It doesn't. It also doesn't stop people from banging the table every time you roll the dice. Or screaming 'Booyah!' at you every time you try to speak to them. That's not its job.
For the record, list tailoring is cheating, full stop.
And, again, no it isn't. Unless you and your opponent have agreed to not do it, of course.
List tailoring is perfectly acceptable if it's what both players expect to happen. It's pretty much expected and inevitable if you play against the same people regularly.
If you know PL isnt accurate, then what's the point of defending it and using it in the first place instead of going 1st Iteration of AoS?
You realise that ignoring the answers doesn't make them magically disappear, right?
PL isn't intended to be 100% accurate. It's intended to be a rough guide to get two more-or-less equivalent forces on the table without being as detailed as calculating the points for every upgrade. The original AoS approach of 'just use whatever you want' was a step too far into Nebulous Land for most people.
Personally, I would only ever use points. But that's because list-building and agonizing over every upgrade is a large part of the fun for me. Using PL would be like leaving fun on the table.
For me, the difference is the way you list build your lists with points and PL are very different, they foster different styles of lists.
Also, the rulebook has a ton of missions and special rules for PL games, like Sentries, that require PL and are actually super fun to play. The book acknowledges that people may often have slightly different PL totals, and addresses that in the Missiions. For many, you don't actually want equal PL, you want one higher than the other, as appropriate to the missions.
Luciferian wrote: Personally, I would only ever use points. But that's because list-building and agonizing over every upgrade is a large part of the fun for me. Using PL would be like leaving fun on the table.
That's absolutely fair, because that's how you enjoy the game. I wouldn't ever want someone to have to play the game in a way that they don't enjoy, or berate them for choosing their idea of fun.
Luciferian wrote: Personally, I would only ever use points. But that's because list-building and agonizing over every upgrade is a large part of the fun for me. Using PL would be like leaving fun on the table.
And that's fair.
Honestly, I don't even know if I could get a PL game at my stores because they are a very competitive lot, over all. I just find certain people's attitude toxic to the hobby over all. There's no reason to treat every pickup game like it was a try-out for the NBA, after all.
Honestly, I don't even know if I could get a PL game at my stores because they are a very competitive lot, over all. I just find certain people's attitude toxic to the hobby over all. There's no reason to treat every pickup game like it was a try-out for the NBA, after all.
If that's the way they want to play, that's the way they want to play. Nothing "toxic" about it. Believe it or not, some people are capable of playing a fun and friendly game based on points values and optimized lists. This binary choice between having fun or playing competitively is a false dichotomy. Some people can have a fun, healthy, and competitive game where both players enjoy themselves even though one player wins and one loses. There's no need to pathologize high-level or competitive play, just find someone else to play with if you prefer to play more casually.
Luciferian wrote: Personally, I would only ever use points. But that's because list-building and agonizing over every upgrade is a large part of the fun for me. Using PL would be like leaving fun on the table.
That's absolutely fair, because that's how you enjoy the game. I wouldn't ever want someone to have to play the game in a way that they don't enjoy, or berate them for choosing their idea of fun.
Nor would I. There are a lot of ways to play the game and a lot of ways to have fun.
Honestly, I don't even know if I could get a PL game at my stores because they are a very competitive lot, over all. I just find certain people's attitude toxic to the hobby over all. There's no reason to treat every pickup game like it was a try-out for the NBA, after all.
If that's the way they want to play, that's the way they want to play. Nothing "toxic" about it. Believe it or not, some people are capable of playing a fun and friendly game based on points values and optimized lists. This binary choice between having fun or playing competitively is a false dichotomy. Some people can have a fun, healthy, and competitive game where both players enjoy themselves even though one player wins and one loses. There's no need to pathologize high-level or competitive play, just find someone else to play with if you prefer to play more casually.
I think you miss the point of the last two sentences. What is toxic is when people call someone trash or cheater for wanting to play in a different or even less-granular way. I've never been called either locally, but I have been called that here by certain parties, and they are the ones I was calling toxic.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Show me where it says I need to have my list prepared.
I mean, I suppose if part of your enjoyment of the hobby is carrying a bunch of extra boxes to a game and then not using the models in them, well, you can make your list at the store or whatever. I don't see how this is an improvement over having the pre-game discussion before you leave so you can take only the boxes that you need, but I guess everyone has their different opinions...
You can make that decision. You just don't base it off of the effectiveness. You base it off which gun you like the look of, the fluff of, the flavour of.
This, however, is nonsense. PL does not remove the fact that some options are more effective than others, or that taking the most effective option is the way to win games. It does change which particular option is the best one (typically to the one that is most expensive in the normal point system), but the pressure to take the most efficient upgrade for the point cost is still exactly the same. The idea that PL promotes building lists based on fluff or aesthetics is purely a player creation, it's certain people deciding that "let's play a game with PL" implies "don't take the best options" and creating social pressure to comply with their style of play or be shunned from the community.
Or can you not understand how 217+48 is more complex than 3+4?
And the point is that it doesn't matter. 217+48 and 3+4 are both so utterly simple that the difference in complexity is irrelevant unless you're a small child struggling with basic math, especially in 2019 when everyone has a calculator in their pocket so you're literally talking about a difference in difficulty consisting of an extra faction of a second to press three more buttons.
You have no authority to claim what is, and is not, good, wrong, right, responsible, or necessary, Slayerfan. Will you stop being so arrogant?
Will you stop being so arrogant in declaring that your opinion has value? Or is arrogance permitted when someone agrees with you?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Show me where it says I need to have my list prepared.
I mean, I suppose if part of your enjoyment of the hobby is carrying a bunch of extra boxes to a game and then not using the models in them, well, you can make your list at the store or whatever. I don't see how this is an improvement over having the pre-game discussion before you leave so you can take only the boxes that you need, but I guess everyone has their different opinions...
This, however, is nonsense. PL does not remove the fact that some options are more effective than others, or that taking the most effective option is the way to win games. It does change which particular option is the best one (typically to the one that is most expensive in the normal point system), but the pressure to take the most efficient upgrade for the point cost is still exactly the same. The idea that PL promotes building lists based on fluff or aesthetics is purely a player creation, it's certain people deciding that "let's play a game with PL" implies "don't take the best options" and creating social pressure to comply with their style of play or be shunned from the community.
You're once again misreading the argument.
He didn't say that PL removes the effectiveness of certain options. He said that the effectiveness of those options isn't something that the people in favour of Power Levels tend to consider.
That 'pressure' to take the most efficient upgrade is only present if you are actually trying to make an optimised list. For many players, that's just not a thing. They've built their models based on what looked the best, or on their home-brew fluff, or because they really, really like a particular type of weapon or unit, and they write their lists based on the models they have, not the models that would be the most effective.
Yet again, not everyone plays the way you do, and the fact that you consider any other way of playing an absurdity doesn't actually change that.
He didn't say that PL removes the effectiveness of certain options. He said that the effectiveness of those options isn't something that the people in favour of Power Levels tend to consider.
That 'pressure' to take the most efficient upgrade is only present if you are actually trying to make an optimised list. For many players, that's just not a thing. They've built their models based on what looked the best, or on their home-brew fluff, or because they really, really like a particular type of weapon or unit, and they write their lists based on the models they have, not the models that would be the most effective.
Yet again, not everyone plays the way you do, and the fact that you consider any other way of playing an absurdity doesn't actually change that.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Show me where it says I need to have my list prepared.
I mean, I suppose if part of your enjoyment of the hobby is carrying a bunch of extra boxes to a game and then not using the models in them, well, you can make your list at the store or whatever. I don't see how this is an improvement over having the pre-game discussion before you leave so you can take only the boxes that you need, but I guess everyone has their different opinions...
Thank you.
You can make that decision. You just don't base it off of the effectiveness. You base it off which gun you like the look of, the fluff of, the flavour of.
This, however, is nonsense. PL does not remove the fact that some options are more effective than others, or that taking the most effective option is the way to win games.
I never claimed it did change how effective the weapon was.
I said that people don't always choose things based on the effectiveness. Some people choose a weapon because of things beyond the simple mechanics. I'm fully aware that you seem to see a heavy bolter as just a heavy 3 s5 ap-1 bolt weapon, but it's more than just that to other people - therefore, the mere effectiveness of a weapon isn't always the deciding factor.
I can't believe I need to spell it out again, but different people have different opinions which are all subjective and equally valid.
It does change which particular option is the best one (typically to the one that is most expensive in the normal point system), but the pressure to take the most efficient upgrade for the point cost is still exactly the same.
And the data seems to indicate that the people for whom this pressure to take the most efficient options is weakest in, also happen to be the ones who like power level.
If power level really were just as encouraging of the "efficient player" mindset, then why do most "efficient players" play points, and the people least likely to fit into the "efficient players" mindset play PL?
The idea that PL promotes building lists based on fluff or aesthetics is purely a player creation, it's certain people deciding that "let's play a game with PL" implies "don't take the best options" and creating social pressure to comply with their style of play or be shunned from the community.
And this is different from the inherent social pressures of tournament play, general points (where the best options aren't based on their profile alone, but rather on their value for points - thus creating the same arms race of optimisation, just optimising a different element, that being value rather than pure strength), or from the vastly more competitive scene of Dakkadakka? And you have the gall to say that "PL players are bad because they create a social pressure to comply to them"?
Both groups have social pressures. That's just how human psychology works. If you don't like one group, join another. Don't like either, don't join one and make your own.
Or can you not understand how 217+48 is more complex than 3+4?
And the point is that it doesn't matter. 217+48 and 3+4 are both so utterly simple that the difference in complexity is irrelevant unless you're a small child struggling with basic math, especially in 2019 when everyone has a calculator in their pocket so you're literally talking about a difference in difficulty consisting of an extra faction of a second to press three more buttons.
So you're saying that points are only as easy as PL when you have to use a calculator? Lol
I don't CARE if using a calculator is just as fast. I shouldn't NEED to use a calculator. I shouldn't NEED to have to use a third party source to do the work for me. Considering that my phone is quite poor anyways, and the battery drains faster than the battery of a hotshot lasgun, I want to avoid using it as much as possible. Therefore, not having to use a calculator is very appealing.
If your only argument for points being just as fast is when you're using a calculator, then I think that line of debate is well and truly concluded.
You have no authority to claim what is, and is not, good, wrong, right, responsible, or necessary, Slayerfan. Will you stop being so arrogant?
Will you stop being so arrogant in declaring that your opinion has value? Or is arrogance permitted when someone agrees with you?
I could say the same. Why are you so sure your opinion has value, if you're so eager to invalidate mine.
The simple fact is it is default for people discussing in a forum to have equally valid and audible voices. That's the POINT of a forum. Every opinion is as valid as the other. The issues arise when people attempt to undermine the validity of a person's mere opinion and subjectivity, or assert their opinions as indisputable fact - both of which you are doing. If you start encouraging the idea that some opinions that only affect the person speaking them are not permitted to be heard, then you compromise every single person within that forum, and destroy the social contract which it is based around.
Well done Peregrine! You just destroyed the concept of a forum, where people are supposed to come together to discuss things as equals, sharing opinions with the same validity within the social contract of the forum. Are you proud?
In the points system, you must pay for the options according purely to their strength in the game, and their other values are ignored. I'm not saying that's a bad thing - but I am saying it's only useful for players who care about strength and balance.
For the players who don't care about that, their creativity and fun should not have to suffer because they liked the look of X weapon. This is why PL comes in. It treats all weapons as equal, despite their differences in strength, because the strength isn't the valuable part for the PL players.
Or, let's compare to music, purely because I think I can explain better with music.
It's like comparing Eminem's 'Rap God' to Shostakovitch's Fugue in A Major. For people who care about harmony and melody, I think the A Major Fugue would be incredibly suitable for them (I won't say enjoyable, but interesting - seeing as that piece lacks any dissonance, as a stylistic choice). Hell, the name of the piece focuses on this - the tonality and harmony of it were incredibly valued and prioritized in the creation of it, and are the things a listener would value in it too.
Rap God has very little melody, and pretty much no harmony, but that's not important. The lyrical content and rhythmic emphasis are the focus of the piece, and are what a typical listener of rap would value.
Of COURSE someone who only likes 20th century music would dislike rap - because rap puts focus on things they simply don't care for. Likewise, rap lovers would find no value in a piano fugue.*
*People can like more than one, but for the sake of this argument, I'm assuming two very close-minded music lovers!
It doesn't; the beauty of PL for min maxers is that PL produces very different min maxed lists to what points system produces. This adds variety to the game, because before you could only 'solve' 40k by discovering the 'winningest list' under points, but now there is a complete shake up in the fact there is a second system, PL, to build armies, and ergo a completely different 'winningest list' to discover.
Blndmage wrote: For me, the difference is the way you list build your lists with points and PL are very different, they foster different styles of lists.
Also, the rulebook has a ton of missions and special rules for PL games, like Sentries, that require PL and are actually super fun to play. The book acknowledges that people may often have slightly different PL totals, and addresses that in the Missiions. For many, you don't actually want equal PL, you want one higher than the other, as appropriate to the missions.
Because it's getting lost in bickering.
I feel that the above are some valid reasons, not based on individual preferences that show some of the differentiation between Points and PL.
Also, see the new CA, the Narritive PL based section is amazing! It continues to define the difference between the two (main, I'm not discounting open play, as they've done aweso,e stuff there as well) style of play within the community.
While you can try to make the Narritive mission special rules contort to the Points system, it's obvious that Narritive and Matched Play (not necessarily PL and Points, as the Matched Play section says you can use PL as your balancing factor, or even number of Wounds) are gear toward different styles of play.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If power level really were just as encouraging of the "efficient player" mindset, then why do most "efficient players" play points, and the people least likely to fit into the "efficient players" mindset play PL?
Three reasons, none of them related to anything about PL being good:
1) People who care about a rules-focused approach to the game tend to have a better understanding of game design and recognize that PL is a bad system and use the normal point system.
2) Just by the odds, 71% of the people responding to this poll prefer the normal points system. Even if attitudes about efficiency had nothing to do with choice of rules you'd still find that most efficiency-minded players use normal points because most players in general use normal points.
3) PL advocates have created a social construct around PL being the "casual" format and use "let's play PL" as shorthand for "don't optimize your list or you aren't welcome". So even if efficiency-focused players wanted to use PL they'd find themselves rejected by the other PL players and go back to using normal points.
And this is different from the inherent social pressures of tournament play, general points (where the best options aren't based on their profile alone, but rather on their value for points - thus creating the same arms race of optimisation, just optimising a different element, that being value rather than pure strength), or from the vastly more competitive scene of Dakkadakka? And you have the gall to say that "PL players are bad because they create a social pressure to comply to them"?
Both groups have social pressures. That's just how human psychology works. If you don't like one group, join another. Don't like either, don't join one and make your own.
None of that social pressure has anything to do with your choice of point system. The difference between the two is that PL has all of the pressures of normal points (optimizing your list based on point efficiency), but then PL players have added all kinds of unwritten rules about how much optimization is "too much".
So you're saying that points are only as easy as PL when you have to use a calculator? Lol
I'm saying that adding up your points using a calculator (which you have on your phone) is so obviously easier than doing it by hand that talking about how easy or hard mental math is just doesn't have any relevance to reality. It doesn't matter if you're adding up 217+48+61+105+49 or 18+5+7+24+19, using a calculator makes it easier and avoids mistakes.
The simple fact is it is default for people discussing in a forum to have equally valid and audible voices. That's the POINT of a forum. Every opinion is as valid as the other. The issues arise when people attempt to undermine the validity of a person's mere opinion and subjectivity, or assert their opinions as indisputable fact - both of which you are doing. If you start encouraging the idea that some opinions that only affect the person speaking them are not permitted to be heard, then you compromise every single person within that forum, and destroy the social contract which it is based around.
Well done Peregrine! You just destroyed the concept of a forum, where people are supposed to come together to discuss things as equals, sharing opinions with the same validity within the social contract of the forum. Are you proud?
Never did I say that your opinions are not permitted to be heard. You are wrong, but you are free to continue posting your wrong opinions and nobody is lobbying for you to be banned. But I think it says a lot that you have to continue to resort to a defense as weak as "I have a right to have an opinion". A well-supported position does not require stating the obvious because much stronger defenses exist.
In the points system, you must pay for the options according purely to their strength in the game, and their other values are ignored.
Yes, which is exactly how it works in PL. The only difference is that in the normal point system upgrades have different costs and you can have strategic choices like taking a less-powerful option because it is cheaper, while in PL they all have the same cost and the only value that matters is how powerful its stat line is.
For the players who don't care about that, their creativity and fun should not have to suffer because they liked the look of X weapon. This is why PL comes in. It treats all weapons as equal, despite their differences in strength, because the strength isn't the valuable part for the PL players.
Except that's not how it works at all. In PL if you like the look of X weapon you'd better hope it's the most powerful one because you're paying the price for the most powerful weapon. For example, in PL you will never take a flamer because a plasma gun costs the same and is a much more powerful option. Like the look of a flamer? Too bad, you're going to be making a weaker list by taking it. At least under the normal point system you can save a few points by taking that flamer.
The only time "creativity and fun" don't suffer under PL is when you decide not to care about list optimization and take a weaker option, which you can also do in the normal point system. Nothing about PL encourages taking weaker options because you like the aesthetics, that is purely a social construct certain players have invented.
Or, let's compare to music, purely because I think I can explain better with music.
Except what your comparison misses is that PL is just a worse version of the normal point system. It doesn't create a genuinely different experience, it just assigns a less accurate point cost to units. A more relevant music comparison would be having the choice of listening to the rap song, or listening to the exact same song except it's been through a few rounds of file compression and you're playing it on the cheapest possible low-end speakers.
Blndmage wrote: For me, the difference is the way you list build your lists with points and PL are very different, they foster different styles of lists.
Also, the rulebook has a ton of missions and special rules for PL games, like Sentries, that require PL and are actually super fun to play. The book acknowledges that people may often have slightly different PL totals, and addresses that in the Missiions. For many, you don't actually want equal PL, you want one higher than the other, as appropriate to the missions.
Because it's getting lost in bickering.
I feel that the above are some valid reasons, not based on individual preferences that show some of the differentiation between Points and PL.
Also, see the new CA, the Narritive PL based section is amazing! It continues to define the difference between the two (main, I'm not discounting open play, as they've done aweso,e stuff there as well) style of play within the community.
While you can try to make the Narritive mission special rules contort to the Points system, it's obvious that Narritive and Matched Play (not necessarily PL and Points, as the Matched Play section says you can use PL as your balancing factor, or even number of Wounds) are gear toward different styles of play.
I fear that your POV is a voice in the wilderness when it comes to Peregrine, as he dismisses Narrative Play section of the BRB in it's entirety, so any further reasoning based on content contained therein is fundamentally without merit in his eyes. We had this talk few times already and it's really hopeless - you should just accept that your way of having fun with 40K is invalid, wrong and bad
At the very least you should translate all narrative section to points, but at the same time do such feat with strict accordance to the rules as written by GW, and remember, that any homebrew rules written ever are even worse crap than official GW rules and any rules modification not sanctioned by ITC are done for your personal advantage (you filthy cheater)
nou wrote: I fear that your POV is a voice in the wilderness when it comes to Peregrine, as he dismisses Narrative Play section of the BRB in it's entirety, so any further reasoning based on content contained therein is fundamentally without merit in his eyes. We had this talk few times already and it's really hopeless - you should just accept that your way of having fun with 40K is invalid, wrong and bad
Oh look, this straw man again. Let's just ignore that my objection to GW's "narrative" section is that it's a narrative system and narrative players should be demanding better, not that narrative gaming is without merit and you shouldn't do it.
nou wrote: I fear that your POV is a voice in the wilderness when it comes to Peregrine, as he dismisses Narrative Play section of the BRB in it's entirety, so any further reasoning based on content contained therein is fundamentally without merit in his eyes. We had this talk few times already and it's really hopeless - you should just accept that your way of having fun with 40K is invalid, wrong and bad
Oh look, this straw man again. Let's just ignore that my objection to GW's "narrative" section is that it's a narrative system and narrative players should be demanding better, not that narrative gaming is without merit and you shouldn't do it.
This is true. Remember what the first Chapter Approved gave us for Open Play/Narrative? Customizable Land Raiders!!!!!!
What did the second one give us? Character customization!!!!!!
That's really not a lot for a whole type of game dedicated to these kinds of rules.
It doesn't. It also doesn't stop people from banging the table every time you roll the dice. Or screaming 'Booyah!' at you every time you try to speak to them. That's not its job.
For the record, list tailoring is cheating, full stop.
And, again, no it isn't. Unless you and your opponent have agreed to not do it, of course.
List tailoring is perfectly acceptable if it's what both players expect to happen. It's pretty much expected and inevitable if you play against the same people regularly.
If you know PL isnt accurate, then what's the point of defending it and using it in the first place instead of going 1st Iteration of AoS?
You realise that ignoring the answers doesn't make them magically disappear, right?
PL isn't intended to be 100% accurate. It's intended to be a rough guide to get two more-or-less equivalent forces on the table without being as detailed as calculating the points for every upgrade. The original AoS approach of 'just use whatever you want' was a step too far into Nebulous Land for most people.
Agreeing to your opponent list tailoring is agreeing for them to cheat. It doesn't matter if you let them or not, as there is a concept to cheating you're not grasping.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If power level really were just as encouraging of the "efficient player" mindset, then why do most "efficient players" play points, and the people least likely to fit into the "efficient players" mindset play PL?
Three reasons, none of them related to anything about PL being good:
Spoiler:
1) People who care about a rules-focused approach to the game tend to have a better understanding of game design and recognize that PL is a bad system and use the normal point system.
2) Just by the odds, 71% of the people responding to this poll prefer the normal points system. Even if attitudes about efficiency had nothing to do with choice of rules you'd still find that most efficiency-minded players use normal points because most players in general use normal points.
3) PL advocates have created a social construct around PL being the "casual" format and use "let's play PL" as shorthand for "don't optimize your list or you aren't welcome". So even if efficiency-focused players wanted to use PL they'd find themselves rejected by the other PL players and go back to using normal points.
if your first inclination is negative, you usually tend to look at everything that way. Why would they be ostrascized & rejected? it's nothing that a 30 sec conversation with your opponent cant figure out. If I ask someone what they're playing and what list(if any they pre-made) they're gonna play and I say we can do points or pl, either answer is fine. I will not berate them for wanting something different than I do, but you know what, if that's how you react to players whom do not meet your narrowly defined idea, cool, not my style.
Spoiler:
And this is different from the inherent social pressures of tournament play, general points (where the best options aren't based on their profile alone, but rather on their value for points - thus creating the same arms race of optimisation, just optimising a different element, that being value rather than pure strength), or from the vastly more competitive scene of Dakkadakka? And you have the gall to say that "PL players are bad because they create a social pressure to comply to them"?
Both groups have social pressures. That's just how human psychology works. If you don't like one group, join another. Don't like either, don't join one and make your own.
None of that social pressure has anything to do with your choice of point system. The difference between the two is that PL has all of the pressures of normal points (optimizing your list based on point efficiency), but then PL players have added all kinds of unwritten rules about how much optimization is "too much".
So you're saying that points are only as easy as PL when you have to use a calculator? Lol
I'm saying that adding up your points using a calculator (which you have on your phone) is so obviously easier than doing it by hand that talking about how easy or hard mental math is just doesn't have any relevance to reality. It doesn't matter if you're adding up 217+48+61+105+49 or 18+5+7+24+19, using a calculator makes it easier and avoids mistakes.
The simple fact is it is default for people discussing in a forum to have equally valid and audible voices. That's the POINT of a forum. Every opinion is as valid as the other. The issues arise when people attempt to undermine the validity of a person's mere opinion and subjectivity, or assert their opinions as indisputable fact - both of which you are doing. If you start encouraging the idea that some opinions that only affect the person speaking them are not permitted to be heard, then you compromise every single person within that forum, and destroy the social contract which it is based around.
Well done Peregrine! You just destroyed the concept of a forum, where people are supposed to come together to discuss things as equals, sharing opinions with the same validity within the social contract of the forum. Are you proud?
Never did I say that your opinions are not permitted to be heard. You are wrong, but you are free to continue posting your wrong opinions and nobody is lobbying for you to be banned. But I think it says a lot that you have to continue to resort to a defense as weak as "I have a right to have an opinion". A well-supported position does not require stating the obvious because much stronger defenses exist.
In the points system, you must pay for the options according purely to their strength in the game, and their other values are ignored.
Yes, which is exactly how it works in PL. The only difference is that in the normal point system upgrades have different costs and you can have strategic choices like taking a less-powerful option because it is cheaper, while in PL they all have the same cost and the only value that matters is how powerful its stat line is.
For the players who don't care about that, their creativity and fun should not have to suffer because they liked the look of X weapon. This is why PL comes in. It treats all weapons as equal, despite their differences in strength, because the strength isn't the valuable part for the PL players.
Except that's not how it works at all. In PL if you like the look of X weapon you'd better hope it's the most powerful one because you're paying the price for the most powerful weapon. For example, in PL you will never take a flamer because a plasma gun costs the same and is a much more powerful option. Like the look of a flamer? Too bad, you're going to be making a weaker list by taking it. At least under the normal point system you can save a few points by taking that flamer.
you say it's bad, that kinda sounds subjective rather than objective, wait a second that would make that an opinion.
I've never suffered for taking flamers & meltas. Now I'm not gonna say I dont have a plasmagun or lascannon mixed in there just to cover all the bases, but I'm sure not making it a priority to pick the "best"(subjective) guns. Every unit I've ever purchased is due to loving how the model looks, not which is most efficient. Why does my redemptor have flamer & asscan, cuz it looks badass. I havent used the plasma for more than a year.
the only time "creativity and fun" don't suffer under PL is when you decide not to care about list optimization and take a weaker option(subjective), which you can also do in the normal point system. Nothing about PL encourages taking weaker options because you like the aesthetics, that is purely a social construct certain players have invented.
The only one inventing stuff is you, everything that you've stated as fact is subjective, at this point I'm not sure if you are actually able to have a non biased discussion. NO ONE IS SAYING THAT YOU'RE WAY TO PLAY IS WRONG, unfortunately that is the only thing you have consistently done.
if the foundation of your argument cannot withstand courteous public discourse(i.e. name calling, using subjective opinions as facts, etc..), then by virtue of your own statements, the basis of your point isnt in the spirit of the original post. which was for the OP to figure out which way is best for them. Not for you to continuously deride anyone whose opinion(see, subjective) doesnt align with yours.
Spoiler:
Or, let's compare to music, purely because I think I can explain better with music.
Except what your comparison misses is that PL is just a worse version of the normal point system. It doesn't create a genuinely different experience, it just assigns a less accurate point cost to units. A more relevant music comparison would be having the choice of listening to the rap song, or listening to the exact same song except it's been through a few rounds of file compression and you're playing it on the cheapest possible low-end speakers.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If power level really were just as encouraging of the "efficient player" mindset, then why do most "efficient players" play points, and the people least likely to fit into the "efficient players" mindset play PL?
Three reasons, none of them related to anything about PL being good:
1) People who care about a rules-focused approach to the game tend to have a better understanding of game design and recognize that PL is a bad system and use the normal point system.
This point hinges on PL being "bad" - I thought we'd established that "bad" is a matter of opinion, and not a fact. So, why is the reason people think it's bad "because it's bad"?
2) Just by the odds, 71% of the people responding to this poll prefer the normal points system. Even if attitudes about efficiency had nothing to do with choice of rules you'd still find that most efficiency-minded players use normal points because most players in general use normal points.
Now that's fair. Purely from people using what they're used to, that makes sense, and the most commonly used system.
3) PL advocates have created a social construct around PL being the "casual" format and use "let's play PL" as shorthand for "don't optimize your list or you aren't welcome". So even if efficiency-focused players wanted to use PL they'd find themselves rejected by the other PL players and go back to using normal points.
And how is this any different from social construct that points players have created, especially tournament or competitive players? This is, of course, working under your assumption that these social constructs exist.
Again, if PL players reject the "efficiency players" with enough consistency that it appears on this list of why those players don't play PL, surely that is a perfect response as to how PL is not completely broken? As you put it, the people who would break the system don't play it, and therefore, it doesn't get broken.
None of that social pressure has anything to do with your choice of point system. The difference between the two is that PL has all of the pressures of normal points (optimizing your list based on point efficiency), but then PL players have added all kinds of unwritten rules about how much optimization is "too much".
And is that any different to the unwritten emphasis on making your list as powerful as possible by optimizing efficiency in the points system?
If we assume that both sides have social contracts, how are either of them worse than the other? One has unwritten rules about how much optimisation is too much, and one has unwritten rules that discourage casual play, and encourage optimisation play. Neither is inherently better or worse.
I'm saying that adding up your points using a calculator (which you have on your phone) is so obviously easier than doing it by hand that talking about how easy or hard mental math is just doesn't have any relevance to reality. It doesn't matter if you're adding up 217+48+61+105+49 or 18+5+7+24+19, using a calculator makes it easier and avoids mistakes.
But you're still relying on a calculator. My point is that I shouldn't have to. If I have to rely on a calculator to play the game, then that's a problem. Plus, you can still make mistakes on a calculator (I found this problem quite a few times with previous editions - I'd be typing in so many numbers, so many times, that I'd be bound to miss a number from a unit's value, or not press the addition key, and have to start again).
Never did I say that your opinions are not permitted to be heard. You are wrong
But why? How? You say this like it's a fact, but it's not. This is why the entire social contract of the forum breaks down - because you are mentally incapable of recognising both that your opinions are not facts and that other people's opinions, just because you disagree with them, are not wrong. Because of your failure to comprehend this basic element of discussion, the entire social contract of the forum breaks down.
[quoteBut I think it says a lot that you have to continue to resort to a defense as weak as "I have a right to have an opinion".
It's hardly weak if it's true.
A well-supported position does not require stating the obvious because much stronger defenses exist.
Unfortunately, your idea of defense is scream at the top of your lungs "I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG LALALALALA". You are asserting your opinion as fact with so much vigor, and with so much single minded conviction that you simply break civil debate.
the only value that matters is how powerful its stat line is.
Only to you. You make the assumption that the only thing of value is the power of the stat line. This is my exact argument. All you can understand is mechanics, is power, is numbers. That's good - for you.
Other people aren't like you, Peregrine. There's more to the game than numbers.
Except that's not how it works at all. In PL if you like the look of X weapon you'd better hope it's the most powerful one because you're paying the price for the most powerful weapon. For example, in PL you will never take a flamer because a plasma gun costs the same and is a much more powerful option.
That assumes that people care about the strength of their list over the other values they attribute to it.
Are you actually incapable of understanding that other people have different likes and values? Like, genuinely?
Like the look of a flamer? Too bad, you're going to be making a weaker list by taking it.
But why do I care about that? Again, you make the assumption that all players CARE about their list being weaker or stronger. They don't: they just want to be able to take what they want, for their idea of fun.
The only time "creativity and fun" don't suffer under PL is when you decide not to care about list optimization and take a weaker option, which you can also do in the normal point system. Nothing about PL encourages taking weaker options because you like the aesthetics, that is purely a social construct certain players have invented.
However, the points system, by it's design, discourages taking options for aesthetic or non-gameplay reasons, because you take away from the ability to construct the rest of your army.
Lets say I'm nearing the end of my list building, and I have some points. Now, I really want to take power swords on my marine sergeants, because my Chapter place a great emphasis on the sword, especially the finer duelling abilities of the power sword over the clumsy chainsword. However, if I do that, then I can't take the Chaplain who should be there to accompany the Captain and support the rest of the Battle Company that's present. I am being discouraged from taking upgrades for flavour reasons, because that would have a large impact on the actual units I can and cannot take.
Now, you might say "that's good, it makes the player think and consider their options" - but that's because you value games that do that. I do not. I want to relax and take what I want with a rough framework. Power Level works for that.
Or, let's compare to music, purely because I think I can explain better with music.
Except what your comparison misses is that PL is just a worse version of the normal point system.
But WHY and HOW is it worse, beyond you just screaming that it is?
I'm sorry Peregrine, but all of your attempts to say why PL is bad are based in your own simple inability to comprehend other ways of playing the game and enjoying oneself. You say PL is bad, but that's just your opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Oh look, this straw man again. Let's just ignore that my objection to GW's "narrative" section is that it's a narrative system and narrative players should be demanding better, not that narrative gaming is without merit and you shouldn't do it.
That's also your opinion. Stop touting it like a fact.
It doesn't. It also doesn't stop people from banging the table every time you roll the dice. Or screaming 'Booyah!' at you every time you try to speak to them. That's not its job.
For the record, list tailoring is cheating, full stop.
And, again, no it isn't. Unless you and your opponent have agreed to not do it, of course.
List tailoring is perfectly acceptable if it's what both players expect to happen. It's pretty much expected and inevitable if you play against the same people regularly.
If you know PL isnt accurate, then what's the point of defending it and using it in the first place instead of going 1st Iteration of AoS?
You realise that ignoring the answers doesn't make them magically disappear, right?
PL isn't intended to be 100% accurate. It's intended to be a rough guide to get two more-or-less equivalent forces on the table without being as detailed as calculating the points for every upgrade. The original AoS approach of 'just use whatever you want' was a step too far into Nebulous Land for most people.
Why would you bother with a rough guide if you know it's not even a GOOD rough guide?
I can't believe I have to reiterate this, but you lose NOTHING from a more granular, balanced system. Literally nothing. At all.
And no it was already proven it can't produce equivalent forces. Did you miss that whole post about the Deathwatch vs Eldar PL comparison for 2000 points? The Deathwatch one was 156 and the Eldar was 98. Deathwatch would even not have every upgrade available (which is free of course), making them worse by default, compared to a point system where you only pay what you decide necessary.
Agreeing to your opponent list tailoring is agreeing for them to cheat..
I have no idea how to respond to this. It's like you're saying 'Telling your friend they can borrow your car is agreeing for them to steal your stuff...'
Can you try, for just a moment, to step outside your box and accept that different people expect different things from the game? Ive played in groups where we all knew each others' armies, and we specifically tried to build lists to outdo each other, or to include something new and unexpected that they wouldn't have an easy counter for. That was accepted and enjoyed by everyone involved. Not 'cheating' (by very definition, since it was something that we all agreed to)... just how we played the game.
Even without going that extreme, for people with smaller collections and a small group of regular opponents, list tailoring is simply a natural consequence. As they add to their collections, people will go for those things that they expect will do well against their regular opponents.
List tailoring is only a problem if you are expecting that both players will go into the game knowing not knowing what their opponent is fielding. But regardless of how many times you want to repeat it as if it's an actual rule, that's only one way to play the game.
While I am firmly in the camp that points are better, I still think PL have merit. ESPECIALLY in the "living ruleset" era in which points get updated in non-Codex sources. PL rarely changes and as long as you aren't INTENTIONALLY slapping the most expensive upgrades you possibly can on every unit, PLs work just fine to bring 2 forces to RELATIVE equality.
Using PLs also allow for changes in wargear without dramatically affecting the rest of the list. Countless times have I struggled to bring a list down below 2000pts when a single weapon change was needed to make a unit more efficient. The list was below 2000pts before, but because I wanna swap a Shuricannon for a Bright lance to get more anti-tank, I have to go back to the drawing board to alter the whole list.
And while this kind of list building is certainly a fun part of the hobby, it can also be infuriating. Especially when you have mild-severe OCD and HAVE to get within 5pts of the army limit, but still have a symmetrical list. PLs presents a more relaxed form of list building that permits game-to-game wargear alterations without altering whole sections of a list to make those changes fit.
My teen boys are building their Marine lists and PLs allow us to use the same list each game (because they have few units and they wanna use them ALL), but try out different weapon options to see what works for them. We could use points, but we'd either have to be ok with being ~20pts above or below the Points limit (no thanx) or potentially have slightly different or non-optimized lists.
Peregrine wrote:1) People who care about a rules-focused approach to the game tend to have a better understanding of game design and recognize that PL is a bad system and use the normal point system.
And people who are well familiar with the rules-focused approach to the game tend to have e better understanding of game design and recognize that GW's point system is as much crap as you think the PL system is, and occasionally worse.
Peregrine wrote:2) Just by the odds, 71% of the people responding to this poll prefer the normal points system. Even if attitudes about efficiency had nothing to do with choice of rules you'd still find that most efficiency-minded players use normal points because most players in general use normal points.
And how many do so because their local meta is a bunch of tournament hounds which require Matched Play like mine is, or simply because they've always used points so why change now?
Peregrine wrote:3) PL advocates have created a social construct around PL being the "casual" format and use "let's play PL" as shorthand for "don't optimize your list or you aren't welcome". So even if efficiency-focused players wanted to use PL they'd find themselves rejected by the other PL players and go back to using normal points.
Only a couple have said that. Others recognize that either system is based on faulty materials so don't see the purpose of being hide-bound on one tiny aspect of the ruleset.
Peregrine wrote:None of that social pressure has anything to do with your choice of point system. The difference between the two is that PL has all of the pressures of normal points (optimizing your list based on point efficiency), but then PL players have added all kinds of unwritten rules about how much optimization is "too much".
Assumption. If the only way a person been introduced to the game is the points system because the meta is overly tournament-focused, then why would they ever consider any other option? OR the meta uses points because they are so used to using points?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Agreeing to your opponent list tailoring is agreeing for them to cheat. It doesn't matter if you let them or not, as there is a concept to cheating you're not grasping.
No it isn't, because there is no rule against list tailoring, and if their is no rule, it is not cheating. In fact, you will find that every single successful tournament player tailor their lists very tightly to take on expected lists. It may not be as purely tailored as one would take for any one specific army, but it is built with all the same considerations in mind.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: ...preparing your lists is literally part of the game. That's like the same as people saying they have better things to do than to build their models or paint them or actually play the game.
Err, sorry, no?
Show me where it says I need to have my list prepared. It only says I need one at the start of the game, but that could be a list I've only just made. I don't need to make a list weeks in advance. I don't even need it hours in advance. Stop imposing your personal way to play as fact and a necessity for others. It's not true.
It's kinda all connected. I don't know how you create that disconnect, but I'll spend two weeks to even a month perfecting a list because it's something to take pride in like the models themselves.
And I'll take pride in my models by playing them how I want to, painting them how I want to, and taking the models I want to. You have your way, I'll have mine. Savvy?
Which once again creates the problem that, with an in game effect, you'd have reason to take 2.8 Heavy Bolters over a Grav Cannon. When everything is priced the same, you can't make that decision. So that leads to the principle you might as well throw each system in the trash and go pewpew.
You can make that decision. You just don't base it off of the effectiveness. You base it off which gun you like the look of, the fluff of, the flavour of.
