But the example given didn't involve any kind of community, it was a parent teaching their kids the game. And have never seen anyone raging about HOW DARE YOU NOT PLAY A FULL OFFICIAL GAME OF WARHAMMER 40K when a parent puts a couple of basic infantry squads on the table and ignores stratagems/chapter rules/etc. Maybe it happened but there's no way it was anything more than an occasional idiot that nobody likes.
Respectfully, consider the bigger picture your specific example touches on. Welcome to the Internet - that kind of stuff is sadly more common than you realise. There is a large section of the community for whom unless it's 2000pts bleeding edge tourney matched play it's not legit and those who want to play differently get actively shamed. Whether its directly stated or simply a dog whistle. I have seen snide comments in real life echoing this. And frankly it's not a good look. You can say its an 'occasional idiot' and you might be right, but that one individual is also enough to poison people's perception of the hobby.
So, just to clarify here: are we talking about WAAC as in "making good choices in the list-building part of the game with the intent to win" or WAAC as in "rules lawyering, moving an extra inch because you can get away with it, etc"?
Heh of course - Waac is the dodgy stuff. That stuff ain't cool - ever. Please note though, I am also talking about 'competitive-at-all-costs'. Technically just because somethimg is 'within the rules' doesn't necessarily mean it's OK either. :p and I can reference plenty real life things of perfectly reprehensible things that were 'legal and within the rules'. No doubt, you can to. An over reliance on an ultra-competitive playstyle and community contributed massively to warmachine/hordes' implosion back at the start of mk3.
'Good choices in the list-building part of the game with the intent to win' sounds perfectly legit and in some cases it absolutely is. context is key. That said its cost can be high - like when that desire leads to a hypothetical 97% of the games options and builds being unexplored and deemed 'unplayable'? List building with an eye to 'relative' power opens more doors imo than focusing on 'absolute' power exclusively. And How 'good enough' are we talking about? 'Intent to win' can cover lots of shady stuff. There's consequences, even from perfectly 'legal' and technically legitimate approaches to list building that can have extremely negative effects on the greater community health and game health down the line. It might be only some circumstances and it might be many that are affected. Imo the consequences mean its not always worth it.
That said, my point wasn't to call you out or anything - you're making a fundamentally decent point. I am simply trying to illustrate its a murky grey area. I mean, what happens when you (hypothetical 'you') take your bleeding edge tourney list against some kid with a put together list or a returning-from-a-ten-year hiatus veteran whose list is nowhere near the same level. Or yes, even someone whose codex isn't one of the current crop of top builds (brcause hey its gw and the balance is terrible). They can't play at the same level. Another one - as a narrative player me and my group don't play list-building--for-advantage. List building is a collaborative effort, its a function of the overall scenario, with an eye on the narrative and the historic 'look' of armies, rather than a strategic expression of each players desire to out think each other and win. Its not about 'better' armies its about matching them.
Like i said, just because you're (hypothetical, not 'you') not a bad person does not mean you're not the villain ruining someone else's hobby from their perspective. You're not necessarily wrong in your approach (and if it works for you and yours - great. Just be conscious of the fact that it wont always be like that); they're not necessarily wrong either.
I don't want to to the extensive bookkeeping of crusade, agendas, etc, I don't want the tight bonds of Matched Play. I actually enjoy using Open rules that Gw has given us, like CA 18's character customization and battle honours. It's similar to crusade but much much less to keep track of.
Karol wrote: that is like writing a screen play for a movie
Congratulations, you have found out what narrative play is
Aint nothing narrative about the core game though.
No, they took all the narrative stuff out with the change to 8th. Blast weapons not hitting a second squad standing base to base with the squad you're targeting is a great example
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Wow, you are doing a great deal of conflating bob. I'm not nearly the E-Jock you are, what with your quote mining but I'll just respond in a boring block of text.
Try getting your names right? I haven't said anything to you.
1. I like the crafting of lists with points. FINE, No ISSUES HERE.
2. It will make everyone ONLY pick the best options to win, and we'll never see anything but the best models. - And to this I ask again, when was the last time you took non-standard BiS wargear on you lists? When did you take Launchers instead of Plasma? When did you choose Chainswords and Laspistols over Powerswords and Plasma Pistols?
I will, however, address this point. You're confusing two separate issues here: the best upgrade from an optimization point of view, and the upgrade with the most powerful stat line. On my IG sergeants I normally take a laspistol and chainsword because they cost zero points and it's usually not worth paying to upgrade a sergeant's weapons. But occasionally I'll have some spare points and decide that sure, I'll invest the points in giving that sergeant a better weapon. There's a reasonable tradeoff there: pay 0 points for a weaker option or pay 5 points for a stronger option. But under PL, where the laspistol and plasma pistol have the same point cost, there is no optimization choice. There is no circumstance whatsoever where the right optimization choice is to take the laspistol, the plasma pistol is strictly better and always the correct choice. By eliminating the design space of "weaker but cheaper" you've significantly cut the range of viable options and reduced equipment selection to identifying the gun with the biggest numbers in the stat line.
You see this exact scenario now that GW made infantry squads cost a flat 60 points regardless of equipment. You used to have debates over whether it was worth paying for certain upgrades, now all of that is gone. Every squad has a vox, every sergeant has a plasma pistol and power sword, etc. And the only people not making those choices are doing it because they are reluctant to convert the models with a new codex coming soon, a codex that will hopefully fix the free stuff problem and go back to the old point costs.
PL isn't WAAC, it's the evolution of a broken an unbalanced system brought about in the olden days of 40k, which like all things from back then, is broken, and no longer worth the effort of fixing every 3 months, to appease the WAAC Chuds.
And this is just plain silly. WAAC players don't want regular point updates, they want a broken system where they can continue to take the best options without having to buy new stuff. The people who want frequent updates are the ones who want a fair and balanced game where the overpowered stuff gets brought in line with everything else.
PenitentJake wrote: I have had to respond to both Cartbarf and you, precisely because you responded to comments I made to CadianSgt and Voss WITHOUT acknowledging the context that they don't want to improve Crusade, they want it gone. And to be fair to both of them, they didn't explicitly say they wanted Crusade gone, so I am paraphrasing them, and many apologies to both of them if they weren't in fact suggesting that Crusade should be cancelled.
You aren't paraphrasing anything, you're lying and building a straw man argument. Crusade with the normal point system and normal matched play rules is still Crusade. It does not need a separate point system to function and removing PL is in no way the same as removing Crusade.
Well thanks for clarifying. The statement you made was this:
"And why does GW even need multiple play modes? Open Play doesn't need to exist at all, and narrative play worked just fine when you had narrative scenarios and campaigns using the matched play rules."
From that statement, I assumed you were advocating for the complete removal of Crusade: "Why does GW need multiple play modes" does seem to imply that. And if you think that reducing Crusade to just "Narrative Scenarios" and "campaigns" is somehow keeping Crusade, from my perspective- and likely, the perspective, of many other Crusade players, it is not.
Allow me to be clear: Points can be used to play Crusade. I would be okay with that, though I personally feel PL is a better fit for me, for reasons I've already explained. Pretty sure I've said this directly to you more than once. If not, I'm saying it now: Crusade can work with points, and if that's all you're advocating for, I can accept that as a totally reasonable suggestion. I'll still prefer PL, but playing with points isn't unreasonable if that's what you and your group want to do.
If you want to add to the existing bespoke Crusade options in dexes as Unit has suggested, I can probably get behind that too. If you want to tweak certain aspects of the Crusade system to make it work better, that's definitely a discussion worth having as well. In both of those cases, I'd have to evaluate the suggestions individually based on their individual merits before I figured out whether or not they would work for me, just as I'd expect you to evaluate any suggestions I made based on their individual merits.
But if you advocate for the full scale removal of the bespoke content from dexes, which is what I assumed you meant when you said "Why does GW need multiple play modes," that's when your suggestion becomes unreasonable to me and other players with the same interests and preferences. I wouldn't expect you to change such an opinion based on my preferences, just as you shouldn't expect me to change my opinion based on your preferences.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: People say "it'd mean everyone would just take the best options" as if that isn't what is already happening. How much actual variation goes on in 40k. Very little in my opinion. You're either playing netlisters with just last week repainted minis to whatever the stock standard hotness is that week, or you have completely new players who just bought their first set of Ork Nobs, and wants to play a "fun" game to try out their investment.
You all act like there are droves of people using Reivers and Land Raiders, or Custodes Wardens. Or Company Commanders with Laspistols instead of command rods. No one is playing this game or investing in it to lose constantly. Everyone in some fashion is trying to win at least. No one is purposefully being a Low Tier God and maining the weakest units for pride. Everyone is using their best units, because they want to win.
When did it become bad to want to win?
I have a company commander with a laspistol who had never had a rod of command, and I play reivers regularly. Does that make me a “low tier god”??
I just play the models I think are cool and that have a good back story. As for winning…. If game is about telling a story then winning and losing don’t matter. But that’s maybe just me.
I don't want to to the extensive bookkeeping of crusade, agendas, etc, I don't want the tight bonds of Matched Play. I actually enjoy using Open rules that Gw has given us, like CA 18's character customization and battle honours. It's similar to crusade but much much less to keep track of.
PenitentJake wrote: From that statement, I assumed you were advocating for the complete removal of Crusade:
You assumed incorrectly. Removing Open Play and the concept of Official™ Play™ Types™ with their own separate fundamental rule systems is what needs to happen. Crusade would remain as an expansion on the normal matched play rules. It would use normal points, normal army construction rules, etc, just like older narrative systems built on their edition's core game. You didn't need a separate Way™ To™ Play™ The™ Game™ with a separate point system to play a Planetary Empires campaign in older editions, you don't need Narrative™ Play™ With™ Power™ Level™ to play Crusade.
I'll still prefer PL, but playing with points isn't unreasonable if that's what you and your group want to do.
What I want is for PL to cease to exist at all. And I'm glad we're in agreement that Crusade would work just fine without it, so there is no obstacle to its removal other than GW being reluctant to admit their idea failed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deadnight wrote: Respectfully, consider the bigger picture your specific example touches on. Welcome to the Internet - that kind of stuff is sadly more common than you realise. There is a large section of the community for whom unless it's 2000pts bleeding edge tourney matched play it's not legit and those who want to play differently get actively shamed. Whether its directly stated or simply a dog whistle. I have seen snide comments in real life echoing this. And frankly it's not a good look. You can say its an 'occasional idiot' and you might be right, but that one individual is also enough to poison people's perception of the hobby.
Maybe I'm just active in better parts of the internet but I have never seen someone criticizing a parent for not playing a full 2000 point game with all official material included when teaching their kid how to play. And yeah, one TFG can ruin the game for someone but that's not a problem you can fix with game rules. Every activity will have a TFG somewhere if you look hard enough, what matters is whether that kind of thing is common.
Please note though, I am also talking about 'competitive-at-all-costs'. Technically just because somethimg is 'within the rules' doesn't necessarily mean it's OK either. :p and I can reference plenty real life things of perfectly reprehensible things that were 'legal and within the rules'.
That's what I mean by rules laywering: technically it's RAW but it's against RAI and only a WAACTFG will try to abuse it.
There's consequences, even from perfectly 'legal' and technically legitimate approaches to list building that can have extremely negative effects on the greater community health and game health down the line. It might be only some circumstances and it might be many that are affected. Imo the consequences mean its not always worth it.
Sure, but now we're getting into different approaches to the game, not "is this WAAC". A player who wants competitive games and a player who wants to play according to their specific narrative will struggle to have balanced and enjoyable games but that's far from "at all costs". It's just an unfortunate incompatibility between reasonable adults. That's why I think it's important to draw a line between actual WAAC behavior with rules laywering, cheating, etc, and people who just enjoy list optimization more than other people. WAAC without "at all costs" is just competitive play.
What are you doing with your games that requires GW to give you official permission that Open™ Play™ is permitted? Would you be unable to run your 200 point solo game if GW didn't tell you it was legal according to the Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™ Open™ Play™ Rules™?
This is the thing I don't get about Open Play as an Official™ Way™ To™ Play™, it's literally just telling you that you are permitted to change the rules if you want to. And that's an obvious fact about how games work. If GW removed all references to it you'd still be able to change the rules when playing with people who also want those changes, just like people have done in all previous editions of 40k. So what is the official Open™ Play™ adding to this situation?
I only use PL now, I'm done with points.
Honest question: why? What is paying zero points for most upgrades doing for you that is so essential?
What are you doing with your games that requires GW to give you official permission that Open™ Play™ is permitted? Would you be unable to run your 200 point solo game if GW didn't tell you it was legal according to the Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™ Open™ Play™ Rules™?
It means they do the work for me.
I don't have to come up with things, I can spend my energy playing the game.
Also, it sounds like you're straight up mocking the way I play the game. Why? That's the whole point of Open, they given me basic rules I can follow without having to read everything like it's a legal contract.
I only use PL now, I'm done with points.
Honest question: why? What is paying zero points for most upgrades doing for you that is so essential?
It's simply a matter of less math, less worry. I don't want to have to recalculate everything every 6 months. I don't want to run longs strings of numbers for each squad. I want the minimum amount of energy spent prepping the game.
He's being needlessly insulting, I believe, but I'm sure he meant to direct it to GW and not you or other players.
Basically, what stops you from doing the same in any edition of any game? I play WHFB 6th, and we don't use the vast majority of books. Me and my friends used 8th edition 40k for a while, but we don't use anything besides the point updates on Battlescribe. We play Infinity, and just use the 20 missions in the ITS book. I've never read any of the other books.
What's most important, besides Infinity, I can tell you the amount of house rules we use.
WHFB, we completely changed sweeping advance, so that it is auto hits instead of killing the entire unit. Any time a weird issue popped up, we fixed it with another rule. Well, since the unit isn't destroyed, what happens next? Well, the unit that advanced now counts as charging into that unit, so they get a bunch of first hits.
Me and my friends implemented a very basic Alternate Activations in 8th because of how tired we were of doing nothing during the enemy's turn, and we'd often let people go over the point limit if it meant for a more fun game.
In Infinity, I'm trying to stat some Admech models to play against my friend.
In exactly zero of these situations do I need permission from Games Workshop. Open Play was a marketing gimmick.
I hope that I don't come across as insulting, or mean in any way. Open Play for marketing does help in that some people might now be open to altering rules, but I imagine most players you would meet in the wild wouldn't do so, so it's one of those rules that means nothing, because the people who use it would do so without the rule anyways (it's your game, do what you want), and the people who wouldn't have done so regardless most likely won't still.
They literally made rules that I can use when I want to play but my mind is tired. And it keeps me (and my roommates, not just solo play) able to play the game.
If I have the energy to play at a store, ya, I'll use whatever the common is, and probably be way out of my depth.
Yeah, the weird part (@PenitentJake) about "NO DON'T REMOVE CRUSADE" is that for people like me, who have been doing narrative for years, Crusade is actively worse than the stuff we used to run.
Write my own rules for Path of the Tanker as Eldar? Sure, when I am participating in a homebrew campaign with a GM. He would probably appreciate my contribution and, after addressing any obvious issues, would let me play my tanks on their Path.
Write my own rules for Path of the Tanker as Eldar in Crusade ? Nope. It's not the GW Approved™ way to play Eldar. There is no "GM" for a Crusade campaign - just a bunch of people on the club webchat. There is no final "Yes or No" except GW, who said no.
GW making "real narrative content" has crippled narrative play, turning it into an unbalanced mess - a race to collect upgrades to make units super powerful and curbstomp the enemy. I appreciate the effort...
...but on top of the actual Core Rules not supporting narrative in the slightest (which we have also talked about before), for me, 9th edition (and 8th before it) has actively harmed my enjoyment of narrative play. It ripped out narrative core mechanics, and replaced them with a progression system that only facilitates GW Approved™ Narratives - or ends up needing houseruled anyways, like your gathering of the Triumph relics.
But you don't need open play to play using just the books was my point. You can do it regardless. They didn't make anything for you, they just said "You can do whatever you want" which you could do regardless.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: But you don't need open play to play using just the books was my point. You can do it regardless. They didn't make anything for you, they just said "You can do whatever you want" which you could do regardless.
They've made a ton of Open play content.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Why am I having to justify how I play the damned game?
Am I doing something wrong?
Does my preferred method of play offend you in some way? If so, apologize and would love an explanation if there are spoons to do so.
I'm using the rules in the books, it's that simple. I don't need to dig through CP or Strats, unless I'm actually running BATTLEFORGED forces. Which isn't freaking mandatory to play the game.
I even use the Core Rules method of terrain sometime, rather than the Advanced terrain rules.
That's still a valid way to play the game. Some days I can't manage any if the Advanced rules (like the terrain keywords, CP/strats, the whole detachment thing).
Blndmage wrote: *jumps up and down*
Huh I guess us Open players are invisible.
I only use PL now, I'm done with points.
And Bob is fine with you no longer playing. It boggles the mind why someone would want another person(whose enjoyment of the game doesn't involve them) to stop playing. They feel that if you do not play the way they want you to, you are lower than them and deserve nothing. What a wonderful person they must be.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: But you don't need open play to play using just the books was my point. You can do it regardless. They didn't make anything for you, they just said "You can do whatever you want" which you could do regardless.
They've made a ton of Open play content.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Why am I having to justify how I play the damned game?
Am I doing something wrong?
Does my preferred method of play offend you in some way? If so, apologize and would love an explanation if there are spoons to do so.
I'm using the rules in the books, it's that simple. I don't need to dig through CP or Strats, unless I'm actually running BATTLEFORGED forces. Which isn't freaking mandatory to play the game.
I even use the Core Rules method of terrain sometime, rather than the Advanced terrain rules.
That's still a valid way to play the game. Some days I can't manage any if the Advanced rules (like the terrain keywords, CP/strats, the whole detachment thing).
There's two main points of confusion I have. Not judgement, or anything like that-just confusion.
1) PL vs. Points. For me, at least, adding 202+38+300+110 and so on isn't meaningfully harder than 10+2+15+6. Especially given easy access to a calculator. The main issue I have building a list is deciding what I want, not the exact points values.
I know you've got major health issues, though not exactly what they are. It just seems odd to me that you'd have to spend more than a minute or two on adding up points, if you already know what you're taking.
2) For Open Play, it seems weird that GW saying "You can ignore rules, or use more basic rules, or anything you like," matters when you can do that among your playgroup with or without "permission" from GW.
I hope this post doesn't cause you any trouble-but I'm legitimately confused, and would appreciate clarity.
I was very calm and not at all asking you to justify yourself when you say you play Open. I don't care that anyone plays how they want. I think having GW say that Open Play is allowed is better than them not saying so, even if it changes nothing. I do not like the idea that I was uncharitable in any way, as all I did was say that it was a marketing thing more than anything else, and that you don't need open play to play that way. I specifically said earlier that I play the way I like, whether or not GW says I can. You don't have to justify how you play, and hell, GW doesn't have to justify Open Play. I was just making a point.
What are you doing with your games that requires GW to give you official permission that Open™ Play™ is permitted? Would you be unable to run your 200 point solo game if GW didn't tell you it was legal according to the Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™ Open™ Play™ Rules™?
It means they do the work for me.
I don't have to come up with things, I can spend my energy playing the game.
Also, it sounds like you're straight up mocking the way I play the game. Why? That's the whole point of Open, they given me basic rules I can follow without having to read everything like it's a legal contract.
I only use PL now, I'm done with points.
Honest question: why? What is paying zero points for most upgrades doing for you that is so essential?
It's simply a matter of less math, less worry. I don't want to have to recalculate everything every 6 months. I don't want to run longs strings of numbers for each squad. I want the minimum amount of energy spent prepping the game.
Use Battlescribe and you won't have to worry about recalculation as much.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: But you don't need open play to play using just the books was my point. You can do it regardless. They didn't make anything for you, they just said "You can do whatever you want" which you could do regardless.
They've made a ton of Open play content.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Why am I having to justify how I play the damned game?
Am I doing something wrong?
Does my preferred method of play offend you in some way? If so, apologize and would love an explanation if there are spoons to do so.
I'm using the rules in the books, it's that simple. I don't need to dig through CP or Strats, unless I'm actually running BATTLEFORGED forces. Which isn't freaking mandatory to play the game.
I even use the Core Rules method of terrain sometime, rather than the Advanced terrain rules.
That's still a valid way to play the game. Some days I can't manage any if the Advanced rules (like the terrain keywords, CP/strats, the whole detachment thing).
There's two main points of confusion I have. Not judgement, or anything like that-just confusion.
1) PL vs. Points. For me, at least, adding 202+38+300+110 and so on isn't meaningfully harder than 10+2+15+6. Especially given easy access to a calculator. The main issue I have building a list is deciding what I want, not the exact points values.
I know you've got major health issues, though not exactly what they are. It just seems odd to me that you'd have to spend more than a minute or two on adding up points, if you already know what you're taking.
2) For Open Play, it seems weird that GW saying "You can ignore rules, or use more basic rules, or anything you like," matters when you can do that among your playgroup with or without "permission" from GW.
I hope this post doesn't cause you any trouble-but I'm legitimately confused, and would appreciate clarity.
1) I play the game with kids sometimes. PL is really less energy intensive, I don't need to flip pages, it's right there, easy peasy. I don't care about the points per kill of whatever. Points change constantly, the Power Ratings update much less frequently.
I'm in constant pain.
I can't keep solid focus too long.
There's no solutions for that.
2) sometimes I just want a simple game. I don't want complicated bickering. Hell's I'm still trying to collect the Indexes and use those. It all depends on how much energy I have. I'll play Matched Play 2,000 points, but it'll take me days, if not a week, to recover from.
What are you doing with your games that requires GW to give you official permission that Open™ Play™ is permitted? Would you be unable to run your 200 point solo game if GW didn't tell you it was legal according to the Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™ Open™ Play™ Rules™?
It means they do the work for me.
I don't have to come up with things, I can spend my energy playing the game.
Also, it sounds like you're straight up mocking the way I play the game. Why? That's the whole point of Open, they given me basic rules I can follow without having to read everything like it's a legal contract.
I only use PL now, I'm done with points.
Honest question: why? What is paying zero points for most upgrades doing for you that is so essential?
It's simply a matter of less math, less worry. I don't want to have to recalculate everything every 6 months. I don't want to run longs strings of numbers for each squad. I want the minimum amount of energy spent prepping the game.
Use Battlescribe and you won't have to worry about recalculation as much.
Given Blndmage's situation, I wouldn't be surprised if Battlescribe is not the easiest thing to use.
It's handy as hell for most people, but the GUI is far from the best.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: 1) I play the game with kids sometimes. PL is really less energy intensive, I don't need to flip pages, it's right there, easy peasy. I don't care about the points per kill of whatever. Points change constantly, the Power Ratings update much less frequently.
I'm in constant pain.
I can't keep solid focus too long.
There's no solutions for that.
2) sometimes I just want a simple game. I don't want complicated bickering. Hell's I'm still trying to collect the Indexes and use those. It all depends on how much energy I have. I'll play Matched Play 2,000 points, but it'll take me days, if not a week, to recover from.
To 1), nothing stops you from using the old points. Your game, you do you. Though I definitely agree that the organization SUCKS-and it used to be better, dammit!
I keep up with what's happening. Ie my Necrons and the dataslate.
If I could afford the new books I'd use them. 3rd part products are nice, but not always accessible (visually impaired). Our unnamed eastern European friends have made it way more accessible. But I need time away from screens and the books help.
PenitentJake wrote: From that statement, I assumed you were advocating for the complete removal of Crusade:
You assumed incorrectly. Removing Open Play and the concept of Official™ Play™ Types™ with their own separate fundamental rule systems is what needs to happen. Crusade would remain as an expansion on the normal matched play rules. It would use normal points, normal army construction rules, etc, just like older narrative systems built on their edition's core game. You didn't need a separate Way™ To™ Play™ The™ Game™ with a separate point system to play a Planetary Empires campaign in older editions, you don't need Narrative™ Play™ With™ Power™ Level™ to play Crusade.
I'll still prefer PL, but playing with points isn't unreasonable if that's what you and your group want to do.
What I want is for PL to cease to exist at all. And I'm glad we're in agreement that Crusade would work just fine without it, so there is no obstacle to its removal other than GW being reluctant to admit their idea failed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deadnight wrote: Respectfully, consider the bigger picture your specific example touches on. Welcome to the Internet - that kind of stuff is sadly more common than you realise. There is a large section of the community for whom unless it's 2000pts bleeding edge tourney matched play it's not legit and those who want to play differently get actively shamed. Whether its directly stated or simply a dog whistle. I have seen snide comments in real life echoing this. And frankly it's not a good look. You can say its an 'occasional idiot' and you might be right, but that one individual is also enough to poison people's perception of the hobby.
Maybe I'm just active in better parts of the internet but I have never seen someone criticizing a parent for not playing a full 2000 point game with all official material included when teaching their kid how to play. And yeah, one TFG can ruin the game for someone but that's not a problem you can fix with game rules. Every activity will have a TFG somewhere if you look hard enough, what matters is whether that kind of thing is common.
Please note though, I am also talking about 'competitive-at-all-costs'. Technically just because somethimg is 'within the rules' doesn't necessarily mean it's OK either. :p and I can reference plenty real life things of perfectly reprehensible things that were 'legal and within the rules'.
That's what I mean by rules laywering: technically it's RAW but it's against RAI and only a WAACTFG will try to abuse it.
There's consequences, even from perfectly 'legal' and technically legitimate approaches to list building that can have extremely negative effects on the greater community health and game health down the line. It might be only some circumstances and it might be many that are affected. Imo the consequences mean its not always worth it.
Sure, but now we're getting into different approaches to the game, not "is this WAAC". A player who wants competitive games and a player who wants to play according to their specific narrative will struggle to have balanced and enjoyable games but that's far from "at all costs". It's just an unfortunate incompatibility between reasonable adults. That's why I think it's important to draw a line between actual WAAC behavior with rules laywering, cheating, etc, and people who just enjoy list optimization more than other people. WAAC without "at all costs" is just competitive play.
Why do you want PL & Open Play to cease to exist? You're clearly not using them, so they have no impact upon how you play. So what's it to you if they exist & are used by others? So GW wastes some ink on a few pages. Just ignore it & play on. So someone playing a game you're not in is adding up PL instead of points. So what?
Blndmage wrote:Why am I having to justify how I play the damned game?
Am I doing something wrong?
Does my preferred method of play offend you in some way? If so, apologize and would love an explanation if there are spoons to do so.
100% agreed, and I know how that feels as someone who is also a PL-only player and at this point, would define myself as playing Open Play.
No other system of rules is scrutinised so hard, or even has to face the question of "why do you play that way" - because it shouldn't matter, surely? WHY do any of us need to justify why we enjoy what we do?
If anyone is asking "why do you enjoy this" without in the same breath saying "your enjoyment is entirely valid, and I support your right to enjoy it", then may I kindly suggest not asking?
TheBestBucketHead wrote: But you don't need open play to play using just the books was my point. You can do it regardless. They didn't make anything for you, they just said "You can do whatever you want" which you could do regardless.
They've made a ton of Open play content.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Why am I having to justify how I play the damned game?
Am I doing something wrong?
Does my preferred method of play offend you in some way? If so, apologize and would love an explanation if there are spoons to do so.
I'm using the rules in the books, it's that simple. I don't need to dig through CP or Strats, unless I'm actually running BATTLEFORGED forces. Which isn't freaking mandatory to play the game.
I even use the Core Rules method of terrain sometime, rather than the Advanced terrain rules.
That's still a valid way to play the game. Some days I can't manage any if the Advanced rules (like the terrain keywords, CP/strats, the whole detachment thing).
There's two main points of confusion I have. Not judgement, or anything like that-just confusion.
1) PL vs. Points. For me, at least, adding 202+38+300+110 and so on isn't meaningfully harder than 10+2+15+6. Especially given easy access to a calculator. The main issue I have building a list is deciding what I want, not the exact points values.
I know you've got major health issues, though not exactly what they are. It just seems odd to me that you'd have to spend more than a minute or two on adding up points, if you already know what you're taking.
2) For Open Play, it seems weird that GW saying "You can ignore rules, or use more basic rules, or anything you like," matters when you can do that among your playgroup with or without "permission" from GW.
I hope this post doesn't cause you any trouble-but I'm legitimately confused, and would appreciate clarity.
To be able to "ignore rules, or use more basic rules, or anything you like" without the existence of the separate Open Play section of the book, you would have to first go through the entire "normal" rulebook, see what you deem unnecessary, boggle down in details of rules interactions to make sure you didn't forgot to ignore some part of the rules that depend on other already ignored rules etc... You would have to first understand the whole fething complex game you deliberately want not to have to understand , be it not yet or not at all. Open Play is not permission to ignore rules, it is a specifically chosen set of stripped down rules aiming at those who do not care, or do not want to play by the full rules.
It blows my mind that any of you have trouble understanding such a simple concept.
Smudge, welcome back, glad to see you're still here!
2nd:
It's kinda the 40k Forum way though, to constantly gateguard against even the slightest change to the system. Change has to be brutal in 40k, it has to, every time, drag the player base kicking and screaming into the new system, no matter what the cause is. There are still people here advocating we entirely scrap 9th and go back to 5th, or 3rd. Or whatever, but not 6-8. Not those!
I personally haven't been here since before 7th. I got in right as 7th birthed 8. That being said, I read the entire BRB for 7th, and was so confused, I didn't build the box of GK Terminators I'd bought for 2 months, because I was confused as to what I could and could not give them. Granted I didn't buy their codex. Back then a box of GK terminatores and the 7th BRB was around 90 USD total, which was around a day's wages @ 9.50/hour. So I didn't know what could or couldn't get put where. So I made one of each thing the book said I could make. Low and behold, I had followed the paper guide in the box, and now had a completely invalid squad. I had three HWs, and 2 SWs. And two had THs.
This game is rediculously, needlessly, pointlessly, agressively, anti-new player. No one on the "tactics" forums has the time, or is willing to give the time, to explain the rules. It's always, look on BS or check the dex. Never, hey, let me see if I can help you learn to play this game.
I wish PL had existed back then. It would have made my first experience in this game faaaar more enjoyable. As such, my first experience in AoS was waaaay better, because you literally can't build an illegal unit. They can all take anything, the choice is mine if I want to give my lizard man a hammer, a spear, or a sword. 40k needs to do this, if it ever wants to increase it's player base beyond the competitive gate keepers.
Blndmage wrote: It means they do the work for me.
I don't have to come up with things, I can spend my energy playing the game.
See, that's what I don't get. Open Play gives you no structure besides permission to ignore the rules if you want. You still have to choose which rules to include, you are still writing your own scenarios, etc. And all of that stuff happened the same way before 8th, the lack of official approval from GW didn't stop anyone at all.
Also, it sounds like you're straight up mocking the way I play the game. Why? That's the whole point of Open, they given me basic rules I can follow without having to read everything like it's a legal contract.
I'm mocking GW, not you. Remember that the whole Open™ Play™ brand thing came as a clumsy attempt to get people to buy primaris kits for their Tyranid armies. It had nothing to do with people like you, it was the result of some detached management person saying "WTF, why do we have rules that prevent everyone from buying every new release".
It's simply a matter of less math, less worry. I don't want to have to recalculate everything every 6 months. I don't want to run longs strings of numbers for each squad. I want the minimum amount of energy spent prepping the game.
Is it really that much of a difference? Like JNAProductions said, most of the difficulty in list building is figuring out what you want to include in your list. Adding the actual numbers up is a tiny part of it, especially when there are tools like Battlescribe to do all of it for you. And TBHPL is harder to make lists with. If my list is at 26 out of 25 PL I can't get down below the limit without removing an entire unit, and that usually means reshuffling other units to accommodate it. If I'm at 501 out of 500 points I can usually modify an upgrade somewhere to make it all work with a minimum of changes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: To be able to "ignore rules, or use more basic rules, or anything you like" without the existence of the separate Open Play section of the book, you would have to first go through the entire "normal" rulebook, see what you deem unnecessary, boggle down in details of rules interactions to make sure you didn't forgot to ignore some part of the rules that depend on other already ignored rules etc... You would have to first understand the whole fething complex game you deliberately want not to have to understand , be it not yet or not at all. Open Play is not permission to ignore rules, it is a specifically chosen set of stripped down rules aiming at those who do not care, or do not want to play by the full rules.
Did you miss the part where the Open Play rules also say that you can use all of that other stuff if you want? It asks you to make that exact same decision, which means having the exact same level of understanding of detachments/stratagems/etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs wrote: Why do you want PL & Open Play to cease to exist? You're clearly not using them, so they have no impact upon how you play. So what's it to you if they exist & are used by others? So GW wastes some ink on a few pages. Just ignore it & play on. So someone playing a game you're not in is adding up PL instead of points. So what?
I want them gone because I'm tired of GW sinking development time and effort into doubling down on their mistakes to avoid admitting defeat instead of fixing the rest of the game. I want PL gone because the latest round of points updates are clearly aimed at moving towards a PL-like system and laying the foundation for going PL-only in the future. And I want PL gone because the sole useful function I've ever seen from it is CAAC gatekeepers using it as a way to tell competitive players they aren't welcome in a group.
Blndmage wrote:Why am I having to justify how I play the damned game?
Am I doing something wrong?
Does my preferred method of play offend you in some way? If so, apologize and would love an explanation if there are spoons to do so.
100% agreed, and I know how that feels as someone who is also a PL-only player and at this point, would define myself as playing Open Play.
No other system of rules is scrutinised so hard, or even has to face the question of "why do you play that way" - because it shouldn't matter, surely? WHY do any of us need to justify why we enjoy what we do?
If anyone is asking "why do you enjoy this" without in the same breath saying "your enjoyment is entirely valid, and I support your right to enjoy it", then may I kindly suggest not asking?
Curiosity is invalid if it isn't accompanied by platitudes? That are honestly, obviously, going to be empty, because anyone who's asking isn't going to understand your perspective enough to give meaningful validation before you answer the question.
A 'that's cool' might be fine after they get an answer, but how can it mean anything before?
Open play is what people were doing for years, decades without it. So yeah, it needs some justification for taking up space in the book. It isn't a 'you' problem. Its a GW problem.
Racerguy180 wrote: And Bob is fine with you no longer playing. It boggles the mind why someone would want another person(whose enjoyment of the game doesn't involve them) to stop playing. They feel that if you do not play the way they want you to, you are lower than them and deserve nothing. What a wonderful person they must be.
That's a nice straw man you've built there. Too bad being rude and dishonest is not a substitute for having an actual point to make.
Blndmage wrote: It means they do the work for me.
I don't have to come up with things, I can spend my energy playing the game.
See, that's what I don't get. Open Play gives you no structure besides permission to ignore the rules if you want. You still have to choose which rules to include, you are still writing your own scenarios, etc. And all of that stuff happened the same way before 8th, the lack of official approval from GW didn't stop anyone at all.
Also, it sounds like you're straight up mocking the way I play the game. Why? That's the whole point of Open, they given me basic rules I can follow without having to read everything like it's a legal contract.
I'm mocking GW, not you. Remember that the whole Open™ Play™ brand thing came as a clumsy attempt to get people to buy primaris kits for their Tyranid armies. It had nothing to do with people like you, it was the result of some detached management person saying "WTF, why do we have rules that prevent everyone from buying every new release".
It's simply a matter of less math, less worry. I don't want to have to recalculate everything every 6 months. I don't want to run longs strings of numbers for each squad. I want the minimum amount of energy spent prepping the game.
Is it really that much of a difference? Like JNAProductions said, most of the difficulty in list building is figuring out what you want to include in your list. Adding the actual numbers up is a tiny part of it, especially when there are tools like Battlescribe to do all of it for you. And TBHPL is harder to make lists with. If my list is at 26 out of 25 PL I can't get down below the limit without removing an entire unit, and that usually means reshuffling other units to accommodate it. If I'm at 501 out of 500 points I can usually modify an upgrade somewhere to make it all work with a minimum of changes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: To be able to "ignore rules, or use more basic rules, or anything you like" without the existence of the separate Open Play section of the book, you would have to first go through the entire "normal" rulebook, see what you deem unnecessary, boggle down in details of rules interactions to make sure you didn't forgot to ignore some part of the rules that depend on other already ignored rules etc... You would have to first understand the whole fething complex game you deliberately want not to have to understand , be it not yet or not at all. Open Play is not permission to ignore rules, it is a specifically chosen set of stripped down rules aiming at those who do not care, or do not want to play by the full rules.
Did you miss the part where the Open Play rules also say that you can use all of that other stuff if you want? It asks you to make that exact same decision, which means having the exact same level of understanding of detachments/stratagems/etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs wrote: Why do you want PL & Open Play to cease to exist? You're clearly not using them, so they have no impact upon how you play. So what's it to you if they exist & are used by others? So GW wastes some ink on a few pages. Just ignore it & play on. So someone playing a game you're not in is adding up PL instead of points. So what?
I want them gone because I'm tired of GW sinking development time and effort into doubling down on their mistakes to avoid admitting defeat instead of fixing the rest of the game. I want PL gone because the latest round of points updates are clearly aimed at moving towards a PL-like system and laying the foundation for going PL-only in the future. And I want PL gone because the sole useful function I've ever seen from it is CAAC gatekeepers using it as a way to tell competitive players they aren't welcome in a group.
Top to bottom
Bolded 1) the book literally has the Open Hostility Mission Pack, which, I gak you not, has rules for miss matched PL. I just pick the one that fits the the scenario best, as well as Theaters of War. There are tons of awesome rules that enhance the play experience than Matched Play only folks won't even try.
Bolded 2) can you please explain who people like us are?
Bolded 3) an you wonder why we're feeling the need to be on the offensive?
Blndmage wrote: Bolded 1) the book literally has the Open Hostility Mission Pack, which, I gak you not, has rules for miss matched PL. I just pick the one that fits the the scenario best, as well as Theaters of War. There are tons of awesome rules that enhance the play experience than Matched Play only folks won't even try.
Those missions are just normal points-based list building and generic attacker/defender scenarios like GW has published in the normal matched play game in previous editions. There's nothing in there that requires a separate Way™ To™ Play™.
Bolded 2) can you please explain who people like us are?
People who need a scaled-back game because of your very specific situation. Open Play wasn't invented for that reason, it's the direct successor to Unbound and the failed attempt to convince everyone to buy the latest release regardless of faction.
Bolded 3) an you wonder why we're feeling the need to be on the offensive?
Shrug. Every other defense of PL fails to have any merit behind it. It isn't meaningfully simpler than normal points, it doesn't make a wider range of options viable. It's just a less-accurate point system.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote: So then what's your point t besides "I don't like this, so it shouldn't exist, and everyone who likes that can stop playing"???
If you can't have a discussion of the virtues of different game mechanics without building straw man arguments then there is no point in talking to you.
ccs wrote: Why do you want PL & Open Play to cease to exist? You're clearly not using them, so they have no impact upon how you play. So what's it to you if they exist & are used by others? So GW wastes some ink on a few pages. Just ignore it & play on. So someone playing a game you're not in is adding up PL instead of points. So what?
I want them gone because I'm tired of GW sinking development time and effort into doubling down on their mistakes to avoid admitting defeat instead of fixing the rest of the game.
*I'm sure the time sunk on each of these was pretty minimal. As for GW admitting defeat?
*Unless they manage to repeat an AoS 1e scale blunder in 10e (I.E. no points/list construction rules at all) I think you'll be waiting awhile.
*They might fix something. But they won't fix it all & they won't fix it all at once. Because it's a the business plan to keep selling you the next updated book etc. Has been for a very long time. Will be long after you've rage quit.
CadianSgtBob wrote: I want PL gone because the latest round of points updates are clearly aimed at moving towards a PL-like system and laying the foundation for going PL-only in the future.
*You need to get used to this idea. It's exactly how Sigmar works. Sure, the #s can generally be 3 digits long vs 40ks typical 1 or 2, and they don't call it PL (just pts).
Guess what? Works just fine.
It will not surprise me if 10th mirrors Sigmar.
CadianSgtBob wrote: And I want PL gone because the sole useful function I've ever seen from it is CAAC gatekeepers using it as a way to tell competitive players they aren't welcome in a group.
So you're salty because someone didn't want to play with you/someone else (You, I'm betting).
Guess what? No matter how you tally up forces those competitive payers were getting the same response. Getting rid of PL won't change that.
CadianSgtBob wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote: So then what's your point t besides "I don't like this, so it shouldn't exist, and everyone who likes that can stop playing"???
If you can't have a discussion of the virtues of different game mechanics without building straw man arguments then there is no point in talking to you.
When you're discounting virtues of a specific game mechanic out of hand, maybe one should look in the mirror about building things out of straw.
APeople like the specific game mechanics you don't, but difference is, you're advocating for removing it while everyone else is fine with its existence.
I think his point is that Open Play isn't a mechanic - it is the absence of mechanics.
It would be like Chess having two play modes, one that is normal chess and the other that just says "do what you want from this bulletized list" and then including the normal chess rules.
That said, I don't know if I agree yet. Still making up my mind. I think there are mechanics unique to open play you won't find anywhere else.... but then again, they don't HAVE to be unique to open play either.... it's a mess.
I feel like open play gets more time in dakka discussions than it does get in actual games around the globe combined.
In reality people playing 9th are either playing GT or BRB matched play, one of the two card deck modes, crusade or homebrews. The number of player who pick up a BRB, flip to "open play" and read up on how to play a game of kill everything the other person has is extremely low.
Open play is the purest form of "my dudes" you can have in a system like 40k, where half the time the rules are able to be misinterpreted numerous ways.
Also, when did CAAC become a thing? Is that really a acronym or did Bob just make that up?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Open play is the purest form of "my dudes" you can have in a system like 40k, where half the time the rules are able to be misinterpreted numerous ways.
Also, when did CAAC become a thing? Is that really a acronym or did Bob just make that up?
CAAC was coined by Peregrine to insult me and couple of other posters. It then gained traction and settled on „people whose way to enjoy the game I utterny do not understand, because I’m a sworn competitive player”.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Open play is the purest form of "my dudes" you can have in a system like 40k, where half the time the rules are able to be misinterpreted numerous ways.
Also, when did CAAC become a thing? Is that really a acronym or did Bob just make that up?
'Casual-at-all-costs' has been a broad stroke and often snide bogeyman term, if not outright hostile dismissal of, and attempt to delegitimise casual play and casual players since at least the time of Peregrine here on these boards.
It was thrown about hard especially against those who might have dared to have issues with overly competitive, waac and competitive-at-all costs players fielding brutal tourney builds into casual and laid back games withput any care and not caring about how tone deaf this could be or how this would negatively affect other people. It was also used against folks like me who prefer balancing things 'relatively' and building lists collaboratively, rather than actively trying to build the most brutal lists possible (because not doing this was disrespecting your opponent). Oh and also was thrown about at folks who dared say 'sone of the responsibility and onus for the games problems and responsibility to implement solutions is on the players too'.
It was often wielded as a bogeyman term and waa often an outright othering term - to rally the self-declared good, selfless and honest/decent competitive minded players to defend against 'those people' who would want to ruin your hobby, your fun, veto your armies and choices et and the game you play.
And in all my time, I've seen maybe one player who would fit the descriptive of 'casual-at-all-costs'. And his posts are still around and are hilarious.
As to „Open play has the same cognitive burden for the new player as Matched, because you are told you can include anything”. Exactly because this reversed order it is not. When you do not now anything about the game you are explicitly informed, that it is possible to play this game with a minimal set of rules and it will work. This is clearly aimed at increasing the possible audience by spending a marginal effort at GW part - Open Play does not „eat up precious resources that GW could spend on improving Matched” - that is really entitled thing to say. That you don’t see Open played at FLGS is pretty much a given, because only a specific and well defined subset of the playerbase plays at FLGSs. People should finally accept the reality, that a huge part of GWs customers play garagehammer with their friends and kids only and every survey to date clearly shows that.
Blndmage wrote: Also, it sounds like you're straight up mocking the way I play the game. Why? That's the whole point of Open, they given me basic rules I can follow without having to read everything like it's a legal contract.
I'm mocking GW, not you.
I want to address this point, because it doesn't really make sense in reality. Sure, you might genuinely believe that you're not mocking or harming the people who play Open or PL, but you *are*. The people who play PL and Open implicitly agree with what GW has done by including PL and Open. They are on the same page as GW on this, or at the very least, support it. If you're turning around and saying "I'm mocking GW for doing this", what kind of message is that sending about the people who actually liked what GW did? You can't say "oh, I'm mocking GW for X, even though I know you also do X" and not expect us to realise "well, hang on, you're still mocking us".
You can't point fingers at GW and not also point them at the people who enjoy what GW has done with PL.
It's simply a matter of less math, less worry. I don't want to have to recalculate everything every 6 months. I don't want to run longs strings of numbers for each squad. I want the minimum amount of energy spent prepping the game.
Is it really that much of a difference? Like JNAProductions said, most of the difficulty in list building is figuring out what you want to include in your list. Adding the actual numbers up is a tiny part of it, especially when there are tools like Battlescribe to do all of it for you. And TBHPL is harder to make lists with. If my list is at 26 out of 25 PL I can't get down below the limit without removing an entire unit, and that usually means reshuffling other units to accommodate it. If I'm at 501 out of 500 points I can usually modify an upgrade somewhere to make it all work with a minimum of changes.
Yes, it really *is* that much of a difference. First of all, if you're needing to rely on a third party product that may or may not be even accurate to build lists, then that's already pretty dire.
Second, just on the sheer size of the numbers, that's another issue. PL unit costs tend to be in the single digits, occasionally sub-50. Contrast to points, where most units are in the low hundreds. 10 is much smaller than 100, is all I'm saying.
As for "if you're 1PL over, its harder to remove stuff" - not really. If you're 501 points over, but you only took barebones units, or the upgrades you too were non-negotiable, then you still need to strip entire units.
Did you miss the part where the Open Play rules also say that you can use all of that other stuff if you want? It asks you to make that exact same decision, which means having the exact same level of understanding of detachments/stratagems/etc.
Exactly - but you have to actually *choose* to add them, and by choosing to add them, you likely actually know what they are in order to want to include them. It's the same decision, but built off of the notion of explicit choice and player agency. You add what you know, not remove what you're unfamiliar with.
ccs wrote: Why do you want PL & Open Play to cease to exist? You're clearly not using them, so they have no impact upon how you play. So what's it to you if they exist & are used by others? So GW wastes some ink on a few pages. Just ignore it & play on. So someone playing a game you're not in is adding up PL instead of points. So what?
I want them gone because I'm tired of GW sinking development time and effort into doubling down on their mistakes to avoid admitting defeat instead of fixing the rest of the game.
What stops someone else saying the same for points? Now, I'd never say that, because I don't want points gone, even if I don't use them, because I respect your desire for them. Why don't you respect ours for PL/Open?
And I want PL gone because the sole useful function I've ever seen from it is CAAC gatekeepers using it as a way to tell competitive players they aren't welcome in a group.
So, you're ignoring every reason that BIndmage gave about their preference for it, unless you're calling them a gatekeeper?
Again, I find it ironic that you complain about gatekeepers when you're the one outright calling to remove things from the game because you don't like them. Neither myself nor BIndmage have advocated that you change what you enjoy or gatekept your enjoyment, but you seem bent on preventing ours.
