JNAProductions wrote: When did 8th release? Five, six years ago now?
There are plenty of people who started 40k in that time period. Some of them stick to PL and modes of play other than Matched, because that's what they enjoy-and it's been with them since the very start of their 40k experience.
Of these players, how many do you think play IG? Because removing PL would affect them 100%, removing IG might very well not.
Removing an entire faction = harms a relatively small number of players in a severe way.
Removing PL = has a trivial effect on a large number of players.
This is not complicated.
You've yet to have a compelling argument for why it should go-"I don't like it," isn't a reason to remove it entirely, it's just a reason to not play with it. "It makes the game worse," just straight up isn't true.
Once again:
* Wasted development time.
* Rules bloat and clutter.
* Needlessly dividing the community into incompatible sides.
* Locking certain content behind either accepting the broken system or convincing people to accept house rules.
* Continued temptation for CAAC elements at GW to make PL the only system.
I've explained very clearly why PL is a bad system and why redundancy should be removed, and "but it saves me a single minute of time" is not a compelling argument when balanced against those things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: It's not just about the list construction point system.
The way you think of units changes after a while.
You don't have to play with the Advanced Rules. But it does make it a very different style of game.
Yes, playing with most of the rules removed is a very different game. But PL has nothing to do with that, PL is purely a different point system that is used in the exact same way as the normal system.
You win the Internet. I'm done with this dumpster fire for real this time.
PL exists whether you like it or not; it'll continue to exist at least until the end of this edition, no matter how aggressively you argue. I'd like to see GW carry on three modes, and alternate game sizes, and I'd hope that both PL and points continue but quite frankly, it was always unlikely that I would buy into another edition, so it's PL for me forever.
Removing an entire faction = harms a relatively small number of players in a severe way.
I'd be pissed, since I'd be one of those players even if I have other factions to play. It happened before though. And in the eyes of GW it might mean that such players would now spend lots of money on new stuff to keep playing.
If GW thinks that a faction is not worthy of their efforts and doesn't sell much, it can definitely go away. Especially if it's part of a larger faction that already involves a dozen or more standalone factions.
Removing an entire faction = harms a relatively small number of players in a severe way.
I'd be pissed, since I'd be one of those players even if I have other factions to play. It happened before though. And in the eyes of GW it might mean that such players would now spend lots of money on new stuff to keep playing.
If GW thinks that a faction is not worthy of their efforts and doesn't sell much, it can definitely go away. Especially if it's part of a larger faction that already involves a dozen or more standalone factions.
Blndmage wrote: It's not just about the list construction point system.
The way you think of units changes after a while.
You don't have to play with the Advanced Rules. But it does make it a very different style of game.
This sounds like something you can't even really quantify. Also PL is the "advanced rules" in the same way that Gir from Invader Zim was "advanced" lol.
Blndmage wrote: It's not just about the list construction point system.
The way you think of units changes after a while.
You don't have to play with the Advanced Rules. But it does make it a very different style of game.
This sounds like something you can't even really quantify. Also PL is the "advanced rules" in the same way that Gir from Invader Zim was "advanced" lol.
I'm not sure I get the reference, I've never see that show.
Blackie wrote: Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .
Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.
I'd be pissed, since I'd be one of those players even if I have other factions to play. It happened before though. And in the eyes of GW it might mean that such players would now spend lots of money on new stuff to keep playing.
If GW thinks that a faction is not worthy of their efforts and doesn't sell much, it can definitely go away. Especially if it's part of a larger faction that already involves a dozen or more standalone factions.
None of that has anything to do with my point though, that removing a faction is not even remotely equivalent to removing PL. Whether or not you think GW would be stupid enough to remove a popular faction it would indisputably be a massive change for the people who currently play/collect that faction. Removing PL would be a negligible effect on the people who currently use it, single digit minutes at most out of a 3-4 hour game.
I don’t actually think gatekeeping has ever kept quality high…
Mostly it creates insulation to improvement and ideas that could be better for the community as a whole.
I even think this issue comes from the 40k community having so many gatekeepers, that GW is reluctant to change things as a group and forcing small changes that cause more damage to the game in the long run.
It’s probably a reason for the rules to be rather manic in improving as a whole.
Not Online!!! wrote: Did you really just blame the community instead of the shoddy poor ruleswriting of a huge cooperation?
....
Ok.
Nope, specifically that gatekeeping and feedback from very insular and specific groups can cause weird responses, how GW views that can be still be shoddy both tied to that, and seperate from that.
Apple fox wrote: Nope, specifically that gatekeeping and feedback from very insular and specific groups can cause weird responses, how GW views that can be still be shoddy both tied to that, and seperate from that.
I'm not sure what that has to do with any of the discussion here? PL isn't broken and redundant because of gatekeeping preventing them from getting feedback.
CadianSgtBob wrote: And when it isn't it's because the point cost is too high for what you get.
Thank you for making the point for me. Yes, a majority of the upgrades are just not worth it. Having them free is often the only way to make them viable in the first place. Which is probably the reason why PL could work in a lot of cases. Not all, mind you, but in a lot of cases.
You are also misreading/misunderstanding the 'Gates' analogy. They represent decreasing probability at each intervention which reduces the overall effectiveness of the item in question - more gates, the lower your probability is. This also does not take into account all the upgrades that are not weapons that almost no one bothers with because they cost precious points.
I don't think people realize how binary upgrade options tend to be in this game due to how the game is designed. You either never take an upgrade or always take an upgrade. Very rarely are there any in-betweens due to the fact that factions vary wildly in their effectiveness towards other factions so the best recourse is to take the best all-around option; making all other options redundant.
Blackie wrote: Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .
Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.
YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.
Blackie wrote: Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .
Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.
YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.
Or we could not accept shoddy rules like Smudge is okay with if it creates a larger playerbase.
Blackie wrote: Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .
Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.
YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.
Or we could not accept shoddy rules like Smudge is okay with if it creates a larger playerbase.
This, if getting a large player base means stripping out rules to appeal to the lowest common denominator, hard pass.
Thinking about it as well, this entire conversation is eerily similar to 3.5e vs 5e of dnd.
Blackie wrote: Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .
Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.
YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.
Or we could not accept shoddy rules like Smudge is okay with if it creates a larger playerbase.
This, if getting a large player base means stripping out rules to appeal to the lowest common denominator, hard pass.
Thinking about it as well, this entire conversation is eerily similar to 3.5e vs 5e of dnd.
Except you're advocating stripping rules out to appeal to a smaller player base. Which is worse.
Not adding anything, not improving anything, just taking stuff out to make people leave.
Blackie wrote: Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .
Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.
YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.
Or we could not accept shoddy rules like Smudge is okay with if it creates a larger playerbase.
This, if getting a large player base means stripping out rules to appeal to the lowest common denominator, hard pass.
Thinking about it as well, this entire conversation is eerily similar to 3.5e vs 5e of dnd.
In what way is it similar? I legitimately am not sure what you mean by that.
Im with you on no removing power level just because its not like its supported any way, GW just tosses them out there then never addresses them. So really i dont see any positive or negative to removing them.
However i dont think GW should waste time on it simply because its such a small small group that uses it and it does not really need much dev time.
If it was removed i dont think the community as a whole would really suffer for it. Those who use points would not even bat and eye. Those who use PL, would either start using pl or just stop playing which, is such a small group again, the community would not be effected.
Blackie wrote: Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .
Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.
YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.
Or we could not accept shoddy rules like Smudge is okay with if it creates a larger playerbase.
This, if getting a large player base means stripping out rules to appeal to the lowest common denominator, hard pass.
Thinking about it as well, this entire conversation is eerily similar to 3.5e vs 5e of dnd.
In what way is it similar? I legitimately am not sure what you mean by that.
The debate over which is the better version and the way DnD should be played 3.5e having more detailed and defined rules and more granularity to it, vs a more simplified streamlined version of DND 5e.
5E is much more intuitive and assumes a higher baseline level of competency from the characters, and helps get into the actual game bit a lot faster than 3.5.
3.5 has a much greater depth of character building, and has more solid answers for questions that might arise during gameplay. (Sometimes the answers are stupid, but usually with enough research, you can find an at-least somewhat conclusive answer.)
Some people prefer 3.5. Some people prefer 5E. And neither side is wrong.
Backspacehacker wrote: Yeah and i just think that the argument here is very similar to that, people going back and forth over which version of the game they think is better.
Personally i think 3.5e is better just like the point system in 40k, does not mean i think PL or 5th ed should be axed because of it.
See, I prefer points in 40k, but 5E to 3.5.
It's not the complexity, it's the competence of a 5E character. In 5E, your 15 Strength Cleric can Grapple, Shove, and Knock Prone without any penalties. They might not be AMAZING at it, though with proficiency in Athletics, you'll do okay. But you're not penalized for trying it.
In 3.5, you'd need Improved Unarmed Strike (to take the next feat), Improved Grapple; Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush; and Combat Expertise, Improved Trip to achieve the same thing. That's 6 feats, when a non-human Cleric only gets 7! You'd be level 15 by the time you can do all that without taking an Attack Of Opportunity just for trying.
Blackie wrote: Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .
Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.
YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.
Or we could not accept shoddy rules like Smudge is okay with if it creates a larger playerbase.
This, if getting a large player base means stripping out rules to appeal to the lowest common denominator, hard pass.
Thinking about it as well, this entire conversation is eerily similar to 3.5e vs 5e of dnd.
Except you're advocating stripping rules out to appeal to a smaller player base. Which is worse.
Not adding anything, not improving anything, just taking stuff out to make people leave.
Literally nothing of value is lost if PL goes away.
ANd see for me, i enjoy that level of granularity just like points in 40k, and just like the older rules of 3rd -7th im in that boat of thats more enjoyable for me.
What i hope will happen, and i could See GW doing this IF, and this is a big big if here, if they were smart they would.
They are poised at a very good cross roads to that as well, they could move 40k into that direction of a streamlined rule set, while taking HH, and brining it forward into the scouring and or the 35th millennia era to introduce a few xeno races and utilize those older rule sets to capture both the 3.5e and 5e kinda crowd.
Right now those two groups as we have seen in this thread are basically battling each other for space, when GW could if they were smart enough make a space for both.
Blackie wrote: Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .
Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.
YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.
Or we could not accept shoddy rules like Smudge is okay with if it creates a larger playerbase.
This, if getting a large player base means stripping out rules to appeal to the lowest common denominator, hard pass.
Thinking about it as well, this entire conversation is eerily similar to 3.5e vs 5e of dnd.
Except you're advocating stripping rules out to appeal to a smaller player base. Which is worse.
Not adding anything, not improving anything, just taking stuff out to make people leave.
Literally nothing of value is lost if PL goes away.
Nothing of value to you.
Other people find value in it. Try understanding that.
Blackie wrote: Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .
Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.
YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.
Or we could not accept shoddy rules like Smudge is okay with if it creates a larger playerbase.
This, if getting a large player base means stripping out rules to appeal to the lowest common denominator, hard pass.
Thinking about it as well, this entire conversation is eerily similar to 3.5e vs 5e of dnd.
Except you're advocating stripping rules out to appeal to a smaller player base. Which is worse.
Not adding anything, not improving anything, just taking stuff out to make people leave.
Literally nothing of value is lost if PL goes away.
Apart from players and options. So yes, something is lost, nothing is gained by taking it out.
Blackie wrote: Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .
Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.
YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.
Or we could not accept shoddy rules like Smudge is okay with if it creates a larger playerbase.
This, if getting a large player base means stripping out rules to appeal to the lowest common denominator, hard pass.
Thinking about it as well, this entire conversation is eerily similar to 3.5e vs 5e of dnd.
Except you're advocating stripping rules out to appeal to a smaller player base. Which is worse.
Not adding anything, not improving anything, just taking stuff out to make people leave.
Literally nothing of value is lost if PL goes away.
Apart from players and options. So yes, something is lost, nothing is gained by taking it out.
The system more broken than the points that you malign to begin with is a fain itself, since even a minute spent on developing PL was far too much for the concept anyway.
Blackie wrote: Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .
Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.
YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.
Or we could not accept shoddy rules like Smudge is okay with if it creates a larger playerbase.
This, if getting a large player base means stripping out rules to appeal to the lowest common denominator, hard pass.
Thinking about it as well, this entire conversation is eerily similar to 3.5e vs 5e of dnd.
Except you're advocating stripping rules out to appeal to a smaller player base. Which is worse.
Not adding anything, not improving anything, just taking stuff out to make people leave.
Literally nothing of value is lost if PL goes away.
Nothing of value to you.
Other people find value in it. Try understanding that.
Other people found value in Battle Demi-Company and War Convocation. Guess how little I care those were removed?
Battle Demi Company and War Convocation could and would make games significantly worse for the opponent.
PL is an alternate system you don’t have to use-it doesn’t affect you unless you let it.
JNAProductions wrote: Battle Demi Company and War Convocation could and would make games significantly worse for the opponent.
PL is an alternate system you don’t have to use-it doesn’t affect you unless you let it.
To be the devils advocate here, you can make the reverse argument as well. you dont HAVE to use the demi battle company or the war convocation. PL if you use it can make it signifigently worse for your oponent if you are going out of your way to abuse the PL system and exploit things like summoning and or getting crazy amount of free war gear.
Which boils down to, crappy players are going to make for a crappy experience.
JNAProductions wrote: Battle Demi Company and War Convocation could and would make games significantly worse for the opponent.
PL is an alternate system you don’t have to use-it doesn’t affect you unless you let it.
To be the devils advocate here, you can make the reverse argument as well. you dont HAVE to use the demi battle company or the war convocation. PL if you use it can make it signifigently worse for your oponent if you are going out of your way to abuse the PL system and exploit things like summoning and or getting crazy amount of free war gear.
Which boils down to, crappy players are going to make for a crappy experience.
The difference is, those formations were not in a separate category. They were right there in standard games alongside things like Ork formations, which pretty much all sucked.
If you don't want to play PL, you can just play points. It's separate.
I dont wanna be argumentative with you, but how are they not separate categories? You have to make a conscious choice to use that battle demi company just like you have to use one to use PL.
If you dont wanna play with a battle demi company, you just dont use it.
Backspacehacker wrote: I dont wanna be argumentative with you, but how are they not separate categories? You have to make a conscious choice to use that battle demi company just like you have to use one to use PL.
If you dont wanna play with a battle demi company, you just dont use it.
If you play with points, your opponent plays with points. If you play PL, so does your opponent. I don't think I've ever seen anyone play a points vs. PL game.
If you played without formations in 7th edition, nothing stopped your OPPONENT from using some-from the terrible Ork ones to the brokenly good ones.
Blackie wrote: Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .
Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.
YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.
Or we could not accept shoddy rules like Smudge is okay with if it creates a larger playerbase.
This, if getting a large player base means stripping out rules to appeal to the lowest common denominator, hard pass.
Thinking about it as well, this entire conversation is eerily similar to 3.5e vs 5e of dnd.
Except you're advocating stripping rules out to appeal to a smaller player base. Which is worse.
Not adding anything, not improving anything, just taking stuff out to make people leave.
Literally nothing of value is lost if PL goes away.
Apart from players and options. So yes, something is lost, nothing is gained by taking it out.
The system more broken than the points that you malign to begin with is a fain itself, since even a minute spent on developing PL was far too much for the concept anyway.
Blackie wrote: Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .
Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.
YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.
Or we could not accept shoddy rules like Smudge is okay with if it creates a larger playerbase.
This, if getting a large player base means stripping out rules to appeal to the lowest common denominator, hard pass.
Thinking about it as well, this entire conversation is eerily similar to 3.5e vs 5e of dnd.
Except you're advocating stripping rules out to appeal to a smaller player base. Which is worse.
Not adding anything, not improving anything, just taking stuff out to make people leave.
Literally nothing of value is lost if PL goes away.
Nothing of value to you.
Other people find value in it. Try understanding that.
Other people found value in Battle Demi-Company and War Convocation. Guess how little I care those were removed?
I'm going to need citation for how long they spent on PL as a concept and what you think they should have used the time to do in its absence please.
Blackie wrote: Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .
Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.
YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.
Or we could not accept shoddy rules like Smudge is okay with if it creates a larger playerbase.
This, if getting a large player base means stripping out rules to appeal to the lowest common denominator, hard pass.
Thinking about it as well, this entire conversation is eerily similar to 3.5e vs 5e of dnd.
Except you're advocating stripping rules out to appeal to a smaller player base. Which is worse.
Not adding anything, not improving anything, just taking stuff out to make people leave.
Literally nothing of value is lost if PL goes away.
Apart from players and options. So yes, something is lost, nothing is gained by taking it out.
The system more broken than the points that you malign to begin with is a fain itself, since even a minute spent on developing PL was far too much for the concept anyway.
Blackie wrote: Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .
Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.
YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.
Or we could not accept shoddy rules like Smudge is okay with if it creates a larger playerbase.
This, if getting a large player base means stripping out rules to appeal to the lowest common denominator, hard pass.
Thinking about it as well, this entire conversation is eerily similar to 3.5e vs 5e of dnd.
Except you're advocating stripping rules out to appeal to a smaller player base. Which is worse.
Not adding anything, not improving anything, just taking stuff out to make people leave.
Literally nothing of value is lost if PL goes away.
Nothing of value to you.
Other people find value in it. Try understanding that.
Other people found value in Battle Demi-Company and War Convocation. Guess how little I care those were removed?
I'm going to need citation for how long they spent on PL as a concept and what you think they should have used the time to do in its absence please.
Probably relax and grab lunch. Seems about the amount of time spent on it based on the effort and end result.
Blackie wrote: Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .
Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.
YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.
Or we could not accept shoddy rules like Smudge is okay with if it creates a larger playerbase.
This, if getting a large player base means stripping out rules to appeal to the lowest common denominator, hard pass.
Thinking about it as well, this entire conversation is eerily similar to 3.5e vs 5e of dnd.
Except you're advocating stripping rules out to appeal to a smaller player base. Which is worse.
Not adding anything, not improving anything, just taking stuff out to make people leave.
Literally nothing of value is lost if PL goes away.
Apart from players and options. So yes, something is lost, nothing is gained by taking it out.
The system more broken than the points that you malign to begin with is a fain itself, since even a minute spent on developing PL was far too much for the concept anyway.
Blackie wrote: Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .
Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.
YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.
Or we could not accept shoddy rules like Smudge is okay with if it creates a larger playerbase.
This, if getting a large player base means stripping out rules to appeal to the lowest common denominator, hard pass.
Thinking about it as well, this entire conversation is eerily similar to 3.5e vs 5e of dnd.
Except you're advocating stripping rules out to appeal to a smaller player base. Which is worse.
Not adding anything, not improving anything, just taking stuff out to make people leave.
Literally nothing of value is lost if PL goes away.
Nothing of value to you.
Other people find value in it. Try understanding that.
Other people found value in Battle Demi-Company and War Convocation. Guess how little I care those were removed?
I'm going to need citation for how long they spent on PL as a concept and what you think they should have used the time to do in its absence please.
Probably relax and grab lunch. Seems about the amount of time spent on it based on the effort and end result.
So... remind me, how would removing it benefit the game if they spent 0 time on it to begin with?
JNAProductions wrote: Battle Demi Company and War Convocation could and would make games significantly worse for the opponent.
PL is an alternate system you don’t have to use-it doesn’t affect you unless you let it.
To be the devils advocate here, you can make the reverse argument as well. you dont HAVE to use the demi battle company or the war convocation. PL if you use it can make it signifigently worse for your oponent if you are going out of your way to abuse the PL system and exploit things like summoning and or getting crazy amount of free war gear.
Which boils down to, crappy players are going to make for a crappy experience.
The difference is, those formations were not in a separate category. They were right there in standard games alongside things like Ork formations, which pretty much all sucked.
If you don't want to play PL, you can just play points. It's separate.
And if someone wants to play with their broke formations you didn't have to play against them either and find a different opponent.
That doesn't mean they're well written. Almost like free upgrades and models is a bad concept to begin with...
