And your "explanations" fail to hold up to even the slightest scrutiny. You claim that "time savings" is important but that time savings is a negligible difference over the entire process of creating a list, and you spend more time than you save arguing on this forum to defend PL. You claim that you don't need the accuracy of normal points or don't care about balance but you can't provide any convincing argument for how having that accuracy would hurt you. So we have to come to one of two conclusions here: either your reasons for liking PL are weak and not worth considering, or you value PL for gatekeeping purposes and the other reasons are nothing more than an attempt to defend PL without admitting the real appeal of it.
You are the gate keeper, because YOU don't want other people to have fun unless they're having it your way.
The same can be said about literally every conceivable change to the game. If you want AoC you're gatekeeping. If you don't want AoC you're gatekeeping. And yet somehow your redundant point system is the only time you consider advocating changes to the game to be gatekeeping.
We're fine with you using them- even in Crusade if you want to and can find other people who will agree to it.
You: "it's not gatekeeping because you can house rule Crusade to use a different point system even if GW doesn't support it."
Also you: "if GW doesn't give me an official point system where upgrades cost zero points that's gatekeeping."
And your "explanations" fail to hold up to even the slightest scrutiny. You claim that "time savings" is important but that time savings is a negligible difference over the entire process of creating a list, and you spend more time than you save arguing on this forum to defend PL. You claim that you don't need the accuracy of normal points or don't care about balance but you can't provide any convincing argument for how having that accuracy would hurt you. So we have to come to one of two conclusions here: either your reasons for liking PL are weak and not worth considering, or you value PL for gatekeeping purposes and the other reasons are nothing more than an attempt to defend PL without admitting the real appeal of it.
You are the gate keeper, because YOU don't want other people to have fun unless they're having it your way.
The same can be said about literally every conceivable change to the game. If you want AoC you're gatekeeping. If you don't want AoC you're gatekeeping. And yet somehow your redundant point system is the only time you consider advocating changes to the game to be gatekeeping.
We're fine with you using them- even in Crusade if you want to and can find other people who will agree to it.
You: "it's not gatekeeping because you can house rule Crusade to use a different point system even if GW doesn't support it."
Also you: "if GW doesn't give me an official point system where upgrades cost zero points that's gatekeeping."
Nice double standard there.
People can like what they want. That is enough. There doesn't need to be some quantum of validity to what someone likes.
The reason people keep coming back is because you're refusing to treat their experiences and opinions as valid, you can disagree, but to outright tell them they're objectively wrong for enjoying something you don't is hard to understand.
Them using PL does no harm, you adamantly telling them they're wrong for doing so and needing to have a method of game drafting removed, which has no impact on you comes across as gatekeeping.
I don't say that to be horrible, I do it on the slim chance you'll either introspect or at least retrospect on the situation and hopefully in the future consider that other people's enjoyment of something doesn't have to negatively impact your enjoyment of something and to want to exclude people or want to force them to do something they have no interest in, isn't healthy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: What do you consider gatekeeping, CSB? Define it, if you could, for us.
Cambridge dictionary:
the activity of trying to control who gets particular resources, power, or opportunities, and who does not
JNAProductions wrote: What do you consider gatekeeping, CSB? Define it, if you could, for us.
Gatekeeping = excluding people from a group with deliberate intent to do so.
"I like PL because it sends a message to competitive players that they aren't welcome here" is gatekeeping. "PL is a bad system and should be removed" is not gatekeeping even if the effect of the change would be people leaving. Same thing with other rule changes. Adding AoC is not gatekeeping, removing AoC is not gatekeeping. None of these changes are done for the purpose of keeping particular people/groups out of the community. And I have made it very clear that the normal point system works just fine for casual/narrative play and that I expect most PL players would continue playing with the normal point system if/when PL is removed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: People can like what they want. That is enough. There doesn't need to be some quantum of validity to what someone likes.
There needs to be some validity if they want anyone to care about their preferences when considering potential changes to the game. If the only argument for keeping PL is "I like it" then PL needs to go.
Them using PL does no harm
But the existence of PL does. Wasting development time on a redundant point system is bad. Having PL apply for things like reserve costs in matched play is bad. Requiring house rules to get rid of the broken point system in Crusade is bad. If those people want to make up their own PL equivalent and play with that once PL is removed I don't care, but PL needs to be removed from the game as published by GW.
I don't want Competitive players to leave the hobby, which is why I started this thread in a way. They are the leg holding up this hobby. GW wouldn't have record profits, because the casual people damn sure weren't panic buying 9th during covid. That was the Competitive peoples. So if competetive dies, or leaves for another game, 40k will likely go away as well. So, if GW in there horribly straight track record of making horribly bad predictions of what their fans want, were to go FULL PL in 10th, would that shift a large portion of the player base.
CSB, I respect your opinion, but it is an extremely small minority. The "I won't play anymore if X happens" camp. I think most people here would continue to buy Warcrack 40k until the nurse takes away the credit card.
And your "explanations" fail to hold up to even the slightest scrutiny.
Others on this site have agreed with my points of view, as do the folks with whom I actually play. I think you overestimate your own importance as an arbiter of objective truth... Especially given that objective truth is so incredibly rare, there's a very compelling argument that it doesn't exist at all.
You claim that "time savings" is important but that time savings is a negligible difference over the entire process of creating a list, and you spend more time than you save arguing on this forum to defend PL.
It's possible that I may have said something that you interpreted as "time savings"... But I don't actually think so.
You claim that you don't need the accuracy of normal points or don't care about balance
Once again, nuance in diction and language is important to some people. You may think "Balance is not my highest priority" means "balance isn't important" but it doesn't. In fact, I even modified my original stance concerning units (like the Baneblade) where the swing can be particularly egregious. In those cases, it wouldn't be a terrible idea to include some scaling in the PL cost.
but you can't provide any convincing argument for how having that accuracy would hurt you.
Nobody can provide a convincing argument to a person who has predetermined that they will refuse to be convinced. I started my first Crusade about 3 months after 9th's BRB dropped, and it has been running without a reset ever since. If I was using points, I'd have had to recalculate the cost of everything at least six times since then. As it is, I've done it once. I like that, and so do other Crusaders. We don't want change every 3 months... Or rather, we want our changes to be motivated by story events rather than "Balance Patches" which never seem to satisfy anyone anyways.
Multiple people have told you they feel the same way. You don't care, because you just want it to be your way and only your way. Well I'm sorry bro- this ed? The designers aren't in step with the way you think. There are other games. Go play them. Or go play points. No one is stopping you. When the Guard dex drops, there's a good chance that anything that is scaring you about GW converting to a PL only system will have been nothing but sturm und drang anyway. And even if not, none of us who support PL are actually advocating for the removal of points- most of us recognize that a fanbase can only be as big as it is broad.
Homogenize it, and you alienate and disenfranchise people. Most of us don't want that. We realize that it would have an impact on the company's ability to keep producing the high volume to which we've become accustomed.
So we have to come to one of two conclusions here: either your reasons for liking PL are weak and not worth considering, or you value PL for gatekeeping purposes and the other reasons are nothing more than an attempt to defend PL without admitting the real appeal of it.
There is a third possible conclusion, but it isn't very diplomatic or kind to you, so I'll keep it to myself.
And yet somehow your redundant point system is the only time you consider advocating changes to the game to be gatekeeping.
It makes a lot of sense if you actually think about it: you're talking about the wholescale removal of a mechanic that many people like for different reasons, despite the fact that you've been given other viable alternatives by the company itself, and you and anyone else who hates PL, by conscious design, are not required to use it.
Other suggestions are more constructive and reasonable. I'm willing to talk about those ideas and discus their merits and shortcomings, and how such changes might be most successfully implemented.
The whole scale removal of game sizes, or list building systems is neither constructive nor reasonable given the obvious appeal of those sytems to many people, and again, for wildly varying reasons.
We're fine with you using them- even in Crusade if you want to and can find other people who will agree to it.
You: "it's not gatekeeping because you can house rule Crusade to use a different point system even if GW doesn't support it."
No, the reason it isn't gate keeping, because I'm not taking anything away from people or preventing them from doing whatever it is that they want to do. ANd GW themselves have published the 20 points = 1 PL formula. They recommend PL for Crusade for sure, but they know that people have always House-ruled and they expect as much out of this edition. It is specifically the reason why they named their company Games WORKSHOP.
Besides, it wasn't all that long ago that you were advocating for the removal of Crusade altogether (more gatekeeping) and you're still advocating for the removal of Open (more gatekeeping).
You have the system that works for you. Use it.
I have the system that works for me. I will use it.
Also you: "if GW doesn't give me an official point system where upgrades cost zero points that's gatekeeping."
No- GW HAS given me an official list building system that doesn't have costs for most equipment upgrades. It's you wanting to take it away from us just because YOU don't like it that is gate keeping. If it was in anyway preventing you from playing the way you wanted play, you might have a leg to stand on.
No double standard. Just your failure to understand that conceptually, the term "Gatekeeping" refers to "Making one's own interests exclusive" - which, when it comes to you and I, clearly only you are doing.
PenitentJake wrote: No double standard. Just your failure to understand that conceptually, the term "Gatekeeping" refers to "Making one's own interests exclusive" - which, when it comes to you and I, clearly only you are doing.
No it isn't. That's not what gatekeeping means at all. Gatekeeping is the deliberate exclusion of certain people as the direct goal of an action.
Suggesting that GW move from plastic to resin is not gatekeeping. It has the likely effect of increasing the cost of the game and that increase in cost may result in some people being unable to play but that isn't the goal of the change. The goal of moving to resin would be that resin allows a higher level of detail and a more desirable product for some people, the exclusion of some people is just an unfortunate side effect of the change and those people would still be welcomed into the community if they could find a way to afford the new kits.
Removing PL is not gatekeeping. A tiny minority of players may stop playing as a result but the goal is to improve the game by removing a redundant and error-prone system. Anyone who currently uses PL would be welcome to remain, and I expect that the vast majority of them would continue to play.
The fact that you have decided that a slightly different point system would be a dealbreaker for you does not mean that GW is obligated to continue to provide it for you. Nor does it mean that any suggestion which threatens your preferred system is gatekeeping. You are perfectly welcome to stay and use the normal point system once it becomes the only point system.
PenitentJake wrote: No double standard. Just your failure to understand that conceptually, the term "Gatekeeping" refers to "Making one's own interests exclusive" - which, when it comes to you and I, clearly only you are doing.
No it isn't. That's not what gatekeeping means at all. Gatekeeping is the deliberate exclusion of certain people as the direct goal of an action.
Suggesting that GW move from plastic to resin is not gatekeeping. It has the likely effect of increasing the cost of the game and that increase in cost may result in some people being unable to play but that isn't the goal of the change. The goal of moving to resin would be that resin allows a higher level of detail and a more desirable product for some people, the exclusion of some people is just an unfortunate side effect of the change and those people would still be welcomed into the community if they could find a way to afford the new kits.
Removing PL is not gatekeeping. A tiny minority of players may stop playing as a result but the goal is to improve the game by removing a redundant and error-prone system. Anyone who currently uses PL would be welcome to remain, and I expect that the vast majority of them would continue to play.
The fact that you have decided that a slightly different point system would be a dealbreaker for you does not mean that GW is obligated to continue to provide it for you. Nor does it mean that any suggestion which threatens your preferred system is gatekeeping. You are perfectly welcome to stay and use the normal point system once it becomes the only point system.
Results matter. So does motive.
Would you accept "I didn't mean to burn your house down," as good enough, if someone burned it down with some fireworks? It wasn't their intention to do so-not in the slightest! They just wanted a cool fireworks show-but the end result is you now need a new home.
Moreover, given your attitude in this thread, I have a hankering suspicion that it's more than just "Points better" guiding your reasons. Spite is a word that comes to mind.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: CSB, I respect your opinion, but it is an extremely small minority. The "I won't play anymore if X happens" camp. I think most people here would continue to buy Warcrack 40k until the nurse takes away the credit card.
But that's kind of the point I was making. I would probably keep playing even if the game moved to strictly PL, although I'd prefer to find a group that plays an older edition or third party rules if GW is going to abandon their current efforts to provide a balanced game. And I suspect that the same is true for the vast majority of people who use PL, if PL was removed they'd continue playing with the normal point system. And in both cases the people whose preferred system became the only system would still be perfectly happy for the other side to stay in the game. So it's ridiculous to claim that making a change to the rules is "gatekeeping" just because there are people who don't like that change.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Would you accept "I didn't mean to burn your house down," as good enough, if someone burned it down with some fireworks? It wasn't their intention to do so-not in the slightest! They just wanted a cool fireworks show-but the end result is you now need a new home.
That's a pretty hyperbolic comparison. Removing PL does not mean destroying the game, it's just a few minutes of extra list building time occasionally. A better analogy would be if that fireworks show burned a small patch of grass, and in that case I wouldn't be really upset about the need to toss a handful of grass seeds onto the dead spot. I would prefer that it not happen, obviously, but it's hardly the end of the world if it does.
And results don't really matter when gatekeeping, by definition, requires deliberate intent to exclude a targeted group. Even if you argue that removing PL would be a bad thing it absolutely is not gatekeeping.
Moreover, given your attitude in this thread, I have a hankering suspicion that it's more than just "Points better" guiding your reasons. Spite is a word that comes to mind.
And I have a hankering suspicion that you're defending PL for CAAC reasons, not because it's a system with any practical value. So I guess we're even then.
I don't even play PL. I use points-but I'm capable of empathizing with others. I know that my preferences aren't the only one.
And the comparison might be extreme, but the analogy holds true-motive matters, but so does the end result.
Making the game worse for some (people who enjoy PL) for no benefit (people who prefer points have points, right now, and nothing stops us from playing with them) is not a positive outcome.
JNAProductions wrote: I don't even play PL. I use points-but I'm capable of empathizing with others. I know that my preferences aren't the only one.
And I have a hankering suspicion you're lying about not using PL. See how easy it is to have hankering suspicions and pretend they have anything to do with reality?
Making the game worse for some (people who enjoy PL) for no benefit (people who prefer points have points, right now, and nothing stops us from playing with them) is not a positive outcome.
Again, "this has a negative outcome" is not the same as gatekeeping. Whether or not removing PL is a good idea it is absolutely not gatekeeping.
JNAProductions wrote: I don't even play PL. I use points-but I'm capable of empathizing with others. I know that my preferences aren't the only one.
And I have a hankering suspicion you're lying about not using PL. See how easy it is to have hankering suspicions and pretend they have anything to do with reality?
Making the game worse for some (people who enjoy PL) for no benefit (people who prefer points have points, right now, and nothing stops us from playing with them) is not a positive outcome.
Again, "this has a negative outcome" is not the same as gatekeeping. Whether or not removing PL is a good idea it is absolutely not gatekeeping.
You can check any list I've posted to the forum. All use points. I believe my first 8th edition list was in 2017. Used points.
Last one was about three months ago-also points.
Every list in between I posted? Points.
And you agree, then, that removing something people enjoy with no gain for anyone else is a bad thing?
JNAProductions wrote: You can check any list I've posted to the forum. All use points. I believe my first 8th edition list was in 2017. Used points.
Last one was about three months ago-also points.
Every list in between I posted? Points.
I have a hankering suspicion you bribed the mods to edit those posts to let you win this argument and every one of them was originally submitted with PL.
And you agree, then, that removing something people enjoy with no gain for anyone else is a bad thing?
I agree to no such thing, please do not dishonestly misquote me on that. I said that whether or not removing PL is a good idea it is not gatekeeping, nowhere did I say that it is a bad thing. Removing PL is absolutely a good thing with gain for non-PL payers.
JNAProductions wrote: You can check any list I've posted to the forum. All use points. I believe my first 8th edition list was in 2017. Used points.
Last one was about three months ago-also points.
Every list in between I posted? Points.
I have a hankering suspicion you bribed the mods to edit those posts to let you win this argument and every one of them was originally submitted with PL.
And you agree, then, that removing something people enjoy with no gain for anyone else is a bad thing?
I agree to no such thing, please do not dishonestly misquote me on that. I said that whether or not removing PL is a good idea it is not gatekeeping, nowhere did I say that it is a bad thing. Removing PL is absolutely a good thing with gain for non-PL payers.
Yes, clearly I am spending hundreds of dollars and getting the forum itself modified (so that way it doesn't show that a mod edited it) to win an internet argument. You got me, well-played. /s
What benefit is there to removing PL? I can reasonably see excising it from reference in things like stratagems and reserve limits, or amending those to be points or PL (whichever is being used), but what benefit is there to getting rid of something that people enjoy?
PenitentJake wrote: Besides, it wasn't all that long ago that you were advocating for the removal of Crusade altogether (more gatekeeping) and you're still advocating for the removal of Open (more gatekeeping).
Only because you consider any modification to Crusade equivalent to removing it. My preference would be that Crusade is changed significantly because, while it offers some useful ideas, it's still a deeply flawed narrative system that has a lot of room for improvement. But there would absolutely still be narrative play in 40k, and likely something fairly similar to Crusade.
Open Play, however, can be removed with no loss to anyone. We don't need official permission to change the rules. And the entire concept of being so obsessed with "officialness" that you can't change the rules without official permission but simultaneously not enjoying the game unless you change the rules is an absurd contradiction. Remove Open™ Play™ as wasted text, let people continue playing simplified or non-standard games as they did before GW's marketing department put an official brand name on it.
And in neither situation is it gatekeeping to argue for these changes. The goal is to improve 40k, not to exclude any particular group from playing it, and I expect that most people would continue playing the game even if they currently disagree with the changes.
Already explained why. Many times. As have others. You have proven you won't listen, or even agree to disagree, so I'm not going to bother reposting. Nobody else should bother either.
We aren't gate keepers, because we don't want to remove the rules you like. You are the gate keeper, because YOU don't want other people to have fun unless they're having it your way.
All of us on the PL side? We're fine with you having points. We're fine with you using them- even in Crusade if you want to and can find other people who will agree to it. Therefore, definitionally NOT gatekeepers.
You on the other hand: Only CSBhammer can exist!
I've played Crusade, it would be better with points.
While i think PL is a horribly unblanced way to try and play the game, I dont see any reasonable reason for removing it if there is a sizable amount of the community that utilizes it.
Like if say 1/10th of the community is like die hard PL players then yeah fine leave it in, no harm no foul. but if its something super small like 1% of the community is tapping into it, i really dont see the issue with remove it or just letting it fall to the wayside.
It was a half baked attempted from the get go any way. I would not champion for removing it, but i would not be upset if it was removed.
JNAProductions wrote: Yes, clearly I am spending hundreds of dollars and getting the forum itself modified (so that way it doesn't show that a mod edited it) to win an internet argument. You got me, well-played. /s
What part of "hankering suspicion" do you not understand? Clearly you believe that you can apply those words to any speculation you want, no matter how offensive or absurd, and it magically becomes a valid argument.
What benefit is there to removing PL? I can reasonably see excising it from reference in things like stratagems and reserve limits, or amending those to be points or PL (whichever is being used), but what benefit is there to getting rid of something that people enjoy?
I've already answered this multiple times, but once again:
1) Eliminating redundancy is good game design. It simplifies the game and avoids wasting developer time on something that is not needed.
2) Having multiple point systems divides the community. Consolidating everything back into a single point system removes the incompatibility and maintains 40k's biggest advantage: the fact that it's the game that everyone plays and you can show up at any random store for a pickup game and expect to play.
3) PL currently exists in matched play where it absolutely does not belong.
4) Crusade uses PL by default and requires house ruling it away for those of us who want to play Crusade but reject the idea of using the less-accurate point system. Having Crusade use normal points makes it a more appealing game variant.
5) Officially removing PL shuts down any effort by GW to bring it back as the primary system as they seem to have intended at the start of 8th (mirroring what they did with AoS on launch). We know there are people at GW who dislike competitive play and only grudgingly accept the need to support it and I'm sure they would love to make 40kPL-only at the earliest possible opportunity.
Balanced against these goals we have some vague "I like it" comments and a negligible time savings in list construction. Getting rid of PL is obvious.
I apologize for the offense I’ve caused you. I should’ve spoken with more care.
But, as for your second half of the post, 40k is a game. It’s also a massively imperfect game-removing PL ain’t gonna make it closer to perfect, but it will diminish the enjoyment of some people in the hobby. For a game that’s meant to be fun, that’s bad.
You don’t seem willing to acknowledge that other people honestly have more fun with PL than points.
I will be honest, I have played exactly 2 games since my codex (Custodes) dropped, and neither game was in PL. As none of my model options vary in cost, it got me thinking. Then I saw the changes to IG squads, and most of DG/SM, and felt like maybe this was where GW was going. Many people have told me I was foolish for thinking GW would ever abandon points, but here we are.
In total honestly, I have never played Crusade, or any narrative games, there is not a large community here and every just sees 40k as an expensive way to death match until the DnD group starts.
That being said, I have also never played PL, or competetively. At least not with the intent to win a prize. I have only ever played for fun.
The two games I played in PL were to teach a friend who knew absolutely zilch about the game. Once they got the hang of it, they began using points. In that respect, I felt the value in PL, it truly eased the burden of learning the process. Easier to get to rolling dice when the new player isn't wasting hours learning to scrounge up the points to include that 1 squad they really like.
So I like the idea of PL, but honestly, I think CSB has a good point. As it is currently is fine, but it shouldn't be a key thing GW wastes time on leveling. As it's only real purpose is for extremely new people or the far more casual crowds. If GW wants their success to continue, they have to stick with points, but I'd like them to continue to make PL available.
I dunno the right mix, but I feel GW trying to wrap their diseased brains around balancing two completely opposed systems of balance for the future of 40k is a losing idea. GW is too incompetent to correctly put out a 9 page FAQ.
PenitentJake wrote: Right. And since you are advocated the removal of PL, you are deliberately excluding people who prefer it.
That's an incredibly dishonest argument and you know it. Making a game change that some people don't like is not the same as excluding them from the game. And I have said multiple times that I expect that most people who prefer PL would continue to play with the normal point system even if PL was removed.
And I note that you're conveniently ignoring the fact that, by your argument here, adding the AoC rule was gatekeeping. Not adding the AoC rule was gatekeeping. Keeping the AoC rule is gatekeeping. Removing the AoC rule is gatekeeping. Every conceivable change or lack of change is gatekeeping because someone prefers it to be the other way. So congratulations, you've reduced "gatekeeping" to a meaningless term.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The two games I played in PL were to teach a friend who knew absolutely zilch about the game. Once they got the hang of it, they began using points. In that respect, I felt the value in PL, it truly eased the burden of learning the process. Easier to get to rolling dice when the new player isn't wasting hours learning to scrounge up the points to include that 1 squad they really like.
Are many people doing teaching games with the newbies making their own lists? In my experience all of those games were done with the more experienced player providing both lists (and usually all of the models), new players didn't start making their own lists until they'd had at least a couple of games and started to get a decent grasp of how everything works.
CadianSgtBob wrote: PL doesn't enable you to play the game, it saves you [...] time in list construction.
Hah, lil' bobby admitted that PLdoes have value. Victory!
Sure, if you dishonestly cut out the "negligible" from the quote and completely change the meaning of it. But I guess the fact that you have to sink to that level of dishonesty says a lot about the weakness of both your pro-PL argument and your moral character.
CadianSgtBob wrote: PL doesn't enable you to play the game, it saves you [...] time in list construction.
Hah, lil' bobby admitted that PLdoes have value. Victory!
Sure, if you dishonestly cut out the "negligible" from the quote and completely change the meaning of it. But I guess the fact that you have to sink to that level of dishonesty says a lot about the weakness of both your pro-PL argument and your moral character.
No, lil' bobby, I just did the same as you did and removed the unnecessary stuff from your post.
According to yourself, you are never wrong, therefore this statement is absolute and shall not be questioned, not even by you.
You clearly have conceded the point of PL having value, which means you have admitted to being wrong all along.
But if you, insist, here is the full quote:
CadianSgtBob wrote: PL is a great enabler to play quick games and, it saves you a lot of time in list construction. I just hate the idea of PL and it's extremely important to me that people do not enjoy the hobby in any other way than me. Those people are gatekeeping me from hating on PL.
I've just gotta say, I love that the reason of "I genuinely struggle with certain calculations and the mental energy to build a list with points, so I use a simplified version that reduces my mental strain to play" is completely ignored as a valid reason for PL existing.
It helps people. That cannot be argued against, because the people it helps have said so. Unless you're telling them that their own personal needs are *wrong* (which would be arrogant in the extreme), this is not something that can be up for debate. Is it helpful for everyone, no! Is it helpful for some, yes!
By saying that "we should get rid of PL to free up time for more useful things" (which is, in itself, not even based in fact - there's no way to prove that the "time" spent on PL would be used to do anything other than invent a new points system or to create a new version of Dreadfleet or a new Space Marine subfaction), it implicitly says that you consider the needs and wants of players who may or may not have certain conditions or circumstances that prevent them from fully engaging with points to be negligible. It implicitly says that "I don't care about what you, as someone who is already likely marginalised, want or need".
The existence of PL doesn't seriously hurt anyone, and if you do feel threatened by an entirely optional form of play that legitimately provides aid for people, that's a you problem.
CadianSgtBob wrote:
JNAProductions wrote: What benefit is there to removing PL? I can reasonably see excising it from reference in things like stratagems and reserve limits, or amending those to be points or PL (whichever is being used), but what benefit is there to getting rid of something that people enjoy?
I've already answered this multiple times, but once again:
1) Eliminating redundancy is good game design. It simplifies the game and avoids wasting developer time on something that is not needed.
PL is needed for certain players, according to their own testimony. Additionally, who determines what is "redundant"? One could argue that many factions in the game are redundant, many weapons are redundant, and if you're talking about simplifying the game, who determines how "simple" it gets? One statblock for all troops, one statblock for all vehicles, one statblock for all characters?
2) Having multiple point systems divides the community. Consolidating everything back into a single point system removes the incompatibility and maintains 40k's biggest advantage: the fact that it's the game that everyone plays and you can show up at any random store for a pickup game and expect to play.
But that simply isn't true because of different player mentalities, desires, and preferred outcomes. I don't have any interest in playing a cut-throat tourney level game, and I imagine that many other players would have no interest playing against me narrating and making decisions based on "cool factor". I believe in players making informed consensual discussions prior to their games where they can both outline their intentions and expectations from a game. Rocking up and putting models down without any discussion as to what you want out of the game sounds absolutely horrible to me.
The community is already divided, because people want different things - and that's okay!
3) PL currently exists in matched play where it absolutely does not belong.
This literally isn't an argument beyond "I don't want it".
4) Crusade uses PL by default and requires house ruling it away for those of us who want to play Crusade but reject the idea of using the less-accurate point system. Having Crusade use normal points makes it a more appealing game variant.
My response to this is that GW should officially make Crusade compatible with points. Again, I find it ironic that you say to PL/Open players that what they do should be covered by house rules so they don't need official support, but you seem unwilling to apply the same to your own wants and needs. On the other hand, I support your wants and needs for that official recognition, so I'm happy to fight your corner in getting points recognition for Crusade.
5) Officially removing PL shuts down any effort by GW to bring it back as the primary system as they seem to have intended at the start of 8th (mirroring what they did with AoS on launch). We know there are people at GW who dislike competitive play and only grudgingly accept the need to support it and I'm sure they would love to make 40kPL-only at the earliest possible opportunity.
And this honestly just sounds spiteful towards those who don't enjoy competitive play, and almost like an effort to delegitimise non-comp forms of play.
You literally don't have proof beyond rampant speculation about what GW "intended". When you can show me a quote from a GW designer about what they "intended" to do, and that intention being "we want to make 40kPL only, sod the competitive players", then I'll believe you.
Balanced against these goals we have some vague "I like it" comments and a negligible time savings in list construction.
And the whole disability aid aspect, and the fact it doesn't hurt you, and the fact that player enjoyment is a thing...
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I've just gotta say, I love that the reason of "I genuinely struggle with certain calculations and the mental energy to build a list with points, so I use a simplified version that reduces my mental strain to play" is completely ignored as a valid reason for PL existing.
It's ignored because it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. You're talking about an incredibly specific scenario where a person has enough mental energy and math ability to add up points in a PL game but entering a few more numbers into the calculator is an impossible burden. It's not like we're talking about a math-free version of list building that genuinely re-imagines the concept into an easier alternative, PL is just the same old points-based list construction with a slightly different list of numbers to add. I'd be surprised if there are even double digit people in the entire potential community that fit into that precise range and I don't see any reason to add an entire separate point system to accommodate such a tiny market.
And TBH, if someone struggles with the very simple math of adding up point costs and finds it a significant barrier I am skeptical that they're going to get much out of 40k, a ridiculously convoluted and math-heavy game, at all. Adding up points in list construction is the least of 40k's math and mental energy issues. Even basic questions like "should I charge this unit" involve a much higher level of math ability than adding up point costs, whether using PL or normal points.
Additionally, who determines what is "redundant"? One could argue that many factions in the game are redundant, many weapons are redundant, and if you're talking about simplifying the game, who determines how "simple" it gets? One statblock for all troops, one statblock for all vehicles, one statblock for all characters?
You could argue that, quite accurately. Rules bloat is arguably 40k's single biggest problem and many weapons and units should be consolidated. IMO at least half of 40k's stat lines could be eliminated without losing any meaningful strategic depth. But that isn't relevant to the topic of PL.
But that simply isn't true because of different player mentalities, desires, and preferred outcomes. I don't have any interest in playing a cut-throat tourney level game, and I imagine that many other players would have no interest playing against me narrating and making decisions based on "cool factor". I believe in players making informed consensual discussions prior to their games where they can both outline their intentions and expectations from a game. Rocking up and putting models down without any discussion as to what you want out of the game sounds absolutely horrible to me.
You do understand that the whole "tournament vs. narrative" thing is entirely a balance problem, right? If you fix the balance issues then there is no compatibility problem, even the most cut-throat tournament list will be a fair and enjoyable game for you. Everything here is an argument for improving balance and an easy place to start would be eliminating PL as a failed system with inherent and unsolvable balance problems.
This literally isn't an argument beyond "I don't want it".
Sorry, I was making the assumption that you can fill in the implicit "even PL advocates think PL isn't suited for matched play" in that statement.
Again, I find it ironic that you say to PL/Open players that what they do should be covered by house rules so they don't need official support, but you seem unwilling to apply the same to your own wants and needs.
The difference is that Open™ Play™ is a contradiction. It is a concept defined by rejection of "official" in favor of each individual player choosing which rules suit their own needs, but somehow none of this can happen without an official Open™ Play™ rule declaring it official. There is no such contradiction with wanting matched play (or matched play with upgrade tables) to have official rules that meet particular needs, rejection of officialness is not inherent to matched play.
And this honestly just sounds spiteful towards those who don't enjoy competitive play, and almost like an effort to delegitimise non-comp forms of play.
Hardly. I've made it very clear that narrative play and non-competitive matched play are important things. I just recognize that the normal point system is better than PL for those things. Please do not confuse rejection of the CAAC attitude expressed by certain GW employees with rejection of actual casual/narrative players.
You literally don't have proof beyond rampant speculation about what GW "intended". When you can show me a quote from a GW designer about what they "intended" to do, and that intention being "we want to make 40kPL only, sod the competitive players", then I'll believe you.
Believe what you want. You're never going to get an official statement either way but it was pretty obvious at the start of 8th that PL was intended to be the primary system and only a backlash similar to the AoS launch debacle made GW reverse their course.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I've just gotta say, I love that the reason of "I genuinely struggle with certain calculations and the mental energy to build a list with points, so I use a simplified version that reduces my mental strain to play" is completely ignored as a valid reason for PL existing.