Also, harder to calculate? Did you somehow not be able to do this for several editions and had someone else do the math for you? I know you said you've played for a while. Simple addition is simple addition. You aren't doing trigonometry or anything.
Simple addition can be made simpler. Or can you not understand how 217+48 is more complex than 3+4?
It's not about the calculation. It's about the amount of calculation, and the length of the sums. 1+1 is easier than 100+100.
And again - I have played 40k for several editions. I have played with points. I deal with standard three/four digit sums as part of my daily life. Just because I *can* do it doesn't mean I want to do it as part of my leisure time.
Sorry if I don't have fun the way you do, but my way is just as valid as yours. Will you concede that at least?
It also helps that you simply bring lists for common point values ready to go. Sorry, but bringing your whole collection and making a list is irresponsible.
And you became the arbiter of what is and is not responsible when, exactly?
You have no authority to claim what is, and is not, good, wrong, right, responsible, or necessary, Slayerfan. Will you stop being so arrogant?
1. Nowhere it says that you need to have your models painted more than one color nor does it create a strict WYSIWYG. It isn't my fault you want to be as disorganized with your hobby as you are.
2. Which means you automatically make your list worse when you only get to choose between so many weapons. If your opponent likes the look of the better weapons in the first place, your argument falls apart immediately (clearly not everyone thinks the Heavy Bolter looks better than the Grav Cannon, which is what your idea hinges on) and now their list is automatically stronger, all by the fact all the weapons are the same exact cost. Free. Everything is free. A Devastator squad with all Grav Cannons and Lascannons costs the same as one with all Multi-Melta and Heavy Bolters. This doesn't make sense when you inspect it for more than a few seconds.
3. I don't need a calculator for either addition problem you presented. The only person it'll be harder for is a first grader. Maybe, at that.
So 40k probably isn't the hobby for you, as there's probably several people here that work with numbers and still have little issue with adding up regular points. It's like a guitarist refusing to advance their skills to what they could be. They shouldn't just be playing guitar "because they enjoy it". If you aren't growing at said hobby, you're wasting your time, end of story. It isn't even a hobby at that point, just something you do for fun.
4. And it's that special attitude "you're entitled to an opinion" that leads to the lack of critical thinking that leads to Flat Earthers still existing. There's clearly something wrong and they need to be told that, and how one goes about it is a different story.
Why would you bother with a rough guide if you know it's not even a GOOD rough guide?
Because you consider it good enough for its purpose?
I can't believe I have to reiterate this, but you lose NOTHING from a more granular, balanced system. Literally nothing. At all.
You don't have to reiterate it, since it's already been pointed out why that granular system is less appealing to those who prefer PL.
And no it was already proven it can't produce equivalent forces. Did you miss that whole post about the Deathwatch vs Eldar PL comparison for 2000 points? The Deathwatch one was 156 and the Eldar was 98. Deathwatch would even not have every upgrade available (which is free of course), making them worse by default, compared to a point system where you only pay what you decide necessary.
I tried typing up a response to this, but the twisted logic you're using here makes my brain hurt.
Let's just go with -
- being able to make imbalanced lists is not the same as not being able to make equivalent lists
and
- 'roughly equivalent' and 'equal' are not the same thing
Peregrine wrote:1) People who care about a rules-focused approach to the game tend to have a better understanding of game design and recognize that PL is a bad system and use the normal point system.
And people who are well familiar with the rules-focused approach to the game tend to have e better understanding of game design and recognize that GW's point system is as much crap as you think the PL system is, and occasionally worse.
Peregrine wrote:2) Just by the odds, 71% of the people responding to this poll prefer the normal points system. Even if attitudes about efficiency had nothing to do with choice of rules you'd still find that most efficiency-minded players use normal points because most players in general use normal points.
And how many do so because their local meta is a bunch of tournament hounds which require Matched Play like mine is, or simply because they've always used points so why change now?
Peregrine wrote:3) PL advocates have created a social construct around PL being the "casual" format and use "let's play PL" as shorthand for "don't optimize your list or you aren't welcome". So even if efficiency-focused players wanted to use PL they'd find themselves rejected by the other PL players and go back to using normal points.
Only a couple have said that. Others recognize that either system is based on faulty materials so don't see the purpose of being hide-bound on one tiny aspect of the ruleset.
Peregrine wrote:None of that social pressure has anything to do with your choice of point system. The difference between the two is that PL has all of the pressures of normal points (optimizing your list based on point efficiency), but then PL players have added all kinds of unwritten rules about how much optimization is "too much".
Assumption. If the only way a person been introduced to the game is the points system because the meta is overly tournament-focused, then why would they ever consider any other option? OR the meta uses points because they are so used to using points?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Agreeing to your opponent list tailoring is agreeing for them to cheat. It doesn't matter if you let them or not, as there is a concept to cheating you're not grasping.
No it isn't, because there is no rule against list tailoring, and if their is no rule, it is not cheating. In fact, you will find that every single successful tournament player tailor their lists very tightly to take on expected lists. It may not be as purely tailored as one would take for any one specific army, but it is built with all the same considerations in mind.
All games don't have a page that explicitly lists what's cheating and what's not. If there is, you can probably count those on one hand, both at max.
Why would you bother with a rough guide if you know it's not even a GOOD rough guide?
Because you consider it good enough for its purpose?
I can't believe I have to reiterate this, but you lose NOTHING from a more granular, balanced system. Literally nothing. At all.
You don't have to reiterate it, since it's already been pointed out why that granular system is less appealing to those who prefer PL.
And no it was already proven it can't produce equivalent forces. Did you miss that whole post about the Deathwatch vs Eldar PL comparison for 2000 points? The Deathwatch one was 156 and the Eldar was 98. Deathwatch would even not have every upgrade available (which is free of course), making them worse by default, compared to a point system where you only pay what you decide necessary.
I tried typing up a response to this, but the twisted logic you're using here makes my brain hurt.
Let's just go with -
- being able to make imbalanced lists is not the same as not being able to make equivalent lists
and
- 'roughly equivalent' and 'equal' are not the same thing
And how is a 33% difference even close to roughly equal?
I'm not sure who PL is meant to be for outside of kids just entering the hobby and playing games at a GW store where PL is sort of encouraged.
Everyone else I know who plays 40k, even the casual narrative fluffbunnies, uses points because PL is universally recognised as being deeply flawed, open to abuse and something that punishes fluffy options more than it helps them and at worst just sort of teaches bad habits when it comes to army collecting and list building. My FLGS did a narrative campaign a while ago which is now transitioning into a Vigilus campaign and people are using points, even in those missions where it says the players use PL.
Even discounting battlescribe and phone calculators I just seriously don't get why anyone would ever willingly use PL outside of the example I gave at the start. It's a worse system and what it offers in return is so minor and inconsequential.
I'd say its a nice idea and an interesting experiment, but I also think it's failed.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: All games don't have a page that explicitly lists what's cheating and what's not. If there is, you can probably count those on one hand, both at max.
Well, can you provide a valid different definition of "cheat" than, "to violate rules dishonestly," that applies to this situation?
I suppose there is the, "act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage," but considering that both players would be aware and agreeing to the situation, it isn't unfair or dishonest.
And how is a 33% difference even close to roughly equal?
How is 75% equivalent? A Chaos army which brought in a pre-CA list then bought the CA list, realized what he brought was 75% of the previously agreed amount with two other players and went and bought his Daemon Primarch to pad the points, all without having anything changed in their rules?
Bosskelot wrote: I'm not sure who PL is meant to be for outside of kids just entering the hobby and playing games at a GW store where PL is sort of encouraged.
Everyone else I know who plays 40k, even the casual narrative fluffbunnies, uses points because PL is universally recognised as being deeply flawed, open to abuse and something that punishes fluffy options more than it helps them and at worst just sort of teaches bad habits when it comes to army collecting and list building. My FLGS did a narrative campaign a while ago which is now transitioning into a Vigilus campaign and people are using points, even in those missions where it says the players use PL.
Even discounting battlescribe and phone calculators I just seriously don't get why anyone would ever willingly use PL outside of the example I gave at the start. It's a worse system and what it offers in return is so minor and inconsequential.
I'd say its a nice idea and an interesting experiment, but I also think it's failed.
I can think of one. It's called, "going to Slayer's and Peregrine's clubs and convincing them to troll them by only playing PL for a month just to watch heads explode."
And as others have mentioned, they just want to quickly set up a game and get going and they didn't arrange it before hand. Not everyone can dedicate themselves from 6 to midnight every night they show up.
There's also just teaching the base rules of the game. Points provide a certain competitive pressure unnecessary in tutorials.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. Nowhere it says that you need to have your models painted more than one color nor does it create a strict WYSIWYG. It isn't my fault you want to be as disorganized with your hobby as you are.
You say disorganised. That's only to your standard.
Consider how you would look through my eyes, if you think I'm disorganised.
2. Which means you automatically make your list worse when you only get to choose between so many weapons. If your opponent likes the look of the better weapons in the first place, your argument falls apart immediately (clearly not everyone thinks the Heavy Bolter looks better than the Grav Cannon, which is what your idea hinges on) and now their list is automatically stronger, all by the fact all the weapons are the same exact cost. Free. Everything is free. A Devastator squad with all Grav Cannons and Lascannons costs the same as one with all Multi-Melta and Heavy Bolters. This doesn't make sense when you inspect it for more than a few seconds.
It's clear that all you care about is power. If you simply can't understand anything else, or even entertain the notion of it, I won't waste my energy on you.
3. I don't need a calculator for either addition problem you presented. The only person it'll be harder for is a first grader. Maybe, at that.
Okay, I've already told you about this. This is blatant personal attacks, and directed insults. Reporting.
So 40k probably isn't the hobby for you, as there's probably several people here that work with numbers and still have little issue with adding up regular points. It's like a guitarist refusing to advance their skills to what they could be. They shouldn't just be playing guitar "because they enjoy it". If you aren't growing at said hobby, you're wasting your time, end of story. It isn't even a hobby at that point, just something you do for fun.
Sorry what?? You genuinely believe that you should only do something if you intend on becoming better and the only thing that matter is progression within it??
So musicians can't perform because they like it? Gamers can't play because it's escapism and relaxing? Writers shouldn't write unless they're trying to become bestsellers?
Do you actually understand what a hobby is? Because I really think you don't. A hobby is supposed to be fun. Not a chore, not an exercise. F U N.
Holy moly, I thought you were a certain kind of special before, but this takes the prize as the most outrageous thing you've said.
4. And it's that special attitude "you're entitled to an opinion" that leads to the lack of critical thinking that leads to Flat Earthers still existing. There's clearly something wrong and they need to be told that, and how one goes about it is a different story.
If you can't notice the difference between someone having a different idea of fun, and asking that to be recognized and respected, and people literally calling millennia of scientific facts about the actual world a hoax, then I'm afraid I'm far above debating with you.
List Tailoring should be considered cheating IF you know what the opponent is taking specifically, but they don't really know what you will be bringing. This could happen if your opponent has only 1 army with limited options and you have either multiple armies or tons of options with 1 army. Or, if you bring 2-3 specific lists and only decide which to use after finding out what your opponent is bringing.
However, list tailoring AFTER a game against an opponent you know will play again is perfectly legit and expected. If your list didn't do very well, it's natural that you would want to make adjustments before your next game. This is also actually a service to your opponent as they might not want to keep playing the same game over and over.
nou wrote: I fear that your POV is a voice in the wilderness when it comes to Peregrine, as he dismisses Narrative Play section of the BRB in it's entirety, so any further reasoning based on content contained therein is fundamentally without merit in his eyes. We had this talk few times already and it's really hopeless - you should just accept that your way of having fun with 40K is invalid, wrong and bad
Oh look, this straw man again. Let's just ignore that my objection to GW's "narrative" section is that it's a narrative system and narrative players should be demanding better, not that narrative gaming is without merit and you shouldn't do it.
And yet they're continually adding to Narritive Play, the Battle Honours in CA18 are a perfect example of things made for Narritive play.
They're aware that the Narritive system in the corebook is lacking, and are continually adding to it.
Part of their approach to the Narritive side of the game is using the nature of PL to shape the game. Rules are based around the PL of a unit, or mission where you score VP = PL, etc.
They have A LOT to manage with this game. And the Matched Play group won't give them a second to work on the other types of play.
The Narritive Play, as they have it now, including the CA additions, make it the best time to play Narritive 40k. There's actually rules for it. You don't have to make things up and hope your group will go with it. You can straight up use what you're given.
I am curious how I was interpreted when I said an advantage of PL was you can write a list and swap out models to different load outs without recalculating/finetuning the list.
I was more thinking about if I made a cool new boss Nob model or big shoota boy and just wanted to get it on the table. I was however misinterpreted as saying you could 'gotcha' an all armor army by last minute tailoring the weapon selections.
nou wrote: I fear that your POV is a voice in the wilderness when it comes to Peregrine, as he dismisses Narrative Play section of the BRB in it's entirety, so any further reasoning based on content contained therein is fundamentally without merit in his eyes. We had this talk few times already and it's really hopeless - you should just accept that your way of having fun with 40K is invalid, wrong and bad
Oh look, this straw man again. Let's just ignore that my objection to GW's "narrative" section is that it's a narrative system and narrative players should be demanding better, not that narrative gaming is without merit and you shouldn't do it.
Your reading comprehension is severly lacking Peregrine, you should focus a bit less on your biases and a bit more on what is actually written - there is nothing in that passage about your attitude towards narrative gaming as a whole, only about Narrative section of the BRB in the context of what Blndmage wrote, and in your answer you confirm every word of what I wrote.
Seriously, back away for a second and actually think before you post - but beware, you might find that thinking is actually fun thing to do
nareik wrote: I am curious how I was interpreted when I said an advantage of PL was you can write a list and swap out models to different load outs without recalculating/finetuning the list.
I was more thinking about if I made a cool new boss Nob model or big shoota boy and just wanted to get it on the table. I was however misinterpreted as saying you could 'gotcha' an all armor army by last minute tailoring the weapon selections.
A couple have said that. Honestly, I think PL is a perfect place to test out army builds since they aren't so structured, nor is there the competitive pressure associated with point lists, so we don't have declarations of "cheater" and what not.
Of course, those who would call you "cheater" probably wouldn't be playing PL, anyway, because they automatically consider you a cheater for even wanting to use PL in the first place, and at least one considers people a cheat for showing up to the game without a list.
nou wrote: I fear that your POV is a voice in the wilderness when it comes to Peregrine, as he dismisses Narrative Play section of the BRB in it's entirety, so any further reasoning based on content contained therein is fundamentally without merit in his eyes. We had this talk few times already and it's really hopeless - you should just accept that your way of having fun with 40K is invalid, wrong and bad
Oh look, this straw man again. Let's just ignore that my objection to GW's "narrative" section is that it's a narrative system and narrative players should be demanding better, not that narrative gaming is without merit and you shouldn't do it.
And yet they're continually adding to Narritive Play, the Battle Honours in CA18 are a perfect example of things made for Narritive play.
They're aware that the Narritive system in the corebook is lacking, and are continually adding to it.
Part of their approach to the Narritive side of the game is using the nature of PL to shape the game. Rules are based around the PL of a unit, or mission where you score VP = PL, etc.
They have A LOT to manage with this game. And the Matched Play group won't give them a second to work on the other types of play.
The Narritive Play, as they have it now, including the CA additions, make it the best time to play Narritive 40k. There's actually rules for it. You don't have to make things up and hope your group will go with it. You can straight up use what you're given.
Not to mention, that just last week a dedicated campaign system book went up on preorder. How about that for supporting Narrative Play?
nou wrote: I fear that your POV is a voice in the wilderness when it comes to Peregrine, as he dismisses Narrative Play section of the BRB in it's entirety, so any further reasoning based on content contained therein is fundamentally without merit in his eyes. We had this talk few times already and it's really hopeless - you should just accept that your way of having fun with 40K is invalid, wrong and bad
Oh look, this straw man again. Let's just ignore that my objection to GW's "narrative" section is that it's a narrative system and narrative players should be demanding better, not that narrative gaming is without merit and you shouldn't do it.
And yet they're continually adding to Narritive Play, the Battle Honours in CA18 are a perfect example of things made for Narritive play.
They're aware that the Narritive system in the corebook is lacking, and are continually adding to it.
Part of their approach to the Narritive side of the game is using the nature of PL to shape the game. Rules are based around the PL of a unit, or mission where you score VP = PL, etc.
They have A LOT to manage with this game. And the Matched Play group won't give them a second to work on the other types of play.
The Narritive Play, as they have it now, including the CA additions, make it the best time to play Narritive 40k. There's actually rules for it. You don't have to make things up and hope your group will go with it. You can straight up use what you're given.
I would say that GW is now seeing the value in not just the flavor of the week tourno-spam, but in the narrative focused side as well. GW has been giving more and more stuff to add to the narrative toolbox(CA17, CA18, Urban Conquest)recently. PL is the best thing to happen in a while. More and more people are coming back to the hobby(personal & other returnees exp in group) and preferring PL, but points is an equally valid way of doing so.
the real point is, some people just cant have fun unless everyone else is having the exact same type of fun as them. if not then they're obviously wrong and nothing can change that. Wait wasnt there an episode of Seinfeld with a guy and some soup and arbitrary dismissal? What a crappy way to look at the world and your place in it. forget the far future someone lives in the grim darkness of the early 21st century. Not everything is sunshine and rainbows but...
Something else I like about PL, though it is not universal, is it encourages taking an upgrade where taking any upgrade at all would be suboptimal under points.
A couple of examples; number 1; the loyal 32.
The loyal 32 is one of my favourite things about 8th; I feel every imperial army needs at least a platoon of IG to feel like a real imperial army and the loyal 32 fill that narrative role nicely. The thing that disappoints me there is that these guardsmen are always barebones, which just seems like a lost opportunity to me visually.
PL here has the advantage of facilitating taking variant weapons, even though points efficiency wise the models would be better naked.
Similarly, I like how PL encourages you to get a little more imaginative with deathwatch squads. Whenever I've read about deathwatch in novels the marines are equipped with a medley of specialist weapons. I feel PL succeeds at nudging players in this direction instead of taking the squad boring barebones, just like the loyal 32.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Allow me to explain, in further detail, how I play.
My opponent and I agree we will play a game. We pick up the armies we want to play, already stored in boxes that organise them into groupings (for example, all my Ultramarines 1st Company units are in the 1st Company box, all my main vehicles have a box, all my transports have a box, and the 2nd Company units are also in a box). We take a number of these boxes, and when we're at the venue and table, decide what kind of game we want to play (custom scenario, Open War cards, pre-gen mission, Kill Team etc etc) and the size of it. Then, we take a few minutes after deciding everything to write up our lists, independently, and then before deployment, we reveal our lists.
This is a fine reason to use PL. As I said, we've used them before.
But overall, I think PL is something I'd only use for teaching or with friends. Sort of like how I'd be very fast and loose in an RPG or dungeon crawler with friends but I'd be a bit more by the book if playing with people I don't know yet.
insaniak wrote: List tailoring is perfectly acceptable if it's what both players expect to happen. It's pretty much expected and inevitable if you play against the same people regularly.
Uh, the very concept of List Tailoring means that both players cannot do that. It's one person making his list after the other guy, to specifically counter it. Otherwise, you're just two people telling each other what you're bringing and making sure there's a means to match up with it.
Most of the time I use points but I have a friend who has a bunch of smaller armies that are built more to a theme rather than "optimised" so when I play against him we use Power Level. It works out fine because I tone down my force a bit and don't max out on upgrades. We roll dice, have fun and generally just hang out. The local GW usually runs PL based campaign or league style events and anyone who wants to go a bit more "hard" arranges to use points with their opponents beforehand.
I've never had any issue with people abusing power level because the only people I've played that use it approach it the same way. I'm sure the theoretical PL boogey man who puts 30pt of upgrades on all his Deathwatch veterans and insists on playing power level is out there somewhere, but I've never seen it. From my experience the people who really want to test their skills or list building all use points anyway.
I use points because it's what I'm used to, and because my main opponent is more involved with competitive circles and it's what he plays. PL just isn't his thing, but I'm happy to run either way so it generally ends up being points.
Uh, the very concept of List Tailoring means that both players cannot do that. It's one person making his list after the other guy, to specifically counter it. Otherwise, you're just two people telling each other what you're bringing and making sure there's a means to match up with it.
If you're playing the same guy regularly, you know what's in his list. Particularly if he only has a single army, as is the case for most casual players.
insaniak wrote: If you're playing the same guy regularly, you know what's in his list. Particularly if he only has a single army, as is the case for most casual players.
Well, I tend to play people with more armies than one, and the ones they do play are pretty versatile (a lot of guard players). Of all of us, I'm the one with the fewest armies- and I have 5 (3 in storage, only keeping 2 around now).
Uh, the very concept of List Tailoring means that both players cannot do that. It's one person making his list after the other guy, to specifically counter it. Otherwise, you're just two people telling each other what you're bringing and making sure there's a means to match up with it.
If you're playing the same guy regularly, you know what's in his list. Particularly if he only has a single army, as is the case for most casual players.
Because of this exact confusion I refer to this as cross-tailoring, not list tailoring. IMHO it is the most fundamental way of ensuring a good game in friendly/narrative context and not waste time with glaringly mismatched blind lists.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: There is no universal good and bad. This whole discussion is a matter of opinion. If your opinion is "I don't like this", that's fine. If your view is "this is good as a fact", you are making incorrect claim.
Alternatively, you're just plain wrong, PL is a trash system, and "that's just your opinion, man" is the weakest defense you can make.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: Which is kind of how those words work. No physicist is ever going to look up from his electron microscope and exclaim 'By jove! I've found the perfect system for building force lists for 28mm miniature gaming! It was encoded into the atomic structure of this grain of sand, all along!' 'Good' and 'Bad' are not fundamental absolutes, hard-coded into the bedrock of the universe. They're entirely subjective.
But wait, I thought it's all subjective and there is no right answer? How can you say that using an electron microscope to read the encoded messages in the sand is not a good way of building lists for 40k, and with such certainty that you can state that it is never going to happen? It's almost like there are good and bad ways of doing things, and you just don't accept that PL is one of the bad ways.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: And again another Pl vs points discussion and it boils down to slayer fan and peregrine not accepting that doing something differently than how they like is ok. Their way isn’t “good” to me. It sounds horrendous. I can’t imagine a worse game to play. But that’s fine because the game is trying to cater for both types.
Again it all boils down to critics of PL posting reasons why PL is a trash system, and advocates of PL posting little more than "I enjoy it and I have an opinion". The closest thing to a reason for why PL is good they can come up with is saving a minimal amount of time in adding up the numbers, other than that it's all the very weak defense of insisting that they enjoy it therefore it must be good. Meanwhile you're claiming that the normal point system is "horrendous" and you "can't imagine a worse game to play", at least as harsh criticism as anything the anti-PL side is saying, but apparently this is ok and not a case of refusing to accept that someone is doing something differently because reasons.
Also, if you can't imagine a worse game to play than adding up your points more accurately then you really have very little imagination.
I actually meant playing you or slayer fan was my idea of hell. Or people like u. Not the average people who use points but people who behave the way you do and hold the opinions masquerading as facts. I could probably play someone using points and have a decent time but it would be no better than using power levels I know that for sure. So for me, the defence of PL is it does the job just fine and is simpler and even encourages people to play nice. I say age of Sigmar was worse without points, but their points system is basically power level ten. It works much more like that than 40k points. U don’t pay for upgrades and characters in units etc. Works fine. I would be happy if they merged both 40k systems into that style so you could have less abritory numbers but still didn’t have to worry about taking an extra gretchin or Chainsword to get the most out of your points. So it could be take 5 tactical marines for 100pts. Add 5 more for another 100. No cost for upgrades. Would work just fine as it does for AoS.
They would have to leave the points alone though. Hate all the tiny changed that people think make a massive difference, as if one or two points matters in a game like 40k. Doesn’t even account for a dice roll.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And slayer fan you know you could create 2 lists using power levels to be equal, then highlight the difference in points to demonstrate how unbalanced points are. It is utterly useless as a comparison. So eldar vs deathwatch doesn’t matter at all.
nou wrote: of this exact confusion I refer to this as cross-tailoring, not list tailoring. IMHO it is the most fundamental way of ensuring a good game in friendly/narrative context and not waste time with glaringly mismatched blind lists.
That makes more sense. I'd call it squaring up. A lot of friends and I do this (still using points), because we're trying to at least have a challenge without overwhelming the other with something he doesn't have stuff to deal with.
nou wrote: of this exact confusion I refer to this as cross-tailoring, not list tailoring. IMHO it is the most fundamental way of ensuring a good game in friendly/narrative context and not waste time with glaringly mismatched blind lists.
That makes more sense. I'd call it squaring up. A lot of friends and I do this (still using points), because we're trying to at least have a challenge without overwhelming the other with something he doesn't have stuff to deal with.
Either way, it IS still list tailoring, just a specific variant of it. It would be like saying Space Wolves aren't Space Marines. You are tailoring your list to match a specific target to remove a specific weakness or compound on a specific strength. That target could be as specific as a certain Eldar build or a more general all-comers. The act of fine tuning and tailoring it to match your playstyle is still the end goal and result.
insaniak wrote: If you're playing the same guy regularly, you know what's in his list. Particularly if he only has a single army, as is the case for most casual players.
And this is why list tailoring is generally poor behavior: it rewards the person who has more money to spend on buying additional options to match their opponent's list. Players with limited resources are left out and get minimal benefit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: Not to mention, that just last week a dedicated campaign system book went up on preorder. How about that for supporting Narrative Play?
Pretty weak, if you remember how it was in 5th edition.
insaniak wrote: If you're playing the same guy regularly, you know what's in his list. Particularly if he only has a single army, as is the case for most casual players.
And this is why list tailoring is generally poor behavior: it rewards the person who has more money to spend on buying additional options to match their opponent's list. Players with limited resources are left out and get minimal benefit.
Since you have repeatedly displayed the empathy of a pet rock, I can't imagine you actually give a damn about poorer gamers being taken advantage of.
Crimson Devil wrote: Since you have repeatedly displayed the empathy of a pet rock, I can't imagine you actually give a damn about poorer gamers being taken advantage of.
I have plenty of empathy for people who are genuinely in a difficult situation, like being poor. People who are just bad at defending a garbage system like PL are not an oppressed group that deserves sympathy, and I find it kind of offensive that you would compare the two.
Crimson Devil wrote: Since you have repeatedly displayed the empathy of a pet rock, I can't imagine you actually give a damn about poorer gamers being taken advantage of.
I have plenty of empathy for people who are genuinely in a difficult situation, like being poor. People who are just bad at defending a garbage system like PL are not an oppressed group that deserves sympathy, and I find it kind of offensive that you would compare the two.
In a previous thread when I mentioned having difficulties with the hobby due to being poor and disabled, you basically said (paraphrasing from memory) "if it's that hard to play, and you can't afford it, then you should stop playing."
nou wrote: of this exact confusion I refer to this as cross-tailoring, not list tailoring. IMHO it is the most fundamental way of ensuring a good game in friendly/narrative context and not waste time with glaringly mismatched blind lists.
That makes more sense. I'd call it squaring up. A lot of friends and I do this (still using points), because we're trying to at least have a challenge without overwhelming the other with something he doesn't have stuff to deal with.
7th edition 40K was basically only enjoyable when using that kind of "cross-tailoring". 8th editions balance is much better so I don't find it that necessary anymore, aside from when you bring a skew-list and know your opponent could have a hard time dealing with that unprepaired.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. Nowhere it says that you need to have your models painted more than one color nor does it create a strict WYSIWYG. It isn't my fault you want to be as disorganized with your hobby as you are.
You say disorganised. That's only to your standard.
Consider how you would look through my eyes, if you think I'm disorganised.
2. Which means you automatically make your list worse when you only get to choose between so many weapons. If your opponent likes the look of the better weapons in the first place, your argument falls apart immediately (clearly not everyone thinks the Heavy Bolter looks better than the Grav Cannon, which is what your idea hinges on) and now their list is automatically stronger, all by the fact all the weapons are the same exact cost. Free. Everything is free. A Devastator squad with all Grav Cannons and Lascannons costs the same as one with all Multi-Melta and Heavy Bolters. This doesn't make sense when you inspect it for more than a few seconds.
It's clear that all you care about is power. If you simply can't understand anything else, or even entertain the notion of it, I won't waste my energy on you.
3. I don't need a calculator for either addition problem you presented. The only person it'll be harder for is a first grader. Maybe, at that.
Okay, I've already told you about this. This is blatant personal attacks, and directed insults. Reporting.
So 40k probably isn't the hobby for you, as there's probably several people here that work with numbers and still have little issue with adding up regular points. It's like a guitarist refusing to advance their skills to what they could be. They shouldn't just be playing guitar "because they enjoy it". If you aren't growing at said hobby, you're wasting your time, end of story. It isn't even a hobby at that point, just something you do for fun.
Sorry what?? You genuinely believe that you should only do something if you intend on becoming better and the only thing that matter is progression within it??
So musicians can't perform because they like it? Gamers can't play because it's escapism and relaxing? Writers shouldn't write unless they're trying to become bestsellers?
Do you actually understand what a hobby is? Because I really think you don't. A hobby is supposed to be fun. Not a chore, not an exercise. F U N.
Holy moly, I thought you were a certain kind of special before, but this takes the prize as the most outrageous thing you've said.
4. And it's that special attitude "you're entitled to an opinion" that leads to the lack of critical thinking that leads to Flat Earthers still existing. There's clearly something wrong and they need to be told that, and how one goes about it is a different story.
If you can't notice the difference between someone having a different idea of fun, and asking that to be recognized and respected, and people literally calling millennia of scientific facts about the actual world a hoax, then I'm afraid I'm far above debating with you.
1. You probably consider me too methodical is my guess. Better methodical than a disorganized attempt at a hobby.
2. So if you don't care about the relative value of the weapons, you don't need anything whatsoever in terms of creating a more balanced match. Just throw the models on the table and make pewpew noises. It's that simple.
3. How is this a personal attack? It IS first grade math and not in the slightest difficult whatsoever. The kids I have tutored would be able to easily solve such basic problems. Or am I not allowed my opinion on what kind of math various age groups should be capable of? Seems like you're saying all opinions are valid after all.
4. No progress at a hobby is a waste of time, and as a former musician I scoff at anyone not looking to further their craft (ever see those pop punk guitarists that use the same three chords disparage talented musicians? It's almost disgusting). Simple as that. I don't have plans to paint my new army for now (I'll be getting those commissioned once I've finalized the potential paint schemes), but second-hand models that aren't painted are easy enough to come by that I plan to paint better than just doing Necrons (which still good admittedly but I'm looking to go beyond that).
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: All games don't have a page that explicitly lists what's cheating and what's not. If there is, you can probably count those on one hand, both at max.
Well, can you provide a valid different definition of "cheat" than, "to violate rules dishonestly," that applies to this situation?
I suppose there is the, "act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage," but considering that both players would be aware and agreeing to the situation, it isn't unfair or dishonest.
And how is a 33% difference even close to roughly equal?
How is 75% equivalent? A Chaos army which brought in a pre-CA list then bought the CA list, realized what he brought was 75% of the previously agreed amount with two other players and went and bought his Daemon Primarch to pad the points, all without having anything changed in their rules?
Bosskelot wrote: I'm not sure who PL is meant to be for outside of kids just entering the hobby and playing games at a GW store where PL is sort of encouraged.
Everyone else I know who plays 40k, even the casual narrative fluffbunnies, uses points because PL is universally recognised as being deeply flawed, open to abuse and something that punishes fluffy options more than it helps them and at worst just sort of teaches bad habits when it comes to army collecting and list building. My FLGS did a narrative campaign a while ago which is now transitioning into a Vigilus campaign and people are using points, even in those missions where it says the players use PL.
Even discounting battlescribe and phone calculators I just seriously don't get why anyone would ever willingly use PL outside of the example I gave at the start. It's a worse system and what it offers in return is so minor and inconsequential.
I'd say its a nice idea and an interesting experiment, but I also think it's failed.
I can think of one. It's called, "going to Slayer's and Peregrine's clubs and convincing them to troll them by only playing PL for a month just to watch heads explode."
And as others have mentioned, they just want to quickly set up a game and get going and they didn't arrange it before hand. Not everyone can dedicate themselves from 6 to midnight every night they show up.
There's also just teaching the base rules of the game. Points provide a certain competitive pressure unnecessary in tutorials.
1. So someone can't agree to a fair and dishonest game? That doesn't make any sense.
2. I don't buy this scenario, mostly because the way you're explaining it doesn't make any sense. You went into the store without having bought CA, bought CA, and then adjusted the list? Ya know, instead of buying CA first and digesting the contents? I'd honestly refuse the game with you and tell you to go ahead and read it, so that you can come back with a correctly pointed list for a fairer game. After all, just adding units and upgrades at random doesn't really fix the issue.
I just got my copy on Monday and, even with Battlescribe being updated, I'm still making sure I understand everything correctly.
3. If you wanna teach the rules, just do a 500 point game or even Kill Team. The only real thing to keep in mind to not overwhelm a new player is to keep the game small.
JohnnyHell wrote: Get ready for the entire thread to be Peregrine’s opinions on PL, because that’s how these always go (until thread lock).
Yep, called it ten pages ago. How depressing.
Hey, cheer up, at least he told us he carefully and thoroughly considers all our points, he just finds all of them without any merit. And we learnt new ways of cheating with Slayer Fan.
I now believe that PL was created as a social experiment by GW to measure the behaviour that occurs between different groups of players with different attitudes to the game.
I have used PL once, in a game against a returning player who had a bunch of Marines against my Necrons. The game worked, nobody had a huge advantage and we engaged in a fun and interesting game. I wouldn't use PL as standard and vastly prefer points but I'm genuinely amused at the utter lack of empathy and understanding from certain members of this forum when people say they prefer PL. If somebody uses PL and enjoys their games as a result then the system works fine for them. Therefore the system works on some level. You can't escape that conclusion I'm afraid and all the protestations to the contrary are pointless. I don't know why it's so hard for some people to understand when players say they don't care about list optimisation so PL works fine for them. Like, that's not a difficult statement to parse. You may not agree with it and you may struggle to see how that would be an enjoyable game, but the statement is simple enough and acceptance of it does not actually require understanding, just a basic level of empathy.
As for Slayer-Fan's comments about what a hobby is, let's just say I couldn't disagree more. I've been a guitarist for decades now and don't have as much time to play as I once did. I'm probably about as good as I'm likely to get but it's still extremely enjoyable to me to sit down for an hour or two and thrash out some riffs or solos for a bit. Apparently it's not a hobby though and I'm completely wasting my time. Who knew.
Perhaps people should stop viewing the hobby, and indeed the world itself, in absolutes and understand there's often a spectrum of possibilities and approaches to different things.
Blndmage wrote: In a previous thread when I mentioned having difficulties with the hobby due to being poor and disabled, you basically said (paraphrasing from memory) "if it's that hard to play, and you can't afford it, then you should stop playing."
That's not empathy.
That's a rather dishonest "paraphrase" that is not at all what I said. And let's not forget the context of this exchange, where you posted about how unfair it is that people won't lose money to run a free tournament using exactly the rules you want or completely change their style of play to accommodate your fan codex army. If there's any "just stop playing" element it's because you're obviously unhappy with the situation as it is, you can't afford to change your own armies, and it is not reasonable to expect the entire rest of the group to change everything they do (at their own expense) to give you what you want.
Also, IIRC you didn't have a lot of empathy for poor players who want to play competitively but are apparently obligated to buy entire additional armies so they can have something to use with you.
Blndmage wrote: In a previous thread when I mentioned having difficulties with the hobby due to being poor and disabled, you basically said (paraphrasing from memory) "if it's that hard to play, and you can't afford it, then you should stop playing."
That's not empathy.
That's a rather dishonest "paraphrase" that is not at all what I said. And let's not forget the context of this exchange, where you posted about how unfair it is that people won't lose money to run a free tournament using exactly the rules you want or completely change their style of play to accommodate your fan codex army. If there's any "just stop playing" element it's because you're obviously unhappy with the situation as it is, you can't afford to change your own armies, and it is not reasonable to expect the entire rest of the group to change everything they do (at their own expense) to give you what you want.
Also, IIRC you didn't have a lot of empathy for poor players who want to play competitively but are apparently obligated to buy entire additional armies so they can have something to use with you.
Exactly. I'm not obligated to change my army (which I take pride in) because you're afraid of how the game will go. Research a product before you buy it.
Blndmage wrote: In a previous thread when I mentioned having difficulties with the hobby due to being poor and disabled, you basically said (paraphrasing from memory) "if it's that hard to play, and you can't afford it, then you should stop playing."
That's not empathy.
That's a rather dishonest "paraphrase" that is not at all what I said. And let's not forget the context of this exchange, where you posted about how unfair it is that people won't lose money to run a free tournament using exactly the rules you want or completely change their style of play to accommodate your fan codex army. If there's any "just stop playing" element it's because you're obviously unhappy with the situation as it is, you can't afford to change your own armies, and it is not reasonable to expect the entire rest of the group to change everything they do (at their own expense) to give you what you want.
Also, IIRC you didn't have a lot of empathy for poor players who want to play competitively but are apparently obligated to buy entire additional armies so they can have something to use with you.
Exactly. I'm not obligated to change my army (which I take pride in) because you're afraid of how the game will go. Research a product before you buy it.
This again gets back to the core disagreement about both this how the game is played and what we get out of it personally. If i took a list that completely demolished my opponent and the game was completely one sided, I personally would not only gain nothing from that game, I would be actively bored. In an ideal world I want not only a close game but I want a diversity of lists to face.
If your only into 40k to smash face, 90 % of models for any given faction (or entire factions for that matter) will never see the table top. To me that's dull and I would gladly tone down my list in order for my opponent to see a wider variety of models and armies. If my opponent wants to play pure Grey Knights, then I would factor that into my list building and tone things down since I know that isn't a strong army this edition.
Blndmage wrote: In a previous thread when I mentioned having difficulties with the hobby due to being poor and disabled, you basically said (paraphrasing from memory) "if it's that hard to play, and you can't afford it, then you should stop playing."
That's not empathy.
That's a rather dishonest "paraphrase" that is not at all what I said. And let's not forget the context of this exchange, where you posted about how unfair it is that people won't lose money to run a free tournament using exactly the rules you want or completely change their style of play to accommodate your fan codex army. If there's any "just stop playing" element it's because you're obviously unhappy with the situation as it is, you can't afford to change your own armies, and it is not reasonable to expect the entire rest of the group to change everything they do (at their own expense) to give you what you want.
Also, IIRC you didn't have a lot of empathy for poor players who want to play competitively but are apparently obligated to buy entire additional armies so they can have something to use with you.