Blackie wrote: Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .
Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.
YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.
Or we could not accept shoddy rules like Smudge is okay with if it creates a larger playerbase.
This, if getting a large player base means stripping out rules to appeal to the lowest common denominator, hard pass.
Thinking about it as well, this entire conversation is eerily similar to 3.5e vs 5e of dnd.
Except you're advocating stripping rules out to appeal to a smaller player base. Which is worse.
Not adding anything, not improving anything, just taking stuff out to make people leave.
Literally nothing of value is lost if PL goes away.
Apart from players and options. So yes, something is lost, nothing is gained by taking it out.
The system more broken than the points that you malign to begin with is a fain itself, since even a minute spent on developing PL was far too much for the concept anyway.
Blackie wrote: Lower your standards to avoid being gatekeeping .
Or not. Gatekeeping is good when it keeps the quality high, I'd rather have a small community with fully painted armies than a large community with a bunch of gray hordes.
YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.
Or we could not accept shoddy rules like Smudge is okay with if it creates a larger playerbase.
This, if getting a large player base means stripping out rules to appeal to the lowest common denominator, hard pass.
Thinking about it as well, this entire conversation is eerily similar to 3.5e vs 5e of dnd.
Except you're advocating stripping rules out to appeal to a smaller player base. Which is worse.
Not adding anything, not improving anything, just taking stuff out to make people leave.
Literally nothing of value is lost if PL goes away.
Nothing of value to you.
Other people find value in it. Try understanding that.
Other people found value in Battle Demi-Company and War Convocation. Guess how little I care those were removed?
I'm going to need citation for how long they spent on PL as a concept and what you think they should have used the time to do in its absence please.
Probably relax and grab lunch. Seems about the amount of time spent on it based on the effort and end result.
So... remind me, how would removing it benefit the game if they spent 0 time on it to begin with?
It's an eyesore and I'd rather 5 minutes to remove it to make up for the minute spent making it. It has no purpose. Just because something was "added" doesn't mean it adds value.
Dudeface wrote: YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.
Oh look, another PL advocate being a condescending ass and not understanding the difference between gatekeeping out unpainted armies and opposition to PL being about gatekeeping. So much for that whole "PL players are more polite" thing.
Dudeface wrote: YOU DID IT! You FINALLY admitted to being a gatekeeper who puts their own wants ahead of others, it just took a slight change of course. You can go to therapy now, you've taken the first step.
Oh look, another PL advocate being a condescending ass and not understanding the difference between gatekeeping out unpainted armies and opposition to PL being about gatekeeping. So much for that whole "PL players are more polite" thing.
I am more polite, I haven't been telling people I want to take their fun away and gatekeep people's armies.
Lolwut. No. 3.5e was not a good game in any way. It was a bloated mess that makes 40k look elegant, 99% of the content could have been deleted without losing anything of value and the remaining 1% was an equal split between normal basic classes and "after pulling obscure items from 16 different books my level 1 character is a literal god". And compared to the horrific balance issues between spellcasters and any non-spellcaster class 40k is a paragon of balance and out of the box playability.
Not that I really expect you to understand this, as you still don't understand why removing pointless bloat in 40k is a good thing even if you don't use a particular piece of bloat.
Dudeface wrote: I am more polite, I haven't been telling people I want to take their fun away and gatekeep people's armies.
Telling people they need to go to therapy for not wanting to include unpainted armies is being a condescending donkey-cave. But feel free to keep digging that hole even deeper and prove that, once you finally exhaust the inane arguments about "BUT I SAVE ONE MINUTE OF TIME" PL advocates have nothing but petty insults and whining about not being included.
JNAProductions wrote: And the people in this very thread who say it adds value to them… what are they?
People that, when they move back to points, realize how much of a mess PL as a concept and execution is. .
They cam talk about quitting all they want, but if they're willing to stick through PL something tells me they'd continue regardless.
JNAProductions wrote: And the people in this very thread who say it adds value to them… what are they?
People that, when they move back to points, realize how much of a mess PL as a concept and execution is. .
They cam talk about quitting all they want, but if they're willing to stick through PL something tells me they'd continue regardless.
So you know them better than they know themselves?
Don’t you think that’s pretty arrogant?
Eldarsif wrote: hank you for making the point for me. Yes, a majority of the upgrades are just not worth it. Having them free is often the only way to make them viable in the first place. Which is probably the reason why PL could work in a lot of cases. Not all, mind you, but in a lot of cases.
A lot of upgrades are not worth it at their current prices. There are very few upgrades where the fair price is zero points, and in the rare case where you have an upgrade with a fair price of zero points you have nobody interested in taking it because it also has zero value. The only upgrades that have a fair price of zero points are things like "upgrading" a model's basic melee attacks AP -1 when that model already has an AP -3 power sword.
You are also misreading/misunderstanding the 'Gates' analogy. They represent decreasing probability at each intervention which reduces the overall effectiveness of the item in question - more gates, the lower your probability is. This also does not take into account all the upgrades that are not weapons that almost no one bothers with because they cost precious points.
No, I understand it perfectly. Unlike you I also understand that it spends a lot of words to say absolutely nothing. All weapons have to go through the same gate sequence and the analogy ignores the immense difference from changing your probability of success at each gate. It's purely an argument for people who don't understand statistics beyond "it feels bad when I roll a 1 for my upgrade". And it certainly doesn't say anything about upgrades not being worth taking.
I don't think people realize how binary upgrade options tend to be in this game due to how the game is designed. You either never take an upgrade or always take an upgrade. Very rarely are there any in-betweens due to the fact that factions vary wildly in their effectiveness towards other factions so the best recourse is to take the best all-around option; making all other options redundant.
Nope. I've seen plenty of heated debates over which upgrade to take. The only reason you don't see more of them is that because GW sucks at balance there's usually one obvious correct choice. But if you hate that situation you should hate PL, since PL making all upgrades cost zero points inevitably results in there being one obvious choice for everything. You don't debate over paying points for a plasma pistol, the pistol is a mandatory upgrade because it's strictly better than the alternative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: 3.5 is a mess, no doubts there.
But a hell of a lot of people enjoy it to this day-that’s good when you’ve got a game where the point is to have fun.
I am skeptical that anyone genuinely enjoys 3.5e (or even Pathfinder, which is 3.5e but better). I'm sure there are people who enjoy 3.5e games despite 3.5e being a bad system, for system-independent reasons like having a great DM or memorable characters or whatever. But if you take away the fear of change that makes people cling to bad rules the vast majority of them would enjoy 5e more.
Hey, kind of like PL vs points! People claim to "need" PL because they're afraid of losing their symbol of casual play, but in reality the downsides are negligible and they'd have no issues using the normal point system instead.
Dudeface wrote: I am more polite, I haven't been telling people I want to take their fun away and gatekeep people's armies.
Telling people they need to go to therapy for not wanting to include unpainted armies is being a condescending donkey-cave. But feel free to keep digging that hole even deeper and prove that, once you finally exhaust the inane arguments about "BUT I SAVE ONE MINUTE OF TIME" PL advocates have nothing but petty insults and whining about not being included.
PL is an alternate system you don’t have to use-it doesn’t affect you unless you let it.
One word: Crusade. PL absolutely affects me despite not wanting to use it.
Almost like I was being an asshat in response to your arrogance. I don't really care about 'winning' the argument whether it's fair to take away something people want. You evidently aren't bothered about other people's opinions, despite being hurt by mine seemingly.
Dudeface wrote: Almost like I was being an asshat in response to your arrogance. I don't really care about 'winning' the argument whether it's fair to take away something people want. You evidently aren't bothered about other people's opinions, despite being hurt by mine seemingly.
I'm not hurt by you, I've been called way worse things before and I'd say much worse things about you if I didn't care about getting banned for it. I'm just pointing out the laughably wrong claims by certain PL advocates that their side is always polite and reasonable and it's only "extremists" like me that are saying anything bad. But please do keep adding evidence to the pile.
Dudeface wrote: Almost like I was being an asshat in response to your arrogance. I don't really care about 'winning' the argument whether it's fair to take away something people want. You evidently aren't bothered about other people's opinions, despite being hurt by mine seemingly.
I'm not hurt by you, I've been called way worse things before and I'd say much worse things about you if I didn't care about getting banned for it. I'm just pointing out the laughably wrong claims by certain PL advocates that their side is always polite and reasonable and it's only "extremists" like me that are saying anything bad. But please do keep adding evidence to the pile.
Yes, because I singularly speak for all the users of PL.
Edit: to the point, we can be escalating bigger arseholes and neither of us will lose any sleep, but I feel that's the point by now isn't it? You need to justify yourself and 'win' this petty bs argument at this stage.
It's not even grounded in any fact, rumour or anything, you're literally dieing on a hill to piss people off.
I'll give EviscerationPlague a pass, they seem to be a troll account existing purely to spout negative anti corporation drivel with every post, you seem like a competent and intellectual person, but that in turn worries me further that you're incapable of just letting people (conceptually) do what they like without needing a "justification". Plenty of stuff in life exists because people like it with no justification other than its their preference, or we'd only have 1 brand for every food source etc.
Either way, I'll stop dirtying my PL using forum associates with my blunt decorum and duck out for 2 pages for the cycle to repeat again.
JNAProductions wrote: And the people in this very thread who say it adds value to them… what are they?
People that, when they move back to points, realize how much of a mess PL as a concept and execution is. .
They cam talk about quitting all they want, but if they're willing to stick through PL something tells me they'd continue regardless.
So you know them better than they know themselves?
Don’t you think that’s pretty arrogant?
If they don't care about balance they won't care about following points strictly, so the claim of "players will quit if PL goes away" is not one i buy seriously nor care about. At least points will give them a slightly closer game.
Anybody insisting PL stays because it adds value is the same type of person that will find mental gymnastics to somehow say that free models and wargear from Battle Demi-Company and War Convocation bad, but free models and wargear from PL good. It's ridiculous.
Dudeface wrote: Almost like I was being an asshat in response to your arrogance. I don't really care about 'winning' the argument whether it's fair to take away something people want. You evidently aren't bothered about other people's opinions, despite being hurt by mine seemingly.
I'm not hurt by you, I've been called way worse things before and I'd say much worse things about you if I didn't care about getting banned for it. I'm just pointing out the laughably wrong claims by certain PL advocates that their side is always polite and reasonable and it's only "extremists" like me that are saying anything bad. But please do keep adding evidence to the pile.
Yes, because I singularly speak for all the users of PL.
Edit: to the point, we can be escalating bigger arseholes and neither of us will lose any sleep, but I feel that's the point by now isn't it? You need to justify yourself and 'win' this petty bs argument at this stage.
It's not even grounded in any fact, rumour or anything, you're literally dieing on a hill to piss people off.
I'll give EviscerationPlague a pass, they seem to be a troll account existing purely to spout negative anti corporation drivel with every post, you seem like a competent and intellectual person, but that in turn worries me further that you're incapable of just letting people (conceptually) do what they like without needing a "justification". Plenty of stuff in life exists because people like it with no justification other than its their preference, or we'd only have 1 brand for every food source etc.
Either way, I'll stop dirtying my PL using forum associates with my blunt decorum and duck out for 2 pages for the cycle to repeat again.
I'm sorry that you can't comprehend free models and wargear is bad. That doesn't make me a troll, that makes you ignorant in how Formations and PL are bad.
Blackie wrote: I like the idea of preconstructed lists, I actually think competitive gaming should only work that way. So that players really win on luck and decisions rather than having a better list.
It's cute that you think preconstructed lists would automatically leave everything up to player skill. Some factions are capable of building a lot stronger list. GW is incapable of balancing things. I guarantee you would see 3-4 factions being spammed by all the best players and turning into rock/paper/scissors matchups. Mtg uses preconstructed lists only as something for new players to buy and be able to play with a coherent deck right away. They aren't used for tournaments or any kind of competitive gaming at all. The most they will do is challenges in Arena, the online version, where if you win 7 games before getting 3 losses with a precon deck, you get some skins.
And the fact that competitive gamers see list building as a bigger skill than the actual game. GW in turn oblige with all these nonsense chapter apaproved pamphlets and points updates.
So when I say that my group of 40k players would stop gaming if we switched to Matched Play, points updates, and the book treadmill, which they hate, why do you just casually dismiss my statement?
Blndmage wrote: So when I say that my group of 40k players would stop gaming if we switched to Matched Play, points updates, and the book treadmill, which they hate, why do you just casually dismiss my statement?
Oh they'd still play. 40k is too expensive to begin with, so they're going to continue (in which they'll realize that PL is junk in concept and execution). If not, I'd argue they really weren't invested in the game to begin with.
So... remind me, how would removing it benefit the game if they spent 0 time on it to begin with?
The problem is that it's intertwined with the Crusade rules, as well as some Stratagems and abilities (mostly ones that let you set up your units in a location other than the battlefield.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: And the people in this very thread who say it adds value to them… what are they?
A lot of them have bad values, chief among them a lack of a growth mindset.
Blndmage wrote: So when I say that my group of 40k players would stop gaming if we switched to Matched Play, points updates, and the book treadmill, which they hate, why do you just casually dismiss my statement?
Because if taking a single extra minute to make a list for a 3-4 hour game or not having the Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™ Game™ Mode™ label results in you quitting you weren't really invested in the first place and you're all probably going to quit soon anyway. The point system would just be the particular excuse you used to get over the sunk cost fallacy and justify quitting a game you already hate.
And because I doubt your assessment is accurate. By your own admission most of these people have only seen those things used in a store (and your local stores are unimaginably toxic), they haven't actually played the game with the normal point system, matched play updates, etc. Your speculation that they'd all quit is just that: speculation. My alternative speculation is that most of them would grumble a bit at first but keep playing once they realized that your fearmongering about how difficult normal points and matched play are is false and there is no meaningful increase in difficulty.
I've tried running games with Matched Play, points, terrain rules, etc, and they simply don't like it, they don't enjoy that style of play. They really don't.
Points and especially Matched Play means keeping up with EVERYTHING, and they just don't want to devote that much time and energy to the game.
They enjoy the Open Play games we run. They are casual players. They enjoy the lore, but unless the gameplay is really straightforward, they aren't very in interested in the more complex version of the game.
Blndmage wrote: I've tried running games with Matched Play, points, terrain rules, etc, and they simply don't like it, they don't enjoy that style of play. They really don't.
Have you genuinely tried it, without any influence from the fact that you dislike those things? Or have you presented it as "these rules are really hard but I guess we could use them"? Because I really doubt points based list construction with upgrade costs is a line that can not be crossed for people who are perfectly content to use the exact same points based list construction system as long as upgrade costs are all zero.
They enjoy the lore, but unless the gameplay is really straightforward, they are very in interested in the more complex version of the game.
Honest question: why play 40k at all? If the goal is a simple and shallow game with no terrain, no objectives, just line up and roll dice until one side runs out of dice to roll why not play a different game that is designed to work like that? It really seems like you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole because you have a weird commitment to playing Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™.
CadianSgtBob wrote: I am skeptical that anyone genuinely enjoys 3.5e (or even Pathfinder, which is 3.5e but better). I'm sure there are people who enjoy 3.5e games despite 3.5e being a bad system, for system-independent reasons like having a great DM or memorable characters or whatever. But if you take away the fear of change that makes people cling to bad rules the vast majority of them would enjoy 5e more.
I enjoy 3.X because the rules for monsters and player characters are more or less the same and it's very easy to get under the hood and tinker with things along those lines. I don't care about balance in TTRPGs though, it's not a competitive endeavor.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: So when I say that my group of 40k players would stop gaming if we switched to Matched Play, points updates, and the book treadmill, which they hate, why do you just casually dismiss my statement?
Blndmage wrote: I've tried running games with Matched Play, points, terrain rules, etc, and they simply don't like it, they don't enjoy that style of play. They really don't.
Have you genuinely tried it, without any influence from the fact that you dislike those things? Or have you presented it as "these rules are really hard but I guess we could use them"? Because I really doubt points based list construction with upgrade costs is a line that can not be crossed for people who are perfectly content to use the exact same points based list construction system as long as upgrade costs are all zero.
They enjoy the lore, but unless the gameplay is really straightforward, they are very in interested in the more complex version of the game.
Honest question: why play 40k at all? If the goal is a simple and shallow game with no terrain, no objectives, just line up and roll dice until one side runs out of dice to roll why not play a different game that is designed to work like that? It really seems like you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole because you have a weird commitment to playing Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™.
I've been playing since 4th, I'm not a stranger to points and will play it if that's what friends want when they come to visit and we play a big (750 points) game. I wind up having to spend day learning the current Matched Play rules, ie the current GT season. I literally need a solid week to prep for that. Do I enjoy the game itself when we play? Yes,ish. I find them far more taxing to play, even if I'm truly enjoying the game. Have my family watched theses bigger games? Yes. Have they tried the same thing with said friend? Yes, that's how they know they don't like it.
You keep zooming in on just the point vs pl time limits when I'm trying to explain that playing with points brings along a lot of baggage
I, and my playgroup, prefer the simpler version of the game that GW has provided us. I shouldn't have to defend that every single time I talk about playing. We're not playing some house ruled quagmire. We do play on standard size boards at times, energy and time permitting.
If any of them ask for a bigger (14-25PL) game, on the Combat Patrol size board, we make time for it, but we still don't use the Advanced Rules. This version of the game is valid and enjoyable. Games are quicker.
I'd consider myself a "beer and pretzels" 40k player. It's a social game. In the same way folks have boardgame nights. GW has given me a version of the game I can play, I can still use my models. Ya, without CPs and Stratagems some units feel weird, but I'd rather add in Theaters of War, than add the complexity of BATTLEFORGED, CPs, detachments, Strats, etc.
The key thing here is that I'm playing the game. The books plainly offer it as a style of play by putting the rest behind the Advanced Rules. Why do you keep invalidating the way we play the game when it's a perfectly valid version that takes nothing away from you?
Blndmage wrote: So when I say that my group of 40k players would stop gaming if we switched to Matched Play, points updates, and the book treadmill, which they hate, why do you just casually dismiss my statement?
Because we don't believe you.
Why?
Why would I lie?
This forum isn't for just competitive formats. It's not like I'm talking about this on r/WarhammerCompetitive.
Why do I get so much gak from people when I'm playing a version of the game that actually exists and my playgroup (which, again, includes kids, folks on the spectrum, other neurodivergent folks, those categories overlap at times) enjoys and prefers it?
Blndmage wrote: So when I say that my group of 40k players would stop gaming if we switched to Matched Play, points updates, and the book treadmill, which they hate, why do you just casually dismiss my statement?
Because from the perspective of the company, people running local gaming stores, and the wider playerbase that plays in events at these stores, your statement is irrelevant. If you guys aren't buying the new rulebooks, why would anyone in the above groups care what you think? If people like you become the majority, the company needs to shift their focus and strategy or they start seeing a decline in sales. You saw this play out with 6th through 8th. People hated 6th so much that it was the shortest edition ever. 7th was basically just 6.2 so people still hated it, sales dropped, stock price dropped, CEO and a couple board members were forced out and the company went a different direction with 8th. Judging from what we know of their sales, along with tournament attendance and my own anecdotal experience at FLGS stores around the Eastern half of the US, the majority of players are currently happy with the game changing to a more competitive format. That's why you see GW further engaging these people and leaning in that direction.
Why does switching from Power Level mean immediately jumping to the highest investment level of 40k? Why do you need to abandon how you play if Power Level is dropped?
I don't advocate for its removal, but it's not like someone will be forcing you to play the most advanced parts of 40k just because most numbers have an extra 0.
In addition, dropping Power Level means nothing for the Matched Play Only crowd. I don't see why anyone would advocate for the removal of such a small part of the game that costs almost no development time and only benefits people, even if at just in a minor amount.
Blndmage wrote: So when I say that my group of 40k players would stop gaming if we switched to Matched Play, points updates, and the book treadmill, which they hate, why do you just casually dismiss my statement?