Voss wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: If anyone is asking "why do you enjoy this" without in the same breath saying "your enjoyment is entirely valid, and I support your right to enjoy it", then may I kindly suggest not asking?
Curiosity is invalid if it isn't accompanied by platitudes? That are honestly, obviously, going to be empty, because anyone who's asking isn't going to understand your perspective enough to give meaningful validation before you answer the question.
A 'that's cool' might be fine after they get an answer, but how can it mean anything before?
I don't need them to *understand* my perspective. I want them to respect it, regardless of their understanding of it.
I'm not trying to persuade people into enjoying the same things as me, or even to know *why* I enjoy it, because I don't owe that to anyone. All I ask is that my enjoyment, so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's, is respected.
Open play is what people were doing for years, decades without it. So yeah, it needs some justification for taking up space in the book. It isn't a 'you' problem. Its a GW problem.
I don't play points. Can you justify why I, as a non-points player, should have space in my books taken up by your material?
Actually, I can already answer that - because I accept that, even though it isn't made for me, I can respect its inclusion for the people who *do* value it, like yourself. I don't need to know anything more than "you enjoy it, and it doesn't affect my enjoyment of my thing, so you should be entitled to it".
Again, coming back to that idea of "it's not a You problem, it's a GW problem" - if I support GW's inclusion of Open Play and PL, how are you not criticising my stance?
CadianSgtBob wrote:
Blndmage wrote: can you please explain who people like us are?
People who need a scaled-back game because of your very specific situation. Open Play wasn't invented for that reason, it's the direct successor to Unbound and the failed attempt to convince everyone to buy the latest release regardless of faction.
Shrug. If the shoe fits for people who it wasn't invented for, why take the shoe away?
Bolded 3) an you wonder why we're feeling the need to be on the offensive?
Shrug. Every other defense of PL fails to have any merit behind it. It isn't meaningfully simpler than normal points, it doesn't make a wider range of options viable. It's just a less-accurate point system.
Why is "I prefer this" not worthy of merit enought to justify it's existence. Just because you don't use it, why does that that mean you should take it away from the people who do?
You say "it's a less accurate points system" - and that's fine - but not everyone *cares* about that. But you don't see me trying to stop you using points.
Dai wrote:I just seenl open play as the sandbox. For the non cult of officialdom crowd if you like. Heres some basics, bolt on what you like, official or not.
I think this is the best way to sum it up. It's the barest form of 40k, and you can plug in and play what you like. It's an *additive* system, instead of a subtractive one, I suppose? So instead of being like "so, we're going to remove XYZ" it's more of a "we're going to add XYZ". There's a higher level of implicit consent and agreement as to what all parties are getting into, and I personally enjoy making those explicit agreements of what we all want from our games. That way, no-one gets hit by a specific balance ruling, such as transports exploding if you're not in them, or no mixed detachments, or any of the other countless rules I genuinely don't remember, unless people agree to use it prior to the game.
It's not to say that you shouldn't use those balance rules if you want to, but it's just making sure that everyone's on the same page for the same game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: As to „Open play has the same cognitive burden for the new player as Matched, because you are told you can include anything”. Exactly because this reversed order it is not. When you do not now anything about the game you are explicitly informed, that it is possible to play this game with a minimal set of rules and it will work.
Exactly. It's like wanting a pepperoni pizza, and only having the choice between ordering a pizza with all the toppings, and a pizza with no toppings, but you get to choose what you add and remove from either.
Sure, you can go both ways and still get a pepperoni pizza, but it's much easier and less ambiguous to go for the pizza with no toppings and manually add the tomato sauce, the cheese and the pepperoni so that you *know* that's all you're getting, versus getting the pizza with everything on, and then having to go through every single item to see if you want to keep it, and the possible ambiguities of "does tomato mean slices of tomato, or tomato sauce", for example.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Open play is the purest form of "my dudes" you can have in a system like 40k, where half the time the rules are able to be misinterpreted numerous ways.
Also, when did CAAC become a thing? Is that really a acronym or did Bob just make that up?
CAAC was coined by Peregrine to insult me and couple of other posters. It then gained traction and settled on „people whose way to enjoy the game I utterny do not understand, because I’m a sworn competitive player”.
OR it's because you blatantly ignore issues with the game
nou wrote: As to „Open play has the same cognitive burden for the new player as Matched, because you are told you can include anything”. Exactly because this reversed order it is not. When you do not now anything about the game you are explicitly informed, that it is possible to play this game with a minimal set of rules and it will work. This is clearly aimed at increasing the possible audience by spending a marginal effort at GW part - Open Play does not „eat up precious resources that GW could spend on improving Matched” - that is really entitled thing to say. That you don’t see Open played at FLGS is pretty much a given, because only a specific and well defined subset of the playerbase plays at FLGSs. People should finally accept the reality, that a huge part of GWs customers play garagehammer with their friends and kids only and every survey to date clearly shows that.
Which way of playing a new player will only be able exercise if he plays both vs new players and those players need to want to play open. What happens more often is that the new player enters the world of matched played, and want it or not, he has to learn the way to play. And garage hammer is something for people that actualy own enough space to do that. And good luck enticing new players in their teens or early 20s, that w40k is a good game, because they can play with their kids.
What the open mind set does to some people, is that it lets them to be lazy, not learn the game rules and claim that is an acceptable thing , specialy in its wasting time of other people aspect. It is like those guys when you are 8-9 who want to do any sports in a "free for all" mode the way you played it at 7 or younger. the same people are often the ones who want to house rule and change the game rules instead of doing sports the proper way.
It then gained traction and settled on „people whose way to enjoy the game I utterny do not understand, because I’m a sworn competitive player”.
People very much understand what casual players want, they don't want to play the rules, but would rather play the game the way they want, changing the rules on a player to player basis. And a lot of people don't like it. Specialy as the so called casuals asked for changes to core rules or intreduction of outside of game elements to game. All it does it makes the game worse the general public, plus somehow makes anyone who even hints and being invested in how the game or rules are in to some evil person. Yet I have never seen or heard any non casual player want to force others to play their armies a certain way, when the reverse is more or less a given.
Karol wrote: And garage hammer is something for people that actualy own enough space to do that.
I've been able to play 40k purely on an ordinary table in an ordinary room. You don't need an actual garage.
And good luck enticing new players in their teens or early 20s, that w40k is a good game, because they can play with their kids.
That's the group I've had the most luck getting to play, mostly out of shared social experiences. The game doesn't need to be ultra finely balanced, as long as people enjoy it.
What the open mind set does to some people, is that it lets them to be lazy, not learn the game rules and claim that is an acceptable thing , specialy in its wasting time of other people aspect.
Why isn't it acceptable?
It is like those guys when you are 8-9 who want to do any sports in a "free for all" mode the way you played it at 7 or younger. the same people are often the ones who want to house rule and change the game rules instead of doing sports the proper way.
It's 40k. There is no "proper" way beyond the way that you and your group like to play it.
Knock it off with that gatekeeping nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: People very much understand what casual players want, they don't want to play the rules, but would rather play the game the way they want, changing the rules on a player to player basis.
And why is that a problem? Why *shouldn't* people play the game they want to, if everyone involved agrees?
And a lot of people don't like it.
That's a shame. Get over it. Not everyone enjoys the same game as you, and as long as they're not stopping you from enjoying what you like, why should you stop them?
Specialy as the so called casuals asked for changes to core rules or intreduction of outside of game elements to game. All it does it makes the game worse the general public
... the general public? This is 40k, there isn't a "general public".
If you mean "the wider player base", you're still wrong, because how I enjoy 40k doesn't stop you from enjoying yours. Quit trying to police other people's fun.
plus somehow makes anyone who even hints and being invested in how the game or rules are in to some evil person.
Literally no-one has said that. You can enjoy what YOU like. Don't force it on me. That's why I'm telling you to "get over it" - not because that you're invested in the rules, but that you're trying to stop me enjoying mine.
Yet I have never seen or heard any non casual player want to force others to play their armies a certain way, when the reverse is more or less a given.
Have you missed where people in this thread have called for the outright abolishment of PL? How is that NOT forcing others to play a certain way?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Open play is the purest form of "my dudes" you can have in a system like 40k, where half the time the rules are able to be misinterpreted numerous ways.
Also, when did CAAC become a thing? Is that really a acronym or did Bob just make that up?
CAAC was coined by Peregrine to insult me and couple of other posters. It then gained traction and settled on „people whose way to enjoy the game I utterny do not understand, because I’m a sworn competitive player”.
OR it's because you blatantly ignore issues with the game
Have I ever? Explicitly listing ways to mitigate issues in the game requires acknowledging those issues in the first place. The difference between me and you is that I accept, that GW won’t fix those issues for me, especially in cases where what is an issue for me is a feature for other players. It has never been about anything else, than trying to show people with Stockholm syndrome that they can lower the amount of frustration they experience from GW being GW by taking their own fun in their own hands. The thing I find most funny about this whole CAAC calling is that I always state clearly and openly, that I do not play at FLGSs and only play with likeminded people, therefore my way to play has never, ever affected any not consenting player.
This makes me wonder - do people are really feeling so insecure with their way of having fun, that they feel they must have to eradicate all „CAAC heresy” and Open Play enthusiasts? Do you think that CAAC players will somehow force GW to abandon Matched?
Automatically Appended Next Post: And one more thing - if (when?) GW will eventually drop points for a PL-esque system and limited customisation, it will not be because of Open or Narrative players swaying GW. It will happen because AoS competitive crowd paved the way and showed, that you can have as competitive game as 40K Matched using PLs, fixed squad sizes and sidegrade weapon/wargear choices. 8th ed player influx and AoS success showed GW, that competitive crowd will adapt to any and all changes to the game, no matter how fundamental or drastic. That some players will rage quit? As long as net number of players doesn't drop, GW doesn't care about individual players.
Deadnight wrote: And in all my time, I've seen maybe one player who would fit the descriptive of 'casual-at-all-costs'.
And in all my time, I've seen maybe one player who would fit the descriptive of "win at all costs".
Remember the key point here: at all costs. The WAAC player engages in cheating, rules lawyering, emotional manipulation, etc. There's no line they won't cross if it helps them win. Merely playing a list that is more optimized than the unwritten rule of what is appropriate for a "casual" game is not WAAC. So if you're going to complain about people using CAAC too broadly then you'd better treat WAAC the same way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: First of all, if you're needing to rely on a third party product that may or may not be even accurate to build lists, then that's already pretty dire.
You don't need to use third party tools. I use the normal point system and I build my lists with a text document and a calculator. I'm just pointing out the fact that many people do use those third party tools regardless of which point system is being used. And if you're using those third party tools the theoretical difference in adding up the point costs is irrelevant because the tool is doing all the work for you.
Second, just on the sheer size of the numbers, that's another issue. PL unit costs tend to be in the single digits, occasionally sub-50. Contrast to points, where most units are in the low hundreds. 10 is much smaller than 100, is all I'm saying.
Why does this matter? I suppose technically it takes less time to type 5+8+14+3 into your calculator than to type 95+160+290+75 but we're talking about a difference of a few seconds at most. Do we really need an entire second point system so you have to type fewer digits?
As for "if you're 1PL over, its harder to remove stuff" - not really. If you're 501 points over, but you only took barebones units, or the upgrades you too were non-negotiable, then you still need to strip entire units.
Yes, obviously you can be in a situation where you're at 501/500 and can't trim anything without removing entire units but those situations are a lot rarer than with PL. Every time you're over the point limit with PL you have to remove an entire unit (or at least cut a unit's size in half, if your faction has that option), with normal points that only happens a small percentage of the time. So on average, yes, PL is harder to make lists with.
Exactly - but you have to actually *choose* to add them, and by choosing to add them, you likely actually know what they are in order to want to include them. It's the same decision, but built off of the notion of explicit choice and player agency. You add what you know, not remove what you're unfamiliar with.
If you don't know what those optional things are then how are you making an informed choice about whether or not to include them? And if you aren't making an informed choice about whether or not to include them then how do you know that Open Play is in fact your preferred system?
And really, do we need an entire separate Way™ To™ Play™ to cover the basic tutorial for new players to learn the game? Why not just have a very simple tutorial mission in the starter box like every other game?
What stops someone else saying the same for points?
You can say it, but unlike PL the normal point system has a reason to exist.
So, you're ignoring every reason that BIndmage gave about their preference for it, unless you're calling them a gatekeeper?
No, I'm saying those reasons fail as justification. They, like you, can claim that PL is "easier" but when you look at the actual process of making a list PL is not meaningfully easier and is often harder to use. The only reason that I've ever seen that holds up to investigation is the rare time when a PL advocate is honest about wanting a gatekeeping tool. PL does in fact accomplish that goal if that's what you want.
Deadnight wrote: And in all my time, I've seen maybe one player who would fit the descriptive of 'casual-at-all-costs'.
And in all my time, I've seen maybe one player who would fit the descriptive of "win at all costs".
Remember the key point here: at all costs. The WAAC player engages in cheating, rules lawyering, emotional manipulation, etc. There's no line they won't cross if it helps them win. Merely playing a list that is more optimized than the unwritten rule of what is appropriate for a "casual" game is not WAAC. So if you're going to complain about people using CAAC too broadly then you'd better treat WAAC the same way.
.
Yeah...
I never said that was waac, Bob.
Win at all costs, as you say is a rather destructive approach that crosses a lot of red lines.
Win at all costs, as you say is a rather destructive approach that crosses a lot of red lines.
You didn't say it but that's what most people are talking about when they throw around accusations of WAAC. It's not the person who is cheating and rules lawyering and genuinely willing to do anything to win, it's the person who did more list optimization than they think is appropriate. And once you reject the label WAAC for someone who is merely doing "too much" list optimization you're left with a tiny, tiny handful of actual WAACTFGs. And, like the actual CAAC players, they're so rare that most people will never encounter one in real life.
CadianSgtBob wrote: If you don't know what those optional things are then how are you making an informed choice about whether or not to include them? And if you aren't making an informed choice about whether or not to include them then how do you know that Open Play is in fact your preferred system?
And really, do we need an entire separate Way™ To™ Play™ to cover the basic tutorial for new players to learn the game? Why not just have a very simple tutorial mission in the starter box like every other game?
At first you don't know what those optional things are and Open Play informs you directly, that you can not care. Then, if you feel that your 40k experience is lacking something, you can gradually add new bite size chunks or "step up" to Narrative or Matched.
Again, what you either don't get or deliberately ignore, is that a huge part of playerbase do not play at FLGSs, but instead play at home with friends and family. And in such context there is no inherent need to learn to play Matched as soon as you can, only because that is the only way everybody else is playing 40k. For this segment of the playerbase Matched and the whole "you must learn every stratagem of every faction and build a strong list or die" is entirely optional to their 40k experience. Many of those people will never play against more than just a couple of factions that their friends and family own. They also won't get involved in an arms race, because by the nature of small, closed groups, you actually have to be accommodating in order for your limited play partners not to quit. Having a separate way to play is aimed at such people and is clearly perfectly sufficient for them.
And regarding PL vs point calculations - it is not and never was about adding up small numbers vs adding up a bit larger numbers, but about not having to dive into minutiae of wargear/upgrade/unit size choices in order to fit into an arbitrary point limit. I have made a lot, and I mean a lot of lists using points and every time it ends up in shuffling wargear and weapons around in order to fit just a few points closer to those mythical 2000pts. In PLs? You just fit your whole units, any other consideration about wargear/weaons/upgrades is removed from the equation. You can't obsess over parameters that simply aren't there. When on top of that you also have mechanisms to cover for PL differences between armies, the whole proces is pretty much instantaneous.
And in such context there is no inherent need to learn to play Matched as soon as you can,
Wait, serious question- isn't that what basic and advanced rules are for?
We /checks/... Yeah, we still have those.
And don't most starter boxes have simplified rule sets anyway? I've never really flipped through those pamphlets, but I thought that's what those were.
nou wrote: At first you don't know what those optional things are and Open Play informs you directly, that you can not care. Then, if you feel that your 40k experience is lacking something, you can gradually add new bite size chunks or "step up" to Narrative or Matched.
Again, do we need an entire separate Way™ To™ Play™ to cover the basic tutorial for new players to learn the game? Why not just have a very simple tutorial mission in the starter box like every other game?
Again, what you either don't get or deliberately ignore, is that a huge part of playerbase do not play at FLGSs, but instead play at home with friends and family. And in such context there is no inherent need to learn to play Matched as soon as you can, only because that is the only way everybody else is playing 40k. For this segment of the playerbase Matched and the whole "you must learn every stratagem of every faction and build a strong list or die" is entirely optional to their 40k experience. Many of those people will never play against more than just a couple of factions that their friends and family own. They also won't get involved in an arms race, because by the nature of small, closed groups, you actually have to be accommodating in order for your limited play partners not to quit. Having a separate way to play is aimed at such people and is clearly perfectly sufficient for them.
What does that have to do with anything? 40k at home with friends and family worked just fine when there was only one game system. It didn't need a separate less-accurate point system, it didn't need an explicit Way™ To™ Play™ giving you permission to not use certain rules.
And regarding PL vs point calculations - it is not and never was about adding up small numbers vs adding up a bit larger numbers
That's funny, because one of the PL defenders here very directly made the argument that it is about adding up small numbers vs. adding up larger numbers.
In PLs? You just fit your whole units, any other consideration about wargear/weaons/upgrades is removed from the equation.
But when you end up over the point limit you have to remove an entire unit to fix your list instead of just modifying an upgrade or two. PL is harder to make lists with, not easier.
And why would you want to ignore upgrades and unit sizes in a game where those things have a significant impact on a unit's power? Why would you want to treat a 6-man terminator squad and a 10-man terminator squad as having the same point cost? Why does a basic LRBT with no upgrades have the same point cost as a LR Punisher with a lascannon, multimelta sponsons, and all of the vehicle upgrades? These units have vastly different power levels but under PL they have the same point cost.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote: And don't most starter boxes have simplified rule sets anyway? I've never really flipped through those pamphlets, but I thought that's what those were.
Yep. Open Play is a solution in need of a problem, the starter sets and their basic intro rules already address the need for a basic tutorial ruleset and they do it in a much better way.
Open play has zero impact the competitive scene. To want to remove it for the better if the game is an absolute nonsense.
There is no reason to remove any form of play, the hobby and the community is big enough to accommodate all types.
If anything is going to make gw switch from pints to PL or some version of it with limited options and squad sizes it will be in an attempt balance he game and simplify it for the competitive scene not the casuals.
I have never heard anyone from the casual side of the hobby want to ban or get rid of the more competitive side of things.
Let’s flip the old argument of why you need PL or open rules, let’s ask why do you need points? Why do we need to have 1 or 2 point models or bits of equipment, does it really matter? In a game like 40k where Imbalance and random events are such a part of the design do we really need to have armies matched up to the hundredth or thousandth?
I have payed open and narrative and matched play, never competitive, and I have been playing every edition of the game. Choice is good. Options are good. Having a rule book say explicitly that it is ok to only use what ever parts of a big complex ruleset that you want to is only ever going to help those who want to do that and have no impact those who want to use all the rules.
Andykp wrote: Open play has zero impact the competitive scene.
It does when GW keeps spending time and effort defending the farce of their "buy primaris marines for your tyranid army" mistake instead of fixing the normal game.
If anything is going to make gw switch from pints to PL or some version of it with limited options and squad sizes it will be in an attempt balance he game and simplify it for the competitive scene not the casuals.
I could see GW doing it. It would be a spectacular mistake but it's not like anyone believes GW has competent people working as game designers.
Let’s flip the old argument of why you need PL or open rules, let’s ask why do you need points? Why do we need to have 1 or 2 point models or bits of equipment, does it really matter? In a game like 40k where Imbalance and random events are such a part of the design do we really need to have armies matched up to the hundredth or thousandth?
We need the normal point system because there is a vast difference in power between various options that can not be captured by a single point cost. A 10-man squad is 66% stronger than a 6-man squad, which is way beyond any reasonable argument that we're dealing with tiny nuances that can be rounded off to the same point cost.
And we also need the normal point system because "cheaper but less powerful" is valid design space. If a laspistol and a plasma pistol cost the same number of points then there is zero reason to ever, under any circumstances, take the laspistol. If a laspistol costs 0 points while a plasma pistol costs 5 points both of them are valid options and you can have a strategy debate over which one you should take. PL renders vast amounts of design space irrelevant and reduces your list building choices to identifying the option with the biggest numbers in the stat line.
Having a rule book say explicitly that it is ok to only use what ever parts of a big complex ruleset that you want to is only ever going to help those who want to do that and have no impact those who want to use all the rules.
But, again, why? Why do you need official permission to modify the rules? Who exactly are these people that want to change the rules but are so obsessed with the concept of officialness that they can't make any changes without GW telling them it's ok to do it?
I could see GW doing it. It would be a spectacular mistake but it's not like anyone believes GW has competent people working as game designers.
You do know, that AoS exists and prospers, right? You know how it handles listbuilding, right?
And in no world is building a list in PLs harder than building it with points. You clearly have no practical experience with PLs and especially in Open, where not fitting into an exact limit is explicitly handled, so you don't need to remove entire squads, ever.
This whole "but 10 man squad is 66% stronger than 6 man squad" has any sense only when looking at particulars. When you look at the system as a whole, PLs generate the same practical (im)balance as points, only mins and maxes are in different places, because not only you have access to those 66% more efficient units. Different choices are "valid", different choices are "invalid", other factions are top tier, other are bottom. Who cares if you max out on wargear and weapons, if your competitively minded opponent does exactly the same, so the relative power of both armies stays within the same brackets you achieve with points? That when recalculated to points both armies are worth closer to 3000 points instead of 2000pts? What does it changes exactly if both armies are equal? Two competitive players, with the same "list building skill" will abuse PLs to the exactly same extent, as they abuse the point system.
nou wrote: You do know, that AoS exists and prospers, right? You know how it handles listbuilding, right?
I don't play AoS but as I understand it AoS doesn't have 40k-style upgrade choices. Units are fixed sizes, there's no equivalent to heavy/special weapon upgrades, etc. You can't do that without stripping 40k of a vast range of options that currently exist.
And in no world is building a list in PLs harder than building it with points. You clearly have no practical experience with PLs and especially in Open, where not fitting into an exact limit is explicitly handled, so you don't need to remove entire squads, ever.
Narrative play treats PL as a conventional point system with a strict limit, including a strict point limit on the pool of possible units your army can be built from for each game. That's an even more restrictive system than matched play. And yeah, Open Play says "ignore any limit you don't like" but if you're willing to ignore the limit then you can also do that with the normal point system and that problem never comes up.
This whole "but 10 man squad is 66% stronger than 6 man squad" has any sense only when looking at particulars. When you look at the system as a whole, PLs generate the same practical (im)balance as points, only mins and maxes are in different places, because not only you have access to those 66% more efficient units.
I'm not sure why you think "your opponent can also exploit the broken parts of PL" is a compelling defense of it. Why not, instead of allowing both players access to the broken thing, assign those units a point cost that accurately reflects their power?
Who cares if you max out on wargear and weapons
Because removing meaningful choices is a bad thing. And because pressuring against narrative choices is a bad thing. Under the normal point system if you decide your narrative is that your character only has a laspistol and chainsword because their regiment isn't very well equipped you have that as a valid choice vs. taking a plasma pistol and power sword. Your unit's stats are less powerful but you pay fewer points for it. With PL you pay the same point cost regardless of equipment so if you take anything but a plasma pistol and power sword you're punished with a less-effective unit. So if you value narrative play, as so many PL advocates do, why do you defend a system that creates pressure against narrative choices over one that encourages them?
nou wrote: You do know, that AoS exists and prospers, right? You know how it handles listbuilding, right?
I don't play AoS but as I understand it AoS doesn't have 40k-style upgrade choices. Units are fixed sizes, there's no equivalent to heavy/special weapon upgrades, etc. You can't do that without stripping 40k of a vast range of options that currently exist.
And in no world is building a list in PLs harder than building it with points. You clearly have no practical experience with PLs and especially in Open, where not fitting into an exact limit is explicitly handled, so you don't need to remove entire squads, ever.
Narrative play treats PL as a conventional point system with a strict limit, including a strict point limit on the pool of possible units your army can be built from for each game. That's an even more restrictive system than matched play. And yeah, Open Play says "ignore any limit you don't like" but if you're willing to ignore the limit then you can also do that with the normal point system and that problem never comes up.
This whole "but 10 man squad is 66% stronger than 6 man squad" has any sense only when looking at particulars. When you look at the system as a whole, PLs generate the same practical (im)balance as points, only mins and maxes are in different places, because not only you have access to those 66% more efficient units.
I'm not sure why you think "your opponent can also exploit the broken parts of PL" is a compelling defense of it. Why not, instead of allowing both players access to the broken thing, assign those units a point cost that accurately reflects their power?
Who cares if you max out on wargear and weapons
Because removing meaningful choices is a bad thing. And because pressuring against narrative choices is a bad thing. Under the normal point system if you decide your narrative is that your character only has a laspistol and chainsword because their regiment isn't very well equipped you have that as a valid choice vs. taking a plasma pistol and power sword. Your unit's stats are less powerful but you pay fewer points for it. With PL you pay the same point cost regardless of equipment so if you take anything but a plasma pistol and power sword you're punished with a less-effective unit. So if you value narrative play, as so many PL advocates do, why do you defend a system that creates pressure against narrative choices over one that encourages them?
A) because assigning points that „accurately reflect unit’s power” is impossible outside of a very strict and defined context 40k doesn’t have and will never have, because of freeform list building and open scenario structures. And on top of that, because players actively demand the existence of "list building as a skill", point efficiency discrepancies must exist within the point system. Bad choices must exist for optimal choices to exist.
B) in a narrative setting you already work in cooperation with your opponent to ensure a fair game at forces composition and scenario preparation stage, so minmaxing isn’t really a thing - PL system does not put any sort of pressure against the narrative. Exactly the same with points - in a narrative context you do not restrict yourself only to the most optimal choices. PLs provide enough game size framework to work with and points do not offer any benefit over this utility. Both with points and PLs I have played both high power and low power games and PLs are simply more convenient to use, because they do not create an illusion of balance points do. You have to realise one thing about narrative gaming and point systems adjusted for competitive gaming in a "list building as a skill" environment - because bad choices must exist in order for optimal choices to exist, if you want to play a fair game outside of competitive context, you have to manually adjust effective power of lists against each other based on your knowledge of nominal value vs effective value discrepancies of units, be it with points or PLs. This is because you do not have "the crutch" of trying to maximise the absolute value, which is, by the definition of the maximum, open to mistakes only on one side. If you aim at a low power, or mid power game, you have to mind both OP and UP units, not only dismiss UP. You are also frequently and deliberately building armies around suboptimal units if it so happens, that you need them for the narrative - you are actively using the entire spectrum of choices that are in this game, not only optimal ones.
And believe me, I really wish, that "assigning points that accurately reflect unit’s power” would be magically possible. It would really take a lot of burden from my hands when preparing fair narrative games.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I see that you are relatively new here. Go and read some of the previous threads on the point balance topic. See how popular a PoV of "we do not want any 2000pts to be equal, a well designed list should always win with a randomly chosen list" is. With narrative approach, you have to actively work around this particular demand, because you want to be able to play with any and all imaginable lists if you fancy so.
Strict are words you have added to the narrative rules there. The power level limit is only as strict as you want to enforce it.
Why take a las pistol over a plasma pistol, because the model I have has a laspistol, because when I built it I thought it look3d cooler, and narratively why would all my guard sgts have plasma pistols, it doesn’t fit my armies fluff. ( real examples by the way, my guard army most sgts have las pistols and one of the officers, there’s only one plasma pistol out of 6 squads and two characters). The main reason to take las over plasma pistols is that I am building a themed army with a narrative based on models I like. Not trying to build the most optimal list. It’s not hard to understand.
nou wrote: A) because assigning points that „accurately reflect unit’s power” is impossible outside of a very strict and defined context 40k doesn’t have and will never have, because of freeform list building and open scenario structures.
Then why do you defend the existence and use of a point system and points-based list building?
And on top of that, because players actively demand the existence of "list building as a skill", point efficiency discrepancies must exist within the point system. Bad choices must exist for optimal choices to exist.
This is absolutely false. Consider the question of "how many AA guns should I take in my army", which is clearly a question where list building skill is relevant. This involves considerations like "how many aircraft do I expect to encounter?", "do I need to kill the enemy aircraft or just accept some losses to strafing runs and focus elsewhere?", etc. And these questions exist even if tanks and AA guns and infantry all have accurate point costs when measured against the game as a whole. The superficial "list building skill" of "choose to buy the obvious unit with the best dice math" that exists in 40k is not in any way necessary.
B) in a narrative setting you already work in cooperation with your opponent to ensure a fair game at forces composition and scenario preparation stage
That's an interesting claim given the fact that GW's flagship narrative product for the current edition is one where you create a fixed list of units that you use regardless of who you are playing against. Or do you seriously expect people to plan out a whole Crusade in advance, arranging your list choices with each possible opponent before playing your first game?
Exactly the same with points - in a narrative context you do not restrict yourself only to the most optimal choices.
You say this, but in reality it still feels bad for many people when they know the unit they're taking is just a strictly worse version of the alternative. Taking a laspistol instead of a plasma pistol as a reasonable strategic choice feels much better than taking a laspistol instead of a plasma pistol with full knowledge that it's a sub-optimal choice and you're deliberately making your army less effective.
Both with points and PLs I have played both high power and low power games and PLs are simply more convenient to use, because they do not create an illusion of balance points do.
If points create an illusion of balance that you find undesirable then why do you continue to advocate the use of points-based list construction in narrative games?
And believe me, I really wish, that "assigning points that accurately reflect unit’s power” would be magically possible. It would really take a lot of burden from my hands when preparing fair narrative games.
Then you should advocate the use and improvement of the point system which is at least theoretically capable of getting to that level and support the removal of the point system that by design will never get there.
Bob, just out of curiosity, what factions do you play, and if you play, how often do you play?
Because, unless you are a hardcore competitive game enthusiast, I honestly don't understand your refusal to let people play toy soldiers they way they want to. I saw in your intro that you have been playing since 5th, so I'm sure you've seen the game go through some major changes. Did you fight this hard when the AV system changed? Or Vehicle facing? What about AoC, or Bolter Discipline?
As for sgt bobs last bit about how narrative is better with points, you are missing the lint entirely.
A few points here and there don’t matter. The game isn’t so finely balanced and the dice may go against you. Why stress over a few points that have zero real impact on play when you can just say that squad costs 3 PL what ever it has rather than saying it costs 115 this way and 121 another. That difference doesn’t matter and has no impact, even when added up over a whole army. A few hundred points either way make no odds really. I don’t care about it.
Andykp wrote: Strict are words you have added to the narrative rules there. The power level limit is only as strict as you want to enforce it.
The Crusade rules very clearly state that the point limit is a limit for each player, they do not include any of the language about "approximately this" or "closely matched in points" or whatever that Open Play often has. Exceeding the point limit in Crusade is no more permitted than exceeding the point limit in matched play or tournament games.
Why take a las pistol over a plasma pistol, because the model I have has a laspistol, because when I built it I thought it look3d cooler, and narratively why would all my guard sgts have plasma pistols, it doesn’t fit my armies fluff. ( real examples by the way, my guard army most sgts have las pistols and one of the officers, there’s only one plasma pistol out of 6 squads and two characters). The main reason to take las over plasma pistols is that I am building a themed army with a narrative based on models I like. Not trying to build the most optimal list. It’s not hard to understand.
So then why do you support using the point system that penalizes your narrative choice with worse in-game efficiency over the point system that allows you to decide based on rule of cool and then assigns an accurate point cost to your choices?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: A few points here and there don’t matter.
It's not just "a few points". The difference between a 6-man terminator squad with no upgrades (PL 36) and a 10-man terminator squad with two cyclone launchers (PL 36) is 200 points. In a typical 200 point game that's a full 10% of your point limit as an error coming from just one unit.
A few hundred points either way make no odds really. I don’t care about it.
Oh? You'd gladly play a game with 1500 points against 2500 points if it saves you a few seconds of adding up more accurate numbers?
Andykp wrote: Strict are words you have added to the narrative rules there. The power level limit is only as strict as you want to enforce it.
The Crusade rules very clearly state that the point limit is a limit for each player, they do not include any of the language about "approximately this" or "closely matched in points" or whatever that Open Play often has. Exceeding the point limit in Crusade is no more permitted than exceeding the point limit in matched play or tournament games.
Why take a las pistol over a plasma pistol, because the model I have has a laspistol, because when I built it I thought it look3d cooler, and narratively why would all my guard sgts have plasma pistols, it doesn’t fit my armies fluff. ( real examples by the way, my guard army most sgts have las pistols and one of the officers, there’s only one plasma pistol out of 6 squads and two characters). The main reason to take las over plasma pistols is that I am building a themed army with a narrative based on models I like. Not trying to build the most optimal list. It’s not hard to understand.
So then why do you support using the point system that penalizes your narrative choice with worse in-game efficiency over the point system that allows you to decide based on rule of cool and then assigns an accurate point cost to your choices?
But as grown ups we can agree to enforce that rule as strictly or loosely as we like.
As I said about the points, because I don’t care and I am not foolish enough to believe that 3 or 4 points out of 2000 makes any difference at all. The game is finely balanced for that level of granularity to be needed. I have used points for all the editions for 1st, until PL arrived. Soon as a we tried power level it became abundantly clear that it had zero negative impact on the gaming experience. I didn’t feel penalised at all for taking less than optimum load outs. It became clear that we had been wasting our time working out armies in minute detail adding uk the cost of indivisible weapons and troops. It didn’t matter one bit. Why would we ever go back to wasting our time doing that.
Maybe on the very top tables of big competitions are players and lists so tuned in that 20 or a hundred pints might make a difference, occasionally. But for most people, and certainly me and my mates who often forget rules or forget to Move or fire a unit it makes no difference at all.
nou wrote: A) because assigning points that „accurately reflect unit’s power” is impossible outside of a very strict and defined context 40k doesn’t have and will never have, because of freeform list building and open scenario structures.
Then why do you defend the existence and use of a point system and points-based list building?
And on top of that, because players actively demand the existence of "list building as a skill", point efficiency discrepancies must exist within the point system. Bad choices must exist for optimal choices to exist.
This is absolutely false. Consider the question of "how many AA guns should I take in my army", which is clearly a question where list building skill is relevant. This involves considerations like "how many aircraft do I expect to encounter?", "do I need to kill the enemy aircraft or just accept some losses to strafing runs and focus elsewhere?", etc. And these questions exist even if tanks and AA guns and infantry all have accurate point costs when measured against the game as a whole. The superficial "list building skill" of "choose to buy the obvious unit with the best dice math" that exists in 40k is not in any way necessary.
B) in a narrative setting you already work in cooperation with your opponent to ensure a fair game at forces composition and scenario preparation stage
That's an interesting claim given the fact that GW's flagship narrative product for the current edition is one where you create a fixed list of units that you use regardless of who you are playing against. Or do you seriously expect people to plan out a whole Crusade in advance, arranging your list choices with each possible opponent before playing your first game?
Exactly the same with points - in a narrative context you do not restrict yourself only to the most optimal choices.
You say this, but in reality it still feels bad for many people when they know the unit they're taking is just a strictly worse version of the alternative. Taking a laspistol instead of a plasma pistol as a reasonable strategic choice feels much better than taking a laspistol instead of a plasma pistol with full knowledge that it's a sub-optimal choice and you're deliberately making your army less effective.
Both with points and PLs I have played both high power and low power games and PLs are simply more convenient to use, because they do not create an illusion of balance points do.
If points create an illusion of balance that you find undesirable then why do you continue to advocate the use of points-based list construction in narrative games?
And believe me, I really wish, that "assigning points that accurately reflect unit’s power” would be magically possible. It would really take a lot of burden from my hands when preparing fair narrative games.
Then you should advocate the use and improvement of the point system which is at least theoretically capable of getting to that level and support the removal of the point system that by design will never get there.
"point system which is at least theoretically capable of getting to that level" - every game designer on this planet knows, that this sentence is 100% false. Points do not work good enough as balancing mechanism.
And re-read my answers - point system of any kind sufficiently provide one information only: game size. Not sufficient balance information, not enough structure information. PLs provide game size information well enough for all practical purposes, anything above this level of granularity only adds to an illusion of balance and creates an expectation of improving it by shifting point values around. Which never works.
That said, I'm out, I don't enjoy going in circles with people that do not have enough game design knowledge to even understand what level I'm writing my posts at.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: First of all, if you're needing to rely on a third party product that may or may not be even accurate to build lists, then that's already pretty dire.
You don't need to use third party tools.
But you've fallen back on it every time someone's pointed out that they dislike listbuilding with points. If it's not essential, why mention it?
I'm just pointing out the fact that many people do use those third party tools regardless of which point system is being used.
I'm pointing out that many people use PL and Open, regardless of how essential you feel it is.
Second, just on the sheer size of the numbers, that's another issue. PL unit costs tend to be in the single digits, occasionally sub-50. Contrast to points, where most units are in the low hundreds. 10 is much smaller than 100, is all I'm saying.
Why does this matter? I suppose technically it takes less time to type 5+8+14+3 into your calculator than to type 95+160+290+75 but we're talking about a difference of a few seconds at most. Do we really need an entire second point system so you have to type fewer digits?
Yes. Not even just because of the size of the numbers involved, but also, as mentioned previously in this thread (which I forgot to mention, my apologies for missing out this part of my statement), it isn't even just the size of the numbers, but also how many calculations are made. A unit in PL is (for the most part) always the same (small) number. In points, a unit is not just each model's cost, but also the cost of their base wargear, some which is free, some which isn't, some of their upgrades, and in some cases, various special rule effects, like being the Chapter Champion or Chief Apothecary. That's many more calculations of larger numbers.
So yes, it's definitely more than a few seconds.
As for "if you're 1PL over, its harder to remove stuff" - not really. If you're 501 points over, but you only took barebones units, or the upgrades you too were non-negotiable, then you still need to strip entire units.
Yes, obviously you can be in a situation where you're at 501/500 and can't trim anything without removing entire units but those situations are a lot rarer than with PL. Every time you're over the point limit with PL you have to remove an entire unit (or at least cut a unit's size in half, if your faction has that option), with normal points that only happens a small percentage of the time. So on average, yes, PL is harder to make lists with.
Or, you can use the in-build systems in place that deal with asymmetrically sized armies, or your opponent and yourself can agree that the difference isn't so bad.
Again - the question comes down to alternative solutions and agreements beyond "2k Matched game or GTFO".
You mention on average - I think "on average", the time saved by faster calculations and not micromanaging every little detail of the army make PL easier than points.
Exactly - but you have to actually *choose* to add them, and by choosing to add them, you likely actually know what they are in order to want to include them. It's the same decision, but built off of the notion of explicit choice and player agency. You add what you know, not remove what you're unfamiliar with.
If you don't know what those optional things are then how are you making an informed choice about whether or not to include them?
Because you shouldn't play something if you don't know what it is. You're acting like *not* including something is the choice being made here, which makes sense from YOUR perspective, but from mine, the choice comes down to what you DO include. Try looking at it from my perspective - if you want to include something in the game, then both players should understand how it works. If one of the players doesn't know, or doesn't want to include it for whatever reason, then it wouldn't be a consensual and informed choice to include it.
And if you aren't making an informed choice about whether or not to include them then how do you know that Open Play is in fact your preferred system?
Because Open Play encourages and facilitates those informed decisions better than points does. Points assumes that everyone knows what every rule is. Open assumes that they don't.
And really, do we need an entire separate Way™ To™ Play™ to cover the basic tutorial for new players to learn the game? Why not just have a very simple tutorial mission in the starter box like every other game?
Why does a separate Way™ To™ Play™ hurt you?
You mention this a lot, but I genuinely don't see how someone else's choice of game affects you in any way. Why do you care?
What stops someone else saying the same for points?
You can say it, but unlike PL the normal point system has a reason to exist.
So does PL. The difference is that I respect your reasons. You don't respect ours. End of story.
So, you're ignoring every reason that BIndmage gave about their preference for it, unless you're calling them a gatekeeper?
No, I'm saying those reasons fail as justification.
In what way? Why is personal preference of how someone enjoys to spend their time not enough for you?
Can I turn around and say to anyone on this site and say "prove to me why you like 40k - sorry, your reasons fail as justification, now sell your models" - because that's what you're saying about PL.
They, like you, can claim that PL is "easier" but when you look at the actual process of making a list PL is not meaningfully easier and is often harder to use.
You literally can't prove that statement objectively. From our perspective, PL is meaningfully easier and simpler to use.
The only reason that I've ever seen that holds up to investigation is the rare time when a PL advocate is honest about wanting a gatekeeping tool. PL does in fact accomplish that goal if that's what you want.
In other words, you're being ignorant and have decided that there's only one right answer to suit your biases. Good to know.
CadianSgtBob wrote:PL renders vast amounts of design space irrelevant and reduces your list building choices to identifying the option with the biggest numbers in the stat line.
And why do I care about the bigger numbers? I want to play with what weapons are evocative, or look cool, or what I've got modelled. I don't care what gun does 1% more damage.
The fact that you don't understand or respect that there could be an alternative to this is why points are for you, and PL is for others.
Who exactly are these people that want to change the rules but are so obsessed with the concept of officialness that they can't make any changes without GW telling them it's ok to do it?
Why do you want to strip the concept of officialness away from them? Why does it affect you? Why do you even care about this?
The Crusade rules very clearly state that the point limit is a limit for each player, they do not include any of the language about "approximately this" or "closely matched in points" or whatever that Open Play often has. Exceeding the point limit in Crusade is no more permitted than exceeding the point limit in matched play or tournament games.
Just wanted to clarify, so there are no misunderstandings:
In Crusade, you have a Supply Limit, which allows you to build an Order of Battle. This Order of Battle is all the units available to you. Once added to an Order of Battle, the load outs and unit sizes cannot be modified without an expenditure of requisition points.
The Crusade rules state a starting Order of Battle is 25PL, but you also get 5 requisition points, and if you spend ALL of them to increase Supply Limit, you could get to 50PL. Beyond that, your Supply Limit can grow as you choose, 5PL at a time, but you burn RP to do it, so it happens according to the needs of the story. Your Order of Battle could start at 25PL, and it could stay there for as long as you want- there are plenty of things you can buy with RP besides Supply Limit.
Game size, however, is a totally separate animal. You build an army by adding units from your Order of Battle. Sometimes using your entire Order of Battle in a game might fit the narrative, but other times it won't. Generally, armies are meant to be matching PL, so the player with the higher Supply Limit will leave units out in order to match the size of their opponent's army.
Some Crusade missions are Asymmetrical, but I don't remember if any of them explicit call for games in which one army is expected to build an army with fewer PL. I think in some of the Planet Strike/ Octarius stuff allows planetary armies to take Fortifications for free, which obviously results in an PL imbalance, but it isn't achieved by raising or lowering an army's PL- it just calls for more or fewer units.
PenitentJake wrote: Just wanted to clarify, so there are no misunderstandings:
Just want to clarify your clarification: you start with 50 supply, not 25. And this is what the rules for playing a Crusade game say:
Each player must then select a Battle-forged army. The Power Level of each player's army, and the number of Command points each player starts with when they begin mustering their army, are shown in the table below:
{Table with games at 25/50/100/150 points, corresponding exactly to the standard 500/1000/2000/3000 point game sizes in matched play.}
Now let's see what the current tournament pack says in the same place:
Each player must then select a Battle-forged army. The points limit of each player's army, and the number of Command points each player starts with when they begin mustering their army, are shown in the table below:
The point limit in Crusade is explicitly presented as a hard limit, not a rough guideline, just like the normal point system. The statement about the point limit is word for word identical with the exception of referring to "power level" instead of "points".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: "point system which is at least theoretically capable of getting to that level" - every game designer on this planet knows, that this sentence is 100% false. Points do not work good enough as balancing mechanism.
That's a rather narcissistic statement, insisting that you know better than all the game designers currently publishing systems using point costs. You are a clear minority on this subject so it's pretty hilariously arrogant of you to declare that you're done having a discussion with anyone who doesn't agree with your premise.
And re-read my answers - point system of any kind sufficiently provide one information only: game size.
Why do you need points for that? You can just put models on the table and see what looks about right. Player A gets some tanks and infantry, player B gets a similar amount of tanks and infantry, maybe add a couple more infantry squads to B because B is a less-elite army, now play the game. By adding up point costs you are conceding that they work as a system for determining the strength of units/armies.
First turn advantage in modern 40K is equal to 500-600 pts. Anything below that is perfectly winnable.
Cool. So when the player with 2500 points because of PL errors gets first turn they are effectively playing a game of 2500 points vs 1000 points. PL works great!
PenitentJake wrote: Just wanted to clarify, so there are no misunderstandings:
Just want to clarify your clarification: you start with 50 supply, not 25. And this is what the rules for playing a Crusade game say:
Each player must then select a Battle-forged army. The Power Level of each player's army, and the number of Command points each player starts with when they begin mustering their army, are shown in the table below:
{Table with games at 25/50/100/150 points, corresponding exactly to the standard 500/1000/2000/3000 point game sizes in matched play.}
Now let's see what the current tournament pack says in the same place:
Each player must then select a Battle-forged army. The points limit of each player's army, and the number of Command points each player starts with when they begin mustering their army, are shown in the table below:
The point limit in Crusade is explicitly presented as a hard limit, not a rough guideline, just like the normal point system. The statement about the point limit is word for word identical with the exception of referring to "power level" instead of "points".
Yep, you got me man. PL is 50 to start with no initial RP- it's right there in black and white. I'm not sure how I got 25PL+5RPP stuck in my head- it is how we've built all the Crusades in our campaign. Didn't even realize we were house-ruling the whole time. Many apologies for the misinterpretation.
And yes, Supply Limit is a hard limit to the size of your Order of Battle- but my primary point was that supply limit is not necessarily the same thing as the size of any given game you play. You can never field an army that's bigger than your Supply Limit, but there are plenty of reasons why you might want to use an army that is smaller than your Supply Limit.
PenitentJake wrote: Yep, you got me man. PL is 50 to start with no initial RP- it's right there in black and white. I'm not sure how I got 25PL + 5RP stuck in my head- it is how we've built all the Crusades in our campaign. Didn't even realize we were house-ruling the whole time. Many apologies for the misinterpretation.
And yes, Supply Limit is a hard limit to the size of your Order of Battle- but my primary point was that supply limit is not necessarily the same thing as the size of any given game you play. You can never field an army that's bigger than your Supply Limit, but you can choose to field an army that is smaller than your Supply Limit, and there are many reasons why you might want to.
Those quotes are not about supply limit, they're from the section on playing a game. They are word for word identical between Crusade and tournament play, with the except that they refer to 25/50/100/150 PL instead of 500/1000/2000/3000 points. In both cases you choose a game size and then build an army up to the specified point limit.
Andykp wrote: A few hundred points either way make no odds really. I don’t care about it.
There is a gigantic difference between being able to have 4 of the best things and 6, the way fire power gets spread in w40k. Specialy for stuff which are both very powerful on the offensive and hard to take down.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Open play is the purest form of "my dudes" you can have in a system like 40k, where half the time the rules are able to be misinterpreted numerous ways.