It's ignored because it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Scrutiny?? What is there to scrutinise?? What, are we dictating now who is "actually" disabled or "actually" has problems?
I appreciate your spirited comments in defence of marginalised folks in other threads, but this is another one of those cases.
You're talking about an incredibly specific scenario where a person has enough mental energy and math ability to add up points in a PL game but entering a few more numbers into the calculator is an impossible burden. It's not like we're talking about a math-free version of list building that genuinely re-imagines the concept into an easier alternative, PL is just the same old points-based list construction with a slightly different list of numbers to add. I'd be surprised if there are even double digit people in the entire potential community that fit into that precise range and I don't see any reason to add an entire separate point system to accommodate such a tiny market.
So, even *if* we assume it's that small (which is statistically unlikely, considering the worldwide player base of 40k), what kind of message are you sending to those people? "Your problems aren't my concern, screw you, deal with it" - hardly a very moral or supportive stance to take. And for what, a sense of "screw you casuals who allegedly gatekeep competitive players" - because that's the main undertone I'm getting from your comments here.
Factually, PL is easier to calculate. Smaller numbers, less number to worry about, and less bookkeeping. These are all *factually* true. Whether you believe they're inconsequential is your opinion, but your opinion isn't the only one, and it doesn't hold more weight than anyone else's.
The long and short of it is that you are saying that you don't value the opinion of marginalised players.
And TBH, if someone struggles with the very simple math of adding up point costs and finds it a significant barrier I am skeptical that they're going to get much out of 40k, a ridiculously convoluted and math-heavy game, at all. Adding up points in list construction is the least of 40k's math and mental energy issues. Even basic questions like "should I charge this unit" involve a much higher level of math ability than adding up point costs, whether using PL or normal points.
We have examples of such users who have talked about this, such as BIndmage. What kind of message you saying to them? That they should bugger off and play a different game? That's gatekeeping.
Additionally, who determines what is "redundant"? One could argue that many factions in the game are redundant, many weapons are redundant, and if you're talking about simplifying the game, who determines how "simple" it gets? One statblock for all troops, one statblock for all vehicles, one statblock for all characters?
You could argue that, quite accurately. Rules bloat is arguably 40k's single biggest problem and many weapons and units should be consolidated. IMO at least half of 40k's stat lines could be eliminated without losing any meaningful strategic depth. But that isn't relevant to the topic of PL.
Actually, it is, so long as you keep using this argument of "cutting redundancy to make the game better". There are many other aspects of the game which take up more design space and energy than PL, so why don't we focus on dealing with them first if this is truly your focus? I'm not talking about "half of 40k's statlines" being eliminated, I'm saying we should cut every statline down to "infantry/tank/special/character" and every weapon down to "rifle/pistol/special weapon/heavy weapon/cannon", because that's the best way to remove "redundancy"
Oh, just in case it wasn't obvious, /s/.
But that simply isn't true because of different player mentalities, desires, and preferred outcomes. I don't have any interest in playing a cut-throat tourney level game, and I imagine that many other players would have no interest playing against me narrating and making decisions based on "cool factor". I believe in players making informed consensual discussions prior to their games where they can both outline their intentions and expectations from a game. Rocking up and putting models down without any discussion as to what you want out of the game sounds absolutely horrible to me.
You do understand that the whole "tournament vs. narrative" thing is entirely a balance problem, right? If you fix the balance issues then there is no compatibility problem, even the most cut-throat tournament list will be a fair and enjoyable game for you. Everything here is an argument for improving balance and an easy place to start would be eliminating PL as a failed system with inherent and unsolvable balance problems.
I disagree. Even in more balanced games, the exists the divide of player attitudes, goals, and expectations. There's a difference between a friendly pub football game and a competitive league match. There's a difference between a family playing chess together and two grand masters playing. There's a difference between plonking yourself down in front of a games console and playing a few rounds of *insert multiplayer shooter here* and playing it as an E-Sport.
Player expectation, attitude, and intention are all critically important, no matter how razor-balanced the game is. I'd rather play an imbalanced game with someone who shares the same goals and wants the same experience as me than play a perfectly balanced game with someone who has diametrically opposed goals and intentions.
You say "inherent balance problems", I say "I don't care". You want balance? Focus on balancing points. PL doesn't affect you.
This literally isn't an argument beyond "I don't want it".
Sorry, I was making the assumption that you can fill in the implicit "even PL advocates think PL isn't suited for matched play" in that statement.
I don't believe that PL is necessarily unsuited for Matched Play. Players should be free to use whatever army building system they want with whichever type of play they want. It doesn't affect me.
Again, I find it ironic that you say to PL/Open players that what they do should be covered by house rules so they don't need official support, but you seem unwilling to apply the same to your own wants and needs.
The difference is that Open™ Play™ is a contradiction. It is a concept defined by rejection of "official" in favor of each individual player choosing which rules suit their own needs, but somehow none of this can happen without an official Open™ Play™ rule declaring it official.
It's not to say it *can't* happen. I'm just asking why you feel the need to remove that official backing from it. Why does it having legitimate backing harm you? The fact that you feel the need to strip such official backing away tells me that it's needed all the more.
As for it being a contradiction, hardly. It is a concept rooted in player freedom and the legitimacy of that freedom. Removing that legitimacy implies that there is a "right" and "wrong" way to play.
There is no such contradiction with wanting matched play (or matched play with upgrade tables) to have official rules that meet particular needs, rejection of officialness is not inherent to matched play.
The contradiction comes from you wanting official recognition for "your" thing, but wanting to strip it from other things. It reeks of double standards.
And this honestly just sounds spiteful towards those who don't enjoy competitive play, and almost like an effort to delegitimise non-comp forms of play.
Hardly. I've made it very clear that narrative play and non-competitive matched play are important things. I just recognize that the normal point system is better than PL for those things. Please do not confuse rejection of the CAAC attitude expressed by certain GW employees with rejection of actual casual/narrative players.
I'm afraid I don't see such a distinction in your comments, especially when many "actual casual and narrative players" enjoy the resources put in place by those "CAAC GW employees".
Also, I wanna ask for clarification on "actual casual/narrative players" - who is determining who is an "actual" player? What is an "actual" casual/narrative player?
You literally don't have proof beyond rampant speculation about what GW "intended". When you can show me a quote from a GW designer about what they "intended" to do, and that intention being "we want to make 40kPL only, sod the competitive players", then I'll believe you.
Believe what you want. You're never going to get an official statement either way but it was pretty obvious at the start of 8th that PL was intended to be the primary system and only a backlash similar to the AoS launch debacle made GW reverse their course.
Well said, hiw many times have we heard "id love to houserule/play a certain way but my opponent wont allow it cos it isnt in the rulebook". The three ways is at least intended to foster a culture where these things are legitimate.
So I like the idea of PL, but honestly, I think CSB has a good point. As it is currently is fine, but it shouldn't be a key thing GW wastes time on leveling. As it's only real purpose is for extremely new people or the far more casual crowds. If GW wants their success to continue, they have to stick with points, but I'd like them to continue to make PL available.
I dunno the right mix...
This is pretty much my stance in a nutshell.
As to the finding the right mix part? I think they've kinda hit that; Matched will update for balance every 3 months, but Crusade will only update for balance once a year at most. Additional content for Crusade is frequent- the only thing GW publishes which contains no Crusade content is GT Mission Packs- it's just the balance updates from Crusade that are rare.
PenitentJake wrote: Right. And since you are advocated the removal of PL, you are deliberately excluding people who prefer it.
That's an incredibly dishonest argument and you know it. Making a game change that some people don't like is not the same as excluding them from the game. And I have said multiple times that I expect that most people who prefer PL would continue to play with the normal point system even if PL was removed.
I wouldn't- I'd just keep using PL at the most recently approved levels. We won't stop playing the game, but my group and I also won't implement changes we don't agree with; so far this has been mostly book legal, because most of GW's balancing changes have applied to matched only.
And I note that you're conveniently ignoring the fact that, by your argument here, adding the AoC rule was gatekeeping. Not adding the AoC rule was gatekeeping. Keeping the AoC rule is gatekeeping. Removing the AoC rule is gatekeeping. Every conceivable change or lack of change is gatekeeping because someone prefers it to be the other way. So congratulations, you've reduced "gatekeeping" to a meaningless term.
None of this is gate keeping unless you tell other people that any of the above is the only way to play, and neither I nor anyone I game with does. All of us believe that whatever a player does with AoC is up to that player and the person that they are playing with, because flexibility is a thing we like, and we believe that everyone should have access to a flexible game and gaming environment.
And you agree, then, that removing something people enjoy with no gain for anyone else is a bad thing?
Nah, because even ONE minute spent on developing PL is a waste of time and embarrassing.
I mean to be fair i dont think they spend that much time on it to begin with. Im pretty damn sure they basically did point cost, then took the point of the unit and divided by 20 and called it power level.
And you agree, then, that removing something people enjoy with no gain for anyone else is a bad thing?
Nah, because even ONE minute spent on developing PL is a waste of time and embarrassing.
I mean to be fair i dont think they spend that much time on it to begin with. Im pretty damn sure they basically did point cost, then took the point of the unit and divided by 20 and called it power level.
Yep. And since the edition began it's been updated what, once? Twice?
As opposed to points, which change every three months.
Crusade does take development time and effort. PL? Not so much.
And you agree, then, that removing something people enjoy with no gain for anyone else is a bad thing?
Nah, because even ONE minute spent on developing PL is a waste of time and embarrassing.
How is it "embarassing"? Are you approaching people with your rulebook and saying "don't look at that PL number, I'm ashamed they exist"?
Yes I'm ashamed it was a thing done to begin with, and I would tell any new player to ignore it because it's an embarrassing concept and embarrassing mechanic.
And you agree, then, that removing something people enjoy with no gain for anyone else is a bad thing?
Nah, because even ONE minute spent on developing PL is a waste of time and embarrassing.
How is it "embarassing"? Are you approaching people with your rulebook and saying "don't look at that PL number, I'm ashamed they exist"?
Yes I'm ashamed it was a thing done to begin with, and I would tell any new player to ignore it because it's an embarrassing concept and embarrassing mechanic.
Why are you ashamed over a game about pushing toy models around, and why would you be embarrassed for telling someone to ignore a bad mechanic?
And you agree, then, that removing something people enjoy with no gain for anyone else is a bad thing?
Nah, because even ONE minute spent on developing PL is a waste of time and embarrassing.
How is it "embarassing"? Are you approaching people with your rulebook and saying "don't look at that PL number, I'm ashamed they exist"?
Yes I'm ashamed it was a thing done to begin with, and I would tell any new player to ignore it because it's an embarrassing concept and embarrassing mechanic.
Why are you ashamed over a game about pushing toy models around, and why would you be embarrassed for telling someone to ignore a bad mechanic?
Toy soldiers aren't $50 a box for 5 models, but I love when people use that as a way to incorporate "bad balance is good" into their mindset.
Dudeface wrote: How is it "embarassing"? Are you approaching people with your rulebook and saying "don't look at that PL number, I'm ashamed they exist"?
Yes I'm ashamed it was a thing done to begin with, and I would tell any new player to ignore it because it's an embarrassing concept and embarrassing mechanic.
Honestly, I think you're may just overreacting a little bit there.
Boo hoo. There's a way of playing that uses different numbers. How embarrassing. How shameful. Your problem, not mine.
And you agree, then, that removing something people enjoy with no gain for anyone else is a bad thing?
Nah, because even ONE minute spent on developing PL is a waste of time and embarrassing.
How is it "embarassing"? Are you approaching people with your rulebook and saying "don't look at that PL number, I'm ashamed they exist"?
Yes I'm ashamed it was a thing done to begin with, and I would tell any new player to ignore it because it's an embarrassing concept and embarrassing mechanic.
Why are you ashamed over a game about pushing toy models around, and why would you be embarrassed for telling someone to ignore a bad mechanic?
Toy soldiers aren't $50 a box for 5 models, but I love when people use that as a way to incorporate "bad balance is good" into their mindset.
Please. Write a coherent whine for once.
You've gone from "PL is an embarrassment" to "they're not toy soldiers" to "people calling them toy soldiers think bad balance is good".
You somehow fail to just stick to one point and follow it through, knee jerking comments thinking someone will praise you as a badass sticking it to the nerds as the crowds cheer your name.
Why yes, I do in fact play with premium priced dolls while making pew pew noises as i roll die on a table and think the game could still be improved how could you tell?
Unit1126PLL wrote: I will say the lack of PL updates is actively painful for me.
I can make a 1500 point army with 3 Baneblades. I cannot make a 75PL army with 3 Baneblades.
Therefore, I can run my Baneblade company in a Crusade system that uses points, but not in one that uses PL.
The PL updates just re-calculate the values from the last point updates, the formula on how to do that is known.
For the regular baneblade, the value should be 24 (410+530/40), just talk to your campaign master and I'm sure he'll arrange something.
Failing that, the banehammer and banesword are just 24 PL and the doomhammer is 25. If you really wanted, you can absolutely make it work without house rules.
In any case, you should get updated values when your codex drops.
And you agree, then, that removing something people enjoy with no gain for anyone else is a bad thing?
Nah, because even ONE minute spent on developing PL is a waste of time and embarrassing.
How is it "embarassing"? Are you approaching people with your rulebook and saying "don't look at that PL number, I'm ashamed they exist"?
Yes I'm ashamed it was a thing done to begin with, and I would tell any new player to ignore it because it's an embarrassing concept and embarrassing mechanic.
Why are you ashamed over a game about pushing toy models around, and why would you be embarrassed for telling someone to ignore a bad mechanic?
Toy soldiers aren't $50 a box for 5 models, but I love when people use that as a way to incorporate "bad balance is good" into their mindset.
Please. Write a coherent whine for once.
You've gone from "PL is an embarrassment" to "they're not toy soldiers" to "people calling them toy soldiers think bad balance is good".
You somehow fail to just stick to one point and follow it through, knee jerking comments thinking someone will praise you as a badass sticking it to the nerds as the crowds cheer your name.
Name a part where I'm inconsistent instead of just being mad that I think PL should be deleted as it's embarassing to even think about.
I mean, "But i love when people use that as a way to incorporate 'bad balance is good' into their mindset"
Is a pretty damn inconsistent, considering you are implying people who point out that we play with dolls is backing bad balance.
The other inconsistent part is, why are you embarrassed over a second set of rules for a game that you dont even have to play.
You are playing a game where you paint toys and roll dies as you make believe you are having them shoot at each other, and the thing that you are embarrassed about is a point system that hardly anyone uses?
Honestly I feel it wouldn't change anything. It's not like the game is more balanced with points, the main thing points do is give you an excuse to justify being an donkey-cave. Without points and you take some cheesy BS, it's obvious you're a win at all costs scumbag and you can't pretend otherwise because it's your CHOICE to take 10 cheeseguns instead of 5, or whatnot.. Points just give you a way to justify it because it's not your fault, it's GW's fault for making it too good/cheap etc. etc. etc.
Wayniac wrote: Honestly I feel it wouldn't change anything. It's not like the game is more balanced with points, the main thing points do is give you an excuse to justify being an donkey-cave. Without points and you take some cheesy BS, it's obvious you're a win at all costs scumbag and you can't pretend otherwise because it's your CHOICE to take 10 cheeseguns instead of 5, or whatnot.. Points just give you a way to justify it because it's not your fault, it's GW's fault for making it too good/cheap etc. etc. etc.
Yeah the big offender of that when PL first got introduced were rubrics, able to take all infernal bolters and warp flamers at the same time, they got like 200 points of free gear.
Name a part where I'm inconsistent instead of just being mad that I think PL should be deleted as it's embarassing to even think about.
Please illuminate me what:
- you finding PL an embarassing concept
- people referring to models as toy soldier upsetting you
Have to do with each other. While we're at it, clear up how:
- refer to models as toy soldiers
- bad balance is good
Are related. Likewise how do you make the jump from "PL is an embarassment" to "you must love bad balance based on how you describe your hobby".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: It sounds like PL is another one of those "let the players balance the game!" decisions that GW has been making lately.
What do we pay them for again?
You mean the "let the players balance the game" decisions where they seek feedback and ideas from top end competitive players for points based play adjustments?
Right. And since you are advocated the removal of PL, you are deliberately excluding people who prefer it.
They, who are not advocating for the removal of points are, are not excluding you.
Thanks for proving my point gatekeeper.
No, the difference is he doesn't want you to go away, he wants you to play with points.
Also, some people should be gatekept out of the community.
He wants the PL people to have a worse experience. Yeah, that’s good.
And some people shouldn’t be welcome-bigots, for example. People who prefer to use less granular points than more granular ones? They’re fine to play-they’re not hurting anyone.
JNAProductions wrote: He wants the PL people to have a worse experience. Yeah, that’s good.
And some people shouldn’t be welcome-bigots, for example. People who prefer to use less granular points than more granular ones? They’re fine to play-they’re not hurting anyone.
Well, not not for the sake of it, but so he can have a better experience, which is more reasonable.
I would also include people who think that grokking the game system and optimization better than them is unsporting, which is the height of unsporting itself.
JNAProductions wrote: He wants the PL people to have a worse experience. Yeah, that’s good.
And some people shouldn’t be welcome-bigots, for example. People who prefer to use less granular points than more granular ones? They’re fine to play-they’re not hurting anyone.
Well, not not for the sake of it, but so he can have a better experience, which is more reasonable.
Is it reasonable? Sounds kinda selfish to me, entirely taking away someone else's preferred way to play (especially if it aids those who may have certain conditions and circumstances that make full points impractical).
Why would removing PL give him a better experience?
I would also include people who think that grokking the game system and optimization better than them is unsporting, which is the height of unsporting itself.
I honestly don't think you know what unsporting means here, because neither usage in that sentence makes sense. And no, compared to bigots, that's not exactly grounds for gatekeeping from the entire hobby, and the same goes for even WAAC folks.
Backspacehacker wrote: I mean, "But i love when people use that as a way to incorporate 'bad balance is good' into their mindset"
Is a pretty damn inconsistent, considering you are implying people who point out that we play with dolls is backing bad balance.
The other inconsistent part is, why are you embarrassed over a second set of rules for a game that you dont even have to play.
You are playing a game where you paint toys and roll dies as you make believe you are having them shoot at each other, and the thing that you are embarrassed about is a point system that hardly anyone uses?
That right there is a really inconsistent take.
Except it does, because they then point out I'm apparently taking it "too seriously" and then we should just do the balancing ourselves (have you even bothered to read the posts from people defending PL?). At that point you dont need to pay for rules. Just go pew pew and the player that made the best pew pew noises wins. We literally have best poster in the thread saying it's fine that Laspistols and Plasma Pistols cost the same because they dont care and thinking too much on it is taking things too seriously.
Also yeah, the really bad system for constructing armies with zero thought behind it is far more embarassing than painting/putting together models and rolling dice on a table. The GW executive that suggested PL should be embarrassed, the GW rules writers that actually created it should be embarrassed, and the defenders of PL should be embarrassed.
Wayniac wrote: Honestly I feel it wouldn't change anything. It's not like the game is more balanced with points, the main thing points do is give you an excuse to justify being an donkey-cave. Without points and you take some cheesy BS, it's obvious you're a win at all costs scumbag and you can't pretend otherwise because it's your CHOICE to take 10 cheeseguns instead of 5, or whatnot.. Points just give you a way to justify it because it's not your fault, it's GW's fault for making it too good/cheap etc. etc. etc.
Ah look, right on schedule here's the CAAC player to demonstrate the idea that the value of PL is entirely in being a tool for expressing CAAC attitudes. At least you're honest about it.
EviscerationPlague wrote:Also yeah, the really bad system for constructing armies with zero thought behind it is far more embarassing than painting/putting together models and rolling dice on a table. The GW executive that suggested PL should be embarrassed, the GW rules writers that actually created it should be embarrassed, and the defenders of PL should be embarrassed.
The only thing embarrassing here is getting so worked up over nothing. Breathe. Play with your points and toy soldiers.
EviscerationPlague wrote:Also yeah, the really bad system for constructing armies with zero thought behind it is far more embarassing than painting/putting together models and rolling dice on a table. The GW executive that suggested PL should be embarrassed, the GW rules writers that actually created it should be embarrassed, and the defenders of PL should be embarrassed.
The only thing embarrassing here is getting so worked up over nothing. Breathe. Play with your points and toy soldiers.
Are you going to say the same thing to the guy calling people donkey-caves and scumbags for taking "too many" of a strong weapon?
I've recently transitioned from playing Power Level to Points and I must admit I don't see what the fuss is with Points. It seems to make list building needlessly pernickety, needing multiple books and making it a real time sink. Also points seem to regularly change so having spent a long time creating a list it can then be upturned, meaning yet more time to rebuild the list.
I've not noticed more or less imbalance with either system so I can't see what the benefit of Points is over Power Level.
Tallonian4th wrote: I've recently transitioned from playing Power Level to Points and I must admit I don't see what the fuss is with Points. It seems to make list building needlessly pernickety, needing multiple books and making it a real time sink. Also points seem to regularly change so having spent a long time creating a list it can then be upturned, meaning yet more time to rebuild the list.
I've not noticed more or less imbalance with either system so I can't see what the benefit of Points is over Power Level.
Backspacehacker wrote: I mean, "But i love when people use that as a way to incorporate 'bad balance is good' into their mindset"
Is a pretty damn inconsistent, considering you are implying people who point out that we play with dolls is backing bad balance.
The other inconsistent part is, why are you embarrassed over a second set of rules for a game that you dont even have to play.
You are playing a game where you paint toys and roll dies as you make believe you are having them shoot at each other, and the thing that you are embarrassed about is a point system that hardly anyone uses?
That right there is a really inconsistent take.
Except it does, because they then point out I'm apparently taking it "too seriously" and then we should just do the balancing ourselves (have you even bothered to read the posts from people defending PL?). At that point you dont need to pay for rules. Just go pew pew and the player that made the best pew pew noises wins. We literally have best poster in the thread saying it's fine that Laspistols and Plasma Pistols cost the same because they dont care and thinking too much on it is taking things too seriously.
Also yeah, the really bad system for constructing armies with zero thought behind it is far more embarassing than painting/putting together models and rolling dice on a table. The GW executive that suggested PL should be embarrassed, the GW rules writers that actually created it should be embarrassed, and the defenders of PL should be embarrassed.
"Except it does becasue they then point out im apparently taking it 'too seriously' "
Why do you care what others think? Just tell them its a a bad secondary point system GW tried to use, and no one really uses it that much, and move on. Like, why do you care if they think you are taking it to seriously for wanting to use points, the system taht everyone else uses.
You are putting WAY to much importance on what others think about the system, and there is literally no reason to be "Embarrassed" thats just silly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tallonian4th wrote: I've recently transitioned from playing Power Level to Points and I must admit I don't see what the fuss is with Points. It seems to make list building needlessly pernickety, needing multiple books and making it a real time sink. Also points seem to regularly change so having spent a long time creating a list it can then be upturned, meaning yet more time to rebuild the list.
I've not noticed more or less imbalance with either system so I can't see what the benefit of Points is over Power Level.
Its because generally the people who play PL are not making wombo combos. Its a LOT harder to exploit points vs PL. A PL game can be horribly exploited, the example i used again was rubrics, being able to give them all warpflamers and infernal bolters so you basically got like 100-200 points of free gear.
You could also do this with things like devestators, stern guards, vanguard, captains and what not. Its very easy to exploit PL, its not as easy to exploit points.
If anything PL is the point system that requires more time flipping through books since all of the point costs are spread throughout the datasheet section instead of compiled into a 1-2 page table.
The argument "I think X therefore GW should do Y" absolutely should be scrutinized. If X does not hold up to inspection, as is the case with "PL is easier", then there is no argument for Y.
So, even *if* we assume it's that small (which is statistically unlikely, considering the worldwide player base of 40k), what kind of message are you sending to those people? "Your problems aren't my concern, screw you, deal with it" - hardly a very moral or supportive stance to take.
To put it bluntly: yes, that is exactly the way things work. You don't design and support an entire separate point system for the three people that "need" it to play. It's unfortunate if those three people are not able to play the game but it is incredibly foolish to bloat the rules in pursuit of such a tiny number of additional players.
And no, it is not gatekeeping. Gatekeeping requires, by definition, deliberate intend to exclude a targeted group. Making a change for non-exclusionary reasons that has the unfortunate side effect of excluding someone is not gatekeeping.
Removing that legitimacy implies that there is a "right" and "wrong" way to play.
No. What implies a right and wrong way to play is having and Official™ Open™ Play™ Way™ To™ Play™. The fact that GW explicitly says "stratagems are optional" implies that changing the rules to allow primaris marines to ride in a Rhino is not part of Open™ Play™. And that's how many people are going to take it, that Open™ Play™ is a specific set of optional features and you're supposed to play within those constraints.
The contradiction comes from you wanting official recognition for "your" thing, but wanting to strip it from other things. It reeks of double standards.
There is no double standard at all. Matched play is defined by a desire for officialness and standardization. Open play is defined by a rejection of those things. So it is absolutely consistent to want official recognition for matched play rules but not for a format where "screw officialness, I'm doing my own thing" is the defining element.
Also, I wanna ask for clarification on "actual casual/narrative players" - who is determining who is an "actual" player? What is an "actual" casual/narrative player?
Casual player: a player who puts limited effort into the game. They own a few models, maybe play a game occasionally, but they don't really care about it. By definition nobody on this forum is a casual player.
Narrative player: a player who focuses on the story around the game and attempts to represent it on the tabletop.
CAAC GW employee: a TFG who insists that competitive players are playing the game wrong and wants to exclude them from "their" game.
PL is great for CAAC GW employees because of its gatekeeping value. It's bad for casual players because it's a less-balanced system and balance is vital when you're dealing with players who lack the knowledge or desire to make good list building choices. It's bad for narrative players because it needlessly creates tension between trying to win the game on the table and trying to accurately represent the forces in the story. And the hilarious irony in this is that PL has the least effect on competitive players, as competitive players will just change their optimization strategies and bring the best PL lists.
If anything PL is the point system that requires more time flipping through books since all of the point costs are spread throughout the datasheet section instead of compiled into a 1-2 page table.
Does that document (Which for safeties sake I would recommend you illustrate what it is) include things like the changes that just came out last week? Also, does that read 100% correctly? The problem with saying things like this is that GW has a VERY BAD HABIT of completely crapping the bed on docs like these, and forcing Day0 patches. Which invalidate the entire thing. In order for your point to be true, you and you opponent would have to agree on a set time frame for list building. IE "All lists will be built using the documented unit costs in the Free Community Care Update". This gets tedious the deeper you go, for obvious reasons. The good/bad thing about PL is that they almost NEVER change. Almost. What is the age on the current PL costs that are claimed to be valid for Space Marines? 2 years?
EviscerationPlague wrote:Also yeah, the really bad system for constructing armies with zero thought behind it is far more embarassing than painting/putting together models and rolling dice on a table. The GW executive that suggested PL should be embarrassed, the GW rules writers that actually created it should be embarrassed, and the defenders of PL should be embarrassed.
The only thing embarrassing here is getting so worked up over nothing. Breathe. Play with your points and toy soldiers.
Are you going to say the same thing to the guy calling people donkey-caves and scumbags for taking "too many" of a strong weapon?
Way to misrepresent me. I said I'd be insulted and willing to take insult with someone literally slapping everything humanly possible onto every unit because you gave a way of performing a functionally double the precieved value crisis suit unit.
The difference there? You just brought an army which wouldn't be overly nice to play against and against the spirit of what I personally enjoy about the hobby. You actively wasted my game time with your decision to be as absurd as possible. PL existing in the first place has no impact on your enjoyment of your points led game.
It'd be like me turning up to your points based game with a PL list which you know gives me a points advantage to help give it a competitive edge.
So yes, I'd be willing to insult someone who would willingly waste my time.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Does that document (Which for safeties sake I would recommend you illustrate what it is) include things like the changes that just came out last week?
That is the document that contained those changes.
Also, does that read 100% correctly?
Yes, considering it is the final authority on what point costs are it is by definition 100% correct. You could make the argument that some of the listed point costs are the result of an error (but still official until changed), but you could say the same thing about the point costs in PL. If this document isn't trusted to be 100% correct then what PL source can be trusted?
In order for your point to be true, you and you opponent would have to agree on a set time frame for list building.
Why is this a problem? "We're using the current points" is the standard assumption. And even with PL you have to do the same thing, PL has changed in the past and unless you're operating under the assumption of always using the current points you and your opponent have to agree on whether you will use the original printed PL values or one of the PL update documents.
Way to take the guilt for that when I wasn't even talking about you. That comment was referring to Wayniac's post on the previous page, but if you think you're also being insulting then feel free to claim the label.
You just brought an army which wouldn't be overly nice to play against and against the spirit of what I personally enjoy about the hobby. You actively wasted my game time with your decision to be as absurd as possible.
Why are you being so arrogant and assuming that your way to use PL is somehow the objectively correct way and people who use it in different ways are "wasting your time"? Why aren't you equally guilty of wasting their time for trying to show up with a list that is poorly optimized for PL games and not giving them a proper challenge?
Backspacehacker wrote: I mean, "But i love when people use that as a way to incorporate 'bad balance is good' into their mindset"
Is a pretty damn inconsistent, considering you are implying people who point out that we play with dolls is backing bad balance.
The other inconsistent part is, why are you embarrassed over a second set of rules for a game that you dont even have to play.
You are playing a game where you paint toys and roll dies as you make believe you are having them shoot at each other, and the thing that you are embarrassed about is a point system that hardly anyone uses?
That right there is a really inconsistent take.
Except it does, because they then point out I'm apparently taking it "too seriously" and then we should just do the balancing ourselves (have you even bothered to read the posts from people defending PL?). At that point you dont need to pay for rules. Just go pew pew and the player that made the best pew pew noises wins. We literally have best poster in the thread saying it's fine that Laspistols and Plasma Pistols cost the same because they dont care and thinking too much on it is taking things too seriously.
Also yeah, the really bad system for constructing armies with zero thought behind it is far more embarassing than painting/putting together models and rolling dice on a table. The GW executive that suggested PL should be embarrassed, the GW rules writers that actually created it should be embarrassed, and the defenders of PL should be embarrassed.
I believe we were talking about taking plasma pistols over laspistols for guard sgts. So you think one model in ten in some of yiur units having a 12” weapon with a higher strength and a 50/50 chance of hitting anyway is worth worrying about? You think the balance in the game is so fine that it’s worth worrying about that increased chance of wounding with two or three weapons in your whole army? It is a good use of mine or anyone else’s time to worry about if that is worth 2 or 5 hundredths of a power level??
And for someone so embarrassed, you do like to go on about power levels, a lot. I suggest before getting embarrassed again, you get a grip and have a word with yourself.
EviscerationPlague wrote:Also yeah, the really bad system for constructing armies with zero thought behind it is far more embarassing than painting/putting together models and rolling dice on a table. The GW executive that suggested PL should be embarrassed, the GW rules writers that actually created it should be embarrassed, and the defenders of PL should be embarrassed.
The only thing embarrassing here is getting so worked up over nothing. Breathe. Play with your points and toy soldiers.
Are you going to say the same thing to the guy calling people donkey-caves and scumbags for taking "too many" of a strong weapon?
Why? They've not said anything about how I should feel "embarrassed".