Exactly. I'm not obligated to change my army (which I take pride in) because you're afraid of how the game will go. Research a product before you buy it.
This again gets back to the core disagreement about both this how the game is played and what we get out of it personally. If i took a list that completely demolished my opponent and the game was completely one sided, I personally would not only gain nothing from that game, I would be actively bored. In an ideal world I want not only a close game but I want a diversity of lists to face.
If your only into 40k to smash face, 90 % of models for any given faction (or entire factions for that matter) will never see the table top. To me that's dull and I would gladly tone down my list in order for my opponent to see a wider variety of models and armies. If my opponent wants to play pure Grey Knights, then I would factor that into my list building and tone things down since I know that isn't a strong army this edition.
Then pretending everything is fine isn't going to fix anything, either. If you know they're a weak army, you need to advise people looking into buying them in the first place that the kits, while EXCELLENT for bitz, are useless for tabletop play, and it's actually insulting for those that want to use Grey Knights to put on kiddie gloves. I used them in 4th and I knew exactly what I was getting into. I didn't ask my opponents to be nice because that's an insult towards the both of us.
If anything we should be sending more critical emails towards GW about their treatment about Grey Knights and their absolute blatant lies about improvements. Nobody cares about those campaigns though of course, as heaven forbid you be critical about the bad things with the game.
At this point you really lost me. Would I advise a new player that an army is weak at this point, yes I would. Every edition has strong and weak armies If they choose that army any way or had it from a previous edition and wanted to get a game in, then yea I'm not going to go out of my way and be an ass and crush them.
Again to me that's boring and I doubt it's fun for them either. I play to win once the game starts but I will take lists that is cognizant of my opponents expectations for the game.
I'm not pretending everything is fine, and I would like GW to make things more balanced. But as the game stands, they aren't and it falls to the players to figure it out.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. You probably consider me too methodical is my guess. Better methodical than a disorganized attempt at a hobby.
I think the better term would be anally retentive, but tomato, tomato.
3. How is this a personal attack? It IS first grade math and not in the slightest difficult whatsoever. The kids I have tutored would be able to easily solve such basic problems. Or am I not allowed my opinion on what kind of math various age groups should be capable of? Seems like you're saying all opinions are valid after all.
You know, I've been acting improperly. I've obviously assumed you're more intelligent than I assumed.
Shall I explain why I take offence, and then maybe you might stop?
I say that I dislike long maths.
You misguidedly take this to mean that I cannot do the maths.
I explain that it is not because I am incapable, but because it simply takes longer. The amount longer it takes is small, but I don't like it all the same.
You say that anyone who isn't happy with long maths must be dumb.
I say that you can dislike long maths and still be capable.
You ignore this, implying that you believe that "if you can do it, you must like doing it" and go on to suggest that even young children can do basic maths.
Taken together, you insult me by implying that I am apparently less intelligent than a child, purely because I don't want to waste my time doing maths.
I can't believe I need to spell this out, but just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you LIKE doing something.
If you didn't mean this as an insult, then I'm sure if I asked you to stop saying things like that (which I have explained how I find to be personal attacks), you might have a shred of empathy or respect, and stop doing it.
We shall see.
4. No progress at a hobby is a waste of time, and as a former musician I scoff at anyone not looking to further their craft (ever see those pop punk guitarists that use the same three chords disparage talented musicians? It's almost disgusting). Simple as that.
As a current musician (barbershop quartet, musical theatre, orchestra trumpet, brass band cornet), I cannot disagree with more with your view.
But obviously me enjoying my craft is a waste of time if I'm not trying to become the next Allen Vizzutti or Herb Alpert, as your opinion must obviously be fact. Obviously.
HoundsofDemos wrote: At this point you really lost me. Would I advise a new player that an army is weak at this point, yes I would. Every edition has strong and weak armies If they choose that army any way or had it from a previous edition and wanted to get a game in, then yea I'm not going to go out of my way and be an ass and crush them.
Again to me that's boring and I doubt it's fun for them either. I play to win once the game starts but I will take lists that is cognizant of my opponents expectations for the game.
I'm not pretending everything is fine, and I would like GW to make things more balanced. But as the game stands, they aren't and it falls to the players to figure it out.
Then it's better to advise those new players what's good and what's not.
This is an expensive hobby. Getting your money's worth is VERY important, especially for a newer player that could be turned off completely because they invested badly. On top of that, the more bad kits we buy, the more likely GW thinks everything is okay.
What's good and what isn't change between editions and local meta. I give the following advise to new players. I'm honest about the current general power ranking of a faction, but also mention that will shift over time. Pick a faction that you enjoy the models, background and would want to build and paint and collect.
I can always tone down my list to give someone a good game. I can't make someone love a faction or dislike it. A large part of this hobby has nothing to do with the table top and keeping people interested long term means they need an army they identify with.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Then it's better to advise those new players what's good and what's not.
Good is subjective, and even "good" competitive units are only good for as long as the meta stays the same. If those new players want to win, then they can chase the meta. If they want to play with units they like for whatever reason, then they don't need to be told anything.
It's why my advice for new players, who aren't that fussed about winning, is always "pick the army that you like the look of or the lore for". Because that will never change (drastically, at least).
HoundsofDemos wrote: At this point you really lost me. Would I advise a new player that an army is weak at this point, yes I would. Every edition has strong and weak armies If they choose that army any way or had it from a previous edition and wanted to get a game in, then yea I'm not going to go out of my way and be an ass and crush them.
Again to me that's boring and I doubt it's fun for them either. I play to win once the game starts but I will take lists that is cognizant of my opponents expectations for the game.
I'm not pretending everything is fine, and I would like GW to make things more balanced. But as the game stands, they aren't and it falls to the players to figure it out.
Then it's better to advise those new players what's good and what's not.
This is an expensive hobby. Getting your money's worth is VERY important, especially for a newer player that could be turned off completely because they invested badly. On top of that, the more bad kits we buy, the more likely GW thinks everything is okay.
You assume the player in question has the same priorities you do. What if they just really like the aesthetics of a certain army, or its background? Sure, I'm happy to tell new players what's powerful and what isn't but some people are genuinely not bothered by that and just want to collect what's cool.
Whether or not that's a bad thing, though, depends entirely on what you and your opponent are expecting.
Is it though? The list gives the troops being paid for with PL, the weapons are not needed to be listed, they are all free. Can a list be tailored with items not needing to be specified on the list?
Whilst I agree that PL works OK if people don't try to min-max, I find it utterly hilarious that a PL advocate listed an ability to list tailor more easily as a positive for the system... That goes completely against the intended 'spirit' of the PL and is considered total WAAC behaviour in most circles.
Is it though? The list gives the troops being paid for with PL, the weapons are not needed to be listed, they are all free. Can a list be tailored with items not needing to be specified on the list?
Of course you need to list the weapons regardless! It's not like in a point game I could just swap between any options that happened to have the same cost.
Is it though? The list gives the troops being paid for with PL, the weapons are not needed to be listed, they are all free. Can a list be tailored with items not needing to be specified on the list?
Of course you need to list the weapons regardless! It's not like in a point game I could just swap between any options that happened to have the same cost.
Exactly. Sure, there's no difference in how much you pay, but you still need to say "I chose X"
Then pretending everything is fine isn't going to fix anything, either.
Being willing to put a bit of work in at your end, or not being willing/interested in wielding the broken stuff isn't sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending everything is fine though.
If you know they're a weak army, you need to advise people looking into buying them in the first place that the kits, while EXCELLENT for bitz, are useless for tabletop play
This may be true, but only in a very narrow fashion, if you are only interested in playing at the top level of tournament competition (which isn'tanything remotely close to defining 'table top play'). Football is more than just the UEFA cup final, and table top play play is more than just the top level of competition. And At at point, if all you want is that. you might as well say that there's about three lists that work at any time, and the meta shifts every six months, so get ready to chase that dragon. While you may be focused on the 'absolute' scale, those of us who favour the 'relative' scale find ways to make far more things work.
If they're a weak army, competitively speaking point that out, by all means, and if that's what they're after, point them in the right direction (with the caveat that, as above, things change) but also point out that that isn't the only way to play. Not everyone is interested in that sort of thing.
Honestly speaking, the best advice to give people looking into buying anything isn't what you suggest (that so much is useless and only good for bits), but rather, to find like minded people, who want To play the same kind of game.
and it's actually insulting for those that want to use Grey Knights to put on kiddie gloves.
Toning down lists isn't necessarily 'kiddie gloves' either. Any 12 year old can read dakka and find and wield a broken power list. Fielding that doesn't make you a better person or general. If anything, All it says of you is you are only interested in 'absolute' power and it cán suggest a very narrow view of the game. If anything, rather than adhering to the 'absolute' scale, I'd argue 'matching' lists 'relatively' p, especially the lower tiered lists is a far more interesting and intriguing mark of your skill at both list building and understanding of the game. Once the game starts, go for it, but really, I'm interesting in a 'fair fight' far more than I'm intèrested in 'most powerful list'. If that means tone down, I'll gladly do it. Ymmv
I didn't ask my opponents to be nice because that's an insult towards the both of us.
I played 'proper' competitive wargames for a long time. When I played warmachine, I did the same thing as you say here. Then again, warmachine was a far different beast. And a very empowering one at that. It embraced the competitive side. Often in a very good, very enjoyable way. It was a game where, essentially, everything (bar a handful of howlers) was capable of being built into a game winning strategy, and you really felt like an equal and that your stuff could go toe to toe with the best. And while I hàve immensely enjoyed my time playing competitive warmachine/hordes, I'll be the first to admit that whilst enjoyable, a lot of things got sacrificed on the 'competitive' altar to make it so. And I don't necessarily think it's worth it, all of the time.
That said, 40k is not that game. Pretending otherwise is being a part of the problem. Or lying. And while folks scream for years into the internet about all the faults and the imbalances (and often they're not wrong), that won't change anything. Frankly, that means you can either embrace the imbalance, or as I see it, be willing to do a bit of work at your end to make it a bit better. Especially if the other person isn't interested in that side of the game. As I se it, accommodating people isn't 'insulting them because you're not inflicting a one-turn gotcha on them with the latest uber-build', its simply a case of investing in your community. Hell, I'll invest time and energy into what my friends want, my family wants, or what my wife wants, even if it isn't 100 percent what I want. At the end of the day, if you're willing to accommodate, my experience is they'll acomodate back.
If anything we should be sending more critical emails towards GW about their treatment about Grey Knights and their absolute blatant lies about improvements. Nobody cares about those campaigns though of course, as heaven forbid you be critical about the bad things with the game.
I'd just email them about making more Primaris, especially Breachers. That, and I'll be happy.
I just want to point out that, again, list strength and choice of point system have nothing to do with PL vs. normal points. A player who is more concerned with list optimization and winning than their opponent is going to have an advantage whether they use PL or normal points to build their list, the only thing that changes between the two systems is which specific list is the most overpowered one.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:1. So someone can't agree to a fair and dishonest game? That doesn't make any sense.
Way to misinterpret.
You were saying that a game doesn't state what is cheating, I was trying to point out that the most significant definition is "violating the rules", and every game comes with the rules, so yes, they do have at least one page on not cheating by virtue of providing rules.
The other case in, "act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage," was more directed in the case of changing point limits or using PL, both players are well aware of the situation, so it is neither dishonest nor unfair, especially when you're dealing with a game where it can be determined at the army selection stage (how many are left to index?).
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:2. I don't buy this scenario, mostly because the way you're explaining it doesn't make any sense. You went into the store without having bought CA, bought CA, and then adjusted the list? Ya know, instead of buying CA first and digesting the contents? I'd honestly refuse the game with you and tell you to go ahead and read it, so that you can come back with a correctly pointed list for a fairer game. After all, just adding units and upgrades at random doesn't really fix the issue.
I just got my copy on Monday and, even with Battlescribe being updated, I'm still making sure I understand everything correctly.
They arranged the game before two of the players could get a copy. They came to the store, like you, with a prepared list, and then purchased the CA to see what changed. The Death Guard player started going through the point changes and comparing to his WRITTEN list (for some reasons, some people either do not use BattleScribe or do not trust BattleScribe, it's also possible BS wasn't updated for him), and found out that he had gained more than enough points to fit in Mortarion. The Necron player had already purchased the CA and made his list to match (though, ironically, forgot his Monolith at home). The Tyranid player was still going through his box to see what hadn't fallen apart during transport, and I ended up leaving before I found out if he took his list through CA.
See, people have these things called, "lives", and they can't always provide timely interactions to adjust for things like the release of a new book, like their first chance to get the CA book was the day they met for the game.
They also have experiences which may lead them to distrust certain services. BattleScribe is not always updated, nor always accurate to the latest book, which can lead to distrust from players. In addition, they may not want to use their valuable cell data and power to bring that information in when it is up to date. That they prefer to use tried and true tools (which points is compared to PL, just like pen and paper is to BattleScribe) should come as no shock to someone equally as hide-bound.
You can choose to believe it, or not, but it happened, and you can't prove that it didn't happen nor that it was impossible to happen. Interestingly enough, this is thread is not the first time I've mentioned this interaction to you. But what do you care, you called them cheaters there, too.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:3. If you wanna teach the rules, just do a 500 point game or even Kill Team. The only real thing to keep in mind to not overwhelm a new player is to keep the game small.
That is one method, and often used before PL was introduced. Not everyone chooses to use the same method. As I said, PL keeps any competitive pressure off the game, and leaves competitive list building for a later time.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Then pretending everything is fine isn't going to fix anything, either. If you know they're a weak army, you need to advise people looking into buying them in the first place that the kits, while EXCELLENT for bitz, are useless for tabletop play, and it's actually insulting for those that want to use Grey Knights to put on kiddie gloves. I used them in 4th and I knew exactly what I was getting into. I didn't ask my opponents to be nice because that's an insult towards the both of us.
If anything we should be sending more critical emails towards GW about their treatment about Grey Knights and their absolute blatant lies about improvements. Nobody cares about those campaigns though of course, as heaven forbid you be critical about the bad things with the game.
So, from our interactions, you seem to think that the Points system is fine, and doesn't need to be fixed, yet...
Peregrine wrote:I just want to point out that, again, list strength and choice of point system have nothing to do with PL vs. normal points. A player who is more concerned with list optimization and winning than their opponent is going to have an advantage whether they use PL or normal points to build their list, the only thing that changes between the two systems is which specific list is the most overpowered one.
Umm, yes, list strength and choice of point system has a lot to do with PL vs normal points. That is one of your biggest complaints about the situation that you have repeatedly stated.
And there is no guarantee that specific lists will find more power versus each other between PL and points. Both Necrons and Eldar trend to customize more by unit than they do in unit. More often where you will find the power of a list is the favor of the developers and the recentness of the codex it is based on. That leads to a game where no matter which structure you base the game on, it will be inherently unbalanced.
Can’t believe this is still going on. Peregrine and slayer fan are so clearly not getting what anyone else’s points are it’s ridiculous discussing it with them. The argument for power level as well as points, not as a better system but a “different” one has been made comprehensively and many times over but they will not budge, out of either sheer pigheaded stubbornness or blind ignorance. I enjoy my games using power levels. And that is all that matters too me. And if using it means those two won’t ever play me, then that’s a bonus thrown in there too.
Andykp wrote: Can’t believe this is still going on. Peregrine and slayer fan are so clearly not getting what anyone else’s points are it’s ridiculous discussing it with them. The argument for power level as well as points, not as a better system but a “different” one has been made comprehensively and many times over but they will not budge, out of either sheer pigheaded stubbornness or blind ignorance. I enjoy my games using power levels. And that is all that matters too me. And if using it means those two won’t ever play me, then that’s a bonus thrown in there too.
This thread comes up like every 2 weeks and has since 8th dropped, and the discussion has been identical in each of those dozens of threads with the same things being said until it is locked, only for it to return a couple weeks later and start over again.
As for advising new players on what to buy;
When I started, Marines were OK but not good. Existing players warned me about this. The other faction I was looking at (CWE) was downright terrible (at the time, which is very rare for them), and players basically said don't start there. I picked Marines over CWE to start the game with a more generalist faction.
One of the first kits I picked up were ASM. I was aware they weren't particularly *good*, but I loved the unit. I played it a lot.I had a lot of fun.
In this case, I picked a "substandard" army and "substandard" units. As a new player. And it was a lot of fun.
So advise new players if they're looking at an army that isn't decent or well-rounded, but also advise them to go with what they like. The two factions I liked most were low-tier and trash-tier when I started, but they're also the factions that have been top-tier the most consistently since then.
On the math thing; I again recount the tale of my highschool friend in math league. Top kid in the state. Could multiply many-digit numbers in his head easily. But when adding a handful of 3-digit numbers together at a Math League event, he pulled out a calculator. There is no way he *couldn't* do the math. He clearly just *didn't want to*. Sometimes people don't want to do things they're perfectly capable of. Don't assume - and/or accuse - people of being incapable just because they don't want to.
Similarly, I *can* go hop on the treadmill right now (and should). But I don't want to. Are you going to go on a diatribe about I don't know how to walk?
From the perspective of a competitive tournament player, the more metas that exist, the less effective what was once the primary armies are, unless they spend the time, money, and energy collecting models that are at the top of each available meta.
Thus not desirable.
Thus needing to trumpet it down lest GW go that route.
auticus wrote: From the perspective of a competitive tournament player, the more metas that exist, the less effective what was once the primary armies are, unless they spend the time, money, and energy collecting models that are at the top of each available meta.
Thus not desirable.
Thus needing to trumpet it down lest GW go that route.
Not necessarily. In the Valley of the Sun (Phoenix, Arizona, metropolis) we have a couple GW stores (I think), and a few more not. Not everyone gathers to one store for a tournament because they live in different parts of the metropolis, and it covers a lot of territory. We have people who work towards several different tournaments around the western US, and that's what they dedicate their time to. They hit what tournaments they can, but they don't always hit everything, and they still enjoy their time.
Conversely, we have those who are either just building, or don't care for hyper-competitive atmospheres and build to their own pleasures and get games in without any seriousness.
And then we have the ones who are in the middle. They build a little for local competitive play, but also to their own pleasures. They'll engage in friendly games and the occasional local store's tournaments. And they enjoy their time in whatever game they get.
We even sometimes get people from the Tucson metropolis in the south coming up for some of the bigger stores' tournaments when they can as well. And this applies to 40K, AoS, WMH, and X-Wing.
That is an effective blend of diversity which can help hone a competitive player's edge and keep a game alive. Even taking time off to play a little narrative can help cleanse the pallet give new ideas for the competitive player, but only if one is not so close-minded to be the rabid tourney player which can actually break the meta like some of the WMH groups here are.
Crimson wrote:Whilst I agree that PL works OK if people don't try to min-max, I find it utterly hilarious that a PL advocate listed an ability to list tailor more easily as a positive for the system... That goes completely against the intended 'spirit' of the PL and is considered total WAAC behaviour in most circles.
Is it though? The list gives the troops being paid for with PL, the weapons are not needed to be listed, they are all free. Can a list be tailored with items not needing to be specified on the list?
Of course you need to list the weapons regardless! It's not like in a point game I could just swap between any options that happened to have the same cost.
Is it though? The list gives the troops being paid for with PL, the weapons are not needed to be listed, they are all free. Can a list be tailored with items not needing to be specified on the list?
Of course you need to list the weapons regardless! It's not like in a point game I could just swap between any options that happened to have the same cost.
Exactly. Sure, there's no difference in how much you pay, but you still need to say "I chose X"
And precisely where in the rules (either core or full) does it state so?
Spoiler:
Not in core rules available for free on GW site, all it states is:
3.Power Rating
The higher this is, the more powerful the unit! You can determine the Power Level of your entire army by adding up the Power Ratings of all the units in your army.
Before battle begins, determine each army’s Power Level by adding together the Power Ratings of all the units set up in that army.
PL and Points offer two different kinds of games, for different kinds of situations, and appeal to different kinds of people.
There is no wrong answer to what you prefer, and it's not a slight to point out what seems to be more common and preferred for balance.
As long as you don't play Magic: The Gathering you're not wrong.
But it is a slight to call people who prefer, or even just play, the newer and less common system to be losers and cheaters. And certain parties consider it a slight to even bring the subject up to them.
Charistoph wrote: But it is a slight to call people who prefer, or even just play, the newer and less common system to be losers and cheaters. And certain parties consider it a slight to even bring the subject up to them.
It can be easily exploited by someone, I've seen it done multiple times. Locally a few dudes like to try 'let's just make it easy and play to power level' with new guys, and then the 'winner' is running around the FLGS gloating that he board wiped someone in turn 2. I mean, yeah I probably would win if I had 10 heavy bolters, 10 lascannons, and 10 melee guys with power fists and storm shields. I'm quite certain that would annihilate some dude's couple of Start Collecting boxes and a squad of dudes he just put together. So yeah, I don't think Power Level is just something you'll find worth using when playing against just anybody but it certainly has its uses and I do use it for quite a few things.
That "certain party" you mentioned can be easily dealt with by using the 'ignore' feature. I did that a long while ago, and I found it's best not to feed someone who's obviously only logging in to get into a bickering contest and trying to get threads locked when they don't like the subject. When that "certain party" doesn't get responses, they will go away.
I've played a couple Power Level games, and usually it's just someone who wants to put their models on the table.
I've only seen it abused once. I was lamenting that I was paying Power Levels for a Harlie unit like they all and fusion pistols and their best CC weapons, whereas mine had 2 pistols and 2 Kisses for the entire unit. Then the other guy said "Oh, and these 3 squads of wolfen, it's not modelled, but since we're playing Power Levels they have all their upgrades".
The solution? I play Points with that player from now on.
(He wasn't really a "power gamer". He was new, and thought that's how you should play.)
I'd still accept a Power Level game generally, though. Probably not from that guy. And probably not from Peregrine (although points would probably be fine vs either). And certainly not from Slayer. For the most part it's fine.
Dr Coconut wrote: And precisely where in the rules (either core or full) does it state so?
In those rules, it also never mentions "army list".
I think that it's obvious we're talking about rules and concepts beyond the Battle Primer (as much as I like it), such as the idea of having a solid defined list. The example game in the Primer, Open War, never mentions the idea of lists, but that is one mission alone - not all.
Now, I don't have the rulebook on me to comment on what others say, but I imagine they do specify something about army lists or force rosters.
I get the feeling that eventually (maybe not soon) GW will effectively "merge" the 2 systems as part of a effort to streamline a later edition. Given how they are releasing models with fewer and fewer options, it's entirely feasible that they'll update to a single system that looks something like this:
5 Tactical Marines - 10ppm. Can add up to 5 more. Any Special weapon is 10 pts Any Heavy weapon is 15 pts Any Sgt equipment is 10 pts
I used pts in 5/10/15 for ease of the example, but the point is that unlike PL, upgrades a cost and unlike Points are now, individual wargear does not have differing points. A Lascannon costs the same as a Heavy Bolter. A Plasma costs the same as a Melta gun, etc.
I could easily see GW going to this kind of Points/PL hybrid to encourage players to build their units more loosely. But this system would also require massive rebalancing of what the weapons actually do. As-is, a Lascannon is worth far more than a HB, so the HB would need something extra. Heavy 5 could be a simple fix. Multimeltas could finally be 2 Shots in this system to balance with the range of the Lascannon, and so on.
If all the options are closer to balanced and therefore can be the same "points" cost, then you don't need individual costs per weapon and can just have a "Heavy weapon cost" for the unit.
There will still be "clear winning upgrades" but how is that any different from now?
Charistoph wrote: But it is a slight to call people who prefer, or even just play, the newer and less common system to be losers and cheaters. And certain parties consider it a slight to even bring the subject up to them.
It can be easily exploited by someone, I've seen it done multiple times. Locally a few dudes like to try 'let's just make it easy and play to power level' with new guys, and then the 'winner' is running around the FLGS gloating that he board wiped someone in turn 2. I mean, yeah I probably would win if I had 10 heavy bolters, 10 lascannons, and 10 melee guys with power fists and storm shields. I'm quite certain that would annihilate some dude's couple of Start Collecting boxes and a squad of dudes he just put together. So yeah, I don't think Power Level is just something you'll find worth using when playing against just anybody but it certainly has its uses and I do use it for quite a few things.
Points and Power Level are both easily exploited since neither are properly balanced. Indeed, it is far easier to exploit points than Power Levels because there is an internal dialogue trying to insist that points provide better balance because the tuning is finer, so it isn't as readily questioned as being garbage. From there, yeah, you could fit all that in to a PL list, and be a total prick about it, but I've seen people be total pricks with points, too. Being a prick isn't dependent on pricing structure, it is how the game is being approached by the player.
But that is beside the point to what you quoted, it is the attitude of those parties who consider the PL players as losers and cheaters without any further knowledge that was the real point.
Adeptus Doritos wrote:That "certain party" you mentioned can be easily dealt with by using the 'ignore' feature. I did that a long while ago, and I found it's best not to feed someone who's obviously only logging in to get into a bickering contest and trying to get threads locked when they don't like the subject. When that "certain party" doesn't get responses, they will go away.
Having an opposing view isn't a problem, necessarily. I prefer to ignore people who continuously (demonstrating deliberate intent) falsify what I wrote for a counter argument. One such person did it so much I referenced their name in an alternate manner to indicate their ignored status. I don't know if they still frequent here because I took a sabbatical from GW when they put out an FAQ which countered their written words for Independent Characters, without providing an errata to address the written words.
Charistoph wrote: Points and Power Level are both easily exploited since neither are properly balanced. Indeed, it is far easier to exploit points than Power Levels because there is an internal dialogue trying to insist that points provide better balance because the tuning is finer, so it isn't as readily questioned as being garbage. From there, yeah, you could fit all that in to a PL list, and be a total prick about it, but I've seen people be total pricks with points, too. Being a prick isn't dependent on pricing structure, it is how the game is being approached by the player.
Well, again, I would think that depends on entirely who you're playing.
Like, say for example you asked me to do a PL game. We gonna need to have a conversation. I don't have the models to make every squad 'optimized'. I tend to buy armies based on a list I've made and tested, with a few extra options here and there- but rarely is my entire gaming army that's coming to the FLGS going to have more than 4k points in there. So, working with points makes more sense for me, because that's how I (and a lot of other people) buy and build up our armies. I simply do not have every option available modeled, and the 'optimize your unit' isn't really an option for me.
Galef wrote: I get the feeling that eventually (maybe not soon) GW will effectively "merge" the 2 systems as part of a effort to streamline a later edition.
Given how they are releasing models with fewer and fewer options, it's entirely feasible that they'll update to a single system that looks something like this:
5 Tactical Marines - 10ppm. Can add up to 5 more.
Any Special weapon is 10 pts
Any Heavy weapon is 15 pts
Any Sgt equipment is 10 pts
I used pts in 5/10/15 for ease of the example, but the point is that unlike PL, upgrades a cost and unlike Points are now, individual wargear does not have differing points.
A Lascannon costs the same as a Heavy Bolter. A Plasma costs the same as a Melta gun, etc.
I could easily see GW going to this kind of Points/PL hybrid to encourage players to build their units more loosely.
But this system would also require massive rebalancing of what the weapons actually do.
As-is, a Lascannon is worth far more than a HB, so the HB would need something extra. Heavy 5 could be a simple fix.
Multimeltas could finally be 2 Shots in this system to balance with the range of the Lascannon, and so on.
If all the options are closer to balanced and therefore can be the same "points" cost, then you don't need individual costs per weapon and can just have a "Heavy weapon cost" for the unit.
There will still be "clear winning upgrades" but how is that any different from now?
-
If all the weapons were of equal value in some situations, then such a system could work. However it would require a major re-work of all weapons statlines. You cannot convince me that a Grenade Launcher in the current system is anywhere near as valuable as a Plasma Gun in the Astra MIlitarum codex, for example.
Horst wrote: If all the weapons were of equal value in some situations, then such a system could work. However it would require a major re-work of all weapons statlines. You cannot convince me that a Grenade Launcher in the current system is anywhere near as valuable as a Plasma Gun in the Astra MIlitarum codex, for example.
Agreed, but that's were we could introduce more free options. A Grenade Launcher really should be free. You've already got the grenades and have to give up any other shooting to use the Launcher.
So in this simplified system, we'd have plenty of free options, then options that cost based on category like Special or Heavy.
It would feel more like PL in that you just take the unit as is, but has more granularity if you want cheap basic units vs deck out ones.
And really, that's the problem with PLs. It's meant to represent the average cost, not the fully deck out one. But power gamers take all the upgrades, because why not.
Charistoph wrote: Points and Power Level are both easily exploited since neither are properly balanced. Indeed, it is far easier to exploit points than Power Levels because there is an internal dialogue trying to insist that points provide better balance because the tuning is finer, so it isn't as readily questioned as being garbage. From there, yeah, you could fit all that in to a PL list, and be a total prick about it, but I've seen people be total pricks with points, too. Being a prick isn't dependent on pricing structure, it is how the game is being approached by the player.
Well, again, I would think that depends on entirely who you're playing.
That's literally what I was saying. An aft-voiding sphincter will be the same no matter the pricing structure.
Adeptus Doritos wrote:Like, say for example you asked me to do a PL game. We gonna need to have a conversation. I don't have the models to make every squad 'optimized'. I tend to buy armies based on a list I've made and tested, with a few extra options here and there- but rarely is my entire gaming army that's coming to the FLGS going to have more than 4k points in there. So, working with points makes more sense for me, because that's how I (and a lot of other people) buy and build up our armies. I simply do not have every option available modeled, and the 'optimize your unit' isn't really an option for me.
And I've seen people build directly for the optimized build for their units with the only thing holding their build is the number of models being employed, save those Wargear bits which are never modeled, which allows their HQs being the most customized across their lists aside from absolute numbers of models (i.e. dropping Squad #3, or dropping a couple of them in half). Largely because if it is not an optimized build, they simply do not take it at all, even with points.
I guess that is why I am somewhat baffled by this whole concept, because I see that optimization happening in army builds ALL THE TIME no matter which system they are using to build their army. I see this happen in suggestions given in army lists, It isn't even just in Warhammer games that I see this, as it has happened in WMH, X-Wing, and even Battletech.
That's literally what I was saying. An aft-voiding sphincter will be the same no matter the pricing structure.
Oh, I agree. I just feel like maybe using Power Level gives him a lot more wiggle room to be a scumbag. At least with points I can kinda keep things a bit more contained, even if he is being a WAAC guy.
Sort of like, "Yeah, he's going to beat the crap out of me anyway, but I can at least protect my balls and my nose rather than just standing there with my arms wide open".
That's literally what I was saying. An aft-voiding sphincter will be the same no matter the pricing structure.
Oh, I agree. I just feel like maybe using Power Level gives him a lot more wiggle room to be a scumbag. At least with points I can kinda keep things a bit more contained, even if he is being a WAAC guy.
Sort of like, "Yeah, he's going to beat the crap out of me anyway, but I can at least protect my balls and my nose rather than just standing there with my arms wide open".
And I've heard stories where that didn't really do anything to help because they went WAY over the agreed upon point list and only got away with it because the reporter was unfamiliar with the army. So that's another reason why I don't really see the weight of the argument against PL on this, because either its going to happen or it isn't, and it largely is dependent on their level of scat-spewing and nothing to do with purchasing system.
Charistoph wrote: And I've heard stories where that didn't really do anything to help because they went WAY over the agreed upon point list and only got away with it because the reporter was unfamiliar with the army. So that's another reason why I don't really see the weight of the argument against PL on this, because either its going to happen or it isn't, and it largely is dependent on their level of scat-spewing and nothing to do with purchasing system.
Okay, that's cheating. Any system we talk about can be wrecked by cheating, and it's not really a valid argument to favor one over the other. Not being a jerk about it, but cheating isn't going to be stopped by swapping over to a different type of point system.
And yes, it is a hassle counting up points for an army. Kind of why I wish that GW would follow the method that CB uses for Infinity. You make your list online, it tells you if it's valid or not, shows all the points, and you send the list code to the TO who will review it- and it takes three seconds, because it's all right there telling you everything with a big red X or a big green check.
Charistoph wrote: And I've heard stories where that didn't really do anything to help because they went WAY over the agreed upon point list and only got away with it because the reporter was unfamiliar with the army. So that's another reason why I don't really see the weight of the argument against PL on this, because either its going to happen or it isn't, and it largely is dependent on their level of scat-spewing and nothing to do with purchasing system.
Okay, that's cheating. Any system we talk about can be wrecked by cheating, and it's not really a valid argument to favor one over the other. Not being a jerk about it, but cheating isn't going to be stopped by swapping over to a different type of point system.
And yet, that is part of the declaration that is being made about the PL system: "it is a way to cheat your opponent by virtue of just taking the most point-expensive upgrades" (though oddly, that is not always the most optimized build).
Charistoph wrote: And yet, that is part of the declaration that is being made about the PL system: "it is a way to cheat your opponent by virtue of just taking the most point-expensive upgrades" (though oddly, that is not always the most optimized build).
If you're playing to power level, then doing that isn't even cheating. It's pretty much within the tolerance for how you're playing. But that's exactly why it's a problem.
Overall, let's just say you and I agree to this. The obvious thing is 'optimize your dudes to fight my army and I will do the same'. All right... well, that sounds good when you say it, but think about it...
- overall, the game doesn't have factions balanced against one another to work 'fully optimized' with fewer restrictions.
Now, of course we're gentlemen or at least I can convince people I am sometimes- so we're going to come to a gentleman's agreement about what we can take because you, like many other players, don't have the models to build 'fully optimized lists'- you bought what you could to build a couple of lists, and there's still a lot of different weapons and wargear back home on the sprue. And you probably don't have extra turrets or what-have-you, no magnetized stuff, so on and so forth. Hey, that's cool, we can do the gentlemanly thing- I'll not use X and Y, but I really like this Z- tell you what, I'll let you drop in five extra dudes in that one squad over there if I can use the Z, deal? Sweet.
Now, the problem isn't us. Nope. It's 'that guy'.
That Guy is gonna challenge Newbie Ned to a game using PL. He's gonna use the absolute most optimized list he can, and you can bet That Guy has multiples of things and is gonna spam all kinds of plasma and frag and poop bombs or whatever he has that's really expensive and rarely seen in massive numbers, because now he can. Great! Well, obviously Newbie Ned's list is just sort of basic, he's running on a few starter boxes and a couple of other things here and there. Probably stills smells like the cheap Testors glue he bought from Wal-Mart.
End Result:
That Guy did not cheat, according to the rules and agreement. That Guy is under no obligation to be a 'gentleman gamer' like you or I. That guy is going to say that Newbie Ned should have also optimized his list, which would have probably required him to do something ludicrous like buy five of the same kit for one weapon or something but whatever. Doesn't matter. I don't care if That Guy won, and he'll know I don't care because he's probably going to gloat about it and brag to everyone that comes near him (we had That Guy, exactly him, for a while- that's why this sounds very specific or at least rather detailed).
What I care about is Newbie Ned. He's just seen this 'perfectly fair and reasonable' game system used to exploit the freedom of it, and been crushed and flattened. That's not fun, especially when you're new and some guy throws a list at you that just annihilates you and you see all your pretty new models come off the table and go back into the foam tray- and if he's bragging about it, all you hear in your head when you're new is "I suck at this". You weren't cheated, you were beaten 'fair and square'.
I don't know if using actual points would have been different, but it does help you learn more about the specific restrictions that your army has, and what you can generally expect in a more balanced and granular game type.
But here is the problem with Newbie Ned- this is where he's gonna make one of three choices:
A- Realize investing in this game was a stupid idea, he sucks at this, and it's dumb if you only doing something ludicrous like buying 5 boxes of the same guys to get one weapon to spam
B- Get the impression that That Guy is doing it right, and start doing things exactly like That Guy.
C- Maybe ask someone else to play and learn a different system for building a list and continue to grow and get better and enjoy the hobby, avoiding That Guy.
But hey, look, I understand- PL has its place and all, I'm using it for a couple of things myself (more than willing to share if you wanna help me with something). But, it's like pooping with the door open- you only do it with people you really know and the FLGS might not be the best place to do it (trust me, no one cared that I needed fresh air, either).
Points in 40k aren't a perfect balance, because overall- not every faction is balanced against the others. I'm convinced several aren't meant to be taken alone, and it's not always the obvious ones. And 'balance' between factions sometimes is relative to what specific units the other faction is taken. Also, I'm convinced that some armies are more balanced, and even go from 'useless garbage' to 'really good' depending on what point level you're playing at.
Points might be 'unbalanced', but there's at least some means to make it somewhat balanced- more so than the average PL game, by far. The thing is... there's no way you can really, honestly, truly balance a game with as many possible options and match-ups as there are in this game.
Though I do think maybe some kind of additional system that acts as a balancing ruleset would be kinda nifty. Basically, "If your opponent has X, you get -y VP for using Y" or something to that effect.
Charistoph wrote: And yet, that is part of the declaration that is being made about the PL system: "it is a way to cheat your opponent by virtue of just taking the most point-expensive upgrades" (though oddly, that is not always the most optimized build).
If you're playing to power level, then doing that isn't even cheating. It's pretty much within the tolerance for how you're playing. But that's exactly why it's a problem.
I know it's not cheating. YOU know it's not cheating. Yet, there are two prolific posters who have both stated as such several times. They are automatically assuming that you are loser/cheater/That Guy for wanting to play PL because points don't matter there. The fact that points don't matter to both players, and people often take the most optimized build for a unit ANYWAY (at least, of the time of the build) doesn't seem to register to them as a factor.
As for the rest:
auticus wrote:That guy is That guy no matter if you are using points or PL. You get the same type of game either way.
To me trying to say that points-unbalance is better than PL-unbalance because unbalance is not as unbalanced is kind of circular and trivial.
They both take you to the same destination. An unbalanced game won in the listbuilding phase more often than not.
I've said similar so many times in this thread, I almost think I should put it in my sig.
Yeah, it's overall a bit easier for 'That Guy' to exploit than points. At least points makes him work a little harder for it, and I'll take that just to make it less convenient for him.
That's all I got at this point.
You're not cheating if you use PL, but you would have to know what you want out of it and make it clear to an opponent who's got a similar mindset to yours.
Doing a list by standard points isn't a flawless alternative and you're not a jerk for asking people to use it even in fun and friendly casual games.
There is no wrong way to play 40k, unless you use Logan Grimnar on the Stormrider. Then you're wrong and lose every game forever and should have your models incinerated.
Charistoph wrote: I guess that is why I am somewhat baffled by this whole concept, because I see that optimization happening in army builds ALL THE TIME no matter which system they are using to build their army. I see this happen in suggestions given in army lists, It isn't even just in Warhammer games that I see this, as it has happened in WMH, X-Wing, and even Battletech.