Also, when did CAAC become a thing? Is that really a acronym or did Bob just make that up?
CAAC was coined by Peregrine to insult me and couple of other posters. It then gained traction and settled on „people whose way to enjoy the game I utterny do not understand, because I’m a sworn competitive player”.
I'm fairly sure CAAC doesn't originate from Peregrine. In essence, it refers to those people who are heavily opposed to any kind of behavior that is even remotely related to making it easer to win games - including little things like making sure your list has anti-tank, having synergy between units or even bringing the same unit twice.
It's that guy at the store who calls people beardy, WAAC and accuses them of "copying lists from the internet" because they were able to beat his "extremely flavorful" homebrew chapter consisting of nothing but tactical marines and rhinos that refuse to use anything but basic bolters because the emperor himself told them so. CAAC often tend to be hypocrites as well, because a lot of them are essentially complaining about losing the game while insisting that no one should put any effort in winning.
Essentially the same kind of toxic behavior as WAAC, just on the other side of the spectrum. Calling someone a CAAC is as much a veiled insult as calling someone a WAAC is. People always seem to forget that "AAC" stands for at all costs - merely asking for toned down lists or wanting your game to be more true to the lore has nothing to be with being a CAAC.
From my point of view, CAAC were much more common in previous editions and doesn't really apply to most people anymore as the nature of 8th and 9th, as well as the embrace of tournament play by GW has kind of taken away their reason to exist.
Andykp wrote: Why take a las pistol over a plasma pistol, because the model I have has a laspistol, because when I built it I thought it look3d cooler, and narratively why would all my guard sgts have plasma pistols, it doesn’t fit my armies fluff. ( real examples by the way, my guard army most sgts have las pistols and one of the officers, there’s only one plasma pistol out of 6 squads and two characters). The main reason to take las over plasma pistols is that I am building a themed army with a narrative based on models I like.
All of this is perfectly reasonable. I just don't understand why you want a system that actively discourages this sort of thing by making base weapons cost exactly the same as weapons that are objective upgrades.
This isn't even a flaw exclusive to PL. We see similar issues in points with, for example, Boneswords being costed the same as Rending Claws and Scything Talons, despite outclassing both against near enough every target imaginable.
It's the same reason why I hate relics and warlord traits all costing 1CP, regardless of effectiveness. It means the 'fluffy' traits and relics rarely see play because they're having to compete with ones that are far more effective (and which are themselves a finite resource to begin with), and don't even the advantage of being cheap.
If you don't care about any of that, fine. But it might be worth considering that many other people do care. Many people don't like a system that actively punishes them for taking flavourful-but-weak options. Many people don't like feeling that they are actively hurting their list by trying to build flavourful characters and units with non-optimal options.
And of course, it's even worse if your army (or the parts of it you want to play) happens to be on the weak side to begin with. Because then you have even less wiggle-room to take suboptimal units and options if you still want a decent shot at winning the game.
Even if it doesn't matter for you and the lists you make, it seems strange to rush to the defence of a system that does all it can to discourage all but the most committed players from following the same path.
nou wrote: CAAC was coined by Peregrine to insult me and couple of other posters. It then gained traction and settled on „people whose way to enjoy the game I utterny do not understand, because I’m a sworn competitive player”.
Out of curiosity, is Peregrine still on dakkadakka? I can't recall having seen her post in ages.
vipoid wrote:If you don't care about any of that, fine. But it might be worth considering that many other people do care. Many people don't like a system that actively punishes them for taking flavourful-but-weak options. Many people don't like feeling that they are actively hurting their list by trying to build flavourful characters and units with non-optimal options.
That's totally fine - play points instead. That's what points is for.
No-one's trying to take away your choice. Don't take ours away.
vipoid wrote:If you don't care about any of that, fine. But it might be worth considering that many other people do care. Many people don't like a system that actively punishes them for taking flavourful-but-weak options. Many people don't like feeling that they are actively hurting their list by trying to build flavourful characters and units with non-optimal options.
That's totally fine - play points instead. That's what points is for.
No-one's trying to take away your choice. Don't take ours away.
The premise of the thread is GW taking points away and going full power level only. So its kind of in the title of the thread which is why people are arguing and fighting for their system as the thread is basically assuming a do or die approach to one system surviving and the other being killed off.
vipoid wrote:If you don't care about any of that, fine. But it might be worth considering that many other people do care. Many people don't like a system that actively punishes them for taking flavourful-but-weak options. Many people don't like feeling that they are actively hurting their list by trying to build flavourful characters and units with non-optimal options.
That's totally fine - play points instead. That's what points is for.
No-one's trying to take away your choice. Don't take ours away.
The premise of the thread is GW taking points away and going full power level only. So its kind of in the title of the thread which is why people are arguing and fighting for their system as the thread is basically assuming a do or die approach to one system surviving and the other being killed off.
The problem is that PL players aren't advocating for the removal of anything, but the fear of points being removed is being used to discredit PL players.
There's nothing wrong with people saying "I don't wanna use PL, but I'm happy with everyone else who wants to use it".
Andykp wrote: Why take a las pistol over a plasma pistol, because the model I have has a laspistol, because when I built it I thought it look3d cooler, and narratively why would all my guard sgts have plasma pistols, it doesn’t fit my armies fluff. ( real examples by the way, my guard army most sgts have las pistols and one of the officers, there’s only one plasma pistol out of 6 squads and two characters). The main reason to take las over plasma pistols is that I am building a themed army with a narrative based on models I like.
All of this is perfectly reasonable. I just don't understand why you want a system that actively discourages this sort of thing by making base weapons cost exactly the same as weapons that are objective upgrades.
This isn't even a flaw exclusive to PL. We see similar issues in points with, for example, Boneswords being costed the same as Rending Claws and Scything Talons, despite outclassing both against near enough every target imaginable.
It's the same reason why I hate relics and warlord traits all costing 1CP, regardless of effectiveness. It means the 'fluffy' traits and relics rarely see play because they're having to compete with ones that are far more effective (and which are themselves a finite resource to begin with), and don't even the advantage of being cheap.
If you don't care about any of that, fine. But it might be worth considering that many other people do care. Many people don't like a system that actively punishes them for taking flavourful-but-weak options. Many people don't like feeling that they are actively hurting their list by trying to build flavourful characters and units with non-optimal options.
And of course, it's even worse if your army (or the parts of it you want to play) happens to be on the weak side to begin with. Because then you have even less wiggle-room to take suboptimal units and options if you still want a decent shot at winning the game.
Even if it doesn't matter for you and the lists you make, it seems strange to rush to the defence of a system that does all it can to discourage all but the most committed players from following the same path.
nou wrote: CAAC was coined by Peregrine to insult me and couple of other posters. It then gained traction and settled on „people whose way to enjoy the game I utterny do not understand, because I’m a sworn competitive player”.
Out of curiosity, is Peregrine still on dakkadakka? I can't recall having seen her post in ages.
Posts search shows he stopped posting quite long ago. But CSB seems to aim at replacing him, along with Hecaton
vipoid wrote:If you don't care about any of that, fine. But it might be worth considering that many other people do care. Many people don't like a system that actively punishes them for taking flavourful-but-weak options. Many people don't like feeling that they are actively hurting their list by trying to build flavourful characters and units with non-optimal options.
That's totally fine - play points instead. That's what points is for.
No-one's trying to take away your choice. Don't take ours away.
The premise of the thread is GW taking points away and going full power level only. So its kind of in the title of the thread which is why people are arguing and fighting for their system as the thread is basically assuming a do or die approach to one system surviving and the other being killed off.
The problem is that PL players aren't advocating for the removal of anything, but the fear of points being removed is being used to discredit PL players.
There's nothing wrong with people saying "I don't wanna use PL, but I'm happy with everyone else who wants to use it".
I think the issue is that GW has been encouraging PL for a while - eg the casual way they put PL on the unit profile but not points.
There's a worry that GW might try it and gamers tend to argue as if talking to GW when on community groups.
Personally I don't see the point of Power-Levels. The only advantage it has is that its easier to mental math add up. Otherwise it brings no actual advantages and places a huge amount of pressure on the pre-game setup and the attitude of both players with regard to the game itself. Sure we get some issues with that with points, but power level goes even more into the extreme. Thus two people with the same intention and attitude can use PL and have a great time; whilst two others with different intentions and attitudes can have a horrible time.
Plus I find the argument of making the maths easier strange in an age where pretty much everyone is carrying a pocket calculator with them now. Tablets and phones are both super common (in fact not having one on you is considered quite abnormal now) and whilst there are some good opposing arguments for mandating game apps for wargames, most phone calculators are quick, simple to use and work well. They are unlikely to crash; place minimal power drain and requirements on the phone and should only be needed in the setup phase which you could even do at home before the game day.
Perhaps a quote from Rick Priestley can make you rethink a bit or two...
"So where do points values come into all that? Well, army lists and points values are a great way of working out forces if you know how the scenario will affect the basic utility of the different elements. To put it another way, if the tabletop is six feet by four, if the deployment is 'line 'em up and go', if the terrain falls within certain narrow limits, and if you know what the victory conditions are - then it's possible to work out points values that have some broad credibilty. You will know how useful or how valuable certain kinds of troops will be within the context of the game. Points values make perfect sense if we are talking about a very limited type of confrontational scenario. However, points values make almost no sense if you take armies into radically different kinds of situations. To give a few obvious examples, if a battlefield is impassable to heavy armoured vehicles then the value of tanks is going to be reduced considerably, if the battlefield is very small or very large, then the value of long range weapons is lessened or enhanced respectively, if the objectives set for the armies require positions to be taken by infantry then this affects the effective utility - and hence the value - of infantry/non-infantry units. Simply put- in different situations the value of units will also be different.
It doesn't take a genius to see that the combination of fixed points values and scenarios designed for points balanced armies creates a kind of circular self-sustaining mind-set. For points to be 'balanced' the scenario must fall within very narrow limits. Once those narrow limits are accepted as a standard, the exact points value of a unit becomes a critical factor in picking an effective army. Thus the structured army lists encourage players to adopt the same narrow parameters for scenarios time after time, and focuses players' minds on the cost/competitiveness of units within those parameters. It is wargaming - it is perhaps one of the most popular and enduring kinds of wargaming - but it isn't the be all and end all of what a wargame can be. For one thing, it has absolutely no reference to history or actual warfare. In real war fairness and balance of outcome are things to positively avoided where possible! It is also an approach strongly focussed on the one-on-one game - a kind of toy soldier equivalent of chess - in which the wargame is seen as a kind of intellectual match between two individuals. That kind of game might suit some players - perhaps a pair of regular opponents of comparable aptitude - but it works less well for games between multiple players, teams or games between experienced players and novices." Rick Priestley, in the pages of Wargames, Soldiers and Strategy magazine issue 71 (2013). (courtesy of Archbombe in another thread)
I mean he's not wrong, but that quotation kind of feels like its only half of the argument. He's pointed out some flaws with the points system but doesn't actually present any means to fairly integrate them into a game system.
He's also kind of edging the discussion away from the idea of a competitive wargame and more into a collaborative battle simulation. Ergo where instead of the objective being to win for both players; the objective becomes a simulation of an event for both players.
This is something historical games often achieve, but in that context they are often using real world numbers combined with the game simulation to re-create real world events. 40K/Fantasy wargames don't have any real world numbers to draw from. There just isn't anything to create such a simulation from other than the players own imaginations.
At which point you aren't even re-creating a real war you are trying to make a game simulate one.
I feel like that can "kind" of work, but its always going ot hit the barrier of not having a DM to bridge between the simulation and the players. DM style wargaming could certainly work, but it would require a very different approach, rules system and structure. It would be a very interesting style of gaming to engage with and I suspect some DnD groups already do play games that get large enough to be akin to a big skirmish or wargame experience.
It's a bit like trying to play Monoploy with a Chess set. You could sort of possibly do it with a lot of bits of paper and modifications. However the actual chess rules themselves don't really work well for it at all. So in the end you're not trying to modify chess you're actually after a very different experience entirely that works FAR better with its own rules, its own tokens and counters and its own approach - even if you still used the chess pieces as icons in monopoly.
If other wargames use points, and are mostly fine, then why does Warhammer struggle this hard? It can't be because points are impossible to work with, as if you have to give a random number each time. Points work best when everything else in the system works, but changing the points system or dropping points entirely fixes nothing. But points can lead to a better balanced system, as long as the system works. At some point, you just have to admit that the Warhammer teams just don't know what they're doing balance wise.
By the way, I play an RPG that uses points. It isn't balanced at all. Their whole thing is "Points are a shaping mechanism so you can build what you want as long as it falls into the point limit", but people don't defend the fact that a starting character is 100 points and that you can delete the known universe with 50. But it's an rpg, not a wargame. It can get away with massive balance issues, as the GM can just say no, as the players are supposed to be cooperative, etc..
Sgt_Smudge wrote: That's totally fine - play points instead. That's what points is for.
No-one's trying to take away your choice. Don't take ours away.
The issue is that GW having PL as a system is actively hurting the point system. e.g.
- The decision to include PL on dataslates instead of points, making the latter more awkward to begin with.
- Using CP for artefacts and warlord traits is very clearly done to facilitate both systems but actively hurts points by removing any cost differences between strong and weak items
- Removing point costs from a lot of items is clearly an attempt to gradually merge points with PL, to the detriment of the former.
I don't mind PL existing alongside points, so long as points don't suffer as a result.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: If other wargames use points, and are mostly fine, then why does Warhammer struggle this hard? It can't be because points are impossible to work with, as if you have to give a random number each time. Points work best when everything else in the system works, but changing the points system or dropping points entirely fixes nothing. But points can lead to a better balanced system, as long as the system works. At some point, you just have to admit that the Warhammer teams just don't know what they're doing balance wise.
By the way, I play an RPG that uses points. It isn't balanced at all. Their whole thing is "Points are a shaping mechanism so you can build what you want as long as it falls into the point limit", but people don't defend the fact that a starting character is 100 points and that you can delete the known universe with 50. But it's an rpg, not a wargame. It can get away with massive balance issues, as the GM can just say no, as the players are supposed to be cooperative, etc..
I once wrote an elaborate post about why solving point costs in Warhammer is not doable, but I don't feel like repeating it. So to make a long story short, the reason is that all resolution steps in 40k are non-linear so the math behind the point balance in 40k is therefore chaotic. They made a good step towards linearity and thus better solvability of point balance with switching to flat rolls for WS and initial rarity of AP, but because core rules of 8th/9th are so limited and the scope and 40k is so massive, they then bolted on a huge amount of non-linear or straight up non-quantifiable elements back on. The only way to tackle the balance now is statistical, which doesn't work outside of a very narrow context of "the meta", and a statistical balance has a metric ton of drawbacks. It is enough to say, that in rock/paper/scissors, all "factions" have a perfect 50% win rate but every game is a one way slaughter.
Many other wargames are effective at balance, because they include non-point related balancing mechanisms like sideboards or staggered army selection and point costs are used mostly for structure and rough size measure. Or they are much more linear in design, like early AOS.
It is obviously true, that you can easily establish, that a large vehicle is worth more points than a gretchin, nobody denies that. But as you approach too much granularity, you can no longer adequately establish how much melta is worth relative to a flamer, because the effective value of those will swing more than their point cost, depending on a matchup, terrain and scenario. It is even worse with intentionally situational special rules like poison or out of los targeting. There is a bottom threshold of usable points granularity, below which the points do not improve balance anymore. For the game with the scale of 40k it is somewhere between 10-20 current points per choice - more or less 1PL. Your 1pt upgrade is only meaningful if you take enough of them to impact the game flow anyhow. That GWs implementation of PLs in 40k is a joke is completely different story.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: If other wargames use points, and are mostly fine, then why does Warhammer struggle this hard? It can't be because points are impossible to work with, as if you have to give a random number each time. Points work best when everything else in the system works, but changing the points system or dropping points entirely fixes nothing. But points can lead to a better balanced system, as long as the system works. At some point, you just have to admit that the Warhammer teams just don't know what they're doing balance wise.
By the way, I play an RPG that uses points. It isn't balanced at all. Their whole thing is "Points are a shaping mechanism so you can build what you want as long as it falls into the point limit", but people don't defend the fact that a starting character is 100 points and that you can delete the known universe with 50. But it's an rpg, not a wargame. It can get away with massive balance issues, as the GM can just say no, as the players are supposed to be cooperative, etc..
Sounds suspiciously like you are playing Rogue Trader
And like RT to 9th ed 40K the RPG elements (pts = GP cost, Potentially silly interactions a GM is there to resolve) have been bastardised and baked in without any consideration to the other interactions modern writers shoe horn into a creaking system.
If GW went full PL I would be all on board with it. However I have a suspicion that IF GW go this way it would limit loadouts in both lists and the model range. (Hell its perfect for GW, Variant mini releases FTW££££££)
Sadly, I'm not playing Rogue Trader, though I think it would be fun to try out. I'm playing Infinity as my main Wargame, and GURPS as my main RPG. "Points does not equal balance" is a debate I see often for GURPS, and it's far more understandable for an RPG for me. But it's not like there's no attempt at balance. There are abilities I can recreate using other abilities, and they usually end up with the exact same cost, e.g. Obscure with proper modifiers being the same cost as Invisibility.
I just feel that the opinion that points can never be balanced enough for it to matter is ultimately harmful. Sure, points can never be the main balancing factor for a properly complex game, but that doesn't mean they should be disregarded for balance. They can still make a difference, and you can get closer or farther from balance while just changing point values.
In Infinity, I'd argue that a few models are too expensive on their own, but adding some support makes them shine. Like a lot of hackers. Or most Heavy Infantry and being supported by Smoke. Or the Avatar with models that only give Orders. What's important is that they're balanced by things needing to support each other, how orders work, special weapons cost, order limits, and point costs. I'd be fine with only using Power Level if it wasn't just points but less accurate. But it seems to just broaden the issue, rather than fix it.
Just slightly off topic, one of the reasons I refuse to play the new Kill Team is the lack of points, though mainly due to the fact that it means less customization, and the fact that 10 Guardsmen are supposedly balanced against, what, 4 Custodes? It messes with my sense of lore, but that's not a problem with lacking points. Hell, if it is balanced, I still don't want to touch it.
I once wrote an elaborate post about why solving point costs in Warhammer is not doable, but I don't feel like repeating it. So to make a long story short, the reason is that all resolution steps in 40k are non-linear so the math behind the point balance in 40k is therefore chaotic. They made a good step towards linearity and thus better solvability of point balance with switching to flat rolls for WS and initial rarity of AP, but because core rules of 8th/9th are so limited and the scope and 40k is so massive, they then bolted on a huge amount of non-linear or straight up non-quantifiable elements back on. The only way to tackle the balance now is statistical, which doesn't work outside of a very narrow context of "the meta", and a statistical balance has a metric ton of drawbacks. It is enough to say, that in rock/paper/scissors, all "factions" have a perfect 50% win rate but every game is a one way slaughter.
Many other wargames are effective at balance, because they include non-point related balancing mechanisms like sideboards or staggered army selection and point costs are used mostly for structure and rough size measure. Or they are much more linear in design, like early AOS.
It is obviously true, that you can easily establish, that a large vehicle is worth more points than a gretchin, nobody denies that. But as you approach too much granularity, you can no longer adequately establish how much melta is worth relative to a flamer, because the effective value of those will swing more than their point cost, depending on a matchup, terrain and scenario. It is even worse with intentionally situational special rules like poison or out of los targeting. There is a bottom threshold of usable points granularity, below which the points do not improve balance anymore. For the game with the scale of 40k it is somewhere between 10-20 current points per choice - more or less 1PL. Your 1pt upgrade is only meaningful if you take enough of them to impact the game flow anyhow. That GWs implementation of PLs in 40k is a joke is completely different story.
The thing is, while you might not be able to achieve perfect accuracy, you can still obtain a reasonable point value for many weapons.
To use your melta/flamer example, both have the same range (so that can be effectively discounted). The flamer is useful only against light infantry with poor armour. And even then, it's not very effective. Killing a single Ork or 1.5 Guardsmen probably isn't going to set the world on fire (no pun intended). In contrast, a meltagun is useful against vehicles, monsters, titanic units, heavy-infantry. Even against basic Marines, it's more effective than the flamer.
To put it another way, any Marine army, regardless of build, automatically invalidates the Flamer (as in, it's detrimental to have it over a melta). In fact, in order to make the meltagun a wasted choice, you'd basically need to be facing an infantry-guard list with no characters.
Now, in and of itself this doesn't give you a defined value for either weapon, but it does tell you that a Flamer should be markedly cheaper than a Melta in order to reflect how much more effective versatile the latter is by comparison.
Overread wrote:
He's also kind of edging the discussion away from the idea of a competitive wargame and more into a collaborative battle simulation. Ergo where instead of the objective being to win for both players; the objective becomes a simulation of an event for both players.
So wait, the dude that wrote the game sees it as a collaborative battle simulation? Huh never woulda guessed it...
nou wrote: Perhaps a quote from Rick Priestley can make you rethink a bit or two...
Not really, given my low opinion of him and his work. He has a lot of importance from a historical point of view but he's a relic of a time when game design was much less understood and the standards for quality were much lower.
But even in that quote he acknowledges that points are appropriate for the way the majority of 40k games are played: as a two-player matched play game. This is the game type that gets the vast majority of support in the 40k rules, with everything else being given a total of a paragraph or two in the entire rules. So no, I'm not really concerned that points may not be a good idea for a cooperative pseudo-RPG where you regularly play "tanks are not allowed" games.
nou wrote: I once wrote an elaborate post about why solving point costs in Warhammer is not doable, but I don't feel like repeating it. So to make a long story short, the reason is that all resolution steps in 40k are non-linear so the math behind the point balance in 40k is therefore chaotic. They made a good step towards linearity and thus better solvability of point balance with switching to flat rolls for WS and initial rarity of AP, but because core rules of 8th/9th are so limited and the scope and 40k is so massive, they then bolted on a huge amount of non-linear or straight up non-quantifiable elements back on. The only way to tackle the balance now is statistical, which doesn't work outside of a very narrow context of "the meta", and a statistical balance has a metric ton of drawbacks. It is enough to say, that in rock/paper/scissors, all "factions" have a perfect 50% win rate but every game is a one way slaughter.
Sorry, but that's a ridiculous argument. 40k having non-linear mechanics makes it difficult to create accurate point costs based on a formula and no playtesting or statistical analysis of results. It's not a problem for point costs in general. You can still base point costs on a unit or option's effectiveness against a representative sample of opponents. For example, if you want to balance flamers vs. melta you can calculate their effectiveness against each of a comprehensive set of targets (light infantry, MEQs, vehicles, etc), apply a weighting factor representing their relative frequency, and compare their total weighted firepower. And then once you set costs based on that calculation you collect playtesting data. If one of them is the clear most popular choice then you got the point costs wrong and you adjust appropriately and do further playtesting. If they're being taken in roughly equal amounts and your playtesters disagree on which one is better then you probably have the right cost.
And that's just the obvious basic system. If you want to get really into designing a custom balancing process you can do stuff like having a bidding system where the players have to compete for the right to "buy" a particular unit/upgrade for their list. If you're willing to join the modern era you could even do your playtesting in a digital version of 40k where detailed data is automatically logged for analysis without needing to worry about trusting player feedback.
But as you approach too much granularity, you can no longer adequately establish how much melta is worth relative to a flamer
You claim this but your claim does not match reality. Competitive players regularly make these evaluations with that level of precision.
Overread wrote:
He's also kind of edging the discussion away from the idea of a competitive wargame and more into a collaborative battle simulation. Ergo where instead of the objective being to win for both players; the objective becomes a simulation of an event for both players.
So wait, the dude that wrote the game sees it as a collaborative battle simulation? Huh never woulda guessed it...
Not really. The objective of winning the encounter is very much present in the historical wargaming and designed matches. The only part that is outright removed from the gaming experience in historicals is list building for advantage. In my part of the world, asymmetric scenarios are often played twice with switched roles, so they also do not skew the "who is better at pushing toy soldiers" outcome.
But this kind of approach to wargaming is completely unsuitable for US pickup culture, where any attempt at pre game conversation above "2000pts GT Matched" is perceived as an insult and being a GW apologetist by (too) many players.
nou wrote: But this kind of approach to wargaming is completely unsuitable for US pickup culture, where any attempt at pre game conversation above "2000pts GT Matched" is perceived as an insult and being a GW apologetist by (too) many players.
It's not being a GW apologist, it's missing the clear message that GW is giving you. Look at the game GW actually publishes, not your nostalgia for 1980s pseudo-RPG games in the 40k setting, and you see a game that is entirely dedicated to matched play pickup games. 60% is straight tournament-style games, 39% is "matched play with a table of upgrades" narrative games, and 1% is an occasional footnote saying something about maybe doing some vague thing with having a less-structured story game without giving any real details or support for the idea.
nou wrote: Perhaps a quote from Rick Priestley can make you rethink a bit or two...
Not really, given my low opinion of him and his work. He has a lot of importance from a historical point of view but he's a relic of a time when game design was much less understood and the standards for quality were much lower.
But even in that quote he acknowledges that points are appropriate for the way the majority of 40k games are played: as a two-player matched play game. This is the game type that gets the vast majority of support in the 40k rules, with everything else being given a total of a paragraph or two in the entire rules. So no, I'm not really concerned that points may not be a good idea for a cooperative pseudo-RPG where you regularly play "tanks are not allowed" games.
nou wrote: I once wrote an elaborate post about why solving point costs in Warhammer is not doable, but I don't feel like repeating it. So to make a long story short, the reason is that all resolution steps in 40k are non-linear so the math behind the point balance in 40k is therefore chaotic. They made a good step towards linearity and thus better solvability of point balance with switching to flat rolls for WS and initial rarity of AP, but because core rules of 8th/9th are so limited and the scope and 40k is so massive, they then bolted on a huge amount of non-linear or straight up non-quantifiable elements back on. The only way to tackle the balance now is statistical, which doesn't work outside of a very narrow context of "the meta", and a statistical balance has a metric ton of drawbacks. It is enough to say, that in rock/paper/scissors, all "factions" have a perfect 50% win rate but every game is a one way slaughter.
Sorry, but that's a ridiculous argument. 40k having non-linear mechanics makes it difficult to create accurate point costs based on a formula and no playtesting or statistical analysis of results. It's not a problem for point costs in general. You can still base point costs on a unit or option's effectiveness against a representative sample of opponents. For example, if you want to balance flamers vs. melta you can calculate their effectiveness against each of a comprehensive set of targets (light infantry, MEQs, vehicles, etc), apply a weighting factor representing their relative frequency, and compare their total weighted firepower. And then once you set costs based on that calculation you collect playtesting data. If one of them is the clear most popular choice then you got the point costs wrong and you adjust appropriately and do further playtesting. If they're being taken in roughly equal amounts and your playtesters disagree on which one is better then you probably have the right cost.
But as you approach too much granularity, you can no longer adequately establish how much melta is worth relative to a flamer
You claim this but your claim does not match reality. Competitive players regularly make these evaluations with that level of precision.
Re-read what you just wrote in the context of this thread.
You have just proven (exactly as has been written above and many times before in similar threads), that outside of Matched, points do not make too much sense, because you base your point costs on relative frequency of matchups within the meta. Once you step outside of what is "the way the majority of 40k games are played", those relative frequencies no longer apply. And this is where PLs step in - because points are very often skewed against your local environment/way of play and they do not provide more reliable metrics than PLs. EVERY PL supporter in this thread underlined, that their games do not follow the meta. One example I often invoke in such discussions - during 7th, the effective value of a Mawlock swinged from UP crap to mainstay choice in tournament lists, because it's utility relied on existence of large blobs of MEQs and TEQs "in the meta". If you mostly/only played against GEQ or MSU armies of your friends, including a Mawlock that was properly costed for tournament play was a straight up handicap for you. You can't balance such cases by any point juggling, and they are plenty.
My claims perfectly match reality, you are just obsessed with removing everything that doesn't suit your narrative from the scope of the conversation. And in many cases from the game entirely.
nou wrote: But this kind of approach to wargaming is completely unsuitable for US pickup culture, where any attempt at pre game conversation above "2000pts GT Matched" is perceived as an insult and being a GW apologetist by (too) many players.
It's not being a GW apologist, it's missing the clear message that GW is giving you. Look at the game GW actually publishes, not your nostalgia for 1980s pseudo-RPG games in the 40k setting, and you see a game that is entirely dedicated to matched play pickup games. 60% is straight tournament-style games, 39% is "matched play with a table of upgrades" narrative games, and 1% is an occasional footnote saying something about maybe doing some vague thing with having a less-structured story game without giving any real details or support for the idea.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: The problem is that PL players aren't advocating for the removal of anything, but the fear of points being removed is being used to discredit PL players.
There's nothing wrong with people saying "I don't wanna use PL, but I'm happy with everyone else who wants to use it".
I think the issue is that GW has been encouraging PL for a while - eg the casual way they put PL on the unit profile but not points.
I'd imagine that's because with PL, you only need to print one single number, maybe two. There's no indication that removing the single PL number from the unit profile would mean points would take it's place.
Personally I don't see the point of Power-Levels.
And that's okay. I'm not asking you to "see the point" - only to respect that some people like and prefer it.
Thus two people with the same intention and attitude can use PL and have a great time; whilst two others with different intentions and attitudes can have a horrible time.
The same can be said of points. I think the bigger problem isn't which system people choose to build their army, but their "intentions and attitudes" in both ways. If there's a mismatch, you won't have a good time.
Plus I find the argument of making the maths easier strange in an age where pretty much everyone is carrying a pocket calculator with them now. Tablets and phones are both super common (in fact not having one on you is considered quite abnormal now) and whilst there are some good opposing arguments for mandating game apps for wargames, most phone calculators are quick, simple to use and work well. They are unlikely to crash; place minimal power drain and requirements on the phone and should only be needed in the setup phase which you could even do at home before the game day.
Carrying a pocket calculator still doesn't change things like losing track of where you are in a long string of calculations. Should I need to use a calculator to work out the cost of a single unit?
vipoid wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: That's totally fine - play points instead. That's what points is for.
No-one's trying to take away your choice. Don't take ours away.
The issue is that GW having PL as a system is actively hurting the point system. e.g.
- The decision to include PL on dataslates instead of points, making the latter more awkward to begin with.
As I said, is there any evidence that GW would include points on a datasheet even IF PL was removed, or is it simply because that PL is a smaller number which doesn't have much variation?
- Using CP for artefacts and warlord traits is very clearly done to facilitate both systems but actively hurts points by removing any cost differences between strong and weak items
Again, there is no indication that this would change with the PL system gone, or that it couldn't be done with the points system anyway. It's not like the relics are all the same "strength" anyways, regardless of whatever weapon they upgrade.
- Removing point costs from a lot of items is clearly an attempt to gradually merge points with PL, to the detriment of the former.
Possibly, or it could simply be GW not knowing how to balance the point system effectively, and them wishing to promote more beyond the barebones build of certain units.
I don't mind PL existing alongside points, so long as points don't suffer as a result.
Likewise, but I don't agree with your assertion that the very existence of PL is to blame for the legitimate issues with points.
CadianSgtBob wrote:But even in that quote he acknowledges that points are appropriate for the way the majority of 40k games are played: as a two-player matched play game. This is the game type that gets the vast majority of support in the 40k rules, with everything else being given a total of a paragraph or two in the entire rules. So no, I'm not really concerned that points may not be a good idea for a cooperative pseudo-RPG where you regularly play "tanks are not allowed" games.
Exactly! You're absolutely that points would be appropriate for a two-player matched play game. But you're missing the crucial thing here - what myself and others are saying about our enjoyment of PL is that we're not playing tourney standard matched play games. It's that simple!
You keep points for the games that you want, but PL works for what we want.
CadianSgtBob wrote:Look at the game GW actually publishes
Yeah - one with PL and Open Play.
Sorry, you can't simultaneously say that "GW should stop supporting non-Matched games" and also claim that "GW only published Matched games".
Again, as I asked before - why do you care if people play a different kind of game to you?
nou wrote: You have just proven (exactly as has been written above and many times before in similar threads), that outside of Matched, points do not make too much sense, because you base your point costs on relative frequency of matchups within the meta.
Ok? 99% of 40k is matched play, games outside that structure are a poorly-defined and completely unsupported footnote. I'm fine with admitting that GW's rules don't do a great job of covering a scenario that GW isn't interested in supporting but I'm not sure why you think that has any relevance to points vs. less-accurate points.
And this is where PLs step in
No it isn't. PL, at best, is also capable of handling the situation but does not offer any advantages. Having point costs be less accurate does not make them more able to adapt to different metagames, especially when GW is adjusting the normal point values more frequently than PL.
This is once again demonstrating the problem with PL defenders: you treat "PL doesn't completely suck" and "PL works better than points" as equivalent arguments and assume that any scenario where normal points encounter a flaw must be one where PL is better. But in reality PL has every flaw that the normal point system has but also has other flaws on top of that. There are many scenarios where the normal point system does something that PL can't, there are none where PL does something the normal point system can't.
nou wrote: You have just proven (exactly as has been written above and many times before in similar threads), that outside of Matched, points do not make too much sense, because you base your point costs on relative frequency of matchups within the meta.
Ok? 99% of 40k is matched play, games outside that structure are a poorly-defined and completely unsupported footnote. I'm fine with admitting that GW's rules don't do a great job of covering a scenario that GW isn't interested in supporting but I'm not sure why you think that has any relevance to points vs. less-accurate points.
And this is where PLs step in
No it isn't. PL, at best, is also capable of handling the situation but does not offer any advantages. Having point costs be less accurate does not make them more able to adapt to different metagames, especially when GW is adjusting the normal point values more frequently than PL.
This is once again demonstrating the problem with PL defenders: you treat "PL doesn't completely suck" and "PL works better than points" as equivalent arguments and assume that any scenario where normal points encounter a flaw must be one where PL is better. But in reality PL has every flaw that the normal point system has but also has other flaws on top of that. There are many scenarios where the normal point system does something that PL can't, there are none where PL does something the normal point system can't.
What about it? I'm very familiar with that survey and nothing in there in any way contradicts what I said.
This post sums up to me that you are either unwell or a troll. That article contradicts everything you said, you have zero respect for anyone else’s experiences or preferences and can’t hold an argument in good faith. Goodbye.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Should I need to use a calculator to work out the cost of a single unit?
Do you honestly have this problem or are you just trying to make a point in an internet argument? I have never encountered a unit where adding up the individual upgrade costs is too difficult to do without a calculator. And in the rare case where I've had to make a list with PL I've always added up the point costs with a calculator.
As I said, is there any evidence that GW would include points on a datasheet even IF PL was removed, or is it simply because that PL is a smaller number which doesn't have much variation?
Just the fact that GW used to put points on the datasheet until they pushed them out at the beginning of 8th, when they tried to make PL the default point system.
You keep points for the games that you want, but PL works for what we want.
You keep saying this but other than "it takes a few seconds less to add up the numbers" you still haven't given any reason whyPL does anything the normal point system can't do just as well. All you've done is repeat the GW marketing claim that PL is "narrative" or "open" because that's where GW printed the PL rules, as if the long history of successful open and narrative style games under the normal point system doesn't exist.
(I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don't value PL as a gatekeeping tool.)
Sorry, you can't simultaneously say that "GW should stop supporting non-Matched games" and also claim that "GW only published Matched games".
PL is not a requirement for non-matched-play games, and removing PL does not in any way mean dropping what limited support GW currently gives them.
PL is also used in matched play games (9th edition's version of narrative play).
Again, as I asked before - why do you care if people play a different kind of game to you?
Because this is a discussion of points vs. PL. If you don't want to see people disagreeing with your chosen system then maybe you shouldn't read this thread?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: This post sums up to me that you are either unwell or a troll. That article contradicts everything you said, you have zero respect for anyone else’s experiences or preferences and can’t hold an argument in good faith. Goodbye.
Well that's certainly some shameless lying in defense of your accusation of dishonesty. Maybe you should look in the mirror before accusing other people of arguing in bad faith?
Not one bit of that survey says anything to contradict what I said. Nowhere in there does it even address the question of open play or PL vs. points. But I guess you're hoping nobody actually reads the article to find out that you're lying?
Honest hypothetical. You agree to meet a friend at a local b&M for a game of 40k, 2k each. When you both arrive, your friend explains there has been an issue where he double booked. He only has 1 hour to play before he has to head home. You understand, and offer to play a smaller game, just to spend time together. What about half our lists? Without knowing each other's factions, which is honestly easier to setup a smaller but even game? PL or points?
I think the obvious answer is PL, because it uses whole numbers, without a lot of mucking about with a calculator. You can jump into a smaller game far easier with PL than with points. If you
Sgt_Smudge wrote: As I said, is there any evidence that GW would include points on a datasheet even IF PL was removed, or is it simply because that PL is a smaller number which doesn't have much variation?
Hard to say. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if 8th was intended to use only PL, so the dataslates were arranged with that in mind (hence why points are just shoved into some tables at the end).
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Again, there is no indication that this would change with the PL system gone, or that it couldn't be done with the points system anyway. It's not like the relics are all the same "strength" anyways, regardless of whatever weapon they upgrade.
Eh, I think it's pretty telling that GW moved to using CP only when PL came into play. In every past edition relics have been paid for with points, like everything else.
I do agree that it could be done with points removing PL, the issue is that the current method allows them to use the same system for both points and PL, and I simply don't think GW can be arsed making separate relic/WLT costs for the two.
Possibly, or it could simply be GW not knowing how to balance the point system effectively, and them wishing to promote more beyond the barebones build of certain units.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Should I need to use a calculator to work out the cost of a single unit?
Do you honestly have this problem or are you just trying to make a point in an internet argument? I have never encountered a unit where adding up the individual upgrade costs is too difficult to do without a calculator. And in the rare case where I've had to make a list with PL I've always added up the point costs with a calculator.
I mean, it's rather self-evident that there are more calculations involved with points than with PL. Is it difficult? Not for me. Is it tedious? Yes.
I experience no tedium with PL.
As I said, is there any evidence that GW would include points on a datasheet even IF PL was removed, or is it simply because that PL is a smaller number which doesn't have much variation?
Just the fact that GW used to put points on the datasheet until they pushed them out at the beginning of 8th, when they tried to make PL the default point system.
Yes, where they *checks notes* released the game with both points and PL?
Not sure about the authenticity of that one.
You keep points for the games that you want, but PL works for what we want.
You keep saying this but other than "it takes a few seconds less to add up the numbers" you still haven't given any reason whyPL does anything the normal point system can't do just as well.
Do I need to? I mean, seriously, why do I need to justify my enjoyment of it to you? I'm not asking you to change what you do. I'm not even asking you to understand why I do what I do - why do I need to demand your understanding? The only thing I ask is respect, the same amount that I afford to you.
All you've done is repeat the GW marketing claim that PL is "narrative" or "open" because that's where GW printed the PL rules, as if the long history of successful open and narrative style games under the normal point system doesn't exist.
I haven't even claimed that. I've only claimed that I prefer it, because I find it easier and more accessible.
Sorry, you can't simultaneously say that "GW should stop supporting non-Matched games" and also claim that "GW only published Matched games".
PL is not a requirement for non-matched-play games, and removing PL does not in any way mean dropping what limited support GW currently gives them.
PL is also used in matched play games (9th edition's version of narrative play).
Exactly - you point out that GW does non-matched play games. The very existence of PL also indicates that GW has priorities beyond just points.
My point stands - you can't simultaneously complain that "GW doesn't invest enough in points" but also claim "GW clearly only care about points, so why does PL exist?"
Again, as I asked before - why do you care if people play a different kind of game to you?
Because this is a discussion of points vs. PL. If you don't want to see people disagreeing with your chosen system then maybe you shouldn't read this thread?
But it's not just a discussion of points vs PL - you're actively saying that PL should be removed, and all those who play it should play something else.
If it was just answering the OP, that could be handled with a simple "yes, it would", or "no, it wouldn't" or even "I like XYZ" or "I don't like XYZ" - it's when you start throwing in additional stuff like "PL shouldn't exist" or "the people who play PL only do so to gatekeep from others" that I take an objection.
I don't care if you like it or don't like it; I do, however, have an issue when you tell me that I'm enjoying myself wrong.
Are you capable of expressing your dislike of something without also bringing down the people who *do* enjoy it?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: As I said, is there any evidence that GW would include points on a datasheet even IF PL was removed, or is it simply because that PL is a smaller number which doesn't have much variation?
Hard to say. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if 8th was intended to use only PL, so the dataslates were arranged with that in mind (hence why points are just shoved into some tables at the end).
So that's a no. I have nothing wrong with speculation, but don't treat it as a fact which you can use to clobber PL over the head with.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Again, there is no indication that this would change with the PL system gone, or that it couldn't be done with the points system anyway. It's not like the relics are all the same "strength" anyways, regardless of whatever weapon they upgrade.
Eh, I think it's pretty telling that GW moved to using CP only when PL came into play. In every past edition relics have been paid for with points, like everything else.
I do agree that it could be done with points removing PL, the issue is that the current method allows them to use the same system for both points and PL, and I simply don't think GW can be arsed making separate relic/WLT costs for the two.
In past editions, we haven't had command points, or faction keywords, or stratagems. Are those to blame for PL too?
Again, I think the inclusion of relics isn't even linked to PL, considering how relics and stratagems didn't exist in the base game (Indexes).
GW's laziness to not have two more distinct systems isn't a fault of PL.
Possibly, or it could simply be GW not knowing how to balance the point system effectively, and them wishing to promote more beyond the barebones build of certain units.
Not impossible but I have serious doubts.
Seeing how GW has never been flawless, or even near to it, with their points balance (see, Formations) I'm inclined to blame stupidity to their actions.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Honest hypothetical. You agree to meet a friend at a local b&M for a game of 40k, 2k each. When you both arrive, your friend explains there has been an issue where he double booked. He only has 1 hour to play before he has to head home. You understand, and offer to play a smaller game, just to spend time together. What about half our lists? Without knowing each other's factions, which is honestly easier to setup a smaller but even game? PL or points?
Neither. Not that 1K game would fit into an hour with setup and takedown, but... no. Your premise is faulty. If you're cutting down lists, you know what models you have and what they cost either way (or at least have them on paper). Excising entire units and then tidying up by removing the odd model isn't going to take an appreciable amount of time.
I think the obvious answer is PL, because it uses whole numbers
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Honest hypothetical. You agree to meet a friend at a local b&M for a game of 40k, 2k each. When you both arrive, your friend explains there has been an issue where he double booked. He only has 1 hour to play before he has to head home. You understand, and offer to play a smaller game, just to spend time together. What about half our lists? Without knowing each other's factions, which is honestly easier to setup a smaller but even game? PL or points?
None of the above. I brought the models for a standard 2000 point game with me, I didn't bring my entire collection. So either I have one of my standard 500/1000 point lists with appropriate models ready or I don't have an army. And TBH with only an hour to play, including setup time and making new lists, even a 1000 point game isn't realistic.
And I note that, to even attempt to create a realistic scenario where PL comes out ahead, you have to put in completely unrealistic time pressure and PLstill probably doesn't make any difference because a few minutes of difference in due to calculating points is going to have less of an effect on whether or not you finish the game than having a variety of lists already prepared in advance, how many rule questions come up during the game, etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I mean, it's rather self-evident that there are more calculations involved with points than with PL. Is it difficult? Not for me. Is it tedious? Yes.
So now you've moved the goalposts from needing a calculator to "I find adding 60+10+10+10+5 tedious". I can't really argue with your subjective personal opinion about what you find tedious but you certainly haven't established any difficulty beyond that subjective personal opinion.
Yes, where they *checks notes* released the game with both points and PL?
Not sure about the authenticity of that one.
They released it with both normal points and PL but it was very clear that the intent was for PL to be the primary point system, and that the intent was to phase out the old system once people accepted PL. PL got all the prominence in the rulebooks, the normal point system was an appendix at the back where you'd hopefully never bother to use it.
Do I need to? I mean, seriously, why do I need to justify my enjoyment of it to you?
You're participating in a discussion of points vs. PL. If you don't want to justify your position on the subject then maybe you shouldn't participate in a thread where that is the topic for discussion? Nobody is hunting you down and demanding a justification for your opinion outside of this thread.
My point stands - you can't simultaneously complain that "GW doesn't invest enough in points" but also claim "GW clearly only care about points, so why does PL exist?"
That is not what I said, please do not make straw man arguments. GW only cares about matched play, which is fully compatible with the argument that GW needs to stop investing in PL and focus on the better point system.
And just to be clear: matched play is not Matched™ Play™. Crusade is matched play as the term is being used in the quotes you are replying to here, it is not Matched™ Play™.
Yeah... Imma just say that, while I'm firmly in the "Points are the better system" camp, the reasonableness of a lot of the PL fans here has convinced me that it's, at worst, a harmless addition. GW has bad balance, but getting rid of PL won't change that.
JNAProductions wrote: Yeah... Imma just say that, while I'm firmly in the "Points are the better system" camp, the reasonableness of a lot of the PL fans here has convinced me that it's, at worst, a harmless addition. GW has bad balance, but getting rid of PL won't change that.
Touch patronising, but thanks!
The reason points were shoved at the end of book in a table and PL not is because they knew when they designed them that pints would be adjusted a lot. So made them separate from the datafaxes so the wouldn’t have to reprint them all the time. Just update the points table like they do every quarter. They stated this at the time as the rationale. (The fact that PL rarely changes is another advantage for me, not chasing the meta it means I don’t have to search out the most up to date version all the time).
There’s room for both systems to work side by side. I think if GW goes he way of AOS wi5 points and options in 40k it will be done in attempt to make balance for match play easier, not to appease narrative gamers. Not sure it will happen but I think both systems are here for a while at least.
The reason points were shoved at the end of book in a table and PL not is because they knew when they designed them that pints would be adjusted a lot.
Hoe dare you. The notion of adjusting pints is downright offensive and deluded. And completely unnecessary. A pint is a pint and that is the end of it sir.
The reason points were shoved at the end of book in a table and PL not is because they knew when they designed them that pints would be adjusted a lot.
Hoe dare you. The notion of adjusting pints is downright offensive and deluded. And completely unnecessary. A pint is a pint and that is the end of it sir.
^hugs emotionally traumatised pint of guinness^
Levity/off
Buckle up, here we go for another 14 pages of discussion about pints vs mls
The reason points were shoved at the end of book in a table and PL not is because they knew when they designed them that pints would be adjusted a lot.
Hoe dare you. The notion of adjusting pints is downright offensive and deluded. And completely unnecessary. A pint is a pint and that is the end of it sir.
The reason points were shoved at the end of book in a table and PL not is because they knew when they designed them that pints would be adjusted a lot.
Hoe dare you. The notion of adjusting pints is downright offensive and deluded. And completely unnecessary. A pint is a pint and that is the end of it sir.
^hugs emotionally traumatised pint of guinness^
Levity/off
Buckle up, here we go for another 14 pages of discussion about pints vs mls
I prefer mls. When you use pints, you have to pay extra for the straw, but when you use mls it is a part of the cost of the drink.
The reason points were shoved at the end of book in a table and PL not is because they knew when they designed them that pints would be adjusted a lot.