I'm specifically referring to EviscerationPlague telling me I should feel embarrassed for what I like. Is that a statement you support, instead of whataboutism?
The argument "I think X therefore GW should do Y" absolutely should be scrutinized. If X does not hold up to inspection, as is the case with "PL is easier", then there is no argument for Y.
We're talking about DISABILITY here. What is there to scrutinise about someone who might struggle without PL saying "hey, PL makes my life easier". How can you invalidate their experience on that matter?
So, even *if* we assume it's that small (which is statistically unlikely, considering the worldwide player base of 40k), what kind of message are you sending to those people? "Your problems aren't my concern, screw you, deal with it" - hardly a very moral or supportive stance to take.
To put it bluntly: yes, that is exactly the way things work.
And that's an ableist exclusionary mentality, and says everything I need to know about further discussing this with you - you don't care about others.
You don't design and support an entire separate point system for the three people that "need" it to play. It's unfortunate if those three people are not able to play the game but it is incredibly foolish to bloat the rules in pursuit of such a tiny number of additional players.
Okay, so just so EVERYONE in this thread is clear about what's being said here - "if you're disabled, you don't get to play this game, and we're going to take away the support mechanisms you had which let you enjoy it. Screw you."
Mate, that IS ableism and gatekeeping behaviour. There really isn't any two ways about it.
And no, it is not gatekeeping.
You literally just told disabled players for feth off.
Gatekeeping requires, by definition, deliberate intend to exclude a targeted group. Making a change for non-exclusionary reasons that has the unfortunate side effect of excluding someone is not gatekeeping.
Knowing that your actions would exclude a group of people is still excluding them, and KNOWING that it would exclude them (which you admit to) and still proceeding to do is still gatekeeping, as you have decided that their needs are not worth considering.
Making a change for whatever "innocent" reason, knowing how it will negatively affect others, STILL NEGATIVELY AFFECTS OTHERS - you are still complicit in that, and even worse, knowing that you will have that effect and still doing it makes your motivation void.
Removing that legitimacy implies that there is a "right" and "wrong" way to play.
No. What implies a right and wrong way to play is having and Official™ Open™ Play™ Way™ To™ Play™.
How?? If Open exists to say "yeah, go nuts", then that allows all forms of play to be valid. Removing that limits 40k to "officially" only what's printed. Without an explicit ruling saying "hey, ignore these if it helps you", ignoring rules would be considered "wrong".
The fact that GW explicitly says "stratagems are optional" implies that changing the rules to allow primaris marines to ride in a Rhino is not part of Open™ Play™. And that's how many people are going to take it, that Open™ Play™ is a specific set of optional features and you're supposed to play within those constraints.
Speaking for all the Open Play folks I know and play with, none of them see it that way. Maybe you should just stick to what you know for the sake of how "many people take it".
The contradiction comes from you wanting official recognition for "your" thing, but wanting to strip it from other things. It reeks of double standards.
There is no double standard at all. Matched play is defined by a desire for officialness and standardization. Open play is defined by a rejection of those things. So it is absolutely consistent to want official recognition for matched play rules but not for a format where "screw officialness, I'm doing my own thing" is the defining element.
You seriously don't understand, do you? Open isn't defined by a rejection of "officialness" - it's defined by player freedoms and choice, an OFFICIALLY RECOGNISED freedom and choice. Open doesn't say "screw official", it says "lets pick and choose what we like at our own supported freedom".
You really don't understand the perspective that I'm viewing this from, do you?
Also, I wanna ask for clarification on "actual casual/narrative players" - who is determining who is an "actual" player? What is an "actual" casual/narrative player?
Casual player: a player who puts limited effort into the game. They own a few models, maybe play a game occasionally, but they don't really care about it. By definition nobody on this forum is a casual player.
Narrative player: a player who focuses on the story around the game and attempts to represent it on the tabletop.
CAAC GW employee: a TFG who insists that competitive players are playing the game wrong and wants to exclude them from "their" game.
In that case, I disagree with your definitions. I'm a casual player, in that I play casually. I put effort into the hobby, but not into winning or trying to win more often - casual refers to my style of play, not my enjoyment of the hobby.
I would define myself as narrative, but narrative and casual are not mutually exclusive.
And frankly, as I've already said, this idea that there's this coven of GW employees who are out to get you is plain fearmongering and speculative. And, for what it's worth, EVERYONE has the right to exclude people from their own game, or rather, to play against them. You don't owe anyone a game. That's not the same as not welcoming them into the hobby, and not supporting their validity to play and giving them to tools to do so, but no-one should be forced to play a game they don't enjoy.
PL is great for CAAC GW employees because of its gatekeeping value.
As opposed to your gatekeeping of disabled hobbyists?
It's bad for casual players because it's a less-balanced system and balance is vital when you're dealing with players who lack the knowledge or desire to make good list building choices.
I'm a casual player. I don't care about balance or making a good list, because I'm casual. So, maybe stop trying to speak for us.
It's bad for narrative players because it needlessly creates tension between trying to win the game on the table and trying to accurately represent the forces in the story.
I'm a narrative player. If I want to reflect the forces in the story, I'll put them in my army. I don't care about winning. PL encourages me to play the army I field with "lore accurate" weapons, instead of having to focus on what will save me points. That's why my Cadian sergeants still only carry laspistols and chainswords, and why three of my Tactical Squads carry flamers and missile launchers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CadianSgtBob wrote: Why aren't you equally guilty of wasting their time for trying to show up with a list that is poorly optimized for PL games and not giving them a proper challenge?
I don't owe anyone a challenge. I want to play 40k, not act as some whetstone for someone's W/D/L ratio.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Okay, so just so EVERYONE in this thread is clear about what's being said here - "if you're disabled, you don't get to play this game, and we're going to take away the support mechanisms you had which let you enjoy it. Screw you."
Just to EVERYONE in this thread is clear about what's being said here: PL advocates, by insisting on using a point system requiring math that may be a burden for some disabled people, are very clearly saying "if you're disabled, you don't get to play this game."
Or is your particular ableisim immune to criticism just because it's the point system you prefer?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Okay, so just so EVERYONE in this thread is clear about what's being said here - "if you're disabled, you don't get to play this game, and we're going to take away the support mechanisms you had which let you enjoy it. Screw you."
Just to EVERYONE in this thread is clear about what's being said here: PL advocates, by insisting on using a point system requiring math that may be a burden for some disabled people, are very clearly saying "if you're disabled, you don't get to play this game."
We literally have testimony from people in this thread who have said that they find PL to be perfectly adequate for them. If you can't see that, and instead reduce their own experiences down to "WE CAN'T DO ANY KIND OF MATHS", kindly, don't respond to me.
Or is your particular ableisim immune to criticism just because it's the point system you prefer?
No-one's saying you can't criticise it or that you need to play it. Just don't stop other people from playing the damned game if it doesn't affect you.
If anything PL is the point system that requires more time flipping through books since all of the point costs are spread throughout the datasheet section instead of compiled into a 1-2 page table.
Still doesn't help Points too much to my mind. Power Level I look up a unit once in one table, points it's several tables and sometimes multiple times in each.
Power Level also gives far more freedom over modelling. You don't have to worry if Vox Casters are worth it or not, or if they will suddenly be useless meanin you either have to chop up a model or build a replacement. You just build a cool model (or squad of models) that fits in with the story you have for your army. I use Vox Casters as an example purely as I find the idea of a combat squad without communications as bizarre but totally understand under the points system why someone would do so.
If anything PL is the point system that requires more time flipping through books since all of the point costs are spread throughout the datasheet section instead of compiled into a 1-2 page table.
And no, it is not gatekeeping. Gatekeeping requires, by definition, deliberate intend to exclude a targeted group. Making a change for non-exclusionary reasons that has the unfortunate side effect of excluding someone is not gatekeeping.
Removing PL would be a non-exclusionary suggestion if it wasn't possible for you to play points without making any changes. But it IS possible to play with points without making changes, which means the only reason for removing PL IS exclusionary.
No. What implies a right and wrong way to play is having and Official™ Open™ Play™ Way™ To™ Play™. The fact that GW explicitly says "stratagems are optional" implies that changing the rules to allow primaris marines to ride in a Rhino is not part of Open™ Play™. And that's how many people are going to take it, that Open™ Play™ is a specific set of optional features and you're supposed to play within those constraints.
Your overall point here IS correct.
About some specifics, I think clarification would be healthy though. RAW, CP are present in any game where armies are battle-forged, regardless of play mode.
Both Crusade and Matched require Battleforged armies according to the "Mustering an army" section of their respective Mission packs (whether BRB or other). The Open rules do not specify that you MUST use a battle forged army, nor do they specify that you can't.
And Open IS a specific set of optional features, rather than just "the absence of other rules" - this includes a mission pack with only 3 missions; these are based on RELATIVE size, rather than ABSOLUTE size, as well as the Open War deck.
As for the Cult of Officialdom: I think this is a player/ meta issue as opposed to a GW issue. I mean, I suppose it's possible to argue that having as many official options as we do does encourage players to pick an official option and stick with it. But those of us who have been playing for a while, and have become used to creating occasional house rules now and again CAN still do that. I don't feel like I've seen any more or less in recent edition rule books to indicate that GW's attitude toward house rules is any different than it always has been.
Caveat: Rogue Trader, and some of the books released during 2nd may have had explicit references to house rules, as back in those days the company was far too small to supply the demand by themselves. As 2nd wore on, the company began to approach a size that DID facilitate supplying the demand.
There is no double standard at all. Matched play is defined by a desire for officialness and standardization. Open play is defined by a rejection of those things. So it is absolutely consistent to want official recognition for matched play rules but not for a format where "screw officialness, I'm doing my own thing" is the defining element.
Except that, as explained above, Open ISN'T defined by "screw officialness". You can argue that you think Open SHOULD be defined by "screw officialness" (I'm not sure I agree, but I'm saying that this would be a rational enough argument that it could be respectfully debated.)
But doubling down here that Open IS "Screw officialness" when it was you yourself who pointed out that, RAW, it isn't... well it's just... Confusing.
Also, I wanna ask for clarification on "actual casual/narrative players" - who is determining who is an "actual" player? What is an "actual" casual/narrative player?
Casual player: a player who puts limited effort into the game. They own a few models, maybe play a game occasionally, but they don't really care about it. By definition nobody on this forum is a casual player.
Narrative player: a player who focuses on the story around the game and attempts to represent it on the tabletop.
CAAC GW employee: a TFG who insists that competitive players are playing the game wrong and wants to exclude them from "their" game.
PL is great for CAAC GW employees because of its gatekeeping value. It's bad for casual players because it's a less-balanced system and balance is vital when you're dealing with players who lack the knowledge or desire to make good list building choices. It's bad for narrative players because it needlessly creates tension between trying to win the game on the table and trying to accurately represent the forces in the story. And the hilarious irony in this is that PL has the least effect on competitive players, as competitive players will just change their optimization strategies and bring the best PL lists.
I put the whole quote in the spoiler above for context. I'm not going to disagree with any of your definitions- they're all debatable, but serviceable from a certain point of view. But I do want to ask how it is that you can simultaneously believe this:
Casual player: a player who puts limited effort into the game. They own a few models, maybe play a game occasionally, but they don't really care about it. By definition nobody on this forum is a casual player.
It's bad for casual players because it's a less-balanced system and balance is vital when you're dealing with players who lack the knowledge or desire to make good list building choices.
If casual players, by definition (according to you) don't care about the games they play, why would balanced lists be important an important thing for them to aspire to (also according to you)?
It is as much of a contradiction as: Open is a specific set of rules (in one paragraph) and Open is the absence of specific rules (in another paragraph).
Maybe you're multi-tasking as you write your posts (I am), or maybe English isn't your first language? But I've seen you outright attack other people for what you perceive to be contradictions or inconsistencies in their posts, which I would be more cautious about doing when your own posts contain these gems.
To be clear: Your thoughts may not contradict each other at all, but the way you have chosen to express them in the quoted passages and examples definitely DO seem to imply contradictions. I hope my tone here doesn't imply an insult- that's not my intention. Think of this as seeking clarification on the expression of your ideas.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: We literally have testimony from people in this thread who have said that they find PL to be perfectly adequate for them. If you can't see that, and instead reduce their own experiences down to "WE CAN'T DO ANY KIND OF MATHS", kindly, don't respond to me.
We have testimony from those specific people. We don't have testimony from the ones who are gatekept out of 40k because they lack the math ability and/or energy to use PL. But that's exactly what I expect from you, complaining about gatekeeping and ableism but refusing to acknowledge when you do the same to other people.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: We literally have testimony from people in this thread who have said that they find PL to be perfectly adequate for them. If you can't see that, and instead reduce their own experiences down to "WE CAN'T DO ANY KIND OF MATHS", kindly, don't respond to me.
We have testimony from those specific people. We don't have testimony from the ones who are gatekept out of 40k because they lack the math ability and/or energy to use PL. But that's exactly what I expect from you, complaining about gatekeeping and ableism but refusing to acknowledge when you do the same to other people.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: We literally have testimony from people in this thread who have said that they find PL to be perfectly adequate for them. If you can't see that, and instead reduce their own experiences down to "WE CAN'T DO ANY KIND OF MATHS", kindly, don't respond to me.
We have testimony from those specific people. We don't have testimony from the ones who are gatekept out of 40k because they lack the math ability and/or energy to use PL.
... what? So your argument for getting rid of PL is "PL is too hard for certain people", and you also don't see that as a reason to get rid of points? Or are you saying that there should be an option for people who don't want to use points OR PL? Sure - there should be. That's not something I disagree with.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove here.
But that's exactly what I expect from you, complaining about gatekeeping and ableism but refusing to acknowledge when you do the same to other people.
I beg your pardon? What kind of ableism or gatekeeping am I doing here exactly?
I honestly think you're floundering at this point, because you're dropping arguments left and right.
Yep. That's an old document, and remember how much you praise PL for not being updated constantly? How you can use the same point values for years at a time? The other side of that is that the once-every-few-years points update for PL is unlikely to be relevant to you because your codex was released after the update and you'll need to use the values printed in the codex. The normal point system, on the other hand, is always relevant in 1-2 page table form. Either you use the 1-2 page table in your codex or you use the 1-2 page table in the update pdf.
Nothing in that survey addresses PL or disability.
Removing PL would be a non-exclusionary suggestion if it wasn't possible for you to play points without making any changes. But it IS possible to play with points without making changes, which means the only reason for removing PL IS exclusionary.
I have already addressed the reasons for removing PL, so please stop lying and pretending that the only reason is deliberate and targeted exclusion of specific groups.
Except that, as explained above, Open ISN'T defined by "screw officialness". You can argue that you think Open SHOULD be defined by "screw officialness" (I'm not sure I agree, but I'm saying that this would be a rational enough argument that it could be respectfully debated.)
But doubling down here that Open IS "Screw officialness" when it was you yourself who pointed out that, RAW, it isn't... well it's just... Confusing.
This is a case of missing the difference between open play and Open™ Play™, and perhaps I should have made that more clear.
Open play, as in the choose your own rules style of game, is defined by an attitude of "screw officialness". For example, the people in 5th edition playing games where they ignored the FOC because they wanted to have a battle between two all-tank armies and following the FOC would get in the way of that concept. Whether or not it is Official™ is irrelevant to them.
Open™ Play™, the Official™ Way™ To™ Play™ defined by GW, is this weird incoherent hybrid of "do whatever you want" and "officialness is very important and you can only make these specific changes". This is why it is a redundant concept that should be removed from the rules. The people who find it appealing don't need the Official™ 40k™ Game™ approval, and the people who want an official and standardized game format don't find it appealing.
If casual players, by definition (according to you) don't care about the games they play, why would balanced lists be important an important thing for them to aspire to (also according to you)?
Because getting wiped off the table 100-0 isn't fun. The casual player doesn't invest much in the game but that doesn't mean they're going to have fun when when they lose every game, many of them before they even get to take a turn. A balanced game allows them to show up with a low-effort list and not get penalized as harshly for not making the correct choices, increasing the chances that the game is enjoyable even if they lose.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: ... what? So your argument for getting rid of PL is "PL is too hard for certain people", and you also don't see that as a reason to get rid of points? Or are you saying that there should be an option for people who don't want to use points OR PL? Sure - there should be. That's not something I disagree with.
My argument is that you're an ableist gatekeeper because you're doing the exact same thing you accuse me of doing. You defend PL even though it excludes (some) disabled people from playing the game and you don't seem to care one bit about that. PL meets your needs so you're willing to write off those people as acceptable losses.
Or you can concede the obvious: that it isn't gatekeeping just because the effect is that some people are unable or unwilling to play the game.
Sgt_Smudge has dishonestly accused me of gatekeeping and trying to prevent disabled people from playing the game. I'm simply pointing out that by their own standards for what counts as "ableist gatekeeping" they are doing the exact same thing. So either they're a shameless hypocrite or their definition of gatekeeping is wrong.
As a note, CSB
Because you keep saying that my method of play, which I came to by following the book, is insubstantial.
My roommates and family who play with me (a rotating group of 20 or so people), have, on numerous occasions told me, having seen more standard play at FLGSs prior to incidents, that they have zero interest in that style of playing, and prefer what we do here.
It means I now have family looking at getting tiny armies. That's a good thing, right?
The fact that I can point to the book, and show them that CPs, strats, detachments, the massive terrain rules, secondaries, are all in the Advanced Rules section. We don't have to use them, and our method of playing isn't something I'm making up on the spot.
Removing PL doesn't have to be motivated by "Feth those guys." But as a result of removing it, you're making it harder on others to enjoy the game.
And if a casual player goes up against a tournament player, chances are they're gonna get bopped, and bopped hard. (Note that this is ALSO true in a balanced game-chances are a tournament player is much more skilled than Joe who plays once every three months.) But if Joe who plays every three months faces Ron, who plays every 12 weeks, there's a good chance that their lists won't be so out of whack that the game is no fun.
Edit: Has Smudge said anything about "If you can't handle PL, you shouldn't play!"
Or is that solely an invention of CSB that they've attributed to others?
Blndmage wrote: We don't have to use them, and our method of playing isn't something I'm making up on the spot.
But why does it matter if it is something you're making up on the spot? If you aren't playing pickup games against random strangers in a store/club environment then why does it matter if your game is Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Removing PL doesn't have to be motivated by "Feth those guys."
Great. Then you acknowledge that merely advocating the removal of PL is not gatekeeping.
Edit: Has Smudge said anything about "If you can't handle PL, you shouldn't play!"
They don't need to. Do you dispute the fact that there are disabled people who are unable to handle the math involved in using PL?
Blndmage wrote: We don't have to use them, and our method of playing isn't something I'm making up on the spot.
But why does it matter if it is something you're making up on the spot? If you aren't playing pickup games against random strangers in a store/club environment then why does it matter if your game is Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Removing PL doesn't have to be motivated by "Feth those guys."
Great. Then you acknowledge that merely advocating the removal of PL is not gatekeeping.
Edit: Has Smudge said anything about "If you can't handle PL, you shouldn't play!"
They don't need to. Do you dispute the fact that there are disabled people who are unable to handle the math involved in using PL?
Google wrote:the activity of controlling, and usually limiting, general access to something.
Notice that the definition says NOTHING about motive.
As for the last bit... Yes, there are some people who can't handle PL or points. I see no reason to exclude them either-they would probably need help getting a game in, but just because someone needs help is no reason to exclude them.
Since you're so concerned, what's your proposal to help people who can't handle points or PL?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: ... what? So your argument for getting rid of PL is "PL is too hard for certain people", and you also don't see that as a reason to get rid of points? Or are you saying that there should be an option for people who don't want to use points OR PL? Sure - there should be. That's not something I disagree with.
My argument is that you're an ableist gatekeeper because you're doing the exact same thing you accuse me of doing. You defend PL even though it excludes (some) disabled people from playing the game and you don't seem to care one bit about that. PL meets your needs so you're willing to write off those people as acceptable losses.
lolwut?
I'm pointing out that you want to REMOVE options that people say assist them in playing the game, despite having heard accounts that say those options help them, and have decided that you don't care about them. That is ableist.
You have invented this idea that I don't want a system that helps people for who PL would be unsuitable for (which is untrue, I advocate for ALL players to have a way of playing that is accessible and helpful for their needs), for a group of people who I haven't seen any testimony from (not that they don't exist, just highlighting the double standard you're displaying), and that I wouldn't want those people to have those as-of-yet-non-existent options (which, again, is untrue, because, if said option existed, I'd want it around, and I advocate for such an option to exist).
So, I say again, where am I being a gatekeeper or ableist? I defend PL, but other people not being able to use it doesn't mean that I don't want options for them too, because unlike you, I'm capable of thinking beyond my own experiennces.
In trying to dig up something on me, you've just made yourself look even more myopic.
Or you can concede the obvious: that it isn't gatekeeping just because the effect is that some people are unable or unwilling to play the game.
And now we're shifting to "unwilling", implying that disabled folks aren't actually disabled, they just "don't want to" play. Hi, another textbook ableist phrase.
It is absolutely gatekeeping and ableist behaviour for the reasons I've stated: that you have heard the testimony of marginalised folks express their desire and want for something that helps them without affecting your enjoyment, and you have decided, STILL AFTER HEARING THEM, that their views don't matter, and they should be forced to adapt or leave, all over something that doesn't actually affect you in any way.
You chose to side with "streamlining" over accessibility - and that's pretty damn ableist.
JNAProductions wrote:Has Smudge said anything about "If you can't handle PL, you shouldn't play!"
Or is that solely an invention of CSB that they've attributed to others?
Seems like it - I hate to say projection, but... projection?
Blndmage wrote: We don't have to use them, and our method of playing isn't something I'm making up on the spot.
But why does it matter if it is something you're making up on the spot? If you aren't playing pickup games against random strangers in a store/club environment then why does it matter if your game is Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Removing PL doesn't have to be motivated by "Feth those guys."
Great. Then you acknowledge that merely advocating the removal of PL is not gatekeeping.
Edit: Has Smudge said anything about "If you can't handle PL, you shouldn't play!"
They don't need to. Do you dispute the fact that there are disabled people who are unable to handle the math involved in using PL?
"Why does it matter?"
Games have rules, I don't want to have to fething be a game designer when I'm trying to relax. I can give my family copies of the free Core Rules (I wish they still had the mini book with theCore Rules) and the Indexes to get them started and move to codexes as needed.
The books give me a mission pack and a basic framework. That's all we need. With the family who want to dive deeper into the long running story aspect, we add in the CA18 stuff, which has been a huge crowd pleaser.
Sometimes, gasp, we even play the Only War mission!
I'm playing tiny games with kids, adults, people with many disabilities, including blind folks. GW has given us a game that's drawing in new players. The coarser granularity of PL and the style of play we use has made a huge difference.
JNAProductions wrote: Removing PL doesn't have to be motivated by "Feth those guys."
Great. Then you acknowledge that merely advocating the removal of PL is not gatekeeping.
It is once you know that removing it would be removing an accessibility tool for many players. By consciously removing such a tool with informed knowledge of how it will exclude players, you are contributing to gatekeeping behaviour.
Edit: Has Smudge said anything about "If you can't handle PL, you shouldn't play!"
They don't need to.
In other words, you're inventing what I'm saying because you need a strawman to make your (flawed) argument.
Do you dispute the fact that there are disabled people who are unable to handle the math involved in using PL?
Have I said that there should only ever exist two systems, and that there shouldn't be OTHER systems in place as well?
It's right there in your quote: controlling. Control requires intent by definition, otherwise it isn't control. Removing PL is not controlling access because no control exists. People who like PL are free to continue playing the game just like people who don't like AoC are free to continue playing the game. People who can't handle the normal point system but have a friend make their lists for them are free to continue playing the game. Their needs aren't being supported in the way that you demand but if they find a way to continue playing nobody is putting additional barriers in their path to keep them out.
Since you're so concerned, what's your proposal to help people who can't handle points or PL?
I'm not concerned. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of certain people accusing me of ableist gatekeeping but then doing ableist gatekeeping of their own when it comes to their preferred point system.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: Games have rules, I don't want to have to fething be a game designer when I'm trying to relax.
But that's exactly what you're doing! You're being a game designer by deciding which things aren't necessary for getting people started, when to add new content, etc. So why does it matter if GW approves of your choices?
Or do you think that people didn't do the exact same things you're currently doing in previous editions, before GW marketing gave Open™ Play™ as a brand name? Back in earlier editions we absolutely did things like ignore the FOC, ignore mission objectives and just fight until one side is destroyed, only play with basic troops to minimize complexity, etc. We even had simplified tutorial rulebooks to go with the starter set. The only thing new about Open™ Play™ is that GW has given a their approval of it as an Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™ Game™ Type™.
The coarser granularity of PL and the style of play we use has made a huge difference.
So you claim. I suspect there would be no difference in your results if PL didn't exist.
It's right there in your quote: controlling. Control requires intent by definition, otherwise it isn't control. Removing PL is not controlling access because no control exists. People who like PL are free to continue playing the game just like people who don't like AoC are free to continue playing the game. People who can't handle the normal point system but have a friend make their lists for them are free to continue playing the game. Their needs aren't being supported in the way that you demand but if they find a way to continue playing nobody is putting additional barriers in their path to keep them out.
Since you're so concerned, what's your proposal to help people who can't handle points or PL?
I'm not concerned. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of certain people accusing me of ableist gatekeeping but then doing ableist gatekeeping of their own when it comes to their preferred point system.
Google, Again wrote:the power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events.
Note that that doesn't require motive.
And it's very clear you aren't concerned with anything but your own enjoyment and ideals of 40k. But there's no hypocrisy from people who enjoy PL when it comes to people who can't handle points or PL, because 1) there wasn't anything about those folk brought up before you assumed and made a strawman, and 2) they (and, I would hope, many on the points side would too!) would be accommodating.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You chose to side with "streamlining" over accessibility - and that's pretty damn ableist.
Just like you do. Except you think that as long as you haven't personally seen someone saying "I want this" in this specific forum it doesn't matter and those people don't exist. You are such a shameless hypocrite.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You chose to side with "streamlining" over accessibility - and that's pretty damn ableist.
Just like you do. Except you think that as long as you haven't personally seen someone saying "I want this" in this specific forum it doesn't matter and those people don't exist. You are such a shameless hypocrite.
What part of "I enjoy PL" automatically means "I would refuse to accommodate someone who wasn't able to use it"?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You chose to side with "streamlining" over accessibility - and that's pretty damn ableist.
Just like you do. Except you think that as long as you haven't personally seen someone saying "I want this" in this specific forum it doesn't matter and those people don't exist. You are such a shameless hypocrite.
Okay, yep, you've fully lost it.
Don't worry, the rest of the thread can see it too.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And now we're shifting to "unwilling", implying that disabled folks aren't actually disabled, they just "don't want to" play. Hi, another textbook ableist phrase.
No, that's just you being dishonest and claiming that the "willing" part of that refers to disabled people, not people who have no disability-related obstacles but still dislike the normal point system. You're doing an excellent job of making it clear that "ableism" and "gatekeeping" have no meaning to you beyond being tools for bludgeoning people into submission when you have no better argument to make.
I could say the same about you, once you decided to abuse "ableist" and "gatekeeping" to refer to any change you don't like and ignore their actual definitions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: What part of "I enjoy PL" automatically means "I would refuse to accommodate someone who wasn't able to use it"?
Why is "I can accommodate someone who isn't able to use it" a defense for PL but not a defense for points-only 40k?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And now we're shifting to "unwilling", implying that disabled folks aren't actually disabled, they just "don't want to" play. Hi, another textbook ableist phrase.
No, that's just you being dishonest and claiming that the "willing" part of that refers to disabled people, not people who have no disability-related obstacles but still dislike the normal point system. You're doing an excellent job of making it clear that "ableism" and "gatekeeping" have no meaning to you beyond being tools for bludgeoning people into submission when you have no better argument to make.
I could say the same about you, once you decided to abuse "ableist" and "gatekeeping" to refer to any change you don't like and ignore their actual definitions.
I literally quoted the definition of gatekeeping for you. You then ignored it.
Edit: If there was a good system for people who can't use PL or points, then I'd love to see it included. I cannot think of what kind of system that would be, so accommodations would need to be made on an individual basis, unless someone has a good idea for how it would work.
But PL already exists. It's already made. It's already there-you don't need special accommodations, because it's already in reality.
JNAProductions wrote: I literally quoted the definition of gatekeeping for you. You then ignored it.
You quoted a definition that does not match the accusations being made here and ignored where it explicitly talks about "controlling" access, not merely doing a thing without sufficient concern for people who might be excluded.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And now we're shifting to "unwilling", implying that disabled folks aren't actually disabled, they just "don't want to" play. Hi, another textbook ableist phrase.
No, that's just you being dishonest and claiming that the "willing" part of that refers to disabled people, not people who have no disability-related obstacles but still dislike the normal point system. You're doing an excellent job of making it clear that "ableism" and "gatekeeping" have no meaning to you beyond being tools for bludgeoning people into submission when you have no better argument to make.
In other words, "I'm getting mad that I'm being called out on my behaviour, and am now trying to make you look bad for calling it out".
I could say the same about you, once you decided to abuse "ableist" and "gatekeeping" to refer to any change you don't like and ignore their actual definitions.
Except I'm not referring to "change I don't like" - I've quite thoroughly explained why these changes are specifically rooted in your own ableism, lack of empathy, and willingness to gatekeep based on the above, and the rest of the thread can see that.
The fact that you've tried to concoct some kind of similar thing for me is hilarious because you've applied your own way of thinking to me, and found out the hard way that I don't share your same self-centredness.
JNAProductions wrote: I literally quoted the definition of gatekeeping for you. You then ignored it.
You quoted a definition that does not match the accusations being made here and ignored where it explicitly talks about "controlling" access, not merely doing a thing without sufficient concern for people who might be excluded.
And controlling doesn't require a motive.
You can use words to mean things that aren't the common definition, but that's not good communication.
JNAProductions wrote: Edit: If there was a good system for people who can't use PL or points, then I'd love to see it included. I cannot think of what kind of system that would be, so accommodations would need to be made on an individual basis, unless someone has a good idea for how it would work.
Here's a possible system: each player puts models on the table and you play the game with no point system at all, just like AoS had on release day. Or do you think that balance is more important than the needs of disabled people who can't use PL?
JNAProductions wrote: What part of "I enjoy PL" automatically means "I would refuse to accommodate someone who wasn't able to use it"?
Why is "I can accommodate someone who isn't able to use it" a defense for PL but not a defense for points-only 40k?
Uh, because it's not a defence of PL? It's a defence of a different, as of yet non-existent, system which would exist to support those who were unable to use PL - a hypothetical system which I happily would endorse if it existed.
So, given that you suggested the need and target group for it, how would *you* implement it? After all, you raised the issue.
It absolutely does. Controlling by definition involves actively determining the thing being controlled. If there is no motive or agency then the thing is uncontrolled, events are just happening as they will and nothing is actively directing them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: So, given that you suggested the need and target group for it, how would *you* implement it? After all, you raised the issue.
No points at all. Each player puts some models on the table and you play the game. Just like AoS had in its initial release. PL does not exist, the normal point system does not exist.
JNAProductions wrote: Edit: If there was a good system for people who can't use PL or points, then I'd love to see it included. I cannot think of what kind of system that would be, so accommodations would need to be made on an individual basis, unless someone has a good idea for how it would work.
Here's a possible system: each player puts models on the table and you play the game with no point system at all, just like AoS had on release day. Or do you think that balance is more important than the needs of disabled people who can't use PL?