Because from the perspective of the company, people running local gaming stores, and the wider playerbase that plays in events at these stores, your statement is irrelevant. If you guys aren't buying the new rulebooks, why would anyone in the above groups care what you think? If people like you become the majority, the company needs to shift their focus and strategy or they start seeing a decline in sales. You saw this play out with 6th through 8th. People hated 6th so much that it was the shortest edition ever. 7th was basically just 6.2 so people still hated it, sales dropped, stock price dropped, CEO and a couple board members were forced out and the company went a different direction with 8th. Judging from what we know of their sales, along with tournament attendance and my own anecdotal experience at FLGS stores around the Eastern half of the US, the majority of players are currently happy with the game changing to a more competitive format. That's why you see GW further engaging these people and leaning in that direction.
While a gross simplification of the issues and stock price drops of GW and the issues within the company during 7th ed, your point is more or less correct.
The company is beholden to share holders for better or for worse.
Blndmage wrote: Ok, well I guess I'll just stop trying to talk about the game on dakka then. Or anywhere.
Or just understand that while your brand of fun, is no more invalid then anyone else, your brand is seen as the dragged along component of the game that is just there because GW has not really removed it yet.
If you wanna rock PL, i mean by all means rock PL, just realize that you are playing with borrowed time as you are the vast minority of players who play the game that way. Enjoy it while you can but dont be shocked when its gone.
Blndmage wrote: I literally need a solid week to prep for that.
But why? If you don't use the missions (which are far from essential) the point update is just a simple pdf swap to use the current pdf and the rule changes are a total of 1-2 paragraphs for your faction. You aren't optimizing every tiny fraction of a percentage of win probability from a hardcore tournament list so it's not like you're going to be spending dozens of hours re-calculating every unit's point efficiency to within five significant figures.
Have they tried the same thing with said friend? Yes, that's how they know they don't like it.
Ok. In your original description you had said that they had seen the game played, not played it themselves.
You keep zooming in on just the point vs pl time limits when I'm trying to explain that playing with points brings along a lot of baggage
Why? Is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use the 0-2 aircraft limit and current GT 2022 mission pack if you use the normal point system?
I shouldn't have to defend that every single time I talk about playing.
You don't. Let me once again remind you that you are in a thread explicitly for discussing normal points vs. PL that started with a premise of "what if GW removed one of the systems". You can complain about this if you post a PL list in the list forum and get people demanding justification for your use of PL, but outside of that if you don't like defending your positions you're free to not participate in this clearly labeled discussion.
Why do you keep invalidating the way we play the game when it's a perfectly valid version that takes nothing away from you?
Because GW wasting space declaring your games Official™ 40k™ Games™ adds nothing of value to anyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheBestBucketHead wrote: I don't see why anyone would advocate for the removal of such a small part of the game that costs almost no development time and only benefits people, even if at just in a minor amount.
Because elegance is a game design principle and redundant rules should be removed.
Because needlessly dividing the game and community into different factions is bad.
Because avoiding PL entirely requires convincing people to agree to house rules.
Because the continued existence of PL is temptation for the CAAC faction at GW to try again to make it the default or even only system.
And because even a small amount of development time is a high price to pay for something that adds next to no value for even its most passionate defenders.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: Ok, well I guess I'll just stop trying to talk about the game on dakka then. Or anywhere.
Or, you know, don't post in a thread clearly labeled as a "what if GW removed one of the point systems" debate if you don't want to debate the removal of a point system. Nobody is following you around everywhere and demanding justifications for your preferences in other threads when they aren't relevant to the topic.
Blndmage wrote: I literally need a solid week to prep for that.
But why? If you don't use the missions (which are far from essential) the point update is just a simple pdf swap to use the current pdf and the rule changes are a total of 1-2 paragraphs for your faction. You aren't optimizing every tiny fraction of a percentage of win probability from a hardcore tournament list so it's not like you're going to be spending dozens of hours re-calculating every unit's point efficiency to within five significant figures.
Have they tried the same thing with said friend? Yes, that's how they know they don't like it.
Ok. In your original description you had said that they had seen the game played, not played it themselves.
You keep zooming in on just the point vs pl time limits when I'm trying to explain that playing with points brings along a lot of baggage
Why? Is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to use the 0-2 aircraft limit and current GT 2022 mission pack if you use the normal point system?
I shouldn't have to defend that every single time I talk about playing.
You don't. Let me once again remind you that you are in a thread explicitly for discussing normal points vs. PL that started with a premise of "what if GW removed one of the systems". You can complain about this if you post a PL list in the list forum and get people demanding justification for your use of PL, but outside of that if you don't like defending your positions you're free to not participate in this clearly labeled discussion.
Why do you keep invalidating the way we play the game when it's a perfectly valid version that takes nothing away from you?
Because GW wasting space declaring your games Official™ 40k™ Games™ adds nothing of value to anyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheBestBucketHead wrote: I don't see why anyone would advocate for the removal of such a small part of the game that costs almost no development time and only benefits people, even if at just in a minor amount.
Because elegance is a game design principle and redundant rules should be removed.
Because needlessly dividing the game and community into different factions is bad.
Because avoiding PL entirely requires convincing people to agree to house rules.
Because the continued existence of PL is temptation for the CAAC faction at GW to try again to make it the default or even only system.
And because even a small amount of development time is a high price to pay for something that adds next to no value for even its most passionate defenders.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: Ok, well I guess I'll just stop trying to talk about the game on dakka then. Or anywhere.
Or, you know, don't post in a thread clearly labeled as a "what if GW removed one of the point systems" debate if you don't want to debate the removal of a point system. Nobody is following you around everywhere and demanding justifications for your preferences in other threads when they aren't relevant to the topic.
How many times are you going to poison this well? The literal thread is titled: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
Blndmage wrote: Ok, well I guess I'll just stop trying to talk about the game on dakka then. Or anywhere.
You're free to express your opinion, but the company and the people who hold the opposite opinion aren't going to put a lot of stock into yours as long it's a small minority of the playerbase that feels that way. No company is ever going to please 100% of their customers. You think every single person is happy with League of Legends? Or MtG? Certainly not, but if 90% like it and keep buying, the company is just going to ignore the other 10%. Eventually, so will the other 90% because they like the game so they don't want to sit around and debate all day with people who hate it.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: How many times are you going to poison this well? The literal thread is titled: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
Yes, those are the literal words. Everyone with any sense knows that a thread with that title is going to be a general points vs. PL argument by the end of the first page, and the post you started it with was all about the merits of each system and how PL can successfully replace the normal system. And your very first sentence makes it explicitly clear that by "full in on PL" you mean removing the normal points.
I answered the question posed. Then talked about why I enjoy PL and the style of play we use it in.
Then CSB decided to rip me a new one and Hecaton straight up calling me a liar. As stated a few times now, I'm terminally ill and disabled. I have a limited amount of time and energy to spend on 40k.
There are only a few places left to discuss the game and the versions it offers. Dakka being the biggest (and my style of play not being applicable to R/WarhammerCompetitive).
I don't feel like I'm off topic talking about how Power Levels and the mindset around playing it is different from the standard Matched Play.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: How many times are you going to poison this well? The literal thread is titled: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
Yes, those are the literal words. Everyone with any sense knows that a thread with that title is going to be a general points vs. PL argument by the end of the first page, and the post you started it with was all about the merits of each system and how PL can successfully replace the normal system. And your very first sentence makes it explicitly clear that by "full in on PL" you mean removing the normal points.
Every week he comes up with a new way to frame the points v PL debate hoping that more people agree with him. Predictably by the end of page 1 it devolves into the same arguments that neither side is ever going to budge on. By page 30 it's a trainwreck, the only thing we all agree on is that everyone else is having fun wrong, and the same thread under a new name pops back up again.
Blndmage wrote: I answered the question posed. Then talked about why I enjoy PL and the style of play we use it in.
Then CSB decided to rip me a new one and Hecaton straight up calling me a liar. As stated a few times now, I'm terminally ill and disabled. I have a limited amount of time and energy to spend on 40k.
There are only a few places left to discuss the game and the versions it offers. Dakka being the biggest (and my style of play not being applicable to R/WarhammerCompetitive).
I don't feel like I'm off topic talking about how Power Levels and the mindset around playing it is different from the standard Matched Play.
I get it, that sucks, im sorry to hear that. But that is not really relevant to the point of power level as a mode of play.
The balance of 40k, does not really work with PL in a pick up sense, which is a big and i would say major form of play within the world. The granularity of points allow for a more universal accepted balance between units because it works to account for more things where as PL is not.
If you have a set group of people and you always know what the other is bringing PL kinda works fine in that sense. But the idea that PL is some how WAY MORE EASIER to make lists for, and build around is being pretty silly. We have loads of tools to list build, battle scribe being one of them that allows you to make, delete, and remake lists in a matter of minutes. So this idea that PL is some how easier to work with is kinda non sensical. If power level disappeared magically over night, the jump to points is not any measurable level of difficult.
If you played since 4th, then the rules that are "advanced" are not anything new to you or should not be at least.
Actually that made me think what is the argument here at this point anymore? Not just specifically you, but i mean in general what are people even arguing over.
So i really dont get the arguments you are trying to make here.
If you are rocking PL, go forth rock on PL, who cares what people here have to say at that point, you are gonna do your thing and have a good time doing it. But acting like going from PL to points is some monumental under taking is just being dramatic.
Blndmage wrote: I don't feel like I'm off topic talking about how Power Levels and the mindset around playing it is different from the standard Matched Play.
You're not off topic. But if you want to participate in this discussion you can't claim you're being treated badly because you're expected to justify your arguments.
I appreciate you being honest though, and admitting that PL is about its symbolic status for "PL players" rather than any functional differences between the two point systems. From a functional point of view PL and normal points are just standard point systems for matched play style games and the practical difference between the two is minimal. PL is less accurate because of systemic errors but otherwise they're used exactly the same way. So the fact that you claim PL has some kind of associated "mindset" is an admission that there's more to it than saving a minute of time in list construction or whatever, all of those arguments about its functional value are nothing more than justifications for something you need as a symbol of your style of play.
I think the loss of granularity is exactly what 40k needs though.
It's gotten too big for 1, 5 or even 10 point individual model upgrades.
Set PL to 1PL~= 15 points as a conversion base and adjust from there.
For more models, reduce the PL by 1 each time. For example, of a unit of base PL5 for 5 models, add 4PL for 6-10, add 3PL more for 11-15 models, 2 more for 16-20. As a very very rough thought from the top of my head. You could get 4*5 for 20PL, or 1*20 for 14PL, 2*10 for 18PL, type idea.
Blndmage wrote: I think the loss of granularity is exactly what 40k needs though.
It's gotten too big for 1, 5 or even 10 point individual model upgrades.
Set PL to 1PL~= 15 points as a conversion base and adjust from there.
Hard disagree, loss of detail and granularity is what makes the game harder to balance unless you also remove customization and the ability to take different load outs.
Unless you wanna make every thing cookie cutter its fine, but you cant say "Hey this guard squad is 5 PL, and you can take any of the heavy weapon choices" because there will always be a vastly better option. Pointed out units prevent, or help prevent that.
That sytem of upgrading is common and its actually what a lot of people, and i would even boldly say, most people are OK with having. Hell the entirety of 30k revolves around this idea of more granularity, more detail, more actions and more in depth building.
40k is not about a simple streamline.
To your point of "Make 1PL =~ 15 points, well then whats the point of PL because at that point you are just playing with points but with less balance because how do you go about ranking a plasma pistol over a bolt pistol? or over an inferno pistol?
15 points is 1 PL for a powerfist or a TH? Why would not take the TH ever time?
Think of it like trying to measure a board, What if i were to tell you i want you to cut me a 15 and 1/16 inch long board, but the ruler i give you is only in inches no fractions of an inch. Thats the analogy of PL and points, a deeper set of points allows for finer tuning.
It does not work in the upgrade system like 40k has, it works in AoS because there is no upgrade system, you just kit a unit out with a given load out. You cant do that to 40k with fundamentally remaking the game.
And ill be god honest here, if you think thats a good idea, then i think your take on wahts good for the game is horribly horribly misplaced.
Blndmage wrote: I think the loss of granularity is exactly what 40k needs though.
Why? 40k is full of cases where the difference in value between two choices is only 5-10 points but it is still clear which one is stronger. And in PL setting all upgrades to zero points creates clear balance issues where one choice from a set is the only viable one if you're making decisions based on on-table strategy. This is strong evidence that 40k does need at least its current level of granularity, if not more granularity to handle things like the issue with 5ppm being the floor for point costs but some 5ppm units being obviously better than others.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: For more models, reduce the PL by 1 each time. For example, of a unit of base PL5 for 5 models, add 4PL for 6-10, add 3PL more for 11-15 models, 2 more for 16-20. As a very very rough thought from the top of my head.
Why? Why should model costs scale as you get larger units, especially in a game where buff stacking efficiency already provides plenty of reward for taking large units?
But why do you need to quibble about a 5 point upgrade in a 2k game? It's 0.25% of the list, even for Combat Patrol games, it's only 1%. Are they really worth the trouble balancing things down to 1 point differences? When you can just make all the stuff free and save the hassle.
If it's about the mechanics of specific weapons or what not, maybe they need a redesign if there's always 1 that's better.
Backspacehacker wrote: I dont wanna be argumentative with you, but how are they not separate categories? You have to make a conscious choice to use that battle demi company just like you have to use one to use PL.
If you dont wanna play with a battle demi company, you just dont use it.
You can't show up with pl army and play vs point army.
Demi company etc didn't require agreeing with them in advance like points or pl does.
One word: Crusade. PL absolutely affects me despite not wanting to use it.
Oh so how your life is worse for crusade existing?
Btw you can play crusade with points as well
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dai wrote: And the fact that competitive gamers see list building as a bigger skill than the actual game. GW in turn oblige with all these nonsense chapter apaproved pamphlets and points updates.
Which seeing list building takes skill of elementary school kid shows why anybody thinking 40k is competive game are lying to themselves.
Blndmage wrote: But why do you need to quibble about a 5 point upgrade in a 2k game? It's 0.25% of the list, even for Combat Patrol games, it's only 1%. Are they really worth the trouble balancing things down to 1 point differences? When you can just make all the stuff free and save the hassle.
If it's about the mechanics of specific weapons or what not, maybe they need a redesign if there's always 1 that's better.
Because 5 points quickly becomes 5 points a model on weapons.
Again, i said it before ill say it again but any unit taht has the ability to swap out their weapons is abusive in power levels, rubric example again, i can swap a 10 point item on any model in the unit, how are you going to PL point that unit if an entire squad can take 100 points of extra gear for free? Do you point that unit in PL with the potential gear they can take? Because at that point you now effectivity force someone to take all that gear for the amount of PL it cost.
Its not just a single 5 point upgrade, from the way you are presenting itself in a vacume of just a single model yeah PL works, but tahts not the vacuum we are in.
Blndmage wrote: But why do you need to quibble about a 5 point upgrade in a 2k game? It's 0.25% of the list, even for Combat Patrol games, it's only 1%.
Because it isn't just one 5 point upgrade. It's a 5 point plasma pistol, a 5 point power sword, a 20 point heavy weapon, a 5 point hunter-killer missile, 30 point sponson multimeltas, etc. And it's repeated across every unit in your list, until the person who took those obviously stronger choices has a significant advantage over someone who didn't.
(And that's not even counting the big issues, like a Tau player having the equivalent of 3-4000 points in a 2000 point game by loading up on free crisis suit equipment.)
Are they really worth the trouble balancing things down to 1 point differences? When you can just make all the stuff free and save the hassle.
As we've already established, there is no meaningful hassle. 6 minutes to make a 2000 point list with normal points, 5 minutes to make a similar 100 PL list, out of a 3-4 hour game. So yes, it is worth it to have obvious power differences reflected in a unit or upgrade's point cost.
If it's about the mechanics of specific weapons or what not, maybe they need a redesign if there's always 1 that's better.
Some things can't be designed that way. Taking a plasma gun will always be better than not taking a plasma gun if they both cost the same number of points. Taking a power sword will always be better than using the default melee profile. Etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: Oh so how your life is worse for crusade existing?
Btw you can play crusade with points as well
Do not be dishonest like this. That quote was in response to someone claiming that I'm not affected by PL, and the fact that to play Crusade I have to either use PL or convince people to house rule in a different point system means I am affected by it. Taking that quote out of context and pretending I'm claiming my life is worse because Crusade exists is blatant lying.
Personally I think 40k is too granular for the bigger scale game (over 1,500pts or so).
Part of the reason my group enjoys the way we play is that they don't need to worry about what weapon is theoretically 1% better than another, at the pistol/small arms level. Analysis Paralysis is a thing. And again, I play with kids and neurodivergent folks frequently. We'd all rather model things that we prefer the look of. Proxying can happen.
I play necrons, Gauss Flayers and Gauss Reapers both are free for Warriors, you can mix an match. There are uses for both weapons., Honestly I'm only just looking to play, at least get together for others, some other factions and the sheer array of wargear selections is staggering (specifically with regard to Imperium forces). Total Analysis Paralysis.
We have a player looking at Renegades and Heretics, mostly for the awesome lore,bbut partly because the rules are free and basically static. They somehow get AoC on some vehicles, but otherwise there's little chance it'll have massive shake ups. Legends being basically static really draws folks to them as the last thing they want is to have to keep buying codexes over and over again. We play games with literally the Core Rules pdf and the Legends sometimes.
We both have versions of the game that we prefer, that don't impact the other and are both valid ways to play the game, correct?
Blndmage wrote: Part of the reason my group enjoys the way we play is that they don't need to worry about what weapon is theoretically 1% better than another, at the pistol/small arms level. Analysis Paralysis is a thing. And again, I play with kids and neurodivergent folks frequently.
Then don't worry about it, just take the one you like and trust that the point cost is accurate. And it's not like PL solves this, you still have different options to analyze if you're seeking maximum efficiency. The only thing PL changes here is which specific options are the best.
We have a player looking at Renegades and Heretics, mostly for the awesome lore,bbut partly because the rules are free and basically static. They somehow get AoC on some vehicles, but otherwise there's little chance it'll have massive shake ups. Legends being basically static really draws folks to them as the last thing they want is to have to keep buying codexes over and over again. We play games with literally the Core Rules pdf and the Legends sometimes.
None of this has anything to do with PL.
We both have versions of the game that we prefer, that don't impact the other and are both valid ways to play the game, correct?
Your version is supported with the removal of PL and Open™ Play™, just like games like yours worked just fine in previous editions where neither of those things existed.
And, once again, PL impacts the normal game. Crusade is built on it, reserve limits use it. So please stop saying that PL existing has no effect on the rest of us.
Blndmage wrote: Then push GW to actually review PL costs the way we do with broken units and point costs. They don't know there an issue unless they hear about it.
That way, they get adjust as needed to balance with points, and the rest of us can keep playing how we enjoy. There's no need to remove anything.
PL has inherent systemic problems that can not be fixed by reviewing individual costs. The system is inaccurate by design and can never be correct, the only way it can be fixed is for it to be removed.
Blndmage wrote: Then push GW to actually review PL costs the way we do with broken units and point costs. They don't know there an issue unless they hear about it.
That way, they get adjust as needed to balance with points, and the rest of us can keep playing how we enjoy. There's no need to remove anything.
PL has inherent systemic problems that can not be fixed by reviewing individual costs. The system is inaccurate by design and can never be correct, the only way it can be fixed is for it to be removed.
I could say the same about points, considering that PL is a core part of the game system (thank you for reminding me), and points is actually the added tally system, shouldn't it be the one that would be removed?
Considering the constant time spent adjusting things, at times in 1 point increments when just adjusting the PL would be easier and fit with the rest of the game as points are the odd one out now. We used PL in 8th too, but I played much less as the bigger board size was a real impediment.
Blndmage wrote: Then push GW to actually review PL costs the way we do with broken units and point costs. They don't know there an issue unless they hear about it.