Hoe dare you. The notion of adjusting pints is downright offensive and deluded. And completely unnecessary. A pint is a pint and that is the end of it sir.
^hugs emotionally traumatised pint of guinness^
Levity/off
We could adjust pints up?! make them bigger.
You can't appropriately balance a pint, it's value will be completely different in US meta and UK meta, and slightly off in Australia. We should stop supporting pints, 99% of the all beer is served in mls! Everyone should drink as I do - in nice, round, metric 500ml.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I mean, it's rather self-evident that there are more calculations involved with points than with PL. Is it difficult? Not for me. Is it tedious? Yes.
So now you've moved the goalposts from needing a calculator to "I find adding 60+10+10+10+5 tedious". I can't really argue with your subjective personal opinion about what you find tedious but you certainly haven't established any difficulty beyond that subjective personal opinion.
I don't think I ever argued that it wasn't tedious. I've never said a calculator is *needed*, only that a common defence is "just use one", and I shouldn't have to for tedious sums.
Frankly, I'm not trying to argue anything beyond my subjective personal opinion, and I've not claimed to otherwise. All I've asked is that you *respect* said opinion without invalidating my preferred way to play.
Yes, where they *checks notes* released the game with both points and PL?
Not sure about the authenticity of that one.
They released it with both normal points and PL but it was very clear that the intent was for PL to be the primary point system, and that the intent was to phase out the old system once people accepted PL. PL got all the prominence in the rulebooks, the normal point system was an appendix at the back where you'd hopefully never bother to use it.
Again, you mention this "very clear intent" - can you support that with anything beyond your, let's see, "subjective personal opinion"?
There's no reason to believe that points wouldn't still be in the back of the book.
Do I need to? I mean, seriously, why do I need to justify my enjoyment of it to you?
You're participating in a discussion of points vs. PL. If you don't want to justify your position on the subject then maybe you shouldn't participate in a thread where that is the topic for discussion? Nobody is hunting you down and demanding a justification for your opinion outside of this thread.
As I've said repeatedly, I'm not trying to justify my position. I don't need to justify it to anyone.
What *is* happening is you asking me to justify it, which I don't need to do. All of my responses are asking you to respect that I don't want what I enjoy to be removed, because it doesn't actually affect you in the slightest if I use it or not.
You're welcome to extoll the virtues of points, and now if they were gone, you wouldn't play 40k any more, but that doesn't mean you should be saying that "PL shouldn't exist, screw you".
So, I ask once more - why does it matter if people do enjoy PL? You can dislike PL as much as you like, I'm not discussing that. What I'm asking is why you'd take them away from other hobbyists.
GW only cares about matched play, which is fully compatible with the argument that GW needs to stop investing in PL and focus on the better point system.
If GW only cares about matched play, why do other game modes exist?
Deadnight wrote:
Andykp wrote: The reason points were shoved at the end of book in a table and PL not is because they knew when they designed them that pints would be adjusted a lot.
Hoe dare you. The notion of adjusting pints is downright offensive and deluded. And completely unnecessary. A pint is a pint and that is the end of it sir.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I've never said a calculator is *needed*, only that a common defence is "just use one", and I shouldn't have to for tedious sums.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Should I need to use a calculator to work out the cost of a single unit?
Again, you mention this "very clear intent" - can you support that with anything beyond your, let's see, "subjective personal opinion"?
No, obviously I can't provide anything more than speculation when you and I both know GW never announced anything explicit about the chance. But I'm not sure why you think "nobody has a definite answer here" is a useful response to a particular interpretation of the events.
What *is* happening is you asking me to justify it, which I don't need to do.
Then don't. If you don't need to justify your position then don't continue participating in a discussion of the subject. It's ridiculous to complain about having to justify your position when the only reason you're even talking about the subject is that you voluntarily went into the thread to read and post in it. Nobody cornered you at your local store/club/garage and forced you to justify the choice to use PL.
What I'm asking is why you'd take them away from other hobbyists.
Because any time spent on PL is wasted development time that could be spent on doing something useful. And because I know there's an anti-competitive element at GW that wants to push PL as the primary, or even only, point system and as long as PL still exists they will keep trying to make PL the focus.
If GW only cares about matched play, why do other game modes exist?
Because, again, matched play and Matched™ Play™ are not the same thing. Matched™ Play™ is matched play. The annual tournament pack is matched play. Crusade is matched play. The only thing that isn't matched play is certain versions of open play and GW provides essentially zero support or acknowledgement for those things.
nou wrote: A) because assigning points that „accurately reflect unit’s power” is impossible outside of a very strict and defined context 40k doesn’t have and will never have, because of freeform list building and open scenario structures. And on top of that, because players actively demand the existence of "list building as a skill", point efficiency discrepancies must exist within the point system. Bad choices must exist for optimal choices to exist.
That's not an argument for PL, because PL has all those same problems.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: B) in a narrative setting you already work in cooperation with your opponent to ensure a fair game at forces composition and scenario preparation stage, so minmaxing isn’t really a thing - PL system does not put any sort of pressure against the narrative. Exactly the same with points - in a narrative context you do not restrict yourself only to the most optimal choices. PLs provide enough game size framework to work with and points do not offer any benefit over this utility. Both with points and PLs I have played both high power and low power games and PLs are simply more convenient to use, because they do not create an illusion of balance points do. You have to realise one thing about narrative gaming and point systems adjusted for competitive gaming in a "list building as a skill" environment - because bad choices must exist in order for optimal choices to exist, if you want to play a fair game outside of competitive context, you have to manually adjust effective power of lists against each other based on your knowledge of nominal value vs effective value discrepancies of units, be it with points or PLs. This is because you do not have "the crutch" of trying to maximise the absolute value, which is, by the definition of the maximum, open to mistakes only on one side. If you aim at a low power, or mid power game, you have to mind both OP and UP units, not only dismiss UP. You are also frequently and deliberately building armies around suboptimal units if it so happens, that you need them for the narrative - you are actively using the entire spectrum of choices that are in this game, not only optimal ones.
That's not what narrative play is. A Crusade league has none of those things but is narrative play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Honest hypothetical. You agree to meet a friend at a local b&M for a game of 40k, 2k each. When you both arrive, your friend explains there has been an issue where he double booked. He only has 1 hour to play before he has to head home. You understand, and offer to play a smaller game, just to spend time together. What about half our lists? Without knowing each other's factions, which is honestly easier to setup a smaller but even game? PL or points?
I think the obvious answer is PL, because it uses whole numbers, without a lot of mucking about with a calculator. You can jump into a smaller game far easier with PL than with points. If you
If you can't add up 3 digit numbers on your phone you got problems, man. Remember - you're just cutting units out of your list. If I drop my Harlequin list down to 50 PL from 100, I could just as easily drop it to 1000 from 2000. The same units will be present. I'd just boot up Battlescribe and start deleting units until I got down to just under 1000.
Moreover, points uses whole numbers. In general, the kind of person who can't add 3 digit numbers together in their head is *probably* not going to be able to play 40k without getting rules wrong, however (and I'm sure they'll be mysteriously in their favor).
I'd also tell the person they were disrespecting my time by doing what they did. Honestly I'd just say "Pick the game you want to play, me or your other opponent. I don't want to be rushed when playing."
Andykp wrote:This post sums up to me that you are either unwell or a troll. That article contradicts everything you said, you have zero respect for anyone else’s experiences or preferences and can’t hold an argument in good faith. Goodbye.
Is this what dakka has come to? "If you disagree with me you either have a mental illness or are simply trying to destroy civil discourse"?
How is this not moderated by now?
Ultimately it comes down to the writers being of the Jervis Johnson school of gaming, ie. "Death before competitive play" and it shows. PL is an extension of the whole "eyeball method" from the AOS first release where you just kind of flung stuff out there.
A wargame works best from a balanced starting point. You can play narratively, competitively, and casually from that starting point whereas an imbalanced or poorly implemented/lacking granularity gaming system only facilitates one of those game modes happening well, one being able to be "dealt with" but a lot of work, and one being next to impossible. It's not that narrative gamers are the ones trying to bork the system for the non-narrative gamers, it's that the narrative gamers working for GW actively ARE.
Lots to unpack here. Personally I think those calling CSB "unwell or a troll" are way out of line.
That Rick Priestley quote pops up quite frequently in discussions like these and I always feel like it's completely pointless. It doesn't take a genius to consider that points can only measure a unit's general usefulness under "normal" conditions and collaborating together once a scenario and terrain are known will likely generate a more balanced game (assuming - crucially - both players are competent at such an exercise). But in the context of theses discussions it's irrelevant. Why?
1. It's an idealised scenario that doesn't exist for the most part in the types of gaming we're discussing here. Wargames have existed for over a century and were always relatively niche. They only really became much more popular from the 1980s, once GW started publishing its own games. Yes, I'm aware other systems existed beforehand, but I don't think you can realistically claim wargames were commercially more successful or popular prior to GW. Every successful system since that time has included a system of points. Why? Because the thing that GW realised is that making a successful game requires standardisation. It requires players to be able to play not just their small group of mates at home, but to show up at a club and know they're on the same page as everyone else there. You know which GW game of the last 20 years bombed spectacularly at launch? AoS. Mainly because it had no points (and was a terrible system filled with stupid little rules about lengths of moustaches). Once points were added? Suddenly much more successful. Points may not be 100% accurate in all scenarios, but we don't need complete perfection, we just need good enough.
2. PL is a points system, so the quote doesn't even support the contention that PL are superior. PL is just a less granular system of points, which is why most people advocating for points don't understand the purpose of it. For them PL has no advantages over points at all. As to why they're arguing against PL and asking people to justify the use of PL? It's the topic of this thread. That's how discussion and debate works. I can't believe that even has to be stated.
3. That brings me on to convenience. I'm sorry, but claiming adding up a smaller series of slightly larger numbers is a genuine advantage of PL is just bizarre. Yes, it's literally true that there's going to be less cognitive load in adding up PL, but the difference is so miniscule and the time saved also so tiny I have to wonder if this is a serious argument. If it is, it doesn't say much for the advantages of PL if this is what its advocates bring up. A game takes 2-3 hours to play, and we're quibbling over an extra 5 minutes (being very generous indeed), which is most often spent away from the table anyway. And the scenario where someone wants to cut down from 2k to 1k points for time reasons? No, points is not meaningfully slower to adjust than PL. I've done this multiple times and it takes, at most, a couple of minutes.
It is funny, how nobody in those threads ever answers to „Mawlock type” examples in a way other than „nobody plays anything else than meta chasing competitive/meta FLGS pickup anyway, so the problem averages away”.
nou wrote: It is funny, how nobody in those threads ever answers to „Mawlock type” examples in a way other than „nobody plays anything else than meta chasing competitive/meta FLGS pickup anyway, so the problem averages away”.
I literally have no idea what any of that sentence means. Can you elaborate?
Andykp wrote:This post sums up to me that you are either unwell or a troll. That article contradicts everything you said, you have zero respect for anyone else’s experiences or preferences and can’t hold an argument in good faith. Goodbye.
Is this what dakka has come to? "If you disagree with me you either have a mental illness or are simply trying to destroy civil discourse"?
How is this not moderated by now?
Ultimately it comes down to the writers being of the Jervis Johnson school of gaming, ie. "Death before competitive play" and it shows. PL is an extension of the whole "eyeball method" from the AOS first release where you just kind of flung stuff out there.
A wargame works best from a balanced starting point. You can play narratively, competitively, and casually from that starting point whereas an imbalanced or poorly implemented/lacking granularity gaming system only facilitates one of those game modes happening well, one being able to be "dealt with" but a lot of work, and one being next to impossible. It's not that narrative gamers are the ones trying to bork the system for the non-narrative gamers, it's that the narrative gamers working for GW actively ARE.
We have covered balance, and we clearly disagree on its importance, and it’s clearly subjective.
As for mental illness, I didn’t mention mental illness, I just said unwell, he could have assorts but most likely he’s is just being a troll. He doesn’t just disagree, but has spent pages and pages arguing against reasonable people who have just been saying that there is more than one way to enjoy the game and he has spent those pages ranting that they are wrong and just virtue signalling and blah blah blah. I am perfectly happy for him and anyone else to disagree with me, the whole point of having points and power levels is that there is something there for you however you want to play. I like that. I want him and others to have pints, but I want power levels. They are better got me. End of. Now he can’t see that and can’t accept that others might prefer things he does not.
I am happy for him to have his preferences but am not going waste my time arguing with someone who is completely unwilling to accept that others like different things from him. It pointless (pun intended). And again to defend my comment that has upset you so much, if he really lacks the insight to see that other people like different things he doesn’t and that concept makes no sense to him then he is unwell, either mentally or physically. But far my likely is my second option, that he can see this but is deliberately arguing form a false position to antagonise people. So by saying he might be unwell I am giving him the benefit of the doubt.
I suffer from mental illness as do many people on here in one form or another, and know full well that that alone doesn’t stop you from emphasising with others. So I never intended to imply he had a mental illness, that was your interpretation of my comment. I was more thinking of an electrolyte imbalance impairing his thinking like low sodium levels or some kind of toxin. But most likely he is just deliberately being a argumentative for the sake of it.
nou wrote: It is funny, how nobody in those threads ever answers to „Mawlock type” examples in a way other than „nobody plays anything else than meta chasing competitive/meta FLGS pickup anyway, so the problem averages away”.
I literally have no idea what any of that sentence means. Can you elaborate?
You have a Mawlock example earlier in this thread. It is example of a case fundamentally impossible to balance with points outside of statistical Meta. It is of course not the only one, basically anything that has heavily swingy utility depending on matchup or that relies heavily on synergies (in which case you can’t balance the cost between a single intance of such unit vs spam list with this unit). Balancing of such cases for tournament meta universally ends up with those being a straight handicap in casual/narrative play.
nou wrote: It is funny, how nobody in those threads ever answers to „Mawlock type” examples in a way other than „nobody plays anything else than meta chasing competitive/meta FLGS pickup anyway, so the problem averages away”.
I literally have no idea what any of that sentence means. Can you elaborate?
You have a Mawlock example earlier in this thread. It is example of a case fundamentally impossible to balance with points outside of statistical Meta. It is of course not the only one, basically anything that has heavily swingy utility depending on matchup or that relies heavily on synergies (in which case you can’t balance the cost between a single intance of such unit vs spam list with this unit). Balancing of such cases for tournament meta universally ends up with those being a straight handicap in casual/narrative play.
How does PL solve that problem? PL is just points with less granularity.
You keep bringing up this idea of "impossible to balance" but that's akin to saying we can't achieve perfection so we shouldn't try to improve. It may be that in some cases tweaking rules is going to be more effective than changing points. But if points are all we have (and they're not - see the recent changes to Necron Command Protocols for a good example) the more granular system allows for more effective balancing within that paradigm.
Infinity has plenty of unit synergies. It also has plenty of counters to most. A really simple one is units with Smoke Grenades. They bring out the full potential of many units. Another example is Repeaters. They're basically worthless unless you have a Hacker, and the Hacker is much weaker without Repeaters. Why does Infinity succeed so much more when it comes to balance, when entire core units fall apart if not handled right? I could run a meta list, one with every synergy possible, and I'd still lose to a more skilled player, with a worse list.
We're not counting skew lists, as they deliberately unbalance their list. But in Infinity, if someone skews towards Heavy Infantry, if I have even a bit of hacking, they tend to fall over. Alternatively, if the person brings a Killer Hacker, my guy now has to be more careful. Alternatively, if I bring melee units, they'll often fair well against Heavy Infantry. Infinity is more complex than 40k, allows for quite a few options, and has missions with narratives that would blow most 40k narrative missions out of the water, as its standard ITS missions.
Karol wrote: On the flip side the company makes people buy 15-25 models per army, and not gazylion rotated out on a quarterly schedul.
Actually Infinity is REALLY bad for rotating out models. They recently cut nearly half the Aleph faction from sale and a good many were not that old.
CB has brought out and retired models over the years quite a lot. However they "get away" with it more than firms like GW might because the game itself has never had a complete visual representation of models. Many units have multiple weapon options but only one model with no optional parts. So players are already very used to using proxies in the game. Furthermore units that are rotated out aren't removed from the rules, just the game and the skirmish nature means that you can not only keep up with multiple proxies; but you can also often find other units to do a similar role or build around a new strategy.
That said CB also seems to be speeding up when they replace things, apparently the new Morat update is going to be much faster and more complete an update than they've done in the past.
TheBestBucketHead wrote: Infinity has plenty of unit synergies. It also has plenty of counters to most. A really simple one is units with Smoke Grenades. They bring out the full potential of many units. Another example is Repeaters. They're basically worthless unless you have a Hacker, and the Hacker is much weaker without Repeaters. Why does Infinity succeed so much more when it comes to balance, when entire core units fall apart if not handled right? I could run a meta list, one with every synergy possible, and I'd still lose to a more skilled player, with a worse list.
We're not counting skew lists, as they deliberately unbalance their list. But in Infinity, if someone skews towards Heavy Infantry, if I have even a bit of hacking, they tend to fall over. Alternatively, if the person brings a Killer Hacker, my guy now has to be more careful. Alternatively, if I bring melee units, they'll often fair well against Heavy Infantry. Infinity is more complex than 40k, allows for quite a few options, and has missions with narratives that would blow most 40k narrative missions out of the water, as its standard ITS missions.
You have pretty much answered yourself - when the balance between pre-game decisions and in-game decisions is heavily weighted towards in-game decisions, then you can handle list imbalance on the fly, because their impact on end result is limited. In 40k lists have the dominant impact on the end result and thus the most weight of balance is put onto the very limited utility of points. In all similar thread I have endlessly stressed, that balance comes from dynamic, game time mechanics and limitations in freeform list building (promoting TAC lists, when done right, steers away from problems with balancing skew). If you don't want to limit options, then you have to include game time balancing mechanisms. Those range from sideboards, through staggered army selection, to bonus to "who goes first this round" rolls for losing players, etc.
Balance is achievable, balance through points is not.
The problem with PL is that MANY upgrades are pointless to take and are never used, so now you are paying for these things that shouldn't even be on the unit.
Scourges leader can take a Blast Pistol and a power lance, on a dedicated long range shooting unit that will never see play that will make the unit cost most.
If these add value to the unit then no I would not like it.
Slipspace 805449 11388726 wrote:
How does PL solve that problem? PL is just points with less granularity.
If someone doesn't want to learn to play and build an army, PL are an easier way to make an army out of a random collection, as you don't even have to worry if the load outs are legal, if you stick to the new boxs. A good system for people who don't really want to play the game.
nou wrote: It is funny, how nobody in those threads ever answers to „Mawlock type” examples in a way other than „nobody plays anything else than meta chasing competitive/meta FLGS pickup anyway, so the problem averages away”.
I literally have no idea what any of that sentence means. Can you elaborate?
You have a Mawlock example earlier in this thread. It is example of a case fundamentally impossible to balance with points outside of statistical Meta. It is of course not the only one, basically anything that has heavily swingy utility depending on matchup or that relies heavily on synergies (in which case you can’t balance the cost between a single intance of such unit vs spam list with this unit). Balancing of such cases for tournament meta universally ends up with those being a straight handicap in casual/narrative play.
How does PL solve that problem? PL is just points with less granularity.
You keep bringing up this idea of "impossible to balance" but that's akin to saying we can't achieve perfection so we shouldn't try to improve. It may be that in some cases tweaking rules is going to be more effective than changing points. But if points are all we have (and they're not - see the recent changes to Necron Command Protocols for a good example) the more granular system allows for more effective balancing within that paradigm.
Mawlock example is as far from "we can't achieve perfection" as possible, the swing in point efficiency of that unit was easily 300-500 points between UP crap and meta unit.
As to how PL handle similar problems - because of the feature that is dismissed by 40k community as "cheating". At it's core, PLs are equipped to handle post-game-initiation tailoring. You have your list of X PLs that has a lot of room to choose upgrades AFTER mission parameters and matchup are known, but the main bulk of both lists is already there and known to both players. This is pretty much an equivalent of staggered deployment or Chain of Command split listbuilding and points are completely unequipped for this kind of process without explicit instructions on how to split list building into back and forth stages. But there is a very, very strong opposition to any kind of sideboard mechanics within competitive 40k community, so this trait of PLs is outright dismissed. So while PLs can't directly handle Mawlock, they provide the room to increase the utility of the rest of the list against that particular matchup, in which Mawlock is a handicap. The best way to handle Mawlock however, is narrative way of doing things - applying value to units during cooperative list building. Which I know, is near impossible in pickup. This is why so many succesful games implement sideboards.
In theory, both Stratagems and Secondaries, being post-game-initiation mechanisms, should increase balance. But GW being GW, and ITC being ITC, both those mechanisms are implemented in a terrible way. Too many stratagems are simply special rules tied directly to units, so in the end aren't really game time decisions, and secondaries can be tailored against and towards in list building stage, so instead of diminishing list building impact, they emphasise it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: One important thing about me and my posts: I use the term 'narrative' in the scope and meaning as used in historical wargaming. NOT as "I play Crusade" or "I play whatever GW is calling their limited narrative game mode nowadays". Using CSB's method of differentiation, I use the term 'narrative', not Narrative™.
Karol wrote: On the flip side the company makes people buy 15-25 models per army, and not gazylion rotated out on a quarterly schedul.
Actually Infinity is REALLY bad for rotating out models. They recently cut nearly half the Aleph faction from sale and a good many were not that old.
CB has brought out and retired models over the years quite a lot. However they "get away" with it more than firms like GW might because the game itself has never had a complete visual representation of models. Many units have multiple weapon options but only one model with no optional parts. So players are already very used to using proxies in the game. Furthermore units that are rotated out aren't removed from the rules, just the game and the skirmish nature means that you can not only keep up with multiple proxies; but you can also often find other units to do a similar role or build around a new strategy.
That said CB also seems to be speeding up when they replace things, apparently the new Morat update is going to be much faster and more complete an update than they've done in the past.
yes, that is what I am saying. You can take a starter box, 2 blisters and a unit box of infinity and play with it, then use part of it for something else etc. Meanwhile if you want a w40k or AoS working army, you are at best rotating stuff once and edition, and this goes for the best of the best designed books for almost no factions. Only the GK are in a situation where people have been playing the an identical list for 2 editions, possibly 3. Harlequins come close to that and that is it.
Amishprn86 wrote: The problem with PL is that MANY upgrades are pointless to take and are never used, so now you are paying for these things that shouldn't even be on the unit.
Problem with PL.... is that it wasn't designed to min max. PL system is a quick way to get games, a nice system for those who don't want to buy extra boxes or to magnetize stuff and are ok with what they have glued on their models. It's not meant for people who want to min max stuff.
With that in mind the PL system is not more unbalanced than the points one, it should be actually more balanced. But not because of the rules or the possibilities in list building, because of the players' mentality. Those who use PL and WYSIWYG will never field anything near the flavour of the month lists.
nou wrote: It is funny, how nobody in those threads ever answers to „Mawlock type” examples in a way other than „nobody plays anything else than meta chasing competitive/meta FLGS pickup anyway, so the problem averages away”.
I literally have no idea what any of that sentence means. Can you elaborate?
You have a Mawlock example earlier in this thread. It is example of a case fundamentally impossible to balance with points outside of statistical Meta. It is of course not the only one, basically anything that has heavily swingy utility depending on matchup or that relies heavily on synergies (in which case you can’t balance the cost between a single intance of such unit vs spam list with this unit). Balancing of such cases for tournament meta universally ends up with those being a straight handicap in casual/narrative play.
How does PL solve that problem? PL is just points with less granularity.
You keep bringing up this idea of "impossible to balance" but that's akin to saying we can't achieve perfection so we shouldn't try to improve. It may be that in some cases tweaking rules is going to be more effective than changing points. But if points are all we have (and they're not - see the recent changes to Necron Command Protocols for a good example) the more granular system allows for more effective balancing within that paradigm.
Mawlock example is as far from "we can't achieve perfection" as possible, the swing in point efficiency of that unit was easily 300-500 points between UP crap and meta unit.
As to how PL handle similar problems - because of the feature that is dismissed by 40k community as "cheating". At it's core, PLs are equipped to handle post-game-initiation tailoring. You have your list of X PLs that has a lot of room to choose upgrades AFTER mission parameters and matchup are known, but the main bulk of both lists is already there and known to both players. This is pretty much an equivalent of staggered deployment or Chain of Command split listbuilding and points are completely unequipped for this kind of process without explicit instructions on how to split list building into back and forth stages. But there is a very, very strong opposition to any kind of sideboard mechanics within competitive 40k community, so this trait of PLs is outright dismissed. So while PLs can't directly handle Mawlock, they provide the room to increase the utility of the rest of the list against that particular matchup, in which Mawlock is a handicap. The best way to handle Mawlock however, is narrative way of doing things - applying value to units during cooperative list building. Which I know, is near impossible in pickup. This is why so many succesful games implement sideboards.
In theory, both Stratagems and Secondaries, being post-game-initiation mechanisms, should increase balance. But GW being GW, and ITC being ITC, both those mechanisms are implemented in a terrible way. Too many stratagems are simply special rules tied directly to units, so in the end aren't really game time decisions, and secondaries can be tailored against and towards in list building stage, so instead of diminishing list building impact, they emphasise it..
Points allow the same sideboard-style approach. As you note, the fact this isn't used is a culture/approach thing. It's not an inherent feature that PL has over points because, as I said before, PL is points, just less granular. That's what makes this argument so bizarre to me. You haven't shown how PL solves the "can't balance the Mawloc" problem in a way that points doesn't also allow.
I'd argue the best way to balance the Mawloc would have been a change in rules. It was fundamentally breaking too many rules and getting extra bonuses on top of that rule-breaking ability. Quick question for you: does the Mawloc still have such an extreme imbalance problem in the current Nid Codex?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I've never said a calculator is *needed*, only that a common defence is "just use one", and I shouldn't have to for tedious sums.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Should I need to use a calculator to work out the cost of a single unit?
My apologies for the use of a rhetorical question that seems to have gone over your head, but no - I wasn't claiming that one is *needed*, I was asking YOU if that was the case, considering that you kept advocating for the use of one.
Again, you mention this "very clear intent" - can you support that with anything beyond your, let's see, "subjective personal opinion"?
No, obviously I can't provide anything more than speculation when you and I both know GW never announced anything explicit about the chance. But I'm not sure why you think "nobody has a definite answer here" is a useful response to a particular interpretation of the events.
Likewise, I'm not sure why you think blatant speculation is a useful response either in this thread.
What *is* happening is you asking me to justify it, which I don't need to do.
Then don't. If you don't need to justify your position then don't continue participating in a discussion of the subject. It's ridiculous to complain about having to justify your position when the only reason you're even talking about the subject is that you voluntarily went into the thread to read and post in it. Nobody cornered you at your local store/club/garage and forced you to justify the choice to use PL.
I'm not justifying it. I never have in this thread, not in any real detail, because I don't need to. I'm not here to discuss if PL are good or bad, I'm not here to discuss how to even change PL. I'm simply here to say that when *you* (and others) make comments along the lines of "people who play only do so to gatekeep others" or "I want to get rid of PL, screw anyone who actually likes that", you're not discussing PL any more, you're actively looking to harm the way others enjoy their game.
I don't care how you play 40k, but why do you care how I do? Are you that incapable of criticising PL without also affecting the people who play and enjoy it? Serious question.
What I'm asking is why you'd take them away from other hobbyists.
Because any time spent on PL is wasted development time that could be spent on doing something useful.
Useful to you, perhaps. Why are you being so selfish?
And because I know there's an anti-competitive element at GW that wants to push PL as the primary, or even only, point system and as long as PL still exists they will keep trying to make PL the focus.
You "know" this, do you? Proof? Or is this more speculation masquerading as evidence?
If GW only cares about matched play, why do other game modes exist?
Because, again, matched play and Matched™ Play™ are not the same thing. Matched™ Play™ is matched play. The annual tournament pack is matched play. Crusade is matched play. The only thing that isn't matched play is certain versions of open play and GW provides essentially zero support or acknowledgement for those things.
As I said - GW produces both matched play, non-matched play, Matched™ Play™ and non-Matched™ Play™. They all exist. How can you turn around and patently ignore that those other things *do* exist?
You have a very self-centred mindset, is all I'm saying. I suggest maybe you let people enjoy things that have nothing to do with you, and be done with it.
Slipspace wrote:Lots to unpack here. Personally I think those calling CSB "unwell or a troll" are way out of line.
Unwell and a troll, yes. Self-centred and ignorant of other people, I don't think that's untrue. There's only one group here who are calling to actively affect how other people enjoy themselves, after all.
2. PL is a points system, so the quote doesn't even support the contention that PL are superior. PL is just a less granular system of points, which is why most people advocating for points don't understand the purpose of it. For them PL has no advantages over points at all.
I'm not asking them to understand it though. I'm only asking that they *respect* that other people aside from them *do* find advantages with it. That's all.
As to why they're arguing against PL and asking people to justify the use of PL? It's the topic of this thread. That's how discussion and debate works. I can't believe that even has to be stated.
That's not actually true. The topic of the thread is "If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play", not "LETS GET RID OF PL SCREW YOU IF YOU ACTUALLY ENJOY IT BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT PLAYING THE GAME CORRECTLY".
The *actual* topic should be going more like "yes, I personally don't enjoy PL, and I would play it less if GW only used it", or "no, I'd actually be totally fine if GW did this". Nowhere in the discussion of that topic does there need to be a discussion or debate over "you're not playing 40k correctly" (a statement made by Karol) or "I think it should be gotten rid of entirely, feth you if you actually like PL, you're just gatekeeping me" (statements made by CadianSgtBob).
If you can't have a discussion or debate without calling to invalidate someone else's enjoyment of a toy solider game, then maybe you need to reconsider how discussion and debate works.
3. That brings me on to convenience. I'm sorry, but claiming adding up a smaller series of slightly larger numbers is a genuine advantage of PL is just bizarre. Yes, it's literally true that there's going to be less cognitive load in adding up PL, but the difference is so miniscule and the time saved also so tiny I have to wonder if this is a serious argument.
Yes, it is. Not only is there less time flipping through the book, but the numbers are much simpler - a unit is a flat single number, instead of counting every model's cost, their wargear, and any extra gubbinz. That's definitely going to be faster. Do you think it's meaningfully so, no - and that's okay! I, on the other hand, *do* find it meaningfully so. Do you respect that?
Karol wrote:If someone doesn't want to learn to play and build an army, PL are an easier way to make an army out of a random collection, as you don't even have to worry if the load outs are legal, if you stick to the new boxs. A good system for people who don't really want to play the game.
I'd like you to elaborate on this - are you claiming that people who play PL aren't "really playing the game"?
Personally, I find the single (or double) digit, bam, unit done.
When I want to play 40k, there are times I'm in so much pain I can't remember which army I'm playing, let alone do multi-step math, for each unit.
I might not sound like a big difference, but I also play with folks who have discalcula (I know I'm spelling it wrong), they have issues with numbers and math, it makes PL infinitely easier to get playing the game.
Also, it changes how you build your forces, it's a really different mindset.
I totally understand preferring less granular number-values.
Not the same game at all (or design space), but I much preferred warmachine/hordes' mk2 less-granular implementation of points than their mk1 gw-esque more-granular points.
Much preferred a juggernaut costing 7pts and playing 35 or 50pt games than it costing 103pts and playing 750pt games.
In any game I'd play, I prefer the less-granular Valuing system - 40k included.
nou wrote: It is funny, how nobody in those threads ever answers to „Mawlock type” examples in a way other than „nobody plays anything else than meta chasing competitive/meta FLGS pickup anyway, so the problem averages away”.
I literally have no idea what any of that sentence means. Can you elaborate?
You have a Mawlock example earlier in this thread. It is example of a case fundamentally impossible to balance with points outside of statistical Meta. It is of course not the only one, basically anything that has heavily swingy utility depending on matchup or that relies heavily on synergies (in which case you can’t balance the cost between a single intance of such unit vs spam list with this unit). Balancing of such cases for tournament meta universally ends up with those being a straight handicap in casual/narrative play.
How does PL solve that problem? PL is just points with less granularity.
You keep bringing up this idea of "impossible to balance" but that's akin to saying we can't achieve perfection so we shouldn't try to improve. It may be that in some cases tweaking rules is going to be more effective than changing points. But if points are all we have (and they're not - see the recent changes to Necron Command Protocols for a good example) the more granular system allows for more effective balancing within that paradigm.
Mawlock example is as far from "we can't achieve perfection" as possible, the swing in point efficiency of that unit was easily 300-500 points between UP crap and meta unit.
As to how PL handle similar problems - because of the feature that is dismissed by 40k community as "cheating". At it's core, PLs are equipped to handle post-game-initiation tailoring. You have your list of X PLs that has a lot of room to choose upgrades AFTER mission parameters and matchup are known, but the main bulk of both lists is already there and known to both players. This is pretty much an equivalent of staggered deployment or Chain of Command split listbuilding and points are completely unequipped for this kind of process without explicit instructions on how to split list building into back and forth stages. But there is a very, very strong opposition to any kind of sideboard mechanics within competitive 40k community, so this trait of PLs is outright dismissed. So while PLs can't directly handle Mawlock, they provide the room to increase the utility of the rest of the list against that particular matchup, in which Mawlock is a handicap. The best way to handle Mawlock however, is narrative way of doing things - applying value to units during cooperative list building. Which I know, is near impossible in pickup. This is why so many succesful games implement sideboards.
In theory, both Stratagems and Secondaries, being post-game-initiation mechanisms, should increase balance. But GW being GW, and ITC being ITC, both those mechanisms are implemented in a terrible way. Too many stratagems are simply special rules tied directly to units, so in the end aren't really game time decisions, and secondaries can be tailored against and towards in list building stage, so instead of diminishing list building impact, they emphasise it..
Points allow the same sideboard-style approach. As you note, the fact this isn't used is a culture/approach thing. It's not an inherent feature that PL has over points because, as I said before, PL is points, just less granular. That's what makes this argument so bizarre to me. You haven't shown how PL solves the "can't balance the Mawloc" problem in a way that points doesn't also allow.
I'd argue the best way to balance the Mawloc would have been a change in rules. It was fundamentally breaking too many rules and getting extra bonuses on top of that rule-breaking ability. Quick question for you: does the Mawloc still have such an extreme imbalance problem in the current Nid Codex?
I have literally just wrote how PLs are more suited to cross tailoring lists… They are innately suited to two step, simultaneous list building - players choose units, show eachother their list, then choose wargear/weapons to suit the matchip
. And this utility is being used in narrative context a lot. Can you squeeze such utility from points? Not without elaborate army selection rules (with which you still can’t handle variable amount of leeway on per unit basis that PLs provide out of the box), or by folding wargear and weapon options into free unit upgrades, at which point you are simply recreating deniminated PLs. Some games achieve similar result by having two different point systems on top of eachother - unit points and wargear/weapon points (not simply split allowance of the same points).
And could we please stop with this „PLs are just a less granular point system” BS. 1) everybody knows, that we are discussing THOSE points vs THOSE PLs. And 2) equality would be true if PLs were just denominated points with exact same way of handling army selection. They don’t. They are two entirely different SYSTEMS - with different qualities and internal interactions, that get emphasized in different contexts.
And about Mawlock problem - if your answer to balancing points of a unit is „change it’s rules” then you are then acknowledging fundamental limitation of points (of any granularity) as a balancing tool, which has always been my point.
Karol wrote: On the flip side the company makes people buy 15-25 models per army, and not gazylion rotated out on a quarterly schedul.
Compared to other skirmish games, say GW ones like Necromunda or Kill Team, the company makes people buy a lot of models.
Truth be told, 40k doesn't make you buy a lot of models. Competitive matched pick-up games at the local FLGS might.
But 25PL games are there. My 25PL Death Watch army is 12 infantry models. I have plans for it to grow a bit- I've got 20 more infantry models I plan to add and a Corvus Blackstar. But that's as big as it will get.
But you really have to stop blaming GW because they only play 2k matched at the store, and the store is the only place you play. Personally, I have some blame to throw at GW: I think that GT Mission packs should contain Combat Patrol and Onslaught Missions as well as Incursion and Strike Force. Not as many, perhaps- tiny games and massive games are always going to be outliers, while most games will cluster in the middle. Those fringe cases don't need equal attention, but including a few of each might help normalize aspects of the game that many organized players currently seem to habitually overlook.
The *actual* topic should be going more like "yes, I personally don't enjoy PL, and I would play it less if GW only used it", or "no, I'd actually be totally fine if GW did this". Nowhere in the discussion of that topic does there need to be a discussion or debate over "you're not playing 40k correctly" (a statement made by Karol) or "I think it should be gotten rid of entirely, feth you if you actually like PL, you're just gatekeeping me" (statements made by CadianSgtBob).
If you can't have a discussion or debate without calling to invalidate someone else's enjoyment of a toy solider game, then maybe you need to reconsider how discussion and debate works.
What if my opinion logically leads to that though? I've had similar discussions involving USRs and people arguing they shouldn't be brought back because it would ruin their enjoyment of the game. Doesn't change my opinion of them. Clearly nothing we're debating here will influence GW's approach so it's not as if there's some existential threat to your enjoyment of the game. You're essentially asking me not to voice a legitimately held opinion because it disagrees with your preferred method of building lists, which is just asking for discussion to be shut down because it disagrees with your opinion.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
3. That brings me on to convenience. I'm sorry, but claiming adding up a smaller series of slightly larger numbers is a genuine advantage of PL is just bizarre. Yes, it's literally true that there's going to be less cognitive load in adding up PL, but the difference is so miniscule and the time saved also so tiny I have to wonder if this is a serious argument.
Yes, it is. Not only is there less time flipping through the book, but the numbers are much simpler - a unit is a flat single number, instead of counting every model's cost, their wargear, and any extra gubbinz. That's definitely going to be faster. Do you think it's meaningfully so, no - and that's okay! I, on the other hand, *do* find it meaningfully so. Do you respect that?
I fundamentally disagree that it's meaningfully quicker and simpler, except in a few fairly rare cases such as discalcula (discalculus? I'm also not 100% sure) as mentioned recently. I respect that you honestly hold that belief, but I'm not sure I respect the belief itself on the whole, certainly not in the context of applying it to building 40k armies.
Furthermore, at least points are consistent with their approach. I know I just need to look at a unit's entry in the army's point cost page and add everything up. PL isn't even consistent since many units have upgerades that do increase the PL cost, while many don't. Finding that info is harder than it needs to be because of how GW chooses to present it.
nou wrote:I have literally just wrote how PLs are more suited to cross tailoring lists… They are innately suited to two step, simultaneous list building - players choose units, show eachother their list, then choose wargear/weapons to suit the matchip
Yet you also admit they aren't actually used for that in practice. There's also nothing innately better about PL for handling this than points.
nou wrote:And could we please stop with this „PLs are just a less granular point system” BS. 1) everybody knows, that we are discussing THOSE points vs THOSE PLs. And 2) equality would be true if PLs were just denominated points with exact same way of handling army selection. They don’t. They are two entirely different SYSTEMS - with different qualities and internal interactions, that get emphasized in different contexts.
Since you brought up BS, there's prime slice of it here. PL is simply a points system with less granularity than "standard" points. I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise with a straight face. They both assign a value to a given unit with the conceit of some kind of balance between forces assuming the PL or points are equal. Of courses there are differences in the specifics. It's those very differences that many critics of PL bring up.
nou wrote:And about Mawlock problem - if your answer to balancing points of a unit is „change it’s rules” then you are then acknowledging fundamental limitation of points (of any granularity) as a balancing tool, which has always been my point.
I never suggested otherwise. I simply point out that PL doesn't fix the problem either, and in many cases exacerbates it.
This argument is divided into two sides, for PL and against. The difference between the two sides is that the pro PL side don’t want rid of points and understand peoples desire or preference to them. The same cannot be said of the pro points side who seem to see PL as a threat to their enjoyment and often seem to have an inability to see how anyone can enjoy something don’t.
Karol said PL is good for people who don’t want to play the game. This is typical of the above mind set, PL are good for people who don’t want to play matched play or competitive like him, it’s good for people who want to play the game differently than he does. They still want to play, they just don’t want to stress about a 2 point chainsword or not.
And as for PL forcing you to pay for option no one EVER takes,that’s rubbish as discussed before with the whole laspistol vs plasma pistol argument. You might not take that option but some people do. For reasons other than the reasons select upgrades.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:If you can't have a discussion or debate without calling to invalidate someone else's enjoyment of a toy solider game, then maybe you need to reconsider how discussion and debate works.
What if my opinion logically leads to that though?
If the only way you can express your thoughts is by invalidating the experiences of others, and you're incapable of preventing yourself before you hit that line of rhetoric, that sounds like a you problem, and honestly means you probably aren't someone who should be lecturing others about how discussions and debates work.
Please reconsider this.
IClearly nothing we're debating here will influence GW's approach
By that logic, there's no point in you sharing your opinion either, as the only people it'll affect are the people who you're implicitly devaluing. If we're only talking to one another here, then we should be respectful of eachother.
You're essentially asking me not to voice a legitimately held opinion because it disagrees with your preferred method of building lists, which is just asking for discussion to be shut down because it disagrees with your opinion.
I'm not asking you to not voice your opinion, so long as your opinion doesn't also involve gakking on other people - you know, BASIC levels of respect in an actual discussion and debate.
Your opinion that you dislike PL? Totally chill. Taking that opinion to be "anyone else who enjoys PL can get stuffed"? Not chill. You're welcome to disagree that PL is good for *you*, and you can say how you'll never use it, or how you'd leave 40k because it's not what you want, but the moment you start saying that *other people's opinions are wrong* (which is implicitly the message behind scrapping PL) is a problem.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
3. That brings me on to convenience. I'm sorry, but claiming adding up a smaller series of slightly larger numbers is a genuine advantage of PL is just bizarre. Yes, it's literally true that there's going to be less cognitive load in adding up PL, but the difference is so miniscule and the time saved also so tiny I have to wonder if this is a serious argument.
Yes, it is. Not only is there less time flipping through the book, but the numbers are much simpler - a unit is a flat single number, instead of counting every model's cost, their wargear, and any extra gubbinz. That's definitely going to be faster. Do you think it's meaningfully so, no - and that's okay! I, on the other hand, *do* find it meaningfully so. Do you respect that?
I fundamentally disagree that it's meaningfully quicker and simpler, except in a few fairly rare cases such as discalcula (discalculus? I'm also not 100% sure) as mentioned recently. I respect that you honestly hold that belief, but I'm not sure I respect the belief itself on the whole, certainly not in the context of applying it to building 40k armies.
All I ask is that you respect that belief that there are people who *do* find it meaningfully beneficial. I'm not asking you to find it beneficial to yourself, only that there *are* people who do.
Is that enough?
Furthermore, at least points are consistent with their approach. I know I just need to look at a unit's entry in the army's point cost page and add everything up. PL isn't even consistent since many units have upgerades that do increase the PL cost, while many don't. Finding that info is harder than it needs to be because of how GW chooses to present it.
Not really? Nearly all PL upgrades are marked on the datasheet. Considering that you should have the datasheets for the units you want to use, all you need to do is look at the datasheet. No flipping between pages, no long calculations, just look at what units you're taking, check the datasheet. It helps that PL for units are marked in nice big bold numbers.
vipoid wrote: Could someone remind me what the "Mawlock problem" is even supposed to be?
Few editions ago Mawlocs became good because the meta changed and people took big blocks of troops, so without changing their rules at all mawlocs became over powered so had to cost more points.
Some say this shows points aren’t a good way to balance the game and in-games rules rather than list building restrictions would be better.
The *actual* topic should be going more like "yes, I personally don't enjoy PL, and I would play it less if GW only used it", or "no, I'd actually be totally fine if GW did this". Nowhere in the discussion of that topic does there need to be a discussion or debate over "you're not playing 40k correctly" (a statement made by Karol) or "I think it should be gotten rid of entirely, feth you if you actually like PL, you're just gatekeeping me" (statements made by CadianSgtBob).
If you can't have a discussion or debate without calling to invalidate someone else's enjoyment of a toy solider game, then maybe you need to reconsider how discussion and debate works.
What if my opinion logically leads to that though? I've had similar discussions involving USRs and people arguing they shouldn't be brought back because it would ruin their enjoyment of the game. Doesn't change my opinion of them. Clearly nothing we're debating here will influence GW's approach so it's not as if there's some existential threat to your enjoyment of the game. You're essentially asking me not to voice a legitimately held opinion because it disagrees with your preferred method of building lists, which is just asking for discussion to be shut down because it disagrees with your opinion.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
3. That brings me on to convenience. I'm sorry, but claiming adding up a smaller series of slightly larger numbers is a genuine advantage of PL is just bizarre. Yes, it's literally true that there's going to be less cognitive load in adding up PL, but the difference is so miniscule and the time saved also so tiny I have to wonder if this is a serious argument.
Yes, it is. Not only is there less time flipping through the book, but the numbers are much simpler - a unit is a flat single number, instead of counting every model's cost, their wargear, and any extra gubbinz. That's definitely going to be faster. Do you think it's meaningfully so, no - and that's okay! I, on the other hand, *do* find it meaningfully so. Do you respect that?
I fundamentally disagree that it's meaningfully quicker and simpler, except in a few fairly rare cases such as discalcula (discalculus? I'm also not 100% sure) as mentioned recently. I respect that you honestly hold that belief, but I'm not sure I respect the belief itself on the whole, certainly not in the context of applying it to building 40k armies.
Furthermore, at least points are consistent with their approach. I know I just need to look at a unit's entry in the army's point cost page and add everything up. PL isn't even consistent since many units have upgerades that do increase the PL cost, while many don't. Finding that info is harder than it needs to be because of how GW chooses to present it.
nou wrote:I have literally just wrote how PLs are more suited to cross tailoring lists… They are innately suited to two step, simultaneous list building - players choose units, show eachother their list, then choose wargear/weapons to suit the matchip
Yet you also admit they aren't actually used for that in practice. There's also nothing innately better about PL for handling this than points.
nou wrote:And could we please stop with this „PLs are just a less granular point system” BS. 1) everybody knows, that we are discussing THOSE points vs THOSE PLs. And 2) equality would be true if PLs were just denominated points with exact same way of handling army selection. They don’t. They are two entirely different SYSTEMS - with different qualities and internal interactions, that get emphasized in different contexts.
Since you brought up BS, there's prime slice of it here. PL is simply a points system with less granularity than "standard" points. I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise with a straight face. They both assign a value to a given unit with the conceit of some kind of balance between forces assuming the PL or points are equal. Of courses there are differences in the specifics. It's those very differences that many critics of PL bring up.
nou wrote:And about Mawlock problem - if your answer to balancing points of a unit is „change it’s rules” then you are then acknowledging fundamental limitation of points (of any granularity) as a balancing tool, which has always been my point.
I never suggested otherwise. I simply point out that PL doesn't fix the problem either, and in many cases exacerbates it.
Simply unbelievable…
POINTS try to assign a „precise” value to every choice in list building stage by DESIGN.