I think the people who can't use PL should have a way of playing the game, and if the system of "each player puts models on the table without points" is the only way to do that, then I'm okay with that, because it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the game.
Personally, I'd propose a system of pre-built or slottable lists, but that's just me.
JNAProductions wrote: Edit: If there was a good system for people who can't use PL or points, then I'd love to see it included. I cannot think of what kind of system that would be, so accommodations would need to be made on an individual basis, unless someone has a good idea for how it would work.
Here's a possible system: each player puts models on the table and you play the game with no point system at all, just like AoS had on release day. Or do you think that balance is more important than the needs of disabled people who can't use PL?
I don't think that's a system in anything but the most technical sense.
And balance is important-moreso for me than for the people in this thread who play PL, but it still matters. However, rough balance can be good enough.
If I field Nurgle Daemons that are, in a perfectly balanced game, worth 2,107 points; and my opponent fields Space Marines that, in a perfectly balanced game, worth 1,989 points... That's good enough for a solid game, assuming we're reasonably close in skill levels and the dice are fair.
If you're more like Smudge, and favor the narrative of the hobby more than the gameplay itself, then you can be even rougher-if you want a desperate last stand of IG against Nids, where the IG get 1,500 points or 75 PL, and the Nids get 4,000 points/200 PL (or get 2,000/100, but keep respawning for free; or get 1,000/50 a turn, or whatever) then the game is not gonna be balanced, but that's fine, because it's not the point. When one side has double or more the other side, it's fine if the exact number would be 2.05X instead of 2.00X in a perfect game.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I think the people who can't use PL should have a way of playing the game, and if the system of "each player puts models on the table without points" is the only way to do that, then I'm okay with that, because it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the game.
So you are ok with the removal of points from Crusade? No more supply limit since units no longer cost points, no more requisitions with variable costs depending on the point cost of the unit, etc. I suppose that could be done, but I know at least one Crusade fan would be very unhappy about not having the supply limit mechanic anymore.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: So, given that you suggested the need and target group for it, how would *you* implement it? After all, you raised the issue.
No points at all. Each player puts some models on the table and you play the game. Just like AoS had in its initial release. PL does not exist, the normal point system does not exist.
Now, I agreed with you up until that last sentence, because that's not something I've ever specified or wanted.
I don't know why you have this idea knocking around in your head that there can be only ONE SINGLE WAY TO PLAY TM, but that's just not true, and it's not a stance I've ever supported.
In this hypothetical situation, there should be three ways of building an army - points, PL, and this 'no points' system you proposed, and they should all be valid and official. Each one caters to different wants and needs, and the existence of one doesn't affect the existence of another.
JNAProductions wrote: Edit: If there was a good system for people who can't use PL or points, then I'd love to see it included. I cannot think of what kind of system that would be, so accommodations would need to be made on an individual basis, unless someone has a good idea for how it would work.
Here's a possible system: each player puts models on the table and you play the game with no point system at all, just like AoS had on release day. Or do you think that balance is more important than the needs of disabled people who can't use PL?
I think the people who can't use PL should have a way of playing the game, and if the system of "each player puts models on the table without points" is the only way to do that, then I'm okay with that, because it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the game.
Personally, I'd propose a system of pre-built or slottable lists, but that's just me.
That's... Incredibly obvious, and I feel silly for not thinking of it.
Yeah, precon lists would make a ton of sense. Hell, you could even playtest those specific lists and tweak them to make sure they play nicely together.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I think the people who can't use PL should have a way of playing the game, and if the system of "each player puts models on the table without points" is the only way to do that, then I'm okay with that, because it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the game.
So you are ok with the removal of points from Crusade?
No, where did I say that? You're putting words where none came.
JNAProductions wrote: I don't think that's a system in anything but the most technical sense.
It was good enough for GW when they released AoS.
And balance is important-moreso for me than for the people in this thread who play PL, but it still matters. However, rough balance can be good enough.
Cool, so just like me you prioritize balance over maximizing accessibility and you're fine with a system that excludes certain people as long as you feel that balance concerns justify it. Thanks for finally recognizing the point I was getting at.
JNAProductions wrote: I don't think that's a system in anything but the most technical sense.
It was good enough for GW when they released AoS.
And balance is important-moreso for me than for the people in this thread who play PL, but it still matters. However, rough balance can be good enough.
Cool, so just like me you prioritize balance over maximizing accessibility and you're fine with a system that excludes certain people as long as you feel that balance concerns justify it. Thanks for finally recognizing the point I was getting at.
And AoS sucked when it first came out. Badly.
There's a reason they added points back in.
And absolutely not-I want balance, but I am 100% fine with people who have other priorities gaining enjoyment and playing with 40k in different ways.
JNAProductions wrote: And balance is important-moreso for me than for the people in this thread who play PL, but it still matters. However, rough balance can be good enough.
Cool, so just like me you prioritize balance over maximizing accessibility and you're fine with a system that excludes certain people as long as you feel that balance concerns justify it. Thanks for finally recognizing the point I was getting at.
JNAProductions wrote: And balance is important-moreso for me than for the people in this thread who play PL, but it still matters. However, rough balance can be good enough.
Cool, so just like me you prioritize balance over maximizing accessibility and you're fine with a system that excludes certain people as long as you feel that balance concerns justify it. Thanks for finally recognizing the point I was getting at.
I don't think that's what JNA said at all?
It's not. CSB is literally putting words in other people's mouths.
CSB
I noticed you've ignored my entire post.
Is my group of 20 players, insignificant?
They have almost all said that if they had to play with points and all the Advanced Rules, they wouldn't play at all
To be clear, if Open Play was removed, that's 20 less people playing the game and buying minis.
Backspacehacker wrote: I mean, "But i love when people use that as a way to incorporate 'bad balance is good' into their mindset"
Is a pretty damn inconsistent, considering you are implying people who point out that we play with dolls is backing bad balance.
The other inconsistent part is, why are you embarrassed over a second set of rules for a game that you dont even have to play.
You are playing a game where you paint toys and roll dies as you make believe you are having them shoot at each other, and the thing that you are embarrassed about is a point system that hardly anyone uses?
That right there is a really inconsistent take.
Except it does, because they then point out I'm apparently taking it "too seriously" and then we should just do the balancing ourselves (have you even bothered to read the posts from people defending PL?). At that point you dont need to pay for rules. Just go pew pew and the player that made the best pew pew noises wins. We literally have best poster in the thread saying it's fine that Laspistols and Plasma Pistols cost the same because they dont care and thinking too much on it is taking things too seriously.
Also yeah, the really bad system for constructing armies with zero thought behind it is far more embarassing than painting/putting together models and rolling dice on a table. The GW executive that suggested PL should be embarrassed, the GW rules writers that actually created it should be embarrassed, and the defenders of PL should be embarrassed.
"Except it does becasue they then point out im apparently taking it 'too seriously' "
Why do you care what others think? Just tell them its a a bad secondary point system GW tried to use, and no one really uses it that much, and move on. Like, why do you care if they think you are taking it to seriously for wanting to use points, the system taht everyone else uses.
You are putting WAY to much importance on what others think about the system, and there is literally no reason to be "Embarrassed" thats just silly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tallonian4th wrote: I've recently transitioned from playing Power Level to Points and I must admit I don't see what the fuss is with Points. It seems to make list building needlessly pernickety, needing multiple books and making it a real time sink. Also points seem to regularly change so having spent a long time creating a list it can then be upturned, meaning yet more time to rebuild the list.
I've not noticed more or less imbalance with either system so I can't see what the benefit of Points is over Power Level.
Its because generally the people who play PL are not making wombo combos. Its a LOT harder to exploit points vs PL. A PL game can be horribly exploited, the example i used again was rubrics, being able to give them all warpflamers and infernal bolters so you basically got like 100-200 points of free gear.
You could also do this with things like devestators, stern guards, vanguard, captains and what not. Its very easy to exploit PL, its not as easy to exploit points.
PL is just as embarrassing a thing as Scatterbikes and Battle Demi Company were. It doesn't MATTER if you say you won't exploit a system or not. A system that can be exploited, period, needs reworking.
To put into perspective, the amount of free crap you get with PL is just as bad as the free transports you got with Battle Demi Company or the free upgrades in the AdMech formation. It's frankly mind boggling those latter two get defense, but with this thread I'm not surprised.
EviscerationPlague wrote:Also yeah, the really bad system for constructing armies with zero thought behind it is far more embarassing than painting/putting together models and rolling dice on a table. The GW executive that suggested PL should be embarrassed, the GW rules writers that actually created it should be embarrassed, and the defenders of PL should be embarrassed.
The only thing embarrassing here is getting so worked up over nothing. Breathe. Play with your points and toy soldiers.
CAAC coming up again! It's not "nothing". It's a gak system that doesn't deserve an ounce of defense.
Name a part where I'm inconsistent instead of just being mad that I think PL should be deleted as it's embarassing to even think about.
Please illuminate me what:
- you finding PL an embarassing concept
- people referring to models as toy soldier upsetting you
Have to do with each other. While we're at it, clear up how:
- refer to models as toy soldiers
- bad balance is good
Are related. Likewise how do you make the jump from "PL is an embarassment" to "you must love bad balance based on how you describe your hobby".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: It sounds like PL is another one of those "let the players balance the game!" decisions that GW has been making lately.
What do we pay them for again?
You mean the "let the players balance the game" decisions where they seek feedback and ideas from top end competitive players for points based play adjustments?
Ive already stated multiple times how PL is a garbage system for creating armies and an embarassing system to talk about mechanically. Not my fault it isn't clicking for you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: CSB
I noticed you've ignored my entire post.
Is my group of 20 players, insignificant?
They have almost all said that if they had to play with points and all the Advanced Rules, they wouldn't play at all
To be clear, if Open Play was removed, that's 20 less people playing the game and buying minis.
I think you're reading the date on the link. GW doesn't seem to change the links when they update the documents. If you go to the actual list of FAQ's you'll see that it was updated March 16, 2022. Old by Matched/ Points standards. But not as objectively old is the date in the link implies.
and remember how much you praise PL for not being updated constantly? How you can use the same point values for years at a time?
What do you mean "How can I..."? That's a FEATURE for my. It's one of the many reasons WHY I prefer PL. I would hate rebuilding a list every 3 months. Especially since three months is is likely long enough for me to accumulate battle honours, which means the values contained in the update would not reflect the combat effectiveness of the unit anyway. Total waste of time given my play style. Probably not a waste of time for people with other play styles, which is why GW gave them the alternative of points.
The other side of that is that the once-every-few-years points update for PL is unlikely to be relevant to you because your codex was released after the update and you'll need to use the values printed in the codex.
This true; the only dex released since the last update is Chaos, so yeah, if I play a chaos army, I'll take the PL from the dex. I'll check them against the PDF out of curiosity, but it's easy enough to just build out of the dex.
The normal point system, on the other hand, is always relevant in 1-2 page table form. Either you use the 1-2 page table in your codex or you use the 1-2 page table in the update pdf.
Nothing in that survey addresses PL or disability.
Well not directly, but it does tell you the percentage of players who play Crusade, and while some of them will love points so much that they choose to use points and not PL, it's safe to assume that most of them use PL. Certainly more than half of them, and bro, even half is way more than three.
Removing PL would be a non-exclusionary suggestion if it wasn't possible for you to play points without making any changes. But it IS possible to play with points without making changes, which means the only reason for removing PL IS exclusionary.
I have already addressed the reasons for removing PL, so please stop lying and pretending that the only reason is deliberate and targeted exclusion of specific groups.
What my post is saying is that since you can choose to play points with the rules as they are, your reasons for suggesting the removal of PL are irrelevant. If you, and your meta are perfectly able to play points as is, you get nothing out of the removal of PL. The only thing removing them does is prevent OTHER PEOPLE from using them.
This is a case of missing the difference between open play and Open™ Play™, and perhaps I should have made that more clear.
Spoiler:
Open play, as in the choose your own rules style of game, is defined by an attitude of "screw officialness". For example, the people in 5th edition playing games where they ignored the FOC because they wanted to have a battle between two all-tank armies and following the FOC would get in the way of that concept. Whether or not it is Official™ is irrelevant to them.
Open™ Play™, the Official™ Way™ To™ Play™ defined by GW, is this weird incoherent hybrid of "do whatever you want" and "officialness is very important and you can only make these specific changes". This is why it is a redundant concept that should be removed from the rules. The people who find it appealing don't need the Official™ 40k™ Game™ approval, and the people who want an official and standardized game format don't find it appealing.
Ahh. Right, that makes sense now- thanks for clarifying. You are correct- based on your assertions here, there is no contradiction.
It is worth pointing out, however that while Open Play TM is a thing that actually exists, open play is a thing that doesn't.
If casual players, by definition (according to you) don't care about the games they play, why would balanced lists be important an important thing for them to aspire to (also according to you)?
Because getting wiped off the table 100-0 isn't fun. The casual player doesn't invest much in the game but that doesn't mean they're going to have fun when when they lose every game, many of them before they even get to take a turn. A balanced game allows them to show up with a low-effort list and not get penalized as harshly for not making the correct choices, increasing the chances that the game is enjoyable even if they lose.
Sure, but the issue is that if this IS their actual experience, they can always solve the problem by choosing to use points. You don't need to "protect" anyone else from evil PL any more than you need to protect yourself from Evil PL because Points still exist, and ANYONE having a rough time with PL is just as free to use Points as they always have been, and hopefully always will be.
Problem solved, by which I mean "Problem never existed in the first place."
Some people DO speculate that recent changes to points indicate a shift to a PL mindset, and you have my word brother that if that ever does occur, I will be right there with you complaining about it, because in my eyes, that absolutely would be a problem. It just hasn't actually happened yet, and even the immediate removal of PL would have no effect on whether or not it eventually does happen.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: ... what? So your argument for getting rid of PL is "PL is too hard for certain people", and you also don't see that as a reason to get rid of points? Or are you saying that there should be an option for people who don't want to use points OR PL? Sure - there should be. That's not something I disagree with.
My argument is that you're an ableist gatekeeper because you're doing the exact same thing you accuse me of doing. You defend PL even though it excludes (some) disabled people from playing the game and you don't seem to care one bit about that. PL meets your needs so you're willing to write off those people as acceptable losses.
Or you can concede the obvious: that it isn't gatekeeping just because the effect is that some people are unable or unwilling to play the game.
Nah. Look man, PL is simpler math- it's lower numbers AND far fewer upgrade costs. And sure, there are some people that can't do the math necessary to build a list with PL... But all of those people would have an even harder time doing it with points, which means your position (points only) is worse than Smudge's (points and PL both continue to exist).
The cool thing is that since Open TM continues to exist in Smudge's world, and it's missions are either Relative vs. Absolute Size (BRB open missions) or size agnostic (Open War Deck) their world DOES include options for people who struggle with PL level math. Since Open TM is ANOTHER of the things you insist on removing, in your world, there is no option for people who struggle with PL level math.
You can argue that the removal of Open TM would automatically beget the existence of open play, which you can then theorize would be even more friendly to poor math skills than Open Play TM... and it might. But there is no guarantee, that either of those things would happen.
JNAProductions wrote: What part of "I enjoy PL" automatically means "I would refuse to accommodate someone who wasn't able to use it"?
That seems to be where Blndmage is at.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PenitentJake wrote: Because getting wiped off the table 100-0 isn't fun. The casual player doesn't invest much in the game but that doesn't mean they're going to have fun when when they lose every game, many of them before they even get to take a turn. A balanced game allows them to show up with a low-effort list and not get penalized as harshly for not making the correct choices, increasing the chances that the game is enjoyable even if they lose.
That's much more likely to happen with PL than with points.
JNAProductions wrote: And AoS sucked when it first came out. Badly.
There's a reason they added points back in.
Correct. And there is a reason why PL is a failed system that should be removed. You don't get to accuse me of ableist gatekeeping for prioritizing game design over accessibility and then turn around and make the exact same priority choice yourself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: CSB
I noticed you've ignored my entire post.
Is my group of 20 players, insignificant?
They have almost all said that if they had to play with points and all the Advanced Rules, they wouldn't play at all
To be clear, if Open Play was removed, that's 20 less people playing the game and buying minis.
Are these 20 people genuinely so set on this specific point system that taking 16 minutes to make a list instead of 15 minutes would be an impossible barrier and end their interest in the game? Or do they only say this because you've presented the normal point system as this massive and unnecessary burden. I am extremely skeptical that all of them are perfectly fine with the standard form of points-based list construction, but only if upgrade costs are not counted.
I mean that there are two possible scenarios here: either the point values for PL are updated frequently or the point values for PL are updated once every few years. If they are updated frequently then yes, most point values can be found in a nice 1-2 page table but your claim about the virtues of a system that rarely changes is no longer true. If they are updated once every few years then yes, you have consistency over time but it means that a lot of armies will no longer be able to use that 1-2 page table because they have had a codex update since the last points document was published and you have to use the point values in the codex (where they are spread out in the datasheet second, not compiled into a table). The fact that the point document has been updated relatively recently at this specific moment in time doesn't change the general situation. At some point a year or two from now you will either have a compiled point document of very limited relevance or you will have had several point updates that invalidated your existing armies.
Well not directly, but it does tell you the percentage of players who play Crusade, and while some of them will love points so much that they choose to use points and not PL, it's safe to assume that most of them use PL. Certainly more than half of them, and bro, even half is way more than three.
That's a dishonest argument and you know it. The comment about three people was people who need to use PL because the normal point system is an impossible obstacle. Nowhere in the Goonhammer survey does it say anything about people needing to use PL, or even about people preferring to use PL. Even if you set aside the people who play Crusade with the normal point system it is likely that many, if not most, of the Crusade players in the survey group would be just fine with playing Crusade with normal points if GW got rid of PL.
What my post is saying is that since you can choose to play points with the rules as they are, your reasons for suggesting the removal of PL are irrelevant. If you, and your meta are perfectly able to play points as is, you get nothing out of the removal of PL. The only thing removing them does is prevent OTHER PEOPLE from using them.
And the game design improvement of removing rules bloat and redundant systems. And eliminating the need to house rule Crusade to use the better system. And removing the temptation for the CAAC faction at GW to try again to make PL the only system. You may not agree with these things being desirable but please do not dishonestly claim that they do not exist.
It is worth pointing out, however that while Open Play TM is a thing that actually exists, open play is a thing that doesn't.
Open play with no ™s absolutely exists. It existed before GW's marketing team created Open™ Play™, it exists now, and it will exist if/when GW removes Open™ Play™ from the rulebook. The fact that it doesn't have a brand label attached doesn't make it any less of a thing.
Sure, but the issue is that if this IS their actual experience, they can always solve the problem by choosing to use points.
But why have that bad experience in the first place? Why have them start with a system that is more prone to bad experiences and make them decide to try the different system instead? Why not have the only system be the one that doesn't have the inherent balance flaws that make the bad experience more likely?
Nah. Look man, PL is simpler math- it's lower numbers AND far fewer upgrade costs. And sure, there are some people that can't do the math necessary to build a list with PL... But all of those people would have an even harder time doing it with points, which means your position (points only) is worse than Smudge's (points and PL both continue to exist).
Call it worse if you want but either both of them are ableist gatekeeping or neither of them are ableist gatekeeping.
At this point you guys are oging round and round arguing just to argue.
The reality is, nothing is hurt by having PL in the game, and nothing is really suffering for it being there since GW is doing, and even saying this is being very generous, the bare minimum effort to even include PL values for units, so minimum its not even detracting from the rest of the game as its very clear GW has not even given PL a second glance over as we have seen multiple point rewords but i dont think there has ever been a PL rework.
Seriously at this point just disengage this is the classic XKCD comic of "No, you dont understand, some one was WRONG on the INTERNET!"
Backspacehacker wrote: Seriously at this point just disengage this is the classic XKCD comic of "No, you dont understand, some one was WRONG on the INTERNET!"
Then why don't you match actions to words, delete your post, and disengage instead of deciding that you need to get the last word.
So far one good point stands out in this massive prick waving contest:
Preconstructed lists.
Magic: The Gathering has had precons forever, and I'm pretty sure there are some ready made battleforce type substances in other mini games. Why not have a precon force for each faction? A roughly 1,000 point/whatever the feth PL is equivalent batch of models so that people who apparently can't or actively won't listbuild can lay models out and crack on. THAT is an actual good idea.
Also, it'd be funny to see the price of a precon just to put things into perspective...
I like the idea of preconstructed lists, I actually think competitive gaming should only work that way. So that players really win on luck and decisions rather than having a better list.
Preconstructed lists (appropriately designed and tested to be reasonably on par of course) are what I'd expect from tournament and competitive gaming, where people are obsessed with 50/50 balance. And it's extremely easier to design balanced preconstructed lists than designing balanced codexes.
Blackie wrote: I like the idea of preconstructed lists, I actually think competitive gaming should only work that way. So that players really win on luck and decisions rather than having a better list.
Preconstructed lists (appropriately designed and tested to be reasonably on par of course) are what I'd expect from tournament and competitive gaming, where people are obsessed with 50/50 balance. And it's extremely easier to design balanced preconstructed lists than designing balanced codexes.
Oh god, can you imagine the tears when the precons aren't optimised and have less than stellar units in (whilst all being of a similar level).
Tallonian4th wrote: Power Level also gives far more freedom over modelling. You don't have to worry if Vox Casters are worth it or not, or if they will suddenly be useless meanin you either have to chop up a model or build a replacement. You just build a cool model (or squad of models) that fits in with the story you have for your army. I use Vox Casters as an example purely as I find the idea of a combat squad without communications as bizarre but totally understand under the points system why someone would do so.
No, if you don't have vox casters you have to rip your models apart and give them to them because you get more value out of your PL by taking vox casters. Same thing with plasma guns and lascannons over grenade launchers and missile launchers. What if my regiment is stranded on a tomb world where communications have been shut down for months, why would they be carrying around vox-casters? The real problem was that vox casters were way too expensive so it was easily apparent that taking them was a waste of points previously, now it is easily apparent that you'd be silly not to take one because it is a free power boost to your unit.
Casual player: a player who puts limited effort into the game. They own a few models, maybe play a game occasionally, but they don't really care about it. By definition nobody on this forum is a casual player.
It's bad for casual players because it's a less-balanced system and balance is vital when you're dealing with players who lack the knowledge or desire to make good list building choices.
If casual players, by definition (according to you) don't care about the games they play, why would balanced lists be important an important thing for them to aspire to (also according to you)?
Competitive players will avoid bad factions, datasheets and options, while a couple of casuals can walk into a massive disparity on accident. Like at the launch of Drukhari, using a casual CSM list against more or less any Drukhari list would just be a waste of time. Being casual does not mean only wanting to lose or wanting free wins.
Blackie wrote: I like the idea of preconstructed lists, I actually think competitive gaming should only work that way. So that players really win on luck and decisions rather than having a better list.
Preconstructed lists (appropriately designed and tested to be reasonably on par of course) are what I'd expect from tournament and competitive gaming, where people are obsessed with 50/50 balance. And it's extremely easier to design balanced preconstructed lists than designing balanced codexes.
Oh god, can you imagine the tears when the precons aren't optimised and have less than stellar units in (whilst all being of a similar level).
Yes I do. That's why I'd like competitive gaming to be run by people who can really play the game rather than bandwagoners. Real competitive players love the challenges and to get the most from the limited resources they have (un-optimized units in this case). Otherwise it's just pay to win.
Dudeface wrote: Oh god, can you imagine the tears when the precons aren't optimised and have less than stellar units in (whilst all being of a similar level).
I can't, because the tears would be coming from the casual/narrative players. Competitive players understand the concept of balanced fixed lists and would only have objections if the lists aren't balanced well. The outrage would be from the casual/narrative players who have specific ideas about what they want "their dudes" to be like and can't use the new format without sacrificing the things they enjoy.
Dudeface wrote: Oh god, can you imagine the tears when the precons aren't optimised and have less than stellar units in (whilst all being of a similar level).
I can't, because the tears would be coming from the casual/narrative players. Competitive players understand the concept of balanced fixed lists and would only have objections if the lists aren't balanced well. The outrage would be from the casual/narrative players who have specific ideas about what they want "their dudes" to be like and can't use the new format without sacrificing the things they enjoy.
No, preconstructed lists would be restricted to tournament only. And an option for those who want to practise for events of course. The entire purpose of such lists is to create an environment in which it's only luck and skills that matter, not the lists' composition.
Casual and narrative would continue playing whatever they want, since it's not them that are obsessed with balance or even seek 50/50 balance.
Blackie wrote: No, preconstructed lists would be restricted to tournament only. And an option for those who want to practise for events of course. The entire purpose of such lists is to create an environment in which it's only luck and skills that matter, not the lists' composition.
Your supposed "entire purpose" is pretty funny given the fact that the idea was suggested as a solution for people who are unable or unwilling to build lists using the normal points-based system. IOW, as a solution to the disability issue, not for competitive play.
Casual and narrative would continue playing whatever they want, since it's not them that are obsessed with balance or even seek 50/50 balance.
And this is a complete misunderstanding of game design principles. Competitive players talk about balance a lot but in reality as long as balance doesn't get too bad they'll happily just take the overpowered thing because winning the on-table game is more important than story/aesthetics/etc. It's the casual and narrative players who benefit most from a high level of balance, as those are the players that have off-table reasons for committing to particular units/upgrades even if those choices are bad in the game.
Your supposed "entire purpose" is pretty funny given the fact that the idea was suggested as a solution for people who are unable or unwilling to build lists using the normal points-based system. IOW, as a solution to the disability issue, not for competitive play.
Maybe, probably, I don't care. In my opinion preconstructed lists could be an amazing tool for competitive gaming and I've explained why. If someone struggles to build a list then yes preconstructed lists might be helpful for them as well but they only make sense if they're reasonably balanced between each other, hence they're perfect for those who want to prove their skills. Feel free to disagree of course. Ours are just opinions, maybe for someone precontructed lists are perfect for very casual players, I think they should be the standard way to play tournaments.
And this is a complete misunderstanding of game design principles. Competitive players talk about balance a lot but in reality as long as balance doesn't get too bad they'll happily just take the overpowered thing because winning the on-table game is more important than story/aesthetics/etc. It's the casual and narrative players who benefit most from a high level of balance, as those are the players that have off-table reasons for committing to particular units/upgrades even if those choices are bad in the game.
Quite the opposite. Narrative and casual players don't need preconstructed lists because they can already have a pre-game talk and change their lists in order to get a more balanced game. I've done it since I remember and I play since 3rd edition. The only worry about balance for casual players is when balance is completely out of control and pre-game talk would be too exhausting then, see 7th edition.
You also confuse competitive players with WAACs and bandwagoners. Both may attend events but they're not the same cathegory of players. Competitive players want the challenge and to prove they're better players, the latter just want to win in the easiest way possible. A real competitive player can't stand being told he wins because he brings an OP list.
Blackie wrote: Narrative and casual players don't need preconstructed lists because they can already have a pre-game talk and change their lists in order to get a more balanced game.
Preconstructed lists? No, but that's not what I was talking about there. Narrative and casual players shouldn't have to have this pre-game talk, we've just normalized GW incompetence and pretend it's the only way for things to be. The game should be balanced enough that the pre-game talk isn't necessary and neither player has to sacrifice the choices they've made for narrative/aesthetic reasons. And this is why we need to dump failed systems like PL, systems which are unbalanced by design and will never reach a state of sufficient balance.
You also confuse competitive players with WAACs and bandwagoners. Both may attend events but they're not the same cathegory of players. Competitive players want the challenge and to prove they're better players, the latter just want to win in the easiest way possible. A real competitive player can't stand being told he wins because he brings an OP list.
Narrative and casual players shouldn't have to have this pre-game talk, we've just normalized GW incompetence and pretend it's the only way for things to be. The game should be balanced enough that the pre-game talk isn't necessary and neither player has to sacrifice the choices they've made for narrative/aesthetic reasons.
Why not? It worked like that since decades and 40k still is very popular. Of course everything can always be improved but accepting 40k for what it is instead of what it might be is a fundamental step to enjoy this game and hobby. I don't see people protesting and rioting in large numbers about the state of 40k, probably because there's nothing (or very little) to protest about.
Blackie wrote: Maybe, probably, I don't care. In my opinion preconstructed lists could be an amazing tool for competitive gaming and I've explained why.
That's fine, but that's not what was being talked about, which was that preconstructed lists would be good for casual players who have trouble with the listbuilding side of things.
Tallonian4th wrote: I've recently transitioned from playing Power Level to Points and I must admit I don't see what the fuss is with Points. It seems to make list building needlessly pernickety, needing multiple books and making it a real time sink. Also points seem to regularly change so having spent a long time creating a list it can then be upturned, meaning yet more time to rebuild the list.
I've not noticed more or less imbalance with either system so I can't see what the benefit of Points is over Power Level.
Doesn't that have more to do with GW's terrible formatting and book keeping? It wasn't like that in earlier editions. Making a list in 4th ed was easier because the books were well formatted and they didn't put the values at the back of the book and split apart the datasheets for some stupid reason.
Points changes weren't that often either; it was on a 4 year cycle. It's just that GW has gone nuts with the updates and started pushing them out more often because the player base complained that updates were taking too long. So now GW makes updates for like, no reason, to keep up with demand. At least you don't have to pay for the points changes now.
Dudeface wrote: Oh god, can you imagine the tears when the precons aren't optimised and have less than stellar units in (whilst all being of a similar level).
I can't, because the tears would be coming from the casual/narrative players. Competitive players understand the concept of balanced fixed lists and would only have objections if the lists aren't balanced well. The outrage would be from the casual/narrative players who have specific ideas about what they want "their dudes" to be like and can't use the new format without sacrificing the things they enjoy.
No, preconstructed lists would be restricted to tournament only. And an option for those who want to practise for events of course. The entire purpose of such lists is to create an environment in which it's only luck and skills that matter, not the lists' composition.
Casual and narrative would continue playing whatever they want, since it's not them that are obsessed with balance or even seek 50/50 balance.
Optimizing lists to match your playstyle is part of player skill though, plus facing the exact same armies all the time is super boring.
Last but not least, who would be creating those optimized lists to begin with? The same company which does such a great job at balancing the game? Or is it the TOs who are heavily biased towards certain armies?
Tallonian4th wrote: I've recently transitioned from playing Power Level to Points and I must admit I don't see what the fuss is with Points. It seems to make list building needlessly pernickety, needing multiple books and making it a real time sink. Also points seem to regularly change so having spent a long time creating a list it can then be upturned, meaning yet more time to rebuild the list.
I've not noticed more or less imbalance with either system so I can't see what the benefit of Points is over Power Level.
Doesn't that have more to do with GW's terrible formatting and book keeping? It wasn't like that in earlier editions. Making a list in 4th ed was easier because the books were well formatted and they didn't put the values at the back of the book and split apart the datasheets for some stupid reason.
Points changes weren't that often either; it was on a 4 year cycle. It's just that GW has gone nuts with the updates and started pushing them out more often because the player base complained that updates were taking too long. So now GW makes updates for like, no reason, to keep up with demand. At least you don't have to pay for the points changes now.
Since I use both systems regularly, I know fairly well what they relate to. When you build a list with points, battlescribe becomes a mandatory tool to manage building a list at all and you start fiddling with options on a model basis. Some special weapon for champions or nobz here, some unit upgrade there, that one gets a special weapon or maybe not? Or do I just downgrade all the nobz from PK to BC so I can fit in another unit of gretchin? Do I have enough nobz modeled with BC to do that?