The problem is in two parts:
1) PL advocates have claimed that PL eliminates, or at least reduces, list optimization. This is a blatantly false statement, as you point out.
2) At least some PL advocates are choosing PL over normal points because it favors the particular lists they want to use (and openly admitting to doing so). So yeah, there's list optimization in both systems, but you have a match between a person who has optimized for PL and a person who has optimized for the normal point system and has to keep mostly the same list without many of the optimizations they'd make if PL was the primary game. And it's TFG behavior to lobby for a point system with built-in systemic errors because it happens to favor your preferred lists/units at the expense of your opponent.
Points, I'm not a zealot about other people being over or under, so long as it's no more than 100 points or so. Power Level is vague, but a great way for newer players or for people looking to have a pick-up game without taking a lot of time to point it out.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: Points, I'm not a zealot about other people being over or under, so long as it's no more than 100 points or so. Power Level is vague, but a great way for newer players or for people looking to have a pick-up game without taking a lot of time to point it out.
Yeah, I'm not hugely buttmad if someone is a little over. Even if they are, that can usually be 'balanced' by adding a missile or storm bolter to a vehicle or something.
Charistoph wrote: I guess that is why I am somewhat baffled by this whole concept, because I see that optimization happening in army builds ALL THE TIME no matter which system they are using to build their army. I see this happen in suggestions given in army lists, It isn't even just in Warhammer games that I see this, as it has happened in WMH, X-Wing, and even Battletech.
The problem is in two parts:
1) PL advocates have claimed that PL eliminates, or at least reduces, list optimization. This is a blatantly false statement, as you point out.
So why is this one of your main complaints?
Peregrine wrote:2) At least some PL advocates are choosing PL over normal points because it favors the particular lists they want to use (and openly admitting to doing so). So yeah, there's list optimization in both systems, but you have a match between a person who has optimized for PL and a person who has optimized for the normal point system and has to keep mostly the same list without many of the optimizations they'd make if PL was the primary game. And it's TFG behavior to lobby for a point system with built-in systemic errors because it happens to favor your preferred lists/units at the expense of your opponent.
Wait, which is it? Is unit build optimization a consistent thing or not? If it is, then you have zero argument and you are simply name-calling the people who like to use the PL system. If it is not a consistent thing, then your first point is a lie.
And apparently you seemed to miss one of my points that you did not quote. A unit's option loadout is not changed between points and PL. What may be changed is the absolute number of models on the field, and that always has the potential for negotiation no matter which system you use.
Nor is it TFG to use an army build system which doesn't have the competitive pressure that people stuck on points have, simply because it gets away from that pressure system. Too much tournament focus can end up as toxic to a meta as cheaters and poor hygiene, as it can keep new players from coming in to learn the game. If it happens to use an army build that a person prefers, so what? I have had people deny me games simply because my collection had not reached tournament level yet, how is that any different? There have been people on forums who were completely willing to deny a game against specific armies at times because they were considered brokenly powerful, and that was when there was no PL system, how is that any different? Keep in mind that Warhammer games are systemically riddled with pointing errors, and you advocate for it, so here's your stone back through your glass wall.
You have too much of a white knight view of the points system and a black knight view of the PL system if your knee-jerk reaction is always assuming that a person wanting to play PL is TFG. It is as much a form of bigotry as a person who treats anyone not training for a tournament as a loser. It is a very poor case of poor sportsmanship on your part in that case. You may have been burned by this before, but that's on the individual, not the group, and has been pointed out, they've been there all the time with points trying to poison the meta, so you really can't honestly place the blame on the structure.
I'm not convinced by the 'free upgrade' argument against PL and think it can be pretty much inverted.
The problem with points is you only choose the most OP and underpriced upgrades. Each time you do that you earn free points to spend else where. The option to take completely unupgraded troops means you can squeeze more boots onto the field than you could afford under PL.
This allows you to have ludicrously cheap battalions by cutting upgrade points, to farm CP for and spam the most over powered underpointed options in a faction.
Points lets you work around the PL system by paying LESS for the same thing...
Because, while you acknowledge that the claim is false, other PL advocates do not and keep insisting that PL removes list optimization as a factor.
Wait, which is it? Is unit build optimization a consistent thing or not? If it is, then you have zero argument and you are simply name-calling the people who like to use the PL system. If it is not a consistent thing, then your first point is a lie.
The existence of list optimization is constant. Precisely which list ends up being the best one is not. For example, maybe in the normal point system the best heavy weapon for a squad is a mortar because it is cheap and efficient. Meanwhile in the PL point system the best heavy weapon for that squad is a lascannon, because it has the most raw power and all options cost the same. It is TFG behavior to look at your collection full of lascannons and say "PL makes my army stronger, I want to play a game with PL instead of normal points". You're lobbying to use a known error in pricing because it gives you an advantage.
A unit's option loadout is not changed between points and PL. What may be changed is the absolute number of models on the field, and that always has the potential for negotiation no matter which system you use.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. The list of options does not change but their point costs certainly do change.
Nor is it TFG to use an army build system which doesn't have the competitive pressure that people stuck on points have, simply because it gets away from that pressure system.
Except, again, PL does not remove competitive pressure. List optimization and a competitive approach to the game still exist even if all options for a unit have the same point cost, as demonstrated by WH/H and its PL-style point system.
Too much tournament focus can end up as toxic to a meta as cheaters and poor hygiene, as it can keep new players from coming in to learn the game.
Only if you assume that "new player" and "tournament player" are mutually exclusive concepts. A new player who is interested primarily in competitive tournament play will likely look at a game/group that doesn't focus on tournaments (and tournament practice) and decide to go elsewhere.
There have been people on forums who were completely willing to deny a game against specific armies at times because they were considered brokenly powerful, and that was when there was no PL system, how is that any different?
Do you honestly not see a difference between "your army is much more powerful than mine, you're going to win in one turn, and there's no point in wasting time playing" and "my army is more powerful under PL than under normal points, therefore we should use PL"?
You have too much of a white knight view of the points system and a black knight view of the PL system if your knee-jerk reaction is always assuming that a person wanting to play PL is TFG.
I make no such assumption. There are people who advocate for PL who are simply mistaken, not TFG. What I'm talking about is the specific motivation for using PL that certain people in this thread have explicitly stated. No assumptions are needed, only reading the words they voluntarily write.
Peregrine wrote:1) PL advocates have claimed that PL eliminates, or at least reduces, list optimization. This is a blatantly false statement, as you point out.
Agreed. You *can* list omptimise in both points and power level.
And it's TFG behavior to lobby for a point system with built-in systemic errors because it happens to favor your preferred lists/units at the expense of your opponent.
So you admit that you're TFG as well? Because lobby for points, which has multiple systemic errors in it (time to build, encouraging competitive power over flavour), just because you favour what it lets you do (minmax your game for optimal price/power) at the expense of other people (having a relaxed beer+pretzels experience).
You're literally calling people TFG for preferring a differnet points system. Of course people will prefer a system if it benefits them in some way, be that competitive strength, balance, or ease of function. They're not TFG for that.
Peregrine wrote:The existence of list optimization is constant. Precisely which list ends up being the best one is not. For example, maybe in the normal point system the best heavy weapon for a squad is a mortar because it is cheap and efficient. Meanwhile in the PL point system the best heavy weapon for that squad is a lascannon, because it has the most raw power and all options cost the same. It is TFG behavior to look at your collection full of lascannons and say "PL makes my army stronger, I want to play a game with PL instead of normal points".
Absolutely agreed. If you're picking Power Level because your models are given the strongest weapons (ignoring their points) and want to wipe the floor with your opponent, then that's TFG behaviour.
However, I feel that you're missing out that not everyone plays PL for that reason. Do you understand that?
You're lobbying to use a known error in pricing because it gives you an advantage.
Some people (like myself) lobby for Power Level for different reasons. What is your problem with that?
A unit's option loadout is not changed between points and PL. What may be changed is the absolute number of models on the field, and that always has the potential for negotiation no matter which system you use.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. The list of options does not change but their point costs certainly do change.
I think what is being said is something like this:
I have a Tactical Squad kit. I want to expand my army, maybe I'm just adding in another Tactical Squad to finish my Battle Company. Either way, I have a Tactical Squad, and they will definitely be used in my games. However, which points system I choose to play with will affect me. If I play Power Level, then I can pick options that I think look the best, and I can afford to bling out my Sergeants with cool looking gear, because they will always cost X amount.
If I play points, then I need to factor in how expensive my squad will end up being, because that could affect what units I'm able to take for my list later on. They could be cheap, and allow me to take more of other things, or they might be so expensive that I'm unable to take other units. So while my Tactical Squad will be the same cost in every game, I have to choose how much they cost now.
Put shortly, with Power Level, you only need to consider what units you're taking, and fitting that together. With points, you need to consider both what units you want, and what they're armed with, and that can affect both what units and options you can afford.
Except, again, PL does not remove competitive pressure. List optimization and a competitive approach to the game still exist even if all options for a unit have the same point cost, as demonstrated by WH/H and its PL-style point system.
I'll agree it doesn't remove it, but it's hard to ignore that most PL players have less competitive urges than points players, at least from this thread.
You have too much of a white knight view of the points system and a black knight view of the PL system if your knee-jerk reaction is always assuming that a person wanting to play PL is TFG.
I make no such assumption. There are people who advocate for PL who are simply mistaken, not TFG. What I'm talking about is the specific motivation for using PL that certain people in this thread have explicitly stated. No assumptions are needed, only reading the words they voluntarily write.
And am I one of these people? Because I've made it very clear that I do not support PL for gaining power. It just seems that all of my reasons you seem to think are invalid as well.
Generally speaking, the people who prefer Power Level are the ones who will outfit a squad based on what looks cool, rather than what's "good" (e.g. they are the kind of person who gives a sergeant a powerfist and plasma pistol because it looks suitably heroic, irrespective of whether that's an optimal configuration or not). The people who prefer points, generally speaking, will do the opposite since everything needs to be accounted for so there is no opportunity to take something just because, you have to justify every choice made because each choice you make means another choice you didn't make.
Wayniac wrote: Generally speaking, the people who prefer Power Level are the ones who will outfit a squad based on what looks cool, rather than what's "good" (e.g. they are the kind of person who gives a sergeant a powerfist and plasma pistol because it looks suitably heroic, irrespective of whether that's an optimal configuration or not). The people who prefer points, generally speaking, will do the opposite since everything needs to be accounted for so there is no opportunity to take something just because, you have to justify every choice made because each choice you make means another choice you didn't make.
Generally speaking, but yes. This seems to be the standard. Of course, it doesn't stop people suggesting that PL players only play PL because it lets them take the strongest weapons without consequence or because "they're too stupid".
I prefer points BUT the option for power level (which a few players in my area use) allows me to build and use units and models I normally wouldn't. If we play Open War cards, we use PL.
Plasma pistols and power fists for everyone! Bring that Heavy Flamer brother! Havoc Launchers! More Combi-weapons!
I've always been a WYSIWYG gamer, so I often have more builds made than I usually field. My Plague Marines all have either a PFist Plasma champ, just a plasma champ, and a stock bolter champ that I can swap out depending on points. Power level makes them more relevant.
I'll reiterate that my problem with Power Level is NOT that it makes it too easy to optimize certain units. My problem is that Power Level de-optimizes too many units.
Basically anything that has a wide variance of wargear is now going to be heavily discouraged from taking large chunks of that wargear, and thus punishes players for running varied units.
My go-to example is Sisters of Battle, whose two best weapons are Storm Bolters and Melta, and who operate by taking those weapons in spades. In Power Level, one of our two weapons isn't just suboptimal, it's practically not viable.
Taking five Nobz with double-choppas is a fun way to get a bunch of S5 attacks on a reasonably cheap platform. (70 points for 25 attacks is pretty nice.) Taking five Nobz with double-killsaws is maybe a bit less viable because it's such a glass cannon, but still not a bad option if you need a ton of high Strength, high AP, reliable attacks. Both are reasonable options that could be put into a list with a reasonable expectation of making their points back in a casual game. In a Power Level game, the double choppas might as well not exist for how much of a waste they are.
Space Wolf Wolf Guard and Thunderwolves. Anything Deathwatch. Most Space Marine veteran choices. These are just the armies I play regularly - Almost every army (except really recent ones with tiny numbers of units, like Custodes or Knights,) have at least a couple units who are viable both with stripped down and over the top gear, and who lose over half their build options when you play Power Level unless you want to go into the game with a severe handicap.
The thing that amazes me about this topic is that everyone seems to assume players are starting with "Let's play PL" then go "How should we equip our models?"
I always figure that PL is more used for people who start by building models before writing lists, either because they're new, are building for looks / to fit flavour (e.g. building the UM company exactly as shown in the Codex), or maybe even had a pre-existing army from a previous edition.
Waaaghpower wrote: My go-to example is Sisters of Battle, whose two best weapons are Storm Bolters and Melta, and who operate by taking those weapons in spades. In Power Level, one of our two weapons isn't just suboptimal, it's practically not viable.
How so? Taking meltaguns for every special weapon slot won't help when that Boyz Mob shows up.
Waaaghpower wrote:I'll reiterate that my problem with Power Level is NOT that it makes it too easy to optimize certain units. My problem is that Power Level de-optimizes too many units.
Basically anything that has a wide variance of wargear is now going to be heavily discouraged from taking large chunks of that wargear, and thus punishes players for running varied units.
Of course, this is only an issue if you only consider the effectiveness of them in game.
If that's all that you care about, good on you. From what I can see, most PL players aren't the ones with that kind of mindset.
AtoMaki wrote: How so? Taking meltaguns for every special weapon slot won't help when that Boyz Mob shows up.
Actually it will. Melta is 0.55 kills per turn, a bolter is 0.27/0.54 kills per turn. So the melta is as good against the basic troops as the gun it replaces, sacrifices only minimal squad-total firepower against basic troops, and has far more firepower against vehicles and elite infantry. And yes, even orks bring vehicles and elite infantry. The only reason to take the storm bolter, unless you are TFG-level tailoring against an opponent who you know can't bring anything but boyz, is the cheaper cost and under PL it costs as much as the melta. IOW, storm bolters cease to exist as an option.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aelyn wrote: The thing that amazes me about this topic is that everyone seems to assume players are starting with "Let's play PL" then go "How should we equip our models?"
I always figure that PL is more used for people who start by building models before writing lists, either because they're new, are building for looks / to fit flavour (e.g. building the UM company exactly as shown in the Codex), or maybe even had a pre-existing army from a previous edition.
Of course everyone starts with "how should we equip our models". You look at the rules to see what options you should assemble, so that you don't end up with tactical marines armed with dual plasma guns. And it's incredibly unlikely that your game is using every single model that you own, so even though every kit has been assembled already you're still choosing which of your models to include in your army for that game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: Generally speaking, the people who prefer Power Level are the ones who will outfit a squad based on what looks cool, rather than what's "good" (e.g. they are the kind of person who gives a sergeant a powerfist and plasma pistol because it looks suitably heroic, irrespective of whether that's an optimal configuration or not). The people who prefer points, generally speaking, will do the opposite since everything needs to be accounted for so there is no opportunity to take something just because, you have to justify every choice made because each choice you make means another choice you didn't make.
If it's all about "what looks cool" then you should be happy to play with the normal point system and pay the appropriate point cost. Or you should be happy to model the sergeant that way and then say "he has no upgrades rules-wise". But what you actually want is to be able to use the rules that make your sergeant more powerful on the table but not have to pay any additional points for it. And your desire comes at the expense of the person who wants to model their sergeant with a bolt pistol and chainsword because it's what they think looks cool, since they're now paying for a power fist and plasma pistol but only getting much weaker weapons.
Because, while you acknowledge that the claim is false, other PL advocates do not and keep insisting that PL removes list optimization as a factor.
Not the point of what you quoted. YOU keep bringing it up as a reason the whole PL system is trash even when no one else proffers it as an opinion. You have LED with this argument before anyone else brings it up the last two threads.
Peregrine wrote:
Wait, which is it? Is unit build optimization a consistent thing or not? If it is, then you have zero argument and you are simply name-calling the people who like to use the PL system. If it is not a consistent thing, then your first point is a lie.
The existence of list optimization is constant. Precisely which list ends up being the best one is not. For example, maybe in the normal point system the best heavy weapon for a squad is a mortar because it is cheap and efficient. Meanwhile in the PL point system the best heavy weapon for that squad is a lascannon, because it has the most raw power and all options cost the same. It is TFG behavior to look at your collection full of lascannons and say "PL makes my army stronger, I want to play a game with PL instead of normal points". You're lobbying to use a known error in pricing because it gives you an advantage.
Assumption. People build Lascannons in to a Heavy Weapon Team because they want the ability to Wound and to Damage. Mortars are their to provide Wound chances just like a Heavy Bolter does. It may seem like the same, but it isn't because of the differences in capacity to reliably apply a Wound versus Damage, and that's not even considering those Teams that were built when Mortars could barely hurt a Trukk. A Weapon is chosen based on what it can do. Points only get involved on a minor level since it is applied when you have to pare back at the end of writing a list and get a few points over so a trimming is needed.
Peregrine wrote:
A unit's option loadout is not changed between points and PL. What may be changed is the absolute number of models on the field, and that always has the potential for negotiation no matter which system you use.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. The list of options does not change but their point costs certainly do change.
Which adequately demonstrates that you have honestly not read a single word I said, since you just agreed with me the post before.
When people play with points, they build with an optimized weapon set for the unit. It is only the odd unit which is used to pad the points that this is not in consideration. Going back to the Mortar versus Lascannon debate, people will often try to prove statistically which one will provide more Wounds against a specific target, and it is that determination which will win out more than which one is more expensive until you get to the very final selections in a point structure.
Peregrine wrote:
Nor is it TFG to use an army build system which doesn't have the competitive pressure that people stuck on points have, simply because it gets away from that pressure system.
Except, again, PL does not remove competitive pressure. List optimization and a competitive approach to the game still exist even if all options for a unit have the same point cost, as demonstrated by WH/H and its PL-style point system.
Again, you are ignoring what has been said in favor of what you want to perceive. Yes, it does remove that competitive pressure in the list-building phase since the fine-tuning of points do not matter. One is not having to downgrade from a 10-man Devastator Squad to an 8 man squad to fit in another Lascannon, even though the Boltguns on those two Devastors will provide a minimal difference offensively, and MAY allow the unit to survive a few more Wounds (or have it be more concentrated on due to larger appearance).
Peregrine wrote:
Too much tournament focus can end up as toxic to a meta as cheaters and poor hygiene, as it can keep new players from coming in to learn the game.
Only if you assume that "new player" and "tournament player" are mutually exclusive concepts. A new player who is interested primarily in competitive tournament play will likely look at a game/group that doesn't focus on tournaments (and tournament practice) and decide to go elsewhere.
Again, you are not listening. A tournament atmosphere is great for the meta. It is when it becomes TOO MUCH of a focus that it can lead new players away since they will get overwhelmed to play tournament games (in practics) as their very first game, and that includes army building in an army that may not actually suit them. It is that excess of competitive spirit which is toxic, just like too much oxygen in the air is toxic.
Peregrine wrote:
There have been people on forums who were completely willing to deny a game against specific armies at times because they were considered brokenly powerful, and that was when there was no PL system, how is that any different?
Do you honestly not see a difference between "your army is much more powerful than mine, you're going to win in one turn, and there's no point in wasting time playing" and "my army is more powerful under PL than under normal points, therefore we should use PL"?
I do not. Why don't you? That is your claim about PL, after all, and it is the exact same attitude.
Peregrine wrote:
You have too much of a white knight view of the points system and a black knight view of the PL system if your knee-jerk reaction is always assuming that a person wanting to play PL is TFG.
I make no such assumption. There are people who advocate for PL who are simply mistaken, not TFG. What I'm talking about is the specific motivation for using PL that certain people in this thread have explicitly stated. No assumptions are needed, only reading the words they voluntarily write.
You have repeatedly made that as a definitive statement regarding PL, yet people have repeatedly claimed otherwise. Therefore it is an assumption, and a poor one at that. You take a claim about, "not having to worry about the details," as, "I have permission to go as crazy as I want," when it has to do more with not fiddling with minutiae (that are largely arbitrary) than being a power-gaming scat-spewer. It is this assumption to which I speak and you have repeatedly stated.
I'm just gonna say that arguing with 'certain people' is pretty much ensuring that the thread will get locked down, to a point where I'm pretty sure that's the intent.
AtoMaki wrote: How so? Taking meltaguns for every special weapon slot won't help when that Boyz Mob shows up.
Actually it will. Melta is 0.55 kills per turn, a bolter is 0.27/0.54 kills per turn. So the melta is as good against the basic troops as the gun it replaces, sacrifices only minimal squad-total firepower against basic troops, and has far more firepower against vehicles and elite infantry. And yes, even orks bring vehicles and elite infantry. The only reason to take the storm bolter, unless you are TFG-level tailoring against an opponent who you know can't bring anything but boyz, is the cheaper cost and under PL it costs as much as the melta. IOW, storm bolters cease to exist as an option.
Now compare the Meltagun to the Flamer, the other common Imperial Special Weapon, and costs the same, if not less.
Aelyn wrote: The thing that amazes me about this topic is that everyone seems to assume players are starting with "Let's play PL" then go "How should we equip our models?"
I always figure that PL is more used for people who start by building models before writing lists, either because they're new, are building for looks / to fit flavour (e.g. building the UM company exactly as shown in the Codex), or maybe even had a pre-existing army from a previous edition.
Of course everyone starts with "how should we equip our models". You look at the rules to see what options you should assemble, so that you don't end up with tactical marines armed with dual plasma guns. And it's incredibly unlikely that your game is using every single model that you own, so even though every kit has been assembled already you're still choosing which of your models to include in your army for that game.
And you still knee-jerk accuse the guy of being TFG. Beautiful.
Wayniac wrote: Generally speaking, the people who prefer Power Level are the ones who will outfit a squad based on what looks cool, rather than what's "good" (e.g. they are the kind of person who gives a sergeant a powerfist and plasma pistol because it looks suitably heroic, irrespective of whether that's an optimal configuration or not). The people who prefer points, generally speaking, will do the opposite since everything needs to be accounted for so there is no opportunity to take something just because, you have to justify every choice made because each choice you make means another choice you didn't make.
If it's all about "what looks cool" then you should be happy to play with the normal point system and pay the appropriate point cost. Or you should be happy to model the sergeant that way and then say "he has no upgrades rules-wise". But what you actually want is to be able to use the rules that make your sergeant more powerful on the table but not have to pay any additional points for it. And your desire comes at the expense of the person who wants to model their sergeant with a bolt pistol and chainsword because it's what they think looks cool, since they're now paying for a power fist and plasma pistol but only getting much weaker weapons.
Why should they play with an arbitrary point system that is inaccurately riddled with minutiae when they can quickly toss together a quick list and have a fun game?
Aelyn wrote: The thing that amazes me about this topic is that everyone seems to assume players are starting with "Let's play PL" then go "How should we equip our models?"
I always figure that PL is more used for people who start by building models before writing lists, either because they're new, are building for looks / to fit flavour (e.g. building the UM company exactly as shown in the Codex), or maybe even had a pre-existing army from a previous edition.
Of course everyone starts with "how should we equip our models". You look at the rules to see what options you should assemble, so that you don't end up with tactical marines armed with dual plasma guns. And it's incredibly unlikely that your game is using every single model that you own, so even though every kit has been assembled already you're still choosing which of your models to include in your army for that game.
Did you even read what I said? Because it wasn't that people start with "How should I equip my models".
My point is that everyone is assuming that people are building models on the basis of playing PL games, and equipping accordingly (i.e. maxing out upgrades), whereas I think PL is partly intended to be for "We have these models, now let's look at the gaming side" situations.
And yes, some people do play with all their collections. If I was playing against a new player who'd built their Start Collecting box and two more kits, I'd suggest they bring everything they have and I'd build to match (or slightly below) their PL.
Aelyn wrote:The thing that amazes me about this topic is that everyone seems to assume players are starting with "Let's play PL" then go "How should we equip our models?"
I always figure that PL is more used for people who start by building models before writing lists, either because they're new, are building for looks / to fit flavour (e.g. building the UM company exactly as shown in the Codex), or maybe even had a pre-existing army from a previous edition.
When I buy and build models, I like them to look badass and how I could best use them in my current army. I could care less if it's powerful/efficient in the game. I have a Landraider Helios, it's both expensive $wise and PL/Points wise. Is there a better version(not like any LR is efficient) prob, but I love how it looks and fills a specific role in my army.
If all you care about is X vs. Y you miss what myself and other PL proponents are trying to say. I enjoy the spectacle and grandeur of a proper 40k game. Interesting missions, well filled out terrain, weird matchups, unequal odds, etc...
Okay-but if you don't care at all about performance, why even use a point system? Throw down roughly equal amounts of models of similar size and have a blast.
JNAProductions wrote: Okay-but if you don't care at all about performance, why even use a point system? Throw down roughly equal amounts of models of similar size and have a blast.
Exactly. Making the point system less accurate doesn't help you achieve any of your stated goals.
Anything power level can do, points can do better. It only takes a couple minutes to build a list in battlescribe. I'm not sure why power level even exists. Maybe to teach someone their first few games it's fine but after that they should really be learning to build a list with points.
JNAProductions wrote:Okay-but if you don't care at all about performance, why even use a point system? Throw down roughly equal amounts of models of similar size and have a blast.
Agreed. How would you calculate the "roughly equal amount of models", when some are more elite than others, when some units are vehicles, and some are heroes?
Some kind of system to determine the relative and rough power level of a unit, perhaps?
Toofast wrote:Anything power level can do, points can do better.
Encouraging weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons, not because it's all you can afford in X points
Faster to build lists
Used by local group/casual players you associate with
Can be played just by having the unit's datasheet (which often comes in the kit)
Designed for Open War cards and Narrative system
A few things that PL does in my experience that are better. I don't expect this to be universal, but it certainly punctures holes in the idea that points>power level in every way. Points have their strengths, don't get me wrong. But PL, at least for me, does too.
It only takes a couple minutes to build a list in battlescribe.
Two things: one, it takes even LESS time to make one in Combat Roster (GW's PL based army builder)
Second, why should I have to rely on Battlescribe? By bringing Battlescribe in, you admit that points ARE more complex than Power Level. If this weren't the case, you wouldn't need to mention a third party application. Same as calculators - sure, I *could* use one, but I don't need a calculator for power level. Apparently, points requires some kind of third party application to help - which defeats the idea that "points are just as easy as PL".
I mean, we wouldn't turn around and say something like "If they're in cover, Scions get a +1 to their save, so Scions = Space Marines!", would we?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Agreed. How would you calculate the "roughly equal amount of models", when some are more elite than others, when some units are vehicles, and some are heroes?
By looking at roughly how many square inches of table space they take up. You take a squad, I take a squad. You take a LRBT, I take another squad. You take a Baneblade, I take a Predator and 2-3 squads. Maybe if it's a super elite army vs. a horde army throw in a few handfuls of basic troops to make a proper horde. Etc. If the two armies look roughly the same size they're probably close enough. After all, points don't matter and you don't care about winning. And this approach goes a lot faster than adding up PL points.
Alternatively, you let the narrative decide. For someone like you, with your obsessive dedication to the fluff, it should be very easy for you to pull out your Ultrasmurfs 15th Company and challenge Shas'o R'Y'X'z'U'X and his cadre to a fight. You already know what is involved in your list because each model has a 10 page backstory and can't be exchanged for any other model, so just pull them out and start playing.
Encouraging weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons, not because it's all you can afford in X points
PL does no such thing. There is still an optimal weapon choice based on firepower per point, and taking a choice for aesthetic reasons still makes your army weaker. In fact, PL discourages taking aesthetic options because they all cost the same. In a normal game you might be able to be ok with taking a chainsword instead of a power fist because it looks cool since at least it costs fewer points for the weaker weapon. In a PL game you're punished for taking that cool chainsword because you're paying the points for a power fist.
Faster to build lists
Not by any meaningful amount.
Can be played just by having the unit's datasheet (which often comes in the kit)
Not true. You still need the codex for the army-wide rules, the FAQs for any rule changes, etc. IOW, the same list of books that you need for a normal points game. The only thing you could possibly argue that you can do without by using PL is CA 2018 for the point cost errata, but if you're a narrative player then you already bought CA 2018 for its narrative content.
Second, why should I have to rely on Battlescribe?
Because, in addition to the convenience of adding up your points, it also makes a nice formatted army list you can print and bring to the game and that saves you the time and effort of writing one without a list builder. Even if you're playing PL Battlescribe is still a useful tool.
Encouraging weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons, not because it's all you can afford in X points
PL does no such thing. There is still an optimal weapon choice based on firepower per point, and taking a choice for aesthetic reasons still makes your army weaker. In fact, PL discourages taking aesthetic options because they all cost the same. In a normal game you might be able to be ok with taking a chainsword instead of a power fist because it looks cool since at least it costs fewer points for the weaker weapon. In a PL game you're punished for taking that cool chainsword because you're paying the points for a power fist.
Sure it does. Prove it doesn't. Your accusations based on assumptions do not count as proof. Others' declarations state that it does, therefore you are wrong unless you can demonstrate they are lying.
Depends on the army. Necrons, sure. Deathwatch, not so much unless you've already put them in to convenient point tallies like I used to do with my Black Templar in yester-year.
Can be played just by having the unit's datasheet (which often comes in the kit)
Not true. You still need the codex for the army-wide rules, the FAQs for any rule changes, etc. IOW, the same list of books that you need for a normal points game. The only thing you could possibly argue that you can do without by using PL is CA 2018 for the point cost errata, but if you're a narrative player then you already bought CA 2018 for its narrative content.
No, you don't NEED it, it's just handy. It depends on the datasheet, too, because if it is not from the codex, it is already listed on the datasheet in question. And then there are those who have no codex for their army.
Second, why should I have to rely on Battlescribe?
Because, in addition to the convenience of adding up your points, it also makes a nice formatted army list you can print and bring to the game and that saves you the time and effort of writing one without a list builder. Even if you're playing PL Battlescribe is still a useful tool.
You are not saying why he MUST do so, though. You advocate the convenience, but do nothing to list it as a requirement. Even worse, since it is doubly 3rd party and not connected to GW in any way, Battlescribe can be out of date or just plain wrong with no recompense. It's not like Battlescribe nor the add-on creator are being employed or directly fed the information by GW. All it takes is the add-on creator to give up on the game and no one with the chops to take it over for it to fail without notification.
Charistoph wrote: Sure it does. Prove it doesn't. Your accusations based on assumptions do not count as proof. Others' declarations state that it does, therefore you are wrong unless you can demonstrate they are lying.
Proving a negative is impossible and you know it (or at least I hope you do). On the other hand, people have offered nothing more than "I do aesthetic things" as proof that PL does encourage it, without any credible argument that it is PL encouraging aesthetic choices rather than their existing commitment to take upgrades for aesthetic reasons regardless of the point system.
Depends on the army. Necrons, sure. Deathwatch, not so much unless you've already put them in to convenient point tallies like I used to do with my Black Templar in yester-year.
Any army. The difference in time is literally the few seconds required to type a couple more digits into the calculator. In fact, the normal point system is likely to be faster than PL unless you have a policy of letting your opponent break the point limit to bring more stuff. If you're 5 points over the limit in a normal game you can usually make a quick change to remove an upgrade and have a legal list. If you're 1 point over in a PL game you have to remove an entire unit and swap it with something else, possibly forcing other changes to accommodate the swap.
No, you don't NEED it, it's just handy. It depends on the datasheet, too, because if it is not from the codex, it is already listed on the datasheet in question. And then there are those who have no codex for their army.
No, you need it. You can't play the game with just the datasheets unless you ignore some of the rules. Maybe you can come up with some obscure and unrealistic list that technically allows you to play without the codex, but for all realistic purposes you need to buy the codex for your army. Or index I suppose, but the index armies also have their normal point costs in the same book as the PL point costs.
You are not saying why he MUST do so, though. You advocate the convenience, but do nothing to list it as a requirement. Even worse, since it is doubly 3rd party and not connected to GW in any way, Battlescribe can be out of date or just plain wrong with no recompense. It's not like Battlescribe nor the add-on creator are being employed or directly fed the information by GW. All it takes is the add-on creator to give up on the game and no one with the chops to take it over for it to fail without notification.
Of course it's not a requirement. It isn't a requirement to use Battlescribe regardless of PL vs. points. But the simple fact is that Battlescribe is a useful tool regardless of which point system you're using, and saying "you have to use Battlescribe for points to be convenient" is hardly a compelling argument when you're sitting there making a PL list using the exact same tools.
Charistoph wrote: Sure it does. Prove it doesn't. Your accusations based on assumptions do not count as proof. Others' declarations state that it does, therefore you are wrong unless you can demonstrate they are lying.
Proving a negative is impossible and you know it (or at least I hope you do). On the other hand, people have offered nothing more than "I do aesthetic things" as proof that PL does encourage it, without any credible argument that it is PL encouraging aesthetic choices rather than their existing commitment to take upgrades for aesthetic reasons regardless of the point system.
And if it does for them, that is sufficient evidence. You don't get to make that determination for them.
Depends on the army. Necrons, sure. Deathwatch, not so much unless you've already put them in to convenient point tallies like I used to do with my Black Templar in yester-year.
Any army. The difference in time is literally the few seconds required to type a couple more digits into the calculator. In fact, the normal point system is likely to be faster than PL unless you have a policy of letting your opponent break the point limit to bring more stuff. If you're 5 points over the limit in a normal game you can usually make a quick change to remove an upgrade and have a legal list. If you're 1 point over in a PL game you have to remove an entire unit and swap it with something else, possibly forcing other changes to accommodate the swap.
It takes more than a few seconds if your army has every unit with upgrades out the wazoo. My close Combat Crusader Squad had 5 upgrades to them. That's 5 more entries than just doing PL if I had not already had the total figured out.
From there, agonizing over which unit to downgrade to fit 5 points in (since some think that asking for different points is cheating somehow), can actually extend the amount of time in building the list as opposed to, "not this unit".
No, you don't NEED it, it's just handy. It depends on the datasheet, too, because if it is not from the codex, it is already listed on the datasheet in question. And then there are those who have no codex for their army.
No, you need it. You can't play the game with just the datasheets unless you ignore some of the rules. Maybe you can come up with some obscure and unrealistic list that technically allows you to play without the codex, but for all realistic purposes you need to buy the codex for your army. Or index I suppose, but the index armies also have their normal point costs in the same book as the PL point costs.
And if you're not paying points, you don't need to worry about such, right? The whole point of Datasheets is that you didn't need a codex to know everything about the unit, right? Or was that another lie from GW?
Heck with Battlescribe, you don't need the codex, either. Except you do to verify that Battlescribe calculated and presented everything properly.
You are not saying why he MUST do so, though. You advocate the convenience, but do nothing to list it as a requirement. Even worse, since it is doubly 3rd party and not connected to GW in any way, Battlescribe can be out of date or just plain wrong with no recompense. It's not like Battlescribe nor the add-on creator are being employed or directly fed the information by GW. All it takes is the add-on creator to give up on the game and no one with the chops to take it over for it to fail without notification.
Of course it's not a requirement. It isn't a requirement to use Battlescribe regardless of PL vs. points. But the simple fact is that Battlescribe is a useful tool regardless of which point system you're using, and saying "you have to use Battlescribe for points to be convenient" is hardly a compelling argument when you're sitting there making a PL list using the exact same tools.
Then you are missing the definition of "need", because that is the word you used.
JNAProductions wrote: Okay-but if you don't care at all about performance, why even use a point system? Throw down roughly equal amounts of models of similar size and have a blast.
I'll be honest, against some of may most familiar opponents we don't; we know what forces will give us a good game better than a points limit or PL provides. It's fun to calculate what we used after the battle to see how our forces compared points or power wise.
That said, this works best with people and armies you are already familiar with. Saying "if you're not going to use points then don't bother with PL either" is throwing out the baby with the bath water. The most detailed measurement isn't always needed. At 2 or 3 years old we stop measuring a persons age in month and switch over to years. Years isn't as detailed as months, but it is sufficient for most purposes.
Charistoph wrote: And if it does for them, that is sufficient evidence. You don't get to make that determination for them.
If someone claims that their magic anti-Tyranid amulet keeps the Tyranids from coming into our world and eating them we'd absolutely make the determination for them and call on that claim, pointing out the obvious fact that they haven't been eaten by Tyranids because Tyranids don't exist. We certainly wouldn't call their belief that it's the amulet keeping them safe sufficient evidence just because it's what they believe. Same thing for PL. They make the claim, but the claim is not plausible at all and I reject it.
It takes more than a few seconds if your army has every unit with upgrades out the wazoo. My close Combat Crusader Squad had 5 upgrades to them. That's 5 more entries than just doing PL if I had not already had the total figured out.
But most of the time you're going to have a setup or two that you commonly use. You aren't adding up each point cost separately each time like it's your first time playing the game, you know that your most common choice of upgrades is 125 points for the squad and the other one you sometimes use is 135. Once you're familiar at all with the system, after playing a few games, you're doing it mostly from memory and it is a matter of a few seconds of extra time.
From there, agonizing over which unit to downgrade to fit 5 points in (since some think that asking for different points is cheating somehow), can actually extend the amount of time in building the list as opposed to, "not this unit".
And this is better than spending that time agonizing over which unit to remove from your army (and hopefully swap with something else, if you have the right combination of units to make it all work) because you're 1 PL over? I suspect that "should I drop a power fist or a plasma gun" is an easier question than having to figure out a multi-unit swap that fixes your point total without disrupting your army too much.
The whole point of Datasheets is that you didn't need a codex to know everything about the unit, right? Or was that another lie from GW?
Yep, it's a lie. The idea that you can play the normal game of 40k without buying the codex/index (or a list-building program that has all of the rules and point costs) for your army is a blatant lie. Maybe in theory you can come up with a list that doesn't require a codex, but it is not a realistic way to play the game. In the real world you don't have all of the rules your units require until you buy the codex/index. Blame GW for dishonest marketing, but wishful thinking doesn't make it true.
Then you are missing the definition of "need", because that is the word you used.
Did I? Because I sure can't find it. I claimed that you need the index/codex, but I don't recall making any such claim about Battlescribe. It's a useful tool whether you're using PL or normal points, but it isn't mandatory.
Peregrine wrote:By looking at roughly how many square inches of table space they take up. You take a squad, I take a squad. You take a LRBT, I take another squad. You take a Baneblade, I take a Predator and 2-3 squads. Maybe if it's a super elite army vs. a horde army throw in a few handfuls of basic troops to make a proper horde. Etc. If the two armies look roughly the same size they're probably close enough.