PLs do not, BY DESIGN, it is a distinct and deliberate feature of PLs. Wargear and weapons choices are excluded from the point system and are selected independently from it. Again, this is BY DESIGN, a feature differentuating it from points. This IS utilised in narrative, I don’t know where you got this „you admitted they are not used this way” when you have testimonies of such use all around this and similar threads.
We are not talking about granularity - if there would be cost in PLs for every option that has a value in points slapped onto it, but in some cases 1PL out of 50 would be listed alongside 20pts out of 2000 and in some cases alongside 1pt because you don’t use fractions, THEN we would be talking about granularity.
As it is we are talking about the experience resulting from two fundamentally different philosophies behind establishing relative powers of two lists.
I won’t repeat myself fourth time in a row, if in doubt, reread my previous answers.
vipoid wrote: Could someone remind me what the "Mawlock problem" is even supposed to be?
Few editions ago Mawlocs became good because the meta changed and people took big blocks of troops, so without changing their rules at all mawlocs became over powered so had to cost more points.
Some say this shows points aren’t a good way to balance the game and in-games rules rather than list building restrictions would be better.
You still see the same principle playing out today, where new codices affect the existing meta, because armies re-tool to account for the newcomer and it affects balance. A good example would be when Knights were successful in 8th, so armies tooled up to deal with Knights, and then suddenly hordes of cheap infantry became viable. The infantry didn't change, the core game didn't change, but the meta focus on anti-Knight suddenly made infantry more effective.
It's a big part of why points systems are considered a structuring mechanism in game design, rather than strictly a balancing mechanism- the actual value of a unit or option is so contingent on the matchup, the meta, and the context within the army that it's impossible to set a single objective value. You can contribute to balance with tweaks to point values, but there are issues that points alone cannot resolve, especially in a game that relies on building a fixed army list without knowing anything about the battlefield, objectives, or opposing force.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:If you can't have a discussion or debate without calling to invalidate someone else's enjoyment of a toy solider game, then maybe you need to reconsider how discussion and debate works.
What if my opinion logically leads to that though?
If the only way you can express your thoughts is by invalidating the experiences of others, and you're incapable of preventing yourself before you hit that line of rhetoric, that sounds like a you problem, and honestly means you probably aren't someone who should be lecturing others about how discussions and debates work.
I'm not invalidating your approach - you can do whatever you want. I'm simply stating that I don't agree with your opinion because in all the points vs PL debates I have not yet seen one compelling argument why PL are actually better than points. You can state it's your belief, and I don't doubt it, but I find your belief to be unsupported by compelling evidence.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Your opinion that you dislike PL? Totally chill. Taking that opinion to be "anyone else who enjoys PL can get stuffed"? Not chill.
It's a good job I never said that then. If you interpreted something that way, I apologise for not being clear enough.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:All I ask is that you respect that belief that there are people who *do* find it meaningfully beneficial. I'm not asking you to find it beneficial to yourself, only that there *are* people who do.
Again, I don't doubt that. I also don't believe that opinion is well supported by any logic. If we're just going to throw out any attempt at logic or reasoning in favour of "but I believe, so you can't say anything against it" we're not having a debate. To me it seems that you;re jsut trying to shut down any attempt at discussion by claiming that belief is sufficient to show something is true.
nou wrote: Simply unbelievable…
POINTS try to assign a „precise” value to every choice in list building stage by DESIGN.
PLs do not, BY DESIGN, it is a distinct and deliberate feature of PLs. Wargear and weapons choices are excluded from the point system and are selected independently from it. Again, this is BY DESIGN, a feature differentuating it from points. This IS utilised in narrative, I don’t know where you got this „you admitted they are not used this way” when you have testimonies of such use all around this and similar threads.
We are not talking about granularity - if there would be cost in PLs for every option that has a value in points slapped onto it, but in some cases 1PL out of 50 would be listed alongside 20pts out of 2000 and in some cases alongside 1pt because you don’t use fractions, THEN we would be talking about granularity.
As it is we are talking about the experience resulting from two fundamentally different philosophies behind establishing relative powers of two lists.
I won’t repeat myself fourth time in a row, if in doubt, reread my previous answers.
And I view that as a distinction without a difference. There's no narrative-driven reason why PL are better than points, as we can see from the fact plenty of narrative systems use the same kind of points system 40k does, including previous versions of 40k. I disagree that PL is successful at providing any actual, useful difference. I'd further argue that the philosophy behind PL is flawed.
vipoid wrote: Could someone remind me what the "Mawlock problem" is even supposed to be?
In 7th, Mawlock was great at killing large blobs of MEQs and even more so, TEQs. In such context it was also virtually untargettable and overperformed. And such was „the meta” at that time. It was however total rubbish against GEQ and MSU, where it never, ever returned the point investment.
You fundamentally can’t slap a static point cost at a unit with so swingy utility outside of „the meta” context. If you cost it for „the meta” it will be hilariously overcosted trap choice for multitude of players that do not face Mawlock’s optimal target builds. If you cost it for casual use, it will break the meta. If you assign the average of such large swing, it will still be, by the nature of average, undercosted for „the meta” and overcosted in casual use.
This is one of the most drastic examples (the swing was measured in hundreds of points), but as I wrote before, the same problem applies to any swingy ability, like poison, haywire, out of LoS shooting, dependence on synnergies etc.
I don't remember Mawlocs being a significant source of ire in 7th edition. Certainly not compared with Flying Hive Tyrants. Given how plentiful Marines remained I'm unclear Mawlocs ate them all, unless this is an especially short window in time.
For Catbarf - I don't think it played out that way (i.e. Knights fostering Hordes). From memory there was this idea was that Orks/Boyz spam would dominate the world - only for it to fall completely flat at the 2019 LVO (the height of Knight Meta). The most reliable counter ended up being Eldar (who else?) which were hardly running hordes of cheap infantry.
I think you have seen similar effects - for example despite the dominance of Marines, there was an internet freakout over Tau when Siegler won Nova. But usually (as this proved) it was an illusion, with raw mathematical power telling. This was not the dawn of a new meta - hence Siegler himself switching to IH to win LVO a couple of months later, because he wanted to win.
Ultimately I think there's relatively little in 40k that's a result of "meta". Its just never been balanced that well to allow for a "counter-meta list". You don't get to be a club in a meta full of seals. You just get to be overpowered.
And this is the issue of points. Its all relative. If a unit goes up in points, then the army will do worse (assuming players can't just swap that unit out for something which is now relatively better) because it has less stuff on the table. It will therefore probably do less damage. And is more likely to suffer critical losses in return. It will be less competitive in terms of claiming victory points - and therefore winning the game.
There are certain abilities which are so obnoxious its probably best to change them rather than try to give them a points value (although you can always just make them too expensive, and therefore suboptimal/irrelevant for competitive games). But I still don't think this is a major problem.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:If you can't have a discussion or debate without calling to invalidate someone else's enjoyment of a toy solider game, then maybe you need to reconsider how discussion and debate works.
What if my opinion logically leads to that though?
If the only way you can express your thoughts is by invalidating the experiences of others, and you're incapable of preventing yourself before you hit that line of rhetoric, that sounds like a you problem, and honestly means you probably aren't someone who should be lecturing others about how discussions and debates work.
I'm not invalidating your approach - you can do whatever you want.
Up until people start saying that PL should be scrapped, yes. That's the only issue I'm taking here.
I'm simply stating that I don't agree with your opinion because in all the points vs PL debates I have not yet seen one compelling argument why PL are actually better than points. You can state it's your belief, and I don't doubt it, but I find your belief to be unsupported by compelling evidence.
I'm not trying to have you agree with my opinion, nor do I need to support it. I don't care to do so, and I don't need to justify it.
What I, and many others, are feeling the need to justify is *our own enjoyment of something*. I'm not here to justify PL to anyone, but I am here to justify that we enjoy it, and at the very least, I want people to understand that there are people who like PL and get value from it. I don't need you, or anyone else, to understand why, because I don't need your understanding. All I ask for is that you respect that we do find a use from it, and to accept that.
I shouldn't have to give a compelling argument why I enjoy something, because I'm not trying to compel you, nor do I need to justify why I enjoy things.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Your opinion that you dislike PL? Totally chill. Taking that opinion to be "anyone else who enjoys PL can get stuffed"? Not chill.
It's a good job I never said that then. If you interpreted something that way, I apologise for not being clear enough.
My apologies if I implied that you'd directly said that - however, some users *have* definitely said words to that effect, and, like you said, you implied that your opinion "logically leads" to scrapping PL - which effectively is saying "anyone who enjoys it can get stuffed".
Again - just to clarify - I don't care what other people enjoy. Just don't take away what I enjoy.
If we're just going to throw out any attempt at logic or reasoning in favour of "but I believe, so you can't say anything against it" we're not having a debate.
Good. I'm not debating you. I'm asking you to respect that I enjoy something.
To me it seems that you;re jsut trying to shut down any attempt at discussion by claiming that belief is sufficient to show something is true.
The only discussion I'm shutting down is "justify why you like this" or "justify why this is good". I don't need to justify gak, and I never came into this thread to do that. I came into this thread to criticise the perspective of people who were making claims of "PL should be binned, and I don't care about the opinions of the people who actually enjoy it". That's not what this thread is about, nor is it particularly respectful.
Does that make sense? If you disagree with the idea that people should be able to enjoy what they want when it doesn't affect you, then I'm happy to continue this "discussion", but I'm not here to justify why I enjoy things.
Andykp wrote: Few editions ago Mawlocs became good because the meta changed and people took big blocks of troops, so without changing their rules at all mawlocs became over powered so had to cost more points.
Some say this shows points aren’t a good way to balance the game and in-games rules rather than list building restrictions would be better.
nou wrote: In 7th, Mawlock was great at killing large blobs of MEQs and even more so, TEQs. In such context it was also virtually untargettable and overperformed. And such was „the meta” at that time. It was however total rubbish against GEQ and MSU, where it never, ever returned the point investment.
You fundamentally can’t slap a static point cost at a unit with so swingy utility outside of „the meta” context. If you cost it for „the meta” it will be hilariously overcosted trap choice for multitude of players that do not face Mawlock’s optimal target builds. If you cost it for casual use, it will break the meta. If you assign the average of such large swing, it will still be, by the nature of average, undercosted for „the meta” and overcosted in casual use.
This is one of the most drastic examples (the swing was measured in hundreds of points), but as I wrote before, the same problem applies to any swingy ability, like poison, haywire, out of LoS shooting, dependence on synnergies etc.
Thank you both for explaining that.
I can see what you mean with this example, though I find myself wondering if the issue lies more in certain mechanics. If the Mawlock only gets to use its burrowing attack once, then it's always going to be swingy because you're trying to base its point cost on the outcome of a single roll. It's a very similar issue to Deathstrike missiles - you've got a unit that devotes its entire in-game existence to a single shot with its main weapon. If things go well (good target, good rolls), then your mega-weapon can potentially devastate the enemy. If you don't have an ideal target and you roll badly (including scattering in prior editions), then you have no chance of doing better in subsequent turns because you've already used your single shot.
Put simply, I don't think the problem really lies with points so much as with the whole idea of having units with 1/game superweapons.
Any activity which has a winner and/or a loser at the end of it is competitive. That is like saying PL are not suited for w40k.
What I, and many others, are feeling the need to justify is *our own enjoyment of something*. I'm not here to justify PL to anyone, but I am here to justify that we enjoy it, and at the very least, I want people to understand that there are people who like PL and get value from it. I don't need you, or anyone else, to understand why, because I don't need your understanding. All I ask for is that you respect that we do find a use from it, and to accept that.
Doing something like that always ends in the same way. Two different ways of doing things can not exist in the same space. One will always be the dominant one and prefared one. So people who don't like or want PL don't get anything, specialy as you said it yourself you don't care about them or how they play, from respecting PL. Each minute design spends on it is a minute not spend on points etc.
So, again, is there really any value in GW not going PL only? From what I'm seeing, most if not all the people in the NAY camp, would still keep playing, one person has said they'll stop playing altogether, but as they have admitted, they are not a competitive player. Can anyone point to articles or interviews where the really hard core competitive players have been pro or anti PL? I know Maniac and Kirioth have said in vidoes they like PL for quick games, but prefer Points for competition.
Any activity which has a winner and/or a loser at the end of it is competitive. That is like saying PL are not suited for w40k.
Adversarial and conpetitive are two totally different things.
And competitive itself covers a huge spectrum of approaches. The context of 'competitive' is this case is push it out far enough focusing entirely on the efficiency of the list building, this will come at the expense of everything else in the game/hobby.
Doing something like that always ends in the same way. Two different ways of doing things can not exist in the same space. One will always be the dominant one and prefared one. So people who don't like or want PL don't get anything, specialy as you said it yourself you don't care about them or how they play, from respecting PL. Each minute design spends on it is a minute not spend on points etc.
Utter garbage.
There is nothing wrong with multiple ways of playing and approaching a game or sport. We are not robots; we do not all want the same thing.
Catering to a variety of needs and approaches is a good thing.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, again, is there really any value in GW not going PL only? From what I'm seeing, most if not all the people in the NAY camp, would still keep playing, one person has said they'll stop playing altogether, but as they have admitted, they are not a competitive player. Can anyone point to articles or interviews where the really hard core competitive players have been pro or anti PL? I know Maniac and Kirioth have said in vidoes they like PL for quick games, but prefer Points for competition.
No more "value" than going "points only". Both systems exist, and we have seen in this thread that there are people who prefer both systems, and will defend said preference at length. I see no "value" in removing either. They're both there. Play what you like.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, again, is there really any value in GW not going PL only? From what I'm seeing, most if not all the people in the NAY camp, would still keep playing, one person has said they'll stop playing altogether, but as they have admitted, they are not a competitive player. Can anyone point to articles or interviews where the really hard core competitive players have been pro or anti PL? I know Maniac and Kirioth have said in vidoes they like PL for quick games, but prefer Points for competition.
The value of points should be obvious, you get a more granular way to present value, and therefore represent unit cost for options much better. This is objectively true.
This is good for both players and GW. For players like myself it's great because we like to fiddle around with points in order to maximise efficiency or whatever. Additionally, it's a different method of interaction with the system when not playing. For some of us tinkering with lists is a hobby unto itself.
For GW, points give them another place to tweak things either for balance, or more cynically, to reinforce the churn which is good for business.
If GW is going to make a lousy use of points such as mis-pointing items, always rounding to the nearest multiple of 5, or whatever, it doesn't mean points have no value. It just means GW isn't using them to their potential.
Truth be told, 40k doesn't make you buy a lot of models. Competitive matched pick-up games at the local FLGS might.
40k is a huge universe, with lots of factions, some with massive rosters. I buy a lot of models because I like them, couldn't care less about their rules. And I don't buy models I dislike, also couldn't care less about their rules.
This year I bought an AM army, the absolute bottom tier faction. And I sold my drukhari when they were the absolute top tiers, because even if I loved the models I was tired of handling an army with tons of fragile models and tons of flying stems.
And if I had more money, time to paint and space to store the models I'd buy an additional bazillion of models, regardless of competitive games.
Blackie wrote: With that in mind the PL system is not more unbalanced than the points one, it should be actually more balanced. But not because of the rules or the possibilities in list building, because of the players' mentality. Those who use PL and WYSIWYG will never field anything near the flavour of the month lists.
"PL is balanced as long as you never exploit the situations where it isn't balanced."
No.
PL and competitive gaming are mutually exclusive.
Then PL is a failure. The normal point system can handle competitive and non-competitive games, PL can only handle non-competitive games. There is no reason to have two separate point systems when a single point system can cover all game types.
@Blackie- Totally agree. Like you, I collect and play what I want when I want regardless of its rules.
I've just heard Karol (and possibly a few others) say that 40k makes people play 2k armies, or that it is always a huge investment upfront.
When I see this, I just like to remind the people who feel this way that the rulebook does not say "Thou Shalt play 2k points and only 2k points." Because it seems like some people genuinely forget that.
I get that local metas can be restrictive, and people who have little choice but to play at local stores for whatever reason must often fall in line or go without a game. But there's not much GW can do to solve this, as the ruleset they designed clearly indicates that 25PL games are just as valid as 100 PL games.
(Well, except in GT Mission Packs, where there's only 2 sizes of game... But that might be another topic)
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, again, is there really any value in GW not going PL only? From what I'm seeing, most if not all the people in the NAY camp, would still keep playing, one person has said they'll stop playing altogether, but as they have admitted, they are not a competitive player. Can anyone point to articles or interviews where the really hard core competitive players have been pro or anti PL? I know Maniac and Kirioth have said in vidoes they like PL for quick games, but prefer Points for competition.
The value of points should be obvious, you get a more granular way to present value, and therefore represent unit cost for options much better. This is objectively true.
This is good for both players and GW. For players like myself it's great because we like to fiddle around with points in order to maximise efficiency or whatever. Additionally, it's a different method of interaction with the system when not playing. For some of us tinkering with lists is a hobby unto itself.
For GW, points give them another place to tweak things either for balance, or more cynically, to reinforce the churn which is good for business.
If GW is going to make a lousy use of points such as mis-pointing items, always rounding to the nearest multiple of 5, or whatever, it doesn't mean points have no value. It just means GW isn't using them to their potential.
How do you state an opinion, and then declare it an objective truth?
It's not Objectively true, because it's not a true Dichotomy.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: As I said - GW produces both matched play, non-matched play, Matched™ Play™ and non-Matched™ Play™. They all exist. How can you turn around and patently ignore that those other things *do* exist?
Because they don't really exist in practice.
Matched™ Play™ gets frequent content updates, dedicated rulebooks, and official events.
Crusade™ (which is matched play) gets frequent content updates, dedicated rulebooks, and official events (though fewer of them).
Open™ Play™, the only non-matched-play format GW publishes, gets a brief footnote in the rules saying "you can choose not to use any rules you don't want to use" and that's it. No significant content, no official events, barely even an acknowledgement that it exists.
The *actual* topic should be going more like "yes, I personally don't enjoy PL, and I would play it less if GW only used it", or "no, I'd actually be totally fine if GW did this". Nowhere in the discussion of that topic does there need to be a discussion or debate over "you're not playing 40k correctly" (a statement made by Karol) or "I think it should be gotten rid of entirely, feth you if you actually like PL, you're just gatekeeping me" (statements made by CadianSgtBob).
I see. So we can discuss the scenario where GW removes the point system you don't like but if we discuss the scenario where GW removes the point system you do like it's unacceptable? That's an interesting double standard you have there.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: As I said - GW produces both matched play, non-matched play, Matched™ Play™ and non-Matched™ Play™. They all exist. How can you turn around and patently ignore that those other things *do* exist?
Because they don't really exist in practice.
Matched™ Play™ gets frequent content updates, dedicated rulebooks, and official events.
Crusade™ (which is matched play) gets frequent content updates, dedicated rulebooks, and official events (though fewer of them).
Open™ Play™, the only non-matched-play format GW publishes, gets a brief footnote in the rules saying "you can choose not to use any rules you don't want to use" and that's it. No significant content, no official events, barely even an acknowledgement that it exists.
The *actual* topic should be going more like "yes, I personally don't enjoy PL, and I would play it less if GW only used it", or "no, I'd actually be totally fine if GW did this". Nowhere in the discussion of that topic does there need to be a discussion or debate over "you're not playing 40k correctly" (a statement made by Karol) or "I think it should be gotten rid of entirely, feth you if you actually like PL, you're just gatekeeping me" (statements made by CadianSgtBob).
I see. So we can discuss the scenario where GW removes the point system you don't like but if we discuss the scenario where GW removes the point system you do like it's unacceptable? That's an interesting double standard you have there.
Has Smudge advocated for removing points at all? I don't recall seeing that.
I recall plenty of "I don't play with points" but none of "Points should be removed."
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: How do you state an opinion, and then declare it an objective truth?
Because it is objective truth. If a unit has an option for power sword + plasma pistol or laspistol + no melee weapon one of these is indisputably more powerful than the other. And it is indisputable fact that the normal point system, being more granular and accounting for upgrade choices, will more accurately represent this difference than the point system that gives the unit a flat cost regardless of upgrade choices.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Has Smudge advocated for removing points at all? I don't recall seeing that.
I recall plenty of "I don't play with points" but none of "Points should be removed."
The entire starting premise of this thread is GW removing points.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: How do you state an opinion, and then declare it an objective truth?
Because it is objective truth. If a unit has an option for power sword + plasma pistol or laspistol + no melee weapon one of these is indisputably more powerful than the other. And it is indisputable fact that the normal point system, being more granular and accounting for upgrade choices, will more accurately represent this difference than the point system that gives the unit a flat cost regardless of upgrade choices.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Has Smudge advocated for removing points at all? I don't recall seeing that.
I recall plenty of "I don't play with points" but none of "Points should be removed."
The entire starting premise of this thread is GW removing points.
Wrong. As the person who started it, it was WHO WOULD STOP PLAYING IF X OCCURED.
Andykp wrote: He doesn’t just disagree, but has spent pages and pages arguing against reasonable people who have just been saying that there is more than one way to enjoy the game and he has spent those pages ranting that they are wrong and just virtue signalling and blah blah blah.
Meanwhile you spend pages and pages arguing against reasonable people telling you that you aren't being reasonable, and somehow that's different? What gives you the right to declare yourself the winner and insist that anyone who doesn't acknowledge your victory must either be trolling or ill? How are you not getting banned for shamelessly breaking the rules about not being rude to people?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Wrong. As the person who started it, it was WHO WOULD STOP PLAYING IF X OCCURED.
So, cards on the table. Would anyone actually have a marked decrease in play if 40k went full Power Levels and abandoned points entirely?
So yes, you did in fact start this thread with the premise of GW removing points.
I have to agree with the others now. After 16 pages, you are just trolling. Steel manning people to arguments they never made, putting up fallacious arguments stated as "fact", and just always being a contrarian. CSB is just trolling.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, again, is there really any value in GW not going PL only? From what I'm seeing, most if not all the people in the NAY camp, would still keep playing, one person has said they'll stop playing altogether, but as they have admitted, they are not a competitive player. Can anyone point to articles or interviews where the really hard core competitive players have been pro or anti PL? I know Maniac and Kirioth have said in vidoes they like PL for quick games, but prefer Points for competition.
The value of points should be obvious, you get a more granular way to present value, and therefore represent unit cost for options much better. This is objectively true.
This is good for both players and GW. For players like myself it's great because we like to fiddle around with points in order to maximise efficiency or whatever. Additionally, it's a different method of interaction with the system when not playing. For some of us tinkering with lists is a hobby unto itself.
For GW, points give them another place to tweak things either for balance, or more cynically, to reinforce the churn which is good for business.
If GW is going to make a lousy use of points such as mis-pointing items, always rounding to the nearest multiple of 5, or whatever, it doesn't mean points have no value. It just means GW isn't using them to their potential.
How do you state an opinion, and then declare it an objective truth?
It's not Objectively true, because it's not a true Dichotomy.
It is objectively true that points offer more granularity than PL, and objectively true that more granularity offers more precision in the effort towards balancing.
I don't know what 'true dichotomy' is referring to. I mean, we're here comparing points to PL. It's the options given.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: How do you state an opinion, and then declare it an objective truth?
Because it is objective truth. If a unit has an option for power sword + plasma pistol or laspistol + no melee weapon one of these is indisputably more powerful than the other. And it is indisputable fact that the normal point system, being more granular and accounting for upgrade choices, will more accurately represent this difference than the point system that gives the unit a flat cost regardless of upgrade choices.
Here you have managed to both state and objective truth while adding on an at best subjective conclusion.
It is indisputable that an Infantry Squad with Sergeant armed Power Sword and Plasma Pistol is more powerful than one where the Sergeant has just a Laspistol. But that doesn't immediately mean a more granular points system will better represent the power of the two units. That is depended upon getting the points value of the base squad, the Power Sword, and the Plasma Pistol each independently correct in the combined context.
Is Squad A worth 2, 5, or 10 more points than Squad B?
What is Squad B's worth to start with?
In the context of a 1000 or 2000 point army, does it really matter in the larger context if there is a 5 point difference between the two squads?
And what does that difference do the the nature of the game?
Then PL is a failure. The normal point system can handle competitive and non-competitive games, PL can only handle non-competitive games. There is no reason to have two separate point systems when a single point system can cover all game types.
It's not a failure because for a portion of the playerbase it's a useful system. Not everyone wants to min max stuff or to deal with that kind of minutia and granularity, and with PL listbuilding is incredibly faster and easier. Hence it's a great option for those players.
What's the issue with having two separate systems?
Then PL is a failure. The normal point system can handle competitive and non-competitive games, PL can only handle non-competitive games. There is no reason to have two separate point systems when a single point system can cover all game types.
What's the issue with having two separate systems?
Because PL doesn't DESERVE the bare minimum effort it gets to begin with.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: How do you state an opinion, and then declare it an objective truth?
Because it is objective truth. If a unit has an option for power sword + plasma pistol or laspistol + no melee weapon one of these is indisputably more powerful than the other. And it is indisputable fact that the normal point system, being more granular and accounting for upgrade choices, will more accurately represent this difference than the point system that gives the unit a flat cost regardless of upgrade choices.
Here you have managed to both state and objective truth while adding on an at best subjective conclusion.
It is indisputable that an Infantry Squad with Sergeant armed Power Sword and Plasma Pistol is more powerful than one where the Sergeant has just a Laspistol. But that doesn't immediately mean a more granular points system will better represent the power of the two units. That is depended upon getting the points value of the base squad, the Power Sword, and the Plasma Pistol each independently correct in the combined context.
Is Squad A worth 2, 5, or 10 more points than Squad B?
What is Squad B's worth to start with?
In the context of a 1000 or 2000 point army, does it really matter in the larger context if there is a 5 point difference between the two squads?
And what does that difference do the the nature of the game?
Wtf did I just read?
Are we contending "will better represent" vs. "Can better represent"? That sure seems like a waste of time when discussing the merits of the systems. Both systems can be used poorly, duh.
But as-is, more granularity offers more resolution for balance. Are we really contending with this?
alextroy wrote: But that doesn't immediately mean a more granular points system will better represent the power of the two units.
All else being equal, yes it does. Any error in the base cost will also be included in the point cost under PL because those same incorrect assumptions that generated the error will also be present in the PL evaluation. The only way PL will ever be more accurate is if you dishonestly assume that the people making the PL point costs are more skilled than the people making the normal point costs.
In the context of a 1000 or 2000 point army, does it really matter in the larger context if there is a 5 point difference between the two squads?
Why shouldn't it? Even if 5 points doesn't matter on the army scale it certainly matters on the unit scale, where it removes any argument for ever taking the laspistol option. And I think it says a lot that the best defense of PL here is "it is wrong, but I'm ok with that level of error".
And remember, PL can generate errors an order of magnitude worse. You can even have a 200 point error on some units, if you have a particularly bad set of choices.
And what does that difference do the the nature of the game?
It does great things by eliminating (or at least minimizing) the tension between "equip your dudes however you like" and "make winning choices in the tabletop game".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackie wrote: It's not a failure because for a portion of the playerbase it's a useful system. Not everyone wants to min max stuff or to deal with that kind of minutia and granularity, and with PL listbuilding is incredibly faster and easier. Hence it's a great option for those players.
It absolutely is a failure. If system A does everything that system B does and also does other things then B is a failure. It is completely redundant and has no reason to exist.
And no, listbuilding with PL is not "incredibly faster and easier". It is a small reduction in the process of adding up the numbers. It does nothing to reduce the time spent figuring out what you want to put in your list, which is what accounts for most of the time required to build a list. And arguably PL makes it harder to build a list since the only way to adjust your list to match the point limit is by adding or removing entire units, while in the normal point system you can often get there by changing an upgrade or two.
What's the issue with having two separate systems?
Why only two systems? Why not five systems? Or ten systems? Why not publish a new point system every month? The answer is obvious: because rules bloat is bad. PL is unnecessary rules bloat that, at best, represents a waste of development resources that could be better spent elsewhere. And at worst it is foothold for GW's anti-competitive element to keep trying to push PL as the only point system.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: How do you state an opinion, and then declare it an objective truth?
Because it is objective truth. If a unit has an option for power sword + plasma pistol or laspistol + no melee weapon one of these is indisputably more powerful than the other. And it is indisputable fact that the normal point system, being more granular and accounting for upgrade choices, will more accurately represent this difference than the point system that gives the unit a flat cost regardless of upgrade choices.
Here you have managed to both state and objective truth while adding on an at best subjective conclusion.
It is indisputable that an Infantry Squad with Sergeant armed Power Sword and Plasma Pistol is more powerful than one where the Sergeant has just a Laspistol. But that doesn't immediately mean a more granular points system will better represent the power of the two units. That is depended upon getting the points value of the base squad, the Power Sword, and the Plasma Pistol each independently correct in the combined context.
Is Squad A worth 2, 5, or 10 more points than Squad B?
What is Squad B's worth to start with?
In the context of a 1000 or 2000 point army, does it really matter in the larger context if there is a 5 point difference between the two squads?
And what does that difference do the the nature of the game?
Wtf did I just read?
Are we contending "will better represent" vs. "Can better represent"? That sure seems like a waste of time when discussing the merits of the systems. Both systems can be used poorly, duh.
But as-is, more granularity offers more resolution for balance. Are we really contending with this?
Points in the competitive scene do not provide sufficient balance for the people who want to play that way. Hence the constant complaining from those in that scene about the lack of balance in the game. Points provide a sticking plaster but do not provide the resolution alone.
PL in the casual scene provide sufficient balance for the players who play that way. Hence the lack of complaining form casuals about balance.
There is no need for the level of granularity of points in the casual scene. Hence power levels work just fine. And I still believe outside of the top end competitive stuff most people don’t play in a way where points are needed, in that most players aren’t good enough and the game isn’t balanced enough that a few points difference here and there makes any difference at all.
Points in the competitive scene do not provide sufficient balance for the people who want to play that way. Hence the constant complaining from those in that scene about the lack of balance in the game. Points provide a sticking plaster but do not provide the resolution alone.
PL in the casual scene provide sufficient balance for the players who play that way. Hence the lack of complaining form casuals about balance.
There is no need for the level of granularity of points in the casual scene. Hence power levels work just fine. And I still believe outside of the top end competitive stuff most people don’t play in a way where points are needed, in that most players aren’t good enough and the game isn’t balanced enough that a few points difference here and there makes any difference at all.
Okay, well that certainly is a set of opinions.
I suppose it's arguable whether points are currently being applied appropriately for competetive use. But again, more granularity brings more opportunity for better balance. That should be inarguable.
Andykp wrote: PL in the casual scene provide sufficient balance for the players who play that way.
And so does the normal point system. Which, again, is the redundancy problem: PL is just a point system with inherent inaccuracy. Anything that can be done with PL can be done just as well by the normal point system but the reverse is not true, PL is inadequate for handling cases where people care about the higher level of accuracy. So basic game design says you simplify things and remove the redundant system.
Except people do prefer it. I don’t-but others do. If you believe that GW would make a good, balanced system if they just got rid of PL and focused that effort on other things… I got news for you. That wouldn’t happen.
I have literally just wrote how PLs are more suited to cross tailoring lists… They are innately suited to two step, simultaneous list building - players choose units, show eachother their list, then choose wargear/weapons to suit the matchip
You have made a claim, but it's not supported by the evidence. You can do the exact same thing with points, with more granularity.
nou wrote: . And this utility is being used in narrative context a lot.
No it's not. In narrative play, you have to use requisition points to change unit wargear.
nou wrote: Can you squeeze such utility from points? Not without elaborate army selection rules (with which you still can’t handle variable amount of leeway on per unit basis that PLs provide out of the box), or by folding wargear and weapon options into free unit upgrades, at which point you are simply recreating deniminated PLs. Some games achieve similar result by having two different point systems on top of eachother - unit points and wargear/weapon points (not simply split allowance of the same points).
It's real easy, actually - just buy your units, and then adjust wargear afterwards after talking with your opponent. But that never happens because the games you describe where people adjust wargear on PL units after the game starts don't happen either.
nou wrote: And could we please stop with this „PLs are just a less granular point system” BS.
No, because it's not BS and is, in fact, true.
nou wrote: 1) everybody knows, that we are discussing THOSE points vs THOSE PLs. And 2) equality would be true if PLs were just denominated points with exact same way of handling army selection. They don’t. They are two entirely different SYSTEMS - with different qualities and internal interactions, that get emphasized in different contexts.
Yeah, and PL does a lot of dumb stuff like punishing me for not taking a KFF on my Mega-armored Big Mek, or jacking up my warlord's PL by 4 in crusade for a few stat increases. It generally does worse things than points, *because it's less granular*. Points can handle 5 point upgrades, in PL you've got to apply a minimum of 20 points to have a meaningful difference, which means that there's a lot of upgrades (Ork Kustom Jobs for example) that are never worth it because the PL can't go low enough. If it were more granular those abilities would actually be functional.
Thank you for that insightful non-contribution. If all you're going to offer is stating the obvious fact that there are (at least) two sides to this debate could you please just refrain from posting and cluttering up the page for the rest of us?
It absolutely is a failure. If system A does everything that system B does and also does other things then B is a failure. It is completely redundant and has no reason to exist.
Those other things might be redundant for some player. Hence it's the points system that could be a failure. If there's a market for a portion of the playerbase then it's not a failure. How many kinds of SM do exist? Aren't they redundant? And yet people wanted them. Heck there's a whole upcoming specialist game that is based on that redundancy and yet the hype about it is already stellar.
Why only two systems? Why not five systems? Or ten systems? Why not publish a new point system every month? The answer is obvious: because rules bloat is bad. PL is unnecessary rules bloat that, at best, represents a waste of development resources that could be better spent elsewhere. And at worst it is foothold for GW's anti-competitive element to keep trying to push PL as the only point system.
But it's not a bloat or part of the existing bloat because systems are mutually exclusive. You pick up one, the other doesn't exist. It's nothing like rules bloat, those you need to know regardless of the points system you choose or you might get gotcha'd.
Me personally I'd never use PL as I love the minutia of the point system. But I know players who started with PL and never left it, who would probably quit if they had to deal with the points system.
Thank you for that insightful non-contribution. If all you're going to offer is stating the obvious fact that there are (at least) two sides to this debate could you please just refrain from posting and cluttering up the page for the rest of us?
You don’t seem aware that people prefer it, given your words.
In D&D 3.5, Warblade is better than Fighter. There’s basically no circumstance where a straight-classes Fighter is better than a same-level Warblade. Should we remove the Fighter, despite people enjoying it?
Hell, how many redundant Marine datasheets are there? Where’s your thread asking for all those to be consolidated?
Andykp wrote: Points in the competitive scene do not provide sufficient balance for the people who want to play that way. Hence the constant complaining from those in that scene about the lack of balance in the game. Points provide a sticking plaster but do not provide the resolution alone.
That's because GW refuses to put out the effort to get a reasonable approximate of effectiveness on the table. Voidweavers at release for 90 points, for example. But they put out a similar amount of effort into the PL (which is 5).
Andykp wrote: PL in the casual scene provide sufficient balance for the players who play that way. Hence the lack of complaining form casuals about balance.
Wrong. If I bring a bunch of Voidweavers at 5 PL to a "casual" game it will prove very quickly how PL doesn't work just fine. GW won't even adjust their PL to 6-7 to be appropriate for their points cost. But I guess if their opponent complains they're just a WAAC player who needs to be willing to lose every game with basically no chance of winning like a *real* wargamer. Otherwise they're selfish...
To be frank PL *doesn't* provide enough balance for me to play narratively. I look at orks, and a bunch of their upgrades are overcosted because they're rounded to PL, and upgrades from Crusade to their warlords are 1 PL for 1 point of Wounds or Strength. It's not worth it and it turns me off of that mode of play.
Blackie wrote: Hence it's the points system that could be a failure.
No, because once again: every situation that is covered by the less-accurate point system can be handled just as well by the normal point system. PL is not a fundamentally different approach to the game that meets a genuine difference in needs, it's just the standard points-based list construction but with deliberate errors included in the costs. For the first seven editions of the game the normal point system met all needs just fine, nobody started insisting on this need for a less-accurate point system until GW added it in 8th and tied it to the "casual and narrative player" identity.
You pick up one, the other doesn't exist.
You do know that many people play different types of games in different places, right? You use the normal point system at a tournament over the weekend, you use PL as your point system for your wednesday night Crusade league. Having both systems is textbook rules bloat there. And that's on top of the bloat factor from a design point of view, where GW keeps investing resources in an additional redundant system instead of simplifying the game to focus on a single system.
JNAProductions wrote: n D&D 3.5, Warblade is better than Fighter. There’s basically no circumstance where a straight-classes Fighter is better than a same-level Warblade. Should we remove the Fighter, despite people enjoying it?
Utterly irrelevant as DnD is not a competitive game.
JNAProductions wrote: Hell, how many redundant Marine datasheets are there? Where’s your thread asking for all those to be consolidated?
Fezzik started this thread, not him, and so it's disingenuous to make that accusation. We're talking about PL right now.
I am aware of it. I am also aware that their reasons do not hold up to examination, and that people like them enjoyed the game just fine when there was only a single point system. If PL was removed they'd go right back to playing with the normal point system and lose nothing in the process.
Should we remove the Fighter, despite people enjoying it?
Yes. If the Fighter class is literally duplicated by the other class then it should be removed. Or the other one should be removed, if that's the way you want to do it. I'm not sure why you think this is a compelling argument when we're talking about a system that was burdened with rules bloat to the point of being almost unplayable, and that was replaced by a much more streamlined and enjoyable system in 5E. 3.5E/Pathfinder needed to have at least 75% of its content removed and the ridiculous "{core class} but with more bonuses" classes would have been an excellent place to start.
Hell, how many redundant Marine datasheets are there? Where’s your thread asking for all those to be consolidated?
I am absolutely in favor of consolidating marine rules bloat. Delete primaris marines (the models can be an alternate true-scale sculpt for normal marine units), delete every chapter's special snowflake units, and merge all of the supplements into a single codex where each chapter gets exactly the same amount of space as the regiments/septs/etc in other factions.
But that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread so that's all I'm going to say on that.
CadianSgtBob wrote: For the first seven editions of the game the normal point system met all needs just fine, nobody started insisting on this need for a less-accurate point system until GW added it in 8th and tied it to the "casual and narrative player" identity.
That they were fine it's just your baseless opinion. Some changes happen all of a sudden without a crowd demanding them and after some time they might be considered a good change. Take the AP system, no one was asking to modify it but now a large portion of the playerbase, including myself, would never go back to the old system. Of all the problems that 3rd-7th had I never considered the AP system to be one of those, but now that I have experienced an alternative I definitely consider it as such. PL might be the same for someone.
Matched and Crusade are two different type of games. Playing both systems is a choice. I've never been interested in Crusade and never even tried it, I'm perfectly fine with that. It's nothing different that playing multiple games, you have to know/remember more stuff.
JNAProductions wrote: n D&D 3.5, Warblade is better than Fighter. There’s basically no circumstance where a straight-classes Fighter is better than a same-level Warblade. Should we remove the Fighter, despite people enjoying it?
Utterly irrelevant as DnD is not a competitive game.
JNAProductions wrote: Hell, how many redundant Marine datasheets are there? Where’s your thread asking for all those to be consolidated?
Fezzik started this thread, not him, and so it's disingenuous to make that accusation. We're talking about PL right now.
I'd be all for Marine datasheet consolidation actually!
Andykp wrote: Points in the competitive scene do not provide sufficient balance for the people who want to play that way. Hence the constant complaining from those in that scene about the lack of balance in the game. Points provide a sticking plaster but do not provide the resolution alone.
That's because GW refuses to put out the effort to get a reasonable approximate of effectiveness on the table. Voidweavers at release for 90 points, for example. But they put out a similar amount of effort into the PL (which is 5).
Andykp wrote: PL in the casual scene provide sufficient balance for the players who play that way. Hence the lack of complaining form casuals about balance.
Wrong. If I bring a bunch of Voidweavers at 5 PL to a "casual" game it will prove very quickly how PL doesn't work just fine. GW won't even adjust their PL to 6-7 to be appropriate for their points cost. But I guess if their opponent complains they're just a WAAC player who needs to be willing to lose every game with basically no chance of winning like a *real* wargamer. Otherwise they're selfish...
To be frank PL *doesn't* provide enough balance for me to play narratively. I look at orks, and a bunch of their upgrades are overcosted because they're rounded to PL, and upgrades from Crusade to their warlords are 1 PL for 1 point of Wounds or Strength. It's not worth it and it turns me off of that mode of play.
And this here is the issue with those on here trying to shout down PL. Why on Earth can none of you accept that there players and groups of players who go about the game very differently from you, those who have different experiences than you have?
I never said power levels would work for you, or for everyone, but for those who don’t put the importance on winning then they work very well, as demonstrated by the people who use and enjoy them perfectly well when they could be using points but chose not to. They don’t work for you, then great, guess what, there’s points here too. Use them and have fun your way. I am perfectly happy with that.
Blackie wrote: Take the AP system, no one was asking to modify it
That's revisionist history. Many people were pointing out issues with the AP system, especially in a game dominated by MEQs. It created a sharp division between "weapons that ignore MEQ armor" and "weapons that don't ignore MEQ armor", with AP worse than AP3 being of very limited value. And it created issues with the cover save system, where cover did literally nothing for MEQs against bolters/autocannons/etc.
Now, was the current AP mechanic the solution? Arguable. But it was certainly a change to a system that many people were criticizing.
Matched and Crusade are two different type of games.
Sorry, but that's a ridiculous argument. Matched play and Crusade are both 40k, and they were both the same game in previous editions. Adding a different point system for the sake of being a special snowflake is not a genuine difference comparable to playing both 40k and Infinity. If anything your argument here should be taken as an argument against having a second point system, since for you it needlessly drives Crusade into "different game" territory.
It's a valid reason, but it's also a completely unconvincing reason if you're talking to other people. If that's the best you can offer then don't expect anyone to care about your position when discussing whether GW should remove PL.
Some people's preferences are for an objectively worse game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CadianSgtBob wrote: Sorry, but that's a ridiculous argument. Matched play and Crusade are both 40k, and they were both the same game in previous editions. Adding a different point system for the sake of being a special snowflake is not a genuine difference comparable to playing both 40k and Infinity. If anything your argument here should be taken as an argument against having a second point system, since for you it needlessly drives Crusade into "different game" territory.
It's worth noting that Infinity *does* have a less granular points system that is used for its intro version of the game (Code One), but that is explicitly meant for newer or more casual players.
Andykp wrote: And this here is the issue with those on here trying to shout down PL. Why on Earth can none of you accept that there players and groups of players who go about the game very differently from you, those who have different experiences than you have?
I can. But IMOPL is a worse way of playing 40k. I'd rather it be gone but I'm not going to agitate for it. HOWEVER, people in this thread who are part of the cult of PL are advocating for points to go away, and are then getting salty when the same idea gets thrown back at them. That's hypocritical.
Andykp wrote: I never said power levels would work for you, or for everyone, but for those who don’t put the importance on winning then they work very well, as demonstrated by the people who use and enjoy them perfectly well when they could be using points but chose not to. They don’t work for you, then great, guess what, there’s points here too. Use them and have fun your way. I am perfectly happy with that.
No, let's clarify - PL is for those who don't put an importance on *balance*. If you want to go play an unbalanced game, be my guest, but I have better things to do with my time, and if I'm going to be stuck playing 40k I'm going to want to play the most balanced version of it.
Calling people who want points motivated by an importance on "winning" is both wildly incorrect and insulting, and honestly if you had any respect you'd walk that back. I want *fair games*, I shouldn't be able to just roflstomp opponents by loading up on Voidweavers like I could when the Aeldari codex dropped, and I shouldn't be fighting from underneath for choosing a codex like Orks.
To be honest, I find aggressively casual players to be the ones who care the most about winning, and what's interesting is that they don't allow for the eventuality that they brought a bad list or played poorly - if they're not doing well in games they blame their opponent. But that's just my observation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: Now that’s an objectively stupid thing to say.
It's accurate. That's more or less the definition of a CAAC player. But some people hate the idea of balance and think that tournament players' demands for better balance are ruining their fun. So I don't treat all preferences as equal; some people are just selfish and want games that they have an unfair advantage on, some people's personality type under-emphasizes fairness compared to everyone being properly deferential to authority (in this case, GW) and thus react with hostility to people who say that GW made a mistake balancing something, and so on.
It's a valid reason, but it's also a completely unconvincing reason if you're talking to other people. If that's the best you can offer then don't expect anyone to care about your position when discussing whether GW should remove PL.
They aren’t here to say “You should play PL too,” they’re here saying “I enjoy PL.”
Again-no one who likes PL has, to my knowledge, advocated for removing points.
The opposite cannot be said.
JNAProductions wrote: Again-no one who likes PL has, to my knowledge, advocated for removing points.
Dude, have you read the OP? Are you trolling? It seems like you have a very biased take on both the issue and the people involved in this conversation.
JNAProductions wrote: Again-no one who likes PL has, to my knowledge, advocated for removing points.
Dude, have you read the OP? Are you trolling? It seems like you have a very biased take on both the issue and the people involved in this conversation.
I did.
“If this change happens,” is not the same as “This change should happen.”
JNAProductions wrote: Again-no one who likes PL has, to my knowledge, advocated for removing points.
Dude, have you read the OP? Are you trolling? It seems like you have a very biased take on both the issue and the people involved in this conversation.
I did.
“If this change happens,” is not the same as “This change should happen.”
I see that subtext and begging the question flies over your head. Saying that there's no downside to removing points implies support of it.
Ok,
We're done here
Obviously we're playing the game wrong.
feth it
Might as well just stop playing since we can't even discuss playing without...
*Gestures to thread*
Andykp wrote: Now that’s an objectively stupid thing to say.
Hardly. Someone can say "I prefer a game where I get twice as many points as my opponent so I can win every game", I don't care if that preference for always winning is genuine it's still an objectively bad game design choice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Again-no one who likes PL has, to my knowledge, advocated for removing points.
This thread is literally titled "what if GW removed points". But I suppose you and OP will fall back on the technicality that it doesn't say the literal words "GW should remove points", it merely proposes a what-if scenario where they do and argues that points are not necessary.
JNAProductions wrote: Again-no one who likes PL has, to my knowledge, advocated for removing points.
Dude, have you read the OP? Are you trolling? It seems like you have a very biased take on both the issue and the people involved in this conversation.
I did.
“If this change happens,” is not the same as “This change should happen.”
I see that subtext and begging the question flies over your head. Saying that there's no downside to removing points implies support of it.
Rather than looking for insults and people trying to ruin your hobby where there is none, read the thread, read the comments. No one here has said points SHOULD go away. That’s fact. Many on the points side have said power level should,
Everyone defending power level in this discussion has said that they prefer that system but respect that others don’t. The lack of respect has come from the few points advocates on here like your self, who have no respect for how others enjoy the game. I’m sure the vast majority of folk who use points don’t mind at all that power level exists, it’s just the few that get on here a tell others they are doing it wrong, don’t know how to be happy and are too stupid to understand how they aren’t enjoying playing a game but in fact ruining it for everyone else.
Andykp wrote: And this here is the issue with those on here trying to shout down PL. Why on Earth can none of you accept that there players and groups of players who go about the game very differently from you, those who have different experiences than you have?