Lot's of fiddly stuff you simply don't have to bother with when you use PL. You just add entire units, double their size, or you don't. The resulting game isn't really that much more balanced either way.
The only real noticeable difference between PL and points is that internal balance gets completely fethed up when you optimize lists to bring the best possible. There is no decision to be made if the options are plasma pistol and lascannon for the same price or when two units that are 50 points apart cost the same PL due to rounding or when adding a minor upgrades costs 1PL because that's the lowest possible cost.
External balance being a big issue is just an agenda pushed by people who clearly have neither experience nor data to back up that claim.
I guess you could look at pre-constructed lists for competitive gaming, but I'd have thought it was more just about avoiding the sharp edges that usually appear when people optimise more than GW expect you to.
I don't think the game would automatically fix itself - but I suspect things would be a lot more balanced if everyone played to the "White Dwarf meta." I.E. soft highlander is enforced because the Studio has precisely one of each painted unit (and no Orks at all), and you need to take the bad with the good to make up points.
EviscerationPlague wrote:Also yeah, the really bad system for constructing armies with zero thought behind it is far more embarassing than painting/putting together models and rolling dice on a table. The GW executive that suggested PL should be embarrassed, the GW rules writers that actually created it should be embarrassed, and the defenders of PL should be embarrassed.
The only thing embarrassing here is getting so worked up over nothing. Breathe. Play with your points and toy soldiers.
CAAC coming up again! It's not "nothing". It's a gak system that doesn't deserve an ounce of defense.
It *is* nothing. It doesn't affect you. You can happily play 40k without needing to even think about PL, if only you were capable of doing so.
And yes, I do play casually. Yes, I am playing with toy soldiers. You are too. If you want to put more granular points on them, you're more than welcome to. I don't want to prevent you doing what you like doing - just don't stop me doing me.
Seriously, take a look at what you're arguing for here - taking away a different way of playing with toy soldiers and calling it "embarrassing". Get a sense of perspective, my person.
Blndmage wrote: CSB
I noticed you've ignored my entire post.
Is my group of 20 players, insignificant?
They have almost all said that if they had to play with points and all the Advanced Rules, they wouldn't play at all
To be clear, if Open Play was removed, that's 20 less people playing the game and buying minis.
I'd rather have less players than a worse game.
And that's why people are calling you a gatekeeper, and why you're the problem here.
CadianSgtBob wrote:
Blndmage wrote: CSB
I noticed you've ignored my entire post.
Is my group of 20 players, insignificant?
They have almost all said that if they had to play with points and all the Advanced Rules, they wouldn't play at all
To be clear, if Open Play was removed, that's 20 less people playing the game and buying minis.
Are these 20 people genuinely so set on this specific point system that taking 16 minutes to make a list instead of 15 minutes would be an impossible barrier and end their interest in the game? Or do they only say this because you've presented the normal point system as this massive and unnecessary burden. I am extremely skeptical that all of them are perfectly fine with the standard form of points-based list construction, but only if upgrade costs are not counted.
And that's why your behaviour is ableist - instead of believing the testimony and experiences of disabled folks, you doubt the veracity of their claims and try and twist their preferences into something that doesn't force you to compromise.
I don't think I've seen you actually accept that points don't actually work for everyone and that PL is enough for others - and that's exactly what I mean by invalidating the voices of others. You are showing a critical lack of respect here, which could be fixed by simply acknowledging the experiences of others.
What my post is saying is that since you can choose to play points with the rules as they are, your reasons for suggesting the removal of PL are irrelevant. If you, and your meta are perfectly able to play points as is, you get nothing out of the removal of PL. The only thing removing them does is prevent OTHER PEOPLE from using them.
And the game design improvement of removing rules bloat and redundant systems. And eliminating the need to house rule Crusade to use the better system. And removing the temptation for the CAAC faction at GW to try again to make PL the only system. You may not agree with these things being desirable but please do not dishonestly claim that they do not exist.
When you can prove they do exist, and aren't just a boogieman you've invented to play the victim, I'll hear it out.
It is worth pointing out, however that while Open Play TM is a thing that actually exists, open play is a thing that doesn't.
Open play with no ™s absolutely exists. It existed before GW's marketing team created Open™ Play™, it exists now, and it will exist if/when GW removes Open™ Play™ from the rulebook. The fact that it doesn't have a brand label attached doesn't make it any less of a thing.
If it's not officially recognised, it runs the risk of being marginalised and invalidated - exactly like how you want to invalidate the "CAAC faction at GW".
Nah. Look man, PL is simpler math- it's lower numbers AND far fewer upgrade costs. And sure, there are some people that can't do the math necessary to build a list with PL... But all of those people would have an even harder time doing it with points, which means your position (points only) is worse than Smudge's (points and PL both continue to exist).
Call it worse if you want but either both of them are ableist gatekeeping or neither of them are ableist gatekeeping.
That's literally not how this works, because I advocated for alternative methods beyond points and PL that would also accommodate for people who struggled with PL - an argument you haven't addressed. Strange that.
Backspacehacker wrote:The reality is, nothing is hurt by having PL in the game, and nothing is really suffering for it being there since GW is doing, and even saying this is being very generous, the bare minimum effort to even include PL values for units, so minimum its not even detracting from the rest of the game as its very clear GW has not even given PL a second glance over as we have seen multiple point rewords but i dont think there has ever been a PL rework.
Very true.
Just Tony wrote:So far one good point stands out in this massive prick waving contest:
Preconstructed lists.
I'm genuinely surprised that I hadn't thought of it sooner and that it's even a good point. But yeah, it has promise, I suppose! There could be multiple thematic variants for every army (ie, in a Guard army, there could be options for an Armoured Company, a line infantry force, a light infantry detachment, an airborne Scion force, an a combined arms force, etc), all with maybe a little bit of fluff explaining how XYZ detachment was deployed on ABC World, and represents a "typical" force of it's kind. It could even have options where you could take X unit or Y unit, or certain pregen combinations of weapons (ie, an infantry squad may either have a flamer and power sword, or a heavy weapon team). Make it entirely clear that this is designed to go up against other pregen armies, but is legal in any other game of 40k. That way, it provides an early stepping stone into the rest of the game, but also allows for newer players to go toe to toe with more experienced players, who can build another pregen list and play eachother.
Hell, GW could then sell these armies as a bundle, with a small discount.
vict0988 wrote:No, if you don't have vox casters you have to rip your models apart and give them to them because you get more value out of your PL by taking vox casters. Same thing with plasma guns and lascannons over grenade launchers and missile launchers.
No, you don't. You only "have" to do that if you want to minmax your PL. My infantry squads are still barebones.
What if my regiment is stranded on a tomb world where communications have been shut down for months, why would they be carrying around vox-casters?
Then don't take them? No-one's going to complain that you didn't take an option because it was fluffy.
CadianSgtBob wrote:
Dudeface wrote: Oh god, can you imagine the tears when the precons aren't optimised and have less than stellar units in (whilst all being of a similar level).
I can't, because the tears would be coming from the casual/narrative players. Competitive players understand the concept of balanced fixed lists and would only have objections if the lists aren't balanced well. The outrage would be from the casual/narrative players who have specific ideas about what they want "their dudes" to be like and can't use the new format without sacrificing the things they enjoy.
That's why they have the option to play other variants of the game? I don't know why you keep having this idea that there can be only One Way to Play.
CadianSgtBob wrote:Narrative and casual players shouldn't have to have this pre-game talk, we've just normalized GW incompetence and pretend it's the only way for things to be. The game should be balanced enough that the pre-game talk isn't necessary and neither player has to sacrifice the choices they've made for narrative/aesthetic reasons. And this is why we need to dump failed systems like PL, systems which are unbalanced by design and will never reach a state of sufficient balance.
I actually like having a pre-game talk where all players can lay out their expectations, and I genuinely believe that it should be encouraged. Why shouldn't we be encouraging mutual satisfaction and open communication?
I don't see the need to have a pre-game chat as a failure of GW - I see it as a good thing. Additionally, regarding "sacrificing choices for narrative/aesthetic reasons" - they don't have to under PL any more so than they would under points (being discouraged to take upgrades on chaff squads because it would be a 'waste of points'). Player can choose what they want to prioritise, and if they want to prioritise things over narrative/aesthetic reasons, then they are welcome to. It's never not their choice though.
Again, I do want to point out that you've not addressed the arguments I've laid at your feet.
Dudeface wrote: Oh god, can you imagine the tears when the precons aren't optimised and have less than stellar units in (whilst all being of a similar level).
I can't, because the tears would be coming from the casual/narrative players. Competitive players understand the concept of balanced fixed lists and would only have objections if the lists aren't balanced well. The outrage would be from the casual/narrative players who have specific ideas about what they want "their dudes" to be like and can't use the new format without sacrificing the things they enjoy.
You might want to do a thread search for that. Not so long ago I’ve started a dozen or so pages long gakstorm by suggesting prebuilt lists tournament format. 40k competitive players demand „listbuilding as a skill” to be a crucial element of the game.
Weren't Preconstructed lists already tried with 7th ed Formations though?
Those were kind of lame because it really came down to "buy this exact combination of units, or lose."
Except instead of lose it just becomes "or you can't play"
I'm not sure a lot of players would enjoy that. It might be better to just go back to a single FoC with additional restrictions. That way there's still freedom in building a list, but armies will still be fairly predictable as one has a rough idea of what one is going up against.
Rather than "lol, surprise Super Heavy / FA spam / gunboat spam"
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Weren't Preconstructed lists already tried with 7th ed Formations though?
Those were kind of lame because it really came down to "buy this exact combination of units, or lose."
Except instead of lose it just becomes "or you can't play"
Eh, kinda/not really? The issue with Formations was the extra stuff you got for playing that way. I personally LOVED the incentive behind formations (take a "lore typical" army), but the rewards were so skewed that it wasn't exactly balanced either, and it became a case of "you take a formation for the free stuff, not because it's a narratively rewarding detachment", which isn't the kind of thing I personally enjoy.
What I'm suggesting with this semi-proposal of pre-built lists is that they don't bring any inherent bonuses, they're just a list that could be already made with a bog standard 40k list, just with the actual choosing of units already been done for you, and the army is *designed* (but not forced) to play against other pre-built armies.
I'm not sure a lot of players would enjoy that. It might be better to just go back to a single FoC with additional restrictions. That way there's still freedom in building a list, but armies will still be fairly predictable as one has a rough idea of what one is going up against.
Rather than "lol, surprise Super Heavy / FA spam / gunboat spam"
Eh, the issue with that is that it's only as predictable the army has fewer options, and doesn't fix the reason I suggested this idea of pre-built lists: a method of generating an army that doesn't require points or PL in order to provide a way of building armies to people for whom points or PL weren't viable. It just happens to have the side effect of also allowing for greater "balance" by restricting player choices to certain pre-built combinations.
Dudeface wrote: Oh god, can you imagine the tears when the precons aren't optimised and have less than stellar units in (whilst all being of a similar level).
I can't, because the tears would be coming from the casual/narrative players. Competitive players understand the concept of balanced fixed lists and would only have objections if the lists aren't balanced well. The outrage would be from the casual/narrative players who have specific ideas about what they want "their dudes" to be like and can't use the new format without sacrificing the things they enjoy.
You might want to do a thread search for that. Not so long ago I’ve started a dozen or so pages long gakstorm by suggesting prebuilt lists tournament format. 40k competitive players demand „listbuilding as a skill” to be a crucial element of the game.
The funny part about that is, how many of them just copy net lists online.
Dudeface wrote: Oh god, can you imagine the tears when the precons aren't optimised and have less than stellar units in (whilst all being of a similar level).
I can't, because the tears would be coming from the casual/narrative players. Competitive players understand the concept of balanced fixed lists and would only have objections if the lists aren't balanced well. The outrage would be from the casual/narrative players who have specific ideas about what they want "their dudes" to be like and can't use the new format without sacrificing the things they enjoy.
You might want to do a thread search for that. Not so long ago I’ve started a dozen or so pages long gakstorm by suggesting prebuilt lists tournament format. 40k competitive players demand „listbuilding as a skill” to be a crucial element of the game.
The funny part about that is, how many of them just copy net lists online.
Thought so exactly - a large subgroup of competitive players already use lists pre-built for them by top table players, but somehow making it official format is heresy.
The problem is that the game devs won't get information about which units the competitive community think are good if the competitive players aren't free to pick which units they think are best.
vict0988 wrote: The problem is that the game devs won't get information about which units the competitive community think are good if the competitive players aren't free to pick which units they think are best.
And in the reality of pre-built lists this is problem how exactly? The beauty of pre-built format is that you can design lists for a given „season” out of units of any level of „validity”. You can even have a season of lists made out of trash tier units. As long as all official lists have equal power, absolute power of such lists is irrelevant. Such format also stops any kind of arms race at FLGS level - playing with OP cheese list doesn’t train you for games that are designed around average levels of damage output and survivability.
Such format solves pretty much all of the problems 40k has, but at the expense of listbuilding for advantage, so it will never happen. Too many competitive 40k players are only „competitive” by self applied label.
Blndmage wrote: CSB
I noticed you've ignored my entire post.
Is my group of 20 players, insignificant?
They have almost all said that if they had to play with points and all the Advanced Rules, they wouldn't play at all.
To be clear, if Open Play was removed, that's 20 less people playing the game and buying minis.
Are these 20 people genuinely so set on this specific point system that taking 16 minutes to make a list instead of 15 minutes would be an impossible barrier and end their interest in the game? Or do they only say this because you've presented the normal point system as this massive and unnecessary burden. I am extremely skeptical that all of them are perfectly fine with the standard form of points-based list construction, but only if upgrade costs are not counted.
I didn't say JUST PL.
I bolded it for easy reference, as you seem to ignore entire sections of my comments.
I don't mean just points being the issue for my group but the entire Advanced Rules section of the book. We shouldn't be forced into using them. They're advanced rules, and thus optional when playing the game.
The basic version of the game works perfectly well for my community, which, at 20 people, seems bigger than many groups.
Why am I having to argue for acceptance, when we're literally playing right out of the book?
You might want to do a thread search for that. Not so long ago I’ve started a dozen or so pages long gakstorm by suggesting prebuilt lists tournament format. 40k competitive players demand „listbuilding as a skill” to be a crucial element of the game.
If the person making the lists was someone I could trust I'd be ok with it. But I don't trust GW to make certain lists just to sell models and purposefully nerf factions they don't want winning.
Blndmage wrote: CSB
I noticed you've ignored my entire post.
Is my group of 20 players, insignificant?
They have almost all said that if they had to play with points and all the Advanced Rules, they wouldn't play at all.
To be clear, if Open Play was removed, that's 20 less people playing the game and buying minis.
Are these 20 people genuinely so set on this specific point system that taking 16 minutes to make a list instead of 15 minutes would be an impossible barrier and end their interest in the game? Or do they only say this because you've presented the normal point system as this massive and unnecessary burden. I am extremely skeptical that all of them are perfectly fine with the standard form of points-based list construction, but only if upgrade costs are not counted.
I didn't say JUST PL.
I bolded it for easy reference, as you seem to ignore entire sections of my comments.
I don't mean just points being the issue for my group but the entire Advanced Rules section of the book. We shouldn't be forced into using them. They're advanced rules, and thus optional when playing the game.
The basic version of the game works perfectly well for my community, which, at 20 people, seems bigger than many groups.
Why am I having to argue for acceptance, when we're literally playing right out of the book?
I mean to be fair though the "Advanced rules" are the rules that are intended to be used in the game and have been used in the game for decades now.
While im not saying people are wrong for playing with PL, the intended way to play the game is with Points not PL.
Truth be told, PL should relaly only be something for either just starting, or narrative games with a lot of free form house rules involved, But generally you wanna move away from PL as soon as you can to get into the more granular detail that Warhammer traditionally uses.
Blndmage wrote: CSB
I noticed you've ignored my entire post.
Is my group of 20 players, insignificant?
They have almost all said that if they had to play with points and all the Advanced Rules, they wouldn't play at all.
To be clear, if Open Play was removed, that's 20 less people playing the game and buying minis.
Are these 20 people genuinely so set on this specific point system that taking 16 minutes to make a list instead of 15 minutes would be an impossible barrier and end their interest in the game? Or do they only say this because you've presented the normal point system as this massive and unnecessary burden. I am extremely skeptical that all of them are perfectly fine with the standard form of points-based list construction, but only if upgrade costs are not counted.
I didn't say JUST PL.
I bolded it for easy reference, as you seem to ignore entire sections of my comments.
I don't mean just points being the issue for my group but the entire Advanced Rules section of the book. We shouldn't be forced into using them. They're advanced rules, and thus optional when playing the game.
The basic version of the game works perfectly well for my community, which, at 20 people, seems bigger than many groups.
Why am I having to argue for acceptance, when we're literally playing right out of the book?
I mean to be fair though the "Advanced rules" are the rules that are intended to be used in the game and have been used in the game for decades now.
While im not saying people are wrong for playing with PL, the intended way to play the game is with Points not PL.
Truth be told, PL should relaly only be something for either just starting, or narrative games with a lot of free form house rules involved, But generally you wanna move away from PL as soon as you can to get into the more granular detail that Warhammer traditionally uses.
Where are we told what the "intended" method is? I prefer list based points but that's because I prefer the mental exercise and that finer tuned game, but I likely wouldn't lose much doing it with PL, I can't recall the last time I made a list that wasn't within 3pl of the equivalent amount.
You are told that its intended because its the community standard to use points, and its been used since....ever? points have traditionally been the standard method of gearing up and playing games among the community because its a universal "balanced" system. Also GW does not provide updates to PL, they only provide update to points or a rebalance to them. PL get launched out once and call it good.
PL were more or less GWs attempt to make 40k point costed like AoS where you just paid the points for the unit and then gear was not point cost, the problem was that 40k has much more gear to be utilized and it did not work out.
Its been said earlier in the thread but, the issue that PL presents is that not all units are created equal in PL, and PL is very easily exploitable vs something like Points. I use the rubric example all the time which lets you tap into like easy 100+ points of free gear, some of the terminator groups which let you do the same, bike squads as well from marine lists.
Blndmage wrote: I didn't say JUST PL.
I bolded it for easy reference, as you seem to ignore entire sections of my comments.
I don't mean just points being the issue for my group but the entire Advanced Rules section of the book. We shouldn't be forced into using them. They're advanced rules, and thus optional when playing the game.
The basic version of the game works perfectly well for my community, which, at 20 people, seems bigger than many groups.
Why am I having to argue for acceptance, when we're literally playing right out of the book?
I ignored the other part because PL is the only part that is relevant. Removing PL would in fact require you and your group to use the normal point system, however minor an additional burden it would be. Removing Open™ Play™ would not change anything at all for you except that you wouldn't have the Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™ Game™ label and that label is completely irrelevant in a private group. People were playing simplified games of 40k long before Open™ Play™ existed, and they will continue to play them once Open™ Play™ is gone.
You have 7300+ posts on a 40k-focused forum, and have been involved in an extended argument about the specific nuances of the game's point system. There is nothing at all casual about your participation in the hobby.
And that's why your behaviour is ableist - instead of believing the testimony and experiences of disabled folks, you doubt the veracity of their claims and try and twist their preferences into something that doesn't force you to compromise.
And this is precisely what I mean about using "ableism" as a tool to bludgeon an opponent into submission. It is not ableism to question something a disabled person says, their disability does not magically turn their speculation about the hypothetical actions of other people into certain fact.
If it's not officially recognised, it runs the risk of being marginalised and invalidated - exactly like how you want to invalidate the "CAAC faction at GW".
Absolutely false. History proves you wrong here, games like Open™ Play™ existed long before GW marketing came up with Open™ Play™ (and its predecessor, Unbound™) to sell primaris marines to tyranid players. And games like Open™ Play™ will continue to exist once Open™ Play™ is removed.
And yes, I want to invalidate CAAC players. Do you not want to do the same?
That's literally not how this works, because I advocated for alternative methods beyond points and PL that would also accommodate for people who struggled with PL - an argument you haven't addressed. Strange that.
So how many systems do you advocate for? Do we need an entire separate point system to handle each individual person who has different needs? Do you not see the absurdity of this concept? Or are you fine with having the army construction rules have a higher page count than the entire rest of the game combined?
But here's an idea, dump PL because it's a redundant and useless system, make an Open™ Play™ variant that uses pre-made lists. Problem solved?
Then don't take them? No-one's going to complain that you didn't take an option because it was fluffy.
No, but you'll be at a disadvantage compared to someone who did take those options. Why do you defend a system that needlessly creates tension between on-table strategy and narrative choices? If you value narrative play why not support the system that attempts to put a fair point cost on all options?
Why shouldn't we be encouraging mutual satisfaction and open communication?
Because it shouldn't be necessary! This is what I mean about normalizing GW incompetence, you can't even imagine a world where negotiating balance issues before the game isn't relevant.
Additionally, regarding "sacrificing choices for narrative/aesthetic reasons" - they don't have to under PL any more so than they would under points (being discouraged to take upgrades on chaff squads because it would be a 'waste of points').
This is completely false. The normal point system sometimes gets things wrong because of incorrect evaluation of the strength of a choice, but at least in theory you could find the correct point cost where upgrades on chaff squads become a perfect 50/50 decision. PL is a fundamentally broken point system because it can never be correct. It will have all of the usual errors of evaluation, but then on top of them there will always by systemic errors where PL by design gives the wrong point cost. So PL will always create more situations where there is tension between "do what is narrative/what looks good" and "do what is best within the rules".
Tallonian4th wrote: Power Level also gives far more freedom over modelling. You don't have to worry if Vox Casters are worth it or not, or if they will suddenly be useless meanin you either have to chop up a model or build a replacement. You just build a cool model (or squad of models) that fits in with the story you have for your army. I use Vox Casters as an example purely as I find the idea of a combat squad without communications as bizarre but totally understand under the points system why someone would do so.
No, if you don't have vox casters you have to rip your models apart and give them to them because you get more value out of your PL by taking vox casters. Same thing with plasma guns and lascannons over grenade launchers and missile launchers. What if my regiment is stranded on a tomb world where communications have been shut down for months, why would they be carrying around vox-casters? The real problem was that vox casters were way too expensive so it was easily apparent that taking them was a waste of points previously, now it is easily apparent that you'd be silly not to take one because it is a free power boost to your unit.
Sorry but I really don't get what you are saying here. The example you have listed makes my point as to why I like PL, want Vox Casters for fluffy reasons go ahead take them, don't want them for equally fluffy reasons then no problem don't. If I build a list I can easily swap between a Vox and non-Vox unit in PL as it won't change the 'value' of the list. Whereas in points you have to go back in and depending on the change sometimes have to significantly re-build the list for changes to the load out of units.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Tallonian4th wrote: I've recently transitioned from playing Power Level to Points and I must admit I don't see what the fuss is with Points. It seems to make list building needlessly pernickety, needing multiple books and making it a real time sink. Also points seem to regularly change so having spent a long time creating a list it can then be upturned, meaning yet more time to rebuild the list.
I've not noticed more or less imbalance with either system so I can't see what the benefit of Points is over Power Level.
Doesn't that have more to do with GW's terrible formatting and book keeping?
It wasn't like that in earlier editions. Making a list in 4th ed was easier because the books were well formatted and they didn't put the values at the back of the book and split apart the datasheets for some stupid reason.
Points changes weren't that often either; it was on a 4 year cycle. It's just that GW has gone nuts with the updates and started pushing them out more often because the player base complained that updates were taking too long. So now GW makes updates for like, no reason, to keep up with demand.
At least you don't have to pay for the points changes now.
That may well be true in terms of formatting. I'm no expert in such matters so happy to agree there may be an element of bad formatting which is not inherent to the system.
As to the fact they used to change points less often I can't comment as I can only attest to may own experiences. I've found regular points updates which are hard to keep up with (for me at least) compared to the slower PL update schedule. I would agree that slower points updates would at least help with some of the problem as the time sink of building your list wouldn't be so bad if it was spread out over a longer time.
Aenar wrote: 35 pages of discussion over a problem that has a very simple solution: keep both PL and points.
To each their own, everyone is happy, the end.
Aenar wrote: 35 pages of discussion over a problem that has a very simple solution: keep both PL and points.
To each their own, everyone is happy, the end.
Tallonian4th wrote: Sorry but I really don't get what you are saying here. The example you have listed makes my point as to why I like PL, want Vox Casters for fluffy reasons go ahead take them, don't want them for equally fluffy reasons then no problem don't. If I build a list I can easily swap between a Vox and non-Vox unit in PL as it won't change the 'value' of the list. Whereas in points you have to go back in and depending on the change sometimes have to significantly re-build the list for changes to the load out of units.
Do you honestly not see the problem why making the no-vox option a clear bad choice (since you're throwing away value for no gain in return) is a broken system? Why should only one of the two options be valid, with the other being an obvious inferior choice? Why shouldn't each option be assigned its appropriate point cost so there is no obvious choice?
the time sink of building your list wouldn't be so bad if it was spread out over a longer time.
How much of a time sink is it really? You're talking about 15-30 minutes to build a list, maybe an hour max if you really want to carefully optimize every possible detail. And then once you've built a list it's maybe 5-10 minutes max to make small changes to it. Is there some alternate list building system I'm not aware of, where you're solving 10-page math problems to add each unit to your list?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jidmah wrote: When you build a list with points, battlescribe becomes a mandatory tool to manage building a list at all and you start fiddling with options on a model basis.
Battlescribe is absolutely not mandatory. I write my lists with notepad and the table of point costs and most of those lists are done with the normal point system. There is no meaningful difference between PL and normal points and never have I thought that I need a third-party tool to be able to handle it.
External balance being a big issue is just an agenda pushed by people who clearly have neither experience nor data to back up that claim.
We have provided you the data. A Tau list taking a 600 point crisis suit squad for 18 points is clearly well above the nominal 20:1 ratio that most datasheets are close to. Do you honestly not think that a Tau player who takes three of these squads plus a 570 point bodyguard squad (same 18 point cost) is not going to have a huge advantage? A 100 point PL game is supposed to be equivalent to a 2000 point normal game and the Tau player has 2370 points worth of crisis suits with 28 points left to spend. Even if they only convert the other 28 points at the standard 20:1 ratio that's a final total of 2930 points in a 2000 point game. IOW, 50% more points by exploiting the PL error! How is that not a clear case of external balance problems?
And no, "the system is broken but no true PL player would ever exploit it like that" is not a valid argument in defense of it.
Tallonian4th wrote: Sorry but I really don't get what you are saying here. The example you have listed makes my point as to why I like PL, want Vox Casters for fluffy reasons go ahead take them, don't want them for equally fluffy reasons then no problem don't. If I build a list I can easily swap between a Vox and non-Vox unit in PL as it won't change the 'value' of the list. Whereas in points you have to go back in and depending on the change sometimes have to significantly re-build the list for changes to the load out of units.
Do you honestly not see the problem why making the no-vox option a clear bad choice (since you're throwing away value for no gain in return) is a broken system? Why should only one of the two options be valid, with the other being an obvious inferior choice? Why shouldn't each option be assigned its appropriate point cost so there is no obvious choice?
For competitive games I completely agree PL would likely be an issue for the reasons you state. I was talking about more casual or fluffy games (though I admit I didn't make that clear). In which case taking the absolute best equipment is rarely on anyone's mind. One reason I like PL is I get to have a game about once a month and easy adaptability is a big pro to the PL system for me. I usually have a Leman Russ in a list I will change the gun just to try each one out and see what happens, or I have some models with sponsons and some without I can use each interchangeably and don't have to worry about packing the wrong one. Having a competitive list just isn't a factor when I list build or is it for many of the people I play against, we play for a bit of after work fun.
Now if your prefer the competitive side of the game, great that's awesome we all enjoy different things. The points system is there for you to use and I would never defend anyone trying to take it away or advocate that position.
Both systems have their pros and cons, neither is perfect and both work for what different people want out of the game. There is no reason to remove either.
the time sink of building your list wouldn't be so bad if it was spread out over a longer time.
How much of a time sink is it really? You're talking about 15-30 minutes to build a list, maybe an hour max if you really want to carefully optimize every possible detail. And then once you've built a list it's maybe 5-10 minutes max to make small changes to it. Is there some alternate list building system I'm not aware of, where you're solving 10-page math problems to add each unit to your list?
I just don't find it fun and PL allows me to limit the time doing it. Maybe list building gets quicker but I've found it to take a lot longer then 15-30 minuets when using points. PL also lets me try out different units without having to really think about it. Played with a Hydra last time, would quite like to try a Hellhound this time is a nice simple swap, with no real maths involved.
Blndmage wrote: I didn't say JUST PL.
I bolded it for easy reference, as you seem to ignore entire sections of my comments.
I don't mean just points being the issue for my group but the entire Advanced Rules section of the book. We shouldn't be forced into using them. They're advanced rules, and thus optional when playing the game.
The basic version of the game works perfectly well for my community, which, at 20 people, seems bigger than many groups.
Why am I having to argue for acceptance, when we're literally playing right out of the book?
I ignored the other part because PL is the only part that is relevant. Removing PL would in fact require you and your group to use the normal point system, however minor an additional burden it would be.
Except that it's NOT minor, as they've told you. It might be minor to you, but you don't speak for everyone.
Removing Open™ Play™ would not change anything at all for you except that you wouldn't have the Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™ Game™ label and that label is completely irrelevant in a private group.
And? What's wrong with giving people official recognition? Why does that hurt you?
People were playing simplified games of 40k long before Open™ Play™ existed, and they will continue to play them once Open™ Play™ is gone.
In smaller numbers, maybe, and their experiences were all written off as "fringe" play and unofficial. Now, they are just as valid in their enjoyment as you are.
You have 7300+ posts on a 40k-focused forum, and have been involved in an extended argument about the specific nuances of the game's point system. There is nothing at all casual about your participation in the hobby.
Re-read what I said - I *play* casually, not engage casually. When I play the game, ie, the moment my models hit the table, I play casual. I don't play to win, to crush my opponents, to test my limits, to be a challenge for my opponent - I play to have fun pushing little models on the tabletop and tell a story with them.
My enjoyment of the game is entirely casual, and you don't get to "um actually" my own thoughts and feelings like you know me.
And that's why your behaviour is ableist - instead of believing the testimony and experiences of disabled folks, you doubt the veracity of their claims and try and twist their preferences into something that doesn't force you to compromise.
And this is precisely what I mean about using "ableism" as a tool to bludgeon an opponent into submission. It is not ableism to question something a disabled person says, their disability does not magically turn their speculation about the hypothetical actions of other people into certain fact.
What? Yes, it absolutely IS ableism to question how a disabled person feels as if they're not actually "correct" in how they are feeling and thinking. How would you feel if, after you hypothetically smash your head against a wall and feel understandably in pain, someone else said "yeah, nah, you're absolutely fine - are you SURE you're in pain?" - it would be insulting to act like they know how you're feeling better than you do. When you're doing it to someone who feels that way due to a condition or disability, you're being patronising and ableist.
If it's not officially recognised, it runs the risk of being marginalised and invalidated - exactly like how you want to invalidate the "CAAC faction at GW".
Absolutely false. History proves you wrong here, games like Open™ Play™ existed long before GW marketing came up with Open™ Play™ (and its predecessor, Unbound™) to sell primaris marines to tyranid players. And games like Open™ Play™ will continue to exist once Open™ Play™ is removed.
Sure - but it won't have the accessibility and encouragement to play it. Again, if it was so harmless and non-threatening to you, you wouldn't care if it was still around. The fact you're fighting so hard to remove it (and your later remark on 'invalidating' other people's way of playing) tells me that it's all the more needed.