So you're telling me that because Sisters and Guardsmen take up the same amount of space, they're equal? Telling me that Grey Knight Paladins are equivalent to Ruststalkers? Or, that a Company Commander is equivalent to a Primaris Captain?
I like the concept, but size ain't everything. Some squads are elite, others are less so, and still the same size. This is why having a system that estimates the Power Level is a good idea.
After all, points don't matter and you don't care about winning.
I never said that. I said winning doesn't matter, and complete balance doesn't matter, but having an equilibrium of equality to simplicity is good for me.
Stop trying to push your "all or nothing" attitude on me. One can like "some" rough balance without having to go into the anally retentive category.
And this approach goes a lot faster than adding up PL points.
Again, not really, not if you're after a semblance of equality. Anyone can throw down a bunch of units, but they might not be even *close* to eachother in terms of relative power. And that's not necessarily a bad thing - but then, how far is the gap between the two?
Having the Power Level system, as a less granular and faster version of the points system, fills a niche. Just because it's a niche you don't appreciate, it exists. Respect that.
Alternatively, you let the narrative decide. For someone like you, with your obsessive dedication to the fluff, it should be very easy for you to pull out your Ultrasmurfs 15th Company and challenge Shas'o R'Y'X'z'U'X and his cadre to a fight. You already know what is involved in your list because each model has a 10 page backstory and can't be exchanged for any other model, so just pull them out and start playing.
Why does this sound like you're mocking my approach to the game? Are you implying that my way to play is not "right" or respectable?
Also, 15th Company doesn't exist, save for a potential fringe case before the 3rd Founding, where the Ultramarines did maintain at least one additional company (the Aegida Company) - which was disbanded for fears if they were caught.
Besides, not even that, but T'au Cadres are of variable size. Whilst a Battle Company is more fixed (still with their own differences - after all, do they have Devastators or Centurions? Do they have Tactical Squads or Intercessors? How many Dreadnoughts are there?), the Cadre system is far more flexible.
The "pull them out and star playing" is exactly what I do. It's just useful to know relatively how big this game is going to be - do I take my 300+ PL Ultramarine force, or my 30 PL Skitarii Killclade? With a rough level of power, I can choose the army best suited for that size, and if someone is under or over, then we apply the Underdog rule.
Encouraging weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons, not because it's all you can afford in X points
PL does no such thing. There is still an optimal weapon choice based on firepower per point, and taking a choice for aesthetic reasons still makes your army weaker. In fact, PL discourages taking aesthetic options because they all cost the same. In a normal game you might be able to be ok with taking a chainsword instead of a power fist because it looks cool since at least it costs fewer points for the weaker weapon. In a PL game you're punished for taking that cool chainsword because you're paying the points for a power fist.
And in points, you're punished for taking that power fist because you're preventing yourself taking other aesthetic upgrades or even other units.
The only way you can be "punished" or "discouraged" in PL is if you go in with the mindset of "I MUST take the options that are the best in strength, else I am weakening myself". Now, I see that you happen to have that "maximise at all costs" mindset, but I don't. As such, that negative aspect you assign to PL simply doesn't affect me. I'm not denying it's a negative, but it's only a negative if you have that mindset.
As a counterpoint - I've made very clear I find points to have negative aspects - but they're only negative because I have a certain mindset that you do not. To you, my negatives of points aren't a factor.
Is that so hard to understand?
Faster to build lists
Not by any meaningful amount.
Maybe not to you. To me, it very much has meaning. You can't argue that away. If I genuinely find PL to be faster, and I value that, then it factually IS a meaningful amount. Not to you, maybe, but the fact it affects at least ONE person, it is meaningful.
Can be played just by having the unit's datasheet (which often comes in the kit)
Not true. You still need the codex for the army-wide rules, the FAQs for any rule changes, etc. IOW, the same list of books that you need for a normal points game.
If you don't use the army-wide rules, then you don't need Codexes. FAQs are free and can be printed and downloaded, but even then, if you and your opponent agree to disregard them or parts of them, then it's fair game.
I'm not advocating going into a pickup game and saying "hey, we're ignoring the FAQs, now play me". I'm saying if you and your opponent have talked about it, and you both want to play the game in a certain way, then that's not wrong.
So no, I'm going to contest the idea that you *need* those things. If you have the datasheet for a unit, the basic rules to play the game, and the equipment the game calls for (dice, ruler, models, objectives, battlefield, etc etc) then you can play. Anything else, no mater how common it is, is supplementary (even if it IS used by the majority of people).
The only thing you could possibly argue that you can do without by using PL is CA 2018 for the point cost errata, but if you're a narrative player then you already bought CA 2018 for its narrative content.
I haven't. I'm getting around to it, but I've not bought it yet. And I'm under no obligation to, barring my own. Unless you'd like to get it for me?
Second, why should I have to rely on Battlescribe?
Because, in addition to the convenience of adding up your points, it also makes a nice formatted army list you can print and bring to the game and that saves you the time and effort of writing one without a list builder. Even if you're playing PL Battlescribe is still a useful tool.
I'm not disputing it is. But it's not part of the game. It's a third party application. I shouldn't require a third party application to play the game. As such, an argument that requires me to use a third party application to consider itself valid is no argument to me.
Besides - Battlescribe cannot be relied upon. Sure, you can plug in all your units, but it's not 100% accurate. You still should check it manually, and that's going straight back to "PL is faster than points".
Plus, even IF I were to accept Battlescribe as a valid argument, I could also then include Games Workshop's Combat Roster, which calculates Power Level lists faster than Battlsecribe can.
Having a nicely formatted army list is optional. It doesn't factor in to the fact that PL is faster than points.
Peregrine wrote:
Charistoph wrote: And if it does for them, that is sufficient evidence. You don't get to make that determination for them.
If someone claims that their magic anti-Tyranid amulet keeps the Tyranids from coming into our world and eating them we'd absolutely make the determination for them and call on that claim, pointing out the obvious fact that they haven't been eaten by Tyranids because Tyranids don't exist. We certainly wouldn't call their belief that it's the amulet keeping them safe sufficient evidence just because it's what they believe. Same thing for PL. They make the claim, but the claim is not plausible at all and I reject it.
There's a big difference between an amulet warding off a known fictional race, and people having personal experience and preferences.
Are you genuinely so ignorant and arrogant that you would literally call someone's personal PREFERENCE for something "not plausible"? Like, you realistically hold yourself to be such an authority over other people that you wholeheartedly believe that you can call someone's likes and dislikes "not plausible" and dismiss them.
Okay. I think your claims are not plausible.
But most of the time you're going to have a setup or two that you commonly use. You aren't adding up each point cost separately each time like it's your first time playing the game, you know that your most common choice of upgrades is 125 points for the squad and the other one you sometimes use is 135. Once you're familiar at all with the system, after playing a few games, you're doing it mostly from memory and it is a matter of a few seconds of extra time.
Which would still make PL even faster, wouldn't it?
So, with points, sure, you know what your unit will take, but that's still likely a three digit number. However, at the same time, the PL player is still calculating with single or double digit numbers - still faster.
And this is better than spending that time agonizing over which unit to remove from your army (and hopefully swap with something else, if you have the right combination of units to make it all work) because you're 1 PL over? I suspect that "should I drop a power fist or a plasma gun" is an easier question than having to figure out a multi-unit swap that fixes your point total without disrupting your army too much.
Nah, Underdog rule. Being a small amount of PL over is covered by that. Hell, in some games, having an Underdog is recommended.
The whole point of Datasheets is that you didn't need a codex to know everything about the unit, right? Or was that another lie from GW?
Yep, it's a lie. The idea that you can play the normal game of 40k without buying the codex/index (or a list-building program that has all of the rules and point costs) for your army is a blatant lie. Maybe in theory you can come up with a list that doesn't require a codex, but it is not a realistic way to play the game. In the real world you don't have all of the rules your units require until you buy the codex/index. Blame GW for dishonest marketing, but wishful thinking doesn't make it true.
I play games without the Codex. I've ran 4v4 games and not used Codexes for them. Say what you like, but you factually CAN play without a Codex. You only need the Datasheet. If there's an army special rule (Canticles of the Omnissiah, And They Shall Know No Fear), then that can either be ignored, or you can literally just look it up online. Not hard.
I respect that you think that 40k MUST be played with all factions having army-wide rules, "balanced" codexes, and suchlike, but the fact that I can play 40k with just the Datasheet and Battle Primer is just that - a fact. You have your opinion that it's not proper, or not genuine, but as long as I am using GW approved rules, and can play the game by those rules, I am factually playing 40k.
Then you are missing the definition of "need", because that is the word you used.
Did I? Because I sure can't find it. I claimed that you need the index/codex, but I don't recall making any such claim about Battlescribe. It's a useful tool whether you're using PL or normal points, but it isn't mandatory.
So if it's not mandatory, you shouldn't be using it as a crutch to defend points. Why should an optional tool be factored into an argument about which is easier to use? Is it because you KNOW that points are more complex than power level (which you've still not admitted to), but rely on a crutch to defend the idea?
In fairness to Peregrine, many people have listed plenty of their own preferences and opinions regarding PLs, and Peregrine did not dispute them or judge them as implausible.
This tacit acceptance of those arguments gives credence to the instances where Peregrine's perspectives on others opinions being implausible. It seems only the ones found doubtful by Peregrine are disputed.
I don't think Peregrine argued against being able to rejig character/special/heavy load outs without needing to rejig points elsewhere. Neither was the argument of PL providing a second 'optimisation' meta dismissed.
These ideas being left undisputed shows acceptance there are benefits to PL existing, even if just supplementary to instead of overriding the need for points.
nareik wrote: In fairness to Peregrine, many people have listed plenty of their own preferences and opinions regarding PLs, and Peregrine did not dispute them or judge them as implausible.
Which ones? As far as I've seen Peregrine has routinely expressed the view that his opinion is fact, and if your personal views don't align with that, he judges them to be flat out wrong.
This tacit acceptance of those arguments gives credence to the instances where Peregrine's perspectives on others opinions being implausible. It seems only the ones found doubtful by Peregrine are disputed.
But these aren't people arguing that X is *objectively* better. These are arguments of people saying "I like X because of this", and Peregrine, because they seem to be mentally incapable of accepting people like things for different reasons", say that it's "implausible" that they really like it for that.
It'd be like someone saying "I like playing Space Wolves because I like their lore". I don't particularly like Space Wolf lore, but I at least have the openness of mind to understand "just because I don't think that's a good reason, this person clearly does". I can at least recognize that it's a valid opinions, even if I disagree with it.
These ideas being left undisputed shows acceptance there are benefits to PL existing, even if just supplementary to instead of overriding the need for points.
I've seen nothing from Peregrine themselves admitting they feel that way.
While I'd like to believe you that Peregrine has some tolerance for Power Level, everything they've ever said screams the opposite.
This tacit acceptance of those arguments gives credence to the instances where Peregrine's perspectives on others opinions being implausible. It seems only the ones found doubtful by Peregrine are disputed.
But these aren't people arguing that X is *objectively* better. These are arguments of people saying "I like X because of this", and Peregrine, because they seem to be mentally incapable of accepting people like things for different reasons", say that it's "implausible" that they really like it for that.
Encouraging weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons, not because it's all you can afford in X points
PL does no such thing. There is still an optimal weapon choice based on firepower per point, and taking a choice for aesthetic reasons still makes your army weaker. In fact, PL discourages taking aesthetic options because they all cost the same. In a normal game you might be able to be ok with taking a chainsword instead of a power fist because it looks cool since at least it costs fewer points for the weaker weapon. In a PL game you're punished for taking that cool chainsword because you're paying the points for a power fist.
For the last several pages this thread has basically been Peregrine responding to anyone with a different opinion trying to shout them down and prove why they are wrong.
Wayniac wrote: For the last several pages this thread has basically been Peregrine responding to anyone with a different opinion trying to shout them down and prove why they are wrong.
I think it's run its course.
What's crazy is that most of us agree that both are valid for different things. I think the general consensus is "I prefer using this but only in certain circumstances".
This thread has been a beautiful example of how a WAAC player defends his behaviour. Plenty of lessons to be learned here for players less familiar with those personalities. Thanks for that, at least.
Power level works for reasonable people who aren’t going play like tools. All this talk of list optimisation is a bit of a false flag. If you turn up with a lovely painted army, I’m not going proxy options to better suit my opponents army, I’m going wysisyg all the all. And that is what I would expect from my opponent. If you played someone who was doing it to be that guy I wouldn’t enjoy the game whatever points system was used. The fact is most people who want to be that guy play using points and play comepetitve style lists. Because they believe somehow coming up with an unfluffy copy and pasted netlist makes them somehow superior.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Power level works for reasonable people who aren’t going play like tools. All this talk of list optimisation is a bit of a false flag. If you turn up with a lovely painted army, I’m not going proxy options to better suit my opponents army, I’m going wysisyg all the all. And that is what I would expect from my opponent. If you played someone who was doing it to be that guy I wouldn’t enjoy the game whatever points system was used. The fact is most people who want to be that guy play using points and play comepetitve style lists. Because they believe somehow coming up with an unfluffy copy and pasted netlist makes them somehow superior.
Wayniac wrote: For the last several pages this thread has basically been Peregrine responding to anyone with a different opinion trying to shout them down and prove why they are wrong.
I think it's run its course.
What's crazy is that most of us agree that both are valid for different things. I think the general consensus is "I prefer using this but only in certain circumstances".
Exactly, but one or two “characters” are derailing the discussion.
This tacit acceptance of those arguments gives credence to the instances where Peregrine's perspectives on others opinions being implausible. It seems only the ones found doubtful by Peregrine are disputed.
But these aren't people arguing that X is *objectively* better. These are arguments of people saying "I like X because of this", and Peregrine, because they seem to be mentally incapable of accepting people like things for different reasons", say that it's "implausible" that they really like it for that.
Because the reason stated is literally not true!
Sorry, what is untrue about PL being preferred because of: Speed of list creation An atmosphere of "take what you think is cool" The player base of PL being markedly more casual than points?
Peregrine's logic is perfectly sound here:
Peregrine wrote: PL does no such thing. There is still an optimal weapon choice based on firepower per point, and taking a choice for aesthetic reasons still makes your army weaker. In fact, PL discourages taking aesthetic options because they all cost the same. In a normal game you might be able to be ok with taking a chainsword instead of a power fist because it looks cool since at least it costs fewer points for the weaker weapon. In a PL game you're punished for taking that cool chainsword because you're paying the points for a power fist.
And I disagree with Peregrine's "sound" logic. I think it to be flawed because of Peregrine's inability to see the game beyond a series of numbers. There's more to the game than making sure your army is the most powerful.
I've bolded every time Peregrine makes reference to things that a list optimiser would care about - namely, things being "weaker" or "suboptimal". And I'm not saying that being a list optimiser is BAD, but I am saying that I don't play with that attitude. All Peregrine can see to think about is points points points, power power power. It scarcely crosses their mind that there could be other reasons someone would choose a different weapon, or that someone simply doesn't give two hoots about points. I think Power Level inspires a more casual experience in that it doesn't matter what you take, the unit's still the same value. On a game design level, it puts all value in the hands of the beholder. The beholder (player) may place value in the weapon's strength. The beholder might place value in the weapon's aesthetics. They might place value in the weapon's fluff. With power level, the value of the weapon is entirely subjective.
With points, the value is fixed. Who cares if you think that plasma guns are cooler than meltas? The game places the only value of the plasma as relative to it's gameplay strength. With power level, the value is completely subjective, and frankly doesn't matter. It's all your choice. That's why I prefer Power Level.
I'm sorry, but that is absolutely my opinion, my experience of it, and anyone who says that is "implausible" can take a trip into the warp without a Gellar Field.
If a person believes that points oppress them, and that power level creates a nicer environment in their head, that is their subjective opinion. However, you cannot deny that the opinion is real. You can debate all you like if you agree or disagree, but you simply cannot argue that the person's opinion doesn't exist at all.
Otherwise, what is to stop me saying to our favourite bird of prey "Hey, I think your opinion doesn't exist. All those things you believe, all the preferences, values, and opinions you hold as your own? They don't exist." Do you understand both how insulting and close-minded that is?
Charistoph wrote: And if it does for them, that is sufficient evidence. You don't get to make that determination for them.
If someone claims that their magic anti-Tyranid amulet keeps the Tyranids from coming into our world and eating them we'd absolutely make the determination for them and call on that claim, pointing out the obvious fact that they haven't been eaten by Tyranids because Tyranids don't exist. We certainly wouldn't call their belief that it's the amulet keeping them safe sufficient evidence just because it's what they believe. Same thing for PL. They make the claim, but the claim is not plausible at all and I reject it.
There is a considerable difference between something that can be objectively tested, such as anti-tyranid medallion (they exist, even if it is just models and fiction), and the subjective topic of someone's personal preferences and reasons behind them.
Someone may hate the color pink, and tells anyone who wears it that it is a horrible color and they are a loser for wearing pink. I know many people who like to wear pink, such as my daughter, and it is her favorite color. That doesn't make my daughter a loser for choosing to wear pink no matter what someone else thinks about it. When you try to make something that is 100% subjective and tell them that they are objectively wrong, you are demonstrating a prejudice of assumption. That is what you are doing here.
Peregrine wrote:
It takes more than a few seconds if your army has every unit with upgrades out the wazoo. My close Combat Crusader Squad had 5 upgrades to them. That's 5 more entries than just doing PL if I had not already had the total figured out.
But most of the time you're going to have a setup or two that you commonly use. You aren't adding up each point cost separately each time like it's your first time playing the game, you know that your most common choice of upgrades is 125 points for the squad and the other one you sometimes use is 135. Once you're familiar at all with the system, after playing a few games, you're doing it mostly from memory and it is a matter of a few seconds of extra time.
I notice you didn't bother to recognize that part where I said, "unless you have the points worked out before hand, like I did with my Black Templar in yester-year."
How are you to know that I'm going to use a regular set up most of the time? I may want a change for the sake of change or find something not working out for me so it needs to be changed. I may not get a chance at a lot of games, so every game will be different. Heck, I've honestly never played a 40K game with the same army twice because of time, building, painting, and my personal preferences in those regards, so I had to work it out manually at one point, but I never played a second game with that list because I ended up changing armies in the period between games.
Peregrine wrote:
From there, agonizing over which unit to downgrade to fit 5 points in (since some think that asking for different points is cheating somehow), can actually extend the amount of time in building the list as opposed to, "not this unit".
And this is better than spending that time agonizing over which unit to remove from your army (and hopefully swap with something else, if you have the right combination of units to make it all work) because you're 1 PL over? I suspect that "should I drop a power fist or a plasma gun" is an easier question than having to figure out a multi-unit swap that fixes your point total without disrupting your army too much.
Well, PL isn't as tight on its requirements and allows for more wiggle room than you and Slayer allow for. Anyone with experience with the game has seen armies whose actual power changed with FAQs and codex updates. And it may be more than just the Power Fist or Plasma Gun since you don't have a model to do the actual replacement.
Peregrine wrote:
The whole point of Datasheets is that you didn't need a codex to know everything about the unit, right? Or was that another lie from GW?
Yep, it's a lie. The idea that you can play the normal game of 40k without buying the codex/index (or a list-building program that has all of the rules and point costs) for your army is a blatant lie. Maybe in theory you can come up with a list that doesn't require a codex, but it is not a realistic way to play the game. In the real world you don't have all of the rules your units require until you buy the codex/index. Blame GW for dishonest marketing, but wishful thinking doesn't make it true.
So, which is it, you can or you can't? You say it is unrealistic, but it is possible. I can go to my previous LGS with my WMH army and possibly get a game, but since they are Steamroller die-hards, it is unrealistic. From that, I take your statement to be, "it is possible, but it is uncompetitive because you need points and everything that comes with it in Matched Play in order to have a chance at winning." That is the type of excessiveness which is toxic.
Peregrine wrote:
Then you are missing the definition of "need", because that is the word you used.
Did I? Because I sure can't find it. I claimed that you need the index/codex, but I don't recall making any such claim about Battlescribe. It's a useful tool whether you're using PL or normal points, but it isn't mandatory.
The question you responded to was, "Why should I have to rely on Battlescribe?", and your response was using the same language, along with needing the codex. You were speaking in absolutes without qualification. I also note that you cut out a lot of contextual language to make your point.
spacelord321 wrote:This thread has been a beautiful example of how a WAAC player defends his behaviour. Plenty of lessons to be learned here for players less familiar with those personalities. Thanks for that, at least.
If by WAAC player, you mean, "Play my way or get out of the game," then you are correct.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sorry, what is untrue about PL being preferred because of:
Speed of list creation
An atmosphere of "take what you think is cool"
The player base of PL being markedly more casual than points?
The first one is obviously true, the last two are not intrinsic features of the PL system, and as noted, the PL actually hampers the second. I'm pretty laid back and my list building is mostly motivated by what looks cool, yet I predominately use points.
The claim was made that 'the PL encouraging weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons.' This is simply not true. I don't mind you liking PL or playing PL, it is perfectly fine. But if you claim liking it for reasons that are not true, then I shall question your judgement.
Crimson wrote: The claim was made that 'the PL encouraging weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons.' This is simply not true. I don't mind you liking PL or playing PL, it is perfectly fine. But if you claim liking it for reasons that are not true, then I shall question your judgement.
That is a mind-reading assumption. A classic case of prejudice.
Crimson wrote: The claim was made that 'the PL encouraging weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons.' This is simply not true. I don't mind you liking PL or playing PL, it is perfectly fine. But if you claim liking it for reasons that are not true, then I shall question your judgement.
That is a mind-reading assumption. A classic case of prejudice.
How it is that mind reading? I read the rules, not anyone's mind.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sorry, what is untrue about PL being preferred because of:
Speed of list creation
An atmosphere of "take what you think is cool"
The player base of PL being markedly more casual than points?
The first one is obviously true, the last two are not intrinsic features of the PL system, and as noted, the PL actually hampers the second. I'm pretty laid back and my list building is mostly motivated by what looks cool, yet I predominately use points.
The claim was made that 'the PL encouraging weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons.' This is simply not true. I don't mind you liking PL or playing PL, it is perfectly fine. But if you claim liking it for reasons that are not true, then I shall question your judgement.
If you're having trouble understanding the "PL encourages weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons" point, try thinking of it another way:
Points force you to look at every upgrade in your army and judge whether or not they are worth it. Therefore, they encourage you to only take what is "useful" (or "more efficient") for the unit's goal. Therefore, playing with points discourages taking upgrades for any reason other than efficiency.
If you play with points, you have to decide what the most efficient equipment is. Does the Devastator Sergeant benefit from a Power Fist or a Power Axe? If not, best leave him with a chainsword, those points can be best spent elsewhere. But if you play with PL, you can give the sergeant whichever option you want, and it won't actively hamper you to take whichever you think is coolest.
It's not that PL encourages taking aesthetic upgrades directly, it's that points actively discourage it while PL is neutral to it. Which means that in comparison to points, PL encourages it.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sorry, what is untrue about PL being preferred because of:
Speed of list creation
An atmosphere of "take what you think is cool"
The player base of PL being markedly more casual than points?
The first one is obviously true,
Well that's something. Unfortunately, some people seem to disagree.
the last two are not intrinsic features of the PL system, and as noted, the PL actually hampers the second.
I disagree, for the reasons stated below. PL doesn't hamper "taking what you think is cool" unless you look at the game in a "this is the optimum loadout, and that is what matters" attitude. Now, if you look at the game in that way, then yes, PL would be a hindrance, but I don't. Therefore, it IS completely valid that I would see PL as a system that encourages free choice.
The latter literally IS intrinsic to the PL system. More people who play PL are casual. Therefore, playing PL is more likely to expose me to casual players. How is that not a feature that PL offers?
I'm pretty laid back and my list building is mostly motivated by what looks cool, yet I predominately use points.
That's fair. If you think it works for you, I won't say that's "implausible". However, I personally would find it "implausible" to treat points as a system that encourages me to choose "cool" upgrades.
And THAT is the difference between Peregrine and I. I might disagree and personally not see it that way, but I do understand that you do see it that way, and you're entitled to that, as a fellow member of this forum, and as a human being. Peregrine does not.
The claim was made that 'the PL encouraging weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons.' This is simply not true. I don't mind you liking PL or playing PL, it is perfectly fine. But if you claim liking it for reasons that are not true, then I shall question your judgement.
And you're the arbiter of which opinions are and are not true since... when? You're a mind reader now?
It's not like I'm saying that "factually, PL encourages more casual play". I'm saying that "to my perspective, PL encourages me to be more casual". I'm not asserting it as a universal fact. I'm saying that in my head, it is a truth that PL affects ME that way.
What right do you have to tell me my perception and opinion are "not true"?
PL affects me in X way. You cannot say that the effect PL has on me is false, when I feel that way.
Aelyn wrote:It's not that PL encourages taking aesthetic upgrades directly, it's that points actively discourage it while PL is neutral to it. Which means that in comparison to points, PL encourages it.
Exactly. PL doesn't care for the upgrades taken. It's completely unconcerned with it - which is better than points, which actively cares.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sorry, what is untrue about PL being preferred because of:
Speed of list creation
An atmosphere of "take what you think is cool"
The player base of PL being markedly more casual than points?
The first one is obviously true, the last two are not intrinsic features of the PL system, and as noted, the PL actually hampers the second. I'm pretty laid back and my list building is mostly motivated by what looks cool, yet I predominately use points.
The claim was made that 'the PL encouraging weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons.' This is simply not true. I don't mind you liking PL or playing PL, it is perfectly fine. But if you claim liking it for reasons that are not true, then I shall question your judgement.
If you're having trouble understanding the "PL encourages weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons" point, try thinking of it another way:
Points force you to look at every upgrade in your army and judge whether or not they are worth it. Therefore, they encourage you to only take what is "useful" (or "more efficient") for the unit's goal. Therefore, playing with points discourages taking upgrades for any reason other than efficiency.
If you play with points, you have to decide what the most efficient equipment is. Does the Devastator Sergeant benefit from a Power Fist or a Power Axe? If not, best leave him with a chainsword, those points can be best spent elsewhere. But if you play with PL, you can give the sergeant whichever option you want, and it won't actively hamper you to take whichever you think is coolest.
It's not that PL encourages taking aesthetic upgrades directly, it's that points actively discourage it while PL is neutral to it. Which means that in comparison to points, PL encourages it.
But it will hamper you because the PL of the unit assumes you're taking the best possible equipment and upgrades.
If you're having trouble understanding the "PL encourages weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons" point, try thinking of it another way:
Points force you to look at every upgrade in your army and judge whether or not they are worth it. Therefore, they encourage you to only take what is "useful" (or "more efficient") for the unit's goal. Therefore, playing with points discourages taking upgrades for any reason other than efficiency.
If you play with points, you have to decide what the most efficient equipment is. Does the Devastator Sergeant benefit from a Power Fist or a Power Axe? If not, best leave him with a chainsword, those points can be best spent elsewhere. But if you play with PL, you can give the sergeant whichever option you want, and it won't actively hamper you to take whichever you think is coolest.
It's not that PL encourages taking aesthetic upgrades directly, it's that points actively discourage it while PL is neutral to it. Which means that in comparison to points, PL encourages it.
*sigh*
You need to consider the usefulness of the upgrades in PL just the same, there they just all cost the same, so many more are even more obviously worthless than with points. And if your answer is, 'but I don't care about their worth in the game, you min-maxer' then you can just as easily not care with points too, except then you're not quite so badly gimping yourself by taking the suboptimal choices.
Bosskelot wrote: But it will hamper you because the PL of the unit assumes you're taking the best possible equipment and upgrades.
That shouldn't be a problem if you don't care about "optimising" and "best possible equipment". Something I feel people simply aren't understanding is that not everyone cares about the best possible equipment. As such, that negative aspect isn't a factor.
Plus, I actually believe I read somewhere that it's calculated from the average of highest to lowest possible values - not the highest. Of course, if all you care about is "optimisation" and "best possible equipment", then that wouldn't matter, as you'd still say that anything barring the best would be a poor decision.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: However, I personally would find it "implausible" to treat points as a system that encourages me to choose "cool" upgrades.
Practical example regarding unit's I am building. Intercessors. I can give the sergeant either a chainsword, a power sword or a power fist. These are pretty much options from the worst to best, and in points their cost reflect that, the chainsword is the cheapest, the fist is most expensive. I gave my sergeants mix of all these weapons, as I think it is cooler if there is some variety, and under points I don't feel that the performance of my army would be unduly hampered by this choice; I paid a fair price for each weapon. Under the PL anything but giving the fist to all the sergeants would make the army weaker. Now you may not care about the performance, and that's fine, but of the two systems the points actually rewards variety of choices where the PL encourages always to take the most powerful weapon. This is literally the the conclusion one rationally comes to by looking at the rules. If despite this for some bizarre reason using the PL encourages to do the opposite that may personally be true for you, but it is not a result of the system any more than PL encouraging you to take up tap dancing would.
Bosskelot wrote: But it will hamper you because the PL of the unit assumes you're taking the best possible equipment and upgrades.
That shouldn't be a problem if you don't care about "optimising" and "best possible equipment". Something I feel people simply aren't understanding is that not everyone cares about the best possible equipment. As such, that negative aspect isn't a factor.
Plus, I actually believe I read somewhere that it's calculated from the average of highest to lowest possible values - not the highest. Of course, if all you care about is "optimisation" and "best possible equipment", then that wouldn't matter, as you'd still say that anything barring the best would be a poor decision.
This 'not caring' has nothing to do with the system being used. You can 'not care' with points just as well.
You need to consider the usefulness of the upgrades in PL just the same, there they just all cost the same, so many more are even more obviously worthless than with points. And if your answer is, 'but I don't care about their worth in the game, you min-maxer' then you can just as easily not care with points too, except then you're not quite so badly gimping yourself by taking the suboptimal choices.
Sorry, *need*? Since when did I *need* to do that. Or is that just a personal opinion asserted as a fact?
The problem with points is, even IF you don't care about them, you can still end up going over the assigned limit, and unfortunately, the Matched Play system isn't as forgiving as Narrative or Open when it comes to going over/under the assigned limit. Moreso than this, the majority of points players see the points limit as something that must be adhered to (which I won't make any comment on), an attitude which is encouraged by tournaments also adopting the points system - Power Level players, on the other hand, are far more likely to waive a minor indiscrepancy (which won't occur because I preferred how a thunder hammer looked compared to a chainsword).
Sub-optimal is only an issue if you care about optimisation. If you don't care, then it's not a problem.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: However, I personally would find it "implausible" to treat points as a system that encourages me to choose "cool" upgrades.
Practical example regarding unit's I am building. Intercessors. I can give the sergeant either a chainsword, a power sword or a power fist. These are pretty much options from the worst to best, and in points their cost reflect that, the chainsword is the cheapest, the fist is most expensive. I gave my sergeants mix of all these weapons, as I think it is cooler if there is some variety, and under points I don't feel that the performance of my army would be unduly hampered by this choice; I paid a fair price for each weapon. Under the PL anything but giving the fist to all the sergeants would make the army weaker. Now you may not care about the performance, and that's fine, but of the two systems the points actually rewards variety of choices where the PL encourages always to take the most powerful weapon. This is literally the the conclusion one rationally comes to by looking at the rules. If despite this for some bizarre reason using the PL encourages to do the opposite that may personally be true for you, but it is not a result of the system any more than PL encouraging you to take up tap dancing would.
However, points encourages you to take the weapon that has best value for points. Not aesthetic, not variety, but best value. Therefore, points encourages you to take the "best" weapon - best in this situation being power-to-price. Neither is a better system, beyond what you perceive it as, and what you value in a system.
I rationally look at the PL system, and I perceive that it encourages me to take what I like, because "best value" isn't a factor. It's clear that your idea of rational isn't the same as mine. I respect your opinion to what you deem as rational; I only ask you respect mine too.
If PL were to encourage me to start tap dancing, that would ALSO be truthful. You cannot claim that it's "implausible", when it's all a matter of subjective opinion.
This 'not caring' has nothing to do with the system being used. You can 'not care' with points just as well.
However, not caring with points still means that I'm spending a limited resource, and my opponent has every right to hold me accountable if I'm over the limit for that resource.
It might not affect me that I'm spending it, but my opponent certainly will, and if they say "I'm not okay with that, I need you to make your list fit", then that will affect me.
Power Level removes upgrades from this problem.
Furthermore, again, if my subjective perception of PL is that it encourages me to care less, then that's a completely valid reason to choose PL. Right now, all you're telling me is that PL and points are the same - so there really shouldn't be a problem with me choosing PL, should there?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sorry, *need*? Since when did I *need* to do that. Or is that just a personal opinion asserted as a fact?
I literally said you need to consider the usefulness of the upgrades in PL 'just the same', if that is 'not at all' to you, then that can apply under the points too.
The problem with points is, even IF you don't care about them, you can still end up going over the assigned limit, and unfortunately, the Matched Play system isn't as forgiving as Narrative or Open when it comes to going over/under the assigned limit. Moreso than this, the majority of points players see the points limit as something that must be adhered to (which I won't make any comment on), an attitude which is encouraged by tournaments also adopting the points system - Power Level players, on the other hand, are far more likely to waive a minor indiscrepancy (which won't occur because I preferred how a thunder hammer looked compared to a chainsword).
Again, not a feature of the system. You can accidentally go over the PL limit too, and I don't care you being a few points over unless it is a tournament. In the previous thread about the point limits majority opinion was that in the casual game the point limit is just an approximation, the people who were adamant about not budging were a tiny but vocal minority.
Sub-optimal is only an issue if you care about optimisation. If you don't care, then it's not a problem.
And I repeat millionth time: you can just as well not care under the points. You're literally attributing PL things that are not features of the system and this is which is bugging me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: However, points encourages you to take the weapon that has best value for points. Not aesthetic, not variety, but best value. Therefore, points encourages you to take the "best" weapon - best in this situation being power-to-price. Neither is a better system, beyond what you perceive it as, and what you value in a system.
If that is an analysis one wants to make then one does that under the PL too. It is not a feature of a system, but the thinking process of the player. In both systems the options effectively have a cost, in one system it just is the same cost for each weapon regardless of how good they are.
I rationally look at the PL system, and I perceive that it encourages me to take what I like, because "best value" isn't a factor. It's clear that your idea of rational isn't the same as mine. I respect your opinion to what you deem as rational; I only ask you respect mine too.
If PL were to encourage me to start tap dancing, that would ALSO be truthful. You cannot claim that it's "implausible", when it's all a matter of subjective opinion.
You have not rationally looked at the system, because your reasoning is irrational. It is indeed like the tap dancing, it may be personally true to you, but it is still magical thinking based nonsense.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sorry, *need*? Since when did I *need* to do that. Or is that just a personal opinion asserted as a fact?
I literally said you need to consider the usefulness of the upgrades in PL 'just the same', if that is 'not at all' to you, then that can apply under the points too.
No, you don't *need* to at all. That's list optimisation talking. You don't *need* to consider it at all. I already explained how in points, that's not the same.
Again, not a feature of the system. You can accidentally go over the PL limit too,
From unit choices, not from upgrades. Big difference.
and I don't care you being a few points over unless it is a tournament. In the previous thread about the point limits majority opinion was that in the casual game the point limit is just an approximation, the people who were adamant about not budging were a tiny but vocal minority.
So why, when PL is also an approximation, is that a problem for some?
Sub-optimal is only an issue if you care about optimisation. If you don't care, then it's not a problem.
And I repeat millionth time: you can just as well not care under the points. You're literally attributing PL things that are not features of the system and this is which is bugging me.
And I'm repeating that in points, it doesn't MATTER if you don't care about the points - your opponent has every right to. If you're over because you liked that plasma pistol, your opponent has every right to reprimand you.
In PL, that simply cannot happen, because upgrades won't affect the price of a unit.
You're dismissing the personal subjective opinions and feelings of individuals as "implausible" simply because you don't understand how things affect them.
If PL affects me in a certain way, that is not implausible. That's called being an individual with a subjective opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If that is an analysis one wants to make then one does that under the PL too. It is not a feature of a system, but the thinking process of the player. In both systems the options effectively have a cost, in one system it just is the same cost for each weapon regardless of how good they are.
Thinking process, absolutely! Now you're beginning to understand!
If I have a thinking process that encourages me to look at PL as the more "casual" one, and you have a thinking process that encourages you to see points just the same, then neither of us are wrong. That's just called having different perceptions. That's absolutely fine. All I'm asking is that you respect the fact I have that perception, just as I respect you have yours.
You have not rationally looked at the system, because your reasoning is irrational.
Irrational to you. An opinion. Stop touting opinion as fact.
It is indeed like the tap dancing, it may be personally true to you, but it is still magical thinking based nonsense.
But how is it nonsense when it clearly has an effect on me. It's nonsense to you, just as saying "points is just as encouraging of casual play" is to me. However, even though I personally don't believe it, I respect that you do, and therefore it's not my place to say what's true and false, when it's all your opinion.
You need to consider the usefulness of the upgrades in PL just the same, there they just all cost the same, so many more are even more obviously worthless than with points. And if your answer is, 'but I don't care about their worth in the game, you min-maxer' then you can just as easily not care with points too, except then you're not quite so badly gimping yourself by taking the suboptimal choices.
I understand where you're coming from, but you missed the distinction here. Remember, we're talking about the effect that the points / PL system has on your ability to take equipment because of the aesthetic appeal, not looking at the in-game power here.
What happens if I've built a model one way because I like the look, but when building a list later, that random upgrade (and the other I have chosen over the course of building an army for aesthetic appeal) puts me over the limit? I'm now forced to either change the models in my list or use some sort of proxy rule. For someone focusing more on the aesthetic angle, either of these would be a distasteful outcome - after all, if the Devastator Sergeant has a power sword (gifted to him by the Company Master on his ascent to the rank of Sergeant), why would he choose to leave it switched off for a battle with the lives of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of civilians at stake?
The same issue literally cannot occur in PL, since there is no way for the aesthetic equipment choice to make your army illegal.
If you are building from a gamist perspective, then yes, you will want to consider the effectiveness of your equipment in both systems. If you are building from a non-gamist perspective, points add an extra layer of restrictions to your decision (or ability to play) which PL does not. Hence PL not discouraging aesthetic equipment choices in the way points discourage them.
I literally said you need to consider the usefulness of the upgrades in PL 'just the same', if that is 'not at all' to you, then that can apply under the points too.
No, you don't *need* to at all. That's list optimisation talking. You don't *need* to consider it at all.
Do you have trouble understanding what I write. 'Not at all,' it is right there.
From unit choices, not from upgrades. Big difference.