I can. But IMOPL is a worse way of playing 40k. I'd rather it be gone but I'm not going to agitate for it. HOWEVER, people in this thread who are part of the cult of PL are advocating for points to go away, and are then getting salty when the same idea gets thrown back at them. That's hypocritical.
Andykp wrote: I never said power levels would work for you, or for everyone, but for those who don’t put the importance on winning then they work very well, as demonstrated by the people who use and enjoy them perfectly well when they could be using points but chose not to. They don’t work for you, then great, guess what, there’s points here too. Use them and have fun your way. I am perfectly happy with that.
No, let's clarify - PL is for those who don't put an importance on *balance*. If you want to go play an unbalanced game, be my guest, but I have better things to do with my time, and if I'm going to be stuck playing 40k I'm going to want to play the most balanced version of it.
Calling people who want points motivated by an importance on "winning" is both wildly incorrect and insulting, and honestly if you had any respect you'd walk that back. I want *fair games*, I shouldn't be able to just roflstomp opponents by loading up on Voidweavers like I could when the Aeldari codex dropped, and I shouldn't be fighting from underneath for choosing a codex like Orks.
To be honest, I find aggressively casual players to be the ones who care the most about winning, and what's interesting is that they don't allow for the eventuality that they brought a bad list or played poorly - if they're not doing well in games they blame their opponent. But that's just my observation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: Now that’s an objectively stupid thing to say.
It's accurate. That's more or less the definition of a CAAC player. But some people hate the idea of balance and think that tournament players' demands for better balance are ruining their fun. So I don't treat all preferences as equal; some people are just selfish and want games that they have an unfair advantage on, some people's personality type under-emphasizes fairness compared to everyone being properly deferential to authority (in this case, GW) and thus react with hostility to people who say that GW made a mistake balancing something, and so on.
In the one post you say something sensible, IN YOUR OPINION power level is a worse system. That’s fine, it’s your opinion.
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
You start off discussing things like a sensible adult then go back to telling everyone they are wrong! So close.
Rather than looking for insults and people trying to ruin your hobby where there is none, read the thread,read the comments. No one here has said points SHOULD go away. That’s fact. Many on the points side have said power level should,
Everyone defending power level in this discussion has said that they prefer that system but respect that others don’t. The lack of respect has come from the few points advocates on here like your self, who have no respect for how others enjoy the game. I’m sure the vast majority of folk who use points don’t mind at all that power level exists, it’s just the few that get on here a tell others they are doing it wrong, don’t know how to be happy and are too stupid to understand how they aren’t enjoying playing a game but in fact ruining it for everyone else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
In the one post you say something sensible, IN YOUR OPINION power level is a worse system. That’s fine, it’s your opinion.
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
You start off discussing things like a sensible adult then go back to telling everyone they are wrong! So close.
Hmmm.
Got a couple of layers of irony with your automatically appended post.
Andykp wrote: But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
Because they are. PL is a point system, and the purpose of a point system is to give a numerical score for the on-table power of a choice. PL is objectively worse at this than the normal point system, period, and because its errors are inherent to what PL does it will always be worse. And basic game design says that when you have a redundant system which is just a worse version of an existing system you delete it for the sake of simplicity and focus.
And no, I do not accept the claim that PL represents a sufficient time savings for it to be worth keeping. When you spend hours working on the narrative and strategy side of building a list, often in addition to weeks/months of painting time to be able to use that list, the fact that you can save a few seconds in adding up the total point costs is not a meaningful difference. And that's it. That's the sole argument that is not blatant "competitive players go away" gatekeeping.
Except it’s not, that’s a question not a statement. I think if GW do go away from points as they stand they will do it like in AoS where it’s fixed coast of units but in numbers more like points than power levels.
Another question for you, do you really think the likes of Hecaton and cadiansgtbob have been more respectful of others opinions and experiences in this thread than say smudge or fezzik?
Andykp wrote: Another question for you, do you really think the likes of Hecaton and cadiansgtbob have been more respectful of others opinions and experiences in this thread than say smudge or fezzik?
Given the fact that it's the pro-PL side saying insulting things like "are you ill or just trolling" I'd say this is a question you really don't want to be asking.
Rather than looking for insults and people trying to ruin your hobby where there is none, read the thread,read the comments. No one here has said points SHOULD go away. That’s fact. Many on the points side have said power level should,
Everyone defending power level in this discussion has said that they prefer that system but respect that others don’t. The lack of respect has come from the few points advocates on here like your self, who have no respect for how others enjoy the game. I’m sure the vast majority of folk who use points don’t mind at all that power level exists, it’s just the few that get on here a tell others they are doing it wrong, don’t know how to be happy and are too stupid to understand how they aren’t enjoying playing a game but in fact ruining it for everyone else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
In the one post you say something sensible, IN YOUR OPINION power level is a worse system. That’s fine, it’s your opinion.
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
You start off discussing things like a sensible adult then go back to telling everyone they are wrong! So close.
Hmmm.
Got a couple of layers of irony with your automatically appended post.
So is hecaton right that his opinion is in fact objective fact that points are better than power levels? What metrics are we using to judge “betterness” in war gaming experiences now?
Andykp wrote: What metrics are we using to judge “betterness” in war gaming experiences now?
CadianSgtBob wrote: PL is a point system, and the purpose of a point system is to give a numerical score for the on-table power of a choice. PL is objectively worse at this than the normal point system, period, and because its errors are inherent to what PL does it will always be worse. And basic game design says that when you have a redundant system which is just a worse version of an existing system you delete it for the sake of simplicity and focus.
And no, I do not accept the claim that PL represents a sufficient time savings for it to be worth keeping. When you spend hours working on the narrative and strategy side of building a list, often in addition to weeks/months of painting time to be able to use that list, the fact that you can save a few seconds in adding up the total point costs is not a meaningful difference. And that's it. That's the sole argument that is not blatant "competitive players go away" gatekeeping.
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
Because it IS objectively worse, LOL Is a Plasma Pistol worth the same as a Las pistol, yes or no?
It's not, and that is the downside to power levels. They represent an approximation of the value of a unit.
Points are also an approximation. They're just slightly better tuned to representing what's actually in your list.
Neither is particularly accurate. What costs 100 points from one Codex may be more valuable than a unit for the same price from another Codex. Power Levels just tend to be more wildly off, and they are never updated to reflect changes in the rules. It's maddening.
Power Levels would be more appealing if they were a measure of something other than offensive / defensive output. For instance, if it was tuned to placement in a FOC, and any unit equipped in any manner could fill a slot for a set number of PLs. Then the focus would be on synergy between different types of units instead of specific loadouts.
Except it’s not, that’s a question not a statement. I think if GW do go away from points as they stand they will do it like in AoS where it’s fixed coast of units but in numbers more like points than power levels.
"Should points go away?" Is also a question, but again it amounts to the same thing. Fezziks question, paraprased as "Is there any value in keeping points?" Is highly suggestive.
Another question for you, do you really think the likes of Hecaton and cadiansgtbob have been more respectful of others opinions and experiences in this thread than say smudge or fezzik?
I don't care, I haven't teally been following. I only hopped in to respond to Fezziks suggestion that points dissapear.
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
Because it IS objectively worse, LOL Is a Plasma Pistol worth the same as a Las pistol, yes or no?
No it’s not, but is it so much worse that it alters the value of the whole unit in an army of 5 such units and a dozen other units? And if the main objective of the game (to us) is having fun, telling a story and using models we like does it matter that one model has a slightly better pistol than another? To me, no not at all.
Hecaton was saying that using points makes the game “objectively” better than using power levels. How do you measure betterness? And if that is the case (it isn’t) the. Surely all of us who are having more fun playing the game without using points are doing it wrong. Please answer that, tell me how anyone can conclude that?
Except it’s not, that’s a question not a statement. I think if GW do go away from points as they stand they will do it like in AoS where it’s fixed coast of units but in numbers more like points than power levels.
"Should points go away?" Is also a question, but again it amounts to the same thing. Fezziks question, paraprased as "Is there any value in keeping points?" Is highly suggestive.
Another question for you, do you really think the likes of Hecaton and cadiansgtbob have been more respectful of others opinions and experiences in this thread than say smudge or fezzik?
I don't care, I haven't teally been following. I only hopped in to respond to Fezziks suggestion that points dissapear.
Well that was really useful thanks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For clarity here is the full post where fezzik said that.
“ So, again, is there really any value in GW not going PL only? From what I'm seeing, most if not all the people in the NAY camp, would still keep playing, one person has said they'll stop playing altogether, but as they have admitted, they are not a competitive player. Can anyone point to articles or interviews where the really hard core competitive players have been pro or anti PL? I know Maniac and Kirioth have said in vidoes they like PL for quick games, but prefer Points for competition.”
It isn’t an insinuation, it’s a question. The same question that stated the debate.
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
Because it IS objectively worse, LOL Is a Plasma Pistol worth the same as a Las pistol, yes or no?
No it’s not, but is it so much worse that it alters the value of the whole unit in an army of 5 such units and a dozen other units? And if the main objective of the game (to us) is having fun, telling a story and using models we like does it matter that one model has a slightly better pistol than another? To me, no not at all.
Hecaton was saying that using points makes the game “objectively” better than using power levels. How do you measure betterness? And if that is the case (it isn’t) the. Surely all of us who are having more fun playing the game without using points are doing it wrong. Please answer that, tell me how anyone can conclude that?
Yes you can be doing it wrong.
People do the wrong things in hobbies all the time. Sometimes wrong is just going against convention; sometimes wrong is simply following a lesser known convention/theory (even if they are also unware of the theory); sometimes wrong is just doing stuff outright wrong; sometimes its simply not quite grasping the fundamentals well enough.
You can most certainly play with your toys in an incorrect manner.
And when its you playing with your toys that's fine. If you and your opponent are fine with it and you're having fun and neither of you is willing to learn more or change your approach. That's PERFECTLY FINE.
However it means that when you come into discussions with those outside of your sphere of influence you are going to bump into counter-arguments. You are going to hit the wall of people who know more than you; who understand the game better than you; who play better (yes you can measure that in a game which, at its core, is competitive structured). Sometimes you just have to accept that your understanding only goes so far and that others are going further.
Power Level really only has one advantage and that's being simpler maths to add up. That's really it.
Otherwise it has no real advantages over points for the game in its current state. It can't react and doesn't even try to react to the variation in unit potential based upon its weapon and upgrade choices. It doesn't try to balance units against each other or evaluate their potential. It's simple, its quick, its easy but its not accurate.
A more granular system of points simply works better. Yes GW balance is not the best, yes it has major issues at times; however the system in itself has the potential to work better if given the proper structure and testing.
Points can allow narrative players to establish matches with a greater understanding of the expected performance of their armies. You can take "double" the points of your opponent in a narrative situation and have a good grasp of how that will affect the game and thus the narrative that you are going to write. You know one side is up against a wall and the other is overwhelming. You can play some freaking fun games like that. You can setup a grand battlefield with thousands of points per side in a huge narrative epic war.
Power Level lets you kind of do it, but the variation in "power" of both forces has the potential to be grossly different than what the power-level values suggest it to be. A great part of this is, as noted many times, how different people use Power Levels. Because the system doesn't mandate costs for upgrades its really on the players if they take any or not; if they change the properties of their army; ergo its performance potential. You have to either both not care or negotiate how you will use power level in choosing models every time you play.
In a sense this makes powerlevel ok between people who know each other; who have played together before and all. It, however, makes it much harder to use between people who don't know each other; who didn't pre-arrange the game a week before; who might be turning up to a club, event, tournament or such to play against people they don't know for the first time.
In the end I can't objectively find a bonus for power level outside of its simple maths. In every other respect points are either equal too or superior in performance (or at least have potential to be superior).
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
Because it IS objectively worse, LOL Is a Plasma Pistol worth the same as a Las pistol, yes or no?
No it’s not,
Then should they be priced the same, yes or no?
I do not see the point in pricing them differently when it makes so little difference. I am happy to pay the same price for both. So, yes pricing the. Differently just adds complexity where it’s not needed. Price then the same.
Point efficiency and the rest of that isn't the point.
Folks who play PL should be allowed to talk and discuss the game without literally being told were playing the game wrong, even when we're straight up following what's in the books.
Yes, there's a decent amount of Open Play content, but it's all in past CA books that most point playing folks didn't even look at or care to keep once the next book came out.
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
Because it IS objectively worse, LOL Is a Plasma Pistol worth the same as a Las pistol, yes or no?
No it’s not, but is it so much worse that it alters the value of the whole unit in an army of 5 such units and a dozen other units? And if the main objective of the game (to us) is having fun, telling a story and using models we like does it matter that one model has a slightly better pistol than another? To me, no not at all.
Hecaton was saying that using points makes the game “objectively” better than using power levels. How do you measure betterness? And if that is the case (it isn’t) the. Surely all of us who are having more fun playing the game without using points are doing it wrong. Please answer that, tell me how anyone can conclude that?
Yes you can be doing it wrong.
People do the wrong things in hobbies all the time. Sometimes wrong is just going against convention; sometimes wrong is simply following a lesser known convention/theory (even if they are also unware of the theory); sometimes wrong is just doing stuff outright wrong; sometimes its simply not quite grasping the fundamentals well enough.
You can most certainly play with your toys in an incorrect manner.
And when its you playing with your toys that's fine. If you and your opponent are fine with it and you're having fun and neither of you is willing to learn more or change your approach. That's PERFECTLY FINE.
However it means that when you come into discussions with those outside of your sphere of influence you are going to bump into counter-arguments. You are going to hit the wall of people who know more than you; who understand the game better than you; who play better (yes you can measure that in a game which, at its core, is competitive structured). Sometimes you just have to accept that your understanding only goes so far and that others are going further.
Power Level really only has one advantage and that's being simpler maths to add up. That's really it.
Otherwise it has no real advantages over points for the game in its current state. It can't react and doesn't even try to react to the variation in unit potential based upon its weapon and upgrade choices. It doesn't try to balance units against each other or evaluate their potential. It's simple, its quick, its easy but its not accurate.
A more granular system of points simply works better. Yes GW balance is not the best, yes it has major issues at times; however the system in itself has the potential to work better if given the proper structure and testing.
Points can allow narrative players to establish matches with a greater understanding of the expected performance of their armies. You can take "double" the points of your opponent in a narrative situation and have a good grasp of how that will affect the game and thus the narrative that you are going to write. You know one side is up against a wall and the other is overwhelming. You can play some freaking fun games like that. You can setup a grand battlefield with thousands of points per side in a huge narrative epic war.
Power Level lets you kind of do it, but the variation in "power" of both forces has the potential to be grossly different than what the power-level values suggest it to be. A great part of this is, as noted many times, how different people use Power Levels. Because the system doesn't mandate costs for upgrades its really on the players if they take any or not; if they change the properties of their army; ergo its performance potential. You have to either both not care or negotiate how you will use power level in choosing models every time you play.
In a sense this makes powerlevel ok between people who know each other; who have played together before and all. It, however, makes it much harder to use between people who don't know each other; who didn't pre-arrange the game a week before; who might be turning up to a club, event, tournament or such to play against people they don't know for the first time.
In the end I can't objectively find a bonus for power level outside of its simple maths. In every other respect points are either equal too or superior in performance (or at least have potential to be superior).
So you can see that there is a purpose to power levels. That’s a start.
You don’t seem to have acknowledged some of the drawbacks points though. PL are simpler to add up as you say, therefore points must be more complicated than power levels. Even more so when points are not in the same page as the units and their options, now not even in the same book. Points change very often, every three months now I believe so that’s another thing to keep up with.
Back in the heady days of 2nd edition I could add up an army list with very little reference to the book as I was so familiar with the points, I can’t imagine that happens nowadays with them altering so often.
So this is where objective is not the right word here. For you and for the things you want from the game, points are better. For me, all of the above make points too much of a faff with not enough upside to make them worth while. The simplicity of power levels out weighs the granularity offered by points. So it’s a very much SUBJECTIVE matter.
It’s like claiming cats are better than dogs objectively, or rice better than pasta. It’s a nonsense.
As for doing the hobby wrong, Balls. Especially with a hobby like tabletop wargaming with so many facets. But the specific claim here is that by not wanting to know the precise value of each piece of war gear on a unit and by being happy to play the game within the rules but without the objective of winning the game, is wrong.
Not sure what you’re getting at. I was referring to hecatons use of the word.
Quoting my post:
"The value of points should be obvious, you get a more granular way to present value, and therefore represent unit cost for options much better. This is objectively true."
Blndmage wrote: Folks who play PL should be allowed to talk and discuss the game without literally being told were playing the game wrong, even when we're straight up following what's in the books.
And who is stopping you? You came into a thread about points vs. PL and joined the discussion, nobody came into your house and demanded that you justify your incorrect way of playing the game.
Not sure what you’re getting at. I was referring to hecatons use of the word.
Quoting my post:
"The value of points should be obvious, you get a more granular way to present value, and therefore represent unit cost for options much better. This is objectively true."
That’s is true, what is subjective is, whether or not that makes for a better game. I say it does not make the game better for me.
Blndmage wrote: Folks who play PL should be allowed to talk and discuss the game without literally being told were playing the game wrong, even when we're straight up following what's in the books.
And who is stopping you? You came into a thread about points vs. PL and joined the discussion, nobody came into your house and demanded that you justify your incorrect way of playing the game.
But plenty of people are insulting Blndmage for preferring to play with PL. Such as this quoted post.
I've already answered that question for you: "better" is defined by how well the system accomplishes its goal, and that goal is to assign a numerical value to a unit's on-table strength for list construction purposes. The numbers PL assigns are less accurate by design and PL has no other non-negligible redeeming factors so PL is the clearly worse system.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: But plenty of people are insulting Blndmage for preferring to play with PL. Such as this quoted post.
There is nothing in there at al that is insulting to them.
For someone who chastised me for not catching subtext, you don't seem to have a good grasp of it yourself.
Wait-that was Andykp, sorry. But still-if you don't think being told you're doing something wrong is insulting when you're not doing anything untoward, I don't know what to tell you.
JNAProductions wrote: For someone who chastised me for not catching subtext, you don't seem to have a good grasp of it yourself.
Wait-that was Andykp, sorry. But still-if you don't think being told you're doing something wrong is insulting when you're not doing anything untoward, I don't know what to tell you.
Apparently you missed the part where "justify your incorrect way of playing the game" is the hypothetical thing said by the person who does not exist, and my point is that it is not happening?
Ok, this is silly. Which is better? A Basic Intercessor Squad, or a basic Sternguard Squad? Both cost the exact same, but one has access to far better things, and special ammo.
If Points are so much more granular, why is an objectively better unit costed the exact same as a stock standard troop unit?
Also, why if points are always so much better, are the points so ALWAYS TERRIBLE? Why did Trajann VaWreckyoface cost 160 points for months?
Here's a declarative statement you can all flay me over: Points are the inferior system, simply because 40k has become such a bloated mess, that there is inherent imbalance every single time you points cost a unit. Doesn't matter if it's a Grot, a Conscript, a Wytch, or a Custodes General, GW is completely proven themselves incompetant at balancing this game via points. Instead they have to come up with broken faction-wide shananigans like HotE, or AoC, to completely offset the rediculous imbalance int he points. THAT THEY CREATED.
We cannot balance 40k via points anymore. It's grown too big. It's like saying the answer to America's Obesity problem is smaller spoons. It's completely missing the point.
Blndmage wrote: Folks who play PL should be allowed to talk and discuss the game without literally being told were playing the game wrong, even when we're straight up following what's in the books.
And who is stopping you? You came into a thread about points vs. PL and joined the discussion, nobody came into your house and demanded that you justify your incorrect way of playing the game[spoiler].
This.
This is the constant insulting tone leveled at PL based folks when we try to talk about playing the game.
Sorry for any vitriol I've hurled towards the PL crowd. As mentioned before, I'm firmly on the side of playing with points-never played a PL game, probably never will. And I've almost certainly said things that were too harsh-so my apologies to anyone who I've offended.
Regardless of the system you use to calculate your army, I wish you the best in gaming.
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
Because it IS objectively worse, LOL Is a Plasma Pistol worth the same as a Las pistol, yes or no?
No it’s not,
Then should they be priced the same, yes or no?
I do not see the point in pricing them differently when it makes so little difference.
You didn't answer the question.
Should they be priced the same when one is objectively better, yes or no?
Quote me fully and you will see that I did. I said for me, price them the same.
But one is objectively better, yes or no?
No, it's inherently Subjective. I like the look of the Laspistol. See? Others might find painting the Plasma way too difficult. Or hate the look of the Bolt Pistol. It's inherently subjective. It's not a Binary choice.
Sorry for any vitriol I've hurled towards the PL crowd. As mentioned before, I'm firmly on the side of playing with points-never played a PL game, probably never will. And I've almost certainly said things that were too harsh-so my apologies to anyone who I've offended.
Regardless of the system you use to calculate your army, I wish you the best in gaming.
Thank you. Any vitriol I have hurled has been intended for the individuals involved and not at the masses. Best wishes to you too.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: If Points are so much more granular, why is an objectively better unit costed the exact same as a stock standard troop unit?
Two words: objective secured. Sternguard have better gun options, they are not strictly better.
Also, why if points are always so much better, are the points so ALWAYS TERRIBLE? Why did Trajann VaWreckyoface cost 160 points for months?
Because of mistakes. But PL has the same kind of mistakes but also has inherent mistakes add on top of that.
Here's a declarative statement you can all flay me over: Points are the inferior system, simply because 40k has become such a bloated mess, that there is inherent imbalance every single time you points cost a unit. Doesn't matter if it's a Grot, a Conscript, a Wytch, or a Custodes General, GW is completely proven themselves incompetant at balancing this game via points. Instead they have to come up with broken faction-wide shananigans like HotE, or AoC, to completely offset the rediculous imbalance int he points. THAT THEY CREATED.
I will flay you over it because "points are inaccurate" is not the same as "points are worse". If 40k is beyond balancing with normal points then it is also beyond balancing with PL since, once again, PL is just a point system with more errors. So you might as well use the point system that can at least theoretically do better, not the one that is guaranteed to always have more flaws.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: No, it's inherently Subjective. I like the look of the Laspistol. See? Others might find painting the Plasma way too difficult. Or hate the look of the Bolt Pistol. It's inherently subjective. It's not a Binary choice.
We're talking about rules, not models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: This.
This is the constant insulting tone leveled at PL based folks when we try to talk about playing the game.
Please do not make this dishonest argument. You are not merely "talking about playing the game", you're voluntarily participating in a discussion of points vs. PL. If you don't like seeing the full range of opinions there, including the opinion that you are completely wrong, don't get into discussions that are clearly labeled as "points vs. PL". Nobody here is coming into your private games and demanding to have an argument with you.
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
Because it IS objectively worse, LOL Is a Plasma Pistol worth the same as a Las pistol, yes or no?
No it’s not,
Then should they be priced the same, yes or no?
I do not see the point in pricing them differently when it makes so little difference.
You didn't answer the question.
Should they be priced the same when one is objectively better, yes or no?
Quote me fully and you will see that I did. I said for me, price them the same.
But one is objectively better, yes or no?
We are going in silly circles here and the knock out blow you want to land will never become because as has been pointed out many times, you are wrong points do not objectively make the game better. It’s SUBJECTIVE!
One piece of gear can be better on the table top. But that’s doesn’t mean it has to be priced differently. The difference is small and meaningless when the whole army is considered that that level of granularity isn’t needed. So a squad of ten guard lead by a sgt with a las pistol should cost the same as one with a plasma pistol. It doesn’t matter what weapon the sgt has to me. That’s why it’s subjective.
Yes the plasma pistol is a better pistol than the las pistol rules wise. Should it be priced more, NO. I chose las pistols for all but one of my guard squad sergeants because I liked the look of the models more and it made more sense with my back ground. The one guy only got one to add variety. But does that mean I enjoy my games less, no it doesn’t. I thoroughly enjoy my games of 40k. More than I would if I’d had to spend ages re-pricing all my units every 3 months or spending an age writing an army list when I could be getting in with my game.
So please give up trying to say by charging a few points more for a weapons option on one model the game is objectively made better.
I, and many others here, have played 40k for decades using points. When power levels came along I was more than happy to leave points behind and not think about them again. Because power levels make the game better than points. FOR ME!!!!!!!!!!
Not sure what you’re getting at. I was referring to hecatons use of the word.
Quoting my post:
"The value of points should be obvious, you get a more granular way to present value, and therefore represent unit cost for options much better. This is objectively true."
That’s is true, what is subjective is, whether or not that makes for a better game. I say it does not make the game better for me.
Andykp wrote: More than I would if I’d had to spend ages re-pricing all my units every 3 months or spending an age writing an army list when I could be getting in with my game.
I really do not understand why you think it takes "ages" to use the normal point system. I've made lists with both PL and normal points and the difference is a minute or two at most, out of a process that involves an hour or more of considering strategic and/or narrative choices and potentially weeks/months working on painting new models for the list. At this point you've spent longer arguing about points vs. PL on this forum than it would take you to use the normal point system for the rest of your life.
Andykp wrote: More than I would if I’d had to spend ages re-pricing all my units every 3 months or spending an age writing an army list when I could be getting in with my game.
I really do not understand why you think it takes "ages" to use the normal point system. I've made lists with both PL and normal points and the difference is a minute or two at most, out of a process that involves an hour or more of considering strategic and/or narrative choices and potentially weeks/months working on painting new models for the list. At this point you've spent longer arguing about points vs. PL on this forum than it would take you to use the normal point system for the rest of your life.
"A minute or two at most"
For you!
Others might get more reward from it.
Like me. I've said that it's massively helpful. Yet, my lived experience with the game seems to matter less than yours. Why?
Do you think that my disabilities put me in some edge case that you can discount?
In light of the past five pages or so I'd say this:
I think that both Points and power level are important, and I think both should remain part of the game, because I think that each is best suited to the mode of play for which it is the default list-building resource- in other words, I think that there are characteristics of points that are ideally suited to Matched Play, and there are characteristics of PL that are ideally suited to Crusade.
Matched play, love it or hate it has made points a part of the culture of tournament play. Quarterly changes keep things exciting for people and ideally strive to balance the game, and costed equipment in that environment absolutely makes sense. I think people enjoy points as much as a topic for debate and discussion as much as an actual mechanic in the game. What would content creators and forum dwellers talk about without points?
But Crusade, no matter how much you try and say it's just matched play + a progression system, IS a different beast, because the game was built for progression. In this context, the starting cost of a unit is such a small part of its value over time that PL is far better suited to the game. Designers (and players) want the focus of a unit's value to be the characteristics that it earns, not what it costs to add to the list.
PL has additional value to the Crusader for its relative stability. I'm not sure how many updates points have had since 9th dropped, but I think PL has only been updated twice. And that is very valuable to a Crusader- we have to earn our supply limit increases, so quarterly changes in the value of PL would be ridiculously annoying. You bust your ass to earn the extra 5PL, and you add your unit of choice, having lined up the narrative to support the units arrival; you fight your first battle and the unit bonds with the army, you write up the post battle story... And then some Jackhole spams too many of a unit at a tournament and the next week your unit costs too much to include?
No thanks. Keep PL and never have that problem. Doesn't have the same impact in matched, as the games aren't assumed to be connected. Swapping units in or out between games which are separate is just not a big deal in the same way.
GW likes having their two primary modes of play, and I think a lot of players do too. Matched players don't want Crusade's book keeping and the unpredictable and imbalanced impact of experience interfering with rehearsed tactics and the painstakingly play-tested army list, and Crusade players don't want to feel like the fundamental rules (like the aircraft limit or the subfaction soup ban) and roster values are changing every 3-6 months when some of us are engaged in stories that have been ongoing since our codices dropped.
Might GW blow it all up? Sure... They've done it before.
But GW SHOULD keep Matched and Crusade separate. To recombine the games now would lead to compromises that make no one happy, If you want to staple Crusade to Matched, you have to tone down the complexity of progression and tracking at the expense of nuance and options, and if you try to staple Matched to Crusade, you have to dial back the focus on balance and updates.
They also want to keep it separate because it's money. Each season, we get five books: two hardbacks designed to work for both Matched and Crusade, two Mission Packs designed to work exclusively with Crusade and one Mission Pack designed to work exclusively with Matched.
If they combine Crusade and Matched, they need to drop at least one mission pack from that model.
So I don't think Points or PL are going anywhere, nor do I think they should.
PenitentJake wrote: Designers (and players) want the focus of a unit's value to be the characteristics that it earns, not what it costs to add to the list.
Then why does Crusade use the standard points-based list construction where a unit's point cost is the focus of its value in assembling your list, and the only time its advancements are counted up is the "if one player has way more XP" bonus CP mechanic?
PL has additional value to the Crusader for its relative stability. I'm not sure how many updates points have had since 9th dropped, but I think PL has only been updated twice. And that is very valuable to a Crusader- we have to earn our supply limit increases, so quarterly changes in the value of PL would be ridiculously annoying. You bust your ass to earn the extra 5PL, and you add your unit of choice, having lined up the narrative to support the units arrival; you fight your first battle and the unit bonds with the army, you write up the post battle story... And then some Jackhole spams too many of a unit at a tournament and the next week your unit costs too much to include?
If a unit's point cost changing is such a massive problem (implying it's probably not just a 1 PL change) for you then maybe you should consider the fact that your unit was way overpowered and including it at its former cost was going to be a major negative experience for your opponent. And TBH this is only a problem because of the broken supply limit mechanic, where you're encouraged to play larger games but can only do so if everyone in the group agrees to spend RP to get there. If you use the obvious fix of having no supply limit at all (and why not, total unit pool isn't much of a constraint since idle units don't gain XP) or having supply limit automatically increase at scheduled points in the campaign (like as in escalation leagues). Or you could even just adopt the popular league rule that point changes (and new codex releases, etc) don't apply until the next season.
But thanks for making the very revealing comment that a person making competitive-oriented list building choices in a competitive play environment is a "jackhole" for doing it.
No thanks. Keep PL and never have that problem.
Here's a question: would you support a dual-points system where the matched play points are done as they are now, and the Crusade points use the exact same structure (paying for upgrades, etc) but changes are only applied once per year?
GW likes having their two primary modes of play, and I think a lot of players do too. Matched players don't want Crusade's book keeping and the unpredictable and imbalanced impact of experience interfering with rehearsed tactics and the painstakingly play-tested, and Crusade players don't want to feel like the fundamental rules (like the aircraft limit or the subfaction soup ban) and roster values are changing every 3-6 months when some of us are engaged in stories that have been ongoing since our codices dropped.
But why is PL essential to this? What does the aircraft limit have to do with wanting the point system to be less accurate?
If you want to staple Crusade to Matched, you have to tone down the complexity of progression and tracking at the expense of nuance and options
No you don't. GW had Crusade-style progression in previous editions without needing a separate point system and separate core game mechanics. If anything Crusade and narrative play in general would work better because you would no longer have as much of the tension between what is the best option within the rules and which option best represents the story. It's a win for everyone if you don't have to feel bad about taking a laspistol instead of a plasma pistol.
My Legendary KOS with 56 XP is not the same as a 0XP KOS, even if they cost the same PL.
Crusade Points are a whole other bookeeping thing that aren't the that balanced.
That said, I actually play both points and PL games, just depending on whatever I am doing or feeling, and they feel about the same - impossible to have a running narrative alongside gameplay and pretty horribly balanced to boot.
Because they are. PL is a point system, and the purpose of a point system is to give a numerical score for the on-table power of a choice. PL is objectively worse at this than the normal point system, period, and because its errors are inherent to what PL does it will always be worse.
This is something you're failing to understand, here's an analogy: scales. There are scales which can measure the grams and scales that can measure fractions of fractions of grams. The former isn't objectively worse, it just has a different role and market. If you go to the grocery you won't see ultra precised scales there since extra precision is not needed. On the other hand in some fields or businesses ultra precised scales are mandatory since cheating on the fractions of grams means skimming big money. You seem to consider players using PL just like those who want to skim by using less precise scales while in fact you should consider PL players like an owner of a grocery.
For a PL player there's no point in min maxing the wargear of a sargeant, just like for a scale at the grocery there's no point in being sensible to the 0.00001 of a gram.
It's worth noting that Infinity *does* have a less granular points system that is used for its intro version of the game (Code One), but that is explicitly meant for newer or more casual players.
But Crusade, no matter how much you try and say it's just matched play + a progression system, IS a different beast, because the game was built for progression.
Yes, they're definitely different games. The fact that they're about the same universe and their rules are listed in the same books is irrelevant. Crusade is no different than Kill Team, it's just another game using 40k models, lore and some of its rules/stats.
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
Because it IS objectively worse, LOL Is a Plasma Pistol worth the same as a Las pistol, yes or no?
No it’s not,
Then should they be priced the same, yes or no?
I do not see the point in pricing them differently when it makes so little difference.
You didn't answer the question.
Should they be priced the same when one is objectively better, yes or no?
Quote me fully and you will see that I did. I said for me, price them the same.
But one is objectively better, yes or no?
No, it's inherently Subjective. I like the look of the Laspistol. See? Others might find painting the Plasma way too difficult. Or hate the look of the Bolt Pistol. It's inherently subjective. It's not a Binary choice.
What a clown ass response.
So the person that thinks Plasma looks cooler is already at an advantage when two players take the same exact squads. They don't pay for the weapon that they think "looks cooler" and gets an immediate advantage, yes or no?
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
Because it IS objectively worse, LOL Is a Plasma Pistol worth the same as a Las pistol, yes or no?
No it’s not,
Then should they be priced the same, yes or no?
I do not see the point in pricing them differently when it makes so little difference.
You didn't answer the question.
Should they be priced the same when one is objectively better, yes or no?
Quote me fully and you will see that I did. I said for me, price them the same.
But one is objectively better, yes or no?
We are going in silly circles here and the knock out blow you want to land will never become because as has been pointed out many times, you are wrong points do not objectively make the game better. It’s SUBJECTIVE!
One piece of gear can be better on the table top. But that’s doesn’t mean it has to be priced differently.
fething WHAT?
There's literally no disadvantages to equipping models better under Power Level. The dumb ass excuse of "well you don't have to worry if you self regulate and only take what looks cool" means crap if one person thinks the already better weapons look cooler to begin with. So let's ignore your silly notion of "I like laspistol better".
Is there a disadvantage to taking the Plasma Pistol over the Laspistol, yes or no?
Blackie wrote: This is something you're failing to understand, here's an analogy: scales
And it's a terrible analogy. You see different scales for different roles because a high-precision scientific scale costs orders of magnitude more than a common grocery scale. In the PL equivalent a scale with +/- 1% accuracy only costs one cent more than one with +/- 10% accuracy, and if that were the case every single grocery scale would be the more accurate version.
For a PL player there's no point in min maxing the wargear of a sargeant, just like for a scale at the grocery there's no point in being sensible to the 0.00001 of a gram.
Now you're starting to be honest and get at the heart of the issue. The appeal of PL isn't the system itself, it's the concept of a "PL player" having a particular approach to the game. You've bought into the idea that a less-accurate point system is less competitive and therefore more casual/narrative and you cling to PL as a way of demonstrating that you're that sort of player. The fact that removing PL would have no practical impact on your games is irrelevant, what matters is that removing PL would take away your ability to present yourself as a "PL player".
Yes, they're definitely different games. The fact that they're about the same universe and their rules are listed in the same books is irrelevant. Crusade is no different than Kill Team, it's just another game using 40k models, lore and some of its rules/stats.
Lolwut. No. Crusade is just a normal game of 40k with an extra table of bonuses and some solo between-games stuff as an optional extra. It is not in any way comparable to Kill Team, a completely different game with nothing in common besides the art and lore.
Andykp wrote: Rather than looking for insults and people trying to ruin your hobby where there is none, read the thread, read the comments. No one here has said points SHOULD go away. That’s fact. Many on the points side have said power level should,
Fezzik has heavily implied it, though I'm sure he'd walk that back to keep the bad faith argumentation going if called on it. Kanluwen has said it in previous threads.
Fezzik has repeatedly insisted "there is no benefit to keeping points" which is tantamount to saying "we have nothing to lose by getting rid of points" which heavily implies that he supports that idea.
Andykp wrote: Everyone defending power level in this discussion has said that they prefer that system but respect that others don’t. The lack of respect has come from the few points advocates on here like your self, who have no respect for how others enjoy the game. I’m sure the vast majority of folk who use points don’t mind at all that power level exists, it’s just the few that get on here a tell others they are doing it wrong, don’t know how to be happy and are too stupid to understand how they aren’t enjoying playing a game but in fact ruining it for everyone else.
The problem is you see any defense of PL as respectful and any criticism of it as disrespectful.
In the one post you say something sensible, IN YOUR OPINION power level is a worse system. That’s fine, it’s your opinion.
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
No, I said they produce a less balanced outcome than points. Which isn't the be-all end-all of the utility of a points system.
Andykp wrote: You start off discussing things like a sensible adult then go back to telling everyone they are wrong! So close.
Here's the issue - if I say "I like points more than PL" you say ok. If I say "I like points more than PL because x" you freak out because you perceive any attempt to justify a superiority of points over PL as an attack. Also, you bad-faith imply that people who like points more "care about winning," which is an insult that you still haven't retracted. This tells me that you *aren't* treating points advocates with respect, and are slimily trying to claim you are while insulting us.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: Another question for you, do you really think the likes of Hecaton and cadiansgtbob have been more respectful of others opinions and experiences in this thread than say smudge or fezzik?
I've definitely been more respectful than you, considering you are constantly trying to find ways to insult the people you disagree with as cutthroat powergamers when there's no evidence of that kind.
I’m pretty sure they don’t think so. They’re just doomsaying.
Nah, he wouldn't admit to it if called out to avoid copping to it, but he's heavily implying it via repeated statements to beg the question in this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: Folks who play PL should be allowed to talk and discuss the game without literally being told were playing the game wrong, even when we're straight up following what's in the books.
Fine, but this thread was started by people saying "points have no value as a system compared to PL."
So criticizing PL as a system is fair game. You don't get to act all shocked and attacked in this context.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: But plenty of people are insulting Blndmage for preferring to play with PL. Such as this quoted post.
That's not an insult. Stop playing defense for people you agree on this topic with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Also, why if points are always so much better, are the points so ALWAYS TERRIBLE? Why did Trajann VaWreckyoface cost 160 points for months?
If the points are terrible, so is the PL. Voidweavers were dramatically undercosted at release, and if we play by PL, they still are. GW can botch PL just like they botch point, and you need to stop disingenuously ignoring that idea when criticizing points as a system, because you've been repeatedly told this, and you should know better by now.
And it's a terrible analogy. You see different scales for different roles because a high-precision scientific scale costs orders of magnitude more than a common grocery scale. In the PL equivalent a scale with +/- 1% accuracy only costs one cent more than one with +/- 10% accuracy, and if that were the case every single grocery scale would be the more accurate version.
The analogy is: some business don't need extra level of accuracy just like some players. For both of them having a more imperfect instrument but also a cheaper/faster-easier one is more practical. I know people who don't like flipping pages when they do list building, let alone using an app or different books with updated points costs. For them having the PL cost directly printed on the datasheet of a unit without it changing multiple times during an edition is better than having a more balanced universe.
Now you're starting to be honest and get at the heart of the issue. The appeal of PL isn't the system itself, it's the concept of a "PL player" having a particular approach to the game. You've bought into the idea that a less-accurate point system is less competitive and therefore more casual/narrative and you cling to PL as a way of demonstrating that you're that sort of player. The fact that removing PL would have no practical impact on your games is irrelevant, what matters is that removing PL would take away your ability to present yourself as a "PL player".
But that's what I said from the beginning. The PL system is for players with specific needs. In a game using PL there's no real advantage in taking a plasma pistol over a laspistol because somewhere else the same player would likely choose less optimized options to compensate that. It's the overall list that should be analyzed to see if the player gained an advantage by using PL instead of points, not just the single loadaout of a single model. Again, min maxing was never in mind for a player using PL.
It's not something in competition with the points system, it's a different system for a different pool of players. That's why I made that specific analogy: those different scales are not in competition with each other and never will be as there's no point in trying to make cheaper but still super accurate scales for businesses like a grocery because there isn't the need for that.
And if it wasn't clear enough I only play points, actually I love the extra minutia of the points system. I'm defending a system that has no value to me, ma I recognize it has value for others.
Blackie wrote: The analogy is: some business don't need extra level of accuracy just like some players.
Except, again, your analogy fails because the only reason they don't take the extra accuracy is because of cost. When accuracy is orders of magnitude more expensive you have to consider if it's worth having. When accuracy is effectively free, as it is with PL, there is no reason not to take the highest level of accuracy even if it isn't strictly necessary. And you certainly wouldn't see any scale manufacturer continue to make low-accuracy scales if high-accuracy scales were the same price.
Or, to put it in 40k terms: if making a list with normal points took ten times as long as it does with PL there would be an obvious use case for PL. But when PL saves a few seconds, maybe a minute at most, over an hour plus of list building time (and potentially weeks/months of painting time to use that list) there is no use case for it. Every PL advocate here has already spent an entire lifetime of time savings from PL use on defending the importance of PL. Had they instead used the normal point system and accepted that PL has no reason to exist they'd be at a net gain in time by now.
I know people who don't like flipping pages when they do list building
I agree. This is an excellent argument for the normal point system, where everything is neatly laid out on a page or two. I too find it frustrating to have to keep flipping through datasheets to get the PL point costs off each individual datasheet.
Again, min maxing was never in mind for a player using PL.
There you go again making your own assumptions about what "PL player" means. All GW gives you is a set of rules that can be treated however you like. You can optimize with them, you can take random stuff, it's all your decision. The optimization choices will be different if you use PL as your point system but the idea that optimization is not part of PL is purely your own invention.
But this once again confirms the theory of PL's value: it's not the practical use of PL that matters, all that stuff about it taking a few seconds less time to add up a list is just rationalization for the identity label that certain people have adopted. Even if PL was slower to use, had worse organization, etc, they'd still love it because it lets them create an identity as "PL players" and communicate a particular approach to the game.
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
Because it IS objectively worse, LOL Is a Plasma Pistol worth the same as a Las pistol, yes or no?
No it’s not,
Then should they be priced the same, yes or no?
I do not see the point in pricing them differently when it makes so little difference.
You didn't answer the question.
Should they be priced the same when one is objectively better, yes or no?
Quote me fully and you will see that I did. I said for me, price them the same.
But one is objectively better, yes or no?
No, it's inherently Subjective. I like the look of the Laspistol. See? Others might find painting the Plasma way too difficult. Or hate the look of the Bolt Pistol. It's inherently subjective. It's not a Binary choice.
What a clown ass response.
So the person that thinks Plasma looks cooler is already at an advantage when two players take the same exact squads. They don't pay for the weapon that they think "looks cooler" and gets an immediate advantage, yes or no?
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
Because it IS objectively worse, LOL Is a Plasma Pistol worth the same as a Las pistol, yes or no?
No it’s not,
Then should they be priced the same, yes or no?
I do not see the point in pricing them differently when it makes so little difference.
You didn't answer the question.
Should they be priced the same when one is objectively better, yes or no?
Quote me fully and you will see that I did. I said for me, price them the same.
But one is objectively better, yes or no?
We are going in silly circles here and the knock out blow you want to land will never become because as has been pointed out many times, you are wrong points do not objectively make the game better. It’s SUBJECTIVE!
One piece of gear can be better on the table top. But that’s doesn’t mean it has to be priced differently.
fething WHAT?
There's literally no disadvantages to equipping models better under Power Level. The dumb ass excuse of "well you don't have to worry if you self regulate and only take what looks cool" means crap if one person thinks the already better weapons look cooler to begin with. So let's ignore your silly notion of "I like laspistol better".
Is there a disadvantage to taking the Plasma Pistol over the Laspistol, yes or no?
And the fact that you can’t fathom that that wouldn’t be a problem for a lot of people and the way they approach the game is why power levels are not for you. And that’s fine. Use points and be happy. The fact that power levEls exist and are used and defended should tell you that they work for some people. Surely you can respect those peoples experiences? You don’t have to agree.
I mainly play tournaments. I don't think i will ever use PL it is a bad system. Some army have just way to much war gear options and some don't so it can't be balanced properly. 9th age the rules for warhammer fantasy are made by people in their free time and they managed to balance it pretty good with points and still keep updating it. so i see no reason way GW could not do it.
Andykp wrote: Rather than looking for insults and people trying to ruin your hobby where there is none, read the thread, read the comments. No one here has said points SHOULD go away. That’s fact. Many on the points side have said power level should,
Fezzik has heavily implied it, though I'm sure he'd walk that back to keep the bad faith argumentation going if called on it. Kanluwen has said it in previous threads.
Fezzik has repeatedly insisted "there is no benefit to keeping points" which is tantamount to saying "we have nothing to lose by getting rid of points" which heavily implies that he supports that idea.
Andykp wrote: Everyone defending power level in this discussion has said that they prefer that system but respect that others don’t. The lack of respect has come from the few points advocates on here like your self, who have no respect for how others enjoy the game. I’m sure the vast majority of folk who use points don’t mind at all that power level exists, it’s just the few that get on here a tell others they are doing it wrong, don’t know how to be happy and are too stupid to understand how they aren’t enjoying playing a game but in fact ruining it for everyone else.
The problem is you see any defense of PL as respectful and any criticism of it as disrespectful.
In the one post you say something sensible, IN YOUR OPINION power level is a worse system. That’s fine, it’s your opinion.
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
No, I said they produce a less balanced outcome than points. Which isn't the be-all end-all of the utility of a points system.
Andykp wrote: You start off discussing things like a sensible adult then go back to telling everyone they are wrong! So close.
Here's the issue - if I say "I like points more than PL" you say ok. If I say "I like points more than PL because x" you freak out because you perceive any attempt to justify a superiority of points over PL as an attack. Also, you bad-faith imply that people who like points more "care about winning," which is an insult that you still haven't retracted. This tells me that you *aren't* treating points advocates with respect, and are slimily trying to claim you are while insulting us.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: Another question for you, do you really think the likes of Hecaton and cadiansgtbob have been more respectful of others opinions and experiences in this thread than say smudge or fezzik?
I've definitely been more respectful than you, considering you are constantly trying to find ways to insult the people you disagree with as cutthroat powergamers when there's no evidence of that kind.
I’m pretty sure they don’t think so. They’re just doomsaying.
Nah, he wouldn't admit to it if called out to avoid copping to it, but he's heavily implying it via repeated statements to beg the question in this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: Folks who play PL should be allowed to talk and discuss the game without literally being told were playing the game wrong, even when we're straight up following what's in the books.
Fine, but this thread was started by people saying "points have no value as a system compared to PL."
So criticizing PL as a system is fair game. You don't get to act all shocked and attacked in this context.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: But plenty of people are insulting Blndmage for preferring to play with PL. Such as this quoted post.
That's not an insult. Stop playing defense for people you agree on this topic with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Also, why if points are always so much better, are the points so ALWAYS TERRIBLE? Why did Trajann VaWreckyoface cost 160 points for months?
If the points are terrible, so is the PL. Voidweavers were dramatically undercosted at release, and if we play by PL, they still are. GW can botch PL just like they botch point, and you need to stop disingenuously ignoring that idea when criticizing points as a system, because you've been repeatedly told this, and you should know better by now.