And yes, I want to invalidate CAAC players. Do you not want to do the same?
Why would I want to invalidate anyone else's way of playing the game? As long as they're demonstrably not affecting me, why do I care? Why should I care how someone else enjoys themselves?
Why do you want to invalidate anyone?
That's literally not how this works, because I advocated for alternative methods beyond points and PL that would also accommodate for people who struggled with PL - an argument you haven't addressed. Strange that.
So how many systems do you advocate for? Do we need an entire separate point system to handle each individual person who has different needs? Do you not see the absurdity of this concept? Or are you fine with having the army construction rules have a higher page count than the entire rest of the game combined?
What methods of playing does this hypothetical system not cover? We have points which covers people who want granular army construction. We have PL which covers people who don't care for granular army construction, but still want choice of units, or might struggle with the granularity of points. We hypothetically have Pre-Gen which covers people who don't want to do any maths at all, or people who want to play with a pre-set "balanced" army and remove list-building from their player experience.
What base isn't covered? If you can show me, I'll propose a system for you. However, my point stands - everyone should have a valid supported way of enjoying 40k, and I don't believe that is absurd at all.
But here's an idea, dump PL because it's a redundant and useless system, make an Open™ Play™ variant that uses pre-made lists. Problem solved?
No, because PL isn't useless or redundant. Problem unsolved, because there isn't a problem.
Then don't take them? No-one's going to complain that you didn't take an option because it was fluffy.
No, but you'll be at a disadvantage compared to someone who did take those options.
And I don't care about that.
Why do you defend a system that needlessly creates tension between on-table strategy and narrative choices?
Points does exactly the same thing - I may be discouraged from taking a thematic upgrade I'll still never use but want to have because it would "waste" points.
If you value narrative play why not support the system that attempts to put a fair point cost on all options?
Because "fair" only matters if I care for balance. I don't.
Why shouldn't we be encouraging mutual satisfaction and open communication?
Because it shouldn't be necessary! This is what I mean about normalizing GW incompetence, you can't even imagine a world where negotiating balance issues before the game isn't relevant.
I disagree. Informed consent and player awareness and empathy should ABSOLUTELY be necessary. Establishing the social contract and mutual goals is something I encourage in any game, as a BASELINE expectation. And this isn't even brought on by GW's standards, it's more been established by how I wish to treat people and relationships in the real world.
Additionally, regarding "sacrificing choices for narrative/aesthetic reasons" - they don't have to under PL any more so than they would under points (being discouraged to take upgrades on chaff squads because it would be a 'waste of points').
This is completely false.
It really isn't. Taking a melee weapon on a squad that I *know* won't use it is a "waste", as you put it, and so unless it was absolutely free (which you rail against), there would be no point in taking it, if I only cared for choosing "effective" options.
So PL will always create more situations where there is tension between "do what is narrative/what looks good" and "do what is best within the rules".
This "tension" is easy to resolve when you don't care what is "best within the rules" - and so, for me, this tension is non-existent.
Again - you need to understand that not everyone thinks like you, and that your way of thinking isn't any more correct than mine. I fully understand that *my* attitude isn't the same as yours, but I'm not gonna say you're objectively wrong or incorrect - you do what you like, and I'll do what I like. It's as simple as that. Just let people enjoy things.
Aenar wrote:35 pages of discussion over a problem that has a very simple solution: keep both PL and points.
To each their own, everyone is happy, the end.
The only correct answer - would that it were so easy.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Except that it's NOT minor, as they've told you. It might be minor to you, but you don't speak for everyone.
5+5+5+70 = 85 is objectively a minor bit of adding up numbers, especially compared to all the other math required to play 40k. Some people may be in a position where a minor additional burden is too much but the difference between PL and normal points is absolutely minor.
What's wrong with giving people official recognition?
Why doesn't each data sheet say something like "transport capacity: 10 PRIMARIS models, unless you would like to change the rules and have the equally valid option to carry 10 models of any type"?
In smaller numbers, maybe, and their experiences were all written off as "fringe" play and unofficial. Now, they are just as valid in their enjoyment as you are.
And I can still write them off as "fringe" play if I want. I don't care what label GW does or does not put on it, Open™ Play™ is still a fringe thing that most players have no interest in. But why does it matter what some random person on the internet thinks about what a private group is doing? It's not like pickup games at a store/club where you need a standardized set of rules you can use with random strangers.
My enjoyment of the game is entirely casual, and you don't get to "um actually" my own thoughts and feelings like you know me.
I do in fact get to do that. If I see someone screaming and flipping tables and threatening to punch everyone I don't care if they say "I'm not angry", it's very obvious that they are. If I see someone making 7300+ posts about their hobby, caring a lot about the stories happening in their games, etc, the label "casual" does not apply no matter how many times they try to claim it does.
And remember, "casual" is not the opposite of "competitive". Many narrative players don't care about winning, don't fight for every advantage, etc, but are absolutely not casual about their games.
What? Yes, it absolutely IS ableism to question how a disabled person feels as if they're not actually "correct" in how they are feeling and thinking. How would you feel if, after you hypothetically smash your head against a wall and feel understandably in pain, someone else said "yeah, nah, you're absolutely fine - are you SURE you're in pain?" - it would be insulting to act like they know how you're feeling better than you do. When you're doing it to someone who feels that way due to a condition or disability, you're being patronising and ableist.
That has nothing to do with the thing I actually said. "I think these people would quit if they had to use the normal point system" is not a statement about how the disabled person is feeling, it's speculation about hypothetical actions by a third party. And it is not in any way ableist to say that the disabled person is wrong.
Why do you want to invalidate anyone?
Because CAAC players are toxic donkey-caves. Do you not want to invalidate WAAC players? Are you ok with WAAC players cheating, rules lawyering, pressuring people into accepting unfair rulings, etc, as long as the WAAC player is doing it to someone other than you?
What base isn't covered?
Lots of them! Among other things, we need:
* A more granular version of the normal point system, including things like scaling (as with Tau crisis suits) the cost of duplicate copies of an option to account for uniformity being better than mixed gear.
* A point system with granularity in between PL and normal points.
* A point system with granularity in between PL and the system above.
* Another point system with granularity in between PL and the system above.
* A point system with less granularity than PL (but not fixed lists).
* A point system where a model's point cost is its number of wounds.
* A point system where a model's point cost is its number of Crusade achievements.
* A point system where each player has a random modifier to their point total to reflect the uncertainties of logistics in war.
I can keep going on, until the section of the rulebook on army construction has more pages than the rest of the game combined. But I think you'll acknowledge that there is a limit to how many different point systems we need, and the fact that at least one person might want a system is not sufficient reason for including it?
Points does exactly the same thing - I may be discouraged from taking a thematic upgrade I'll still never use but want to have because it would "waste" points.
No it doesn't. Once again, since you still don't get it: the normal point system has specific case errors, PL has specific case errors and inherent systemic errors. You may be discouraged from "wasting" points on a particular upgrade in the normal point system but that's a specific case error that can at least theoretically be fixed by assigning the appropriate point cost to the upgrade. In PL it is by design impossible to have the correct cost for both a plasma pistol and a laspistol so at least one of those options will be discouraged no matter what cost you assign.
I disagree. Informed consent and player awareness and empathy should ABSOLUTELY be necessary. Establishing the social contract and mutual goals is something I encourage in any game, as a BASELINE expectation. And this isn't even brought on by GW's standards, it's more been established by how I wish to treat people and relationships in the real world.
But why? Why is it better to have a flawed game that requires such discussion instead of a better game where the game is enjoyable even if you don't have the pre-game conversation? What value is being added if the game rules are balanced and well designed?
EviscerationPlague wrote:Also yeah, the really bad system for constructing armies with zero thought behind it is far more embarassing than painting/putting together models and rolling dice on a table. The GW executive that suggested PL should be embarrassed, the GW rules writers that actually created it should be embarrassed, and the defenders of PL should be embarrassed.
The only thing embarrassing here is getting so worked up over nothing. Breathe. Play with your points and toy soldiers.
CAAC coming up again! It's not "nothing". It's a gak system that doesn't deserve an ounce of defense.
It *is* nothing. It doesn't affect you. You can happily play 40k without needing to even think about PL, if only you were capable of doing so.
And yes, I do play casually. Yes, I am playing with toy soldiers. You are too. If you want to put more granular points on them, you're more than welcome to. I don't want to prevent you doing what you like doing - just don't stop me doing me.
Seriously, take a look at what you're arguing for here - taking away a different way of playing with toy soldiers and calling it "embarrassing". Get a sense of perspective, my person.
Blndmage wrote: CSB
I noticed you've ignored my entire post.
Is my group of 20 players, insignificant?
They have almost all said that if they had to play with points and all the Advanced Rules, they wouldn't play at all
To be clear, if Open Play was removed, that's 20 less people playing the game and buying minis.
I'd rather have less players than a worse game.
And that's why people are calling you a gatekeeper, and why you're the problem here.
Yeah, one is more inherently embarassing than the other. No, not everything is worth defending because some people are having "fun".
Was Battle Demi-Company a good thing, yes or no? People had fun with it after all.
Also LOOOOL at saying I am a gatekeeper. I'm perfectly willing to defend my position on less players is fine if it means better rules, and no I don't care you feel otherwise. If 40k gained a million players tomorrow by making you use your models in a Snakes and Ladders ruleset, I'd be saying the same thing.
It's an extreme example, but it gets the point across of rules quality being more important than your lazy "I don't want to think when putting together a list in an inherently flawed system". You and other PL defenders only give the same defenses of "I don't care", "Why does it matter if I like it", "Points aren't balanced either", and so on. These are NON defenses of the system. Literally the only upside is "it's slightly faster to make a list", which also doesn't matter since the person it's supposed to apply to (people doing garagehammer that don't even need a point system to begin with because forge the narrative, as you apparently bought into that rhetoric) are planning these games a few days to a week in advance. At that point, don't you already have time to throw together a list or just use the same list as last week?
Also I'd 100% do a Crusade campaign if it weren't for the fact it uses PL. That makes it bad by default.
Also LOOOOOL at saying negotiating the game should be standard. You really did buy the "forge the narrative" crap.
EviscerationPlague wrote:Also yeah, the really bad system for constructing armies with zero thought behind it is far more embarassing than painting/putting together models and rolling dice on a table. The GW executive that suggested PL should be embarrassed, the GW rules writers that actually created it should be embarrassed, and the defenders of PL should be embarrassed.
The only thing embarrassing here is getting so worked up over nothing. Breathe. Play with your points and toy soldiers.
CAAC coming up again! It's not "nothing". It's a gak system that doesn't deserve an ounce of defense.
It *is* nothing. It doesn't affect you. You can happily play 40k without needing to even think about PL, if only you were capable of doing so.
And yes, I do play casually. Yes, I am playing with toy soldiers. You are too. If you want to put more granular points on them, you're more than welcome to. I don't want to prevent you doing what you like doing - just don't stop me doing me.
Seriously, take a look at what you're arguing for here - taking away a different way of playing with toy soldiers and calling it "embarrassing". Get a sense of perspective, my person.
Blndmage wrote: CSB
I noticed you've ignored my entire post.
Is my group of 20 players, insignificant?
They have almost all said that if they had to play with points and all the Advanced Rules, they wouldn't play at all
To be clear, if Open Play was removed, that's 20 less people playing the game and buying minis.
I'd rather have less players than a worse game.
And that's why people are calling you a gatekeeper, and why you're the problem here.
Yeah, one is more inherently embarassing than the other. No, not everything is worth defending because some people are having "fun".
Was Battle Demi-Company a good thing, yes or no? People had fun with it after all.
Also LOOOOL at saying I am a gatekeeper. I'm perfectly willing to defend my position on less players is fine if it means better rules, and no I don't care you feel otherwise. If 40k gained a million players tomorrow by making you use your models in a Snakes and Ladders ruleset, I'd be saying the same thing.
It's an extreme example, but it gets the point across of rules quality being more important than your lazy "I don't want to think when putting together a list in an inherently flawed system". You and other PL defenders only give the same defenses of "I don't care", "Why does it matter if I like it", "Points aren't balanced either", and so on. These are NON defenses of the system. Literally the only upside is "it's slightly faster to make a list", which also doesn't matter since the person it's supposed to apply to (people doing garagehammer that don't even need a point system to begin with because forge the narrative, as you apparently bought into that rhetoric) are planning these games a few days to a week in advance. At that point, don't you already have time to throw together a list or just use the same list as last week?
Also I'd 100% do a Crusade campaign if it weren't for the fact it uses PL. That makes it bad by default.
Also LOOOOOL at saying negotiating the game should be standard. You really did buy the "forge the narrative" crap.
Between you and CadianSgtBob, I'm glad that Internet is a thing and reaffirming for me that this hobby still has a contingent of gak heads. I'm just glad I don't have to personally interact any irl.
What's embarassing is your willingness to throw other peoles opinions and fun under the bus in pursuit of your own edge lord black knight routine.
Dudeface wrote: Between you and CadianSgtBob, I'm glad that Internet is a thing and reaffirming for me that this hobby still has a contingent of gak heads. I'm just glad I don't have to personally interact any irl.
What's embarassing is your willingness to throw other peoles opinions and fun under the bus in pursuit of your own edge lord black knight routine.
Rule 1: Be Polite This seems obvious, however many folks can sometimes forget that common courtesy goes a long way to lending respect to both you and your opinions. Just because you don't see the other users' faces doesn't mean they don't have feelings and won't be hurt by rude comments or offensive images. When you see something that you find silly, rude or insulting first assume that perhaps there is more to it than you initially thought. Look at it again, keeping in mind that tone and inflection is difficult to convey in a visual format. It may be that the person is attempting a joke or is exaggerating on purpose. It is best to politely request clarification before accusing someone being ignorant, a liar, or worse.
If after clarification you still disagree with the person then politely outline your points. Try to avoid name-calling or even implying insults wherever possible. These tactics generally only inflame a situation and lead to what are known as "Flame Wars." Whenever a flame war starts it usually ruins a perfectly good discussion. Others will lose interest in the thread and the site in general if this kind of interchange becomes a common occurrence.
Please remember that posting and reading online is a visual format and as such the spelling, grammar and look of your posts is the only way others understand what you are saying. Therefore, in order to be polite, all users are expected to make an effort to use proper spelling, grammar and punctuation and should refrain from using internet shorthand or other distracting methods of writing, such as writing a post completely bolded, with capital letters, in a strange color, etc.
It also should go without saying that swearing, profanity, sexual references, etc, are strictly forbidden, including all images that are posted on or uploaded to our site. Remember that we have users of all ages and that Dakka should be a welcoming place for everyone to enjoy.
But thanks for proving that whole "only people who like normal points are ever rude and aggressive" thing wrong.
If I see someone making 7300+ posts about their hobby, caring a lot about the stories happening in their games, etc, the label "casual" does not apply no matter how many times they try to claim it does.
And remember, "casual" is not the opposite of "competitive". Many narrative players don't care about winning, don't fight for every advantage, etc, but are absolutely not casual about their games.
The opposite of 'casual' is 'serious'. You can absolutely be serious about every aspect of the hobby, make 7,000+ posts and still want, shall we say, 'less-than-intense' games. I stand with Smudge on this one - no one really 'tries' to lose but there's a gulf of nuance in what that looks like in the 'real' world. We've all played games where we just wanted to roll some dice and not get too sucked onto it.
No it doesn't. Once again, since you still don't get it: the normal point system has specific case errors, PL has specific case errors and inherent systemic errors. You may be discouraged from "wasting" points on a particular upgrade in the normal point system but that's a specific case error that can at least theoretically be fixed by assigning the appropriate point cost to the upgrade. In PL it is by design impossible to have the correct cost for both a plasma pistol and a laspistol so at least one of those options will be discouraged no matter what cost you assign.
Nah, points costs, or any numeric-value system has inherent systemic errors.
A good question to consider is 'How much should a devastator Sergeants power fist cost?' considering, in theory, he should never use it.
'In theory, just apply the appropriate points cost' is a wonderful unicorn, but unfortunately its a myth that you can simultaneously find a correct single value for things in the game for one simple reason: context matters. Points are utterly oblivious to this and fall down hard, every time. When you map out all the 'specific errors', you quickly see thr system is just as flawed. Until points costs are self-mutating to account for all these contextual factors, it's just wishing for unicorn feathers.
The best you can reasonably do with any system is 'some things match up well against some other things under some circumstances, at least some of the time'.
Deadnight wrote: The opposite of 'casual' is 'serious'. You can absolutely be serious about every aspect of the hobby, and still want, shall we say, 'less-than-intense' games. I stand with Smudge on this one - no one really 'tries' to lose but there's a gulf of nuance in that.
You know there's a middle ground, right? You can be non-casual without being hardcore serious.
Nah, points costs, or any numeric-value system has inherent systemic errors.
A good question to consider is 'How much should a devastator Sergeants power fist cost?' considering, in theory, he should never use it.
Um, no. That's a trivially easy question for the normal point system to answer. The power fist has low, but not zero, value so it gets a low point cost. The problem with the power fist cost is not a systemic problem, it's that GW too often makes the specific case error of valuing a weapon the same regardless of what unit is carrying it even though nothing about the point system requires it to be that way.
'In theory, just apply the appropriate points cost' is a wonderful unicorn, but unfortunately its a myth that you can simultaneously find a correct single value for things in the game for one simple reason: context matters. Points are utterly oblivious to this and fall down hard, every time. When you map out all the 'specific errors', you quickly see thr system is just as flawed. Until points costs are self-mutating to account for all these contextual factors, it's just wishing for unicorn feathers.
And guess what: PL is a point system and has all of those flaws as well as its own inherent flaws. So yes, you can make the argument against points-based list construction in general, but you have to apply that exact same argument to PL as well. And once you do you come to the same inevitable conclusion: the normal point system is the least-flawed system and has the most potential for getting to an ideal balance state so it should be the only point system. PL adds nothing and should be removed.
EviscerationPlague wrote:Also yeah, the really bad system for constructing armies with zero thought behind it is far more embarassing than painting/putting together models and rolling dice on a table. The GW executive that suggested PL should be embarrassed, the GW rules writers that actually created it should be embarrassed, and the defenders of PL should be embarrassed.
The only thing embarrassing here is getting so worked up over nothing. Breathe. Play with your points and toy soldiers.
CAAC coming up again! It's not "nothing". It's a gak system that doesn't deserve an ounce of defense.
It *is* nothing. It doesn't affect you. You can happily play 40k without needing to even think about PL, if only you were capable of doing so.
And yes, I do play casually. Yes, I am playing with toy soldiers. You are too. If you want to put more granular points on them, you're more than welcome to. I don't want to prevent you doing what you like doing - just don't stop me doing me.
Seriously, take a look at what you're arguing for here - taking away a different way of playing with toy soldiers and calling it "embarrassing". Get a sense of perspective, my person.
Blndmage wrote: CSB
I noticed you've ignored my entire post.
Is my group of 20 players, insignificant?
They have almost all said that if they had to play with points and all the Advanced Rules, they wouldn't play at all
To be clear, if Open Play was removed, that's 20 less people playing the game and buying minis.
I'd rather have less players than a worse game.
And that's why people are calling you a gatekeeper, and why you're the problem here.
Yeah, one is more inherently embarassing than the other. No, not everything is worth defending because some people are having "fun".
Was Battle Demi-Company a good thing, yes or no? People had fun with it after all.
Also LOOOOL at saying I am a gatekeeper. I'm perfectly willing to defend my position on less players is fine if it means better rules, and no I don't care you feel otherwise. If 40k gained a million players tomorrow by making you use your models in a Snakes and Ladders ruleset, I'd be saying the same thing.
It's an extreme example, but it gets the point across of rules quality being more important than your lazy "I don't want to think when putting together a list in an inherently flawed system". You and other PL defenders only give the same defenses of "I don't care", "Why does it matter if I like it", "Points aren't balanced either", and so on. These are NON defenses of the system. Literally the only upside is "it's slightly faster to make a list", which also doesn't matter since the person it's supposed to apply to (people doing garagehammer that don't even need a point system to begin with because forge the narrative, as you apparently bought into that rhetoric) are planning these games a few days to a week in advance. At that point, don't you already have time to throw together a list or just use the same list as last week?
Also I'd 100% do a Crusade campaign if it weren't for the fact it uses PL. That makes it bad by default.
Also LOOOOOL at saying negotiating the game should be standard. You really did buy the "forge the narrative" crap.
Between you and CadianSgtBob, I'm glad that Internet is a thing and reaffirming for me that this hobby still has a contingent of gak heads. I'm just glad I don't have to personally interact any irl.
What's embarassing is your willingness to throw other peoles opinions and fun under the bus in pursuit of your own edge lord black knight routine.
Optimizing lists to match your playstyle is part of player skill though, plus facing the exact same armies all the time is super boring.
Cut-throat 40k is super boring anyway . And facing the exact same armies is better than paying to win, not to mention that tournaments are already full of meta chasers so there are already a lot of samey lists.
Last but not least, who would be creating those optimized lists to begin with? The same company which does such a great job at balancing the game? Or is it the TOs who are heavily biased towards certain armies?
The company of course. And balancing some lists (say 2-3 per faction for a total of 60ish lists) is definitely much easier than balancing whole codexes with countless combinations. Not to mention that being a tournament thing only, most players wouldn't care so the inbalance that GW keeps on purpose to sell more stuff would still be a thing.
Also LOOOOOL at saying negotiating the game should be standard. You really did buy the "forge the narrative" crap.
I believe 40k has never been designed for "blind" games against random opponents, regardless of how popular this way of playing might be in some areas. Heck, I know pineapple on pizza is pretty popular somewhere (very far from where I live thankfully) and I can't think of a worst kind of heresy .
Blackie wrote: I believe 40k has never been designed for "blind" games against random opponents, regardless of how popular this way of playing might be in some areas.
Of course not. All that matched play stuff, the GW-run events with blind games against random opponents, all of that is just our collective imagination. It's all just pure coincidence that the vast majority of 40k content is matched play games with points-based list construction and generic scenarios suitable for playing against a random opponent.
Dudeface wrote: Between you and CadianSgtBob, I'm glad that Internet is a thing and reaffirming for me that this hobby still has a contingent of gak heads. I'm just glad I don't have to personally interact any irl.
What's embarassing is your willingness to throw other peoles opinions and fun under the bus in pursuit of your own edge lord black knight routine.
Rule 1: Be Polite
Spoiler:
This seems obvious, however many folks can sometimes forget that common courtesy goes a long way to lending respect to both you and your opinions. Just because you don't see the other users' faces doesn't mean they don't have feelings and won't be hurt by rude comments or offensive images. When you see something that you find silly, rude or insulting first assume that perhaps there is more to it than you initially thought. Look at it again, keeping in mind that tone and inflection is difficult to convey in a visual format. It may be that the person is attempting a joke or is exaggerating on purpose. It is best to politely request clarification before accusing someone being ignorant, a liar, or worse.
If after clarification you still disagree with the person then politely outline your points. Try to avoid name-calling or even implying insults wherever possible. These tactics generally only inflame a situation and lead to what are known as "Flame Wars." Whenever a flame war starts it usually ruins a perfectly good discussion. Others will lose interest in the thread and the site in general if this kind of interchange becomes a common occurrence.
Please remember that posting and reading online is a visual format and as such the spelling, grammar and look of your posts is the only way others understand what you are saying. Therefore, in order to be polite, all users are expected to make an effort to use proper spelling, grammar and punctuation and should refrain from using internet shorthand or other distracting methods of writing, such as writing a post completely bolded, with capital letters, in a strange color, etc.
It also should go without saying that swearing, profanity, sexual references, etc, are strictly forbidden, including all images that are posted on or uploaded to our site. Remember that we have users of all ages and that Dakka should be a welcoming place for everyone to enjoy.
But thanks for proving that whole "only people who like normal points are ever rude and aggressive" thing wrong.
I'm well aware of rule 1 thank you, but my opinions are my own, feel free to report. I'm glad you'd rather pick issue with me than stand up for the integrity of your "side", you're happy to back up people willing to exclude players they call embarassing, but heaven forbid someone calls that out.
I still standby my biggest issue with a full move to PL is upgrades. It's not equal across factions just look at all the new Guard updates:
- Infantry Squads: Why take a Sniper Rifle, Grenade Launcher, or Flamer? Plasma and Melta are free and simply superior. Why take a Chainsword or Laspistol on a Sergeant when Power Swords and Plasma Pistols are free?
- Sentinels: Why take a Multi-laser? Every other heavy weapon is free.
The next part is, how would you PL things like Leman Russ tanks? What if I don't want sponsons? How are you going to differentiate the cost of different sponson options? What about the vehicle upgrades?
Deadnight wrote: The opposite of 'casual' is 'serious'. You can absolutely be serious about every aspect of the hobby, and still want, shall we say, 'less-than-intense' games. I stand with Smudge on this one - no one really 'tries' to lose but there's a gulf of nuance in that.
You know there's a middle ground, right? You can be non-casual without being hardcore serious.
.
Sure, why not? And theres nothing wrong with playing 'casually' either. I like an 'off-the-clock' 5k to wind down and clear my head as much as I like a proper training sesh or an attempt to pb. You can want to do all three, all at different times.
People approach things different ways for different reasons. They're not wrong.
Nah, points costs, or any numeric-value system has inherent systemic errors.
A good question to consider is 'How much should a devastator Sergeants power fist cost?' considering, in theory, he should never use it.
Um, no. That's a trivially easy question for the normal point system to answer. The power fist has low, but not zero, value so it gets a low point cost. The problem with the power fist cost is not a systemic problem, it's that GW too often makes the specific case error of valuing a weapon the same regardless of what unit is carrying it even though nothing about the point system requires it to be that way.
[
It's a thought exercise. And it is both specific and indicative of systemic issues- But the proper answer is 'it depends on the context'.
And guess what: PL is a point system and has all of those flaws as well as its own inherent flaws. So yes, you can make the argument against points-based list construction in general, but you have to apply that exact same argument to PL as well. And once you do you come to the same inevitable conclusion: the normal point system is the least-flawed system and has the most potential for getting to an ideal balance state so it should be the only point system. PL adds nothing and should be removed.
Oh don't get me wrong. PL has its flaws and like any gw game's accounting system it is open to abuse.
But I don't draw the same conclusion. Points being 'least flawed' is academic at best when in the real world the points system is also hopelessly broken. And broken is broken in the context of ttgs. And it absolutely does not have the most potential to get to an 'ideal balance state' - as I pointed out above, points are blind to context*. Theres a million ways to do points wrong and none to really do it right. If points can't account for context you can't talk about an 'ideal balance state'. Those are just politicians words.
PL adds enough for it to be of merit. Obviously not for you. And thats OK. From my ten years playing warmachine competitively, i like and prefer less-granularity anyway, and i think pl has potential but it does need some tweaks.
* if you want to talk about 'ideal balance states' you need to look outside of points. Games like privateer press' warcaster NM don't really use points but offer some veey interesting approaches towards balance. Pp's steamroller format along was what helped mitigate so many of the issues of their games (and theure broken out of the box) - it was things like multiple win conditions and multiple lists thar helped push the game towards a less-bad-than-40k balance state, not that they somehow found a magical ratio of numeric values to apply to things.
Deadnight wrote: And theres nothing wrong with playing 'casually' either.
I never said there's anything wrong with it, I simply pointed out that a certain person here does not fit the definition of "casual" player. Any moral judgement is your own invention.
It's a thought exercise. And it is both specific and indicative of systemic issues- But the proper answer is 'it depends on the context'.
How is it indicative of systemic issues? You seem to think it's some kind of impossible problem but the normal point system answers the question quite easily. The only reason GW fails to provide a good solution is that they keep making (very obvious) individual errors with specific point cost numbers.
PL adds enough for it to be of merit. Obviously not for you.
Not to me, and not to any person who isn't viewing PL as primarily a symbol of a certain type of player/game. Every single criticism you've made of the normal point system applies exactly the same to PL, and the only thing PL offers in return for its additional errors is a trivial amount of time saved in adding up point costs. We don't need an entire additional point system so you can save a minute or two and then spend all of the time savings and more arguing on a forum about how great it is.
What's the definition of a casual player then? Someone that doesn't play very often and/or doesn't really pay a lot of attention to how the meta evolves and probably doesn't even care? Someone that only play narrative games or fluff based lists? Something else?
To me the former has always been the definition of a casual player. I find hard to consider a casual player someone that actually plays a lot and knows very well the state of the game.
Blackie wrote: What's the definition of a casual player then? Someone that doesn't play very often and/or doesn't really pay a lot of attention to how the meta evolves and probably doesn't even care? Someone that only play narrative games or fluff based lists? Something else?
To me the former has always been the definition of a casual player. I find hard to consider a casual player someone that actually plays a lot and knows very well the state of the game.
I'd define myself as casual, I play 1-2 games a month, I keep up with the rules, I don't care for the competitive meta or being super optimised, I do play with points. I don't play strictly narrative or fluff, I play the "well rounded TAC as GW likely envisions it" type army using either match play from the rulebook or recently Tempest of war.
Blackie wrote: I believe 40k has never been designed for "blind" games against random opponents, regardless of how popular this way of playing might be in some areas.
Of course not. All that matched play stuff, the GW-run events with blind games against random opponents, all of that is just our collective imagination. It's all just pure coincidence that the vast majority of 40k content is matched play games with points-based list construction and generic scenarios suitable for playing against a random opponent.
See my previous post. In some areas pineapple on pizza is extremely popular, and yet who invented pizza would have considered it heresy. It's still considered heresy in the vast majority of the civilized world.
40k has always been a garagehammer beer and pretzels game, but like any other thing in the world there's no real "good way" to do it. People from different cultures and different times might completely change it into somethinig that was never intended to be, and that's fine. GW never pushed that way of playing, they simply jumped on the band wagon the moment pick up games became the most popular way to play in the most remunerative markets.
In my area for example random pick up games against strangers is something very few people do, not even those who are preparing their lists for events. Living in an area of 200k people we players pretty much all know each other and playing at people's houses is just as common as playing at stores, long before covid. Even those who play at stores typically organize games in advance through a chat.
Enjoying blind games requires a specific mentality, and I can understand why it's the most common way to play in the US. It doesn't mean it has to be that way.
Good luck on trying to turn 40k into a 50/50 balanced game based on random pick up games.
I never said there's anything wrong with it, I simply pointed out that a certain person here does not fit the definition of "casual" player. Any moral judgement is your own invention.
Disagree. 'Casual' can be applied to many things. Its not zero/sum broad brush stroke. As illustrated by multiple people on this board you can be perfectly serious about your hobby/interest and still play 'casually' or 'less than seriously' or however you wish to term it.
And no moral.judgement here so please don't project.
How is it indicative of systemic issues? You seem to think it's some kind of impossible problem but the normal point system answers the question quite easily. The only reason GW fails to provide a good solution is that they keep making (very obvious) individual errors with specific point cost numbers.
Youre focusing on the symptom, not the cause.
It's a hell of a lot of 'individual' errors compounded by the contextual inability of a single/universal cost-mechanic to account for real in-game values. That indicates its a system.failure.
Not to me, and not to any person who isn't viewing PL as primarily a symbol of a certain type of player/game. Every single criticism you've made of the normal point system applies exactly the same to PL, and the only thing PL offers in return for its additional errors is a trivial amount of time saved in adding up point costs. We don't need an entire additional point system so you can save a minute or two and then spend all of the time savings and more arguing on a forum about how great it is.
You do realise I stated above pl is not without flaw, right?