That way, they get adjust as needed to balance with points, and the rest of us can keep playing how we enjoy. There's no need to remove anything.
When will GW adjust the rules around how much CP Stratagems and reinforcements cost to not be around PL?
When are you going to stop asking for plasma pistols to not be any better than las pistols to fix your broken pts format? It's not that it couldn't be done, but the amount of work it'd take is silly. You'd have to give a special rule to Sergeant bolt pistols and Sergeant las pistols to account for the worse and even worse profile. Giving them a cost of 1 and 2 pts is much easier.
PL costs for expensive upgrades is silly, because the moment you realise that upgrades should cost something you realise that having more granular cost upgrades is better since then you can differentiate between weapons with clear but not necessarily large amounts of value like upgrading an Infantry Squad Sergeant to have a plasma pistol instead of a las pistol.
You could say it but you would be wrong. The normal point system does not have the systemic errors PL has.
(Perhaps you are making the mistake of thinking that a systemic error is merely an error that happens often, when the actual definition is an error caused by inherent inaccuracy in the measurement system?)
considering that PL is a core part of the game system (thank you for reminding me), and points is actually the added tally system, shouldn't it be the one that would be removed?
Lolwut? No. The normal point system is the system that 40k has used for the majority of its existence, the system the wargaming industry as a whole uses as its standard, and is by far the most common system used by 40k players. And, more importantly, PL is the system that has inherent systemic flaws and can not ever be fixed. So no, we should not instead remove the system with more potential for accuracy.
Considering the constant time spent adjusting things, at times in 1 point increments when just adjusting the PL would be easier and fit with the rest of the game as points are the odd one out now.
Adjusting the PL would be easier but it would also be incorrect. Your argument here makes about as much sense as claiming that balance updates would be easier if GW made all units cost one point each. Yes, it would be easy to do that, it would also be stupid.
Blndmage wrote: Then push GW to actually review PL costs the way we do with broken units and point costs. They don't know there an issue unless they hear about it.
That way, they get adjust as needed to balance with points, and the rest of us can keep playing how we enjoy. There's no need to remove anything.
When will GW adjust the rules around how much CP Stratagems and reinforcements cost to not be around PL?
When are you going to stop asking for plasma pistols to not be any better than las pistols to fix your broken pts format? It's not that it couldn't be done, but the amount of work it'd take is silly. You'd have to give a special rule to Sergeant bolt pistols and Sergeant las pistols to account for the worse and even worse profile. Giving them a cost of 1 and 2 pts is much easier.
PL costs for expensive upgrades is silly, because the moment you realise that upgrades should cost something you realise that having more granular cost upgrades is better since then you can differentiate between weapons with clear but not necessarily large amounts of value like upgrading an Infantry Squad Sergeant to have a plasma pistol instead of a las pistol.
How many points is a plasma pistol or lascannon in an infantry squad again?
CadianSgtBob wrote: I am skeptical that anyone genuinely enjoys 3.5e (or even Pathfinder, which is 3.5e but better). I'm sure there are people who enjoy 3.5e games despite 3.5e being a bad system, for system-independent reasons like having a great DM or memorable characters or whatever. But if you take away the fear of change that makes people cling to bad rules the vast majority of them would enjoy 5e more.
3.5 is a glorious, imbalanced mess and I love it for this. You need a GM who knows how to handle a group of different tier classes, but this very imbalance gives a "realistic" feel and immersion to it, which I haven't felt with any other system I played so far. 5e is good, but it feels more like somebody gives you a 1750 point list of your chosen 40k army and you are free to spend the remaining 250p on some upgrades to your liking. You can't really mess up that much, but at the same time you are very set in what your character / list will do and play like. Book of Nine Swords Crusader was the most fun character I ever played in any system.
And imbalance doesn't matter that much in a cooperative game and can help with immersion.
I prefer points over PL because I believe more granularity leads to better balance in theory. I wouldn't mind playing a game of PL if somebody asked me, but my army is not WYSIWYG prepared for it, so I would potentially be at a handicap, points-wise. I don't believe GW spends alot of time thinking about PL and if one way of calculating armies would have to go, I know which one I picked. But if somebody wants to use it and GW keeps it around, I don't really care all that much.
Points are always going to be imbalanced as well nor is point of points even balance. If you think points are there for sake of balance you are kidding yourself.
If you actually want balance you need to get rid of idea of points all together...
tneva82 wrote: Points are always going to be imbalanced as well
Agree with the first part. Though the chance that PL is less balanced is higher, given how much less granularity it uses.
tneva82 wrote: nor is point of points even balance. If you think points are there for sake of balance you are kidding yourself.
Disagree with the second.
Points in 40k are clearly used to indicate that higher point cost = more powerful unit or option and so both players show up to a game with a roughly equal force of units. GW might be bad at guesstimating actual values and the addition of 0 point cost relics, Stratagems and WT throws a big wrench into it, but that does not change the meaning of points.
a_typical_hero wrote: Disagree with the second.
Points in 40k are clearly used to indicate that higher point cost = more powerful unit or option and so both players show up to a game with a roughly equal force of units. GW might be bad at guesstimating actual values and the addition of 0 point cost relics, Stratagems and WT throws a big wrench into it, but that does not change the meaning of points.
Don't bother. You're talking to someone who thinks that points only exist to create deliberately overpowered units and cycle through which units meta chasers will buy, and that the only way to have balance is to cooperatively work with your opponent to carefully design a scenario and specific army lists (preferably with multiple playtesting games to get it right). The fact that this is completely unrealistic and not representative of how the vast majority of wargaming players play their games is irrelevant.
I'd believe that the vast majority of 40k players use PL, either as Open, Crusade, or even PL based Matched Play. I'd also believe that the majority who play, probably play with a close, possibly small group. I'd also believe that very few of those players show up here on dakka.
Lots of folks got brought back with the 8th Ed changes, I did, and in 8th I played both points (standard competitive meta), and PL (home group).
The board size change in 9th was brilliant as now, along with the core rules, and indexes, small games were quick and could scratch the 40k itch for a while when forced to be bed bound.
While I play necrons, I actually ran indexes for a long time, untill most of the 9th books came out, as we couldn't afford an entire 8th edition library, but managed to get all the indexes aside from the Imperial Armour ones, and the chapter approved books.
Blndmage wrote: I'd believe that the vast majority of 40k players use PL, either as Open, Crusade, or even PL based Matched Play. I'd also believe that the majority who play, probably play with a close, possibly small group. I'd also believe that very few of those players show up here on dakka.
Magical silent majority that just happens to corroborate your viewpoint?
They said the same thing about AOS players before points were added in...
a_typical_hero wrote: 3.5 is a glorious, imbalanced mess and I love it for this. You need a GM who knows how to handle a group of different tier classes, but this very imbalance gives a "realistic" feel and immersion to it, which I haven't felt with any other system I played so far. 5e is good, but it feels more like somebody gives you a 1750 point list of your chosen 40k army and you are free to spend the remaining 250p on some upgrades to your liking. You can't really mess up that much, but at the same time you are very set in what your character / list will do and play like. Book of Nine Swords Crusader was the most fun character I ever played in any system.
And imbalance doesn't matter that much in a cooperative game and can help with immersion.
It's not just the balance issues, it's the massive rules bloat*. 3.5 has so much content that actually building a character becomes completely unwieldy. You either spend hours digging through lists of possible feats/variant classes/magic items/etc or you limit yourself to the core PHB content and have even fewer options than 5e. And that first option is only possible at all because third-party sites have indexed everything in one place and people have written extensive build guides that you can copy. Then once you finally manage to figure it all out you have complicated feat chains, stacking a dozen modifiers on every roll, keeping track of all of your exceptions to the exceptions to the exceptions to the core rules, etc. 5e has a much better balance between having enough options to let you play your character but not so many that you get bogged down in the mechanics of trying to figure out how to execute the game mechanics. You might not be able to play literally every character with the exact combination of abilities you had in 3.5e but if you're willing to put more weight into role playing than roll playing I haven't seen many concepts that don't work at all.
And yes, balance matters a lot even in a cooperative game. It isn't fun when one player is dominating the game because their character is stronger than the rest of the party combined. It isn't fun when you have +40 to your good skills/saves and +3 to your bad ones, so challenges are either trivial or instantly lethal. And it creates a balance nightmare for the DM when you have to design an encounter that is balanced and interesting for both the rogue with +50 to stealth and the fighter with -5 to stealth. Or when the monster has an AoE ability that applies to both the fighter with a +20 fort save and the wizard with a +5. When balance is better it's a lot easier to make sure each player gets their turn in the spotlight and encounters are always interesting.
*To keep this at least tangentially related to 40k and PL, it's the same kind of rules bloat as PL. You have a bunch of different feats/spells/etc that all do effectively the same thing, like how 40k has two redundant point systems that do the same thing. Just as 5e cleared away the clutter 40k should do the same and remove PL.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: I'd believe that the vast majority of 40k players use PL, either as Open, Crusade, or even PL based Matched Play. I'd also believe that the majority who play, probably play with a close, possibly small group. I'd also believe that very few of those players show up here on dakka.
How convenient that this supposed "vast majority" is silent and can never be asked to confirm those preferences. Meanwhile it's not just on dakka, everywhere you look the majority of discussion is matched play with the normal point system. PL discussion is rare and Open™ Play™ discussion is virtually nonexistent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: The board size change in 9th was brilliant as now, along with the core rules, and indexes, small games were quick and could scratch the 40k itch for a while when forced to be bed bound.
You know the "brilliance" of this has nothing to do with your needs, right? Or any game design factors? The change in board size was purely because it's the size of board that fits into GW's standard cardboard boxes and lets them consolidate some of their packaging and shipping logistics.
And you also know that people were playing small games on smaller boards long before 9th, right? Combat patrol on a 3'x3' or 4'x4' table was very common.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: They said the same thing about AOS players before points were added in...
Clearly this silence extends to not showing up at the store to buy anything. But trust her, they're still the majority.
This forum isn't for just competitive formats. It's not like I'm talking about this on r/WarhammerCompetitive.
Why do I get so much gak from people when I'm playing a version of the game that actually exists and my playgroup (which, again, includes kids, folks on the spectrum, other neurodivergent folks, those categories overlap at times) enjoys and prefers it?
Being a kid, on the spectrum, or neurodivergent doesn't mean someone has to use PL, so why bring it up? At 10 years old I was using spreadsheets to add up my WHF army's points, and as I've mentioned previously I have a mental disability myself.
As for why you'd lie or be mistaken? Any of a number of reasons.
The reason you get "so much gak" is because your first post on this thread was extremely hostile to people who aren't proponents of PL, and you've made outlandish arguments via an assumed victim status in its favor.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheBestBucketHead wrote: Why does switching from Power Level mean immediately jumping to the highest investment level of 40k? Why do you need to abandon how you play if Power Level is dropped?
I don't advocate for its removal, but it's not like someone will be forcing you to play the most advanced parts of 40k just because most numbers have an extra 0.
In addition, dropping Power Level means nothing for the Matched Play Only crowd. I don't see why anyone would advocate for the removal of such a small part of the game that costs almost no development time and only benefits people, even if at just in a minor amount.
I advocate for its removal because I like Narrative Play too, and I'd rather it use points.
Not Online!!! wrote: Ignoring that that Change is due to pl and horrific rulesmisshandling?
The change isn't due to PL at all, it's due to the reticence to release a guard book promptly and the inability to balance the unit with points.
no its a design shift, as already mentioned that facilitates PL over Pts leads to fixed loadouts and a lack of customisation under the guise of "balance", including but not limited to avoid GW's inability to balance points reasonable and remove workhours.
Blndmage wrote: I answered the question posed. Then talked about why I enjoy PL and the style of play we use it in.
Then CSB decided to rip me a new one and Hecaton straight up calling me a liar. As stated a few times now, I'm terminally ill and disabled. I have a limited amount of time and energy to spend on 40k.
There are only a few places left to discuss the game and the versions it offers. Dakka being the biggest (and my style of play not being applicable to R/WarhammerCompetitive).
I don't feel like I'm off topic talking about how Power Levels and the mindset around playing it is different from the standard Matched Play.
You started off pretty hostile. It ain't cool to throw stones and then cry foul when they get hurled right back.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs wrote: I've lost track after 40+ pages of bickering nested quote zigarites.
So show of hands: Who here claims theyd play less in a PL only world?
I 100% would.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: But why do you need to quibble about a 5 point upgrade in a 2k game? It's 0.25% of the list, even for Combat Patrol games, it's only 1%. Are they really worth the trouble balancing things down to 1 point differences? When you can just make all the stuff free and save the hassle.
If it's about the mechanics of specific weapons or what not, maybe they need a redesign if there's always 1 that's better.
Because you can take a lot of plasma pistols in a 1k list. Harlequin troops are particularly egregious - the optimal loadout at 5 PL is 128 points. Field a lot of those and you could be 20% over your points limit.
Blndmage wrote: So when I say that my group of 40k players would stop gaming if we switched to Matched Play, points updates, and the book treadmill, which they hate, why do you just casually dismiss my statement?
Why does switching to points also require any of those other things? You can still play using without the Advanced Rules, without using the GT mission pack and without any of the other Matched Play restrictions if you use points. I don't know why you're bringing all those other things up when nobody has suggested you stop using them.
Not Online!!! wrote: no its a design shift, as already mentioned that facilitates PL over Pts leads to fixed loadouts and a lack of customisation under the guise of "balance", including but not limited to avoid GW's inability to balance points reasonable and remove workhours.
I doubt it. Guard have been the ones getting this "design shift", other factions haven't. It's very clearly GW trying to fix the codex without going below the 5ppm floor with basic guardsmen or having to release an actual rule update without charging $50 for it in codex form. Giving infantry squads free upgrades lets them effectively put guardsmen at ~4ppm (assuming ~20 points of gear out of the 60 total) without letting you spam a bunch of naked guardsmen for 40 points per 10. I suppose it could stay given GW's struggle to make horde units work in a game with a 5ppm floor but I think it's more likely that the new codex buffs guardsmen to be worth 5ppm and their equipment goes back to normal costs.
(And yes, I know other guard units have been getting the same treatment. It's a cascade effect where once infantry squads get 20+ points of free gear you have to do the same for all of the other units or you'll never see anything but fully loaded infantry squads.)
Not Online!!! wrote: no its a design shift, as already mentioned that facilitates PL over Pts leads to fixed loadouts and a lack of customisation under the guise of "balance", including but not limited to avoid GW's inability to balance points reasonable and remove workhours.
I doubt it. Guard have been the ones getting this "design shift", other factions haven't. It's very clearly GW trying to fix the codex without going below the 5ppm floor with basic guardsmen or having to release an actual rule update without charging $50 for it in codex form. Giving infantry squads free upgrades lets them effectively put guardsmen at ~4ppm (assuming ~20 points of gear out of the 60 total) without letting you spam a bunch of naked guardsmen for 40 points per 10. I suppose it could stay given GW's struggle to make horde units work in a game with a 5ppm floor but I think it's more likely that the new codex buffs guardsmen to be worth 5ppm and their equipment goes back to normal costs.
CSM also got it, hence the utterly brainmelting cultist datasheet, the not double special / HW's on legionaires and the further cutting off options in regards to CSMHQ. Same with accursed weapons for Chosen and terminators.
It is an easier system to write in, since GW has to consider less builds and can "standardise" the game experience for these units.
Partially it also avoids the work of GW finally needing to understand that a powerfist on a havoc champion =/= powerfist on a Legionaire champion =/= Chosen champion =/= aspiring champion =/= Lord.
Not Online!!! wrote: CSM also got it, hence the utterly brainmelting cultist datasheet, the not double special / HW's on legionaires and the further cutting off options in regards to CSMHQ. Same with accursed weapons for Chosen and terminators
I think you're confusing "no model, no rules" and PL vs normal points. CSM troops can't take double heavy/special weapons because those weapons aren't on the sprue, not because GW is moving to a flat rate point system. Other factions have had the same NMNR treatment without the point costs changing. In fact, Tau even got a soft NMNR with crisis suit variable pricing introducing even more granularity to the system as a way of discouraging you from using equipment choices that don't match what is in the box.
Not Online!!! wrote: CSM also got it, hence the utterly brainmelting cultist datasheet, the not double special / HW's on legionaires and the further cutting off options in regards to CSMHQ. Same with accursed weapons for Chosen and terminators
I think you're confusing "no model, no rules" and PL vs normal points. CSM troops can't take double heavy/special weapons because those weapons aren't on the sprue, not because GW is moving to a flat rate point system. Other factions have had the same NMNR treatment without the point costs changing. In fact, Tau even got a soft NMNR with crisis suit variable pricing introducing even more granularity to the system as a way of discouraging you from using equipment choices that don't match what is in the box.
That is bs considering just how Non-consistent the NMNR has been applied within the CSM codex alone.
The only explanation is that GW cut a corner in the hours required for a designer and used PL as an easy facilitator to do just that.
Not Online!!! wrote: CSM also got it, hence the utterly brainmelting cultist datasheet, the not double special / HW's on legionaires and the further cutting off options in regards to CSMHQ. Same with accursed weapons for Chosen and terminators
I think you're confusing "no model, no rules" and PL vs normal points. CSM troops can't take double heavy/special weapons because those weapons aren't on the sprue, not because GW is moving to a flat rate point system. Other factions have had the same NMNR treatment without the point costs changing. In fact, Tau even got a soft NMNR with crisis suit variable pricing introducing even more granularity to the system as a way of discouraging you from using equipment choices that don't match what is in the box.
This (we're in agreement on something). Cultists and Guardsmen have the lovely coincidence of sitting on the points "floor" because frankly they're so bad there's no way to price them appropriately due to the current flawed points structure. The free upgrades aren't a result of "moving to PL" it's a result of the much taunted granular points system being crap as it is now.
Not Online!!! wrote: CSM also got it, hence the utterly brainmelting cultist datasheet, the not double special / HW's on legionaires and the further cutting off options in regards to CSMHQ. Same with accursed weapons for Chosen and terminators
I think you're confusing "no model, no rules" and PL vs normal points. CSM troops can't take double heavy/special weapons because those weapons aren't on the sprue, not because GW is moving to a flat rate point system. Other factions have had the same NMNR treatment without the point costs changing. In fact, Tau even got a soft NMNR with crisis suit variable pricing introducing even more granularity to the system as a way of discouraging you from using equipment choices that don't match what is in the box.
This (we're in agreement on something). Cultists and Guardsmen have the lovely coincidence of sitting on the points "floor" because frankly they're so bad there's no way to price them appropriately due to the current flawed points structure. The free upgrades aren't a result of "moving to PL" it's a result of the much taunted granular points system being crap as it is now.
As if it would get better with PL, it doesn't contrary it gets worse.
The only thing that changes is the "measurment unit / stick".
Not Online!!! wrote: That is bs considering just how Non-consistent the NMNR has been applied within the CSM codex alone.
The only explanation is that GW cut a corner in the hours required for a designer and used PL as an easy facilitator to do just that.
NMNR may be inconsistent but you can not dispute the fact that the troops entry is exactly in line with the options in a single box. NMNR explains the situation a lot better than a move to pseudo-PL, especially since those upgrades still cost points as normal and the only change is to which upgrades you can take.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: This (we're in agreement on something). Cultists and Guardsmen have the lovely coincidence of sitting on the points "floor" because frankly they're so bad there's no way to price them appropriately due to the current flawed points structure. The free upgrades aren't a result of "moving to PL" it's a result of the much taunted granular points system being crap as it is now.
You do realize that PL has the exact same problem, right? And that the 5ppm floor is not an inherent requirement of the normal point system? GW doesn't want to go below 5ppm but that doesn't mean that 5ppm is an actual minimum point cost that can't be broken. If GW wasn't voluntarily committing to a 5ppm floor they could easily make guardsmen 4.5ppm, 4ppm, etc, to match their value. In fact, the floor problem is worse with PL because you can't go just slightly below the floor. You can only adjust points in 20-point intervals, which means if a 10-man unit isn't working at the equivalent of 5ppm you have to go all the way down to 3ppm to change its cost.