This.
This is the constant insulting tone leveled at PL based folks when we try to talk about playing the game.
You started it by being *very* hostile. You're not being insulted; you're just being responded to in kind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: Do you think that my disabilities put me in some edge case that you can discount?
Do you have dyscalculia?
Do you never get bored of playing the victim! I certainly get bored of you doing it. No one is attacking you here, even if fezzik thinks points should go, and I don’t know if he does or not, he can’t make it happen and isn’t criticising you as a person by doing so. And just to be clear, you thinking something does not make it objective fact. It makes it opinion, and one I will hold in low regard.
I criticised you due to your constant behaviour in this and other threads. I won’t spell it out to you, you know full well what you are doing. I do not like to use the ignore button but you are getting very close.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nordsturmking wrote: I mainly play tournaments. I don't think i will ever use PL it is a bad system. Some army have just way to much war gear options and some don't so it can't be balanced properly. 9th age the rules for warhammer fantasy are made by people in their free time and they managed to balance it pretty good with points and still keep updating it. so i see no reason way GW could not do it.
But IF Gw got rid of points and went all PL (I DO WANT THAT BEFORE ANYONE STARTS) would you stop playing? If tourneys went PL would you still play?
For clarity I wouldn’t stop if the reverse was true. If PL went away I would still play, plated for 7editions with points.
If PL amounts to "points/20" then surely it makes no difference. Some things (and whole armies as a result) will be over/under costed.
With that said, if PL="take all the upgrades meta" then its just a different points system to "all these upgrades are overcosted, avoid". Sure, having a laspistol be the same as a plasma pistol seems wrong - but how many 5 point plasma pistols do you see in competitive lists? I can get behind a system where every unit champion has their faction's special pistol & a combat weapon. Rather than a system where this costs 20 points for a negligible upgrade in output, and is therefore an auto-joke. I think there's an argument that's how most "casual" players build their models - because unique weapons are cool.
To do a weirdly dated example - its like Champions, Standard Bearers and Musicians in WHFB. To my mind a unit looks fundamentally unfinished if it doesn't have them. But you quickly realised it was a waste of points for loads of units. (Standard Bearers were okay I guess - Champions & Musicians were much more marginal.)
Tyel wrote: I can get behind a system where every unit champion has their faction's special pistol & a combat weapon.
Then why have the other options at all? At least in the normal point system the plasma pistol is less common but still occasionally shows up if you have a few points to spare, if you're going to make all upgrades zero points then you might as well delete laspistols/chainswords/bolt pistols/etc and de-clutter the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: For clarity I wouldn’t stop if the reverse was true. If PL went away I would still play, plated for 7editions with points.
And there we go. You'd still play with normal points if PL didn't exist because the normal point system works just fine for meeting your needs. PL has no reason to exist.
Tyel wrote: I can get behind a system where every unit champion has their faction's special pistol & a combat weapon.
Then why have the other options at all? At least in the normal point system the plasma pistol is less common but still occasionally shows up if you have a few points to spare, if you're going to make all upgrades zero points then you might as well delete laspistols/chainswords/bolt pistols/etc and de-clutter the game.
As long as people aren't selecting models and upgrades for efficiency reasons, points add nothing to the game and just overcomplicate list building.
As soon as at least one player is optimizing weapon loadouts, points are mandatory to have a fair game.
The reason why this thread is being discussed so passionately is because some people simply fail to grasp the concept of building a list motivated by something other that maximizing their chances of winning.
Tyel wrote: With that said, if PL="take all the upgrades meta" then its just a different points system to "all these upgrades are overcosted, avoid".
And to add on here:
With the normal point system yes, you have errors but at least the system is theoretically capable of fixing the error. Would you take a plasma pistol if it was 4 points? Or even 1 point? Maybe 5 points isn't the right cost but there absolutely is some cost where taking it becomes the ideal 50/50 debate and there is the possibility that GW will figure out that cost in the future.
PL's error, on the other hand, is inherent to the concept and can not be fixed. As long as a unit with choices of different power has a single point cost regardless of which choice you pick there will always be at least one configuration with the wrong point cost. So, on top of having errors where GW simply gets the cost wrong like they do with the normal point system, you will have additional errors where the design of the system makes them inevitable.
The obvious solution here is to discard the system that has no chance of accuracy (and no redeeming factors to justify the loss of accuracy) and spend more effort on improving the system that at least has the possibility of getting it right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jidmah wrote: The reason why this thread is being discussed so passionately is because some people simply fail to grasp the concept of building a list motivated by something other that maximizing their chances of winning.
I grasp the concept just fine. I reject the premise that PL offers any meaningful ease of use advantage. It is absolutely silly and poor game design to have two separate point systems just to potentially save a few seconds of adding up the numbers.
As long as people aren't selecting models and upgrades for efficiency reasons, points add nothing to the game and just overcomplicate list building.
And this is also false. Whether or not such selections are done with deliberate optimization intent you still get units with incorrect point costs with PL and give an unearned advantage to one player. The game is improved when both players can pick their stuff by story/rule of cool/whatever and still have accurate point costs and a balanced game.
Blackie wrote: PL and competitive gaming are mutually exclusive.
Then PL is a failure. The normal point system can handle competitive and non-competitive games, PL can only handle non-competitive games. There is no reason to have two separate point systems when a single point system can cover all game types.
How is PL a failure when people have said that in their experience, it fits their needs? Why are you trying to invalidate people's experiences?
CadianSgtBob wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: As I said - GW produces both matched play, non-matched play, Matched™ Play™ and non-Matched™ Play™. They all exist. How can you turn around and patently ignore that those other things *do* exist?
Because they don't really exist in practice.
In practice? My person, the fact that BIndmage and I play the game at all is practice. Why are you trying to invalidate people's experiences?
Open™ Play™, the only non-matched-play format GW publishes, gets a brief footnote in the rules saying "you can choose not to use any rules you don't want to use" and that's it. No significant content, no official events, barely even an acknowledgement that it exists.
But it does exist.
The *actual* topic should be going more like "yes, I personally don't enjoy PL, and I would play it less if GW only used it", or "no, I'd actually be totally fine if GW did this". Nowhere in the discussion of that topic does there need to be a discussion or debate over "you're not playing 40k correctly" (a statement made by Karol) or "I think it should be gotten rid of entirely, feth you if you actually like PL, you're just gatekeeping me" (statements made by CadianSgtBob).
I see. So we can discuss the scenario where GW removes the point system you don't like but if we discuss the scenario where GW removes the point system you do like it's unacceptable? That's an interesting double standard you have there.
Do hypotheticals go entirely over your head, or are you just hiding in some trenches of your own making?
No-one's seriously coming after points, not least OP. There is a difference between "WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF..." and "THIS SHOULD HAPPEN".
More importantly, the OP themselves has come in and clarified their stance. Any further efforts to claim that this thread was "advocating" for removing points is pure ignorance.
EviscerationPlague wrote:Because PL doesn't DESERVE the bare minimum effort it gets to begin with.
Do I not deserve to get to enjoy the game how I like?
CadianSgtBob wrote:And no, listbuilding with PL is not "incredibly faster and easier". It is a small reduction in the process of adding up the numbers. It does nothing to reduce the time spent figuring out what you want to put in your list, which is what accounts for most of the time required to build a list. And arguably PL makes it harder to build a list since the only way to adjust your list to match the point limit is by adding or removing entire units, while in the normal point system you can often get there by changing an upgrade or two.
So you're just going to ignore the lived experiences and invalidate the people who have said that PL *is* faster and easier for them, and then later claim that you're not insulting them? *This* is the kind of gak BIndmage and I are talking about when we refer to insults - this argument of "I know you've said that it helps you, but actually, no, you're wrong". It's a complete lack of respect, of good faith, and frankly, it's utterly unacceptable for the "discussions" you're claiming to be having. If you can just ignore the lived experiences and words of those who you're meant to be discussing things with, why does it even matter what they say - you're already cherrypicking their lives.
Why are you trying to invalidate people's experiences?
What's the issue with having two separate systems?
Why only two systems? Why not five systems? Or ten systems? Why not publish a new point system every month? The answer is obvious: because rules bloat is bad.
Great. Let's scrap every army other than Genestealer Cult, because rules bloat is bad. (/sarcasm)
The other system has a use. Just not for you. Get over it.
PL is unnecessary rules bloat that, at best, represents a waste of development resources that could be better spent elsewhere.
And who says that it would go towards 40k? Who says it wouldn't go towards a new edition of Dreadfleet? You'd actively remove something that people have repeatedly said they find useful and valuable just because you don't like that they're getting attention? What a spiteful thing to do. Why are you trying to invalidate people's experiences?
Thank you for that insightful non-contribution. If all you're going to offer is stating the obvious fact that there are (at least) two sides to this debate could you please just refrain from posting and cluttering up the page for the rest of us?
It's not an obvious fact so long as folks like you continue to push this idea that mine and BIndmage's ways of playing the game deserve to be axed.
There isn't a debate here, or at least, there shouldn't be. Why do PL players need to "debate" why their enjoyment is invalid? Why do you demand this from us, by the very nature of you saying that "PL shouldn't exist, screw you if you like PL" - what, do you expect PL players to just accept that you're trying to exclude and insult them?
If the only thing you actually think is a worthy contribution is debating if I should be allowed to enjoy the game, I think this thread has run its course.
Again, why are you trying to invalidate people's experiences?
CadianSgtBob wrote:
Blackie wrote: Hence it's the points system that could be a failure.
No, because once again: every situation that is covered by the less-accurate point system can be handled just as well by the normal point system.
Evidently incorrect, as stated by myself and BIndmage.
PL is not a fundamentally different approach to the game that meets a genuine difference in needs
Yet again, the needs of other users are being ignored, invalidated, and erased. In the case of dyscalculia, there's a word for this: ableist.
Why are you trying to invalidate people's experiences?
For the first seven editions of the game the normal point system met all needs just fine, nobody started insisting on this need for a less-accurate point system until GW added it in 8th and tied it to the "casual and narrative player" identity.
And? It's here now, and I like it. Get over it. Sorry, are you implying that the game can't add new things, or that people can't like and be attached to enjoying these new things?
You use the normal point system at a tournament over the weekend, you use PL as your point system for your wednesday night Crusade league. Having both systems is textbook rules bloat there.
Some people might play one army one day, and a different army the next. That's "textbook bloat there" (sarcasm).
I am aware of it. I am also aware that their reasons do not hold up to examination
Yet again, invalidating and gatekeeping player experiences. What kind of blinkered logic gives you the authority to claim that "our reasons" aren't valid?
Why are you trying to invalidate people's experiences?
and that people like them enjoyed the game just fine when there was only a single point system. If PL was removed they'd go right back to playing with the normal point system and lose nothing in the process.
I'd probably enjoy the game a hell of a lot less, and probably not play at the level I enjoy, if I didn't just quit anyway. Also, this idea of "they played just fine without PL" only makes sense for users who played pre-PL, and also ignores the fact that I enjoy PL more, and wish it had been around earlier. Yet again, it's this idea that apparently, we're not allowed to enjoy new things.
It's a valid reason, but it's also a completely unconvincing reason if you're talking to other people. If that's the best you can offer then don't expect anyone to care about your position when discussing whether GW should remove PL.
Good thing I'm not trying to convince you of anything beyond having a baseline level of respect and courtesy.
If you're incapable of caring about other people's personal experiences and preferences without them having to "prove" it to you (like you imply), then I don't think you should be let anywhere near the Internet, let alone this forum.
Why are you trying to invalidate people's experiences?
Some people's preferences are for an objectively worse game.
I don't think you know what objective means, because you're not using it right here.
The word you're looking for is "subjective".
Hecaton wrote:
Andykp wrote: And this here is the issue with those on here trying to shout down PL. Why on Earth can none of you accept that there players and groups of players who go about the game very differently from you, those who have different experiences than you have?
I can. But IMOPL is a worse way of playing 40k. I'd rather it be gone but I'm not going to agitate for it. HOWEVER, people in this thread who are part of the cult of PL are advocating for points to go away, and are then getting salty when the same idea gets thrown back at them. That's hypocritical.
The "cult"? Totally reasonable language, cheers.
Also, BIndmage and I, two members of this "cult", as you put it, aren't advocating for points to go away, but I don't see any distinction being made for us. Are y'all just happy to catch people in the crossfire, or are you just being ignorant and exclusionary?
No, let's clarify - PL is for those who don't put an importance on *balance*. If you want to go play an unbalanced game, be my guest, but I have better things to do with my time, and if I'm going to be stuck playing 40k I'm going to want to play the most balanced version of it.
Great. Go do that. No-one cares what version you play, so instead of "debating" it, go and play it. The only reason that I'm here in this thread is because certain folks can't seem to get the idea that my way of playing is "incorrect", and I'm here to tell them to grow a basic level of respect.
To be honest, I find aggressively casual players to be the ones who care the most about winning, and what's interesting is that they don't allow for the eventuality that they brought a bad list or played poorly - if they're not doing well in games they blame their opponent. But that's just my observation.
Your observation is noted. I don't observe this, but your observation is noted.
Hecaton wrote:
JNAProductions wrote: Again-no one who likes PL has, to my knowledge, advocated for removing points.
Dude, have you read the OP? Are you trolling? It seems like you have a very biased take on both the issue and the people involved in this conversation.
Yes, I have read the OP. Have you? It doesn't say what you're claiming.
As mentioned, there's a difference between "if" and "this should".
Overread wrote:
Andykp wrote: Hecaton was saying that using points makes the game “objectively” better than using power levels. How do you measure betterness? And if that is the case (it isn’t) the. Surely all of us who are having more fun playing the game without using points are doing it wrong. Please answer that, tell me how anyone can conclude that?
Yes you can be doing it wrong.
People do the wrong things in hobbies all the time. Sometimes wrong is just going against convention; sometimes wrong is simply following a lesser known convention/theory (even if they are also unware of the theory); sometimes wrong is just doing stuff outright wrong; sometimes its simply not quite grasping the fundamentals well enough.
You can most certainly play with your toys in an incorrect manner.
And when its you playing with your toys that's fine. If you and your opponent are fine with it and you're having fun and neither of you is willing to learn more or change your approach. That's PERFECTLY FINE.
However it means that when you come into discussions with those outside of your sphere of influence you are going to bump into counter-arguments. You are going to hit the wall of people who know more than you; who understand the game better than you; who play better (yes you can measure that in a game which, at its core, is competitive structured). Sometimes you just have to accept that your understanding only goes so far and that others are going further.
I think the only level of "understanding that only goes so far and that others are going further" is the perspective of anyone who genuinely believes that there is a "wrong" way to enjoy how you play toy soldiers.
If someone can't grasp that people can enjoy the game a different way to them, and that their way of enjoying the game in a manner that doesn't affect them in the slightest is "wrong", then that tells me that they have a critical lack of understanding, namely, in understanding that people are allowed to enjoy things, and that someone isn't "wrong" for doing it in a way that others don't do.
All of your things about PL being "PERFECTLY FINE" is nice and all, but it's underpinned by the simple idea that it is apparently "wrong", and that I should have to even argue for why it's not wrong. The people who are advocating for scrapping PL don't "know more than me", "understand the game better than me" or even "play better" than me - they can play *their* preferred version of the game better, but they do not understand gak about how *I* play the game - and they don't need to.
What's wrong with letting people enjoy what they enjoy without snidely implying that they're a lesser hobbyist and are "wrong" to do what they do?
Power Level really only has one advantage and that's being simpler maths to add up. That's really it.
And *IF* that were the only advantage it has, and therefore was still incredibly valuable for some users (eg, with dyscalculia), why should it still be scrapped?
In a sense this makes powerlevel ok between people who know each other; who have played together before and all. It, however, makes it much harder to use between people who don't know each other; who didn't pre-arrange the game a week before; who might be turning up to a club, event, tournament or such to play against people they don't know for the first time.
Great - so don't use PL for those games. Simple. We'll keep using PL for the purposes we use it for, and you can use points. Simple.
CadianSgtBob wrote:
Blndmage wrote: Folks who play PL should be allowed to talk and discuss the game without literally being told were playing the game wrong, even when we're straight up following what's in the books.
And who is stopping you? You came into a thread about points vs. PL and joined the discussion, nobody came into your house and demanded that you justify your incorrect way of playing the game.
So you just expect that, when people are being insulted and told that they're playing the game wrong just to ignore you and your gakky takes?
Or, to put it another way, if the OP of this thread offended you by asking what you'd do if points were removed, you didn't need to get involved, so why did you?
If you're asking "who's stopping you" from discussing the game as we enjoy it, it's you, because you want PL to be scrapped.
The thread isn't even ABOUT PL vs points, it's about "if points were removed, would you still play 40k" - you're the one turning this into some kind of versus match where two different systems can't exist peacefully with one another.
I've already answered that question for you: "better" is defined by how well the system accomplishes its goal
PL accomplishes the goal I set for it. Therefore, PL is better for me.
JNAProductions wrote: But plenty of people are insulting Blndmage for preferring to play with PL. Such as this quoted post.
There is nothing in there at al that is insulting to them.
You don't get to decide what is and isn't insulting to people, especially when you're the one invalidating their lived experiences.
CadianSgtBob wrote:
Blndmage wrote: This.
This is the constant insulting tone leveled at PL based folks when we try to talk about playing the game.
Please do not make this dishonest argument. You are not merely "talking about playing the game", you're voluntarily participating in a discussion of points vs. PL.
This didn't start as a discussion of points vs PL. It *started* as a discussion of "if GW went all in on PL, would you still play" - you didn't need to get involved beyond a simple yes or no, but you changed it into some kind of adversarial contest.
Like I've already said, do you truly believe and expect that you should be able to insult users, disrespect them, and invalidate their sense of enjoyment and lived experiences, and then cry foul when they turn around and say "actually, feth you, I'm allowed to enjoy what I like"? That is the height of ignorance, if so.
There's only one dishonest argument here, and it's the argument that saying that someone's preferred way of playing is "wrong" and that they need to discuss why it isn't wrong.
If you want to even turn this into a lethal deathmatch between points and PL, you can; but that still doesn't mean you should be able to call someone's way of playing "wrong", no matter how much you disagree with it.
If you don't like seeing the full range of opinions there, including the opinion that you are completely wrong
Then your opinion is completely devoid of respect, empathy, and politeness, and therefore wholly unacceptable for a "discussion", as you put it.
You can disagree that PL is good for you, or has meaning to you, or is even useful to you, but when other users turn around and say that it's useful to them, you don't get to turn around and say "you're wrong", because how can they be wrong! All they're doing is speaking from their own experiences. Unless you're invalidating their experiences, and thereby showing incredible levels of disrespect and impoliteness (oh, hi Rule 1 of this forum!), you can't call someone's preferences and experiences "wrong".
don't get into discussions that are clearly labeled as "points vs. PL".
But it's not "clearly labelled" as that. Show me in the OP where it actually says that, beyond you wanting to turn everything into some zero-sum contest.
Nobody here is coming into your private games and demanding to have an argument with you.
And none of the PL players are demanding that your way of enjoying the game should be removed. You (and others like you) are the only ones doing that.
Now, with all that out of the way, I'm going to have a little bit of fun here, and I'm going to collate a list of every time users in this thread have claimed that someone else's way of playing is wrong, or should be banned. I'll get back to y'all shortly.
I think the efficiency argument falls a little flat when half the games narative involves genius super soldiers.
So it’s perfectly narrative for a player to think of there army as an efficient and effective group of units until it hits the battlefield. Planing as best it can for potential threats.
It also becomes a bit of a issue if someone needs to buy and build less effective units to meet some not too good a list.
Really I think if GW did care about it, they could do PL. PL is more like points is for most other games I play.
They would need to rebuild the game, but that would be for the better anyway I think.
Andykp wrote: Rather than looking for insults and people trying to ruin your hobby where there is none, read the thread, read the comments. No one here has said points SHOULD go away. That’s fact. Many on the points side have said power level should,
Fezzik has heavily implied it, though I'm sure he'd walk that back to keep the bad faith argumentation going if called on it. Kanluwen has said it in previous threads.
Fezzik has repeatedly insisted "there is no benefit to keeping points" which is tantamount to saying "we have nothing to lose by getting rid of points" which heavily implies that he supports that idea.
Andykp wrote: Everyone defending power level in this discussion has said that they prefer that system but respect that others don’t. The lack of respect has come from the few points advocates on here like your self, who have no respect for how others enjoy the game. I’m sure the vast majority of folk who use points don’t mind at all that power level exists, it’s just the few that get on here a tell others they are doing it wrong, don’t know how to be happy and are too stupid to understand how they aren’t enjoying playing a game but in fact ruining it for everyone else.
The problem is you see any defense of PL as respectful and any criticism of it as disrespectful.
In the one post you say something sensible, IN YOUR OPINION power level is a worse system. That’s fine, it’s your opinion.
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
No, I said they produce a less balanced outcome than points. Which isn't the be-all end-all of the utility of a points system.
Andykp wrote: You start off discussing things like a sensible adult then go back to telling everyone they are wrong! So close.
Here's the issue - if I say "I like points more than PL" you say ok. If I say "I like points more than PL because x" you freak out because you perceive any attempt to justify a superiority of points over PL as an attack. Also, you bad-faith imply that people who like points more "care about winning," which is an insult that you still haven't retracted. This tells me that you *aren't* treating points advocates with respect, and are slimily trying to claim you are while insulting us.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: Another question for you, do you really think the likes of Hecaton and cadiansgtbob have been more respectful of others opinions and experiences in this thread than say smudge or fezzik?
I've definitely been more respectful than you, considering you are constantly trying to find ways to insult the people you disagree with as cutthroat powergamers when there's no evidence of that kind.
I’m pretty sure they don’t think so. They’re just doomsaying.
Nah, he wouldn't admit to it if called out to avoid copping to it, but he's heavily implying it via repeated statements to beg the question in this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: Folks who play PL should be allowed to talk and discuss the game without literally being told were playing the game wrong, even when we're straight up following what's in the books.
Fine, but this thread was started by people saying "points have no value as a system compared to PL."
So criticizing PL as a system is fair game. You don't get to act all shocked and attacked in this context.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: But plenty of people are insulting Blndmage for preferring to play with PL. Such as this quoted post.
That's not an insult. Stop playing defense for people you agree on this topic with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Also, why if points are always so much better, are the points so ALWAYS TERRIBLE? Why did Trajann VaWreckyoface cost 160 points for months?
If the points are terrible, so is the PL. Voidweavers were dramatically undercosted at release, and if we play by PL, they still are. GW can botch PL just like they botch point, and you need to stop disingenuously ignoring that idea when criticizing points as a system, because you've been repeatedly told this, and you should know better by now.
This.
This is the constant insulting tone leveled at PL based folks when we try to talk about playing the game.
You started it by being *very* hostile. You're not being insulted; you're just being responded to in kind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: Do you think that my disabilities put me in some edge case that you can discount?
Do you have dyscalculia?
You ableist donkey-cave
As I stated earlier in this very thread:
I play the game with kids sometimes. PL is really less energy intensive, I don't need to flip pages, it's right there, easy peasy. I don't care about the points per kill of whatever. Points change constantly, the Power Ratings update much less frequently.
I'm in constant pain.
I can't keep solid focus too long.
There's no solutions for that.
It's not about specific disabilities, I referenced dyscalculia as an example.
There are many disabilities (including chronic conditions) that make 40k difficult to play. I'm frequently in so much pain I forget which army I'm playing.
The Core Rules, Open Play, and by extension Power Levels, make the game playable for many people.
We literally play using the free Core Rules (including the basic terrain rule), published Open Play content, codecs/indexes, and Theaters of War, that's about it. If there's the desire and energy for multiple games in a day, we also use the CA18 battle honours/custom character rules.
Sometimes we use CPs and strats, but that's rarer than using the CA18 stuff.
Andykp wrote: Rather than looking for insults and people trying to ruin your hobby where there is none, read the thread, read the comments. No one here has said points SHOULD go away. That’s fact. Many on the points side have said power level should,
Fezzik has heavily implied it, though I'm sure he'd walk that back to keep the bad faith argumentation going if called on it. Kanluwen has said it in previous threads.
Fezzik has repeatedly insisted "there is no benefit to keeping points" which is tantamount to saying "we have nothing to lose by getting rid of points" which heavily implies that he supports that idea.
Andykp wrote: Everyone defending power level in this discussion has said that they prefer that system but respect that others don’t. The lack of respect has come from the few points advocates on here like your self, who have no respect for how others enjoy the game. I’m sure the vast majority of folk who use points don’t mind at all that power level exists, it’s just the few that get on here a tell others they are doing it wrong, don’t know how to be happy and are too stupid to understand how they aren’t enjoying playing a game but in fact ruining it for everyone else.
The problem is you see any defense of PL as respectful and any criticism of it as disrespectful.
In the one post you say something sensible, IN YOUR OPINION power level is a worse system. That’s fine, it’s your opinion.
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
No, I said they produce a less balanced outcome than points. Which isn't the be-all end-all of the utility of a points system.
Andykp wrote: You start off discussing things like a sensible adult then go back to telling everyone they are wrong! So close.
Here's the issue - if I say "I like points more than PL" you say ok. If I say "I like points more than PL because x" you freak out because you perceive any attempt to justify a superiority of points over PL as an attack. Also, you bad-faith imply that people who like points more "care about winning," which is an insult that you still haven't retracted. This tells me that you *aren't* treating points advocates with respect, and are slimily trying to claim you are while insulting us.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: Another question for you, do you really think the likes of Hecaton and cadiansgtbob have been more respectful of others opinions and experiences in this thread than say smudge or fezzik?
I've definitely been more respectful than you, considering you are constantly trying to find ways to insult the people you disagree with as cutthroat powergamers when there's no evidence of that kind.
I’m pretty sure they don’t think so. They’re just doomsaying.
Nah, he wouldn't admit to it if called out to avoid copping to it, but he's heavily implying it via repeated statements to beg the question in this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: Folks who play PL should be allowed to talk and discuss the game without literally being told were playing the game wrong, even when we're straight up following what's in the books.
Fine, but this thread was started by people saying "points have no value as a system compared to PL."
So criticizing PL as a system is fair game. You don't get to act all shocked and attacked in this context.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: But plenty of people are insulting Blndmage for preferring to play with PL. Such as this quoted post.
That's not an insult. Stop playing defense for people you agree on this topic with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Also, why if points are always so much better, are the points so ALWAYS TERRIBLE? Why did Trajann VaWreckyoface cost 160 points for months?
If the points are terrible, so is the PL. Voidweavers were dramatically undercosted at release, and if we play by PL, they still are. GW can botch PL just like they botch point, and you need to stop disingenuously ignoring that idea when criticizing points as a system, because you've been repeatedly told this, and you should know better by now.
This.
This is the constant insulting tone leveled at PL based folks when we try to talk about playing the game.
You started it by being *very* hostile. You're not being insulted; you're just being responded to in kind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: Do you think that my disabilities put me in some edge case that you can discount?
Do you have dyscalculia?
You ableist donkey-cave
As I stated earlier in this very thread:
I play the game with kids sometimes. PL is really less energy intensive, I don't need to flip pages, it's right there, easy peasy. I don't care about the points per kill of whatever. Points change constantly, the Power Ratings update much less frequently.
I'm in constant pain.
I can't keep solid focus too long.
There's no solutions for that.
It's not about specific disabilities, I referenced dyscalculia as an example.
There are many disabilities (including chronic conditions) that make 40k difficult to play. I'm frequently in so much pain I forget which army I'm playing.
The Core Rules, Open Play, and by extension Power Levels, make the game playable for many people.
We literally play using the free Core Rules (including the basic terrain rule), published Open Play content, codecs/indexes, and Theaters of War, that's about it. If there's the desire and energy for multiple games in a day, we also use the CA18 battle honours/custom character rules.
Sometimes we use CPs and strats, but that's rarer than using the CA18 stuff.
Andykp wrote: Rather than looking for insults and people trying to ruin your hobby where there is none, read the thread, read the comments. No one here has said points SHOULD go away. That’s fact. Many on the points side have said power level should,
Fezzik has heavily implied it, though I'm sure he'd walk that back to keep the bad faith argumentation going if called on it. Kanluwen has said it in previous threads.
Fezzik has repeatedly insisted "there is no benefit to keeping points" which is tantamount to saying "we have nothing to lose by getting rid of points" which heavily implies that he supports that idea.
Andykp wrote: Everyone defending power level in this discussion has said that they prefer that system but respect that others don’t. The lack of respect has come from the few points advocates on here like your self, who have no respect for how others enjoy the game. I’m sure the vast majority of folk who use points don’t mind at all that power level exists, it’s just the few that get on here a tell others they are doing it wrong, don’t know how to be happy and are too stupid to understand how they aren’t enjoying playing a game but in fact ruining it for everyone else.
The problem is you see any defense of PL as respectful and any criticism of it as disrespectful.
In the one post you say something sensible, IN YOUR OPINION power level is a worse system. That’s fine, it’s your opinion.
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
No, I said they produce a less balanced outcome than points. Which isn't the be-all end-all of the utility of a points system.
Andykp wrote: You start off discussing things like a sensible adult then go back to telling everyone they are wrong! So close.
Here's the issue - if I say "I like points more than PL" you say ok. If I say "I like points more than PL because x" you freak out because you perceive any attempt to justify a superiority of points over PL as an attack. Also, you bad-faith imply that people who like points more "care about winning," which is an insult that you still haven't retracted. This tells me that you *aren't* treating points advocates with respect, and are slimily trying to claim you are while insulting us.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: Another question for you, do you really think the likes of Hecaton and cadiansgtbob have been more respectful of others opinions and experiences in this thread than say smudge or fezzik?
I've definitely been more respectful than you, considering you are constantly trying to find ways to insult the people you disagree with as cutthroat powergamers when there's no evidence of that kind.
I’m pretty sure they don’t think so. They’re just doomsaying.
Nah, he wouldn't admit to it if called out to avoid copping to it, but he's heavily implying it via repeated statements to beg the question in this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: Folks who play PL should be allowed to talk and discuss the game without literally being told were playing the game wrong, even when we're straight up following what's in the books.
Fine, but this thread was started by people saying "points have no value as a system compared to PL."
So criticizing PL as a system is fair game. You don't get to act all shocked and attacked in this context.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: But plenty of people are insulting Blndmage for preferring to play with PL. Such as this quoted post.
That's not an insult. Stop playing defense for people you agree on this topic with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Also, why if points are always so much better, are the points so ALWAYS TERRIBLE? Why did Trajann VaWreckyoface cost 160 points for months?
If the points are terrible, so is the PL. Voidweavers were dramatically undercosted at release, and if we play by PL, they still are. GW can botch PL just like they botch point, and you need to stop disingenuously ignoring that idea when criticizing points as a system, because you've been repeatedly told this, and you should know better by now.
This.
This is the constant insulting tone leveled at PL based folks when we try to talk about playing the game.
You started it by being *very* hostile. You're not being insulted; you're just being responded to in kind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: Do you think that my disabilities put me in some edge case that you can discount?
Do you have dyscalculia?
You ableist donkey-cave
As I stated earlier in this very thread:
I play the game with kids sometimes. PL is really less energy intensive, I don't need to flip pages, it's right there, easy peasy. I don't care about the points per kill of whatever. Points change constantly, the Power Ratings update much less frequently.
I'm in constant pain.
I can't keep solid focus too long.
There's no solutions for that.
It's not about specific disabilities, I referenced dyscalculia as an example.
There are many disabilities (including chronic conditions) that make 40k difficult to play. I'm frequently in so much pain I forget which army I'm playing.
The Core Rules, Open Play, and by extension Power Levels, make the game playable for many people.
We literally play using the free Core Rules (including the basic terrain rule), published Open Play content, codecs/indexes, and Theaters of War, that's about it. If there's the desire and energy for multiple games in a day, we also use the CA18 battle honours/custom character rules.
Sometimes we use CPs and strats, but that's rarer than using the CA18 stuff.
How is that ableist?
Disabled players get forgotten about constantly. We're not edge cases, or an insignificant number ~20% of Canadians (~25% of Americans) are disabled.
If you don't understand why that specific response to my question is ableist, I'd suggest talking with disabled 40k players you know. And if you say "I don't know any"...think about that for a bit.
So, going through all instances (at least that I've seen in this thread) where a user has claimed that PL/Open Play should be removed or is otherwise "incorrect".
- HMBC, page 3: We have points. Use points. Don't create a sorta-kinda half-way system that uses smaller numbers to add up. - CadianSgtBob, page 10: Open Play doesn't need to exist at all - Slipspace, page 10: Open Play absolutely doesn't need to exist - Voss, page 10: No, it is there. Its taking up book space, rules space and development time. If it isn't used, its a negative effect. - CSB, page 10: But why does that require explicitly naming Open Play as an official Way™ To™ Play™ The™ Game™? You don't need to create an entire game mode that consists of "all rules are optional" or tell a parent they're playing Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™ Rules™ when they set up a game with a single infantry squad on each side to teach their kid the basic rules. People were doing all that stuff long before GW made Open Play a thing. - CSB, page 10: It does not need a separate point system to function and removing PL is in no way the same as removing Crusade. - CSB, page 11: Removing Open Play and the concept of Official™ Play™ Types™ with their own separate fundamental rule systems is what needs to happen. - CSB, page 11: What I want is for PL to cease to exist at all. - CSB, page 11: So what is the official Open™ Play™ adding to this situation? (Also, hey, look! It's you asking people to justify their perspectives how ow they enjoy things!)
(It is at this point that I enter the thread, and ask that people stop people be allowed to enjoy what they want without options being removed. I should note that, at this point, the ONLY advocates for removing anything in the thread have been the above users and comments.)
- CSB, page 11: I want PL gone because the sole useful function I've ever seen from it is CAAC gatekeepers using it as a way to tell competitive players they aren't welcome in a group. - Voss, page 11: Open play is what people were doing for years, decades without it. So yeah, it needs some justification for taking up space in the book. - CSB, page 12: If you can't have a discussion of the virtues of different game mechanics without building straw man arguments then there is no point in talking to you. (Note - this wasn't a discussion about the virtues of different game mechanics. You made it so. You can also "discuss game mechanics" without telling people that their way of playing should be scrapped.) - Karol, page 12: What the open mind set does to some people, is that it lets them to be lazy, not learn the game rules and claim that is an acceptable thing - Karol, page 12: All [Open Play] does it makes the game worse the general public - CSB, page 12: Do we really need an entire second point system so you have to type fewer digits? - CSB, page 12: You can say it, but unlike PL the normal point system has a reason to exist. - CSB, page 12: Open Play is a solution in need of a problem
(Insert Andykp's comment)
- CSB, page 12: Who exactly are these people that want to change the rules but are so obsessed with the concept of officialness that they can't make any changes without GW telling them it's ok to do it? - Overread, page 13: The premise of the thread is GW taking points away and going full power level only. (Note: this is a comment being made in response to me saying "hey, let's just let people enjoy themselves with their preferred game without telling people we should be scrapping points or PL", and claiming that this is justification for folks saying PL should be deleted. I hasten to mention again: the ONLY mention of points being removed outside of the hypothetical question posed by the Anydkp as done as a rhetorical question IN RESPONSE to all the various comments made above. There is very clearly one "side" which is make more incendiary comments here.) - CSB, page 14: Because this is a discussion of points vs. PL. If you don't want to see people disagreeing with your chosen system then maybe you shouldn't read this thread? (Yet again, this idea that this discussion has been in any way fair in terms of how people are arguing. We have pro/ambivialent PL folks who have made ONE rhetorical question on the validity of points, versus EVERY INSTANCE LISTED ABOVE calling for PL to be scrapped or deleted or otherwise being useless. This isn't a discussion. It's thinly veiled ignorance.) - CSB, page 14: GW needs to stop investing in PL and focus on the better point system. - CSB, page 14: any time spent on PL is wasted development time that could be spent on doing something useful - Karol, page 15: A good system for people who don't really want to play the game.
(At this point, BIndmage brings up dyscalculia as a reason that some of the folks they play with use PL for ease of calculation, as well as their own personal experiences of pain - lived experiences and reason why PL helps them.)
- Slipspace, page 15: You're essentially asking me not to voice a legitimately held opinion because it disagrees with your preferred method of building lists, which is just asking for discussion to be shut down because it disagrees with your opinion. (Said opinion literally being "you're playing the game wrong and shouldn't be supported to keep doing what you're doing) - Karol, page 15: So people who don't like or want PL don't get anything, specialy as you said it yourself you don't care about them or how they play, from respecting PL. Each minute design spends on it is a minute not spend on points etc. - CSB, page 16: There is no reason to have two separate point systems when a single point system can cover all game types. - CSB, page 16: So we can discuss the scenario where GW removes the point system you don't like but if we discuss the scenario where GW removes the point system you do like it's unacceptable? (A response to me saying that we shouldn't be *advocating for removing things that people like* - the above comments in this list aren't "discussing GW removing the system that I like", they're YOU calling to remove them, and other users saying that we're playing the game incorrectly. These are two very different things, and an intellectually dishonest argument on your end.) - EviscerationPlague, page 16: Because PL doesn't DESERVE the bare minimum effort it gets to begin with. - CSB, page 16: It absolutely is a failure. If system A does everything that system B does and also does other things then B is a failure. It is completely redundant and has no reason to exist. And no, listbuilding with PL is not "incredibly faster and easier". (CSB, ignoring every comment that BIndmage has made, or just being ableist.) - CSB, page 16: PL is unnecessary rules bloat that, at best, represents a waste of development resources that could be better spent elsewhere - CSB, page 16: So basic game design says you simplify things and remove the redundant system. - CSB, page 17: I am also aware that their reasons do not hold up to examination (again, erasing the experiences of folks like BIndmage) - Hecaton, page 17: Some people's preferences are for an objectively worse game. (Emphasis mine. I don't care if you don't like PL, but claiming it's "objectively worse" is the issue here.) - CSB, page 17: PL is objectively worse at this than the normal point system, period, and because its errors are inherent to what PL does it will always be worse. And basic game design says that when you have a redundant system which is just a worse version of an existing system you delete it for the sake of simplicity and focus. And no, I do not accept the claim that PL represents a sufficient time savings for it to be worth keeping. - Overread, page 18: People do the wrong things in hobbies all the time [...] You can most certainly play with your toys in an incorrect manner. - Overread, page 18: You are going to hit the wall of people who know more than you; who understand the game better than you; who play better (yes you can measure that in a game which, at its core, is competitive structured). Sometimes you just have to accept that your understanding only goes so far and that others are going further. - CSB, page 18: And who is stopping you? You came into a thread about points vs. PL and joined the discussion, nobody came into your house and demanded that you justify your incorrect way of playing the game. (A response to BIndmage saying that folks who play PL shouldn't have to put up with being told that their way of playing should be scrapped - as I previously have mentioned in this thread, the person stopping BIndmage from enjoying themselves is YOU, CadianSgtBob, because you have repeatedly said that BIndmage's preferred way to play IS NOT VALID and insulted them.) - CSB, page 19: PL has no reason to exist.
And now going through all instances where someone has said that points/matched play should be removed, or are otherwise "incorrect".
- Andykp, page 12: Let’s flip the old argument of why you need PL or open rules, let’s ask why do you need points? (Now, you'll notice that even though I've included this, I shouldn't need to. Why? Because it's a hypothetical and rhetorical question! It's not being serious, it's not being unbidden, it's coming after ALL of the previous gak on page 12 and prior that I've labelled, and honestly exists only to attempt to show the previous users some degree of self awareness, which they seem to have missed. This isn't even a serious suggestion, but I am including it solely to say that the first - and possibly only - time that anything was even mentioned about points being removed was done as a rhetorical question.)
- FezzikDaBullgryn, page 15: So, again, is there really any value in GW not going PL only? From what I'm seeing, most if not all the people in the NAY camp, would still keep playing, one person has said they'll stop playing altogether, but as they have admitted, they are not a competitive player. (A comment from the OP, posing a topical question. Note, this is still not *advocating* or even saying the GW "should" do anything, but posing a question AS THE OP. For what it's worth, yes, I believe there is value in GW not going PL only, because clearly, people value points, and their choice of value should be respected. Comparing this to some of the previous comments shows they're not even in the same league.)
- FezzikDaBullgryn, page 18: We cannot balance 40k via points anymore. (18 pages in to get this comment, and honestly, considering the amount of times that pro-points folk have said, not incorrectly, that PL is just a different form of points, this comment doesn't exactly defend PL either. It's a "burn EVERYTHING to the ground" option. But hey, I'm going to give y'all the benefit of the doubt.)
I rest my case. That's, what, one, maybe two cases of people calling for points to be removed, and no cases where someone who plays points is called "wrong" or "incorrect", versus... I lost count. Truly, I did, and I don't want to depress myself by actually counting.
You want to turn this into some kind of "versus" match? Let's look at the "versus" of who's actually treating people's experiences and preferences with respect before we even begin to continue "debating" this silly topic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote:How is that ableist?
Because it ignores the legitimate issues that BIndmage and other players with the game have with using points, and invalidates them when they actually find utility in a different system. It is implicit erasure of their legitimate experiences, and invalidation of them as *human beings* based on their bodies.
It is ableist because it expects them to make do with systems that are not designed or accommodating for their different needs, and then seeking to remove the options that they do have.
It is like banning ramps for wheelchair users, and then wondering why wheelchair users have an issue with that when there's perfectly good stairs everywhere else.
Does that explain the situation?
Lord Damocles wrote:1) Call opposition -ist or -phobe 2) Win argument regardless of other factors 3) ??? 4) Virtue!
Just calling a spade a spade. 'Facts don't care about your feelings' (and other buzzphrases), and the comment that was made was a factually ableist one.
I mean, it's a long and thorough post but it doesn't especially have credibility given Smudge's editorializing (in support of the PL folks and in opposition to the points folks). If the posts were selected without comment, it would be more credible IMO.
Also, I'm sorry but I don't see how Hecaton's question about dyscalculia was ableist. I see it as Hecaton trying to get a little more context from Blndmage. Now you could argue whether the question was asked in good faith or not, but immediately jumping to ableism doesn't pass the sniff test. How does that question "diminish lived experiences"?
I mean, it's a long and thorough post but it doesn't especially have credibility given Smudge's editorializing (in support of the PL folks and in opposition to the points folks). If the posts were selected without comment, it would be more credible IMO.
You can check every quote. I haven't edited a single one, with the exception of putting an ellipsis on one comment. If you want to say that I misrepresented or otherwise edited a single comment, be my guest and check. I assure you, aside from adding my own *comments*, brief ellipsis, or two instances of adding emphasis (which I am well within my rights to do), I haven't edited a single post. I've even shown pro-PL posts that realistically, I shouldn't *need* to show, because they are rhetorical questions, but I have chosen to do so to emphasise how imbalanced the situation is. Furthermore, the comments I make exist to provide context, as presenting information devoid of context is arguably more dubious and misleading.
If you wish to criticise the credibility of the comments I selected, tell me which ones I misrepresented.
Also, I'm sorry but I don't see how Hecaton's question about dyscalculia was ableist. I see it as Hecaton trying to get a little more context from Blndmage.
BIndmage doesn't need to have dyscalculia, and Hecaton doesn't NEED more context, because they already mentioned their chronic illness that cause disorienting levels of pain. Hecaton choosing not to recognise that, and instead continue to focus on dyscalculia, as if that condition is some kind of "validity benchmark" is ableist behaviour.
Now, if Hecaton enthusiastically apologises and amends their statement, and then further goes on to respect and accept the conditions that many hobbyists face regarding their health and participation within 40k, then I'm happy to chalk it up to an innocent mistake and misphrasing - of course, I don't speak for BIndmage on that.
How does that question "diminish lived experiences"?
It "diminishes lived experiences" because it implicitly says that "you're only allowed to feel like this if you have XYZ disabilities", but also, as I've said, ignores the other experiences that BIndmage has mentioned, which are more than enough to justify *any* choice of how they play - not that they even need to justify it!
The very act of asking someone to "prove" or "justify" their condition as some kind of litmus test as to if they're "allowed" to play a certain way is ableist behaviour, and this is well known within those communities. If you wish to have further information on that, I'm sure there are resources that you can find online which will better explain this.
In previous cases when I've mentioned "diminishing lived experiences", it has been in response to the idea that "PL doesn't meaningfully help anyone" - by saying it, it ignores the testimony of the people who have said that it *does* help them, and thereby continues to marginalise them and push them away from feeling relevant in the hobby.
I mean, it's a long and thorough post but it doesn't especially have credibility given Smudge's editorializing (in support of the PL folks and in opposition to the points folks). If the posts were selected without comment, it would be more credible IMO.
You can check every quote. I haven't edited a single one, with the exception of putting an ellipsis on one comment. If you want to say that I misrepresented or otherwise edited a single comment, be my guest and check.
You misrepresented my comment about Open Play, for a start. What I actually said was Open Play is a concept that doesn't require GW to formalise it in the rules. There's no point having a rule that literally says "you don't have to follow the rules". I didn't say people shouldn't play Open Play style games.
You also continue to misrepresent what I said about respecting others' opinions. Just because a belief or opinion is sincerely held, doesn't make it immune to criticism and challenge.
Power Level style costing (even if it is called points like in AoS) will end up being widely accepted as a good thing (or at least not awful) for matched play, as it will simplify the admin of list building and checking without removing too much of the ability to build lists in varying styles.
Here is how I see it going down:
-Unit sizes will become fixed (like AoS)
-PL cost will be set to the optimal unit loadout (not the basic)
-All units will end up having Plague Marine "what's in the box" loadouts
-Upgrades will move to PL (like jump packs currently are +1PL)
-Relics, WLT and the like will move to costing PL -Tournament players will always be able to have optimal loadouts
-Narrative players can do whatever they like when setting up as they generally seem happy with "close enough" balance and then adjusting
For context, I play matched play GT or Tempest missions in a club league and tournaments, so points is what I use. The above is just my impression of the direction of travel GW is taking with the game. I think some of this will happen in 10th ed, some will happen through mission packs/dataslates.
To answer the OP's question - it wouldn't change the amount I play one bit.
I mean, it's a long and thorough post but it doesn't especially have credibility given Smudge's editorializing (in support of the PL folks and in opposition to the points folks). If the posts were selected without comment, it would be more credible IMO.
You can check every quote. I haven't edited a single one, with the exception of putting an ellipsis on one comment. If you want to say that I misrepresented or otherwise edited a single comment, be my guest and check.
You misrepresented my comment about Open Play, for a start. What I actually said was Open Play is a concept that doesn't require GW to formalise it in the rules. There's no point having a rule that literally says "you don't have to follow the rules". I didn't say people shouldn't play Open Play style games.
You are advocating the removal of a legitimate form of enjoying the game that doesn't negatively affect you, but others have said they appreciate the inclusion of. By advocating for removal of it being formally included, you are implicitly saying that it is not equal to other forms of enjoying the game.
I stand by my case. I did not misrepresent you: in fact, I quoted you verbatim. I think that you are unaware of the implication of your comment. Now that I have elaborated, do you understand why this isn't a harmless comment?
You also continue to misrepresent what I said about respecting others' opinions. Just because a belief or opinion is sincerely held, doesn't make it immune to criticism and challenge.