Is it? This is only about the ease of list building aspect which agreed was one of the strengths of PL.
So why, when PL is also an approximation, is that a problem for some?
I don't know. But Peregrine can tell you.
And I'm repeating that in points, it doesn't MATTER if you don't care about the points - your opponent has every right to. If you're over because you liked that plasma pistol, your opponent has every right to reprimand you.
In PL, that simply cannot happen, because upgrades won't affect the price of a unit.
Of course it can happen, you can go over in PL too, it is just easier to calculate. But you could just aim to build you point lists about 200 points under the limit, so then there is no risk of going over the limit due couple of upgrades. Sure, you might gimp your list, but as you don't care about optimisation what does it matter?
Thinking process, absolutely! Now you're beginning to understand!
If I have a thinking process that encourages me to look at PL as the more "casual" one, and you have a thinking process that encourages you to see points just the same, then neither of us are wrong. That's just called having different perceptions. That's absolutely fine. All I'm asking is that you respect the fact I have that perception, just as I respect you have yours.
But how is it nonsense when it clearly has an effect on me. It's nonsense to you, just as saying "points is just as encouraging of casual play" is to me. However, even though I personally don't believe it, I respect that you do, and therefore it's not my place to say what's true and false, when it's all your opinion.
It can have an effect on you and still be irrational. Saying 'PL encourages taking what looks cool' is not a rational statement, nothing in the rules of that system as they actually exist, does that. On this sort of forum where the intent is to discuss things with other people in somewhat objective manner you must be able to back up your statements with some logic. I can't just barge into a Grey Knight thread and say that they are overpowered because seeing large amounts of colour silver makes me nauseous.
I understand where you're coming from, but you missed the distinction here. Remember, we're talking about the effect that the points / PL system has on your ability to take equipment because of the aesthetic appeal, not looking at the in-game power here.
What happens if I've built a model one way because I like the look, but when building a list later, that random upgrade (and the other I have chosen over the course of building an army for aesthetic appeal) puts me over the limit? I'm now forced to either change the models in my list or use some sort of proxy rule. For someone focusing more on the aesthetic angle, either of these would be a distasteful outcome - after all, if the Devastator Sergeant has a power sword (gifted to him by the Company Master on his ascent to the rank of Sergeant), why would he choose to leave it switched off for a battle with the lives of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of civilians at stake?
The same issue literally cannot occur in PL, since there is no way for the aesthetic equipment choice to make your army illegal.
If you are building from a gamist perspective, then yes, you will want to consider the effectiveness of your equipment in both systems. If you are building from a non-gamist perspective, points add an extra layer of restrictions to your decision (or ability to play) which PL does not. Hence PL not discouraging aesthetic equipment choices in the way points discourage them.
But it can happen in PL too. I built the units that I think looks cool and I'd like to use and they add up to 51 PL. now I cant use them in a 50 PL game. But what, you say, why not just play a 51 (or 52, or 55) PL. game, sure, that is a good solution, but then that applies to points too. You list comes to 1024 points due your upgrades, just play a 1050, or 1100 point game.
OK, here is actually an easy point hack for PL users in point games. Count the maximum amount of points any any unit's cost can be. Always pay that cost for that unit, regardless of the stuff you actually took. Now you don't need to worry about upgrades, and will have a point compliant list. This is pretty much all that PL does, except with smaller numbers.
I literally said you need to consider the usefulness of the upgrades in PL 'just the same', if that is 'not at all' to you, then that can apply under the points too.
No, you don't *need* to at all. That's list optimisation talking. You don't *need* to consider it at all.
Do you have trouble understanding what I write. 'Not at all,' it is right there.
You said need. I read exactly what you said. I disagree.
From unit choices, not from upgrades. Big difference.
Is it? This is only about the ease of list building aspect which agreed was one of the strengths of PL.
And not having to worry about unit upgrades affecting the final total of your list is one less thing to worry about than power level. Thus, easier.
And I'm repeating that in points, it doesn't MATTER if you don't care about the points - your opponent has every right to. If you're over because you liked that plasma pistol, your opponent has every right to reprimand you. In PL, that simply cannot happen, because upgrades won't affect the price of a unit.
Of course it can happen, you can go over in PL too, it is just easier to calculate. But you could just aim to build you point lists about 200 points under the limit, so then there is no risk of going over the limit due couple of upgrades. Sure, you might gimp your list, but as you don't care about optimisation what does it matter?
Alternatively, I could play with a system that simply doesn't require me to factor in upgrades at all. I can still gimp my list, but only in what units I choose, not in BOTH units and upgrades.
Again, even in your idea of "aim for 200 points under", I'm still having to make choices between upgrades and units. I don't want to play with a system that makes me choose that. I don't find value in that.
It can have an effect on you and still be irrational.
I disagree. If someone feels certain way, no matter what they feel, that is completely valid to feel that way. You might disagree, but you cannot devalue that person's experience.
I might see the Mona Lisa, and my experience might be one of anger, but you cannot claim to say that my experience is "implausible" or any less valid than yours. That's called being an individual.
Saying 'PL encourages taking what looks cool' is not a rational statement, nothing in the rules of that system as they actually exist, does that.
I never said that. I said "PL encourages ME to take what looks cool". Personal. Subjective. And as a result, completely valid.
On this sort of forum where the intent is to discuss things with other people in somewhat objective manner you must be able to back up your statements with some logic.
At the same time,it is the intent to respect other people's opinions, even if you disagree, or don't understand them. You are expected to accept that other people have their own reasons and opinions, and while you can disagree with that, you cannot call the simple act of having an opinion "implausible" - otherwise, what's to stop me doing the same to you?
Congratulations, now you have a forum where people devalue the mere voice of others just because they think something different, and now the simple ability to have a voice is practically squandered.
I can't just barge into a Grey Knight thread and say that they are overpowered because seeing large amounts of colour silver makes me nauseous.
You can say that. Other people can disagree, but your view cannot be called "implausible".
However, your "example" doesn't quite work, because GK being "overpowered" in that context is specifically to do with the mathematics of the game. Nausea is not a mathematical factor.
I literally said you need to consider the usefulness of the upgrades in PL 'just the same', if that is 'not at all' to you, then that can apply under the points too.
No, you don't *need* to at all. That's list optimisation talking. You don't *need* to consider it at all.
Do you have trouble understanding what I write. 'Not at all,' it is right there.
You said need. I read exactly what you said. I disagree.
JFC!. You need to consider them 'just the same,' that same may be 'not at all' thus you're not considering at all.
You can say that. Other people can disagree, but your view cannot be called "implausible".
I never said implausible, I said 'irrational.'
However, your "example" doesn't quite work, because GK being "overpowered" in that context is specifically to do with the mathematics of the game. Nausea is not a mathematical factor.
And we are discussing the rules. They actually follow logic, just like the maths. If one says "Rule X encourages Y" then the assumption certainly is that it encourages it for some logically discernible rational reason, not because seeing rule X may cause some person behave in randomly irrational manner. If we assume the latter then pretty much anything can be said encourage anything and such statements become completely pointless.
Aelyn wrote:The same issue literally cannot occur in PL, since there is no way for the aesthetic equipment choice to make your army illegal.
If you are building from a gamist perspective, then yes, you will want to consider the effectiveness of your equipment in both systems. If you are building from a non-gamist perspective, points add an extra layer of restrictions to your decision (or ability to play) which PL does not. Hence PL not discouraging aesthetic equipment choices in the way points discourage them.
But it can happen in PL too. I built the units that I think looks cool and I'd like to use and they add up to 51 PL. now I cant use them in a 50 PL game. But what, you say, why not just play a 51 (or 52, or 55) PL. game, sure, that is a good solution, but then that applies to points too. You list comes to 1024 points due your upgrades, just play a 1050, or 1100 point game.
That has nothing to do with the equipment that has been chosen, though - that's about the units chosen. Remember again, we're talking about how points dissuade equipping units according to aesthetic preference, but PL does not.
Crimson wrote: OK, here is actually an easy point hack for PL users in point games. Count the maximum amount of points any any unit's cost can be. Always pay that cost for that unit, regardless of the stuff you actually took. Now you don't need to worry about upgrades, and will have a point compliant list. This is pretty much all that PL does, except with smaller numbers.
So now you're proposing a change to the points system to remove one of its disadvantages compared to PL? Isn't that a tacit admission that PL has advantages, even if they are small or contingent on the builder's priorities?
Galef wrote:I get the feeling that eventually (maybe not soon) GW will effectively "merge" the 2 systems as part of a effort to streamline a later edition.
Given how they are releasing models with fewer and fewer options, it's entirely feasible that they'll update to a single system that looks something like this:
5 Tactical Marines - 10ppm. Can add up to 5 more.
Any Special weapon is 10 pts
Any Heavy weapon is 15 pts
Any Sgt equipment is 10 pts
I used pts in 5/10/15 for ease of the example, but the point is that unlike PL, upgrades a cost and unlike Points are now, individual wargear does not have differing points.
A Lascannon costs the same as a Heavy Bolter. A Plasma costs the same as a Melta gun, etc.
I could easily see GW going to this kind of Points/PL hybrid to encourage players to build their units more loosely.
But this system would also require massive rebalancing of what the weapons actually do.
As-is, a Lascannon is worth far more than a HB, so the HB would need something extra. Heavy 5 could be a simple fix.
Multimeltas could finally be 2 Shots in this system to balance with the range of the Lascannon, and so on.
If all the options are closer to balanced and therefore can be the same "points" cost, then you don't need individual costs per weapon and can just have a "Heavy weapon cost" for the unit.
There will still be "clear winning upgrades" but how is that any different from now?
-
I think it more likely points get dropped out the back of the book, if you want points, you'll either have to refer back to the last time they were published, TO will have to publish them, or make them up yourself. GW are changing 40k. OOP, never made and obscure models are being removed from codex, Primaris are becoming the new, only flavour of marines. New models are being introduced through games that include a codex for the models. Kill team is becoming the pick up game goto, due to more time constraints in modern life, and increasing costs of hiring a village/community hall for entire days. To me, it looks like a gradual reboot of 40k, unlike when WH became AoS overnight.
Toofast wrote:Anything power level can do, points can do better. It only takes a couple minutes to build a list in battlescribe. I'm not sure why power level even exists. Maybe to teach someone their first few games it's fine but after that they should really be learning to build a list with points.
To build a list, maybe, but it takes the same time to write down the PL from the book. Using all the points is a different matter though. It can take an hour to tweek every last point to make the total.
PL exist as it's the new way GW do it. Starter sets don't include points any more in the documents, neither do the profiles in the kit boxes, WD use PL in their battle reports. Points are so last edition now..... Along with 'normal' marines (I'm refusing to go primaris though)
Crimson wrote: JFC!. You need to consider them 'just the same,' that same may be 'not at all' thus you're not considering at all.
Why do I *need* to consider them the same, when they have notable differences, some which are based in facts, and others based on personal intuitive feelings?
You can say that. Other people can disagree, but your view cannot be called "implausible".
I never said implausible, I said 'irrational.'
You supported nareik's statement of Peregrine having credence in calling people's arguments "implausible". You also claimed that the reasons for having those opinions were "literally untrue". You have no right to say what subjective reasoning people have for their preferences are true or untrue.
And we are discussing the rules.
No, we're discussing personal preferences. At least, that's what I'm trying to discuss. I'm discussing that some people like PL for both a mix of mechanical reasons (like speed), but also of perceived feelings towards it. My point being that for either reason, someone's preference of either system is completely valid.
Someone might like points because. to them, it encourages a more engaging meta. That's entirely their perception that PL has a more engaging meta, because PL can have one too, but if that's the reason they like points, so be it. That's not implausible, irrational, or invalid. It simply IS, and their reasoning for liking it is as good a reason as any.
Peregrine has been well shown here to dismiss people's reasons for why they like PL, simply because they don't respect the subjective preferences and perceptions of others, implying that Peregrine regards their perception and preferences to be the only ones considered valid.
But it can happen in PL too. I built the units that I think looks cool and I'd like to use and they add up to 51 PL. now I cant use them in a 50 PL game.
Just FYI, PL has no hard limit like points do. You just take roughly the amount agreed on. So 53 PL works for a 50 PL game just fine. Unlike in matched where you are explicitly forbidden from going over the points value.
So now you're proposing a change to the points system to remove one of its disadvantages compared to PL? Isn't that a tacit admission that PL has advantages, even if they are small or contingent on the builder's priorities?
It is not a change, you are always allowed to be under the point limit. And it is not an advantage, it is a disadvantage you for some bizarre reason want to have.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Why do I *need* to consider them the same, when they have notable differences, some which are based in facts, and others based on personal intuitive feelings?
Those differences only exist if you care about optimisation, which you admittedly don't. Your bizarre intuitions are something I cannot comment on.
But it can happen in PL too. I built the units that I think looks cool and I'd like to use and they add up to 51 PL. now I cant use them in a 50 PL game.
Just FYI, PL has no hard limit like points do. You just take roughly the amount agreed on. So 53 PL works for a 50 PL game just fine. Unlike in matched where you are explicitly forbidden from going over the points value.
It's actually the same with points. BRB: "Usually both players will use the same limit, but this does not need to be the case." So basically in both cases it is just what the players happen to agree upon and it doesn't need to be equal.
So now you're proposing a change to the points system to remove one of its disadvantages compared to PL? Isn't that a tacit admission that PL has advantages, even if they are small or contingent on the builder's priorities?
It is not a change, you are always allowed to be under the point limit. And it is not an advantage, it is a disadvantage you for some bizarre reason want to have.
Just to be clear, since you keep cutting out key points of posts and only addressing single paragraphs out of context:
My point was that PL removes one specific drawback of points: taking equipment based purely on aesthetic preference won't take you over the limit on a PL game, while it can take you over the limit in points games. Are you now saying that specific effect is a drawback of PL? Can you explain why?
Again, remember that this entire exchange has been based on my statement that points discourage players from taking equipment for aesthetic purposes while PL is neutral on the matter. I just want to make sure you're not shifting the goalposts.
(Also, FYI: I personally use points the vast majority of the time)
Crimson wrote: The claim was made that 'the PL encouraging weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons.' This is simply not true. I don't mind you liking PL or playing PL, it is perfectly fine. But if you claim liking it for reasons that are not true, then I shall question your judgement.
That is a mind-reading assumption. A classic case of prejudice.
How it is that mind reading? I read the rules, not anyone's mind.
That you think that a person who likes something for a reason is not true is mind reading. Liking something is subjective, not objective. WHY someone likes something is equally subjective, not objective. Blue is my favorite color, but I don't like Ultramarines and prefer Black Templars, Imperial Fists, or Raven Guard if I'm going Marines because of their character and stories. Am I then very wrong for not liking Ultramarines because I like blue? That is the rough equivalent to what you are saying because you take one opinion as objective and then paste it as someone else's reasoning.
In order to have as fact something that is an opinion, one would have to be a mind-reader, or know the person more than they know themselves.
I know you don't know me that well, because no mortal does, yet you are taking it upon yourself to declare something as fact in regards to everyone talking here is presenting as a subjective opinion.
Crimson wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Why do I *need* to consider them the same, when they have notable differences, some which are based in facts, and others based on personal intuitive feelings?
Those differences only exist if you care about optimisation, which you admittedly don't. Your bizarre intuitions are something I cannot comment on.
Sorry, but without qualifying statements like, "if," and, "then", then "need" statements present absolutism.
But it can happen in PL too. I built the units that I think looks cool and I'd like to use and they add up to 51 PL. now I cant use them in a 50 PL game.
Just FYI, PL has no hard limit like points do. You just take roughly the amount agreed on. So 53 PL works for a 50 PL game just fine. Unlike in matched where you are explicitly forbidden from going over the points value.
It's actually the same with points. BRB: "Usually both players will use the same limit, but this does not need to be the case." So basically in both cases it is just what the players happen to agree upon and it doesn't need to be equal.
You haven't met some of the people I have who will not give a game to someone who want to play a game at any point level that equals the next tournament. You also may not have read the thread where Peregrine and Slayer who think that only cheaters ask for different point values.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Why do I *need* to consider them the same, when they have notable differences, some which are based in facts, and others based on personal intuitive feelings?
Those differences only exist if you care about optimisation, which you admittedly don't.
PL being faster to calculate than points is a difference that optimisation doesn't affect.
Furthermore, the other differences, while they are personal opinions, based on intuitions and perceptions, and as such are only applicable to me, are just as valid differences as any other.
Of course, that is only to me.
Your bizarre intuitions are something I cannot comment on.
Good. That's all I'm asking for - just acceptance of them being just as valid as any of your beliefs.
Ok, so to throw another example into the mix: Harlequin troupe loadout. You don't min/max those based solely on cost effectiveness calculated via equation "damage output of codex entry in the void divided by point cost in codex entry". How you min/max those is you calculate expected total damage output of a troupe before it is completely slain, which in case of footslogging troupe includes a cost of ablative wounds - you don't upgrade all troupers with fusion pistols and CC options if you cannot deliver the punch. So you end up with just a couple of Harlies with more than basic loadout despite all having an option to upgrade. But because in PLs unit cost is rigid, you actually don't play at disadvantage if you throw some mixed equipment on them and worry about model removal queue only on tabletop - in this case PLs directly promote aesthetic, fluffy and TAC oriented model builds, you are not punished for equiping "dead on arrival" dudes. Of course, if you play in a "standard mission type, on standard terrain setup, against standard armies" type of meta and your focus is on min/max approach to list building to win, you will want to max out on most effective choices in your predictable environment, so models that survive max out your potential damage output. But that is not the only way to play 40K...
My point was that PL removes one specific drawback of points: taking equipment based purely on aesthetic preference won't take you over the limit on a PL game, while it can take you over the limit in points games.
Of course equipment doens't make you go over in PL as the equipment doesn't affect the cost. This is why list making is easier in PL, which is one of the strengths of that system, and I never have disputed that.
Are you now saying that specific effect is a drawback of PL? Can you explain why?
Again, remember that this entire exchange has been based on my statement that points discourage players from taking equipment for aesthetic purposes while PL is neutral on the matter. I just want to make sure you're not shifting the goalposts.
It is a drawback because you are still really paying for the equipment, you're just paying whether you take it or not. It is like my idea of just paying for the most expensive options for an unit in a point game regardless of whether you take them. This is why it does the opposite than what you claim: you pay for something whether you take it or not, thus it encourages taking the most powerful stuff. PL actively punishes 'taking cool stuff' unless that 'cool stuff' was the most powerful option to begin with. And again, if you don't care about effectiveness, you can always pay for stuff you don't actually take with points too.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Encouraging weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons, not because it's all you can afford in X points
PL does no such thing. There is still an optimal weapon choice based on firepower per point, and taking a choice for aesthetic reasons still makes your army weaker. In fact, PL discourages taking aesthetic options because they all cost the same. In a normal game you might be able to be ok with taking a chainsword instead of a power fist because it looks cool since at least it costs fewer points for the weaker weapon. In a PL game you're punished for taking that cool chainsword because you're paying the points for a power fist.
Apparently this is hard for you to grasp, but many of the advocates for PL don't care about effectiveness per point or pure efficiency. This seems to be the root cause of most of the disagreements about PL. From this thread it seems most players who prefer PL also aren't as bothered about the pure efficiency of their lists, and rank other factors as more important when it comes to army construction. That's their opinion and we have to assume that's something that works for them. It's not something you can simply dismiss because it doesn't fit with your view of how the game should be played, regardless of your utter lack of understanding of other's opinions and arrogant dismissal of them.
But it can happen in PL too. I built the units that I think looks cool and I'd like to use and they add up to 51 PL. now I cant use them in a 50 PL game.
Just FYI, PL has no hard limit like points do. You just take roughly the amount agreed on. So 53 PL works for a 50 PL game just fine. Unlike in matched where you are explicitly forbidden from going over the points value.
It's actually the same with points. BRB: "Usually both players will use the same limit, but this does not need to be the case." So basically in both cases it is just what the players happen to agree upon and it doesn't need to be equal.
No, it's not the same because PL doesn't have a limit at all. If I say I can have 1000 pts and you can have 1250 pts those are still hard limits that neither player can go over because going over is explicitly against the rules. Players using PL don't actually need to make any PL limit at all. Your argument on not being able to use 51 PL in a 50 PL game is wrong because you explicitly can. In fact I'm allowed to take all the PL I want so long as my opponent agrees to it.
Which at that point the PL is just one metric (among others) that helps guide the decision to accept the game as is or not. So 75PL vs 50PL might be too much to accept, but 60PL vs 50PL might be acceptable, depending on the missions or terrain as well as the perceived real strength of the certain units. e.g player A has a knight which counters player B too much so player B gets to take a little more than usual to even the odds.
It's really more of a discussion between players, where each side gets to adjust their stuff before the game begins to achieve a more enjoyable experience for both. Simply put, PL is there to allow on the fly adjustments with little pressure about exactitude. Points games tend to force players to come up with lists following the ever elusive "meta" to ensure they don't get stomped by someone who did, since such pre-game discussion and adjustments seem to be rare and taking players on blind seems to be more common.
So while you could do the above with points, it's really just unnecessary effort once you've cross-tailored your armies.
Slipspace wrote: Apparently this is hard for you to grasp, but many of the advocates for PL don't care about effectiveness per point or pure efficiency.
It's perfectly easy to grasp.
It also makes zero sense as a point.
If you don't care about [point] efficiency, then you won't care about it regardless of whether you use points or power level.
That you think that a person who likes something for a reason is not true is mind reading. Liking something is subjective, not objective. WHY someone likes something is equally subjective, not objective. Blue is my favorite color, but I don't like Ultramarines and prefer Black Templars, Imperial Fists, or Raven Guard if I'm going Marines because of their character and stories. Am I then very wrong for not liking Ultramarines because I like blue? That is the rough equivalent to what you are saying because you take one opinion as objective and then paste it as someone else's reasoning.
If someone says they prefer bicycles over cars because they're more economical and environmentally friendly they have a rational point, if they say that they prefer bicycles over cars because they're faster then I have to question their reasoning.
You haven't met some of the people I have who will not give a game to someone who want to play a game at any point level that equals the next tournament. You also may not have read the thread where Peregrine and Slayer who think that only cheaters ask for different point values.
Those people being silly is not the fault of the point system. The rules are clear that you can play at any point level and the points don't need to be equal. This is actually the same thing that what I've been talking about PL too, people having an irrational preferences and associations regarding the rules that are not actually supported by the said rules.
Dr Coconut wrote: And precisely where in the rules (either core or full) does it state so?
In those rules, it also never mentions "army list".
I think that it's obvious we're talking about rules and concepts beyond the Battle Primer (as much as I like it), such as the idea of having a solid defined list. The example game in the Primer, Open War, never mentions the idea of lists, but that is one mission alone - not all.
Now, I don't have the rulebook on me to comment on what others say, but I imagine they do specify something about army lists or force rosters.
Only one mention of using points, only in connection with battle-forged match play, no mention of PL
To use a points limit, you will need to reference the points values, which are found in a number of Warhammer 40,000 publications, such as codexes. In these you will find the points costs for every model and weapon described in that book. Simply add up the points values of all the models and weapons in your army, and make sure the total does not exceed the agreed limit for the game.
Again in match play..... The only mention of a list/roster, is used in association with points.
Once you have picked your army, record the details of it on a piece of paper (called your army roster). The roster must include the units in your army, details of the upgrades they have, and must also say which unit in the army will be the army’s Warlord.
Ergo, lists are only required with points, and specifically in match play.
No, it's not the same because PL doesn't have a limit at all. If I say I can have 1000 pts and you can have 1250 pts those are still hard limits that neither player can go over because going over is explicitly against the rules. Players using PL don't actually need to make any PL limit at all. Your argument on not being able to use 51 PL in a 50 PL game is wrong because you explicitly can. In fact I'm allowed to take all the PL I want so long as my opponent agrees to it.
Which at that point the PL is just one metric (among others) that helps guide the decision to accept the game as is or not. So 75PL vs 50PL might be too much to accept, but 60PL vs 50PL might be acceptable, depending on the missions or terrain as well as the perceived real strength of the certain units. e.g player A has a knight which counters player B too much so player B gets to take a little more than usual to even the odds.
It's really more of a discussion between players, where each side gets to adjust their stuff before the game begins to achieve a more enjoyable experience for both. Simply put, PL is there to allow on the fly adjustments with little pressure about exactitude. Points games tend to force players to come up with lists following the ever elusive "meta" to ensure they don't get stomped by someone who did, since such pre-game discussion and adjustments seem to be rare and taking players on blind seems to be more common.
So while you could do the above with points, it's really just unnecessary effort once you've cross-tailored your armies.
It is exactly the same. The 'limit' is just what is agreed upon, just like you agree with your opponent what PL sized armies to bring.
My point was that PL removes one specific drawback of points: taking equipment based purely on aesthetic preference won't take you over the limit on a PL game, while it can take you over the limit in points games.
Of course equipment doens't make you go over in PL as the equipment doesn't affect the cost. This is why list making is easier in PL, which is one of the strengths of that system, and I never have disputed that.
So if you accept "PL means equipment can't take you over on points" is a potential strength of the system, why were you trying to argue it wasn't a strength of the system?
Are you now saying that specific effect is a drawback of PL? Can you explain why?
Again, remember that this entire exchange has been based on my statement that points discourage players from taking equipment for aesthetic purposes while PL is neutral on the matter. I just want to make sure you're not shifting the goalposts.
It is a drawback because you are still really paying for the equipment, you're just paying whether you take it or not. It is like my idea of just paying for the most expensive options for an unit in a point game regardless of whether you take them. This is why it does the opposite than what you claim: you pay for something whether you take it or not, thus it encourages taking the most powerful stuff. PL actively punishes 'taking cool stuff' unless that 'cool stuff' was the most powerful option to begin with. And again, if you don't care about effectiveness, you can always pay for stuff you don't actually take with points too.
And you're back to talking about game efficiency, trying to argue that "taking something for aesthetic reasons" has a drawback of "less efficient in-game", which is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
And frankly, your idea of deliberately and explicitly overpaying for stuff looks like just a transparent attempt to avoid having to cede the point.
Slipspace wrote: Apparently this is hard for you to grasp, but many of the advocates for PL don't care about effectiveness per point or pure efficiency.
It's perfectly easy to grasp.
It also makes zero sense as a point.
If you don't care about [point] efficiency, then you won't care about it regardless of whether you use points or power level.
And this is the thing making zero sense. It's a bizarre rationale to defend a poorly created system.
Slipspace wrote: Apparently this is hard for you to grasp, but many of the advocates for PL don't care about effectiveness per point or pure efficiency.
It's perfectly easy to grasp.
It also makes zero sense as a point.
If you don't care about [point] efficiency, then you won't care about it regardless of whether you use points or power level.
If you don't care so much about the thing PL isn't so good at it no longer matters as a reason not to use that system. Clearly people using PL want some sort of structure to their army lists, otherwise they wouldn't be using PL at all. If they find PL easier or better than points for some reason other than efficiency that can count as a point in its favour for those people.
So if you accept "PL means equipment can't take you over on points" is a potential strength of the system, why were you trying to argue it wasn't a strength of the system?
Easier list building is a strength of PL, encouraging 'cool stuff' is not.
And you're back to talking about game efficiency, trying to argue that "taking something for aesthetic reasons" has a drawback of "less efficient in-game", which is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Of course it is relevant if we are talking about what system encourages what. Using either system will not get free lollipops mailed to you if you take cool looking weapons, however, in one taking cool weapons makes your army weaker where in another it doesn't (at least as much.)
And frankly, your idea of deliberately and explicitly overpaying for stuff looks like just a transparent attempt to avoid having to cede the point.
But that't the whole fething point of PL: deliberately and explicitly overpaying for stuff! Every time you use PL, and you're not taking the most powerful stuff, that's what your're doing. If you don't mind doing so under PL, why would you mind it under the points?
If you don't care so much about the thing PL isn't so good at it no longer matters as a reason not to use that system. Clearly people using PL want some sort of structure to their army lists, otherwise they wouldn't be using PL at all. If they find PL easier or better than points for some reason other than efficiency that can count as a point in its favour for those people.
And the ease of use is a perfectly valid reason to prefer PL, the problem is some people claiming that the system does stuff it literally does not.
Slipspace wrote: If you don't care so much about the thing PL isn't so good at it no longer matters as a reason not to use that system. Clearly people using PL want some sort of structure to their army lists, otherwise they wouldn't be using PL at all. If they find PL easier or better than points for some reason other than efficiency that can count as a point in its favour for those people.
Exactly. The *only* drawback people seem to bring against PL is that it's not as balanced/efficient. And that's a fair reason.
However, if balance/efficiency isn't a relevant factor for them, that drawback to PL isn't really a drawback. So sure, one could say "why don't you play points anyways, you don't care about the balance or efficiency", but someone could just as well reply "why shouldn't I play with PL instead"?
If balance and efficiency are ignored, then that particular difference between points and PL becomes moot. In which case, then points and PL need to be compared on different factors - such as speed of list building, personal perceptions of the systems, the local community and potential tournaments, and other variables.
That you think that a person who likes something for a reason is not true is mind reading. Liking something is subjective, not objective. WHY someone likes something is equally subjective, not objective. Blue is my favorite color, but I don't like Ultramarines and prefer Black Templars, Imperial Fists, or Raven Guard if I'm going Marines because of their character and stories. Am I then very wrong for not liking Ultramarines because I like blue? That is the rough equivalent to what you are saying because you take one opinion as objective and then paste it as someone else's reasoning.
If someone says they prefer bicycles over cars because they're more economical and environmentally friendly they have a rational point, if they say that they prefer bicycles over cars because they're faster then I have to question their reasoning.
I've driven in London, bicycles are considerably faster than cars, even little old ladies with the shopping in the basket leave you miles behind.
You haven't met some of the people I have who will not give a game to someone who want to play a game at any point level that equals the next tournament. You also may not have read the thread where Peregrine and Slayer who think that only cheaters ask for different point values.
Those people being silly is not the fault of the point system. The rules are clear that you can play at any point level and the points don't need to be equal. This is actually the same thing that what I've been talking about PL too, people having an irrational preferences and associations regarding the rules that are not actually supported by the said rules.
The rules don't even require points or PL to be used, all that is required is agreement to the metric and value.
Trouble is, there are none so blind as those that will not see, or as deaf as those that refuse to listen
Crimson wrote: But that't the whole fething point of PL: deliberately and explicitly overpaying for stuff!
It's really not.
Every time you use PL, and you're not taking the most powerful stuff, that's what your're doing.
From your point of view. How about looking at from the inverse - if you're taking the strongest weapons, you're cheating by taking good stuff from free.
If you don't mind doing so under PL, why would you mind it under the points?
Because points have a different association with them, from the player base for them, and for the game design insinuation that smaller upgrades have a tangible effect on your list.
It's like the XP boost/nerf effects that happened with WoW (at least, I think it was WoW). Despite both having the same effect generally, the "boost after resting" effect was perceived to be better because it *sounded* better. With PL/points, sure, you *could* treat them functionally the same, but the perception that people have of PL for being less anally retentive about upgrades is not to be ignored.
And the ease of use is a perfectly valid reason to prefer PL, the problem is some people claiming that the system does stuff it literally does not.
If someone says "it elicits X response in me", who are you to say that their feeling isn't genuine?
Let's compare some buying a car. The first car they get in, they drive around, and they quite like it. They get in the second car, and despite both cars being the same make, same age, same mileage, they say "look, I actually prefer the first - I don't know why, but I prefer it." Are you really going to claim that their personal preference, which is completely subjective and down to them, is fake?
Dr Coconut wrote: And precisely where in the rules (either core or full) does it state so?
In those rules, it also never mentions "army list".
I think that it's obvious we're talking about rules and concepts beyond the Battle Primer (as much as I like it), such as the idea of having a solid defined list. The example game in the Primer, Open War, never mentions the idea of lists, but that is one mission alone - not all.
Now, I don't have the rulebook on me to comment on what others say, but I imagine they do specify something about army lists or force rosters.
Only one mention of using points, only in connection with battle-forged match play, no mention of PL
To use a points limit, you will need to reference the points values, which are found in a number of Warhammer 40,000 publications, such as codexes. In these you will find the points costs for every model and weapon described in that book. Simply add up the points values of all the models and weapons in your army, and make sure the total does not exceed the agreed limit for the game.
Again in match play..... The only mention of a list/roster, is used in association with points.
Once you have picked your army, record the details of it on a piece of paper (called your army roster). The roster must include the units in your army, details of the upgrades they have, and must also say which unit in the army will be the army’s Warlord.
Ergo, lists are only required with points, and specifically in match play.
Fair enough. Again, probably doesn't stop most local groups asking for them, and I'm pretty sure out of courtesy, you *should* show your opponent a list, but if it's not in the rules, then it's not in the rules!
I've driven in London, bicycles are considerably faster than cars, even little old ladies with the shopping in the basket leave you miles behind.
You know what, that was an excellent counterpoint, and an great example of rational argumentation!
The rules don't even require points or PL to be used, all that is required is agreement to the metric and value.
Trouble is, there are none so blind as those that will not see, or as deaf as those that refuse to listen
A lot of these discussions are actually about the attitude and playstyles, and people attribute their preferences to the rule systems they commonly use even though those things are not really related.
So if you accept "PL means equipment can't take you over on points" is a potential strength of the system, why were you trying to argue it wasn't a strength of the system?
Easier list building is a strength of PL, encouraging 'cool stuff' is not.
When using points, having aesthetic equipment choices can result in your army being illegal as it takes you over the point limit. When using PL, having aesthetic equipment choices can't result in your army being illegal as they can't take you over a PL limit.
Hence, points can discourage using aesthetic equipment choices in a way PL wouldn't.
What part of that, exactly, are you disagreeing with here?
And you're back to talking about game efficiency, trying to argue that "taking something for aesthetic reasons" has a drawback of "less efficient in-game", which is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Of course it is relevant if we are talking about what system encourages what. Using either system will not get free lollipops mailed to you if you take cool looking weapons, however, in one taking cool weapons makes your army weaker where in another it doesn't (at least as much.)
Having an illegal army and having a non-optimised army are very different things. One is relevant to what I'm saying, one is not.
And frankly, your idea of deliberately and explicitly overpaying for stuff looks like just a transparent attempt to avoid having to cede the point.
But that't the whole fething point of PL: deliberately and explicitly overpaying for stuff! Every time you use PL, and you're not taking the most powerful stuff, that's what your're doing. If you don't mind doing so under PL, why would you mind it under the points?
So your argument is "If you like PL, you can spend time going back and forth between multiple pages and sources to figure out larger numbers (ignoring the fact that multiple separate calculations and larger numbers both make calculation errors more likely), then use these in the same way you'd have used the much simpler-to-use and easily-available numbers printed on the datasheets"... and you don't see why that's ridiculous?
So your argument is "If you like PL, you can spend time going back and forth between multiple pages and sources to figure out larger numbers (ignoring the fact that multiple separate calculations and larger numbers both make calculation errors more likely), then use these in the same way you'd have used the much simpler-to-use and easily-available numbers printed on the datasheets"... and you don't see why that's ridiculous?
I don't actually expect anyone to do that, but yes, you could, and it would be the same than using the PL, except more laborious. Thus the real strength of Pl is the ease of use, and that's it. But overpaying (or playing with under pointed list really, but it's the same) sidesteps all you other objections.
How exactly does PL encourage aesthetic choices? Please be clear.
And, as a question to something that was brought up earlier, which is easier to explain from an aesthetic point of view: An entire squad being missing, or a few upgrades being missing?
The example given was a power sword-but what if the power sword was overloaded in a recent battle, and therefore was being repaired by a techpriest? You can't wait for the sword to be fixed before going to the battle, so you do without.
JNAProductions wrote: How exactly does PL encourage aesthetic choices? Please be clear.
Power Level encourages aesthetic choices in that the game does not assign a value to them itself. You are left to choose your own, from your own set of values.
It does not care why you're choosing the weapon you do, only that all options are down to you, and if you want it, you're free to have it. Your choice will not affect anything else of your list.
On the other hand, points assigns value to a weapon based on it's in game effectiveness. Despite any other values you might assign to it, it is clear from the game's design that the only thing of value to that gun is it's points value. Therefore, the game makes it clear that balance is the value it wishes to enforce.
And, as a question to something that was brought up earlier, which is easier to explain from an aesthetic point of view: An entire squad being missing, or a few upgrades being missing?
Realistically, it depends upon the narrative you've forged. But, ignoring all forged narratives, from an aesthetic point of view? A whole squad, I think. At least there is no discrepancy between what is on the table, and what's on your list.
No-one would be able to tell you're missing an Intercessor Squad, or your third Infantry Squad. They would be able to see that your Sergeant has a power fist, and that's not been marked on the army list. If I saw that, I'd genuinely feel sorry for my opponent, and let them add the power fist. They clearly like how it looks, and I don't want to perpetuate a system of "looks matter less than gameplay". Of course, that's if I played points.
So your argument is "If you like PL, you can spend time going back and forth between multiple pages and sources to figure out larger numbers (ignoring the fact that multiple separate calculations and larger numbers both make calculation errors more likely), then use these in the same way you'd have used the much simpler-to-use and easily-available numbers printed on the datasheets"... and you don't see why that's ridiculous?
I don't actually expect anyone to do that, but yes, you could, and it would be the same than using the PL, except more laborious. Thus the real strength of Pl is the ease of use, and that's it. But overpaying (or playing with under pointed list really, but it's the same) sidesteps all you other objections.
Okay, fine. I can accept that deliberately (and badly) approximating PL in points, through a needlessly-laborious process, does allow you to sidestep the disadvantage of points that I pointed out, at the cost of it taking a significant amount more time to calculate the list and inviting more errors along the way.
If that's the mental gymnastics you need to jump through to avoid having to accept that this is a specific and rather narrow way in which PL is better than points, then... congrats?
Aelyn wrote: Okay, fine. I can accept that deliberately (and badly) approximating PL in points, through a needlessly-laborious process, does allow you to sidestep the disadvantage of points that I pointed out, at the cost of it taking a significant amount more time to calculate the list and inviting more errors along the way.
If that's the mental gymnastics you need to jump through to avoid having to accept that this is a specific and rather narrow way in which PL is better than points, then... congrats?
PL is a lot better than points in ease of use and speed of list building, I just wouldn't attribute that ease encouraging any particular sort of lists as it that ease applies to every sort of list.
JNAProductions wrote: How exactly does PL encourage aesthetic choices? Please be clear.
PL doesn't directly encourage aesthetic choices, but unlike points, it doesn't directly discourage them. Therefore, compared to points, PL is more inviting of aesthetic choices.