And, again, this situation only exists at all because GW wants to buff the worst faction in the game without giving away free rules. When you won't do proper rule updates without a $50 codex purchase the only way to buff a broken unit/faction is by reducing its point cost, and eventually after enough power creep you reach a point where you can't keep cutting point costs without pushing the limits of what the game is designed to handle. But that has nothing to do with granularity, infantry squads would be just as broken in a PL-only system if they had to be 2 points each to be viable.
Not Online!!! wrote: That is bs considering just how Non-consistent the NMNR has been applied within the CSM codex alone.
The only explanation is that GW cut a corner in the hours required for a designer and used PL as an easy facilitator to do just that.
NMNR may be inconsistent but you can not dispute the fact that the troops entry is exactly in line with the options in a single box. NMNR explains the situation a lot better than a move to pseudo-PL, especially since those upgrades still cost points as normal and the only change is to which upgrades you can take.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: This (we're in agreement on something). Cultists and Guardsmen have the lovely coincidence of sitting on the points "floor" because frankly they're so bad there's no way to price them appropriately due to the current flawed points structure. The free upgrades aren't a result of "moving to PL" it's a result of the much taunted granular points system being crap as it is now.
You do realize that PL has the exact same problem, right? And that the 5ppm floor is not an inherent requirement of the normal point system? GW doesn't want to go below 5ppm but that doesn't mean that 5ppm is an actual minimum point cost that can't be broken. If GW wasn't voluntarily committing to a 5ppm floor they could easily make guardsmen 4.5ppm, 4ppm, etc, to match their value.
And, again, this situation only exists at all because GW wants to buff the worst faction in the game without giving away free rules. When you won't do proper rule updates without a $50 codex purchase the only way to buff a broken unit/faction is by reducing its point cost, and eventually after enough power creep you reach a point where you can't keep cutting point costs without pushing the limits of what the game is designed to handle. But that has nothing to do with granularity, infantry squads would be just as broken in a PL-only system if they had to be 2 points each to be viable.
Go back and re-read what I said. I didn't say PL didn't have problems and I laid the problem at the feet of the current GW points structure. It is largely to do with granularity as the jump between core infantry and their respective value isn't granular enough atm. When moving a sister of battle up or down 1 point (of 2000) is a whole 10% of their value and no option to get in between, it's not granular enough. If you made a cultist 4 points, they're 20% cheaper, it's a massive leap because they're all priced with low finite numbers.
Dudeface wrote: Go back and re-read what I said. I didn't say PL didn't have problems and I laid the problem at the feet of the current GW points structure. It is largely to do with granularity as the jump between core infantry and their respective value isn't granular enough atm. When moving a sister of battle up or down 1 point (of 2000) is a whole 10% of their value and no option to get in between, it's not granular enough. If you made a cultist 4 points, they're 20% cheaper, it's a massive leap because they're all priced with low finite numbers.
You're ignoring the fact that the point system can include fractional point values. If you want guardsmen at 4.5ppm you make the squad cost 45 points. In fact, there's nothing inherent to the system that prevents you from just having a plasma gun cost 7.35 points if that's what you want its value to be. GW chooses not to do fractional points (whether you agree or disagree with their reasons) but if they ever decided to all they'd have to do is print the new numbers.
(And yes, PL could do the same and have fractional point costs for units. But it can only do so by forfeiting the "easier to add up the numbers" advantage that PL advocates have claimed.)
Dudeface wrote: Go back and re-read what I said. I didn't say PL didn't have problems and I laid the problem at the feet of the current GW points structure. It is largely to do with granularity as the jump between core infantry and their respective value isn't granular enough atm. When moving a sister of battle up or down 1 point (of 2000) is a whole 10% of their value and no option to get in between, it's not granular enough. If you made a cultist 4 points, they're 20% cheaper, it's a massive leap because they're all priced with low finite numbers.
You're ignoring the fact that the point system can include fractional point values. If you want guardsmen at 4.5ppm you make the squad cost 45 points. In fact, there's nothing inherent to the system that prevents you from just having a plasma gun cost 7.35 points if that's what you want its value to be. GW chooses not to do fractional points (whether you agree or disagree with their reasons) but if they ever decided to all they'd have to do is print the new numbers.
(And yes, PL could do the same and have fractional point costs for units. But it can only do so by forfeiting the "easier to add up the numbers" advantage that PL advocates have claimed.)
To be honest if they want points to be workable and enable true "balance" we need to basically multiply everything by (as an example, not a genuine number, just easy maths) 5, so standard games are 10k points, then you have 25 pt cultists and 100 pt intercessors with plenty of room to tweak the numbers inbetween.
Edit: I'd prefer the larger whole numbers over fractional point costs as simply put it reads better and looks a lot less like a failed system at that point. But that's subjective optics.
Dudeface wrote: Go back and re-read what I said. I didn't say PL didn't have problems and I laid the problem at the feet of the current GW points structure. It is largely to do with granularity as the jump between core infantry and their respective value isn't granular enough atm. When moving a sister of battle up or down 1 point (of 2000) is a whole 10% of their value and no option to get in between, it's not granular enough. If you made a cultist 4 points, they're 20% cheaper, it's a massive leap because they're all priced with low finite numbers.
You're ignoring the fact that the point system can include fractional point values. If you want guardsmen at 4.5ppm you make the squad cost 45 points. In fact, there's nothing inherent to the system that prevents you from just having a plasma gun cost 7.35 points if that's what you want its value to be. GW chooses not to do fractional points (whether you agree or disagree with their reasons) but if they ever decided to all they'd have to do is print the new numbers.
(And yes, PL could do the same and have fractional point costs for units. But it can only do so by forfeiting the "easier to add up the numbers" advantage that PL advocates have claimed.)
To be honest if they want points to be workable and enable true "balance" we need to basically multiply everything by (as an example, not a genuine number, just easy maths) 5, so standard games are 10k points, then you have 25 pt cultists and 100 pt intercessors with plenty of room to tweak the numbers inbetween.
Edit: I'd prefer the larger whole numbers over fractional point costs as simply put it reads better and looks a lot less like a failed system at that point. But that's subjective optics.
This is probably the only thing I agree with CSB. If you believe in granularity=balance, then not using fractions is straight up dumb. Fractions enable you to not have to rescale ALL point values, in ALL publications if you just want, for example, to scale down the cost of an individual conscript.
A twenty-fold increase in the number of points in a game and the cost of models would leave plenty of space to find balanced costs for models that are worth less than 5 pts in the current game. Yes, fractions are a better idea, but 40k pts being the standard would be cool and if you were doing a custom pts standard it would make it easily distinguishable from normal pts so people don't confuse lists for an unofficial pts base for lists that are legal in official 40k.
Not Online!!! wrote: Ignoring that that Change is due to pl and horrific rulesmisshandling?
The change isn't due to PL at all, it's due to the reticence to release a guard book promptly and the inability to balance the unit with points.
How can you say there is an inability when GW hasn't tried? 4 pt Guardsmen even without HotE would be great despite all the power creep we've had since the start of 9th.
Will these pts costs break the game? I know it wouldn't make the datasheet perfectly balanced, but there would be a reason for every option and a reason not to take every option, even if I think it'd be slanted heavily in favour of plasma gun + lascannon. Snipers and grenade launchers free because of HotE. Chainswords and power swords and pistol replacements slightly overcosted because lasgun is worse than bolt pistol is worse than boltgun and we don't have half points currently so it has to be 0 is worse than 1 is worse than 2 even if they are probably worth half that in most cases.
a_typical_hero wrote: Points in 40k are clearly used to indicate that higher point cost = more powerful unit or option and so both players show up to a game with a roughly equal force of units. GW might be bad at guesstimating actual values and the addition of 0 point cost relics, Stratagems and WT throws a big wrench into it, but that does not change the meaning of points.
Relics and WL trait balance aren't that important, you're talking maybe 50 pts +- between picking good and bad options. Compared with an army being 10% overcosted or undercosted, it's not a big deal. Every relic and WL trait being cool is more important. A short-ranged once-per-game relic that deals about 2 MW is just a massive letdown, even if you got it for 5 pts while every other relic was 30 pts, it'd still be a letdown.
The problem with power sword at 2 points is that you are already well into buying a new infantry guy while only getting 2 attacks in melee that can do something. Melee that those infantry men will rarely ever initiate except in last ditch situations.
If your upgrade is going to cost the same as an infantry men is that upgrade going to more than double its efficacy or not? If it doesn't then it shouldn't cost so much.
I'd argue that if people are really married to the idea that all upgrades should cost points then all base unit costs should be multiplied by 5 and every game is a 10.000 point battle. This would at least allow some nuance in adjusting points. 2000 points with models costing as little as 4-5 points has no room for nuance.
I advocate for its removal because I like Narrative Play too, and I'd rather it use points.
Unless you're an "official at all cost" zealot I don't see why you can't already do that. I mean it's narrative play, not competitive gaming. I don't believe you can't find players who refuse to play that kind of game by using points or other house rules. How hard is it to convert PL into points?
Official at all cost is for matched play and random pick up games, where a standard that is the same for everyone and everywhere is pretty much necessary to keep things easy between players.
Eldarsif wrote: The problem with power sword at 2 points is that you are already well into buying a new infantry guy while only getting 2 attacks in melee that can do something. Melee that those infantry men will rarely ever initiate except in last ditch situations.
If your upgrade is going to cost the same as an infantry men is that upgrade going to more than double its efficacy or not? If it doesn't then it shouldn't cost so much.
I'd argue that if people are really married to the idea that all upgrades should cost points then all base unit costs should be multiplied by 5 and every game is a 10.000 point battle. This would at least allow some nuance in adjusting points. 2000 points with models costing as little as 4-5 points has no room for nuance.
I advocate for its removal because I like Narrative Play too, and I'd rather it use points.
Unless you're an "official at all cost" zealot I don't see why you can't already do that. I mean it's narrative play, not competitive gaming. I don't believe you can't find players who refuse to play that kind of game by using points or other house rules. How hard is it to convert PL into points?
Official at all cost is for matched play and random pick up games, where a standard that is the same for everyone and everywhere is pretty much necessary to keep things easy between players.
It's much easier to have narrative games when the system of allotting what goes on either side is more granular and thus allows, in theory, for a better understanding of the relative balance/power of different models in different armies. Especially when those models have different equipment options which they can take. It doesn't mean you have to play your narrative game at 2K points per side matched play style. It does mean that if one person takes 1K and another takes 2K then everyone going in already knows that the 1K person is up against a wall. That perhaps they need some narrative protection (eg some walls to hide behind whilst the enemy charges over an open field); that the game might well be a "fight till the last man" or "try to see if you can last 7 turns before "reinforcements arrive".
It also means that everyone comes to the table with a granular structure which accounts for upgraded parts and weapon options. IT means you don't have to spend ages debating/discussing with all players (a narrative match might have more than two) about what kind of game you want. About if you're going to go all out with loadouts or restrict things or if one of you doesn't want too or does.
Points, well done, bring people to a level playing field (in theory). Power Level doesn't even try. It's quick, its dirty, but it leaves a lot of bits messy and up for players to discuss - if they realise. I'm sure there are some who take the min weapon loadouts and another who takes the max loadouts and neither one realises the disparity (and might just blame GW balance for the disparity in performance).
Again power level just hits this wall that, in 40K, many units have a very wide roster of powers, equipment and weapon choices which can have a dramatic impact on their game performance. It's why its really not an ideal system for this kind of game. Now if power level came iwth a criteria such as "units must take base options with zero upgrades/weapon swaps" or if the game were closer to Old World/Age of Sigmar where most units have very limited to no equipment options. Then power level would be potentially more viable.
All this doesn't mean there aren't people out there using power level and having widely varied power levels between armies and having fun. Perhaps they really just don't understand the game all that well; perhaps they really just do not care one bit; perhaps they are fine with auto losing every game because they take min upgrades and their opponent takes max; perhaps, perhaps,perhaps. However when you step back its very hard to make a logical argument for power level in the current form of 40K. The only bonus it brings to the table is the numbers are simpler to add up. That's it, everything else is basically a negative.
I advocate for its removal because I like Narrative Play too, and I'd rather it use points.
Unless you're an "official at all cost" zealot I don't see why you can't already do that. I mean it's narrative play, not competitive gaming. I don't believe you can't find players who refuse to play that kind of game by using points or other house rules. How hard is it to convert PL into points?
Official at all cost is for matched play and random pick up games, where a standard that is the same for everyone and everywhere is pretty much necessary to keep things easy between players.
When I organised a Crusade campaign last year we just converted 1 PL to be equal to 20 points. Worked out fine without any big adjustments.
Why is so hard for those pushing for PL to be removed to understand that they have a different experience of the game form others. They aren’t right, they just like different things.
I can only put the attitudes in this thread from the likes of sgt bob and hecaton and their allies down to two things.
1. They are being deliberately ignorant to provoke a response. Basically bullying to make them selves feel good in some weird way.
2. They are absolute arseholes who don’t care about anyone but themselves and get their kicks from berating a terminally ill person online.
……wait, they’re the same thing. Guess that clears it up.
Blndmage wrote: So when I say that my group of 40k players would stop gaming if we switched to Matched Play, points updates, and the book treadmill, which they hate, why do you just casually dismiss my statement?
Because we don't believe you.
I think this says everything it needs to about this situation, and the absolute cesspit of discourse that this thread has been allowed to devolve into.
There isn't any respect here. There isn't any "discussion" to be had when users can just invalidate the life and experiences of other people here. And without that baseline level of respect, this thread literally cannot function without violating Rule 1.
I am genuinely surprised this dumpster fire is still *allowed* to carry on.
CadianSgtBob wrote:
Blndmage wrote: I shouldn't have to defend that every single time I talk about playing.
You don't. Let me once again remind you that you are in a thread explicitly for discussing normal points vs. PL that started with a premise of "what if GW removed one of the systems".
No, it isn't.
The thread asked if *points* should be scrapped. No-one agreed with that. Open and shut case.
It was only because of certain rhetoric from folks like you demanding that PL should be scrapped instead, and that if you actually like PL, "we don't believe you", that this became a case of points vs PL. You did this. Not the OP.
You can complain about this if you post a PL list in the list forum and get people demanding justification for your use of PL, but outside of that if you don't like defending your positions you're free to not participate in this clearly labeled discussion.
But it isn't, so quit trying to act like it is.
Clearly labelled discussion would:
A - be called "points vs PL"
B - require a baseline level of respect
Why do you keep invalidating the way we play the game when it's a perfectly valid version that takes nothing away from you?
Because GW wasting space declaring your games Official™ 40k™ Games™ adds nothing of value to anyone.
So BIndmage and I don't count as "anyone".
Cheers.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: I don't see why anyone would advocate for the removal of such a small part of the game that costs almost no development time and only benefits people, even if at just in a minor amount.
Because elegance is a game design principle and redundant rules should be removed.
What if I don't agree with that principle though.
Because needlessly dividing the game and community into different factions is bad.
Why?
Because the continued existence of PL is temptation for the CAAC faction at GW to try again to make it the default or even only system.
You don't have proof for this. You have only offered conjecture.
And because even a small amount of development time is a high price to pay for something that adds next to no value for even its most passionate defenders.
A high price to pay for who?
Blndmage wrote: Ok, well I guess I'll just stop trying to talk about the game on dakka then. Or anywhere.
Or, you know, don't post in a thread clearly labeled as a "what if GW removed one of the point systems" debate if you don't want to debate the removal of a point system.
They aren't. This thread isn't called that - this thread is ACTUALLY clearly labelled as "If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play" - it doesn't mention anything about removing PL, and you'll find that essentially no-one in this thread has seriously suggested actually removing points.
You just couldn't resist turning it into a pissing contest.
Nobody is following you around everywhere and demanding justifications for your preferences in other threads when they aren't relevant to the topic.
Calling to scrap PL isn't relevant to the topic either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: Why is so hard for those pushing for PL to be removed to understand that they have a different experience of the game form others. They aren’t right, they just like different things.
Because they're self-centred and arrogant, many of which are self-admitted gatekeepers, and genuinely believe that they know other people better than they know themselves.
That's not even an insult, that's just stating facts. And if any of the folks who do find that insulting, perhaps you should have considered that before you started invalidating users over half the thread ago. Live in glass houses, don't throw stones.
Blndmage wrote: I'd believe that the vast majority of 40k players use PL, either as Open, Crusade, or even PL based Matched Play. I'd also believe that the majority who play, probably play with a close, possibly small group. I'd also believe that very few of those players show up here on dakka.
Now im wrong on a lot of things, and many people here will agree with that, but i can, with 100% certainty, and confidence.
This majority does not exist at all, in any capacity or range what so ever. The Vast vast VAST majority of games are played with points, using matched rules, do those turn into smaller groups? yes
But they by no means are playing majority crusade PL, or open play at all.
Blndmage wrote: But why do you need to quibble about a 5 point upgrade in a 2k game? It's 0.25% of the list, even for Combat Patrol games, it's only 1%. Are they really worth the trouble balancing things down to 1 point differences? When you can just make all the stuff free and save the hassle.
If it's about the mechanics of specific weapons or what not, maybe they need a redesign if there's always 1 that's better.
2 reasons, one is I'm playing a 2000pt game not a 2005 point game. The other reason is by that logic, I can take any 5pt upgrade in my codex for free. For space marines that means I can take about 2500 points in a 2000pt game. If you think balance is bad when both players have 2k, wait til you see what happens when upgrades are totally free but some armies have almost no upgrades and others can pack in 500-700 free points. That's why PL is a bad system unless it's a newer player without a codex trying to get his models on the table quickly, which is what it was designed for.
Blndmage wrote: But why do you need to quibble about a 5 point upgrade in a 2k game? It's 0.25% of the list, even for Combat Patrol games, it's only 1%. Are they really worth the trouble balancing things down to 1 point differences? When you can just make all the stuff free and save the hassle.
If it's about the mechanics of specific weapons or what not, maybe they need a redesign if there's always 1 that's better.
2 reasons, one is I'm playing a 2000pt game not a 2005 point game. The other reason is by that logic, I can take any 5pt upgrade in my codex for free. For space marines that means I can take about 2500 points in a 2000pt game. If you think balance is bad when both players have 2k, wait til you see what happens when upgrades are totally free but some armies have almost no upgrades and others can pack in 500-700 free points. That's why PL is a bad system unless it's a newer player without a codex trying to get his models on the table quickly, which is what it was designed for.
And we are coming full circle back to the days of formations and literally 500+ points of free upgrades.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: . . . and you'll find that essentially no-one in this thread has seriously suggested actually removing points.
OP, second sentence: "Would anyone actually have a marked decrease in play if 40k went full Power Levels and abandoned points entirely?"
It's the very start of the thread.
It's called a hypothetical question, ta. Did you miss where I wrote "seriously suggested"?
What is any more serious then OP literally starting a thread suggesting getting rid of points.
Your question is not hypothetical because the OP LITERALLY suggested that.
Thats like a bank robber walking into a bank saying "Im robbing the bank put the money in the bag" Ok but no one is really suggesting to put the money in the bag its a hypothetical.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: . . . and you'll find that essentially no-one in this thread has seriously suggested actually removing points.
OP, second sentence: "Would anyone actually have a marked decrease in play if 40k went full Power Levels and abandoned points entirely?"
It's the very start of the thread.
It's called a hypothetical question, ta. Did you miss where I wrote "seriously suggested"?
What is any more serious then OP literally starting a thread suggesting getting rid of points.
Your question is not hypothetical because the OP LITERALLY suggested that.
Suggesting? I think we have different ideas of what "suggesting" is, because I don't see a serious suggestion there. I see a hypothetical question, and asking for the results of *if* that hypothetical situation were to happen.