Meh, I played pretty close to top-level wmh for a good chunk of mk2. Loved the less-granular points costs of the system. Going back was...jarring. 'Quick and easy' accounting works for me when it comes to 40k. Happy with multiple approaches myself to be fair and I'm happy that gw have acknowledged ways of play 'other' than matched.
I think the biggest problem is the reluctance of Warhammer players to engage in any social interaction beyond 2000 points okay? You don't find this in pretty much any other war game.
Jarms48 wrote: I still standby my biggest issue with a full move to PL is upgrades. It's not equal across factions just look at all the new Guard updates:
- Infantry Squads: Why take a Sniper Rifle, Grenade Launcher, or Flamer? Plasma and Melta are free and simply superior. Why take a Chainsword or Laspistol on a Sergeant when Power Swords and Plasma Pistols are free?
- Sentinels: Why take a Multi-laser? Every other heavy weapon is free.
The next part is, how would you PL things like Leman Russ tanks? What if I don't want sponsons? How are you going to differentiate the cost of different sponson options? What about the vehicle upgrades?
I don't think anyone is saying PL is perfect; many people are saying they prefer it, and even more are saying they think it should remain a part of the game.
This thread only made it to page 36 because of a very small but very vocal minority insist on taking it away because they think they know what's best for everyone, when what they really know is what is best for them, based on their own perspectives, preferences, and in some cases, local meta.
Jarms48 wrote: I still standby my biggest issue with a full move to PL is upgrades. It's not equal across factions just look at all the new Guard updates:
- Infantry Squads: Why take a Sniper Rifle, Grenade Launcher, or Flamer? Plasma and Melta are free and simply superior. Why take a Chainsword or Laspistol on a Sergeant when Power Swords and Plasma Pistols are free?
- Sentinels: Why take a Multi-laser? Every other heavy weapon is free.
The next part is, how would you PL things like Leman Russ tanks? What if I don't want sponsons? How are you going to differentiate the cost of different sponson options? What about the vehicle upgrades?
I don't think anyone is saying PL is perfect; many people are saying they prefer it, and even more are saying they think it should remain a part of the game.
This thread only made it to page 36 because of a very small but very vocal minority insist on taking it away because they think they know what's best for everyone, when what they really know is what is best for them, based on their own perspectives, preferences, and in some cases, local meta.
There really is no good reason to take PL away at the end of it. PL "Development" is so minimal, that it took GW most likely all of 30 min to come up with the power level values of every unit in the game.
If PL went away i dont think anyone would really be upset about that, but to just willfully rip it out for no good reason other than spite, is not really good for any reason.
Jarms48 wrote: I still standby my biggest issue with a full move to PL is upgrades. It's not equal across factions just look at all the new Guard updates:
- Infantry Squads: Why take a Sniper Rifle, Grenade Launcher, or Flamer? Plasma and Melta are free and simply superior. Why take a Chainsword or Laspistol on a Sergeant when Power Swords and Plasma Pistols are free?
- Sentinels: Why take a Multi-laser? Every other heavy weapon is free.
The next part is, how would you PL things like Leman Russ tanks? What if I don't want sponsons? How are you going to differentiate the cost of different sponson options? What about the vehicle upgrades?
I don't think anyone is saying PL is perfect; many people are saying they prefer it, and even more are saying they think it should remain a part of the game.
This thread only made it to page 36 because of a very small but very vocal minority insist on taking it away because they think they know what's best for everyone, when what they really know is what is best for them, based on their own perspectives, preferences, and in some cases, local meta.
There really is no good reason to take PL away at the end of it. PL "Development" is so minimal, that it took GW most likely all of 30 min to come up with the power level values of every unit in the game.
If PL went away i dont think anyone would really be upset about that, but to just willfully rip it out for no good reason other than spite, is not really good for any reason.
CadianSgtBob wrote: I'm an elitist jerk that is too self-absorbed to realize that I'm playing at casual level at best despite feeling like a superior tournament player because I use points.
Please stop replying to my posts. I wont read your dumb garbage anyways, so you might as well spare the rest of the forum your mental pollution.
The only thing you have proven over the course of this thread is that you are a toxic idiot and that constantly violating the rules of conduct is apparently not a reason for moderator action anymore.
CadianSgtBob wrote: I'm an elitist jerk that is too self-absorbed to realize that I'm playing at casual level at best despite feeling like a superior tournament player because I use points.
Please stop replying to my posts. I wont read your dumb garbage anyways, so you might as well spare the rest of the forum your mental pollution.
The only thing you have proven over the course of this thread is that you are a toxic idiot and that constantly violating the rules of conduct is apparently not a reason for moderator action anymore.
Jarms48 wrote: I still standby my biggest issue with a full move to PL is upgrades. It's not equal across factions just look at all the new Guard updates:
- Infantry Squads: Why take a Sniper Rifle, Grenade Launcher, or Flamer? Plasma and Melta are free and simply superior. Why take a Chainsword or Laspistol on a Sergeant when Power Swords and Plasma Pistols are free?
- Sentinels: Why take a Multi-laser? Every other heavy weapon is free.
The next part is, how would you PL things like Leman Russ tanks? What if I don't want sponsons? How are you going to differentiate the cost of different sponson options? What about the vehicle upgrades?
I don't think anyone is saying PL is perfect; many people are saying they prefer it, and even more are saying they think it should remain a part of the game.
This thread only made it to page 36 because of a very small but very vocal minority insist on taking it away because they think they know what's best for everyone, when what they really know is what is best for them, based on their own perspectives, preferences, and in some cases, local meta.
There really is no good reason to take PL away at the end of it. PL "Development" is so minimal, that it took GW most likely all of 30 min to come up with the power level values of every unit in the game.
If PL went away i dont think anyone would really be upset about that, but to just willfully rip it out for no good reason other than spite, is not really good for any reason.
What a ringing endorsement of Power Levels.
I dont really support or condone PL, i think they are just a stepping stone an easy way to engage players that are new. Its like a show room demo method of play IMO.
Tried googling that. First result was about how Elon Musk is attempting to take over America. Second result is a Reddit thread about properly binding a demon to your will. Bookmarked that for later. I don't think you've answered my question.
Pretend I've never played Demons. Are you implying that by playing demons with PL you are allowed to "cheat" and take bend the rules? Or that the rules are poorly written? Because right now for 135 points, you can get a unit that can down a titan with it's infinite frag grenades. Does anyone here want to use that argument to suggest points break the game? Of course not. Because it's silly to suggest that points are the cause of that problem. It's weakly written rules. If you came to me and said, Alright, lets play a 50pl game, I'll play demons, and that means I get to summon infinite demons, I'd say you're wrong. We'd come to an adult understanding, and move on. But neither of us, without previous intense head trauma, would suggest that the unit COST is the specific cause of that failure.
Tried googling that. First result was about how Elon Musk is attempting to take over America. Second result is a Reddit thread about properly binding a demon to your will. Bookmarked that for later. I don't think you've answered my question.
Pretend I've never played Demons. Are you implying that by playing demons with PL you are allowed to "cheat" and take bend the rules? Or that the rules are poorly written? Because right now for 135 points, you can get a unit that can down a titan with it's infinite frag grenades. Does anyone here want to use that argument to suggest points break the game? Of course not. Because it's silly to suggest that points are the cause of that problem. It's weakly written rules. If you came to me and said, Alright, lets play a 50pl game, I'll play demons, and that means I get to summon infinite demons, I'd say you're wrong. We'd come to an adult understanding, and move on. But neither of us, without previous intense head trauma, would suggest that the unit COST is the specific cause of that failure.
Its been a while since i have seen it done/done it myself.
But if i recall, daemons can summon other daemons and there is no PL cost to doing so. So you can just keep reinforcing your daemon units.
Tried googling that. First result was about how Elon Musk is attempting to take over America. Second result is a Reddit thread about properly binding a demon to your will. Bookmarked that for later. I don't think you've answered my question.
Pretend I've never played Demons. Are you implying that by playing demons with PL you are allowed to "cheat" and take bend the rules? Or that the rules are poorly written? Because right now for 135 points, you can get a unit that can down a titan with it's infinite frag grenades. Does anyone here want to use that argument to suggest points break the game? Of course not. Because it's silly to suggest that points are the cause of that problem. It's weakly written rules. If you came to me and said, Alright, lets play a 50pl game, I'll play demons, and that means I get to summon infinite demons, I'd say you're wrong. We'd come to an adult understanding, and move on. But neither of us, without previous intense head trauma, would suggest that the unit COST is the specific cause of that failure.
No, the point is that unless you're playing in Matched Play summoned demons don't cost points or PL. And then demons can summon demons.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Except that it's NOT minor, as they've told you. It might be minor to you, but you don't speak for everyone.
5+5+5+70 = 85 is objectively a minor bit of adding up numbers, especially compared to all the other math required to play 40k. Some people may be in a position where a minor additional burden is too much but the difference between PL and normal points is absolutely minor.
Minor to you. Not to them. You constantly doubling down on this idea that it's trivial, when to other people it isn't, is exactly what I mean by minimising their experiences.
What's wrong with giving people official recognition?
Why doesn't each data sheet say something like "transport capacity: 10 PRIMARIS models, unless you would like to change the rules and have the equally valid option to carry 10 models of any type"?
I have no idea what you're trying to say with this.
In smaller numbers, maybe, and their experiences were all written off as "fringe" play and unofficial. Now, they are just as valid in their enjoyment as you are.
And I can still write them off as "fringe" play if I want.
Yes, but you'd be categorically wrong to declare that it wasn't supported and valid though.
I don't care what label GW does or does not put on it, Open™ Play™ is still a fringe thing that most players have no interest in. But why does it matter what some random person on the internet thinks about what a private group is doing? It's not like pickup games at a store/club where you need a standardized set of rules you can use with random strangers.
So why do you care that it exists?
My enjoyment of the game is entirely casual, and you don't get to "um actually" my own thoughts and feelings like you know me.
I do in fact get to do that.
Uh, still nah. Unless you want me to start making up your own thoughts and feelings?
If I see someone screaming and flipping tables and threatening to punch everyone I don't care if they say "I'm not angry", it's very obvious that they are. If I see someone making 7300+ posts about their hobby, caring a lot about the stories happening in their games, etc, the label "casual" does not apply no matter how many times they try to claim it does.
Again, I think we have very different ideas of what "casual" is referring to, which you've oh-so-casually removed from your reply to me.
I *play* casually. I enjoy the game moderately.
And remember, "casual" is not the opposite of "competitive". Many narrative players don't care about winning, don't fight for every advantage, etc, but are absolutely not casual about their games.
As I said, we definitely have different ideas of what "casual" means.
I play casually. I don't care for balance. I don't aim to win. I don't really give two hoots as long as *everyone is having fun* - and considering that "having fun" is the only goal I have in mind, I'd absolutely say that I'm casual.
You seem to have this idea that if you have any kind of investment, you can't be casual, and I disagree. So, in future, I suggest that we both use terms that we can agree upon.
What? Yes, it absolutely IS ableism to question how a disabled person feels as if they're not actually "correct" in how they are feeling and thinking. How would you feel if, after you hypothetically smash your head against a wall and feel understandably in pain, someone else said "yeah, nah, you're absolutely fine - are you SURE you're in pain?" - it would be insulting to act like they know how you're feeling better than you do. When you're doing it to someone who feels that way due to a condition or disability, you're being patronising and ableist.
That has nothing to do with the thing I actually said. "I think these people would quit if they had to use the normal point system" is not a statement about how the disabled person is feeling, it's speculation about hypothetical actions by a third party. And it is not in any way ableist to say that the disabled person is wrong.
It's got everything to do with what you've been sayin. You've been saying that you doubt if disabled players *actually* want to use PL or if they're just being hoodwinked into it, and doubting when they've said that they wouldn't play if they had to use points. You're hearing what they're saying, and because it doesn't align with how you expect people to think and behave, you cast doubt on their feelings and experiences. It's ableist behaviour.
Why do you want to invalidate anyone?
Because CAAC players are toxic donkey-caves. Do you not want to invalidate WAAC players? Are you ok with WAAC players cheating, rules lawyering, pressuring people into accepting unfair rulings, etc, as long as the WAAC player is doing it to someone other than you?
As I said - I don't want to invalidate anyone. If WAAC players want to do their stuff, they can do so with people who agree to play against them. Throw two WAAC players against eachother, and let them have fun.
As I said - I'm entirely in favour of players discussing their goals and intentions pre-game to work out how they want to go about enjoying themselves. If a CAAC player and a WAAC player bumped into eachother and discussed a game, they'd quickly find that their initial goals would not be aligned, and so they have two choices - they can compromise, or they can politely agree to not play, and find other people more suited for their personal enjoyment.
So no, I don't want to invalidate anyone from playing, so long as they're not looking to invalidate anyone else.
What base isn't covered?
Lots of them! Among other things, we need:
* A more granular version of the normal point system, including things like scaling (as with Tau crisis suits) the cost of duplicate copies of an option to account for uniformity being better than mixed gear.
* A point system with granularity in between PL and normal points.
* A point system with granularity in between PL and the system above.
* Another point system with granularity in between PL and the system above.
* A point system with less granularity than PL (but not fixed lists).
* A point system where a model's point cost is its number of wounds.
* A point system where a model's point cost is its number of Crusade achievements.
* A point system where each player has a random modifier to their point total to reflect the uncertainties of logistics in war.
I can keep going on, until the section of the rulebook on army construction has more pages than the rest of the game combined. But I think you'll acknowledge that there is a limit to how many different point systems we need, and the fact that at least one person might want a system is not sufficient reason for including it?
And these point systems you mention, what audiences are they trying to appeal to? I've shown which audiences I'm appealing to in my hypothetical tripartite system, but all you've done is list a variety of ways to build a list, not for what purpose they exist for.
Can you show me people who want in-between systems? Is there an accessibility issue there? Because, at the end of the day, that's my priority here - accessibility. My pre-gen system and PL are both accessible for different audiences, and therefore necessary.
Points does exactly the same thing - I may be discouraged from taking a thematic upgrade I'll still never use but want to have because it would "waste" points.
No it doesn't. Once again, since you still don't get it: the normal point system has specific case errors, PL has specific case errors and inherent systemic errors. You may be discouraged from "wasting" points on a particular upgrade in the normal point system but that's a specific case error that can at least theoretically be fixed by assigning the appropriate point cost to the upgrade. In PL it is by design impossible to have the correct cost for both a plasma pistol and a laspistol so at least one of those options will be discouraged no matter what cost you assign.
Nope, it still does - in ANY 40k game, no matter how "balanced", simply because of opportunity cost, there will always be options which might be thematically appropriate but unwise to take. That has always been the case.
I disagree. Informed consent and player awareness and empathy should ABSOLUTELY be necessary. Establishing the social contract and mutual goals is something I encourage in any game, as a BASELINE expectation. And this isn't even brought on by GW's standards, it's more been established by how I wish to treat people and relationships in the real world.
But why? Why is it better to have a flawed game that requires such discussion instead of a better game where the game is enjoyable even if you don't have the pre-game conversation? What value is being added if the game rules are balanced and well designed?
I'm not saying that points shouldn't be balanced and well designed, or that there shouldn't be the chance to pick up and silently roll against a faceless stranger. My question is why you can't let PL exist when it doesn't hurt you. The absence of PL doesn't suddenly fix the issues with points. What problem do you have with people choosing to play a different way, and choosing to have a pre-game discussion?
Why do I want pre-game discussion? The same reason I want discussions with my friends about our boundaries with one another, the same reason I discuss goals with co-workers and ensemble members, the same reason I establish my own boundaries in role-playing games - because it's polite and helps to avoid conflicts of interest.
EviscerationPlague wrote:I'd rather have less players than a worse game.
And that's why people are calling you a gatekeeper, and why you're the problem here.
Yeah, one is more inherently embarassing than the other. No, not everything is worth defending because some people are having "fun".
Why not?
Was Battle Demi-Company a good thing, yes or no? People had fun with it after all.
Was their fun at the expense of other people, ie the people they played against and got steamrolled by?
Also LOOOOL at saying I am a gatekeeper. I'm perfectly willing to defend my position on less players is fine if it means better rules, and no I don't care you feel otherwise. If 40k gained a million players tomorrow by making you use your models in a Snakes and Ladders ruleset, I'd be saying the same thing.
So, you're a tool.
Sorry, just calling a spade a spade.
It's an extreme example, but it gets the point across of rules quality being more important than your lazy "I don't want to think when putting together a list in an inherently flawed system". You and other PL defenders only give the same defenses of "I don't care", "Why does it matter if I like it", "Points aren't balanced either", and so on. These are NON defenses of the system.
That's because we don't need to defend it. What are we defending it from, the rabid crying of people who it doesn't actually affect in the slightest? Removing PL won't change anything for you, no more than keeping it around would. There's no need to defend it, because your premises are entirely based on the idea that it actually affects you. It doesn't.
The only embarrassing thing here is how violently you hate people enjoying smaller numbers.
Literally the only upside is "it's slightly faster to make a list", which also doesn't matter since the person it's supposed to apply to (people doing garagehammer that don't even need a point system to begin with because forge the narrative, as you apparently bought into that rhetoric) are planning these games a few days to a week in advance. At that point, don't you already have time to throw together a list or just use the same list as last week?
In other words, "if you don't play 40k every week on the spot with no planning, you don't get to have an opinion on the game".
Also I'd 100% do a Crusade campaign if it weren't for the fact it uses PL. That makes it bad by default.
And what if Crusade had the option to use points?
Also LOOOOOL at saying negotiating the game should be standard. You really did buy the "forge the narrative" crap.
Is that a problem? Or are you just crying because someone enjoys the game different to you?
Boo hoo, I enjoy ensuring player consent in my games? Is consent something you struggle with?
Tried googling that. First result was about how Elon Musk is attempting to take over America. Second result is a Reddit thread about properly binding a demon to your will. Bookmarked that for later. I don't think you've answered my question.
Pretend I've never played Demons. Are you implying that by playing demons with PL you are allowed to "cheat" and take bend the rules? Or that the rules are poorly written? Because right now for 135 points, you can get a unit that can down a titan with it's infinite frag grenades. Does anyone here want to use that argument to suggest points break the game? Of course not. Because it's silly to suggest that points are the cause of that problem. It's weakly written rules. If you came to me and said, Alright, lets play a 50pl game, I'll play demons, and that means I get to summon infinite demons, I'd say you're wrong. We'd come to an adult understanding, and move on. But neither of us, without previous intense head trauma, would suggest that the unit COST is the specific cause of that failure.
No, the point is that unless you're playing in Matched Play summoned demons don't cost points or PL. And then demons can summon demons.
So my only response to this is the same argument made by others when this was raised in YMDC over a year ago. Very same issue.
If you are playing by PL you are not, by definition, able to play matched. Or Demons. Because Demons in matched have to follow the reinforcement rules, which is cost in points, decided in the list before hand. Ergo, there is currently, without houseruling it, a way to play this type of army in matched play using PL. Or you are not allowed to summon, take your pick. It sucks, but I'm agreeing that PL has major flaws. If you want to played matched, then you have to followed matched play rules. That is by definition impossible with PL on certain armies. You could set aside PL for reserves, and do a handshake before game, but that is a house rule, so again, not matched play.
Tried googling that. First result was about how Elon Musk is attempting to take over America. Second result is a Reddit thread about properly binding a demon to your will. Bookmarked that for later. I don't think you've answered my question.
Pretend I've never played Demons. Are you implying that by playing demons with PL you are allowed to "cheat" and take bend the rules? Or that the rules are poorly written? Because right now for 135 points, you can get a unit that can down a titan with it's infinite frag grenades. Does anyone here want to use that argument to suggest points break the game? Of course not. Because it's silly to suggest that points are the cause of that problem. It's weakly written rules. If you came to me and said, Alright, lets play a 50pl game, I'll play demons, and that means I get to summon infinite demons, I'd say you're wrong. We'd come to an adult understanding, and move on. But neither of us, without previous intense head trauma, would suggest that the unit COST is the specific cause of that failure.
No, the point is that unless you're playing in Matched Play summoned demons don't cost points or PL. And then demons can summon demons.
So my only response to this is the same argument made by others when this was raised in YMDC over a year ago. Very same issue.
If you are playing by PL you are not, by definition, able to play matched. Or Demons. Because Demons in matched have to follow the reinforcement rules, which is cost in points, decided in the list before hand. Ergo, there is currently, without houseruling it, a way to play this type of army in matched play using PL. Or you are not allowed to summon, take your pick. It sucks, but I'm agreeing that PL has major flaws. If you want to played matched, then you have to followed matched play rules. That is by definition impossible with PL on certain armies. You could set aside PL for reserves, and do a handshake before game, but that is a house rule, so again, not matched play.
See thats the major issue of power level blased games though, is for them to operate smoothly you need a good amount of gentlemen's agreements or else abusive things like this are very easy to do.
This is why im in the boat of, matched play is the way you should be trying to play if you are looking to play in a pickup method or a universally accepted method of play. PL is fine for garage games, narrative, or just mucking about.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Except that it's NOT minor, as they've told you. It might be minor to you, but you don't speak for everyone.
5+5+5+70 = 85 is objectively a minor bit of adding up numbers, especially compared to all the other math required to play 40k. Some people may be in a position where a minor additional burden is too much but the difference between PL and normal points is absolutely minor.
Minor to you. Not to them. You constantly doubling down on this idea that it's trivial, when to other people it isn't, is exactly what I mean by minimising their experiences.
What's wrong with giving people official recognition?
Why doesn't each data sheet say something like "transport capacity: 10 PRIMARIS models, unless you would like to change the rules and have the equally valid option to carry 10 models of any type"?
I have no idea what you're trying to say with this.
In smaller numbers, maybe, and their experiences were all written off as "fringe" play and unofficial. Now, they are just as valid in their enjoyment as you are.
And I can still write them off as "fringe" play if I want.
Yes, but you'd be categorically wrong to declare that it wasn't supported and valid though.
I don't care what label GW does or does not put on it, Open™ Play™ is still a fringe thing that most players have no interest in. But why does it matter what some random person on the internet thinks about what a private group is doing? It's not like pickup games at a store/club where you need a standardized set of rules you can use with random strangers.
So why do you care that it exists?
My enjoyment of the game is entirely casual, and you don't get to "um actually" my own thoughts and feelings like you know me.
I do in fact get to do that.
Uh, still nah. Unless you want me to start making up your own thoughts and feelings?
If I see someone screaming and flipping tables and threatening to punch everyone I don't care if they say "I'm not angry", it's very obvious that they are. If I see someone making 7300+ posts about their hobby, caring a lot about the stories happening in their games, etc, the label "casual" does not apply no matter how many times they try to claim it does.
Again, I think we have very different ideas of what "casual" is referring to, which you've oh-so-casually removed from your reply to me.
I *play* casually. I enjoy the game moderately.
And remember, "casual" is not the opposite of "competitive". Many narrative players don't care about winning, don't fight for every advantage, etc, but are absolutely not casual about their games.
As I said, we definitely have different ideas of what "casual" means.
I play casually. I don't care for balance. I don't aim to win. I don't really give two hoots as long as *everyone is having fun* - and considering that "having fun" is the only goal I have in mind, I'd absolutely say that I'm casual.
You seem to have this idea that if you have any kind of investment, you can't be casual, and I disagree. So, in future, I suggest that we both use terms that we can agree upon.
What? Yes, it absolutely IS ableism to question how a disabled person feels as if they're not actually "correct" in how they are feeling and thinking. How would you feel if, after you hypothetically smash your head against a wall and feel understandably in pain, someone else said "yeah, nah, you're absolutely fine - are you SURE you're in pain?" - it would be insulting to act like they know how you're feeling better than you do. When you're doing it to someone who feels that way due to a condition or disability, you're being patronising and ableist.
That has nothing to do with the thing I actually said. "I think these people would quit if they had to use the normal point system" is not a statement about how the disabled person is feeling, it's speculation about hypothetical actions by a third party. And it is not in any way ableist to say that the disabled person is wrong.
It's got everything to do with what you've been sayin. You've been saying that you doubt if disabled players *actually* want to use PL or if they're just being hoodwinked into it, and doubting when they've said that they wouldn't play if they had to use points. You're hearing what they're saying, and because it doesn't align with how you expect people to think and behave, you cast doubt on their feelings and experiences. It's ableist behaviour.
Why do you want to invalidate anyone?
Because CAAC players are toxic donkey-caves. Do you not want to invalidate WAAC players? Are you ok with WAAC players cheating, rules lawyering, pressuring people into accepting unfair rulings, etc, as long as the WAAC player is doing it to someone other than you?
As I said - I don't want to invalidate anyone. If WAAC players want to do their stuff, they can do so with people who agree to play against them. Throw two WAAC players against eachother, and let them have fun.
As I said - I'm entirely in favour of players discussing their goals and intentions pre-game to work out how they want to go about enjoying themselves. If a CAAC player and a WAAC player bumped into eachother and discussed a game, they'd quickly find that their initial goals would not be aligned, and so they have two choices - they can compromise, or they can politely agree to not play, and find other people more suited for their personal enjoyment.
So no, I don't want to invalidate anyone from playing, so long as they're not looking to invalidate anyone else.
What base isn't covered?
Lots of them! Among other things, we need:
* A more granular version of the normal point system, including things like scaling (as with Tau crisis suits) the cost of duplicate copies of an option to account for uniformity being better than mixed gear.
* A point system with granularity in between PL and normal points.
* A point system with granularity in between PL and the system above.
* Another point system with granularity in between PL and the system above.
* A point system with less granularity than PL (but not fixed lists).
* A point system where a model's point cost is its number of wounds.
* A point system where a model's point cost is its number of Crusade achievements.
* A point system where each player has a random modifier to their point total to reflect the uncertainties of logistics in war.
I can keep going on, until the section of the rulebook on army construction has more pages than the rest of the game combined. But I think you'll acknowledge that there is a limit to how many different point systems we need, and the fact that at least one person might want a system is not sufficient reason for including it?
And these point systems you mention, what audiences are they trying to appeal to? I've shown which audiences I'm appealing to in my hypothetical tripartite system, but all you've done is list a variety of ways to build a list, not for what purpose they exist for.
Can you show me people who want in-between systems? Is there an accessibility issue there? Because, at the end of the day, that's my priority here - accessibility. My pre-gen system and PL are both accessible for different audiences, and therefore necessary.
Points does exactly the same thing - I may be discouraged from taking a thematic upgrade I'll still never use but want to have because it would "waste" points.
No it doesn't. Once again, since you still don't get it: the normal point system has specific case errors, PL has specific case errors and inherent systemic errors. You may be discouraged from "wasting" points on a particular upgrade in the normal point system but that's a specific case error that can at least theoretically be fixed by assigning the appropriate point cost to the upgrade. In PL it is by design impossible to have the correct cost for both a plasma pistol and a laspistol so at least one of those options will be discouraged no matter what cost you assign.
Nope, it still does - in ANY 40k game, no matter how "balanced", simply because of opportunity cost, there will always be options which might be thematically appropriate but unwise to take. That has always been the case.
I disagree. Informed consent and player awareness and empathy should ABSOLUTELY be necessary. Establishing the social contract and mutual goals is something I encourage in any game, as a BASELINE expectation. And this isn't even brought on by GW's standards, it's more been established by how I wish to treat people and relationships in the real world.
But why? Why is it better to have a flawed game that requires such discussion instead of a better game where the game is enjoyable even if you don't have the pre-game conversation? What value is being added if the game rules are balanced and well designed?
I'm not saying that points shouldn't be balanced and well designed, or that there shouldn't be the chance to pick up and silently roll against a faceless stranger. My question is why you can't let PL exist when it doesn't hurt you. The absence of PL doesn't suddenly fix the issues with points. What problem do you have with people choosing to play a different way, and choosing to have a pre-game discussion?
Why do I want pre-game discussion? The same reason I want discussions with my friends about our boundaries with one another, the same reason I discuss goals with co-workers and ensemble members, the same reason I establish my own boundaries in role-playing games - because it's polite and helps to avoid conflicts of interest.
EviscerationPlague wrote:I'd rather have less players than a worse game.
And that's why people are calling you a gatekeeper, and why you're the problem here.
Yeah, one is more inherently embarassing than the other. No, not everything is worth defending because some people are having "fun".
Why not?
Was Battle Demi-Company a good thing, yes or no? People had fun with it after all.
Was their fun at the expense of other people, ie the people they played against and got steamrolled by?
Also LOOOOL at saying I am a gatekeeper. I'm perfectly willing to defend my position on less players is fine if it means better rules, and no I don't care you feel otherwise. If 40k gained a million players tomorrow by making you use your models in a Snakes and Ladders ruleset, I'd be saying the same thing.
So, you're a tool.
Sorry, just calling a spade a spade.
It's an extreme example, but it gets the point across of rules quality being more important than your lazy "I don't want to think when putting together a list in an inherently flawed system". You and other PL defenders only give the same defenses of "I don't care", "Why does it matter if I like it", "Points aren't balanced either", and so on. These are NON defenses of the system.
That's because we don't need to defend it. What are we defending it from, the rabid crying of people who it doesn't actually affect in the slightest? Removing PL won't change anything for you, no more than keeping it around would. There's no need to defend it, because your premises are entirely based on the idea that it actually affects you. It doesn't.
The only embarrassing thing here is how violently you hate people enjoying smaller numbers.
Literally the only upside is "it's slightly faster to make a list", which also doesn't matter since the person it's supposed to apply to (people doing garagehammer that don't even need a point system to begin with because forge the narrative, as you apparently bought into that rhetoric) are planning these games a few days to a week in advance. At that point, don't you already have time to throw together a list or just use the same list as last week?
In other words, "if you don't play 40k every week on the spot with no planning, you don't get to have an opinion on the game".
Also I'd 100% do a Crusade campaign if it weren't for the fact it uses PL. That makes it bad by default.
And what if Crusade had the option to use points?
Also LOOOOOL at saying negotiating the game should be standard. You really did buy the "forge the narrative" crap.
Is that a problem? Or are you just crying because someone enjoys the game different to you?
Boo hoo, I enjoy ensuring player consent in my games? Is consent something you struggle with?
I love how Smudge avoids the points being made.
Was Battle Demi Company good design or good for the game? Yes or no?
Blackie wrote: What's the definition of a casual player then? Someone that doesn't play very often and/or doesn't really pay a lot of attention to how the meta evolves and probably doesn't even care? Someone that only play narrative games or fluff based lists? Something else?
Someone who doesn't care about the game or invest any time or energy into it. The person who bought a starter box a decade ago and once or twice a year plays a game of 6th edition with their old college roommate. The parent who plays "that space marine game" with their kids despite having no interest of their own in it because their kids love it. People like this don't care about the rules, don't follow the meta, don't care about any story attached to the game, and certainly don't get on forums and make thousands of posts or get into extended arguments about their preferred point system for playing the game. Genuine casual players don't even have an opinion on normal points vs. PL because they don't care about the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackie wrote: See my previous post. In some areas pineapple on pizza is extremely popular, and yet who invented pizza would have considered it heresy. It's still considered heresy in the vast majority of the civilized world.
Those people are factually wrong and they aren't part of the civilized world.
GW never pushed that way of playing, they simply jumped on the band wagon the moment pick up games became the most popular way to play in the most remunerative markets.
And now, having jumped on the bandwagon, they are intending 40k to be played that way. What GW did in old editions is no longer relevant, the current game is absolutely designed for matched play pickup games as its primary mode of play.