And, as a question to something that was brought up earlier, which is easier to explain from an aesthetic point of view: An entire squad being missing, or a few upgrades being missing?
Depends on the army. If it's Guard, probably the squad. If it's something like Eldar or Chaos, probably the upgrade.
The example given was a power sword-but what if the power sword was overloaded in a recent battle, and therefore was being repaired by a techpriest? You can't wait for the sword to be fixed before going to the battle, so you do without.
In that particular case, that works. It works less well when you're explaining why exactly one of the Tyranid Warriors in the army has talons instead of the modelled bonesword/lashwhip. But thank you for at least trying to see how the story of the game and the army can take precedence for some players.
But how does PL encourage you to take subpar options?
Assigning no cost (or, really, equal cost) to all upgrades doesn't mean that, say, a Heavy Bolter becomes BETTER than a Grav Cannon.
Points can (and SHOULD, but don't succeed at the moment) encourage any choices, because their relative value is equal. A Heavy Bolter, while not as good as a Grav Cannon, is cheaper, and so their relative value is equal. But if all upgrades cost the same, as in PL, then the Grav Cannon's superior statline means it's pretty much an auto-pick over the Heavy Bolter.
Edit: And before anyone says "Well I don't care how effective it is," you can not care about that in points too. Power Level does nothing to make you care less than points.
In points, the existence of the points themselves indicate that the weapons have a value each, based on their in-game output. The fact that it tells us "A is worth X, B is worth Y" indicates this. With Power Level not assigning a value to each weapon, it lets you, the player, choose free of what's "supposed" to be good or bad value.
Yes, PL doesn't encourage taking "subpar" options directly, but does so by removing the value of all options, putting them all on one playing field.
Assigning no cost (or, really, equal cost) to all upgrades doesn't mean that, say, a Heavy Bolter becomes BETTER than a Grav Cannon.
No, but it means that you're not actively choosing something because it's cheap. It means you're choosing it because that weapon means something to you, your personal value. To some, that personal value is "how strong is it". To others, it's "how cool it looks".
PL doesn't make anything better or worse than any other. They just put all the control of the value in your hands.
Points can (and SHOULD, but don't succeed at the moment) encourage any choices, because their relative value is equal. A Heavy Bolter, while not as good as a Grav Cannon, is cheaper, and so their relative value is equal. But if all upgrades cost the same, as in PL, then the Grav Cannon's superior statline means it's pretty much an auto-pick over the Heavy Bolter.
And you're not wrong - except that "relative value" is only referring to effect in the game - not for other values.
Points should be the perfect way to balance the game based on the value of in-game effect, but with Power Level, you have the freedom to choose without the game forcing the idea that "hey, this is a cheap gun, this is good value for strength!"
It's all about the perception of control, and imposing your own values.
As a power level advocate, power level doesn’t encourage any kind of behaviour to use sub par stuff or visa versa. It’s a points system just like points but simpler. What happens though is that players who are happier using subpar options for what ever reason (plot, looks etc) are more likely to prefer the more relaxed style of power level. It’s the whole cause and effect being the wrong way round. Power level is attractive to casual less competetive players because of the features that aren’t contestable, simplicity, time saving and vagueness. And equal those players are put off points by the strict adherence to the system and and the whole optimal vs sub optimal way of things.
If power level was the only way it would be awful because all the people drawn to points would maximise all their units in PL and then the rest of us would be worse off. As it is it is mostly a like minded minority that use the system and because most are playing in the same way it doesn’t get abused.
Assigning no cost (or, really, equal cost) to all upgrades doesn't mean that, say, a Heavy Bolter becomes BETTER than a Grav Cannon.
Points can (and SHOULD, but don't succeed at the moment) encourage any choices, because their relative value is equal. A Heavy Bolter, while not as good as a Grav Cannon, is cheaper, and so their relative value is equal. But if all upgrades cost the same, as in PL, then the Grav Cannon's superior statline means it's pretty much an auto-pick over the Heavy Bolter.
Edit: And before anyone says "Well I don't care how effective it is," you can not care about that in points too. Power Level does nothing to make you care less than points.
It got drowned a page before, but here you have an example provided:
"Harlequin troupe loadout. You don't min/max those based solely on cost effectiveness calculated via equation "damage output of codex entry in the void divided by point cost in codex entry". How you min/max those is you calculate expected total damage output of a troupe before it is completely slain, which in case of footslogging troupe includes a cost of ablative wounds - you don't upgrade all troupers with fusion pistols and CC options if you cannot deliver the punch. So you end up with just a couple of Harlies with more than basic loadout despite all having an option to upgrade. But because in PLs unit cost is rigid, you actually don't play at disadvantage if you throw some mixed equipment on them and worry about model removal queue only on tabletop - in this case PLs directly promote aesthetic, fluffy and TAC oriented model builds, you are not punished for equiping "dead on arrival" dudes. Of course, if you play in a "standard mission type, on standard terrain setup, against standard armies" type of meta and your focus is on min/max approach to list building to win, you will want to max out on most effective choices in your predictable environment, so models that survive max out your potential damage output. But that is not the only way to play 40K..."
That you think that a person who likes something for a reason is not true is mind reading. Liking something is subjective, not objective. WHY someone likes something is equally subjective, not objective. Blue is my favorite color, but I don't like Ultramarines and prefer Black Templars, Imperial Fists, or Raven Guard if I'm going Marines because of their character and stories. Am I then very wrong for not liking Ultramarines because I like blue? That is the rough equivalent to what you are saying because you take one opinion as objective and then paste it as someone else's reasoning.
If someone says they prefer bicycles over cars because they're more economical and environmentally friendly they have a rational point, if they say that they prefer bicycles over cars because they're faster then I have to question their reasoning.
You're trying to put objectivity in to something that is purely subjective. Subjective things like opinions, cannot properly be measured so there is no objectivity to it.
To use your bike comparison, people aren't trying to compare bikes versus cars because of efficiencies or economies, they were saying that they preferred bikes because they liked the wind in the hair while riding a bike and not what it feels like in a car, and you saying that reason is not true.
Crimson wrote:
You haven't met some of the people I have who will not give a game to someone who want to play a game at any point level that equals the next tournament. You also may not have read the thread where Peregrine and Slayer who think that only cheaters ask for different point values.
Those people being silly is not the fault of the point system. The rules are clear that you can play at any point level and the points don't need to be equal. This is actually the same thing that what I've been talking about PL too, people having an irrational preferences and associations regarding the rules that are not actually supported by the said rules.
Then why are you trying to present this as an objective downside of PL?
In points, the existence of the points themselves indicate that the weapons have a value each, based on their in-game output. The fact that it tells us "A is worth X, B is worth Y" indicates this.
With Power Level not assigning a value to each weapon, it lets you, the player, choose free of what's "supposed" to be good or bad value.
Yes, PL doesn't encourage taking "subpar" options directly, but does so by removing the value of all options, putting them all on one playing field.
Assigning no cost (or, really, equal cost) to all upgrades doesn't mean that, say, a Heavy Bolter becomes BETTER than a Grav Cannon.
No, but it means that you're not actively choosing something because it's cheap. It means you're choosing it because that weapon means something to you, your personal value.
To some, that personal value is "how strong is it".
To others, it's "how cool it looks".
PL doesn't make anything better or worse than any other. They just put all the control of the value in your hands.
Points can (and SHOULD, but don't succeed at the moment) encourage any choices, because their relative value is equal. A Heavy Bolter, while not as good as a Grav Cannon, is cheaper, and so their relative value is equal. But if all upgrades cost the same, as in PL, then the Grav Cannon's superior statline means it's pretty much an auto-pick over the Heavy Bolter.
And you're not wrong - except that "relative value" is only referring to effect in the game - not for other values.
Points should be the perfect way to balance the game based on the value of in-game effect, but with Power Level, you have the freedom to choose without the game forcing the idea that "hey, this is a cheap gun, this is good value for strength!"
It's all about the perception of control, and imposing your own values.
If you don't care about how effective an option is on the tabletop, why does assigning a specific points value to it matter?
Andykp wrote: As a power level advocate, power level doesn’t encourage any kind of behaviour to use sub par stuff or visa versa. It’s a points system just like points but simpler. What happens though is that players who are happier using subpar options for what ever reason (plot, looks etc) are more likely to prefer the more relaxed style of power level. It’s the whole cause and effect being the wrong way round. Power level is attractive to casual less competetive players because of the features that aren’t contestable, simplicity, time saving and vagueness. And equal those players are put off points by the strict adherence to the system and and the whole optimal vs sub optimal way of things.
If power level was the only way it would be awful because all the people drawn to points would maximise all their units in PL and then the rest of us would be worse off. As it is it is mostly a like minded minority that use the system and because most are playing in the same way it doesn’t get abused.
JNAProductions wrote: If you don't care about how effective an option is on the tabletop, why does assigning a specific points value to it matter?
It's all just looks, after all.
Because assigning specific points tells me that the game designers have assigned a value to this weapon relative to it's combat potential. They've chosen what the aspect of importance is, and how valuable it is at that aspect.
I personally don't like the game telling me "this is what's important". By having no value for upgrades in the PL system, the game puts no value on anything, allowing the player to choose the things they want because of personal values.
It's not that I care about something's effectiveness on tabletop. It's that the points system makes it clear that it is more preoccupied by in-game strength than other values.
So, you're basing what you feel on what others say?
Because the in-game stats and performance are exactly the same whether you build a list with Points or PL. Points just attempts to assign an appropriate value to the various different options, while PL says a Renegade Knight Gallant is worth 25% more than an Imperial Knight Gallant because options.
JNAProductions wrote: If you don't care about how effective an option is on the tabletop, why does assigning a specific points value to it matter?
It's all just looks, after all.
Because assigning specific points tells me that the game designers have assigned a value to this weapon relative to it's combat potential. They've chosen what the aspect of importance is, and how valuable it is at that aspect.
I personally don't like the game telling me "this is what's important". By having no value for upgrades in the PL system, the game puts no value on anything, allowing the player to choose the things they want because of personal values.
It's not that I care about something's effectiveness on tabletop. It's that the points system makes it clear that it is more preoccupied by in-game strength than other values.
Except that's under the assumption people dont like the looks of the better option. The Heavy Bolter vs Grav Cannon is an excellent counter to your entire premise to be honest.
JNAProductions wrote: If you don't care about how effective an option is on the tabletop, why does assigning a specific points value to it matter?
It's all just looks, after all.
Because assigning specific points tells me that the game designers have assigned a value to this weapon relative to it's combat potential. They've chosen what the aspect of importance is, and how valuable it is at that aspect.
I personally don't like the game telling me "this is what's important". By having no value for upgrades in the PL system, the game puts no value on anything, allowing the player to choose the things they want because of personal values.
It's not that I care about something's effectiveness on tabletop. It's that the points system makes it clear that it is more preoccupied by in-game strength than other values.
Except that's under the assumption people dont like the looks of the better option. The Heavy Bolter vs Grav Cannon is an excellent counter to your entire premise to be honest.
Okay. So the system works perfectly, assuming everybody has the same tastes and their tastes just so happen to align with what's good.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I personally don't like the game telling me "this is what's important". By having no value for upgrades in the PL system, the game puts no value on anything, allowing the player to choose the things they want because of personal values.
This is just your biases showing. Assigning all choices the same cost isn't "putting no value on anything", it's declaring that they're of equal value. The problem, once again, seems to be that you are confusing the written rules of PL with your personal approach to 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Charistoph wrote: To use your bike comparison, people aren't trying to compare bikes versus cars because of efficiencies or economies, they were saying that they preferred bikes because they liked the wind in the hair while riding a bike and not what it feels like in a car, and you saying that reason is not true.
Except no, that's not the case. They're saying they prefer bikes because they enjoy the free beer every day that automatically comes with owning a bike. And it's entirely accurate to point out that their claim of a causal relationship between the free beer and their enjoyment is absurd because the free beer doesn't exist. PL advocates can talk all they want about how they enjoy PL because of X, but if PL doesn't in fact produce X then they are, at best, displaying a very poor understanding of their hobby and what makes it fun.
Charistoph wrote: To use your bike comparison, people aren't trying to compare bikes versus cars because of efficiencies or economies, they were saying that they preferred bikes because they liked the wind in the hair while riding a bike and not what it feels like in a car, and you saying that reason is not true.
Except no, that's not the case. They're saying they prefer bikes because they enjoy the free beer every day that automatically comes with owning a bike. And it's entirely accurate to point out that their claim of a causal relationship between the free beer and their enjoyment is absurd because the free beer doesn't exist. PL advocates can talk all they want about how they enjoy PL because of X, but if PL doesn't in fact produce X then they are, at best, displaying a very poor understanding of their hobby and what makes it fun.
Wrong. While a couple have said that, others have not, yet you, Slayer, and Crimson are claiming to do mind-reading to say that they are all wrong and telling the wind-lovers are actually beer-lovers.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Because assigning specific points tells me that the game designers have assigned a value to this weapon relative to it's combat potential. They've chosen what the aspect of importance is, and how valuable it is at that aspect.
I personally don't like the game telling me "this is what's important". By having no value for upgrades in the PL system, the game puts no value on anything, allowing the player to choose the things they want because of personal values.
It's not that I care about something's effectiveness on tabletop. It's that the points system makes it clear that it is more preoccupied by in-game strength than other values.
Except... the PL system still tells you "what's important" by having different PL values for units. Everything stated here can be an argument for using the completely points-less original AoS system over PL. All the criticisms of points and alleged advantages of PL can simply be swapped around to be criticisms of PL and advantages of having no valuation system at all.
For example:
Because assigning specific power levels tells me that the game designers have assigned a value to this unit relative to it's combat potential. They've chosen what the aspect of importance is, and how valuable it is at that aspect.
I personally don't like the game telling me "this is what's important". By having no value for units in the AoS system, the game puts no value on anything, allowing the player to choose the things they want because of personal values.
It's not that I care about something's effectiveness on tabletop. It's that the power level system makes it clear that it is more preoccupied by in-game strength than other values.
JNAProductions wrote:So, you're basing what you feel on what others say?
Yes. That's how people typically form their feelings, based on their exposure to other people and generally the rest of the world. It's up to people to choose how they act on it, but yes, people absolutely form their feelings based on what others say.
That's the real world. I don't understand what kind of point you're making with that?
Because the in-game stats and performance are exactly the same whether you build a list with Points or PL.
Technically not. With points, you are encouraged to consider the weapon as good or bad based on it's power:point ratio. As such, the cheapness of something can affect how many you can bring. You can't perform with a weapon if you can't fit it in your list.
Points just attempts to assign an appropriate value to the various different options,
Appropriate in regards to it's in game performance. That's the bit I'm getting at.
Points ONLY cares about in game performance, it makes that very clear. The values it assigns are based on that.
With PL removing any kinds of values, it puts choice in the player's hands. You want to optimize? Go for it, we don't care. You want the cool looking option? Go for it, we don't care.
while PL says a Renegade Knight Gallant is worth 25% more than an Imperial Knight Gallant because options.
But it's not a Renegade Knight Gallant. It's a Renegade Knight.
Slayer-Fan123
Spoiler:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Except that's under the assumption people dont like the looks of the better option. The Heavy Bolter vs Grav Cannon is an excellent counter to your entire premise to be honest.
And that's just your opinion. The fact that you would rather take one over the other because it's stronger in game is your priority, not mine.
My whole point is that it puts ALL the choice in the player's hands as to which they prefer. There's no "I really want this, but it's super expensive and I can't afford that". If you want it, take it.
If you want to take the best mathematical options because that's how you enjoy the game, be my guest. However, in knowing that's why you chose it, I'm probably not going to play you because your attitude to the game is counter to mine.
If someone likes the looks of the "better" option ("better" in quote marks, because I'm assuming you're judging better by the narrow view of strength alone), then they like the looks of it. That's not my problem.
JNAProductions:
Spoiler:
JNAProductions wrote:Okay. So the system works perfectly, assuming everybody has the same tastes and their tastes just so happen to align with what's good.
What do you think the odds of that are?
I mean, hasn't it been demonstrated that the vast majority of people playing PL ARE the people with roughly the same tastes?
Yes, the system *can* be broken with people playing against others that they aren't compatible with, but isn't that the same with points?
What's the difference between a casual PL player vs a WAACPL player, as opposed to a casual points player vs a WAAC points player? Because both outcomes will result in the WAAC most likely making the game incredibly unpleasant for the casual player.
In which case, surely the issue isn't in the choice of point system, but rather in both players not playing against a more suitable opponent?
Peregrine:
Spoiler:
Peregrine wrote:This is just your biases showing. Assigning all choices the same cost isn't "putting no value on anything", it's declaring that they're of equal value.
0 is quite literally "no value", when dealing with a system like this.
Sure, they're equal value - that value being literally nothing. So yeah, they absolutely ARE putting no value on anything, that value being equal, but still nothing.
They put no inherent choice over another, there's no "hey, look at this gun, it's better, so it costs more - it's more valuable". approach.
The player is left to choose free of any external favour or priority. If you want to go with the powerful option, that was your choice alone. If you want to go with the cool looking option, that was your choice.
The problem, once again, seems to be that you are confusing the written rules of PL with your personal approach to 40k.
As opposed to your problem of assuming that 40k has a right and wrong way to be played?
I *know* what the written rules are. My point is "this is how those written rules make me feel". I'm not trying to say that's universal. I'm saying that my interpretation of those rules, how they encourage me to act, is different from you, but just as valid.
Charistoph wrote: To use your bike comparison, people aren't trying to compare bikes versus cars because of efficiencies or economies, they were saying that they preferred bikes because they liked the wind in the hair while riding a bike and not what it feels like in a car, and you saying that reason is not true.
Except no, that's not the case. They're saying they prefer bikes because they enjoy the free beer every day that automatically comes with owning a bike.
Guys, we've got a telepath over here!
I mean, that's surely the only reason you could possibly have to completely put words in someone else's mouth and pretend that's what they meant all along?
Because otherwise, what's the difference between that and me saying "I think what Peregrine is TRYING to say is that he hates fun and gets irrationally offended when people play the game and have fun doing it". That would be completely absurd, wouldn't it?
And it's entirely accurate to point out that their claim of a causal relationship between the free beer and their enjoyment is absurd because the free beer doesn't exist.
The concept of "on the house" eludes you?
PL advocates can talk all they want about how they enjoy PL because of X, but if PL doesn't in fact produce X then they are, at best, displaying a very poor understanding of their hobby and what makes it fun.
Okay, let's make this real simple, just for you.
I, as a PL player, enjoy PL because of it being faster. PL factually IS faster. Your argument doesn't work on this point.
I, as a PL player, enjoy PL because it makes me feel more relaxed and casual. As I am the only person who knows how I feel, and I certainly know better than some bird of prey, this is a fact. Your argument doesn't work on this point.
I, as a PL player, enjoy PL because I prefer my local PL player base than the points player base. I am not saying my opinion is a fact, but I am saying that I *have* a preference. This is a fact. Your argument doesn't work on this point.
See? While I'm admitting my views are based on opinions, I'm not claiming that the opinions themselves are facts. I'm simply stating that I have those opinions, and the act of having those opinions is a fact. You cannot deny that, no more than I can deny that you as a human feel love, anger, or sadness.
Xca|iber:
Spoiler:
Xca|iber wrote:Except... the PL system still tells you "what's important" by having different PL values for units. Everything stated here can be an argument for using the completely points-less original AoS system over PL. All the criticisms of points and alleged advantages of PL can simply be swapped around to be criticisms of PL and advantages of having no valuation system at all.
I'm only talking about upgrades. Yes, someone who is more hardline could make that argument, and they're welcome to it, but I don't care about that.
I care that points tell me what "upgrades" are valuable. I don't have that same care about the units.
So yes, I absolutely see your point, and I'd fully support someone else if they were to have that belief, I'm not one of those people.
I think you're mistaking my issue with upgrades as being an issue with value systems in general.
I cycle to work because it's faster (bike paths short cutting through nature reserves, more convenient river crossing points than roads). I use the diesel money saved to grab a half at the end of the shift/before I cycle home.
Check mate points fans!!
This is true btw, but I don't understand what this analogy has to do with whether pl is better than points (or indeed has ANY redeeming features)..
nareik wrote: I cycle to work because it's faster (bike paths short cutting through nature reserves, more convenient river crossing points than roads). I use the diesel money saved to grab a half at the end of the shift/before I cycle home.
Check mate points fans!!
This is true btw, but I don't understand what this analogy has to do with whether pl is better than points (or indeed has ANY redeeming features)..
I believe the analogy is that people like using their bikes because they like the feel of it, regardless if it's faster, slower, cheaper, or less reliant on infrastructure. To them, the experience they have riding the bike is enough to justify themselves riding it, and to them, that's just as valid a reason as any for them to use bikes.
Some people are trying to say that the fact they feel that way isn't a good enough reason to justify that individual doing it.
JNAProductions wrote:So, you're basing what you feel on what others say?
Yes. That's how people typically form their feelings, based on their exposure to other people and generally the rest of the world. It's up to people to choose how they act on it, but yes, people absolutely form their feelings based on what others say.
That's the real world. I don't understand what kind of point you're making with that?
Because the in-game stats and performance are exactly the same whether you build a list with Points or PL.
Technically not. With points, you are encouraged to consider the weapon as good or bad based on it's power:point ratio. As such, the cheapness of something can affect how many you can bring. You can't perform with a weapon if you can't fit it in your list.
Points just attempts to assign an appropriate value to the various different options,
Appropriate in regards to it's in game performance. That's the bit I'm getting at.
Points ONLY cares about in game performance, it makes that very clear. The values it assigns are based on that.
With PL removing any kinds of values, it puts choice in the player's hands. You want to optimize? Go for it, we don't care. You want the cool looking option? Go for it, we don't care.
while PL says a Renegade Knight Gallant is worth 25% more than an Imperial Knight Gallant because options.
But it's not a Renegade Knight Gallant. It's a Renegade Knight.
Slayer-Fan123
Spoiler:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Except that's under the assumption people dont like the looks of the better option. The Heavy Bolter vs Grav Cannon is an excellent counter to your entire premise to be honest.
And that's just your opinion. The fact that you would rather take one over the other because it's stronger in game is your priority, not mine.
My whole point is that it puts ALL the choice in the player's hands as to which they prefer. There's no "I really want this, but it's super expensive and I can't afford that". If you want it, take it.
If you want to take the best mathematical options because that's how you enjoy the game, be my guest. However, in knowing that's why you chose it, I'm probably not going to play you because your attitude to the game is counter to mine.
If someone likes the looks of the "better" option ("better" in quote marks, because I'm assuming you're judging better by the narrow view of strength alone), then they like the looks of it. That's not my problem.
JNAProductions:
Spoiler:
JNAProductions wrote:Okay. So the system works perfectly, assuming everybody has the same tastes and their tastes just so happen to align with what's good.
What do you think the odds of that are?
I mean, hasn't it been demonstrated that the vast majority of people playing PL ARE the people with roughly the same tastes?
Yes, the system *can* be broken with people playing against others that they aren't compatible with, but isn't that the same with points?
What's the difference between a casual PL player vs a WAACPL player, as opposed to a casual points player vs a WAAC points player? Because both outcomes will result in the WAAC most likely making the game incredibly unpleasant for the casual player.
In which case, surely the issue isn't in the choice of point system, but rather in both players not playing against a more suitable opponent?
Peregrine:
Spoiler:
Peregrine wrote:This is just your biases showing. Assigning all choices the same cost isn't "putting no value on anything", it's declaring that they're of equal value.
0 is quite literally "no value", when dealing with a system like this.
Sure, they're equal value - that value being literally nothing. So yeah, they absolutely ARE putting no value on anything, that value being equal, but still nothing.
They put no inherent choice over another, there's no "hey, look at this gun, it's better, so it costs more - it's more valuable". approach.
The player is left to choose free of any external favour or priority. If you want to go with the powerful option, that was your choice alone. If you want to go with the cool looking option, that was your choice.
The problem, once again, seems to be that you are confusing the written rules of PL with your personal approach to 40k.
As opposed to your problem of assuming that 40k has a right and wrong way to be played?
I *know* what the written rules are. My point is "this is how those written rules make me feel". I'm not trying to say that's universal. I'm saying that my interpretation of those rules, how they encourage me to act, is different from you, but just as valid.
Charistoph wrote: To use your bike comparison, people aren't trying to compare bikes versus cars because of efficiencies or economies, they were saying that they preferred bikes because they liked the wind in the hair while riding a bike and not what it feels like in a car, and you saying that reason is not true.
Except no, that's not the case. They're saying they prefer bikes because they enjoy the free beer every day that automatically comes with owning a bike.
Guys, we've got a telepath over here!
I mean, that's surely the only reason you could possibly have to completely put words in someone else's mouth and pretend that's what they meant all along?
Because otherwise, what's the difference between that and me saying "I think what Peregrine is TRYING to say is that he hates fun and gets irrationally offended when people play the game and have fun doing it". That would be completely absurd, wouldn't it?
And it's entirely accurate to point out that their claim of a causal relationship between the free beer and their enjoyment is absurd because the free beer doesn't exist.
The concept of "on the house" eludes you?
PL advocates can talk all they want about how they enjoy PL because of X, but if PL doesn't in fact produce X then they are, at best, displaying a very poor understanding of their hobby and what makes it fun.
Okay, let's make this real simple, just for you.
I, as a PL player, enjoy PL because of it being faster. PL factually IS faster. Your argument doesn't work on this point.
I, as a PL player, enjoy PL because it makes me feel more relaxed and casual. As I am the only person who knows how I feel, and I certainly know better than some bird of prey, this is a fact. Your argument doesn't work on this point.
I, as a PL player, enjoy PL because I prefer my local PL player base than the points player base. I am not saying my opinion is a fact, but I am saying that I *have* a preference. This is a fact. Your argument doesn't work on this point.
See? While I'm admitting my views are based on opinions, I'm not claiming that the opinions themselves are facts. I'm simply stating that I have those opinions, and the act of having those opinions is a fact. You cannot deny that, no more than I can deny that you as a human feel love, anger, or sadness.
Xca|iber:
Spoiler:
Xca|iber wrote:Except... the PL system still tells you "what's important" by having different PL values for units. Everything stated here can be an argument for using the completely points-less original AoS system over PL. All the criticisms of points and alleged advantages of PL can simply be swapped around to be criticisms of PL and advantages of having no valuation system at all.
I'm only talking about upgrades. Yes, someone who is more hardline could make that argument, and they're welcome to it, but I don't care about that.
I care that points tell me what "upgrades" are valuable. I don't have that same care about the units.
So yes, I absolutely see your point, and I'd fully support someone else if they were to have that belief, I'm not one of those people.
I think you're mistaking my issue with upgrades as being an issue with value systems in general.
Except it is your problem, because it has the same cost: free. Lemme break it down in steps to make it easier to understand:
1. If you don't care about optimization like you claim, you will still pay for the worse weapon because you like the look of it or something stupid like that. That has been the basic premise throughout several editions. You pay for what you get.
2. This still means that you would pay less points for said weapon though, so at least you're getting what you paid for. In this particular example, three Heavy Bolters per Grav Cannon creates a reason and niche for the Heavy Bolter to exist.
3. Making them all the same cost, then, creates no point. If someone doesn't care about optimization, they won't do the math. So someone liking the Heavy Bolter still might not care.
4. Someone will come along that likes the look of Grav Cannons to Heavy Bolters, and then starts to use them on all their Devastators, Sternguard, and Centurions, because they think the concept is cool.
5. Ergo this shows the flaw with your entire logic. This person built a stronger army by default because of the fact they liked the look of the weapon more, when it is in fact a better weapon using 1-on-1 comparisons.
6. So I'd say the player is not compatible with you, even though they took the same steps to build their army like you. You won't have fun in a game where someone acts just like you and they slap your army around like it is nothing.
So basically your whole premise is actually the "you're playing the game wrong" you're accusing Perigrine of acting like.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. If you don't care about optimization like you claim, you will still pay for the worse weapon because you like the look of it or something stupid like that. That has been the basic premise throughout several editions. You pay for what you get.
Except with GW pricing, you rarely ever get what you pay for, it's usually more or less, rarely even. And if something is free, are you truly paying for it?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 2. This still means that you would pay less points for said weapon though, so at least you're getting what you paid for. In this particular example, three Heavy Bolters per Grav Cannon creates a reason and niche for the Heavy Bolter to exist.
Possibly, possibly not. Grav Cannons work better against Heavy Infantry while Heavy Bolters work better against Light Infantry. Value is not always measured in just points.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 3. Making them all the same cost, then, creates no point. If someone doesn't care about optimization, they won't do the math. So someone liking the Heavy Bolter still might not care.
Or deals with far more Light Infantry than Heavy Infantry, increasing its value to said person. Or maybe they are just very traditionalist and don't like all this new-fangled tech.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 4. Someone will come along that likes the look of Grav Cannons to Heavy Bolters, and then starts to use them on all their Devastators, Sternguard, and Centurions, because they think the concept is cool.
5. Ergo this shows the flaw with your entire logic. This person built a stronger army by default because of the fact they liked the look of the weapon more, when it is in fact a better weapon using 1-on-1 comparisons.
Stronger is a relative term. Value is dependent on the situation, not always on the market. Water is worth kingdoms to a man stranded in a desert, but is a threat to one alone in the middle of the Pacific. Metas determine what is strongest by what is generally taken. Even then, both can be useful no matter what you play against so long as they are placed and targeted properly.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 6. So I'd say the player is not compatible with you, even though they took the same steps to build their army like you. You won't have fun in a game where someone acts just like you and they slap your army around like it is nothing.
They may actually be quite compatible if they are playing the same as him. Even in a slap-around game, one can always learn something, and it is a better use of time then getting stoned or drunk. Here is where your premise slips up, because you are trying to present someone of opposite building intent to be playing the same variant of the game, while they are not. Would you compare the list building strategies between Kill Team and Horus Heresy next, or should we bring AoS in to this?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So basically your whole premise is actually the "you're playing the game wrong" you're accusing Perigrine of acting like.
Nope. He's presenting playing the game differently than you, while you and Peregrine have stated that he's playing the game wrong.
I'm still not sold on the idea that PL promotes or rewards non-optimization.
If you choose a so-called "subpar" upgrade (from the perspective of the meta) for any reason, the Points System will usually compensate you with a discount on your overall army cost - offering an advantage, of sorts. Perhaps not an equal advantage compared to the disadvantage of giving up the meta option, but you're still getting something at least. Although optimization is not the goal per se, this kind of compensation makes it easier for two players working together to evaluate whether their match will be balanced. The Power Level system does not do this.
In instances where this is not the case (for example, wanting to take a power sword on a sergeant when the meta call is to take no upgrades), there are two possible outcomes, which may overlap:
1) The discount received from forfeiting more-expensive meta options pays for the forfeiture of less-expensive meta options. Thus, everything is fine.
2) The extra cost places the list over the agreed limit. However, if optimization is not important, it is trivial either to remove a handful of infantry models to bring the list under the limit OR simply play a little bit over the limit with your opponent's permission. Since agreement and discussion are also central to the adequate functioning of the PL system, this does not constitute any additional burden as part of the points system.
If a player is unwilling to remove things from their list and their opponent will not allow any excess on the agreed limit (or increase the agreed limit), and the first player feels that the result is an undue burden upon their side of the game, what you have is not a failure of the points system (or any valuation system), but a failure of the two players to agree on what constitutes a balanced match. This is no different from two PL-system players having a dispute because one player feels the other one is abusing the system (by min/maxing meta upgrades for free, for example). Fundamentally, it boils down to a belief by one player that a game will not be enjoyable based on the comparison of the two armies presented. Again, this is not a failure of the value system.
Power Level does not fix this. If anything, the only benefit to saying you use Power Level is to signal to other casual players that you want to play casually without having to (somehow) shame yourself by stating that openly.
Here's a basic example to illustrate my point:
Starting Premise: Player A(dam) and Player B(ob) are preparing for a game. Adam does not care about optimization but is interested in having a fun game. Both players agree to use the points system, in a 1000 point game. Adam puts together an army from the cool stuff in his box, based on what he likes. It turns out that his total is 1024 after adding everything up. He asks Bob if this is okay. (For the sake of argument, let's assume that Adam is unwilling to change his list in any way, as it is aesthetically perfect in his mind).
Outcome 1: If Bob says it's okay (perhaps with an allowance of his own to exceed the limit), then they play their game and everything is fine. No drawback to the points system here.
Outcome 2a: If Bob says it's not okay because he believes strongly in granular valuation of unit and upgrade options within strict limits, then it is highly likely that Bob will be fundamentally opposed to Power Level, as it erases granularity of unit/upgrade options and does not have strict limits. So switching to PL does not fix this outcome, and we must conclude that the impasse is the result of conflicting player ideology.
Outcome 2b: If Bob says it's not okay because he feels that the present army matchup is not fair and/or fun, then even if changing systems resulted in identical PL for both sides, Bob would still dispute the game because nothing about the lists has changed (so his conclusion about the matchup will be the same). Again, the impasse is the result of conflicting player ideology.
Outcome 7d: As they’re playing with the Open War cards Bob says it’s just fine because he gets the Ruse card.
Outcome 12f: Both players just brought a pile of stuff and wants to see whose force is ‘stronger’ and should play the attacker in their scenario. It ends up with Bob defending and he’s totally fine with that.
Outcome 21z: Bob decides PL isn’t for him, realises his mindset is wrong for PL, and breaks the ever-shifting analogy. Poor Bob.
People should at least try to understand the purpose and uses of PL before disingenuously arguing against them. ;-)
Also, while the PL system might not inherently promote or reward non-optimisation, it may be the case that it is inherently more attractive to players who don't care about optimisation and prefer other elements of the system over points.
Xca|iber wrote: If you choose a so-called "subpar" upgrade (from the perspective of the meta) for any reason, the Points System will usually compensate you with a discount on your overall army cost
Xca|iber wrote: If you choose a so-called "subpar" upgrade (from the perspective of the meta) for any reason, the Points System will usually compensate you with a discount on your overall army cost
That's a very diplomatic "usually".
Can you argue that it doesn't happen enough? I'd like to see that.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. If you don't care about optimization like you claim, you will still pay for the worse weapon because you like the look of it or something stupid like that. That has been the basic premise throughout several editions. You pay for what you get.
Except with GW pricing, you rarely ever get what you pay for, it's usually more or less, rarely even. And if something is free, are you truly paying for it?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 2. This still means that you would pay less points for said weapon though, so at least you're getting what you paid for. In this particular example, three Heavy Bolters per Grav Cannon creates a reason and niche for the Heavy Bolter to exist.
Possibly, possibly not. Grav Cannons work better against Heavy Infantry while Heavy Bolters work better against Light Infantry. Value is not always measured in just points.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 3. Making them all the same cost, then, creates no point. If someone doesn't care about optimization, they won't do the math. So someone liking the Heavy Bolter still might not care.
Or deals with far more Light Infantry than Heavy Infantry, increasing its value to said person. Or maybe they are just very traditionalist and don't like all this new-fangled tech.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 4. Someone will come along that likes the look of Grav Cannons to Heavy Bolters, and then starts to use them on all their Devastators, Sternguard, and Centurions, because they think the concept is cool.
5. Ergo this shows the flaw with your entire logic. This person built a stronger army by default because of the fact they liked the look of the weapon more, when it is in fact a better weapon using 1-on-1 comparisons.
Stronger is a relative term. Value is dependent on the situation, not always on the market. Water is worth kingdoms to a man stranded in a desert, but is a threat to one alone in the middle of the Pacific. Metas determine what is strongest by what is generally taken. Even then, both can be useful no matter what you play against so long as they are placed and targeted properly.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 6. So I'd say the player is not compatible with you, even though they took the same steps to build their army like you. You won't have fun in a game where someone acts just like you and they slap your army around like it is nothing.
They may actually be quite compatible if they are playing the same as him. Even in a slap-around game, one can always learn something, and it is a better use of time then getting stoned or drunk. Here is where your premise slips up, because you are trying to present someone of opposite building intent to be playing the same variant of the game, while they are not. Would you compare the list building strategies between Kill Team and Horus Heresy next, or should we bring AoS in to this?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So basically your whole premise is actually the "you're playing the game wrong" you're accusing Perigrine of acting like.
Nope. He's presenting playing the game differently than you, while you and Peregrine have stated that he's playing the game wrong.
1. That's assuming all point costs are wrong, whereas it's only a few weapons that are really off, and you can't argue against that.
Also you DO pay for it via opportunity cost. Grav Cannons and Heavy Bolters take up the same amount of spaces in Marine infantry units. However, the Grav Cannon being 18 points more expensive means you can fit 2 more Heavy Bolters in for the price. 3 Heavy Bolters vs 1 Grav Cannon. It adds up over time.
2. Have you actually looked at how Grav works this edition or are you pretending it's exactly the same as last edition? I'm going to let you rethink your sentence about the preferred targets and you can get back to me.
3. Once again, you're saying Grav works like last edition.
Also that's under the assumption everyone thinks the same. However, at least in the granular point system you get 3 Heavy Bolters per Grav Cannon. With the simple opportunity cost, there isn't any compensation. This means PL is a bad system, plain and simple.
4. Once again, when both have the same exact opportunity cost, Grav Cannons are much stronger.
Please. Read. The. Weapon. Entries. Have you looked at them at all this edition?
5. They aren't compatible though, because both players are doing the same exact army composition in terms of units. However, the moment Grav Cannons are taken over every Heavy Bolter where possible makes the army supremely stronger.
That's the kicker. In the regular point system, you wouldn't be able to create the same exact army except replacing Heavy Bolters with Grav Cannons. In PL you can. It's therefore a broken system.
6. No, he's simply defending GWs poor system they created. My thought exercise with Heavy Bolters vs Grav Cannons would've proved that except you didn't read the weapon entries and you think Grav works exactly like it did in 7th.
Even where the points are off (which is common enough), they're typically closer than Power Levels. Wargear that typically does more typically costs more points. That is consistent enough.
Power Levels are less fine-grained for less competitive games. Playing it competitively requires a very different optimization than playing Points competitively, but most people who play Power Levels aren't looking to play competitively.
Consider the Harlequin:
-In Points games, competitive or otherwise, Fusion Pistol vs Shuriken Pistol is a valid choice; pay more to get more.
-In Power Level competitive games, Fusion Pistol is a direct upgrade; your list is better if you take it.
-In Power Level noncompetitive games, Fusion Pistol vs Shuriken Pistol is a valid choice; do you like the idea of toting a Fusion Pistol around on that model?
I think, if you look across the board, competitive Points games simply outclass competitive Power Level games as far as balance is concerned.