However, even IF that was a serious suggestion somehow, consider how NO-ONE, not even the most ardent pro-PL folks here, agreed with it. Notice how the ONLY people who have seriously advocated for removing anything at all once the initial hypothetical question was posed are people who want to get rid of PL.
Thats like a bank robber walking into a bank saying "Im robbing the bank put the money in the bag" Ok but no one is really suggesting to put the money in the bag its a hypothetical.
No, your example would be more like "if I was to come in here with a gun, would you all put money in the bag?"
It's predicated on the idea of "if" - not "should".
Hell, look at the quote which Insectum so kindly pointed out to me: "Would anyone actually have a marked decrease in play if40k went full Power Levels and abandoned points entirely?"
The OP’s question was hypothetical. It would be more like a person at a bank asking “would you call the SWAT team if I asked you to put money in the bag?”
Blndmage wrote: But why do you need to quibble about a 5 point upgrade in a 2k game? It's 0.25% of the list, even for Combat Patrol games, it's only 1%. Are they really worth the trouble balancing things down to 1 point differences? When you can just make all the stuff free and save the hassle.
If it's about the mechanics of specific weapons or what not, maybe they need a redesign if there's always 1 that's better.
2 reasons, one is I'm playing a 2000pt game not a 2005 point game. The other reason is by that logic, I can take any 5pt upgrade in my codex for free. For space marines that means I can take about 2500 points in a 2000pt game. If you think balance is bad when both players have 2k, wait til you see what happens when upgrades are totally free but some armies have almost no upgrades and others can pack in 500-700 free points. That's why PL is a bad system unless it's a newer player without a codex trying to get his models on the table quickly, which is what it was designed for.
To be fair in PL many units' cost already factor in some upgrades if not all of them, and in comparison they are typically much more expensive than what they cost in points. It's not like the PL cost of a unit is always equivalent to the bare bones cost of the same unit in points.
Example 1: the big mek in megarmour costs 6PL or 85 points plus up to 35 additional points of upgrades. Assuming 1PL = 20 points in PL the guy costs like the full kitted dude in points.
Example 2: the battlewagon costs 8PL or 105 points plus up to 80 additional points of upgrades. The PL model costs like a model with tons of upgrades, no one would take 160 points (not even counting the kustom job) battlewagons, typically the full kitted battlewagon costs 135 points plus eventully a kustom job (which also costs additional PL).
And we are coming full circle back to the days of formations and literally 500+ points of free upgrades.
Even better, people are suggesting GW combine everything people hated about 7th and free formations along with everything people hated about AoS on release. It's like they're taking a basket of every bad decision GW has ever made (not related to pricing) and expecting everyone to be thrilled if that were the only way to play. The only upside is you don't have to do simple addition to 2000 with the help of multiple apps that just do it for you...
Gordon Shumway wrote: The OP’s question was hypothetical. It would be more like a person at a bank asking “would you call the SWAT team if I asked you to put money in the bag?”
Toofast wrote: It's like they're taking a basket of every bad decision GW has ever made (not related to pricing) and expecting everyone to be thrilled if that were the only way to play.
I'm not sure anyone's advocating for that. No-one wants PL to be the only way to play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: "Vy don't ve abandon of all ze jews?"
"Iz zer any value in not going arian only?"
"Hey I'm just asking ze qvestions!, vy iz everybody zo upset?"
As I already pointed out to you, you're comparing asking questions about a points system in a toy soldier game to... genociding the Jews (and by extension, members of the LGBTQ+ community, the disabled, and those of a different political opinion)?
You don't think for a second that maybe you're overreacting just a tad here?
I'm not exactly sure you're arguing here in good faith. Do all hypothetical questions get this rise from you?
Backspacehacker wrote: Silly analogies aside, we do in face have people in here actually suggesting the removal of points.
Such as? When I last checked, the only time that anything close to a serious suggestion was made was from Fezzik, and even then, I both highlighted how it was both likely hypothetical, and had come after PAGES of people advocating for PL to be scrapped (which isn't anything to do with the topic).
But if you can link to such comments, and that those comments have been sustained by the user, and that said comments are justifiably "sincere" in their stance, sure, I'd love to see them.
"We do have people in fact making suggestions to remove points"
"Last i check the only time that anything came close to a serious suggestion was Fezzik."
Well there you go, you answered your own question.
We do have people in here suggesting it. It might only be one, but it is someone suggesting it.
Im not gonna link it because they have been linked above already multiple time. Linking it again for you to ignore it wont change anything.
Blndmage wrote: Then push GW to actually review PL costs the way we do with broken units and point costs. They don't know there an issue unless they hear about it.
That way, they get adjust as needed to balance with points, and the rest of us can keep playing how we enjoy. There's no need to remove anything.
PL has inherent systemic problems that can not be fixed by reviewing individual costs. The system is inaccurate by design and can never be correct, the only way it can be fixed is for it to be removed.
I could say the same about points, considering that PL is a core part of the game system (thank you for reminding me), and points is actually the added tally system, shouldn't it be the one that would be removed?
Considering the constant time spent adjusting things, at times in 1 point increments when just adjusting the PL would be easier and fit with the rest of the game as points are the odd one out now. We used PL in 8th too, but I played much less as the bigger board size was a real impediment.
You said you were a game designer, but this post puts that claim entirely up to speculation. PL has the obvious problems of Formations like Battle Demi-Company and War Convocation but you still defend it anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: Why is so hard for those pushing for PL to be removed to understand that they have a different experience of the game form others. They aren’t right, they just like different things.
People like garbage all the time. I'd rather keep the garbage out of the game.
Backspacehacker wrote: "We do have people in fact making suggestions to remove points"
"Last i check the only time that anything came close to a serious suggestion was Fezzik."
Well there you go, you answered your own question.
That's the OP, my guy. I don't think it's exactly fair to point to the OP and count them in this situation. I thought you were talking about other users, and more importantly, plural.
We do have people in here suggesting it. It might only be one, but it is someone suggesting it.
One person isn't "people". You said "people" - that implies multiple. Show me multiple people, including at least just ONE who isn't the OP, and we'll be serious about this.
Im not gonna link it because they have been linked above already multiple time. Linking it again for you to ignore it wont change anything.
Ironically, I've already gone back and linked the countless other cases up to page 17 of users on *both* ends calling for various systems to be banned - on the PL "side", only one comment, from Fezzik, which no-one endorsed, could be considered *close* to advocating actually removing points.
Blndmage wrote: But why do you need to quibble about a 5 point upgrade in a 2k game? It's 0.25% of the list, even for Combat Patrol games, it's only 1%. Are they really worth the trouble balancing things down to 1 point differences? When you can just make all the stuff free and save the hassle.
If it's about the mechanics of specific weapons or what not, maybe they need a redesign if there's always 1 that's better.
2 reasons, one is I'm playing a 2000pt game not a 2005 point game. The other reason is by that logic, I can take any 5pt upgrade in my codex for free. For space marines that means I can take about 2500 points in a 2000pt game. If you think balance is bad when both players have 2k, wait til you see what happens when upgrades are totally free but some armies have almost no upgrades and others can pack in 500-700 free points. That's why PL is a bad system unless it's a newer player without a codex trying to get his models on the table quickly, which is what it was designed for.
Seriously, with these people defending PL and saying at the same time they've been playing the game for years, you'd think they'd remember all the bad decisions GW has made with game design decisions.
Apparently they don't because I can easily argue how fluffy players won't abuse Battle Demi-Company and that they miss the spirit of the game LOL
Blndmage wrote: Then push GW to actually review PL costs the way we do with broken units and point costs. They don't know there an issue unless they hear about it.
That way, they get adjust as needed to balance with points, and the rest of us can keep playing how we enjoy. There's no need to remove anything.
PL has inherent systemic problems that can not be fixed by reviewing individual costs. The system is inaccurate by design and can never be correct, the only way it can be fixed is for it to be removed.
I could say the same about points, considering that PL is a core part of the game system (thank you for reminding me), and points is actually the added tally system, shouldn't it be the one that would be removed?
Considering the constant time spent adjusting things, at times in 1 point increments when just adjusting the PL would be easier and fit with the rest of the game as points are the odd one out now. We used PL in 8th too, but I played much less as the bigger board size was a real impediment.
You said you were a game designer, but this post puts that claim entirely up to speculation. PL has the obvious problems of Formations like Battle Demi-Company and War Convocation but you still defend it anyway.
This BS again?
War Convocation and the **GLADIUS** (not the demi-company, get your comparisons right, if you're going to make them) were a problem because unless you declined to play at all, you always ran the risk of your OPPONENT taking them. You couldn't stop your opponent doing gak, short of talking with them, or just not playing with them.
With PL, you can still play points and it literally won't affect you. How many times do I have to drill this into you?
Andykp wrote: Why is so hard for those pushing for PL to be removed to understand that they have a different experience of the game form others. They aren’t right, they just like different things.
People like garbage all the time. I'd rather keep the garbage out of the game.
Great. Leave then.
(Again - you've levelled far worse comments at folks. Glass houses, meet stones. I'm tired of pretending that you're discussing this in good faith.)
Backspacehacker wrote: "We do have people in fact making suggestions to remove points"
"Last i check the only time that anything came close to a serious suggestion was Fezzik."
Well there you go, you answered your own question.
That's the OP, my guy. I don't think it's exactly fair to point to the OP and count them in this situation. I thought you were talking about other users, and more importantly, plural.
We do have people in here suggesting it. It might only be one, but it is someone suggesting it.
One person isn't "people". You said "people" - that implies multiple. Show me multiple people, including at least just ONE who isn't the OP, and we'll be serious about this.
Im not gonna link it because they have been linked above already multiple time. Linking it again for you to ignore it wont change anything.
Ironically, I've already gone back and linked the countless other cases up to page 17 of users on *both* ends calling for various systems to be banned - on the PL "side", only one comment, from Fezzik, which no-one endorsed, could be considered *close* to advocating actually removing points.
Being right is not about being fair, you cant just go "well ignore that one"
You asked if anyone was suggesting to remove points the answer to that is yes, the OP is suggesting it.
You dont get to go "Well people is not one person" just because literally what you asked was proven.
"Are there people in this thread suggestion to remove points" Yes there are, you can choose to accept that because its in the OP or you can just ignore it and play word Olympics to fit your definition.
EviscerationPlague wrote: Seriously, with these people defending PL and saying at the same time they've been playing the game for years, you'd think they'd remember all the bad decisions GW has made with game design decisions.
Yeah, all their bad decisions using the points system - but you don't see me calling to remove points.
Apparently they don't because I can easily argue how fluffy players won't abuse Battle Demi-Company and that they miss the spirit of the game LOL
Okay, one singular person advocated for the removal of points. And the remainder of people who support keeping PL have said "We don't agree with Fezzik, points should stay in addition to PL."
How many have advocated for the removal of PL?
Backspacehacker wrote: Being right is not about being fair, you cant just go "well ignore that one"
You asked if anyone was suggesting to remove points the answer to that is yes, the OP is suggesting it.
No, the OP posed a hypothetical question. They didn't *suggest* anything in their OP.
Additionally, the OP of a thread, as the one to *start* the conversation, shouldn't be considered the benchmark of the actual discourse made.
You dont get to go "Well people is not one person" just because literally what you asked was proven.
You claimed "people". One person is not a "people".
"Are there people in this thread suggestion to remove points" Yes there are, you can choose to accept that because its in the OP or you can just ignore it and play word Olympics to fit your definition.
The OP asking a hypothetical question, and loudly being proven wrong by people *on both sides* should give enough of an answer that it should be obvious that there's a bit of a difference between "if we got rid of points" and "get PL out of the game, who cares if you like it".
Let's not make false equivalences here. If the only example you can give to anything *close* (which is what I actually said) to advocating the removal of points is the hypothetical question from the OP, that's incredibly tame compared to the other comments given by the PL-removal-brigade.
JNAProductions wrote: Okay, one singular person advocated for the removal of points. And the remainder of people who support keeping PL have said "We don't agree with Fezzik, points should stay in addition to PL."
How many have advocated for the removal of PL?
Im not sure but either way the question of if anyone is suggesting to remove points is yes there are people here suggesting that, it might only be one, but its still someone here suggesting it.
So technical yes, its being suggested, and technically right is the best kinda right.
If others wanna argue over the technicality of how many people are people they can argue to their hearts content at this point.
People who suggest to remove PL, be it many or singular are equally ridiculous in that suggestion. There is no real good reason to remove PL, just as there is no real good reason to remove points.
Both suggestions are ridiculous.
Insectum7 wrote: "Vy don't ve abandon of all ze jews?"
"Iz zer any value in not going arian only?"
"Hey I'm just asking ze qvestions!, vy iz everybody zo upset?"
As I already pointed out to you, you're comparing asking questions about a points system in a toy soldier game to... genociding the Jews (and by extension, members of the LGBTQ+ community, the disabled, and those of a different political opinion)?
You don't think for a second that maybe you're overreacting just a tad here?
I'm not exactly sure you're arguing here in good faith. Do all hypothetical questions get this rise from you?
No "rise" involved. The subject is different but the form is exactly the same.
Everyone is free to ask any questions they desire, but then they have to bear responsibility for the discussion that follows. The very premise of the thread involves the removal of points. Any suggestion otherwise is false.
JNAProductions wrote: Okay, one singular person advocated for the removal of points. And the remainder of people who support keeping PL have said "We don't agree with Fezzik, points should stay in addition to PL."
How many have advocated for the removal of PL?
Nah, apparently one person asking a hypothetical question is the same thing as at least three users vociferously calling for PL to be abolished, and the people who play it should be weeded out from the game as "filthy casuals" who deserve to be gatekept.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Backspacehacker wrote:People who suggest to remove PL, be it many or singular are equally ridiculous in that suggestion. There is no real good reason to remove PL, just as there is no real good reason to remove points.
Both suggestions are ridiculous.
Yes, they are, but let's not kid ourselves on who the loudest voices calling for those "suggestions" are.
Insectum7 wrote: "Vy don't ve abandon of all ze jews?"
"Iz zer any value in not going arian only?"
"Hey I'm just asking ze qvestions!, vy iz everybody zo upset?"
As I already pointed out to you, you're comparing asking questions about a points system in a toy soldier game to... genociding the Jews (and by extension, members of the LGBTQ+ community, the disabled, and those of a different political opinion)?
You don't think for a second that maybe you're overreacting just a tad here?
I'm not exactly sure you're arguing here in good faith. Do all hypothetical questions get this rise from you?
No "rise" involved. The subject is different but the form is exactly the same.
Everyone is free to ask any questions they desire, but then they have to bear responsibility for the discussion that follows. The very premise of the thread involves the removal of points. Any suggestion otherwise is false.
Answer the question - do you think it's appropriate to compare asking hypothetical questions about the points of a toy soldier game to advocating for the Holocaust?
Point side read the OP as agitation towards removing points and felt threatened, as if OP or any other PL player had any power over GW and the mere existence of PLs somehow ensures this will happen, so everything must be done to purge this heresy, even if it is used in a “tiny minority” of closely knitted, closed groups of garagehammer players and has zero influence on pick-up culture and tournament circuit.
The rest read that as follows: „if, in an apocalyptic turn of events, GW went full PL, as some recent signs seem to indicate that, would that result in mass player outflow and collapse of 40k? Or would people bitch and moan but eventually get over it and move on, playing the new version of the game, because ultimately, competitive scene always prevails, no matter how much of a gakshow 40k is at the moment?.” With the suggested answer from Fezzik, that the latter outcome is more probable than the former.
Seriously, the amount of insecurity flooding this thread is astounding.
Blndmage wrote: Then push GW to actually review PL costs the way we do with broken units and point costs. They don't know there an issue unless they hear about it.
That way, they get adjust as needed to balance with points, and the rest of us can keep playing how we enjoy. There's no need to remove anything.
PL has inherent systemic problems that can not be fixed by reviewing individual costs. The system is inaccurate by design and can never be correct, the only way it can be fixed is for it to be removed.
I could say the same about points, considering that PL is a core part of the game system (thank you for reminding me), and points is actually the added tally system, shouldn't it be the one that would be removed?
Considering the constant time spent adjusting things, at times in 1 point increments when just adjusting the PL would be easier and fit with the rest of the game as points are the odd one out now. We used PL in 8th too, but I played much less as the bigger board size was a real impediment.
You said you were a game designer, but this post puts that claim entirely up to speculation. PL has the obvious problems of Formations like Battle Demi-Company and War Convocation but you still defend it anyway.
This BS again?
War Convocation and the **GLADIUS** (not the demi-company, get your comparisons right, if you're going to make them) were a problem because unless you declined to play at all, you always ran the risk of your OPPONENT taking them. You couldn't stop your opponent doing gak, short of talking with them, or just not playing with them.
With PL, you can still play points and it literally won't affect you. How many times do I have to drill this into you?
I can refuse to play someone wanting to use PL the same I can refuse to play someone using Battle Demi-Company (which gave the free units when you took two, Gladius still just gave the benefit of the Doctrines, but keep going off about it) and War Convocation. Both Battle Demi-Company and War Convocation don't NEED to be abused. But nobody would ever argue they were good. So don't argue PL is good, either.
Because the people calling for the removal of the Point or PL system are both equally stupid in that suggestion.
Points are the mainstay of the game, always has been, always will be.
PL is a secondary mode of play, and really is just Warhammer lite. You should not want to stay in power level, as PL is basically the floor demo version of the game. It was not designed around it.
If PL vanished tomorrow there would not be enough care to warrant any concern over its loss. If it remained for the next 20 years, im sure those 5 people that play it will be happy about it.
JNAProductions wrote: Okay, one singular person advocated for the removal of points. And the remainder of people who support keeping PL have said "We don't agree with Fezzik, points should stay in addition to PL."
How many have advocated for the removal of PL?
Im not sure but either way the question of if anyone is suggesting to remove points is yes there are people here suggesting that, it might only be one, but its still someone here suggesting it.
So technical yes, its being suggested, and technically right is the best kinda right.
If others wanna argue over the technicality of how many people are people they can argue to their hearts content at this point.
People who suggest to remove PL, be it many or singular are equally ridiculous in that suggestion. There is no real good reason to remove PL, just as there is no real good reason to remove points.
Both suggestions are ridiculous.
Main difference is PL isn't functional in theory or execution.
JNAProductions wrote: Okay, one singular person advocated for the removal of points. And the remainder of people who support keeping PL have said "We don't agree with Fezzik, points should stay in addition to PL."
How many have advocated for the removal of PL?
Im not sure but either way the question of if anyone is suggesting to remove points is yes there are people here suggesting that, it might only be one, but its still someone here suggesting it.
So technical yes, its being suggested, and technically right is the best kinda right.
If others wanna argue over the technicality of how many people are people they can argue to their hearts content at this point.
People who suggest to remove PL, be it many or singular are equally ridiculous in that suggestion. There is no real good reason to remove PL, just as there is no real good reason to remove points.
Both suggestions are ridiculous.
Main difference is PL isn't functional in theory or execution.
No its fully functional, in the same way a oblong wheel is functional.
Does not mean it functions good, but it still functions.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Answer the question - do you think it's appropriate to compare asking hypothetical questions about the points of a toy soldier game to advocating for the Holocaust?
Yes or no.
If it's required to get the point across, yes. But it shouldn't be required. You should know that just because a premise is hypothetical, it doesn't mean people won't take offense and react accordingly.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: War Convocation and the **GLADIUS** (not the demi-company, get your comparisons right, if you're going to make them) were a problem because unless you declined to play at all, you always ran the risk of your OPPONENT taking them. You couldn't stop your opponent doing gak, short of talking with them, or just not playing with them.
With PL, you can still play points and it literally won't affect you. How many times do I have to drill this into you?
I can refuse to play someone wanting to use PL the same I can refuse to play someone using Battle Demi-Company (which gave the free units when you took two, Gladius still just gave the benefit of the Doctrines, but keep going off about it) and War Convocation.
Uh, not really??