When your criticism and challenge is "I don't think you should be able to play this way with official support, and I want to remove the official endorsement you have" (even though continuing to keep that endorsement doesn't affect you in the slightest), no, I don't believe that is constructive or fitting in this forum.
"I enjoy this" isn't a belief that should be criticised or challenged, because when you are challenging that, you are, at that point, challenging not the game system, but the people who play it. That is not fitting of a proper discussion or debate.
"I think this is the best system" is welcome to be criticised. "I think this is the best FOR ME" is not.
I mean, it's a long and thorough post but it doesn't especially have credibility given Smudge's editorializing (in support of the PL folks and in opposition to the points folks). If the posts were selected without comment, it would be more credible IMO.
Also, I'm sorry but I don't see how Hecaton's question about dyscalculia was ableist. I see it as Hecaton trying to get a little more context from Blndmage. Now you could argue whether the question was asked in good faith or not, but immediately jumping to ableism doesn't pass the sniff test. How does that question "diminish lived experiences"?
Hecatons comment is ableist i suppose because why does he need to know of blindmage suffers with anything to understand that there are people there who and disabilities that impact their hobby experience. I can’t speak for blindmage but that’s my understanding. Does Blindmage having a specific disability make his comments more or less valid. It doesn’t actually make any difference.
I mean, it's a long and thorough post but it doesn't especially have credibility given Smudge's editorializing (in support of the PL folks and in opposition to the points folks). If the posts were selected without comment, it would be more credible IMO.
Also, I'm sorry but I don't see how Hecaton's question about dyscalculia was ableist. I see it as Hecaton trying to get a little more context from Blndmage. Now you could argue whether the question was asked in good faith or not, but immediately jumping to ableism doesn't pass the sniff test. How does that question "diminish lived experiences"?
Hecatons comment is ableist i suppose because why does he need to know of blindmage suffers with anything to understand that there are people there who and disabilities that impact their hobby experience. I can’t speak for blindmage but that’s my understanding. Does Blindmage having a specific disability make his comments more or less valid. It doesn’t actually make any difference.
Phrased that way (especially the 'doesn't actually make any difference), it feels like a trap:
Raise discalculia.
Why'd you mention that?
How dare you?
Doesn't seem like a healthy place for a discussion a game mechanic to go.
"I enjoy this" isn't a belief that should be criticised or challenged, because when you are challenging that, you are, at that point, challenging not the game system, but the people who play it. That is not fitting of a proper discussion or debate.
That is an extremly dangerous view to hold, because some people find some really bad things enjoyable or like stuff which is good for them, but bad for others. And things are not created equal, some are better and some are worse. Some are widely played and some are not. Now that of course doesn't mean people can't play the game they want, if they find willing opponents to do it. But the company shouldn't be made to use up its design time, something they have very little of running the skeleton crew they have, for something that is enjoyed by a minority, doesn't really make the game better and more or less requires special conditions, some which enter the feelings area to be a valid and comparable way of playing the game.
Doesn't seem like a healthy place for a discussion a game mechanic to go.
Plus what is the percentage of players of w40k that have that. What is next desiginging the game in a way it can be played by people that can speak, what about people who can't learn english or any writen language. What if someone has so sever nerve damage in hand, can easily happen if you do weight lifting or combat sports, and can't move 60+ separate models in a prescribe time of 2.5 hour. Should GW design versions of games for those people too. Because if yes, then the game suddenly degrades to a point where GW has to design a game not just for every w40k player, but for every w40k player playing every other w40k player that they could be playing.
I mean, it's a long and thorough post but it doesn't especially have credibility given Smudge's editorializing (in support of the PL folks and in opposition to the points folks). If the posts were selected without comment, it would be more credible IMO.
You can check every quote. I haven't edited a single one, with the exception of putting an ellipsis on one comment. If you want to say that I misrepresented or otherwise edited a single comment, be my guest and check.
You misrepresented my comment about Open Play, for a start. What I actually said was Open Play is a concept that doesn't require GW to formalise it in the rules. There's no point having a rule that literally says "you don't have to follow the rules". I didn't say people shouldn't play Open Play style games.
You are advocating the removal of a legitimate form of enjoying the game that doesn't negatively affect you, but others have said they appreciate the inclusion of. By advocating for removal of it being formally included, you are implicitly saying that it is not equal to other forms of enjoying the game.
I stand by my case. I did not misrepresent you: in fact, I quoted you verbatim. I think that you are unaware of the implication of your comment. Now that I have elaborated, do you understand why this isn't a harmless comment?
"That's just swallowing GW's marketing BS. Open Play absolutely doesn't need to exist because it's only purpose is to codify a rule that says you don't have to follow the rules."
That's what I said. Clearly what I'm talking about is GW attempting to codify Open Play in their rules. Open Play (note the capital letters) doesn't need to exist because every other wargame I've ever encountered gets along fine without specific dispensation from the designers that you don't have to follow the rules all the time. You can still play "Open Play" style games without GW having a specific rule telling you that.
So yes, you did misrepresent me.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: "I enjoy this" isn't a belief that should be criticised or challenged, because when you are challenging that, you are, at that point, challenging not the game system, but the people who play it. That is not fitting of a proper discussion or debate.
For the millionth time, I'm not challenging your belief that you enjoy something. To be very clear, I accept that you hold that belief.
People enjoy all sorts of things. Doesn't mean we can't have a discussion about whether those things should exist or not. Your argument amounts to shutting down any discussion as soon as anyone says "I enjoy this thing". I'm sure some people loved the broken Eldar formations in 7th edition, but it's still legitimate to discuss whether they should exist or not, for any number of reasons.
Voss wrote: Doesn't seem like a healthy place for a discussion a game mechanic to go.
We're not discussing a game mechanic though. BIndmage and I aren't even attempting to do that. All we're literally saying is that PL is useful FOR US. There doesn't need to be a discussion beyond that.
If you want to have a healthy discussion, it needs to come from a place where we can all respect eachother's right to enjoy the game in a way that doesn't harm anyone else. The very discussion of "let's get rid of PL because it doesn't do anything for me" is antithetical to that. You want to discuss PL, you're welcome to discuss how you could improve it for yourself, or how you would prefer it if it wasn't the only system around, but talking of removing it? That's not okay, as it implies that the opinions of users like BIndmage and I aren't worth respecting - and to imply *that* would be a violation of Rule 1.
Exactly its obnoxious debate bro "explain to me why you like this, ill wait" crap. That sort of personality may fly on reddit but in the real world (or non toxic communities) youll be rightly told to bore off.
Voss wrote: Doesn't seem like a healthy place for a discussion a game mechanic to go.
We're not discussing a game mechanic though. BIndmage and I aren't even attempting to do that. All we're literally saying is that PL is useful FOR US. There doesn't need to be a discussion beyond that.
I AM talking about a game mechanic. If you aren't even attempting to do that, its bad faith.
If you don't want to discuss a game mechanic, then stop. That's 100% on you.
If you want to have a healthy discussion, it needs to come from a place where we can all respect eachother's right to enjoy the game in a way that doesn't harm anyone else. The very discussion of "let's get rid of PL because it doesn't do anything for me" is antithetical to that. You want to discuss PL, you're welcome to discuss how you could improve it for yourself, or how you would prefer it if it wasn't the only system around, but talking of removing it? That's not okay, as it implies that the opinions of users like BIndmage and I aren't worth respecting - and to imply *that* would be a violation of Rule 1.
You're people with opinions on preferences on a game system, not Woobies that need to be defended at all costs. That seems far more disrespectful.
If you want to be offended that I'm treating you like I treat everyone else, uh... I guess one of us is missing something. I certainly don't like the alternative, though, because it isn't 'you get blanket immunity for your opinions on game mechanics.'
"I enjoy this" isn't a belief that should be criticised or challenged, because when you are challenging that, you are, at that point, challenging not the game system, but the people who play it. That is not fitting of a proper discussion or debate.
That is an extremly dangerous view to hold, because some people find some really bad things enjoyable or like stuff which is good for them, but bad for others.
I agree, things that hurt other people should be regulated - but PL doesn't hurt you.
Stop acting like it does.
But the company shouldn't be made to use up its design time, something they have very little of running the skeleton crew they have, for something that is enjoyed by a minority, doesn't really make the game better and more or less requires special conditions, some which enter the feelings area to be a valid and comparable way of playing the game.
Aka, "you're not considered valuable to this hobby, and there's no point respecting you".
That's exactly the kind of gakky gatekeeping opinion I'm talking about.
Doesn't seem like a healthy place for a discussion a game mechanic to go.
Plus what is the percentage of players of w40k that have that.
I'm sorry, but does it bloody matter?? So what if it's one person or one thousand, we shouldn't fething throw people to the wolves just because they're not the majority! Is this the level of discourse that this forum has devolved to?
What is next desiginging the game in a way it can be played by people that can speak, what about people who can't learn english or any writen language. What if someone has so sever nerve damage in hand, can easily happen if you do weight lifting or combat sports, and can't move 60+ separate models in a prescribe time of 2.5 hour. Should GW design versions of games for those people too. Because if yes, then the game suddenly degrades to a point where GW has to design a game not just for every w40k player, but for every w40k player playing every other w40k player that they could be playing.
YES! Yes, there should absolutely be disability access in games! There should be disability access in EVERYTHING!
Come on folks, if this isn't ableist language, I don't know what is.
Slipspace wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You are advocating the removal of a legitimate form of enjoying the game that doesn't negatively affect you, but others have said they appreciate the inclusion of. By advocating for removal of it being formally included, you are implicitly saying that it is not equal to other forms of enjoying the game.
I stand by my case. I did not misrepresent you: in fact, I quoted you verbatim. I think that you are unaware of the implication of your comment. Now that I have elaborated, do you understand why this isn't a harmless comment?
"That's just swallowing GW's marketing BS. Open Play absolutely doesn't need to exist because it's only purpose is to codify a rule that says you don't have to follow the rules."
That's what I said. Clearly what I'm talking about is GW attempting to codify Open Play in their rules. Open Play (note the capital letters) doesn't need to exist because every other wargame I've ever encountered gets along fine without specific dispensation from the designers that you don't have to follow the rules all the time. You can still play "Open Play" style games without GW having a specific rule telling you that.
So yes, you did misrepresent me.
I maintain that I didn't. If Open Play only purpose is to codify that you don't need to follow the rules, that is a necessary function, and removing the legitimacy to say "the rules are a guideline for how I want to enjoy the game" is implicitly stating that the rules should always be the most important thing.
In every other wargame, I would actually *appreciate* if they included rules a la Open and Rule Zero in D&D5e - ie, "the rules are flexible and should be broken if you and your opponent consent."
Removal of that explicit endorsement doesn't help you in any way, and it only serves to remove player perception of freedom. In what possible way does removing Open Play hurt you?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: "I enjoy this" isn't a belief that should be criticised or challenged, because when you are challenging that, you are, at that point, challenging not the game system, but the people who play it. That is not fitting of a proper discussion or debate.
For the millionth time, I'm not challenging your belief that you enjoy something. To be very clear, I accept that you hold that belief.
People enjoy all sorts of things. Doesn't mean we can't have a discussion about whether those things should exist or not.
When someone literally turns around and says "this is helpful to me" and other users turn around and say "NO-ONE FINDS THIS HELPFUL", that's both disrespectful and marginalising behaviour. Furthermore, you're not just discussing if something should exist or not - you are implicitly discussing if the people who find that thing useful are valid in their enjoyment of 40k.
You are capable of discussing the value of something without commenting on the people who enjoy it, but that is a virtue you lack.
Your argument amounts to shutting down any discussion as soon as anyone says "I enjoy this thing".
If you can find a way to discuss PL without implying that everyone who enjoys it is wrong for enjoying it, or would be better off being forced into playing something else, I'm happy to continue this "discussion". Until you can do so, my point stands. Speak with respect, or not at all.
I'm sure some people loved the broken Eldar formations in 7th edition, but it's still legitimate to discuss whether they should exist or not, for any number of reasons.
The difference between Open Play and broken Eldar formation is that unless you declined to play against the players of those broken formations, those actually affected you, and came up in your actual games.
If you don't play Open Play, which, by many of your admissions, you don't, how does someone else's choices and preferences affect you?
Voss wrote: Doesn't seem like a healthy place for a discussion a game mechanic to go.
We're not discussing a game mechanic though. BIndmage and I aren't even attempting to do that. All we're literally saying is that PL is useful FOR US. There doesn't need to be a discussion beyond that.
I AM talking about a game mechanic. If you aren't even attempting to do that, its bad faith.
If you don't want to discuss a game mechanic, then stop. That's 100% on you.
I'll stop when people learn to be able to discuss game mechanics without invalidating the people who play them and telling them that they shouldn't have space in the book.
It's really not that hard. You want to discuss game mechanics, do so without taking stuff away from other players.
If you want to have a healthy discussion, it needs to come from a place where we can all respect eachother's right to enjoy the game in a way that doesn't harm anyone else. The very discussion of "let's get rid of PL because it doesn't do anything for me" is antithetical to that. You want to discuss PL, you're welcome to discuss how you could improve it for yourself, or how you would prefer it if it wasn't the only system around, but talking of removing it? That's not okay, as it implies that the opinions of users like BIndmage and I aren't worth respecting - and to imply *that* would be a violation of Rule 1.
You're people with opinions on preferences on a game system, not Woobies that need to be defended at all costs. That seems far more disrespectful.
I'm not defending gak beyond people should be treated with respect without having to justify why. If that's too much for you, I kindly suggest you touch grass.
If you want to be offended that I'm treating you like I treat everyone else, uh... I guess one of us is missing something. I certainly don't like the alternative, though, because it isn't 'you get blanket immunity for your opinions on game mechanics.'
No-one cares about "blanket immunity". What they care for is not to be implied that they're inferior for enjoying the game a different way. You say about treating everyone the same - I don't see any other players having to justify endlessly why their version of the game shouldn't be scrapped.
I mean, SERIOUSLY, did you read the stuff I've quoted?
If you don't play Open Play, which, by many of your admissions, you don't, how does someone else's choices and preferences affect you?
Covered before, its not about other people's choices or preferences, its about it taking up space in the system- you even quoted it:
No, it is there. Its taking up book space, rules space and development time. If it isn't used, its a negative effect.
Open play is what people were doing for years, decades without it. So yeah, it needs some justification for taking up space in the book.
The rulebook is only so big. The non-rules taking up rules-space is always going to be a loss.
See, there we go again - "non-rules". They *are* rules, even if you don't use them.
You want to talk about "justifying" things I don't use? I don't play most of the armies in this game. Why include them if I don't play them? Oh yeah, because I'm not a selfish gakwad who can't respect that there's a world beyond my own, and enjoyment beyond my own field.
It's elementary school levels of respect here, my person. Just because stuff exists doesn't mean it's always for you, and it doesn't have to. Quit being so entitled, and accept that other people are allowed to enjoy stuff.
And, if we're being BRUTALLY honest here, in what possible world with GW do you think for a second that getting rid of Open Play would EVER make the rest of the game better? Pure speculation? Naive optimism? Blind faith?
There's absolutely no reason to believe that other modes of play would be improved if GW abandoned Open Play. You're just as likely to get another update of Space Hulk.
Smudge, why don't you start a thread whose title is "I like Open Play/playing with PL" for you, Blndmage, and any others who want to participate in that topic? I feel like you're trying to redefine this thread to something that it's not. It seems like most of the points you continually try to make are pretty off topic.
Andykp wrote: Rather than looking for insults and people trying to ruin your hobby where there is none, read the thread, read the comments. No one here has said points SHOULD go away. That’s fact. Many on the points side have said power level should,
Fezzik has heavily implied it, though I'm sure he'd walk that back to keep the bad faith argumentation going if called on it. Kanluwen has said it in previous threads.
Fezzik has repeatedly insisted "there is no benefit to keeping points" which is tantamount to saying "we have nothing to lose by getting rid of points" which heavily implies that he supports that idea.
Andykp wrote: Everyone defending power level in this discussion has said that they prefer that system but respect that others don’t. The lack of respect has come from the few points advocates on here like your self, who have no respect for how others enjoy the game. I’m sure the vast majority of folk who use points don’t mind at all that power level exists, it’s just the few that get on here a tell others they are doing it wrong, don’t know how to be happy and are too stupid to understand how they aren’t enjoying playing a game but in fact ruining it for everyone else.
The problem is you see any defense of PL as respectful and any criticism of it as disrespectful.
In the one post you say something sensible, IN YOUR OPINION power level is a worse system. That’s fine, it’s your opinion.
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
No, I said they produce a less balanced outcome than points. Which isn't the be-all end-all of the utility of a points system.
Andykp wrote: You start off discussing things like a sensible adult then go back to telling everyone they are wrong! So close.
Here's the issue - if I say "I like points more than PL" you say ok. If I say "I like points more than PL because x" you freak out because you perceive any attempt to justify a superiority of points over PL as an attack. Also, you bad-faith imply that people who like points more "care about winning," which is an insult that you still haven't retracted. This tells me that you *aren't* treating points advocates with respect, and are slimily trying to claim you are while insulting us.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: Another question for you, do you really think the likes of Hecaton and cadiansgtbob have been more respectful of others opinions and experiences in this thread than say smudge or fezzik?
I've definitely been more respectful than you, considering you are constantly trying to find ways to insult the people you disagree with as cutthroat powergamers when there's no evidence of that kind.
I’m pretty sure they don’t think so. They’re just doomsaying.
Nah, he wouldn't admit to it if called out to avoid copping to it, but he's heavily implying it via repeated statements to beg the question in this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: Folks who play PL should be allowed to talk and discuss the game without literally being told were playing the game wrong, even when we're straight up following what's in the books.
Fine, but this thread was started by people saying "points have no value as a system compared to PL."
So criticizing PL as a system is fair game. You don't get to act all shocked and attacked in this context.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: But plenty of people are insulting Blndmage for preferring to play with PL. Such as this quoted post.
That's not an insult. Stop playing defense for people you agree on this topic with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Also, why if points are always so much better, are the points so ALWAYS TERRIBLE? Why did Trajann VaWreckyoface cost 160 points for months?
If the points are terrible, so is the PL. Voidweavers were dramatically undercosted at release, and if we play by PL, they still are. GW can botch PL just like they botch point, and you need to stop disingenuously ignoring that idea when criticizing points as a system, because you've been repeatedly told this, and you should know better by now.
This.
This is the constant insulting tone leveled at PL based folks when we try to talk about playing the game.
You started it by being *very* hostile. You're not being insulted; you're just being responded to in kind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: Do you think that my disabilities put me in some edge case that you can discount?
Do you have dyscalculia?
You ableist donkey-cave
As I stated earlier in this very thread:
I play the game with kids sometimes. PL is really less energy intensive, I don't need to flip pages, it's right there, easy peasy. I don't care about the points per kill of whatever. Points change constantly, the Power Ratings update much less frequently.
I'm in constant pain.
I can't keep solid focus too long.
There's no solutions for that.
It's not about specific disabilities, I referenced dyscalculia as an example.
There are many disabilities (including chronic conditions) that make 40k difficult to play. I'm frequently in so much pain I forget which army I'm playing.
The Core Rules, Open Play, and by extension Power Levels, make the game playable for many people.
We literally play using the free Core Rules (including the basic terrain rule), published Open Play content, codecs/indexes, and Theaters of War, that's about it. If there's the desire and energy for multiple games in a day, we also use the CA18 battle honours/custom character rules.
Sometimes we use CPs and strats, but that's rarer than using the CA18 stuff.
How is that ableist?
Disabled players get forgotten about constantly. We're not edge cases, or an insignificant number ~20% of Canadians (~25% of Americans) are disabled.
If you don't understand why that specific response to my question is ableist, I'd suggest talking with disabled 40k players you know. And if you say "I don't know any"...think about that for a bit.
I am a disabled American veteran. I want that made abundantly clear. Still not seeing it as ableist.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: Smudge, why don't you start a thread whose title is "I like Open Play/playing with PL" for you, Blndmage, and any others who want to participate in that topic? I feel like you're trying to redefine this thread to something that it's not. It seems like most of the points you continually try to make are pretty off topic.
This thread is only "off-topic" because of the off-topic comments people have said about "Open Play and PL should be deleted". The ACTUAL TOPIC is "would you play 40k if points were gone". You don't need to start saying gak like "PL should be deleted" as part of that topic.
Read the list I posted on the previous page - THEY started this. They can end it by rescinding their comments, and accepting that other people have just as much right to enjoy the game their way.
I think Smudge's post has validity, if only due to the fact that I wasn't included in the anti PL/Open side, as I only mentioned that Open Play wasn't necessary and is mostly a marketing thing, but said that I prefer it being there over not. Smudge easily could have changed what I said and had two more examples, but didn't.
Just Tony wrote: I am a disabled American veteran. I want that made abundantly clear. Still not seeing it as ableist.
Thank you for informing us. Respectfully, you still don't speak for all disabled folk, in the same way that no marginalised group speaks for the entirely of that group, and you certainly shouldn't be using your condition to question the condition and feelings of others.
Able-bodied or not, no-one deserves to have their disability questioned over a bloody toy soldiers game.
And as for the wall of text that quoted me? Unless there is a disability that prevents someone from doing triple digit math yet somehow miraculously allows them to do single digit math, I fail to see how it is germane to trying to drop the -ist bomb to get an opponent to backtrack. Maybe we can name some conditions that ARE applicable to the accusation before we make it?
TheBestBucketHead wrote: I think Smudge's post has validity, if only due to the fact that I wasn't included in the anti PL/Open side, as I only mentioned that Open Play wasn't necessary and is mostly a marketing thing, but said that I prefer it being there over not. Smudge easily could have changed what I said and had two more examples, but didn't.
I saw your post, but you never made any claim that it should be removed in spite of the people saying they wanted to keep it, and so I have no issue with your comments! You demonstrated what many folks in this thread couldn't do - to comment and criticise Open Play and PLwithout seeking to take that option away, and for that, I respect your opinion. Thank you.
Voss wrote: Doesn't seem like a healthy place for a discussion a game mechanic to go.
We're not discussing a game mechanic though. BIndmage and I aren't even attempting to do that. All we're literally saying is that PL is useful FOR US. There doesn't need to be a discussion beyond that.
I AM talking about a game mechanic. If you aren't even attempting to do that, its bad faith.
If you don't want to discuss a game mechanic, then stop. That's 100% on you.
I'll stop when people learn to be able to discuss game mechanics without invalidating the people who play them and telling them that they shouldn't have space in the book.
It's really not that hard. You want to discuss game mechanics, do so without taking stuff away from other players.
I fundamentally cannot reconcile game mechanics and invalidating people.
If you want to have a healthy discussion, it needs to come from a place where we can all respect eachother's right to enjoy the game in a way that doesn't harm anyone else. The very discussion of "let's get rid of PL because it doesn't do anything for me" is antithetical to that. You want to discuss PL, you're welcome to discuss how you could improve it for yourself, or how you would prefer it if it wasn't the only system around, but talking of removing it? That's not okay, as it implies that the opinions of users like BIndmage and I aren't worth respecting - and to imply *that* would be a violation of Rule 1.
You're people with opinions on preferences on a game system, not Woobies that need to be defended at all costs. That seems far more disrespectful.
I'm not defending gak beyond people should be treated with respect without having to justify why. If that's too much for you, I kindly suggest you touch grass.
Yeah, 'touch grass' certainly seems respectful, now doesn't it? You'd get further without the hypocrisy.
'<mechanic> shouldn't exist' is not about respect or your justification of why. Its about the mechanic.
If you want to be offended that I'm treating you like I treat everyone else, uh... I guess one of us is missing something. I certainly don't like the alternative, though, because it isn't 'you get blanket immunity for your opinions on game mechanics.'
No-one cares about "blanket immunity". What they care for is not to be implied that they're inferior for enjoying the game a different way. You say about treating everyone the same - I don't see any other players having to justify endlessly why their version of the game shouldn't be scrapped.
You've missed a lot of my arguments with other people, then (but that's fine, its not something you need to keep track of, but its very much not as cut and dry as you assume).
But yes, blanket immunity is very much what I care about now. (or are you going to insist 'no one cares' again now that I've said it twice?). As you go back and forth applying respect unequally (ie, only when it shields your argument, but not when it comes to directly insulting people or 'creatively re-interpreting' their words to fit your argument), it seems very much on point.
I mean, SERIOUSLY, did you read the stuff I've quoted?
Yep. And ever time you insist that people are saying something about inferiority or respect or whatever rather than game mechanics, no matter how many times they tell you otherwise, the only conclusion I get is the disrespectful one is you.
---
It's elementary school levels of respect here, my person. Just because stuff exists doesn't mean it's always for you, and it doesn't have to. Quit being so entitled, and accept that other people are allowed to enjoy stuff.
And, if we're being BRUTALLY honest here, in what possible world with GW do you think for a second that getting rid of Open Play would EVER make the rest of the game better? Pure speculation? Naive optimism? Blind faith
Yep, elementary school levels of respect, ie that's its solely a one way street, right?
To correct your weird and wild assumptions... Uh, yeah. Lots of things exist that aren't for me. Water is wet. Sun comes up. Enjoy away, but grasp that I'm allowed to expression opinions on game mechanics even if you don't like those opinons.
Just Tony wrote:And as for the wall of text that quoted me? Unless there is a disability that prevents someone from doing triple digit math yet somehow miraculously allows them to do single digit math, I fail to see how it is germane to trying to drop the -ist bomb to get an opponent to backtrack. Maybe we can name some conditions that ARE applicable to the accusation before we make it?
BIndmage literally explained why they find single digits easier. Scroll back up.
Voss wrote: Doesn't seem like a healthy place for a discussion a game mechanic to go.
We're not discussing a game mechanic though. BIndmage and I aren't even attempting to do that. All we're literally saying is that PL is useful FOR US. There doesn't need to be a discussion beyond that.
I AM talking about a game mechanic. If you aren't even attempting to do that, its bad faith.
If you don't want to discuss a game mechanic, then stop. That's 100% on you.
I'll stop when people learn to be able to discuss game mechanics without invalidating the people who play them and telling them that they shouldn't have space in the book.
It's really not that hard. You want to discuss game mechanics, do so without taking stuff away from other players.
I fundamentally cannot reconcile game mechanics and invalidating people.
That sounds like a you problem. If you can't talk game mechanics without invalidating people's enjoyment, you need to take a leaf out of TheBestBucketHead's book.
I'm not defending gak beyond people should be treated with respect without having to justify why. If that's too much for you, I kindly suggest you touch grass.
Yeah, 'touch grass' certainly seems respectful, now doesn't it? You'd get further without the hypocrisy.
Oh, NOW you're calling for respect? Talk about hipocrisy.
Okay, let's start again - people don't need to justify why they enjoy their way of playing the game, and deserve to be able to play the game in a way that doesn't harm anyone else. Does that sound agreeable?
'<mechanic> shouldn't exist' is not about respect or your justification of why. Its about the mechanic.
A mechanic that people say helps them, and would negatively affect them if it was removed, a mechanic that literally does not affect you in the slightest. You are arguing to remove a *beneficial thing* because of... what?
If you want to be offended that I'm treating you like I treat everyone else, uh... I guess one of us is missing something. I certainly don't like the alternative, though, because it isn't 'you get blanket immunity for your opinions on game mechanics.'
No-one cares about "blanket immunity". What they care for is not to be implied that they're inferior for enjoying the game a different way. You say about treating everyone the same - I don't see any other players having to justify endlessly why their version of the game shouldn't be scrapped.
You've missed a lot of my arguments with other people, then (but that's fine, its not something you need to keep track of, but its very much not as cut and dry as you assume).
But yes, blanket immunity is very much what I care about now. (or are you going to insist 'no one cares' again now that I've said it twice?). As you go back and forth applying respect unequally (ie, only when it shields your argument, but not when it comes to directly insulting people or 'creatively re-interpreting' their words to fit your argument), it seems very much on point.
I've literally never seen any other group get called on to justify their preferences as much as PL and Open Play folks are - perhaps I'm missing something, and you can point me towards them.
Yeah, I disrespected you just now - now scroll to the previous page, and read the list I made of every other instance where I've been implicitly disrespected, and tell me that maybe things are a little bit uneven in your selective outrage.
Sure, I'll apologise and rescind my disrespect. Will you do the same? (Also, no creative reinterpretation necessary - I quoted them all verbatim without need to twist anything. If I wanted to twist quotes, I could so easily have done so, but I made things easy for me, and chose the most blatant examples.)
I mean, SERIOUSLY, did you read the stuff I've quoted?
Yep. And ever time you insist that people are saying something about inferiority or respect or whatever rather than game mechanics, no matter how many times they tell you otherwise, the only conclusion I get is the disrespectful one is you.
So, you didn't read them then. I genuinely have no logical idea how you could read some of those and not see "oh yeah, that's not a very nice thing to say", but hey - choose your selective outrage, I suppose.
I came into this thread politely asking that people knock it off with calling for things to be removed and banned. People chose to double down on that, and ignored all voices that said "hey, this is kinda insulting". You don't get to play the victim now.
Now, as I said - happy to rescind my disrespect, if you'll do the same, and continue doing so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote: I'm allowed to expression opinions on game mechanics even if you don't like those opinons.
No, you're allowed opinions that don't gak over the validity of other people enjoying the game. That's basic respect and civility.
You should learn from other users in this thread how to do so. You'll notice that I didn't quote every anti-PL opinion, because I don't care if you like or dislike PL - I care when folks start saying "screw you, you don't get to enjoy this thing that doesn't even affect me any more".
Voss wrote: Doesn't seem like a healthy place for a discussion a game mechanic to go.
We're not discussing a game mechanic though. BIndmage and I aren't even attempting to do that. All we're literally saying is that PL is useful FOR US. There doesn't need to be a discussion beyond that.
I AM talking about a game mechanic. If you aren't even attempting to do that, its bad faith.
If you don't want to discuss a game mechanic, then stop. That's 100% on you.
I'll stop when people learn to be able to discuss game mechanics without invalidating the people who play them and telling them that they shouldn't have space in the book.
It's really not that hard. You want to discuss game mechanics, do so without taking stuff away from other players.
This is absurd.
PL is a game mechanic.
Let's take the example I mentioned previously - 7th edition Formations. Many were broken beyond belief. According to you, discussing the possibility of removing them is verboten if one person says they enjoy them. That's insane. A mechanic/rule/design approach should be able to be discussed freely on its merits. According to you, any such discussion can be immediately vetoed by any one person simply saying "I enjoy <thing>". That's not an attitude I can agree with.
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
Because it IS objectively worse, LOL Is a Plasma Pistol worth the same as a Las pistol, yes or no?
No it’s not,
Then should they be priced the same, yes or no?
I do not see the point in pricing them differently when it makes so little difference.
You didn't answer the question.
Should they be priced the same when one is objectively better, yes or no?
Quote me fully and you will see that I did. I said for me, price them the same.
But one is objectively better, yes or no?
No, it's inherently Subjective. I like the look of the Laspistol. See? Others might find painting the Plasma way too difficult. Or hate the look of the Bolt Pistol. It's inherently subjective. It's not a Binary choice.
What a clown ass response.
So the person that thinks Plasma looks cooler is already at an advantage when two players take the same exact squads. They don't pay for the weapon that they think "looks cooler" and gets an immediate advantage, yes or no?
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
Because it IS objectively worse, LOL Is a Plasma Pistol worth the same as a Las pistol, yes or no?
No it’s not,
Then should they be priced the same, yes or no?
I do not see the point in pricing them differently when it makes so little difference.
You didn't answer the question.
Should they be priced the same when one is objectively better, yes or no?
Quote me fully and you will see that I did. I said for me, price them the same.
But one is objectively better, yes or no?
We are going in silly circles here and the knock out blow you want to land will never become because as has been pointed out many times, you are wrong points do not objectively make the game better. It’s SUBJECTIVE!
One piece of gear can be better on the table top. But that’s doesn’t mean it has to be priced differently.
fething WHAT?
There's literally no disadvantages to equipping models better under Power Level. The dumb ass excuse of "well you don't have to worry if you self regulate and only take what looks cool" means crap if one person thinks the already better weapons look cooler to begin with. So let's ignore your silly notion of "I like laspistol better".
Is there a disadvantage to taking the Plasma Pistol over the Laspistol, yes or no?
And the fact that you can’t fathom that that wouldn’t be a problem for a lot of people and the way they approach the game is why power levels are not for you. And that’s fine. Use points and be happy. The fact that power levEls exist and are used and defended should tell you that they work for some people. Surely you can respect those peoples experiences? You don’t have to agree.
You avoid the argument and are going to the attitude of CAAC that y'all claim doesn't exist.
If two people are taking the same exact army, except one person uses all Plasma Pistols because they think they look cooler, that player is at an inherent advantage, yes or no?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: So, going through all instances (at least that I've seen in this thread) where a user has claimed that PL/Open Play should be removed or is otherwise "incorrect".
- HMBC, page 3: We have points. Use points. Don't create a sorta-kinda half-way system that uses smaller numbers to add up.
- CadianSgtBob, page 10: Open Play doesn't need to exist at all
- Slipspace, page 10: Open Play absolutely doesn't need to exist
- Voss, page 10: No, it is there. Its taking up book space, rules space and development time. If it isn't used, its a negative effect.
- CSB, page 10: But why does that require explicitly naming Open Play as an official Way™ To™ Play™ The™ Game™? You don't need to create an entire game mode that consists of "all rules are optional" or tell a parent they're playing Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™ Rules™ when they set up a game with a single infantry squad on each side to teach their kid the basic rules. People were doing all that stuff long before GW made Open Play a thing.
- CSB, page 10: It does not need a separate point system to function and removing PL is in no way the same as removing Crusade.
- CSB, page 11: Removing Open Play and the concept of Official™ Play™ Types™ with their own separate fundamental rule systems is what needs to happen.
- CSB, page 11: What I want is for PL to cease to exist at all. - CSB, page 11: So what is the official Open™ Play™ adding to this situation? (Also, hey, look! It's you asking people to justify their perspectives how ow they enjoy things!)
(It is at this point that I enter the thread, and ask that people stop people be allowed to enjoy what they want without options being removed. I should note that, at this point, the ONLY advocates for removing anything in the thread have been the above users and comments.)
- CSB, page 11: I want PL gone because the sole useful function I've ever seen from it is CAAC gatekeepers using it as a way to tell competitive players they aren't welcome in a group.
- Voss, page 11: Open play is what people were doing for years, decades without it. So yeah, it needs some justification for taking up space in the book.
- CSB, page 12: If you can't have a discussion of the virtues of different game mechanics without building straw man arguments then there is no point in talking to you. (Note - this wasn't a discussion about the virtues of different game mechanics. You made it so. You can also "discuss game mechanics" without telling people that their way of playing should be scrapped.) - Karol, page 12: What the open mind set does to some people, is that it lets them to be lazy, not learn the game rules and claim that is an acceptable thing
- Karol, page 12: All [Open Play] does it makes the game worse the general public
- CSB, page 12: Do we really need an entire second point system so you have to type fewer digits?
- CSB, page 12: You can say it, but unlike PL the normal point system has a reason to exist.
- CSB, page 12: Open Play is a solution in need of a problem
(Insert Andykp's comment)
- CSB, page 12: Who exactly are these people that want to change the rules but are so obsessed with the concept of officialness that they can't make any changes without GW telling them it's ok to do it?
- Overread, page 13: The premise of the thread is GW taking points away and going full power level only. (Note: this is a comment being made in response to me saying "hey, let's just let people enjoy themselves with their preferred game without telling people we should be scrapping points or PL", and claiming that this is justification for folks saying PL should be deleted. I hasten to mention again: the ONLY mention of points being removed outside of the hypothetical question posed by the Anydkp as done as a rhetorical question IN RESPONSE to all the various comments made above. There is very clearly one "side" which is make more incendiary comments here.) - CSB, page 14: Because this is a discussion of points vs. PL. If you don't want to see people disagreeing with your chosen system then maybe you shouldn't read this thread? (Yet again, this idea that this discussion has been in any way fair in terms of how people are arguing. We have pro/ambivialent PL folks who have made ONE rhetorical question on the validity of points, versus EVERY INSTANCE LISTED ABOVE calling for PL to be scrapped or deleted or otherwise being useless. This isn't a discussion. It's thinly veiled ignorance.) - CSB, page 14: GW needs to stop investing in PL and focus on the better point system.
- CSB, page 14: any time spent on PL is wasted development time that could be spent on doing something useful
- Karol, page 15: A good system for people who don't really want to play the game.
(At this point, BIndmage brings up dyscalculia as a reason that some of the folks they play with use PL for ease of calculation, as well as their own personal experiences of pain - lived experiences and reason why PL helps them.)
- Slipspace, page 15: You're essentially asking me not to voice a legitimately held opinion because it disagrees with your preferred method of building lists, which is just asking for discussion to be shut down because it disagrees with your opinion. (Said opinion literally being "you're playing the game wrong and shouldn't be supported to keep doing what you're doing) - Karol, page 15: So people who don't like or want PL don't get anything, specialy as you said it yourself you don't care about them or how they play, from respecting PL. Each minute design spends on it is a minute not spend on points etc.
- CSB, page 16: There is no reason to have two separate point systems when a single point system can cover all game types.
- CSB, page 16: So we can discuss the scenario where GW removes the point system you don't like but if we discuss the scenario where GW removes the point system you do like it's unacceptable? (A response to me saying that we shouldn't be *advocating for removing things that people like* - the above comments in this list aren't "discussing GW removing the system that I like", they're YOU calling to remove them, and other users saying that we're playing the game incorrectly. These are two very different things, and an intellectually dishonest argument on your end.) - EviscerationPlague, page 16: Because PL doesn't DESERVE the bare minimum effort it gets to begin with.
- CSB, page 16: It absolutely is a failure. If system A does everything that system B does and also does other things then B is a failure. It is completely redundant and has no reason to exist. And no, listbuilding with PL is not "incredibly faster and easier". (CSB, ignoring every comment that BIndmage has made, or just being ableist.) - CSB, page 16: PL is unnecessary rules bloat that, at best, represents a waste of development resources that could be better spent elsewhere
- CSB, page 16: So basic game design says you simplify things and remove the redundant system.
- CSB, page 17: I am also aware that their reasons do not hold up to examination (again, erasing the experiences of folks like BIndmage) - Hecaton, page 17: Some people's preferences are for an objectively worse game. (Emphasis mine. I don't care if you don't like PL, but claiming it's "objectively worse" is the issue here.) - CSB, page 17: PL is objectively worse at this than the normal point system, period, and because its errors are inherent to what PL does it will always be worse. And basic game design says that when you have a redundant system which is just a worse version of an existing system you delete it for the sake of simplicity and focus. And no, I do not accept the claim that PL represents a sufficient time savings for it to be worth keeping.
- Overread, page 18: People do the wrong things in hobbies all the time [...] You can most certainly play with your toys in an incorrect manner.
- Overread, page 18: You are going to hit the wall of people who know more than you; who understand the game better than you; who play better (yes you can measure that in a game which, at its core, is competitive structured). Sometimes you just have to accept that your understanding only goes so far and that others are going further.
- CSB, page 18: And who is stopping you? You came into a thread about points vs. PL and joined the discussion, nobody came into your house and demanded that you justify your incorrect way of playing the game. (A response to BIndmage saying that folks who play PL shouldn't have to put up with being told that their way of playing should be scrapped - as I previously have mentioned in this thread, the person stopping BIndmage from enjoying themselves is YOU, CadianSgtBob, because you have repeatedly said that BIndmage's preferred way to play IS NOT VALID and insulted them.) - CSB, page 19: PL has no reason to exist.
And now going through all instances where someone has said that points/matched play should be removed, or are otherwise "incorrect".
- Andykp, page 12: Let’s flip the old argument of why you need PL or open rules, let’s ask why do you need points? (Now, you'll notice that even though I've included this, I shouldn't need to. Why? Because it's a hypothetical and rhetorical question! It's not being serious, it's not being unbidden, it's coming after ALL of the previous gak on page 12 and prior that I've labelled, and honestly exists only to attempt to show the previous users some degree of self awareness, which they seem to have missed. This isn't even a serious suggestion, but I am including it solely to say that the first - and possibly only - time that anything was even mentioned about points being removed was done as a rhetorical question.)
- FezzikDaBullgryn, page 15: So, again, is there really any value in GW not going PL only? From what I'm seeing, most if not all the people in the NAY camp, would still keep playing, one person has said they'll stop playing altogether, but as they have admitted, they are not a competitive player. (A comment from the OP, posing a topical question. Note, this is still not *advocating* or even saying the GW "should" do anything, but posing a question AS THE OP. For what it's worth, yes, I believe there is value in GW not going PL only, because clearly, people value points, and their choice of value should be respected.
Comparing this to some of the previous comments shows they're not even in the same league.)
- FezzikDaBullgryn, page 18: We cannot balance 40k via points anymore. (18 pages in to get this comment, and honestly, considering the amount of times that pro-points folk have said, not incorrectly, that PL is just a different form of points, this comment doesn't exactly defend PL either. It's a "burn EVERYTHING to the ground" option. But hey, I'm going to give y'all the benefit of the doubt.)
I rest my case. That's, what, one, maybe two cases of people calling for points to be removed, and no cases where someone who plays points is called "wrong" or "incorrect", versus... I lost count. Truly, I did, and I don't want to depress myself by actually counting.
You want to turn this into some kind of "versus" match? Let's look at the "versus" of who's actually treating people's experiences and preferences with respect before we even begin to continue "debating" this silly topic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote:How is that ableist?
Because it ignores the legitimate issues that BIndmage and other players with the game have with using points, and invalidates them when they actually find utility in a different system. It is implicit erasure of their legitimate experiences, and invalidation of them as *human beings* based on their bodies.
It is ableist because it expects them to make do with systems that are not designed or accommodating for their different needs, and then seeking to remove the options that they do have.
It is like banning ramps for wheelchair users, and then wondering why wheelchair users have an issue with that when there's perfectly good stairs everywhere else.
Does that explain the situation?
Lord Damocles wrote:1) Call opposition -ist or -phobe
2) Win argument regardless of other factors
3) ???
4) Virtue!
Just calling a spade a spade. 'Facts don't care about your feelings' (and other buzzphrases), and the comment that was made was a factually ableist one.
Sorry, just calling things as they are.
Dyscalcula isn't something to use as an argument because they're going to struggle with both points and PL anyway, almost to the same level.
Give them access to a List Building app and it does the work for them.
Power Level is less granular than points. If the designers were perfect at balancing the game, PL would be less balanced than points, due to its broader nature. And, despite that not being true, I still play points. Part of that is at least the hope that the game will achieve more balance, part of it is I like fiddling with lists and scraping together little synergies, which isn't as fun to do with PL, part of it is familiarity, part of it is that the people I play with use points... There's a lot of reasons.
If GW switched over to full PL, I don't think it'd affect my playtime that much-it would affect how much I enjoy putting a list together, but that's a small part of the game.
Now, as I said - happy to rescind my disrespect, if you'll do the same, and continue doing so.
Yeah, no. I'm not going to give you a conditional on the basis that you get to decide when you're 'implicitly disrespected' by topics that aren't about you.
I'm not going to apologize to a game mechanic, because that is still ALL that this is about, regardless of why you've decided its all about you.
Which is funny, so I'm just going to feed this back to you
It's elementary school levels of respect here, my person. Just because stuff exists doesn't mean it's always for you, and it doesn't have to. Quit being so entitled,
Its not always about you. You can reflect on this, or not.
Hopefully you won't try to shut down too many more discussions in the future, but either way, I'm not going to care if you decide to be offended by people not liking game mechanics.
Reminder that the very premise of the thread is about the theoretical removal of a mechanic, points. It's in the thread title and first sentence of the OP.
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
Because it IS objectively worse, LOL Is a Plasma Pistol worth the same as a Las pistol, yes or no?
No it’s not,
Then should they be priced the same, yes or no?
I do not see the point in pricing them differently when it makes so little difference.
You didn't answer the question.
Should they be priced the same when one is objectively better, yes or no?
Quote me fully and you will see that I did. I said for me, price them the same.
But one is objectively better, yes or no?
No, it's inherently Subjective. I like the look of the Laspistol. See? Others might find painting the Plasma way too difficult. Or hate the look of the Bolt Pistol. It's inherently subjective. It's not a Binary choice.
What a clown ass response.
So the person that thinks Plasma looks cooler is already at an advantage when two players take the same exact squads. They don't pay for the weapon that they think "looks cooler" and gets an immediate advantage, yes or no?
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.
Because it IS objectively worse, LOL Is a Plasma Pistol worth the same as a Las pistol, yes or no?
No it’s not,
Then should they be priced the same, yes or no?
I do not see the point in pricing them differently when it makes so little difference.
You didn't answer the question.
Should they be priced the same when one is objectively better, yes or no?
Quote me fully and you will see that I did. I said for me, price them the same.
But one is objectively better, yes or no?
We are going in silly circles here and the knock out blow you want to land will never become because as has been pointed out many times, you are wrong points do not objectively make the game better. It’s SUBJECTIVE!
One piece of gear can be better on the table top. But that’s doesn’t mean it has to be priced differently.
fething WHAT?
There's literally no disadvantages to equipping models better under Power Level. The dumb ass excuse of "well you don't have to worry if you self regulate and only take what looks cool" means crap if one person thinks the already better weapons look cooler to begin with. So let's ignore your silly notion of "I like laspistol better".
Is there a disadvantage to taking the Plasma Pistol over the Laspistol, yes or no?
And the fact that you can’t fathom that that wouldn’t be a problem for a lot of people and the way they approach the game is why power levels are not for you. And that’s fine. Use points and be happy. The fact that power levEls exist and are used and defended should tell you that they work for some people. Surely you can respect those peoples experiences? You don’t have to agree.
You avoid the argument and are going to the attitude of CAAC that y'all claim doesn't exist.
If two people are taking the same exact army, except one person uses all Plasma Pistols because they think they look cooler, that player is at an inherent advantage, yes or no?
[/spoiler]
I thought we had done this. I have answered your question soooo many times.
Yes plasma pistols would provide an advantage, but one so marginal that I do not feel that it needs mitigating for by altering the cost of the unit.
Call that what you want but I won’t be answering it again.
Now do have anything useful to add or are you just trolling at this point?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: Reminder that the very premise of the thread is about the theoretical removal of a mechanic, points. It's in the thread title and first sentence of the OP.
And a reminder that throughout the thread those that like PL have not said points should be removed. The consensus seems to be that most people on the PL side prefer having both systems.
Now, as I said - happy to rescind my disrespect, if you'll do the same, and continue doing so.
Yeah, no. I'm not going to give you a conditional on the basis that you get to decide when you're 'implicitly disrespected' by topics that aren't about you.
I'm not going to apologize to a game mechanic, because that is still ALL that this is about, regardless of why you've decided its all about you.
Which is funny, so I'm just going to feed this back to you
It's elementary school levels of respect here, my person. Just because stuff exists doesn't mean it's always for you, and it doesn't have to. Quit being so entitled,
Its not always about you. You can reflect on this, or not.
Hopefully you won't try to shut down too many more discussions in the future, but either way, I'm not going to care if you decide to be offended by people not liking game mechanics.
So can you at least accept that PL work for some people who prefer using them?
make them bigger.