I personally prefer Points for noncompetitive games, but this relative balance problem is out of scope for Points vs Power Level in the scenarios you might play Power Level.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for what the rules should be:
I *want* there to be "more powerful for more points" options. One Captain could be a leader first with just a chainsword and boltgun; another could be a tooled out ThunderHammer/Stormshield Smash Captain that leads from the front.
Points allow us to pick between "Awesome weapon that does stuff" and "Super awesome weapon that does more stuff, but costs more points". Power level doesn't allow for that distinction.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. That's assuming all point costs are wrong, whereas it's only a few weapons that are really off, and you can't argue against that.
Also you DO pay for it via opportunity cost. Grav Cannons and Heavy Bolters take up the same amount of spaces in Marine infantry units. However, the Grav Cannon being 18 points more expensive means you can fit 2 more Heavy Bolters in for the price. 3 Heavy Bolters vs 1 Grav Cannon. It adds up over time.
Considering the complaints about imbalance, and the effective reduction of costs of numerous aspects of some codices (see aforementioned Chaos Army), and desirability assigned not to the absolute power of equipment, but shared with its opportunity costs as well, and how something is fine for one army while over-costed in another, it is safe to assume that at every point the majority of pricing is off in one direction or another. And I can argue against that because it is a historical issue with the Warhammer games. Even going by the assumption that one army has its points 100% right, that leaves the rest of them as being off in cost. The closest this happens is in a system reset like 3rd or 8th where everyone's pricing is set at the same time, but even then it is off. With every new codex or CA with points adjustment, it swings everyone from one direction to another.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 2. Have you actually looked at how Grav works this edition or are you pretending it's exactly the same as last edition? I'm going to let you rethink your sentence about the preferred targets and you can get back to me.
3. Once again, you're saying Grav works like last edition.
Also that's under the assumption everyone thinks the same. However, at least in the granular point system you get 3 Heavy Bolters per Grav Cannon. With the simple opportunity cost, there isn't any compensation. This means PL is a bad system, plain and simple.
4. Once again, when both have the same exact opportunity cost, Grav Cannons are much stronger.
Please. Read. The. Weapon. Entries. Have you looked at them at all this edition?
I'm presenting it as I remember, true, because I don't have access to codices any more. However, the concept stands on its own merits as value is still situational and not always on a purely RAW strength concept.
But I guess you are too busy or up-tight to bother providing an example as to HOW one is always stronger than another. A Lascannon will obliterate one average Infantry model, but it can't obliterate more than one at a time, ever. Conversely, the Heavy Bolter can smash more than one average Infantry model, though the odds vary on the target. Last I remember, Grav Cannons worked well against high armor, care to elucidate or are you going to try to be obtusely superior?
Then let us consider how Power Fists and Power Swords used to work. Power Fists gave high strength hits and ignored armor, but cost more while sacrificing the ability to strike first. Power Swords ignored armor while not sacrificing the chance to strike first, but still cost less. Power Fists worked better against Vehicles or against targets that will already hit last, but less effective against duelers who were able to strike at their Initiative. Power Swords gave the opportunity to eliminate the Power Fist user before they were even able to swing, but only marginally effective against lighter Vehicles yet still cost less. Now Initiative doesn't matter, which actually makes the higher price of a Power Fist a consideration in every environment, not just in extremis. Was the pricing only recently corrected, or is that just another silly thing in my imagination?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 5. They aren't compatible though, because both players are doing the same exact army composition in terms of units. However, the moment Grav Cannons are taken over every Heavy Bolter where possible makes the army supremely stronger.
That's the kicker. In the regular point system, you wouldn't be able to create the same exact army except replacing Heavy Bolters with Grav Cannons. In PL you can. It's therefore a broken system.
No, it is a different system, not a broken system. You can create the same army, but it just requires a change in points level (which is not cheating, btw), which is going to happen either way since 100 points will net you almost nothing to field.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 6. No, he's simply defending GWs poor system they created. My thought exercise with Heavy Bolters vs Grav Cannons would've proved that except you didn't read the weapon entries and you think Grav works exactly like it did in 7th.
That is a mind-reading assumption or you are indirectly calling him a liar.
You think it is poor because you don't like the granularity. He likes it because that granularity is no longer getting in the way of quickly plopping models on the table.
You show up with carefully planned lists finely-tuned prepared to call someone who doesn't do the same a cheater. He shows up with his collection looking for a game and is willing to forgo such tuning in order to get the game going quickly.
All your thought exercise does is demonstrate that you are a close-minded individual that cannot even comprehend that someone would like to play the game differently than you. As a side experiment, did you ever have or use the Battle Missions book that came out during 5th Edition? It included missions like Kill Team (2nd version), Linebreaker, and Clash of Heroes, and army missions focused on their different objectives. My guess is that was completely rejected by your meta, and depending on your experience, you may not have even heard of it.
I prefer power level but rarely get to play it as people insist on points. With power level you get more interesting games imo. like instead of 3 sets of 5 space marines in a tac squad with no special weapon and a sarg that has a chainsword we get real weapons options on the table liek a melta squad, a plasma squad and a missile squad and each sarg has a proper power weapon.
power level leads to some really fun open war games where you do not know the scenario before hand and so build pretty evenly powered lists with a large variety of gear and rules.
G00fySmiley wrote: I prefer power level but rarely get to play it as people insist on points. With power level you get more interesting games imo. like instead of 3 sets of 5 space marines in a tac squad with no special weapon and a sarg that has a chainsword we get real weapons options on the table liek a melta squad, a plasma squad and a missile squad and each sarg has a proper power weapon.
power level leads to some really fun open war games where you do not know the scenario before hand and so build pretty evenly powered lists with a large variety of gear and rules.
And prepear to be told you are wrong and a liar and are actually a power gamer trying to get an advantage by a tiny bird of pray and a fanatic of a pretty poor thrash band. My conclusion is that the fun games you describe are more because people who like power levels are more fun people.
But that's PL vs Points in a vaccum; it works the other way, too.
In a PL game, if you're optimizing, every direct-upgrade is taken. Every single Harlequin has a Fusion Pistol and fancy CC weapon. Every Wave Serpent has CTM, Vector Engines, etc. Every member of a Death Company Vet squad has SS/TH jetpack and whatnot.
Conversely, in a Points game, you might have a Harlequin army where each unit is different, or each model is different. You might have a DC Vet Squad with a mix of weapons.
Even your Tac suggestion; in PL game, all 3 units will be identical. Sarge will always have a CombiPlas. One guy in each squad will have a Lascannon, and 3 squaddies. In Points, not every Sarge will have a CombiPlas. One squad might have a Lascannon, another might have a Plasma Gun, and a third might not have any.
Optimised PL will see *less* variance than optimized Points, as there's less distinction between wargear choices. Points allow the Power Sword and Relic Blade, for instance, to each have a place. In Power Level, there's no actual choice.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To be clear, I don't have a problem with wanting to play PL. Or that it works out to be more fun for you. Or what lists you tend to see in PL games.
I just disagree with your assessment of *why* you see those lists.
Specifically, I think you see the lists you enjoy more there, because people who are willing to play PL games tend to be more likely to want to play those style of lists. And those lists are more likely to have a fun time in PL games.
G00fySmiley wrote: I prefer power level but rarely get to play it as people insist on points. With power level you get more interesting games imo. like instead of 3 sets of 5 space marines in a tac squad with no special weapon and a sarg that has a chainsword we get real weapons options on the table liek a melta squad, a plasma squad and a missile squad and each sarg has a proper power weapon.
power level leads to some really fun open war games where you do not know the scenario before hand and so build pretty evenly powered lists with a large variety of gear and rules.
And prepear to be told you are wrong and a liar and are actually a power gamer trying to get an advantage by a tiny bird of pray and a fanatic of a pretty poor thrash band. My conclusion is that the fun games you describe are more because people who like power levels are more fun people.
probably true, though people rarely accuse me of power gaming, i just bring whatever i feel like playing, like showing up to a tournament with maxed out number of tactical marines with varying armaments and weaposn on sargents because i figured nobody would expect it and it would be fun to show off my paint jobs. finished in the middle but had a blast. My fav ork ists are ok now with biker improvements, but in early 8th they were terribad from an efficiency of points standpoint but still fun to run.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. That's assuming all point costs are wrong, whereas it's only a few weapons that are really off, and you can't argue against that.
Also you DO pay for it via opportunity cost. Grav Cannons and Heavy Bolters take up the same amount of spaces in Marine infantry units. However, the Grav Cannon being 18 points more expensive means you can fit 2 more Heavy Bolters in for the price. 3 Heavy Bolters vs 1 Grav Cannon. It adds up over time.
Considering the complaints about imbalance, and the effective reduction of costs of numerous aspects of some codices (see aforementioned Chaos Army), and desirability assigned not to the absolute power of equipment, but shared with its opportunity costs as well, and how something is fine for one army while over-costed in another, it is safe to assume that at every point the majority of pricing is off in one direction or another. And I can argue against that because it is a historical issue with the Warhammer games. Even going by the assumption that one army has its points 100% right, that leaves the rest of them as being off in cost. The closest this happens is in a system reset like 3rd or 8th where everyone's pricing is set at the same time, but even then it is off. With every new codex or CA with points adjustment, it swings everyone from one direction to another.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 2. Have you actually looked at how Grav works this edition or are you pretending it's exactly the same as last edition? I'm going to let you rethink your sentence about the preferred targets and you can get back to me.
3. Once again, you're saying Grav works like last edition.
Also that's under the assumption everyone thinks the same. However, at least in the granular point system you get 3 Heavy Bolters per Grav Cannon. With the simple opportunity cost, there isn't any compensation. This means PL is a bad system, plain and simple.
4. Once again, when both have the same exact opportunity cost, Grav Cannons are much stronger.
Please. Read. The. Weapon. Entries. Have you looked at them at all this edition?
I'm presenting it as I remember, true, because I don't have access to codices any more. However, the concept stands on its own merits as value is still situational and not always on a purely RAW strength concept.
But I guess you are too busy or up-tight to bother providing an example as to HOW one is always stronger than another. A Lascannon will obliterate one average Infantry model, but it can't obliterate more than one at a time, ever. Conversely, the Heavy Bolter can smash more than one average Infantry model, though the odds vary on the target. Last I remember, Grav Cannons worked well against high armor, care to elucidate or are you going to try to be obtusely superior?
Then let us consider how Power Fists and Power Swords used to work. Power Fists gave high strength hits and ignored armor, but cost more while sacrificing the ability to strike first. Power Swords ignored armor while not sacrificing the chance to strike first, but still cost less. Power Fists worked better against Vehicles or against targets that will already hit last, but less effective against duelers who were able to strike at their Initiative. Power Swords gave the opportunity to eliminate the Power Fist user before they were even able to swing, but only marginally effective against lighter Vehicles yet still cost less. Now Initiative doesn't matter, which actually makes the higher price of a Power Fist a consideration in every environment, not just in extremis. Was the pricing only recently corrected, or is that just another silly thing in my imagination?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 5. They aren't compatible though, because both players are doing the same exact army composition in terms of units. However, the moment Grav Cannons are taken over every Heavy Bolter where possible makes the army supremely stronger.
That's the kicker. In the regular point system, you wouldn't be able to create the same exact army except replacing Heavy Bolters with Grav Cannons. In PL you can. It's therefore a broken system.
No, it is a different system, not a broken system. You can create the same army, but it just requires a change in points level (which is not cheating, btw), which is going to happen either way since 100 points will net you almost nothing to field.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 6. No, he's simply defending GWs poor system they created. My thought exercise with Heavy Bolters vs Grav Cannons would've proved that except you didn't read the weapon entries and you think Grav works exactly like it did in 7th.
That is a mind-reading assumption or you are indirectly calling him a liar.
You think it is poor because you don't like the granularity. He likes it because that granularity is no longer getting in the way of quickly plopping models on the table.
You show up with carefully planned lists finely-tuned prepared to call someone who doesn't do the same a cheater. He shows up with his collection looking for a game and is willing to forgo such tuning in order to get the game going quickly.
All your thought exercise does is demonstrate that you are a close-minded individual that cannot even comprehend that someone would like to play the game differently than you. As a side experiment, did you ever have or use the Battle Missions book that came out during 5th Edition? It included missions like Kill Team (2nd version), Linebreaker, and Clash of Heroes, and army missions focused on their different objectives. My guess is that was completely rejected by your meta, and depending on your experience, you may not have even heard of it.
1. Complaints about imbalance are less so after the last Chapter approved (Storm Shields at 2 points being the worst example), but PL doesn't get adjusted. Storm Shields are already free for Deathwatch in that system, because their PL assumes you will take a lot of them. That's why we had that absurd comparison of 2000 point lists for Eldar vs Deathwatch and got a difference of around 40% with the compared PL for those lists.
2. Grav Cannons are a straight 4 shots S5 AP-3, with DD3 against targets with a 3+ save or better.
So if you pay the same opportunity cost and you choose either the Grav Cannon or Heavy Bolter, one is clearly superior.
Also you kinda prove the point if you wanted to compare various Power Weapons. Ignoring Fists for a moment, Power Axes cost a point more than Swords and Mauls. Fists confer more a niche that needs to be filled, and Axes/Swords the rest, with math showing Axes better in more situations to Swords. Mauls are just bad now due to the wounding chart, but that's a different conversation.
3. Actually, you cannot. Like I said, the Grav Cannon is 2 points away from buying three Heavy Bolters. You would not be able to create the same army at all.
4. I'm not calling him a liar. I'm calling him the GW White Knight for defending a lazy system.
Also of course people can play the game differently. That doesn't mean their thoughts are valid when it comes to game theory or balance, and defending a system, using the thought exercise of Grav Cannon vs Heavy Bolter, would simply make no sense to anyone trying to design a game or understand one.
Also of course people can play the game differently. That doesn't mean their thoughts are valid when it comes to game theory or balance, and defending a system, using the thought exercise of Grav Cannon vs Heavy Bolter, would simply make no sense to anyone trying to design a game or understand one.
For the millionth time, game theory, balance or optimisation are not something everyone cares about. Most realise the PL system can be abused by people looking for those things but since the people using PL generally aren't looking to exploit the system, the fact it is exploitable isn't a problem for them. Any time you find yourself making an argument against PL using balance or optimisation reasons you really should just stop. Players advocating for PL aren't concerned about those factors. They are quite literally a non-issue for them. That's not to say they're unaware of the weaknesses of the system, just that they don't care because that particular weakness of the system doesn't create problems for them.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 1. Complaints about imbalance are less so after the last Chapter approved (Storm Shields at 2 points being the worst example), but PL doesn't get adjusted. Storm Shields are already free for Deathwatch in that system, because their PL assumes you will take a lot of them. That's why we had that absurd comparison of 2000 point lists for Eldar vs Deathwatch and got a difference of around 40% with the compared PL for those lists.
FYI, your numbers do little to help understand what you are responding to unless the other person used a numbering system as well.
Being less so, does not mean it has disappeared. In fact, it provides evidence that the pricing system is incredibly off to begin when they swing incredibly from codex to CA adjustment. If they were properly balanced to being with, then such changes would not be needed as any current codex pricing would be designed to be balanced with the Indecies.
Has there been anything official that states, "PL is approximately 40% of the average build of the unit,"? If not, than such a comparison is pointless.
Even more so is the fact that such efficiencies are not the focus of Narrative Games where they are for Matched Play. One might as well say that Narrative Games is playing 40K wrong.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 2. Grav Cannons are a straight 4 shots S5 AP-3, with DD3 against targets with a 3+ save or better.
So if you pay the same opportunity cost and you choose either the Grav Cannon or Heavy Bolter, one is clearly superior.
Thank you for the information that helps establish a proper base to work from.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also you kinda prove the point if you wanted to compare various Power Weapons. Ignoring Fists for a moment, Power Axes cost a point more than Swords and Mauls. Fists confer more a niche that needs to be filled, and Axes/Swords the rest, with math showing Axes better in more situations to Swords. Mauls are just bad now due to the wounding chart, but that's a different conversation.
Actually it is part of the exact same conversation as we are talking about the efficacy of a weapon for its price as a reason for promoting a point system solely. Oddly, enough those three Power Weapons were all priced the same an edition ago, yet had widely differing performances.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 3. Actually, you cannot. Like I said, the Grav Cannon is 2 points away from buying three Heavy Bolters. You would not be able to create the same army at all.
Failure to read does not excuse this statement. Read what I stated to your point #5.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 4. I'm not calling him a liar. I'm calling him the GW White Knight for defending a lazy system.
Also of course people can play the game differently. That doesn't mean their thoughts are valid when it comes to game theory or balance, and defending a system, using the thought exercise of Grav Cannon vs Heavy Bolter, would simply make no sense to anyone trying to design a game or understand one.
He's defending a system he prefers. That doesn't make him a white knight any more than you are for the point system. Of course, he's not going around calling a person a liar, cheater, loser, or TFG for preferring a different system, and that is the biggest differences.
Is it a lazy system? Sure. I don't think anyone justified it as a hard-working system, after all. Warhammer is a lazy game system to begin with. It's meant to be a beer & pretzels game. If you're that hard up on a tight pointing system, than may be 40K is not the game for you, because it sure isn't nor has ever been. Oddly enough, those that are use a PL system because there is no unit customization like 40K has.
I had an army project idea. I decided to tot up how many power level it would be. It took 1m37.
I tried to calculate points, it took 5m58.
I actually made a mistake in both systems (calculation errors for points, simply forgot to list a PL value for one of my units). The PL error was much easier to double check for than the points, which I am still working on. Times don't include error checking :S
Xca|iber wrote: If you choose a so-called "subpar" upgrade (from the perspective of the meta) for any reason, the Points System will usually compensate you with a discount on your overall army cost
That's a very diplomatic "usually".
Can you argue that it doesn't happen enough? I'd like to see that.
I can't really argue for or against that, because there is a lot of leeway in "subpar" even from a meta-perspective, I'm just saying that nailing down that "usually" is very generous when one of the supposedly most common model in the game (the humble Space Marine) suffers from the not-good-but-at-least-not-cheap problem.
Bharring wrote: I think, if you look across the board, competitive Points games simply outclass competitive Power Level games as far as balance is concerned.
That's more of a problem with the weapon/wargear balance than with the concept of the Power Levels system. Ideally, the decision between shuriken pistols and fusion pistols should be meaningful.
nareik wrote: I had an army project idea. I decided to tot up how many power level it would be. It took 1m37.
I tried to calculate points, it took 5m58.
I actually made a mistake in both systems (calculation errors for points, simply forgot to list a PL value for one of my units). The PL error was much easier to double check for than the points, which I am still working on.
Yep. And that's a perfectly fine reason to use PL. It is unquestionably objectively true that it is faster and easier to use.
"using the thought exercise of Grav Cannon vs Heavy Bolter, would simply make no sense to anyone trying to design a game or understand one."
Provably false. Example: Designers of 40k Power Levels.
You can argue that it's stupid. That they shouldn't have. But they clearly did. Your claim assumes PL are bad, and you're using it to prove PL are bad. That's not a solid argument.
"Then they wouldn't look to exploit a better, more granular system either."
Even if true (PL implies a different social construct than Points. So it may not be true.), that still misses the entire point of PL.
"That's more of a problem with the weapon/wargear balance than with the concept of the Power Levels system. Ideally, the decision between shuriken pistols and fusion pistols should be meaningful."
In Points, the decision is already meaningful. It's only in PL that it's not.
One of the things I *want* from 40k is for not everything to have the same value. I want a Space Marine to be worth more than a Fire Warrior (one on one). I want a Relic Blade to be stronger than a Power Sword. And, ideally, I want the *option* to take either the Relic Blade or Power Sword.
In other words, I want to have two different Captain models, that use the same datasheet, but where one is vastly more powerful than the other.
Points enable that by having it cost more points. PL just hand-wave it away. Which is typically fine for a typical PL game - it's usually two guys just throwing what they want on the table. But I want more nuance in my Points game.
To that end, the current construct (if not the finer points values) actually handle that well. We can just throw the stuff on the table (with PL), or we can take a more evenly matched pair of forces and duke it out (points).
Neither system is inherently 'better'. One provides more granularity, more real choice. The other provides less bookkeeping and more freedom.
Yes, the one with more real choice actually has less freedom. Might sound weird, but it shouldn't.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Except it is your problem, because it has the same cost: free.
Free is a literal LACK of cost. Sure, they all cost the same, but that same is literally NOTHING.
1. If you don't care about optimization like you claim, you will still pay for the worse weapon because you like the look of it or something stupid like that. That has been the basic premise throughout several editions. You pay for what you get.
Why am I paying for something I don't care for?
That HAS been the basic premise of several editions. Fortunately, I think 8th is better than those other editions.
Plus, would you say points are perfectly balanced? No? Well, they clearly don't pay for what you get then.
2. This still means that you would pay less points for said weapon though, so at least you're getting what you paid for. In this particular example, three Heavy Bolters per Grav Cannon creates a reason and niche for the Heavy Bolter to exist.
That only creates a reason and niche for someone who only cares about power.
For people with a different mindset, there's plenty of other reasons.
Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
3. Making them all the same cost, then, creates no point. If someone doesn't care about optimization, they won't do the math. So someone liking the Heavy Bolter still might not care.
Only pointless to people who only care for power. There's more to the hobby than that.
4. Someone will come along that likes the look of Grav Cannons to Heavy Bolters, and then starts to use them on all their Devastators, Sternguard, and Centurions, because they think the concept is cool.
Maybe so. Good for them.
5. Ergo this shows the flaw with your entire logic. This person built a stronger army by default because of the fact they liked the look of the weapon more, when it is in fact a better weapon using 1-on-1 comparisons.
"Stronger" is a matter of opinion. If they and their opponent both enjoy the game they're having, is the difference in "power" as you see it, really an issue?
6. So I'd say the player is not compatible with you, even though they took the same steps to build their army like you. You won't have fun in a game where someone acts just like you and they slap your army around like it is nothing.
I disagree. I think the real factor would be intent. If someone went in with the intent of going in like I do, then I think I'd enjoy that game regardless if I won or lost - because their intent matches with mine.
I think you're assuming that I can't enjoy a game I "get slapped around" in. I beg to differ.
So basically your whole premise is actually the "you're playing the game wrong" you're accusing Perigrine of acting like.
Where have I said anything of the sort?
I've consistently said "if you want to play that way, you're well within your power and rights to do so". I've never said there's a right and wrong way to play - only ways that I prefer, and ways that other people do.
Unfortunately, it's not so much a case of "accusing" Peregrine. It's a case of pointing out exactly what he's doing, in writing.
Xca|iber wrote:I'm still not sold on the idea that PL promotes or rewards non-optimization.
If you choose a so-called "subpar" upgrade (from the perspective of the meta) for any reason, the Points System will usually compensate you with a discount on your overall army cost - offering an advantage, of sorts. Perhaps not an equal advantage compared to the disadvantage of giving up the meta option, but you're still getting something at least. Although optimization is not the goal per se, this kind of compensation makes it easier for two players working together to evaluate whether their match will be balanced.
However, the optimising meta of the points system isn't the same kind of optimisation meta as PL would have.
In points, the meta is to pick something with the best power in relation to it's cost. In this respect, the PL metas and points metas would look very different.
The Power Level system does not do this.
In instances where this is not the case (for example, wanting to take a power sword on a sergeant when the meta call is to take no upgrades), there are two possible outcomes, which may overlap:
1) The discount received from forfeiting more-expensive meta options pays for the forfeiture of less-expensive meta options. Thus, everything is fine.
This isn't reliable.
2) The extra cost places the list over the agreed limit. However, if optimization is not important, it is trivial either to remove a handful of infantry models to bring the list under the limit OR simply play a little bit over the limit with your opponent's permission. Since agreement and discussion are also central to the adequate functioning of the PL system, this does not constitute any additional burden as part of the points system.
In PL, the player doesn't need to compromise for aesthetic or non-meta upgrades, and relying on opponent's permission to go over points has been shown by some people participating in this thread to be "cheating".
If a player is unwilling to remove things from their list and their opponent will not allow any excess on the agreed limit (or increase the agreed limit), and the first player feels that the result is an undue burden upon their side of the game, what you have is not a failure of the points system (or any valuation system), but a failure of the two players to agree on what constitutes a balanced match. This is no different from two PL-system players having a dispute because one player feels the other one is abusing the system (by min/maxing meta upgrades for free, for example). Fundamentally, it boils down to a belief by one player that a game will not be enjoyable based on the comparison of the two armies presented. Again, this is not a failure of the value system.
If I'm honest, most issues about PL are not really issues with the system. Some people like it, some people don't - and some people are incapable of letting other people like what they like.
Points aren't inherently an issue, but oftentimes, the attitude they inspire is - optimisation, power-over-aesthetic. On the other hand, PL creates an attitude to me that feels more relaxed. I won't pretend that's universal, but it very much is proof that different game modes bring out different feelings.
Power Level does not fix this. If anything, the only benefit to saying you use Power Level is to signal to other casual players that you want to play casually without having to (somehow) shame yourself by stating that openly.
And this is more mindreading. PL doesn't HAVE to be casual. Points don't HAVE to be optimised. However, it would be wrong to pretend that certain groups don't prefer certain gamemodes.
Xca|iber wrote: If you choose a so-called "subpar" upgrade (from the perspective of the meta) for any reason, the Points System will usually compensate you with a discount on your overall army cost
That's a very diplomatic "usually".
Can you argue that it doesn't happen enough? I'd like to see that.
Could anyone prove it happens enough that it defends taking aesthetic choices?
Bharring wrote: "That's more of a problem with the weapon/wargear balance than with the concept of the Power Levels system. Ideally, the decision between shuriken pistols and fusion pistols should be meaningful."
In Points, the decision is already meaningful. It's only in PL that it's not.
I'm not really counting the "oh it is crap, but at least free crap" as a meaningful decision-making process.
Bharring wrote: One of the things I *want* from 40k is for not everything to have the same value. I want a Space Marine to be worth more than a Fire Warrior (one on one). I want a Relic Blade to be stronger than a Power Sword. And, ideally, I want the *option* to take either the Relic Blade or Power Sword.
You can have all these with Power Levels too. Space Marines would be already twice the cost of Fire Warriors (the base units are PR 5 for 5 SMs vs PR 2 for 4 FWs), and the Relic Blade could be a Power Rating +1 option if you want it to be so powerful, or simply replace both the master-crafted boltgun and the power weapon for no PR increase (as losing the ranged weapon makes up for the stronger-than-average melee weapon). It is no big deal.
" Relic Blade could be a Power Rating +1 option"
But then we add the "Moderate Relic Blade". To be fair, it's got to be more than a Power Sword, but less than a Relic Blade. So PR+0.5 option?
It depends on how granular you want to be. Points do this much more granularly, which I, personally, like - even in casual games.
"It is no big deal."
Typically. Which is why PL games work. I think Points work a little better, in that they quantify many such "no big deals" to balance them out in a nice reasonable-ish number.
I get the impression, Ato/Smudge/Crimson/Char/etc, you'd be fun to play against with points *or* PL.
"I'm not really counting the 'oh it is crap, but at least free crap. as a meaningful decision-making process. "
I don't consider Shuriken Pistols crap. They have their place. I consider Fusion Pistols to be *stronger*, because they are. I consider them anti-hard-target weapons. Shuriken Pistols are more anti-light-target. One thing 40k does well is that a Melta Gun is quite likely to fry a Guardsman - as it should be. And that it's ROF isn't that much lower than things like Boltguns and Lasguns - they just pay more points for that power.
As such, I choose to field as many Fusion Pistols as I'm willing to spend points to give that squad anti-tank firepower. Which is how I like it. So Fusion Pistol vs Shuriken Pistol isn't a "Good vs Crap" option. It's a "Good AT vs reasonable anti-infantry" option. The first is better, per model, vs Infantry, and should be. The second is better, per points, vs Infantry, and should be. A real meaningful choice in the decision-making process.
PL doesn't give that choice. Because it doesn't have that granularity. It doesn't make PL a bad game mode. PL just doesn't account for decisions at that small scale - because it's not big enough a deal. And that's fine, for PL games.
Bharring wrote: " Relic Blade could be a Power Rating +1 option"
But then we add the "Moderate Relic Blade". To be fair, it's got to be more than a Power Sword, but less than a Relic Blade. So PR+0.5 option?
That's probably your "replaces both the melee and the ranged weapon" option. This is the beauty of Power Levels: you can't just handwave balance away with juggling around some random point values. You gotta make every option meaningful in some way, and the system makes it clear when you are doing that wrong.
Bharring wrote: So Fusion Pistol vs Shuriken Pistol isn't a "Good vs Crap" option. It's a "Good AT vs reasonable anti-infantry" option.
That's the Power Level way of thinking. Currently, as per the Points System, fusion pistols are, actually, better at everything because they are expensive, so "it is okay". If we had Power Levels, there should have been a choice: do you go with the shuriken pistol that can do pewpewpew (something it can't do now because it is your "cheap and crap" option) or do you go with the fusion pistol that does PEW? Are you more of a guy for high potential and low damage (via higher RoF and range) or low potential and high damage (via lower RoF and range)?
" This is the beauty of Power Levels: you can't just handwave balance away with juggling around some random point values. You gotta make every option meaningful in some way, and the system makes it clear when you are doing that wrong."
You're asserting that one of the strengths of Power Levels is that it forces all options to be of equal value; I'm asserting that one of the strengths of Points is that it allows different options to have different values.
I don't agree that all options should be equally powerful. I *want* to have minor variations on the power of a unit based on upgrades taken. I want a Plasma Pistol to be simply better than a Bolt Pistol per-item. I want to have two different Tac squads on the table, with the same number of men, but with different total points in equipment. I want there to be stronger and weaker options (but with points costs to balance them out).
Basically, I want properties of this game to be what you want removed. Unfortunately, our visions of what we want this game to be actually *are* mutually exclusive.
I view 'Points' vs 'Power Levels' differently than you, I think. You see PL as "Balance each choice such that they're worth the same PL". I see PL as "The points difference in the upgrades doesn't really matter, let's just play a game".
So, while we both see PL as a valid way to play, we clearly have a different view on what PL actually is.
"Maybe, I may not provide a challenging game, but I also try not to be cruel, whiny, or obnoxious when I do."
When I started playing, two of the regulars who were always up for a game were very different: one always lost, but was never fun to play. The other always won, but was always fun to play.
Winning/losing isn't what makes a game fun/unfun for some people.
It's a shame it isn't a PEW vs pewpewpew decision for PL, but I lump it in the same category as 'free optional upgrades' that exist under the points system, eg attack squigs, tank buster bombs for every tenth boy, etc.
Bharring wrote:"Maybe, I may not provide a challenging game, but I also try not to be cruel, whiny, or obnoxious when I do."
When I started playing, two of the regulars who were always up for a game were very different: one always lost, but was never fun to play. The other always won, but was always fun to play.
Winning/losing isn't what makes a game fun/unfun for some people.
Which is why I just said, "challenging," rather than being a push over or a dominator. Some like a challenging game, some don't. My actual tabletop time is incredibly low due to building, painting, and crap personal networking, so I can't even guarantee an interesting one.
Of course, right now I couldn't provide a 40K game with any of my models since they've been long sold off due to GWFAQ decisions. I'm interested in restarting because of the absolutely huge Warhammer metas I have locally, and it's easier to build and paint Warhammer than Warmachine.
Its funny that I am subscribed to several GW store facebook groups (cities within a couple hours from me) and all of them have open 40k days and they all advertise power level, and I never see any rage in the comments, only constructive and encouraging posts for the most part.
auticus wrote: Its funny that I am subscribed to several GW store facebook groups (cities within a couple hours from me) and all of them have open 40k days and they all advertise power level, and I never see any rage in the comments, only constructive and encouraging posts for the most part.
Are you honestly surprised that a store's official facebook page only has positive things about that store's activities?
auticus wrote: Its funny that I am subscribed to several GW store facebook groups (cities within a couple hours from me) and all of them have open 40k days and they all advertise power level, and I never see any rage in the comments, only constructive and encouraging posts for the most part.
Are you honestly surprised that a store's official facebook page only has positive things about that store's activities?
Ah yes, because the idea that there may be large groups of people out there who genuinely like PL and manage to use them just fine can't possibly be true, can it? /s
auticus wrote: Its funny that I am subscribed to several GW store facebook groups (cities within a couple hours from me) and all of them have open 40k days and they all advertise power level, and I never see any rage in the comments, only constructive and encouraging posts for the most part.
Are you honestly surprised that a store's official facebook page only has positive things about that store's activities?
In my experience, most of the people who subscribe to the media outlets of local stores are the regulars who are nearly always in there. They're not being forced to say good things, they mean what they say.
But that ruins your view that no real people like PL, so it must be fake, right?
Anyways, I find that GW stores tend to prefer PL to Points because they generally have more newbies and/or "casual" players (as in "not concerned with building a great list") than most FLGS which is where you tend to find the more competitive people because the FLGS is often where you find the monthly ITC tournaments. I know that seems to be the case in my area. The Warhammer store is MUCH more laid back and relaxed than the independent game store(s), and it's rare to see one of the competitive players go there; it's usually the newbies, collector and painter types (who go to show off their latest masterpiece), and the ones who just want a friendly low-key game once in a while in a clean and relaxed atmosphere versus what is often a dirtier, older game store that has a lot of stereotypical neckbeards.
So it comes as no surprise that a GW store tends to have more laid back people who aren't going to rant about how PL is terrible, but really just want a place to hang out sometimes, buy things, show off their cool models and occasionally get a game in.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: In my experience, most of the people who subscribe to the media outlets of local stores are the regulars who are nearly always in there. They're not being forced to say good things, they mean what they say.
But that ruins your view that no real people like PL, so it must be fake, right?
I'm not sure how you think you're disagreeing with me here. The fact that a store's official page has the regulars is exactly my point! In the US, where independent game stores are all over the place, GW stores are a low-tier option. Compared to a decent independent store they have higher prices, much less table space, a much smaller range of products, and are open for much more limited hours. So, aside from the local kids (whose opinions on game design don't count), the majority of people at a GW store are going to be the hardcore GW loyalists and white knights who love everything GW does. If the local store is doing PL then PL is the best thing ever and the store is 110% right. Meanwhile the people with a more critical view of GW and 40k and more willingness to point out their flaws aren't going to sacrifice their game experience for the privilege of playing at the Official GW Store. They're going to go to one of the independent stores and probably never even look at the GW store's page.
In short, even if the GW store is not actively deleting criticism the filtering aspect of being a GW store is going to result in a strong pro-GW bias.
It's a fairly simple concept - Power Level isn't designed for competitive play*, only to help players get a rough approximation for a battle. It's the only way I and my local group play, as it's all narrative campaigns and such.
* neither are points, really; a lascannon is nearly useless if you are fighting a horde of 1000 gaunts; and it is invaluable when fighting an army of tanks. Perhaps in the future when army lists are app-only and the the points values can change appropriately depending on what opponent you are fighting...
Sgt_Smudge wrote: In my experience, most of the people who subscribe to the media outlets of local stores are the regulars who are nearly always in there. They're not being forced to say good things, they mean what they say.
But that ruins your view that no real people like PL, so it must be fake, right?
I'm not sure how you think you're disagreeing with me here. The fact that a store's official page has the regulars is exactly my point! In the US, where independent game stores are all over the place, GW stores are a low-tier option.
I'm from the UK. Clearly, your opinions may apply to the US, but in the UK, it appears to be quite different. I'm not saying your observations are invalid or false, but they're US-centric. Mine are UK-centric, and in the UK, it's not uncommon for people to prefer their local GW than an independent retailer. What I'm saying is that, yes, in your experience, the people who prefer going to GW might be minority, but in the UK, it's the other way around, and supporting the store on social media is often done by "normal" people.
Compared to a decent independent store they have higher prices, much less table space, a much smaller range of products, and are open for much more limited hours.
I live near Warhammer World. Table space, range of products, and opening/closing hours aren't really an issue. Plus, a bar in the next room. As I said again, that's in your experience, but mine is very different. Both are valid.
So, aside from the local kids (whose opinions on game design don't count),
Why not? That's gatekeeping. I don't care how old, young, new or experienced they are, if someone feels like they enjoy something or don't enjoy it, they have every right to feel that way. You can't turn around and say "well, you're young, so I'm going to dismiss that you like this".
Besides, in my experience, it was often the kids who were the most competitive and meta-chasing. The older players were far more up for casual gaming, and more of a chat while pushing models around.
the majority of people at a GW store are going to be the hardcore GW loyalists and white knights who love everything GW does.
Probably because they prefer GW to everyone else? Sorry, is that something they aren't supposed to do?
You're using "white knight" as someone who simply prefers GW over other people, simply because you can't understand how someone could prefer GW over someone else. The fact you feel you have to brand them with a semi-insulting label is proof of this.
If the local store is doing PL then PL is the best thing ever and the store is 110% right. Meanwhile the people with a more critical view of GW and 40k and more willingness to point out their flaws aren't going to sacrifice their game experience for the privilege of playing at the Official GW Store.
Critical doesn't mean better, especially if your idea of "critique" is "my way is the best way ever and you're stupid if you can't see that".
You can critique PL as much as you like, Peregrine, but you can't argue with the fact that some people simply prefer it for their own reasons.
They're going to go to one of the independent stores and probably never even look at the GW store's page.
Good for them. However, I think that you're being incredibly dismissive and narrow-minded by assuming that the people who go to GW stores are people who only go their because they care about "privilege", and that they only play PL because they're sheeple who aren't willing to point out flaws they simply might not believe in.
Some people simply prefer playing PL. What about that is so hard to understand? Why do you feel this compulsive need to brand them some kind of "White Knight" or "proving their casualness" when they just prefer a different game system to you?
In short, even if the GW store is not actively deleting criticism the filtering aspect of being a GW store is going to result in a strong pro-GW bias.
And are you saying that their opinions still aren't valid? They go a different store than you - boo hoo. They're still people with opinions, likes, dislikes, and I think it's far more likely that, instead of GW brainwashing all these people into liking PL (because they're all White Knights who do anything GW tell them), they like going to GW because they enjoy what GW do.
You go to your FLGS because you prefer it - how is that any different? You value certain things from your hobby experience, good for you. Some people value other things, and for them, GW stores fulfill that. What's so hard about people preferring something else that you feel you need to brand them a "White Knight"?
Are you honestly surprised that a store's official facebook page only has positive things about that store's activities?
There are approximately three places on the internet I ever read deep anger against PL.
Here from a couple posters.
BOLS from a couple posters.
One of the primary 40k facebook groups, of which a handful of tournament posters will rally against it.
The thread that binds all three are:
The number of people that hate PL is a very small number.
The people that hate PL also tend to be primarily competitive in nature and usually tournament-oriented.
narrative system and narrative players should be demanding better, not that narrative gaming is without merit and you shouldn't do it.