PL is an entirely parallel way of playing the game. Points and PL don't occupy the same design space, let alone the same place on tabletop. If you refuse PL, you are doing so because you are playing an entirely different points system yourself - you're doing so because of YOUR choices, not reacting to the choice of somone else.
In contrast, Gladius (which was the only way of getting the benefit from having both Demi-Companies, see spoiler below) is your OPPONENT'S choice to take. You can make whatever decision you want, but your choice not to play against your opponent is done because of THEIR actions, not your choice of preferred game mode. You're better off comparing the Gladius to declining it when you opponent chooses to play a Knight army, or when they take a skew list - they've been perfectly legal in what they've done, but it will negatively affect YOU regardless.
So don't argue PL is good, either.
But it is good - good for what I want from it. You can disagree, but the good news is that it literally doesn't affect you, so you can get over it.
Spoiler:
That was the Demi-Company formation page.
This is the Gladius detachment page:
Gee, it looks like Company Support is only gained from the GLADIUS, not the Demi-Company. I'll take my cheque in the mail, please.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Answer the question - do you think it's appropriate to compare asking hypothetical questions about the points of a toy soldier game to advocating for the Holocaust?
Yes or no.
If it's required to get the point across, yes.
Aaaaand no, it isn't, because it's completely absurd. Comparing points for a toy soldiers game to the Holocaust is, at best, laughably absurd, and at worst, extremely offensive over the ACTUAL Holocaust.
You should know that just because a premise is hypothetical, it doesn't mean people won't take offense and react accordingly.
And you should know that "reacting accordingly" doesn't mean that you should be comparing asking a hypothetical question to advocating for genocide.
"If you had only two sandwiches to choose from, ham and cheese or a BLT, which would you eat?" Or is that also a problematic hypothetical for you?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Answer the question - do you think it's appropriate to compare asking hypothetical questions about the points of a toy soldier game to advocating for the Holocaust?
Yes or no.
If it's required to get the point across, yes.
Aaaaand no, it isn't, because it's completely absurd. Comparing points for a toy soldiers game to the Holocaust is, at best, laughably absurd, and at worst, extremely offensive over the ACTUAL Holocaust.
You should know that just because a premise is hypothetical, it doesn't mean people won't take offense and react accordingly.
And you should know that "reacting accordingly" doesn't mean that you should be comparing asking a hypothetical question to advocating for genocide.
"If you had only two sandwiches to choose from, ham and cheese or a BLT, which would you eat?" Or is that also a problematic hypothetical for you?
I think my point is made. Hypotheticals can elicit strong emotional reactions.
Try starting a thread about "hypothetically" removing Space Marines from the game and see how it's responded to. Then pop in again mid-thread and say "hey guys, it's just a hypothetical. . . but y'know, what's the VALUE in keeping Space Marines?" and just see how it goes.
Insectum7 wrote: I think my point is made. Hypotheticals can elicit strong emotional reactions.
It's not the hypothetical that's the issue here, the issue is that you're comparing the bloody Holocaust to toy soldiers, you complete melon.
Try starting a thread about "hypothetically" removing Space Marines from the game and see how it's responded to. Then pop in again mid-thread and say "hey guys, it's just a hypothetical. . . but y'know, what's the VALUE in keeping Space Marines?" and just see how it goes.
And it'll get the same response - no-one seriously wants to remove them, just like with points. But the important part is that they're bloody toy soldiers, and not, yanno, the fething Holocaust.
Its like one of those road trips were 2 others of the trip are arguing and you are in the back seat snacking watching the unexpected entertainment while also throwing in a few barbs here and there to keep it going.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Answer the question - do you think it's appropriate to compare asking hypothetical questions about the points of a toy soldier game to advocating for the Holocaust?
Yes or no.
If it's required to get the point across, yes. But it shouldn't be required. You should know that just because a premise is hypothetical, it doesn't mean people won't take offense and react accordingly.
Backspacehacker wrote: And with this, i think its fully safe to say this thread has reached its inevitable end.
With Goodwin's law in full effect across the spectrum.
I sincerely wonder why this thread isn't locked since twenty pages ago...
I suspect, *Dawns tinfoil hat* that if you jsut let people argue it out with each other, eventually they get tired enough of one another, block each other, then the thread gets locked.
That way it reduces arguments in the future, lord knows i have done it.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Answer the question - do you think it's appropriate to compare asking hypothetical questions about the points of a toy soldier game to advocating for the Holocaust?
Yes or no.
If it's required to get the point across, yes. But it shouldn't be required. You should know that just because a premise is hypothetical, it doesn't mean people won't take offense and react accordingly.
My dad was born in a camp.
No
Just, no.
Like I said, it shouldn't be required. Was it?
I mean I tried making the same point before without invoking holocaust language, but the point apparently didn't stick sooo . . .
Can people react strongly hypotheticals? (survey says yes)
Are you surprised people react strongly to hypothetical removal of game mechanics? (survey also says yes)
Backspacehacker wrote: And with this, i think its fully safe to say this thread has reached its inevitable end.
With Goodwin's law in full effect across the spectrum.
I sincerely wonder why this thread isn't locked since twenty pages ago...
I believe I've said the same in here a few times, I got a "who made you lord of the forums" type response last time. It's like a group of stoned chavs outside the chippy on the white lightning round here atm, all mindless flailing at nothing and even if a point does connect it's promptly ignored for a return gentle bonk.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Answer the question - do you think it's appropriate to compare asking hypothetical questions about the points of a toy soldier game to advocating for the Holocaust?
Yes or no.
If it's required to get the point across, yes. But it shouldn't be required. You should know that just because a premise is hypothetical, it doesn't mean people won't take offense and react accordingly.
My dad was born in a camp.
No
Just, no.
Like I said, it shouldn't be required. Was it?
No, it wasn't required, your point was still an awful one before you compared toy soldiers to the Holocaust.
I mean I tried making the same point before without invoking holocaust language, but the point apparently didn't stick sooo . . .
Your point didn't stick because it was an awful point anyway. Having a bad point doesn't mean you can suddenly try and invoke the Holocaust.
Can people react strongly hypotheticals? (survey says yes)
People aren't reacting strongly the hypothetical though. They're reacting because you compared toy soldiers to the bloody Holocaust. Did that not go in?
Are you surprised people react strongly to hypothetical removal of game mechanics? (survey also says yes)
No, I am genuinely surprised too, especially when their "reaction" apparently justifies them invoking the damn Holocaust over a game of toy soldiers.
It's frankly grim that you felt that was reasonable.
Backspacehacker wrote: And with this, i think its fully safe to say this thread has reached its inevitable end.
With Goodwin's law in full effect across the spectrum.
I sincerely wonder why this thread isn't locked since twenty pages ago...
I believe I've said the same in here a few times, I got a "who made you lord of the forums" type response last time.
Likewise, I think the *actual* topic was resolved on like page 3 before people decided to break out their "I hate PL" personalities. Lord knows I've been reporting the more egregious comments, but it seems like the mods just don't care.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: "a group of stoned chavs outside the chippy on the white lightning"
After years upon years of everything being compared to the holocaust and nazis, I'm honestly not phased by any such hypothetical. Sure, it's an extreme hypothetical, but that was the point.
Also "Having a bad point doesn't mean you can suddenly try and invoke the Holocaust" is such a disingenuous way of phrasing that. You're blowing a hypothetical out of the water. Also, not just a hypothetical. A hypothetical hypothetical.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, to answer the thread, I don't play 40k, so the amount I play wouldn't change. But if the Horus Heresy was only Power Level, I probably wouldn't touch it.
I'll add that I don't play Kill Team, mostly because of the lack of points.
Likewise, I think the *actual* topic was resolved on like page 3 before people decided to break out their "I hate PL" personalities.
I don't specifically hate PL just for existing, I hate that it's created people who will argue that feet are just as precise as millimeters because they can't count past 10 without taking their shoes off. It's like a valet key for an exotic car. Does it have a reason for existing? Yes! Should it be the default when you want to get in the car and have a good time driving it? No because that wasn't its purpose despite the fact that someone who doesn't know how to drive and is scared of fast cars might prefer to use it all the time.
This thread makes me wonder if you guys are serious or deliberately trolling each other.
There are only two valid answers to the "what will happen if points are binned" hypothetical:
- "IMHO there will be outrage so epic, that Nothingham will burn to the ground"
- "IMHO nothing spectacular will happen. There will be some tears, but community will prevail."
Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing in this thread warrants invoking a genocide, even a hypothetical one. Anyone who doesn't see that should seriously stop for a moment and consider an eventuality, that they are over invested in a game of toy soldiers.
Likewise, I think the *actual* topic was resolved on like page 3 before people decided to break out their "I hate PL" personalities.
I don't specifically hate PL just for existing, I hate that it's created people who will argue that feet are just as precise as millimeters because they can't count past 10 without taking their shoes off. It's like a valet key for an exotic car. Does it have a reason for existing? Yes! Should it be the default when you want to get in the car and have a good time driving it? No because that wasn't its purpose despite the fact that someone who doesn't know how to drive and is scared of fast cars might prefer to use it all the time.
So, you have no argument aside from attempting to insult the intelligence of people?
nou wrote: This thread makes me wonder if you guys are serious or deliberately trolling each other.
There are only two valid answers to the "what will happen if points are binned" hypothetical:
- "IMHO there will be outrage so epic, that Nothingham will burn to the ground"
- "IMHO nothing spectacular will happen. There will be some tears, but community will prevail."
Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing in this thread warrants invoking a genocide, even a hypothetical one. Anyone who doesn't see that should seriously stop for a moment and consider an eventuality, that they are over invested in a game of toy soldiers.
I am on record in this thread stating that both PL and points are fine, and haven't advocated for the removal of either.
I have merely pointed out that the very thread started with the premise of removing points. That's the entire impetus behind my being here. This thread has been ridiculous for days.
nou wrote: This thread makes me wonder if you guys are serious or deliberately trolling each other.
There are only two valid answers to the "what will happen if points are binned" hypothetical:
- "IMHO there will be outrage so epic, that Nothingham will burn to the ground"
- "IMHO nothing spectacular will happen. There will be some tears, but community will prevail."
Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing in this thread warrants invoking a genocide, even a hypothetical one. Anyone who doesn't see that should seriously stop for a moment and consider an eventuality, that they are over invested in a game of toy soldiers.
I am on record in this thread stating that both PL and points are fine, and haven't advocated for the removal of either.
I have merely pointed out that the very thread started with the premise of removing points. That's the entire impetus behind my being here. This thread has been ridiculous for days.
Yes - an unendorsed hypothetical "what if" scenario to discuss the possible state of the community after such change. There is no sentiment in the OP, no "pts should go" or "pts should stay". There is only "IMHO no armageddon will happen and people will get over it eventually" answer by OP. I don't know how you imagine starting a "what if GW goes insane" thread without mentioning what kind of insanity you have in mind.
If you want to build a proper genocide analogy it would not be "should we kill all the XYZ people" but instead "do you think, that killing XYZ people would result in WW III or would no one bat an eye", which is a perfectly valid question given current political climate in the world. Does this framing endorses genocide? Of course not - it does however acknowledge, that the world is a gakky place and sometimes people get hurt for no reason at all.
Likewise, I think the *actual* topic was resolved on like page 3 before people decided to break out their "I hate PL" personalities.
I don't specifically hate PL just for existing, I hate that it's created people who will argue that feet are just as precise as millimeters because they can't count past 10 without taking their shoes off.
No-one says they're "just as precise", what people ARE saying is that they are precise *enough* for what they want.
You don't need to measure how tall the Burj Khalifa is in millimetres, just like how you don't need to measure how old you are in seconds.
Also, way to go by still insulting PL users. You're doing a great job keeping that trend going.
Insectum7 wrote: @Smudge: Keep it going man, get it locked! DO IT!
Come on, just mention the Holocaust a few more times. You brought it up, after all.
You're the one choosing to dwell on it. Like instead of having a counter argument, it's just this now.
In other words, "don't hold me responsible for bringing this up and making a gakky comparison between toy soldiers and the Holocaust, please stop calling me out, it's your fault if you do". There isn't a counter-argument needed, because it's a terrible argument in the first place.
No, sorry bud. You made your bed. Walk your awful analogy back, or keep having folks call you out. It's called taking responsibility.
nou wrote: This thread makes me wonder if you guys are serious or deliberately trolling each other.
There are only two valid answers to the "what will happen if points are binned" hypothetical:
- "IMHO there will be outrage so epic, that Nothingham will burn to the ground"
- "IMHO nothing spectacular will happen. There will be some tears, but community will prevail."
Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing in this thread warrants invoking a genocide, even a hypothetical one. Anyone who doesn't see that should seriously stop for a moment and consider an eventuality, that they are over invested in a game of toy soldiers.
I am on record in this thread stating that both PL and points are fine, and haven't advocated for the removal of either.
I have merely pointed out that the very thread started with the premise of removing points. That's the entire impetus behind my being here. This thread has been ridiculous for days.
Yes - an unendorsed hypothetical "what if" scenario to discuss the possible state of the community after such change. There is no sentiment in the OP, no "pts should go" or "pts should stay". There is only "IMHO no armageddon will happen and people will get over it eventually" answer by OP. I don't know how you imagine starting a "what if GW goes insane" thread without mentioning what kind of insanity you have in mind.
If you want to build a proper genocide analogy it would not be "should we kill all the XYZ people" but instead "do you think, that killing XYZ people would result in WW III or would no one bat an eye", which is a perfectly valid question given current political climate in the world. Does this framing endorses genocide? Of course not - it does however acknowledge, that the world is a gakky place and sometimes people get hurt for no reason at all.
I'd say it's unclear as to whether or not the hypothetical is "unendorsed". It's arguably open to interpretation, and that the later (after nearly 20 pages to provide context) question to the "value" of points goes further towards endorsement.
I'd say that claiming the OP can't be interpreted as an endorsed hypothetical is certainly disingenuous.
Insectum7 wrote: I'd say it's unclear as to whether or not the hypothetical is "unendorsed". It's arguably open to interpretation, and that the later (after nearly 20 pages to provide context) question to the "value" of points goes further towards endorsement.
I'd say that claiming the OP can't be interpreted as an endorsed hypothetical is certainly disingenuous.
Exactly, it's "open to interpretation" - but I asked for serious, unambiguous declarations from users stating that "points should be scrapped". I don't think I've seen one.
However, I *have* seen plenty of the opposites - both "no, points shouldn't be scrapped" (from both sides!) and "no, PL should be scrapped" (which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, and is just an excuse for people to keep stoking their hatred of small numbers, I guess?)
Andykp wrote: 2. They are absolute arseholes who don’t care about anyone but themselves and get their kicks from berating a terminally ill person online.
Just had to pull this one up from a couple pages back because wow, you're a complete donkey-cave. Way to trivialize someone's real life situation as a way to score cheap points in an internet argument. Even for you this is a pretty impressive low.
No, sorry bud. You made your bed. Walk your awful analogy back, or keep having folks call you out. It's called taking responsibility.
Not on your life. It's proven the point that hypotheticals can stir up emotions wonderfully.
I'm not sure what kind of troll logic this is, but no, it doesn't prove anything about hypotheticals.
Like I've repeatedly tried to get into your head, which you seem ignorant to understand, is that your "hypothetical" wasn't the issue. The issue is that you compared a question about toy soldiers to the Holocaust. However, all you've done, like most troll logics, is turn around and say "AHA YOU WERE OFFENDED, I PROVED MY POINT" - no, your point still floundered, and being ridiculously ignorant, offensive, or crass (take your pick) about real world genocide just makes you look like a tool.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: There isn't any "discussion" to be had when users can just invalidate the life and experiences of other people here.
And oh look, right on schedule the other PL defender pulls their own dishonest argument. The comment that got "we don't believe you" is not personal life experience, it's speculation about what other people would do in a hypothetical situation. So why should one person's speculation be treated as absolute law that can never be questioned? Are you so lacking in honest defenses for PL that you have to resort to dishonesty like this?
The thread asked if *points* should be scrapped. No-one agreed with that. Open and shut case.
Oh please. Everyone, OP included, knew this thread was going to become a general points vs. PL argument pretty much immediately. And whether or not it technically started as that for 1-2 posts before changing topics it's very clear what the discussion now is and you can not claim you are being treated badly just because you decided to continue participating in the argument and people questioned your claims.
So BIndmage and I don't count as "anyone".
If you get anything of value out of GW declaring your games Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™ Games™ then you need to get out of the cult of officialness. You're playing a game where the whole point is doing your own thing, choosing the rules that suit your needs, etc. You aren't playing in a pickup game setting at a store/club or in tournaments where standardization is important so there is absolutely no reason for anyone involved to care if your games are Official™ or not.
What if I don't agree with that principle though.
Then you're wrong about game design, much like the people who write the 40k rules. Ignoring this principle is how you get bloated games like 9th edition 40k, 3.5e D&D, etc.
Because needlessly dividing the game and community into different factions is bad.
Why?
Because 40k's biggest advantage is that it's the game everyone plays, that you can build an army and know that wherever you go you can drop into a store/club and play a game. It's similar to how one of MTG's best tools for market dominance has been its standardization of formats and Friday Night Magic events, where you can drop into a store anywhere for FNM and play a night of MTG without worrying about if the local store's house rules invalidate all of your decks. The more a community is divided into separate formats the less this is true, and PL is a completely unnecessary division.
You don't have proof for this. You have only offered conjecture.
I'm sorry that I don't have a signed and notarized confession by a GW employee but that doesn't make my theory false. Perhaps you need to learn how standards of evidence work, and what evidence it would be reasonable to expect to have in this situation as people who are not GW employees?
nou wrote: This thread makes me wonder if you guys are serious or deliberately trolling each other.
There are only two valid answers to the "what will happen if points are binned" hypothetical:
- "IMHO there will be outrage so epic, that Nothingham will burn to the ground"
- "IMHO nothing spectacular will happen. There will be some tears, but community will prevail."
Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing in this thread warrants invoking a genocide, even a hypothetical one. Anyone who doesn't see that should seriously stop for a moment and consider an eventuality, that they are over invested in a game of toy soldiers.
I am on record in this thread stating that both PL and points are fine, and haven't advocated for the removal of either.
I have merely pointed out that the very thread started with the premise of removing points. That's the entire impetus behind my being here. This thread has been ridiculous for days.
Yes - an unendorsed hypothetical "what if" scenario to discuss the possible state of the community after such change. There is no sentiment in the OP, no "pts should go" or "pts should stay". There is only "IMHO no armageddon will happen and people will get over it eventually" answer by OP. I don't know how you imagine starting a "what if GW goes insane" thread without mentioning what kind of insanity you have in mind.
If you want to build a proper genocide analogy it would not be "should we kill all the XYZ people" but instead "do you think, that killing XYZ people would result in WW III or would no one bat an eye", which is a perfectly valid question given current political climate in the world. Does this framing endorses genocide? Of course not - it does however acknowledge, that the world is a gakky place and sometimes people get hurt for no reason at all.
I'd say it's unclear as to whether or not the hypothetical is "unendorsed". It's arguably open to interpretation, and that the later (after nearly 20 pages to provide context) question to the "value" of points goes further towards endorsement.
I'd say that claiming the OP can't be interpreted as an endorsed hypothetical is certainly disingenuous.
No, discussing the value of points is discussing game design, not endorsing the change you have no power over. Points as a balance tool have been discussed on this forum since the times immemorial, with many, including myself, being on very clear position, that they are piss poor balancing mechanism in the first place. Before 8th, they were all abstract game design discussions. But since PLs dropped, those perfectly legitimate academic threads turned into gak fests because a large and vocal part of the community fear the (even slightly) possible departure from current incarnation of points as if it was the end of the world. So the OP asked directly - would it really be the end of the world, or is there a hope in the post-apointcalyptic world.
And his position is exacly same as mine - 40k would prevail, as it always did, because this is a gakky game to begin with and everybody playing it deep down accepts this simple truth and endures whatever GW throws at them. Or rage quits along the way, as I once did, but then comes back after few years. Or decades.
