up makes for a level playing field; when it doesn't. It just confuses the situation and messes things up rather than actually creating a real level playing field.
That 14 yearold can learn all the masters of Chess to play at the top end; or they can keep casual and play local and that's totally fine.


Heck take a look at Magic the Gathering - whilst they introduce new functions and have adjusted things over the years; by and large the rules remain the same. The don't suddenly decide that you'll auto gain mana now and won't tap lands; or remove lands one edition; then bring them back as mana boosters next edition etc.... Now I will agree we can't take that comparison too far because card games (esp in the age of the internet) have their own problems with balance and casual play - so its not "perfection"; however there are clear signs that a very simple, kept the same rules system makes for something you can easily get into and hop in and out of.

You try getting back into 10 th edition when the last one you played was 7th or 5th and so much has changed

While I don't ever want to sit down and read it cover-to-cover, I will give Magic credit for their Big Rulebook of Doom - that thing is so detailed, and I'd be shocked if there were interactions you couldn't resolve with it next to you.

 Dysartes wrote:
While I don't ever want to sit down and read it cover-to-cover, I will give Magic credit for their Big Rulebook of Doom - that thing is so detailed, and I'd be shocked if there were interactions you couldn't resolve with it next to you.

People THOUGHT Marvin, Murderous Mimic had an interaction with Sakashima The Imposter that wasn't resolvable.
It was.

I don't understand why Games Workshop sticks to this "New edition every 3 years" nonsense. It can't be for sales, since they're releasing the core rules and indexes for free online now. Literally all it does is create more work for them and more work for their customers.

8th Edition or 10th Edition should be the last edition for 40k, and then overtime they add more models and make minor/moderate rule changes. That would create a more accessible and more balanced experience than anything else.

Games Workshop should also release codexes online for free as well. Miniatures are their profit-makers, not manuals on how to play the game! It would also make armies more accessible, allows better strategizing since you know what your opponent can play, and less power creep, but I digress.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
...Re-set the edition, you level the playing field again and bring back people that fell off for a couple of months as well as completely new customers again for a fresh start.

Every major shake-up like that is also an opportunity for players to get tired of the constant changes and get off the treadmill (either choosing a forever version to stick with, or jumping to a different game or hobby entirely). This is just as much of a threat for new players as greybeards. Take a hypothetical newbie who hears about the game in mid-edition and falls in love with an army that hasn't had their codex yet. They get told "wait until your codex hits to get into the game", and they do...only for their codex to be invalidated before they can even complete building their army as the next edition hits a few months later (potentially invalidating their army concept or playstyle when their next codex drops as well). Some players will be fine with that, but others will decide that it isn't worth paying GW prices to risk that happening again in another few years.

From a more meta perspective, these constant resets also make it look like GW just doesn't know what they're doing. I've seen this in dying video games before - the devs either don't have a solid idea of what they want the game to be, don't have a solid implementation plan, don't have the competence/resources to pull it off, or some combination thereof and the game devolves into changes for change's sake for a period before fizzling out entirely after a critical mass of players decide to go do something else while waiting for the update that'll "fix the game" (an update that will not, indeed cannot, come). If the game had updates that were consistent improvements rather than wheel-spinning or drastic reworks that didn't actually make things better, there would be some basis for confidence in the devs; lacking clear, consistent improvements, there just isn't much reason to stick around beyond stubbornness or sunk-cost fallacy.

Also, I haven't checked into this, but as I understand it BattleTech has been on the same base edition for quite some time now. It will be difficult to tell what effect that choice may have had on the playerbase (ie, whether they'd have more market share if they did regular edition resets), but given that it's still going we can, at least, say with reasonable certainty that the lack of regular shake-up hasn't killed BT.

Battle Tech is also a great example because right now its going through a boom and what drove the boom?

MODELS. New designs, updated designs and plastics. Ultimately new models and better model access (esp in the UK market) and marketing. All those things have driven its rise.


You can see the same thing with GW - a new edition gives them an excuse and marketing focus; but lets be real most of us are hyper excited for the big box of models. The new Marines and the new other army that get big updates. The free rulebooks flood the market so are almost a loss-leader product.

Sure we have to get a new codex - but most of us were going to spend that hobby money on models anyway so its either a new codex or new models. Either way GW is getting the money.


The "I've got every model I need and just buy books" group are, I suspect, smaller by far in the market and likely not as important for GW's sales targeting. They are customers who are treding water and more important for local promotion/gaming or they are heading out the door and no matter what GW does they are likely going to move on for a while.


For 40 years in the business GW's rules are still a huge problem. Yet every time we've seen them improve their attitude toward rules - such as the fast cycling now so that armies don't reach the end of an edition without a codex update; the faster FAQ and Errata (I recall Tyranids getting an FAQ/Errata for a current edition only a few weeks before the new edition launched...). Every time GW has done that its gone hand in hand with improved sales and popularity.

I think they've done their research and concluded that new edition hype is more profitable than a steady game. They've tried releasing box sets before mid edition haven't they? So it's not like they haven't tested the water to see if people are as likely to buy in that way. Now whether that is sustainable long term is another question and one that too many companies and governments do not really consider over short term success but that is getting off topic I suppose.

Dai2 wrote:
I think they've done their research and concluded that new edition hype is more profitable than a steady game. They've tried releasing box sets before mid edition haven't they? So it's not like they haven't tested the water to see if people are as likely to buy in that way. Now whether that is sustainable long term is another question and one that too many companies and governments do not really consider over short term success but that is getting off topic I suppose.

Honestly I think its less that they've researched it and more that they found something that works and no one wants to upset the boat and change things. Which means the 3 year cycle is hear to stay until the sales drop significantly