No, sorry bud. You made your bed. Walk your awful analogy back, or keep having folks call you out. It's called taking responsibility.
Not on your life. It's proven the point that hypotheticals can stir up emotions wonderfully.
I'm not sure what kind of troll logic this is, but no, it doesn't prove anything about hypotheticals.
Like I've repeatedly tried to get into your head, which you seem ignorant to understand, is that your "hypothetical" wasn't the issue. The issue is that you compared a question about toy soldiers to the Holocaust. However, all you've done, like most troll logics, is turn around and say "AHA YOU WERE OFFENDED, I PROVED MY POINT" - no, your point still floundered, and being ridiculously ignorant, offensive, or crass (take your pick) about real world genocide just makes you look like a tool.
Do you actually understand why that's a problem?
I see why it's a problem for YOU, and I don't care if it is. (and it absolutely did prove my point)
The very premise of the thread is the removal of a game mechanic that many people ascribe a lot of value to. This is the internet. More to the point maybe, this is dakka. It is extremely unsurprising that some people have taken to that topic passionately.
What IS shocking is that it's gone on this long, given the overall level of discourse.
nou wrote: But since PLs dropped, those perfectly legitimate academic threads turned into gak fests because a large and vocal part of the community fear the (even slightly) possible departure from current incarnation of points as if it was the end of the world.
No, they turned nasty because certain "casual" players adopted PLbecause of its flaws, because using a badly designed point system with deliberate errors was a way to show how little they cared about competitive play. PL became a symbol for this style of play completely independent of any of its functional value, and therefore any suggestion of removing it is an attack on the "casual" identity that must not be permitted. This is why, when asked to defend PL, the reasons quickly devolve into "I have an opinion and you have to respect it" or "why do you want to ruin my game". None of the practical value justifications hold up to any scrutiny so all that is left is insisting that the other side is all Bad People who are persecuting the harmless PL players.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: There isn't any "discussion" to be had when users can just invalidate the life and experiences of other people here.
And oh look, right on schedule the other PL defender pulls their own dishonest argument. The comment that got "we don't believe you" is not personal life experience, it's speculation about what other people would do in a hypothetical situation. So why should one person's speculation be treated as absolute law that can never be questioned? Are you so lacking in honest defenses for PL that you have to resort to dishonesty like this
Person A: "In this hypothetical situtaion, what would you do?"
Person B: "I'd probably do this."
Person A: "You're either lying about that or mistaken."
Is it possible that Smudge and Blndmage are mistaken about how they'd respond to PL's removal? Sure.
Is it likely that you know them better than they know themselves, when you're literally a stranger on a forum who has no interaction with them outside of text posted to a website? Hell no.
You're assuming you know best, even when it comes to other people's personal preference, which is just ridiculously arrogant.
JNAProductions wrote: Person A: "In this hypothetical situtaion, what would you do?"
Person B: "I'd probably do this."
Person A: "You're either lying about that or mistaken."
Except that's not what was said. The quote was about what other people in her group might do. That isn't personal experience, it's speculation about the choices of a third party. So please don't keep making this dishonest substitution.
JNAProductions wrote: Person A: "In this hypothetical situtaion, what would you do?"
Person B: "I'd probably do this."
Person A: "You're either lying about that or mistaken."
Except that's not what was said. The quote was about what other people in her group might do. That isn't personal experience, it's speculation about the choices of a third party. So please don't keep making this dishonest substitution.
Who do you think knows her friends better?
Me, you, or Blndmage?
Blackie wrote: Unless you're an "official at all cost" zealot I don't see why you can't already do that. I mean it's narrative play, not competitive gaming. I don't believe you can't find players who refuse to play that kind of game by using points or other house rules. How hard is it to convert PL into points?
Kind of a pain in the ass, actually, since some of the Crusade upgrades only have a PL cost, not points. I'd rather it all be in points and then the PL people could convert it if they really wanted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: Why is so hard for those pushing for PL to be removed to understand that they have a different experience of the game form others. They aren’t right, they just like different things.
I can only put the attitudes in this thread from the likes of sgt bob and hecaton and their allies down to two things.
1. They are being deliberately ignorant to provoke a response. Basically bullying to make them selves feel good in some weird way.
2. They are absolute arseholes who don’t care about anyone but themselves and get their kicks from berating a terminally ill person online.
……wait, they’re the same thing. Guess that clears it up.
This started with people who were pushing for points to be removed being aggressive about it, so not really a valid way of looking at the issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: My comment was an insult but a deserved one based on the same facts smudge highlights in his.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: . . . and you'll find that essentially no-one in this thread has seriously suggested actually removing points.
OP, second sentence: "Would anyone actually have a marked decrease in play if 40k went full Power Levels and abandoned points entirely?"
It's the very start of the thread.
Smudge and lying. It's like peanut butter and jelly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: Silly analogies aside, we actually do have have people here arguing for a removal of PL.
Yup, and those of us who are have a good basis for doing so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Okay, one singular person advocated for the removal of points. And the remainder of people who support keeping PL have said "We don't agree with Fezzik, points should stay in addition to PL."
How many have advocated for the removal of PL?
Blndmage did too but I'm not going to go back and find it.
Blackie wrote: Unless you're an "official at all cost" zealot I don't see why you can't already do that. I mean it's narrative play, not competitive gaming. I don't believe you can't find players who refuse to play that kind of game by using points or other house rules. How hard is it to convert PL into points?
Kind of a pain in the ass, actually, since some of the Crusade upgrades only have a PL cost, not points. I'd rather it all be in points and then the PL people could convert it if they really wanted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: Why is so hard for those pushing for PL to be removed to understand that they have a different experience of the game form others. They aren’t right, they just like different things.
I can only put the attitudes in this thread from the likes of sgt bob and hecaton and their allies down to two things.
1. They are being deliberately ignorant to provoke a response. Basically bullying to make them selves feel good in some weird way.
2. They are absolute arseholes who don’t care about anyone but themselves and get their kicks from berating a terminally ill person online.
……wait, they’re the same thing. Guess that clears it up.
This started with people who were pushing for points to be removed being aggressive about it, so not really a valid way of looking at the issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: My comment was an insult but a deserved one based on the same facts smudge highlights in his.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: . . . and you'll find that essentially no-one in this thread has seriously suggested actually removing points.
OP, second sentence: "Would anyone actually have a marked decrease in play if 40k went full Power Levels and abandoned points entirely?"
It's the very start of the thread.
Smudge and lying. It's like peanut butter and jelly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: Silly analogies aside, we actually do have have people here arguing for a removal of PL.
Yup, and those of us who are have a good basis for doing so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Okay, one singular person advocated for the removal of points. And the remainder of people who support keeping PL have said "We don't agree with Fezzik, points should stay in addition to PL."
How many have advocated for the removal of PL?
Blndmage did too but I'm not going to go back and find it.
I didn't advocate for the removal of points. I did answer the posed question saying I'd probably get more games in and it was a win win.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: There isn't any "discussion" to be had when users can just invalidate the life and experiences of other people here.
And oh look, right on schedule the other PL defender pulls their own dishonest argument. The comment that got "we don't believe you" is not personal life experience, it's speculation about what other people would do in a hypothetical situation. So why should one person's speculation be treated as absolute law that can never be questioned? Are you so lacking in honest defenses for PL that you have to resort to dishonesty like this?
If someone says "this is what I'd do" or "this is how I feel" or "this is why I do what I do", why on earth would your speculation, as someone who is not the other user, mean squat?
If a user is literally explaining their own thoughts and feelings, those are true. You literally don't have any evidence to doubt that, or to say that they're wrong, or that they aren't being genuine, and you certainly don't have the right to say "but are you SURE you feel that way".
It's not dishonesty, it's genuine *honesty*. The fact that being someone being honest with you and still disagreeing fills you with such fear that you need to resort to "but do they REALLY feel like this" tactics only speaks to how little you are willing to accept differing beliefs.
No-one cares if you prefer points. You're welcome to. Just let us enjoy our stuff, knowing that at least WE enjoy it.
The thread asked if *points* should be scrapped. No-one agreed with that. Open and shut case.
Oh please. Everyone, OP included, knew this thread was going to become a general points vs. PL argument pretty much immediately. And whether or not it technically started as that for 1-2 posts before changing topics it's very clear what the discussion now is and you can not claim you are being treated badly just because you decided to continue participating in the argument and people questioned your claims.
It's very clear the discussion is off-topic, yes. And folks are still being treated badly because we've literally got comments saying "I want PL gone so that the filthy casuals can be gatekept" - a paraphrasing, but an accurate one from Hecaton and Plague.
So BIndmage and I don't count as "anyone".
If you get anything of value out of GW declaring your games Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™ Games™ then you need to get out of the cult of officialness. You're playing a game where the whole point is doing your own thing, choosing the rules that suit your needs, etc. You aren't playing in a pickup game setting at a store/club or in tournaments where standardization is important so there is absolutely no reason for anyone involved to care if your games are Official™ or not.
No, stop deflecting from what you just said. You said that BIndmage and I didn't count as "anyone". Own up to that.
What if I don't agree with that principle though.
Then you're wrong about game design, much like the people who write the 40k rules. Ignoring this principle is how you get bloated games like 9th edition 40k, 3.5e D&D, etc.
Newflash kid, but there isn't a "wrong" way to enjoy games. If I enjoy it, then that's what matters. Get over it, I guess.
Because needlessly dividing the game and community into different factions is bad.
Why?
Because 40k's biggest advantage is that it's the game everyone plays, that you can build an army and know that wherever you go you can drop into a store/club and play a game. It's similar to how one of MTG's best tools for market dominance has been its standardization of formats and Friday Night Magic events, where you can drop into a store anywhere for FNM and play a night of MTG without worrying about if the local store's house rules invalidate all of your decks. The more a community is divided into separate formats the less this is true, and PL is a completely unnecessary division.
I disagree that 40k's biggest advantage is being able to pick up and play anyone, and if 40k was to actually more fully become that, I'd actually dislike that immensely. I don't want to be encouraged to make a random army and just plop it down anywhere and play a meaningless silent game. I want to discuss the game, I want to Forge That Narrative, and I want to have fun, bespoke missions. I don't want standardisation. I don't want homogeneity. I want all players to have a niche for what they enjoy.
Clearly, we have different opinions of what we want from 40k. But that's just it - OPINIONS. You're welcome to yours, and I'm welcome to mine, and neither of us are wrong.
You don't have proof for this. You have only offered conjecture.
I'm sorry that I don't have a signed and notarized confession by a GW employee but that doesn't make my theory false. Perhaps you need to learn how standards of evidence work, and what evidence it would be reasonable to expect to have in this situation as people who are not GW employees?
Exactly - you need to show me some actual evidence that meets the basic standards of it, otherwise, it IS just what you said - a "theory", and I don't care about your theory in this context.
No, sorry bud. You made your bed. Walk your awful analogy back, or keep having folks call you out. It's called taking responsibility.
Not on your life. It's proven the point that hypotheticals can stir up emotions wonderfully.
I'm not sure what kind of troll logic this is, but no, it doesn't prove anything about hypotheticals.
Like I've repeatedly tried to get into your head, which you seem ignorant to understand, is that your "hypothetical" wasn't the issue. The issue is that you compared a question about toy soldiers to the Holocaust. However, all you've done, like most troll logics, is turn around and say "AHA YOU WERE OFFENDED, I PROVED MY POINT" - no, your point still floundered, and being ridiculously ignorant, offensive, or crass (take your pick) about real world genocide just makes you look like a tool.
Do you actually understand why that's a problem?
I see why it's a problem for YOU, and I don't care if it is.
This just in, Insectum considers using the Holocaust as a cheap way to make inflammatory arguments, and doesn't think that's a problem.
I literally don't need to address anything else. You're genuinely unhinged.
CadianSgtBob wrote:
JNAProductions wrote: Person A: "In this hypothetical situtaion, what would you do?"
Person B: "I'd probably do this."
Person A: "You're either lying about that or mistaken."
Except that's not what was said. The quote was about what other people in her group might do. That isn't personal experience, it's speculation about the choices of a third party. So please don't keep making this dishonest substitution.
And who knows the people in her group more? You or her? Who is closer, both in experience and familiarity with the people in BIndmage's group? Well, I think by me even calling it "BIndmage's group", I think that answers itself.
Quit trying to act like everyone thinks the same as you. They don't.
Hecaton wrote: This started with people who were pushing for points to be removed being aggressive about it, so not really a valid way of looking at the issue.
No, it didn't. Stop lying out of your arse.
If any of y'all actually care to see the breakdown of who said what, on about page 17 or 18, I made a list of every time someone mentioned "getting rid" of something, or advocated for it. The answers might shock you (they won't)!!
Andykp wrote: My comment was an insult but a deserved one based on the same facts smudge highlights in his.
Smudge isn't big on facts, so that's weird.
Strange, coming from a comment which lies about people being "aggressive".
Smudge and lying. It's like peanut butter and jelly.
Delicious, and sticky enough that it's all in your mouth?
For saying that you have me on ignore, you do LOVE to talk about me. It's kinda cute.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Silly analogies aside, we actually do have have people here arguing for a removal of PL.
Yup, and those of us who are have a good basis for doing so.
When you remove your capacity for empathy, yes.
JNAProductions wrote: Okay, one singular person advocated for the removal of points. And the remainder of people who support keeping PL have said "We don't agree with Fezzik, points should stay in addition to PL."
How many have advocated for the removal of PL?
Blndmage did too but I'm not going to go back and find it.
Actually, I don't believe she did - if you want to prove it, that onus is on you, dear.
BUT, even if so - wow. That's, what, one, two, compared to at least five? Shocking. So equivalent.
Smudge speaks more sense then hecaton or sgt bob put together, the most sensible is jna who uses points but can see how ridiculous you anti PL lot are being, and by ridiculous I mean “fething dicks”.
What would you do if they got rid of power levels? - hypothetical.
How about we kill all the jews, written in an attempt at a German accent isn’t hypothetical, it happened. What eve argument you are trying to win, that gak won’t win it. Unless the argument is “am i a Nazi?” You would win that.
Now I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren’t a Nazi, but only just. What this definitely shows about you insectum7, is that you are incapable of a mature or sensible conversation, even about toys. I don’t believe for a second you didn’t think this would be offensive. You knew full well what you were saying was as gakky as it gets. So we’ll, done, I hope you are proud of yourself. You did a petty nasty thing to make yourself feel clever. But all you did was reveal what a prick you are. Bravo.
JNAProductions wrote: Wait, why was I brought up there?
I'm not a mod. I'm just another poster.
And arguably probably the most civil one at that.
Seconded.
Thirded. JNA represents who so many people in this thread either are unable, or unwilling, to be: empathetic. JNA doesn't play PL, but respects that people enjoy it, and that's reason enough not to get rid of it to spite them.
No-one's asking anyone to start playing PL. We're literally only saying "hey, before you talk about scrapping it, have some empathy and respect for the people who do play it".
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You don't need to measure how tall the Burj Khalifa is in millimetres, just like how you don't need to measure how old you are in seconds.
You need to measure how big the nuts and bolts that make up the Burj Khalifa are in millimetres. You need to measure how much a plasma pistol is worth in an Infantry Squad in pts even if the overall cost of the unit can be measured in PL.
nou wrote: 40k would prevail, as it always did, because this is a gakky game to begin with and everybody playing it deep down accepts this simple truth and endures whatever GW throws at them. Or rage quits along the way, as I once did, but then comes back after few years. Or decades.
Pts is seeing how good 40k can be at times, PL is accepting 40k at its worst and the we'll deal with it in our communities like we always have. But a lot of people haven't dealt with it and have quit over the years because of one balance problem or another. Pts can be better, but for that to happen GW has to believe that it can happen and that it is worth putting in the effort. When the "I prefer playing with half the points my opponents brings" and "I can't tell the difference between a plasma pistol and a las pistol" crowd comes in they need to be politely told to go back to licking paint off their brushes so that GW can hear the clamour for greater internal and external balance that the rest of us want.
How about we kill all the jews, written in an attempt at a German accent isn’t hypothetical, it happened. What eve argument you are trying to win, that gak won’t win it. Unless the argument is “am i a Nazi?” You would win that.
Now I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren’t a Nazi, but only just. What this definitely shows about you insectum7, is that you are incapable of a mature or sensible conversation, even about toys. I don’t believe for a second you didn’t think this would be offensive. You knew full well what you were saying was as gakky as it gets. So we’ll, done, I hope you are proud of yourself. You did a petty nasty thing to make yourself feel clever. But all you did was reveal what a prick you are. Bravo.
If that's your interpretation, you are a moron.
Of course I thought it was offensive, that was the whole effing point. A million facepalms for you, sir.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You don't need to measure how tall the Burj Khalifa is in millimetres, just like how you don't need to measure how old you are in seconds.
You need to measure how big the nuts and bolts that make up the Burj Khalifa are in millimetres. You need to measure how much a plasma pistol is worth in an Infantry Squad in pts even if the overall cost of the unit can be measured in PL.
nou wrote: 40k would prevail, as it always did, because this is a gakky game to begin with and everybody playing it deep down accepts this simple truth and endures whatever GW throws at them. Or rage quits along the way, as I once did, but then comes back after few years. Or decades.
Pts is seeing how good 40k can be at times, PL is accepting 40k at its worst and the we'll deal with it in our communities like we always have. But a lot of people haven't dealt with it and have quit over the years because of one balance problem or another. Pts can be better, but for that to happen GW has to believe that it can happen and that it is worth putting in the effort. When the "I prefer playing with half the points my opponents brings" and "I can't tell the difference between a plasma pistol and a las pistol" crowd comes in they need to be politely told to go back to licking paint off their brushes so that GW can hear the clamour for greater internal and external balance that the rest of us want.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You don't need to measure how tall the Burj Khalifa is in millimetres, just like how you don't need to measure how old you are in seconds.
You need to measure how big the nuts and bolts that make up the Burj Khalifa are in millimetres. You need to measure how much a plasma pistol is worth in an Infantry Squad in pts even if the overall cost of the unit can be measured in PL.
That's if you're trying to build the Burj Khalifa. I'm not trying to build it - I'm just admiring the spectacle of the structure.
Leave the engineers to measure the nuts and bolts, let them measure them in millimetres, centimetres, micrometres even - but I'm not an engineer, just like how I'm not a points player.
When the "I prefer playing with half the points my opponents brings" and "I can't tell the difference between a plasma pistol and a las pistol" crowd comes in they need to be politely told to go back to licking paint off their brushes so that GW can hear the clamour for greater internal and external balance that the rest of us want.
So, in other words, screw the people who are enjoying themselves playing a game mode that you don't have to even play?
Also, "licking paint off their brushes" - again, what a charming remark to make about people who enjoy PL.
Hecaton wrote: I mean I was down for PL as a system before this thread but after talking to PL advocates I'm thinking it needs to go.
You call what you were doing "talking"? Last I remember, you were calling them "filthy casuals" who deserved to be gatekept.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheBestBucketHead wrote: Did people miss the fact that it was intentionally inflammatory to prove a point that hypotheticals can make people angry or offend people?
"Hahahahaha hey guys I just broke your kneecaps to show that people get upset when I break their kneecaps!! NOOOOOOO don't call me out on breaking your kneecaps, I only did it to prove a pooooooooooooint" - Insectum's logic. No-one cares about the hypothetical. We care that it was a fething Holocaust comment, being related to how people feel about toy fething soldiers. I frankly don't care if it was intentional, and honestly, that makes it *worse* - the fact that Insectum knew it was a grim comment to make, and still thought it was a good idea.
If hypotheticals about TOY SOLDIERS make folks upset enough to go on tirades about how people who like PL are "paint lickers", "filthy casuals", and other choice phrases, they've got a bloody problem, that's what.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: Did people miss the fact that it was intentionally inflammatory to prove a point that hypotheticals can make people angry or offend people?
.
A million facepalms for you, sir.