CadianSgtBob wrote: I'm an elitist jerk that is too self-absorbed to realize that I'm playing at casual level at best despite feeling like a superior tournament player because I use points.
Please stop replying to my posts. I wont read your dumb garbage anyways, so you might as well spare the rest of the forum your mental pollution.
The only thing you have proven over the course of this thread is that you are a toxic idiot and that constantly violating the rules of conduct is apparently not a reason for moderator action anymore.
Apparently not or you'd be banned for this blatant inappropriate behavior.
Do the rest of you PL advocates still stand by that claim that it's only the other side making insults, that all the pro-PL people are polite and reasonable and never say anything bad?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: I think the biggest problem is the reluctance of Warhammer players to engage in any social interaction beyond 2000 points okay? You don't find this in pretty much any other war game.
Again, why do you need this kind of conversation? What benefit is there if the game isn't broken? It only feels necessary because we've so completely normalized GW's incompetence at game design that we can't even imagine a world where the game doesn't require negotiation about how to play it.
It's a hell of a lot of 'individual' errors compounded by the contextual inability of a single/universal cost-mechanic to account for real in-game values. That indicates its a system.failure.
No, I'm focusing on the cause. The cause is that GW made an individual case error with the cost of power fists on devastator sergeants. The point system is perfectly capable of providing a accurate cost for that upgrade, GW just failed to evaluate its worth correctly and assigned an incorrect number. Someone with more skill at evaluation could assign the correct point cost to that power fist without changing anything about the system.
And remember that "systemic error" does not mean "errors are really common", it means that errors are a direct result of how the system functions. A point system can have an incorrect cost for every single unit and upgrade but if the cause of those errors is the creator thinking "wow, this seems really powerful I'd better make it expensive" it isn't a systemic error. The system did not force the error, the user failed to operate it correctly. Contrast that with the systemic PL errors where the errors are a direct result of the system. PL is a system where, by design, it is impossible for both a devastator squad with a power fist and a devastator squad with no sergeant upgrades to have the correct point cost. It doesn't matter how good you are at evaluating individual option values, the system forces you to make at least one error because two options of different strength must be assigned the same point cost.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Except that it's NOT minor, as they've told you. It might be minor to you, but you don't speak for everyone.
5+5+5+70 = 85 is objectively a minor bit of adding up numbers, especially compared to all the other math required to play 40k. Some people may be in a position where a minor additional burden is too much but the difference between PL and normal points is absolutely minor.
Minor to you. Not to them. You constantly doubling down on this idea that it's trivial, when to other people it isn't, is exactly what I mean by minimising their experiences.
What's wrong with giving people official recognition?
Why doesn't each data sheet say something like "transport capacity: 10 PRIMARIS models, unless you would like to change the rules and have the equally valid option to carry 10 models of any type"?
I have no idea what you're trying to say with this.
In smaller numbers, maybe, and their experiences were all written off as "fringe" play and unofficial. Now, they are just as valid in their enjoyment as you are.
And I can still write them off as "fringe" play if I want.
Yes, but you'd be categorically wrong to declare that it wasn't supported and valid though.
I don't care what label GW does or does not put on it, Open™ Play™ is still a fringe thing that most players have no interest in. But why does it matter what some random person on the internet thinks about what a private group is doing? It's not like pickup games at a store/club where you need a standardized set of rules you can use with random strangers.
So why do you care that it exists?
My enjoyment of the game is entirely casual, and you don't get to "um actually" my own thoughts and feelings like you know me.
I do in fact get to do that.
Uh, still nah. Unless you want me to start making up your own thoughts and feelings?
If I see someone screaming and flipping tables and threatening to punch everyone I don't care if they say "I'm not angry", it's very obvious that they are. If I see someone making 7300+ posts about their hobby, caring a lot about the stories happening in their games, etc, the label "casual" does not apply no matter how many times they try to claim it does.
Again, I think we have very different ideas of what "casual" is referring to, which you've oh-so-casually removed from your reply to me.
I *play* casually. I enjoy the game moderately.
And remember, "casual" is not the opposite of "competitive". Many narrative players don't care about winning, don't fight for every advantage, etc, but are absolutely not casual about their games.
As I said, we definitely have different ideas of what "casual" means.
I play casually. I don't care for balance. I don't aim to win. I don't really give two hoots as long as *everyone is having fun* - and considering that "having fun" is the only goal I have in mind, I'd absolutely say that I'm casual.
You seem to have this idea that if you have any kind of investment, you can't be casual, and I disagree. So, in future, I suggest that we both use terms that we can agree upon.
What? Yes, it absolutely IS ableism to question how a disabled person feels as if they're not actually "correct" in how they are feeling and thinking. How would you feel if, after you hypothetically smash your head against a wall and feel understandably in pain, someone else said "yeah, nah, you're absolutely fine - are you SURE you're in pain?" - it would be insulting to act like they know how you're feeling better than you do. When you're doing it to someone who feels that way due to a condition or disability, you're being patronising and ableist.
That has nothing to do with the thing I actually said. "I think these people would quit if they had to use the normal point system" is not a statement about how the disabled person is feeling, it's speculation about hypothetical actions by a third party. And it is not in any way ableist to say that the disabled person is wrong.
It's got everything to do with what you've been sayin. You've been saying that you doubt if disabled players *actually* want to use PL or if they're just being hoodwinked into it, and doubting when they've said that they wouldn't play if they had to use points. You're hearing what they're saying, and because it doesn't align with how you expect people to think and behave, you cast doubt on their feelings and experiences. It's ableist behaviour.
Why do you want to invalidate anyone?
Because CAAC players are toxic donkey-caves. Do you not want to invalidate WAAC players? Are you ok with WAAC players cheating, rules lawyering, pressuring people into accepting unfair rulings, etc, as long as the WAAC player is doing it to someone other than you?
As I said - I don't want to invalidate anyone. If WAAC players want to do their stuff, they can do so with people who agree to play against them. Throw two WAAC players against eachother, and let them have fun.
As I said - I'm entirely in favour of players discussing their goals and intentions pre-game to work out how they want to go about enjoying themselves. If a CAAC player and a WAAC player bumped into eachother and discussed a game, they'd quickly find that their initial goals would not be aligned, and so they have two choices - they can compromise, or they can politely agree to not play, and find other people more suited for their personal enjoyment.
So no, I don't want to invalidate anyone from playing, so long as they're not looking to invalidate anyone else.
What base isn't covered?
Lots of them! Among other things, we need:
* A more granular version of the normal point system, including things like scaling (as with Tau crisis suits) the cost of duplicate copies of an option to account for uniformity being better than mixed gear.
* A point system with granularity in between PL and normal points.
* A point system with granularity in between PL and the system above.
* Another point system with granularity in between PL and the system above.
* A point system with less granularity than PL (but not fixed lists).
* A point system where a model's point cost is its number of wounds.
* A point system where a model's point cost is its number of Crusade achievements.
* A point system where each player has a random modifier to their point total to reflect the uncertainties of logistics in war.
I can keep going on, until the section of the rulebook on army construction has more pages than the rest of the game combined. But I think you'll acknowledge that there is a limit to how many different point systems we need, and the fact that at least one person might want a system is not sufficient reason for including it?
And these point systems you mention, what audiences are they trying to appeal to? I've shown which audiences I'm appealing to in my hypothetical tripartite system, but all you've done is list a variety of ways to build a list, not for what purpose they exist for.
Can you show me people who want in-between systems? Is there an accessibility issue there? Because, at the end of the day, that's my priority here - accessibility. My pre-gen system and PL are both accessible for different audiences, and therefore necessary.
Points does exactly the same thing - I may be discouraged from taking a thematic upgrade I'll still never use but want to have because it would "waste" points.
No it doesn't. Once again, since you still don't get it: the normal point system has specific case errors, PL has specific case errors and inherent systemic errors. You may be discouraged from "wasting" points on a particular upgrade in the normal point system but that's a specific case error that can at least theoretically be fixed by assigning the appropriate point cost to the upgrade. In PL it is by design impossible to have the correct cost for both a plasma pistol and a laspistol so at least one of those options will be discouraged no matter what cost you assign.
Nope, it still does - in ANY 40k game, no matter how "balanced", simply because of opportunity cost, there will always be options which might be thematically appropriate but unwise to take. That has always been the case.
I disagree. Informed consent and player awareness and empathy should ABSOLUTELY be necessary. Establishing the social contract and mutual goals is something I encourage in any game, as a BASELINE expectation. And this isn't even brought on by GW's standards, it's more been established by how I wish to treat people and relationships in the real world.
But why? Why is it better to have a flawed game that requires such discussion instead of a better game where the game is enjoyable even if you don't have the pre-game conversation? What value is being added if the game rules are balanced and well designed?
I'm not saying that points shouldn't be balanced and well designed, or that there shouldn't be the chance to pick up and silently roll against a faceless stranger. My question is why you can't let PL exist when it doesn't hurt you. The absence of PL doesn't suddenly fix the issues with points. What problem do you have with people choosing to play a different way, and choosing to have a pre-game discussion?
Why do I want pre-game discussion? The same reason I want discussions with my friends about our boundaries with one another, the same reason I discuss goals with co-workers and ensemble members, the same reason I establish my own boundaries in role-playing games - because it's polite and helps to avoid conflicts of interest.
EviscerationPlague wrote:I'd rather have less players than a worse game.
And that's why people are calling you a gatekeeper, and why you're the problem here.
Yeah, one is more inherently embarassing than the other. No, not everything is worth defending because some people are having "fun".
Why not?
Was Battle Demi-Company a good thing, yes or no? People had fun with it after all.
Was their fun at the expense of other people, ie the people they played against and got steamrolled by?
Also LOOOOL at saying I am a gatekeeper. I'm perfectly willing to defend my position on less players is fine if it means better rules, and no I don't care you feel otherwise. If 40k gained a million players tomorrow by making you use your models in a Snakes and Ladders ruleset, I'd be saying the same thing.
So, you're a tool.
Sorry, just calling a spade a spade.
It's an extreme example, but it gets the point across of rules quality being more important than your lazy "I don't want to think when putting together a list in an inherently flawed system". You and other PL defenders only give the same defenses of "I don't care", "Why does it matter if I like it", "Points aren't balanced either", and so on. These are NON defenses of the system.
That's because we don't need to defend it. What are we defending it from, the rabid crying of people who it doesn't actually affect in the slightest? Removing PL won't change anything for you, no more than keeping it around would. There's no need to defend it, because your premises are entirely based on the idea that it actually affects you. It doesn't.
The only embarrassing thing here is how violently you hate people enjoying smaller numbers.
Literally the only upside is "it's slightly faster to make a list", which also doesn't matter since the person it's supposed to apply to (people doing garagehammer that don't even need a point system to begin with because forge the narrative, as you apparently bought into that rhetoric) are planning these games a few days to a week in advance. At that point, don't you already have time to throw together a list or just use the same list as last week?
In other words, "if you don't play 40k every week on the spot with no planning, you don't get to have an opinion on the game".
Also I'd 100% do a Crusade campaign if it weren't for the fact it uses PL. That makes it bad by default.
And what if Crusade had the option to use points?
Also LOOOOOL at saying negotiating the game should be standard. You really did buy the "forge the narrative" crap.
Is that a problem? Or are you just crying because someone enjoys the game different to you?
Boo hoo, I enjoy ensuring player consent in my games? Is consent something you struggle with?
I love how Smudge avoids the points being made.
Was Battle Demi Company good design or good for the game? Yes or no?
EviscerationPlague wrote:I love how Smudge avoids the points being made.
Was Battle Demi Company good design or good for the game? Yes or no?
I love that you think the two are comparable. The Gladius (which was the main issue, not the Demi Company Formation) directly affects the enjoyment of others, because someone needs to play against the Gladius, and is defensible by saying "but it's official, and it's in the rules".
Power Level does not directly affect the enjoyment of others, because you don't have to play it, and you can say that you'd rather play a game of points, and that is entirely within your rights to do so.
Next you'll be asking me if pineapple belongs on pizza, and how that has bearing on my stance for PL (for what it's worth, I don't like it, but people can eat their pizza however they want to).
Try better next time, and address the rest of the post while you're at it
CadianSgtBob wrote:
Blackie wrote: What's the definition of a casual player then? Someone that doesn't play very often and/or doesn't really pay a lot of attention to how the meta evolves and probably doesn't even care? Someone that only play narrative games or fluff based lists? Something else?
Someone who doesn't care about the game or invest any time or energy into it.
That's not what I'd call casual. That someone who I'd call "uninvested" or "infrequent".
Genuine casual players don't even have an opinion on normal points vs. PL because they don't care about the game.
Because your definition is the only valid one?
Blackie wrote: GW never pushed that way of playing, they simply jumped on the band wagon the moment pick up games became the most popular way to play in the most remunerative markets.
And now, having jumped on the bandwagon, they are intending 40k to be played that way. What GW did in old editions is no longer relevant, the current game is absolutely designed for matched play pickup games as its primary mode of play.
Again, back to this idea of "intention" - what DO GW intend, because one minute you're saying they're intending for pickup games, and then you're saying they're intending for CAAC games where you need to talk with your opponents. Which one is it?
Do the rest of you PL advocates still stand by that claim that it's only the other side making insults, that all the pro-PL people are polite and reasonable and never say anything bad?
I never claimed that only one side was making insults. I *did* claim (accurately so) that only one side had been saying that some people are playing 40k wrong and shouldn't be allowed to play, and that their opinions, experiences, and disabilities were irrelevant.
I've never said anything about "pro-PL people being polite and reasonable and never saying anything bad", and I think you know that.
Wayniac wrote: I think the biggest problem is the reluctance of Warhammer players to engage in any social interaction beyond 2000 points okay? You don't find this in pretty much any other war game.
Again, why do you need this kind of conversation? What benefit is there if the game isn't broken? It only feels necessary because we've so completely normalized GW's incompetence at game design that we can't even imagine a world where the game doesn't require negotiation about how to play it.
It's not even a GW thing - this is something I do in *every* game, because it's good to set boundaries and expectations.
Contrast that with the systemic PL errors where the errors are a direct result of the system. PL is a system where, by design, it is impossible for both a devastator squad with a power fist and a devastator squad with no sergeant upgrades to have the correct point cost. It doesn't matter how good you are at evaluating individual option values, the system forces you to make at least one error because two options of different strength must be assigned the same point cost.
It's only an "error" if you believe that two different options need to be mechanically balanced.
But that kind of stuff never happens with a superior pointing scheme, ever...
It was a points thing. And then GW decided "hey, this whole giving out free stuff thing is kind of stupid, let's not do that again" and removed it. Except they didn't learn their lesson because they immediately repeated the mistake with PL.
No, because it's the actual definition of the word. People just misuse it to mean "not competitive" because they like it as an identity no matter how inaccurate it is. If you understand and care about the game enough to have passionate opinions on the precise details of the point system it uses then you are not a casual player. If you understand and care about the game enough to have informed pre-game conversations about game styles then you are not a casual player. If you are so devoted to a particular story (as PenitentJake is) that any change to the army construction rules would invalidate your story and destroy your enjoyment of the game then you are not a casual player.
Again, back to this idea of "intention" - what DO GW intend, because one minute you're saying they're intending for pickup games, and then you're saying they're intending for CAAC games where you need to talk with your opponents. Which one is it?
I did not say the second thing, you seem to be very confused and mixing up multiple separate points.
GW currently intends to make matched play and pickup games the focus of the game. The entire system is designed around points-based list construction with generic scenarios suitable for any random pairing of armies, GW is running official tournaments with blind pairings, and GW is heavily promoting both of these things in their marketing. Even Crusade has a section on "how to use your Crusade list against random strangers who aren't playing Crusade".
GWat the start of 8th attempted to make PL the focus of the game, in line with the CAAC attitudes expressed by GW employees in the past. But this a past event, from before their current emphasis on pickup and tournament games, so it does not in any way contradict my statements about the current state of the game.
GW does not deliberately intend to have pre-game conversations (at least AFAIK). Those comments were about the players normalizing GW's incompetence.
I've never said anything about "pro-PL people being polite and reasonable and never saying anything bad", and I think you know that.
Then the comment doesn't apply to you (and wasn't addressed to you directly). But let's not pretend that those claims don't exist.
It's not even a GW thing - this is something I do in *every* game, because it's good to set boundaries and expectations.
But why? What boundaries and expectations are you setting that don't follow directly from flaws (real or perceived) in the game?
It's only an "error" if you believe that two different options need to be mechanically balanced.
Well yes, of course they need to be balanced. The entire purpose of a point system is to assign an accurate numerical value to each option's strength. Failure in this basic task is a failure of the system.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Except that it's NOT minor, as they've told you. It might be minor to you, but you don't speak for everyone.
5+5+5+70 = 85 is objectively a minor bit of adding up numbers, especially compared to all the other math required to play 40k. Some people may be in a position where a minor additional burden is too much but the difference between PL and normal points is absolutely minor.
Minor to you. Not to them. You constantly doubling down on this idea that it's trivial, when to other people it isn't, is exactly what I mean by minimising their experiences.
What's wrong with giving people official recognition?
Why doesn't each data sheet say something like "transport capacity: 10 PRIMARIS models, unless you would like to change the rules and have the equally valid option to carry 10 models of any type"?
I have no idea what you're trying to say with this.
In smaller numbers, maybe, and their experiences were all written off as "fringe" play and unofficial. Now, they are just as valid in their enjoyment as you are.
And I can still write them off as "fringe" play if I want.
Yes, but you'd be categorically wrong to declare that it wasn't supported and valid though.
I don't care what label GW does or does not put on it, Open™ Play™ is still a fringe thing that most players have no interest in. But why does it matter what some random person on the internet thinks about what a private group is doing? It's not like pickup games at a store/club where you need a standardized set of rules you can use with random strangers.
So why do you care that it exists?
My enjoyment of the game is entirely casual, and you don't get to "um actually" my own thoughts and feelings like you know me.
I do in fact get to do that.
Uh, still nah. Unless you want me to start making up your own thoughts and feelings?
If I see someone screaming and flipping tables and threatening to punch everyone I don't care if they say "I'm not angry", it's very obvious that they are. If I see someone making 7300+ posts about their hobby, caring a lot about the stories happening in their games, etc, the label "casual" does not apply no matter how many times they try to claim it does.
Again, I think we have very different ideas of what "casual" is referring to, which you've oh-so-casually removed from your reply to me.
I *play* casually. I enjoy the game moderately.
And remember, "casual" is not the opposite of "competitive". Many narrative players don't care about winning, don't fight for every advantage, etc, but are absolutely not casual about their games.
As I said, we definitely have different ideas of what "casual" means.
I play casually. I don't care for balance. I don't aim to win. I don't really give two hoots as long as *everyone is having fun* - and considering that "having fun" is the only goal I have in mind, I'd absolutely say that I'm casual.
You seem to have this idea that if you have any kind of investment, you can't be casual, and I disagree. So, in future, I suggest that we both use terms that we can agree upon.
What? Yes, it absolutely IS ableism to question how a disabled person feels as if they're not actually "correct" in how they are feeling and thinking. How would you feel if, after you hypothetically smash your head against a wall and feel understandably in pain, someone else said "yeah, nah, you're absolutely fine - are you SURE you're in pain?" - it would be insulting to act like they know how you're feeling better than you do. When you're doing it to someone who feels that way due to a condition or disability, you're being patronising and ableist.
That has nothing to do with the thing I actually said. "I think these people would quit if they had to use the normal point system" is not a statement about how the disabled person is feeling, it's speculation about hypothetical actions by a third party. And it is not in any way ableist to say that the disabled person is wrong.
It's got everything to do with what you've been sayin. You've been saying that you doubt if disabled players *actually* want to use PL or if they're just being hoodwinked into it, and doubting when they've said that they wouldn't play if they had to use points. You're hearing what they're saying, and because it doesn't align with how you expect people to think and behave, you cast doubt on their feelings and experiences. It's ableist behaviour.
Why do you want to invalidate anyone?
Because CAAC players are toxic donkey-caves. Do you not want to invalidate WAAC players? Are you ok with WAAC players cheating, rules lawyering, pressuring people into accepting unfair rulings, etc, as long as the WAAC player is doing it to someone other than you?
As I said - I don't want to invalidate anyone. If WAAC players want to do their stuff, they can do so with people who agree to play against them. Throw two WAAC players against eachother, and let them have fun.
As I said - I'm entirely in favour of players discussing their goals and intentions pre-game to work out how they want to go about enjoying themselves. If a CAAC player and a WAAC player bumped into eachother and discussed a game, they'd quickly find that their initial goals would not be aligned, and so they have two choices - they can compromise, or they can politely agree to not play, and find other people more suited for their personal enjoyment.
So no, I don't want to invalidate anyone from playing, so long as they're not looking to invalidate anyone else.
What base isn't covered?
Lots of them! Among other things, we need:
* A more granular version of the normal point system, including things like scaling (as with Tau crisis suits) the cost of duplicate copies of an option to account for uniformity being better than mixed gear.
* A point system with granularity in between PL and normal points.
* A point system with granularity in between PL and the system above.
* Another point system with granularity in between PL and the system above.
* A point system with less granularity than PL (but not fixed lists).
* A point system where a model's point cost is its number of wounds.
* A point system where a model's point cost is its number of Crusade achievements.
* A point system where each player has a random modifier to their point total to reflect the uncertainties of logistics in war.
I can keep going on, until the section of the rulebook on army construction has more pages than the rest of the game combined. But I think you'll acknowledge that there is a limit to how many different point systems we need, and the fact that at least one person might want a system is not sufficient reason for including it?
And these point systems you mention, what audiences are they trying to appeal to? I've shown which audiences I'm appealing to in my hypothetical tripartite system, but all you've done is list a variety of ways to build a list, not for what purpose they exist for.
Can you show me people who want in-between systems? Is there an accessibility issue there? Because, at the end of the day, that's my priority here - accessibility. My pre-gen system and PL are both accessible for different audiences, and therefore necessary.
Points does exactly the same thing - I may be discouraged from taking a thematic upgrade I'll still never use but want to have because it would "waste" points.
No it doesn't. Once again, since you still don't get it: the normal point system has specific case errors, PL has specific case errors and inherent systemic errors. You may be discouraged from "wasting" points on a particular upgrade in the normal point system but that's a specific case error that can at least theoretically be fixed by assigning the appropriate point cost to the upgrade. In PL it is by design impossible to have the correct cost for both a plasma pistol and a laspistol so at least one of those options will be discouraged no matter what cost you assign.
Nope, it still does - in ANY 40k game, no matter how "balanced", simply because of opportunity cost, there will always be options which might be thematically appropriate but unwise to take. That has always been the case.
I disagree. Informed consent and player awareness and empathy should ABSOLUTELY be necessary. Establishing the social contract and mutual goals is something I encourage in any game, as a BASELINE expectation. And this isn't even brought on by GW's standards, it's more been established by how I wish to treat people and relationships in the real world.
But why? Why is it better to have a flawed game that requires such discussion instead of a better game where the game is enjoyable even if you don't have the pre-game conversation? What value is being added if the game rules are balanced and well designed?
I'm not saying that points shouldn't be balanced and well designed, or that there shouldn't be the chance to pick up and silently roll against a faceless stranger. My question is why you can't let PL exist when it doesn't hurt you. The absence of PL doesn't suddenly fix the issues with points. What problem do you have with people choosing to play a different way, and choosing to have a pre-game discussion?
Why do I want pre-game discussion? The same reason I want discussions with my friends about our boundaries with one another, the same reason I discuss goals with co-workers and ensemble members, the same reason I establish my own boundaries in role-playing games - because it's polite and helps to avoid conflicts of interest.
EviscerationPlague wrote:I'd rather have less players than a worse game.
And that's why people are calling you a gatekeeper, and why you're the problem here.
Yeah, one is more inherently embarassing than the other. No, not everything is worth defending because some people are having "fun".
Why not?
Was Battle Demi-Company a good thing, yes or no? People had fun with it after all.
Was their fun at the expense of other people, ie the people they played against and got steamrolled by?
Also LOOOOL at saying I am a gatekeeper. I'm perfectly willing to defend my position on less players is fine if it means better rules, and no I don't care you feel otherwise. If 40k gained a million players tomorrow by making you use your models in a Snakes and Ladders ruleset, I'd be saying the same thing.
So, you're a tool.
Sorry, just calling a spade a spade.
It's an extreme example, but it gets the point across of rules quality being more important than your lazy "I don't want to think when putting together a list in an inherently flawed system". You and other PL defenders only give the same defenses of "I don't care", "Why does it matter if I like it", "Points aren't balanced either", and so on. These are NON defenses of the system.
That's because we don't need to defend it. What are we defending it from, the rabid crying of people who it doesn't actually affect in the slightest? Removing PL won't change anything for you, no more than keeping it around would. There's no need to defend it, because your premises are entirely based on the idea that it actually affects you. It doesn't.
The only embarrassing thing here is how violently you hate people enjoying smaller numbers.
Literally the only upside is "it's slightly faster to make a list", which also doesn't matter since the person it's supposed to apply to (people doing garagehammer that don't even need a point system to begin with because forge the narrative, as you apparently bought into that rhetoric) are planning these games a few days to a week in advance. At that point, don't you already have time to throw together a list or just use the same list as last week?
In other words, "if you don't play 40k every week on the spot with no planning, you don't get to have an opinion on the game".
Also I'd 100% do a Crusade campaign if it weren't for the fact it uses PL. That makes it bad by default.
And what if Crusade had the option to use points?
Also LOOOOOL at saying negotiating the game should be standard. You really did buy the "forge the narrative" crap.
Is that a problem? Or are you just crying because someone enjoys the game different to you?
Boo hoo, I enjoy ensuring player consent in my games? Is consent something you struggle with?
I love how Smudge avoids the points being made.
Was Battle Demi Company good design or good for the game? Yes or no?
That's why I have them blocked. They don't argue in good faith and responding to them just makes the forum a worse place.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Except that it's NOT minor, as they've told you. It might be minor to you, but you don't speak for everyone.
5+5+5+70 = 85 is objectively a minor bit of adding up numbers, especially compared to all the other math required to play 40k. Some people may be in a position where a minor additional burden is too much but the difference between PL and normal points is absolutely minor.
Minor to you. Not to them. You constantly doubling down on this idea that it's trivial, when to other people it isn't, is exactly what I mean by minimising their experiences.
What's wrong with giving people official recognition?
Why doesn't each data sheet say something like "transport capacity: 10 PRIMARIS models, unless you would like to change the rules and have the equally valid option to carry 10 models of any type"?
I have no idea what you're trying to say with this.
In smaller numbers, maybe, and their experiences were all written off as "fringe" play and unofficial. Now, they are just as valid in their enjoyment as you are.
And I can still write them off as "fringe" play if I want.
Yes, but you'd be categorically wrong to declare that it wasn't supported and valid though.
I don't care what label GW does or does not put on it, Open™ Play™ is still a fringe thing that most players have no interest in. But why does it matter what some random person on the internet thinks about what a private group is doing? It's not like pickup games at a store/club where you need a standardized set of rules you can use with random strangers.
So why do you care that it exists?
My enjoyment of the game is entirely casual, and you don't get to "um actually" my own thoughts and feelings like you know me.
I do in fact get to do that.
Uh, still nah. Unless you want me to start making up your own thoughts and feelings?
If I see someone screaming and flipping tables and threatening to punch everyone I don't care if they say "I'm not angry", it's very obvious that they are. If I see someone making 7300+ posts about their hobby, caring a lot about the stories happening in their games, etc, the label "casual" does not apply no matter how many times they try to claim it does.
Again, I think we have very different ideas of what "casual" is referring to, which you've oh-so-casually removed from your reply to me.
I *play* casually. I enjoy the game moderately.
And remember, "casual" is not the opposite of "competitive". Many narrative players don't care about winning, don't fight for every advantage, etc, but are absolutely not casual about their games.
As I said, we definitely have different ideas of what "casual" means.
I play casually. I don't care for balance. I don't aim to win. I don't really give two hoots as long as *everyone is having fun* - and considering that "having fun" is the only goal I have in mind, I'd absolutely say that I'm casual.
You seem to have this idea that if you have any kind of investment, you can't be casual, and I disagree. So, in future, I suggest that we both use terms that we can agree upon.
What? Yes, it absolutely IS ableism to question how a disabled person feels as if they're not actually "correct" in how they are feeling and thinking. How would you feel if, after you hypothetically smash your head against a wall and feel understandably in pain, someone else said "yeah, nah, you're absolutely fine - are you SURE you're in pain?" - it would be insulting to act like they know how you're feeling better than you do. When you're doing it to someone who feels that way due to a condition or disability, you're being patronising and ableist.
That has nothing to do with the thing I actually said. "I think these people would quit if they had to use the normal point system" is not a statement about how the disabled person is feeling, it's speculation about hypothetical actions by a third party. And it is not in any way ableist to say that the disabled person is wrong.
It's got everything to do with what you've been sayin. You've been saying that you doubt if disabled players *actually* want to use PL or if they're just being hoodwinked into it, and doubting when they've said that they wouldn't play if they had to use points. You're hearing what they're saying, and because it doesn't align with how you expect people to think and behave, you cast doubt on their feelings and experiences. It's ableist behaviour.
Why do you want to invalidate anyone?
Because CAAC players are toxic donkey-caves. Do you not want to invalidate WAAC players? Are you ok with WAAC players cheating, rules lawyering, pressuring people into accepting unfair rulings, etc, as long as the WAAC player is doing it to someone other than you?
As I said - I don't want to invalidate anyone. If WAAC players want to do their stuff, they can do so with people who agree to play against them. Throw two WAAC players against eachother, and let them have fun.
As I said - I'm entirely in favour of players discussing their goals and intentions pre-game to work out how they want to go about enjoying themselves. If a CAAC player and a WAAC player bumped into eachother and discussed a game, they'd quickly find that their initial goals would not be aligned, and so they have two choices - they can compromise, or they can politely agree to not play, and find other people more suited for their personal enjoyment.
So no, I don't want to invalidate anyone from playing, so long as they're not looking to invalidate anyone else.
What base isn't covered?
Lots of them! Among other things, we need:
* A more granular version of the normal point system, including things like scaling (as with Tau crisis suits) the cost of duplicate copies of an option to account for uniformity being better than mixed gear.
* A point system with granularity in between PL and normal points.
* A point system with granularity in between PL and the system above.
* Another point system with granularity in between PL and the system above.
* A point system with less granularity than PL (but not fixed lists).
* A point system where a model's point cost is its number of wounds.
* A point system where a model's point cost is its number of Crusade achievements.
* A point system where each player has a random modifier to their point total to reflect the uncertainties of logistics in war.
I can keep going on, until the section of the rulebook on army construction has more pages than the rest of the game combined. But I think you'll acknowledge that there is a limit to how many different point systems we need, and the fact that at least one person might want a system is not sufficient reason for including it?
And these point systems you mention, what audiences are they trying to appeal to? I've shown which audiences I'm appealing to in my hypothetical tripartite system, but all you've done is list a variety of ways to build a list, not for what purpose they exist for.
Can you show me people who want in-between systems? Is there an accessibility issue there? Because, at the end of the day, that's my priority here - accessibility. My pre-gen system and PL are both accessible for different audiences, and therefore necessary.
Points does exactly the same thing - I may be discouraged from taking a thematic upgrade I'll still never use but want to have because it would "waste" points.
No it doesn't. Once again, since you still don't get it: the normal point system has specific case errors, PL has specific case errors and inherent systemic errors. You may be discouraged from "wasting" points on a particular upgrade in the normal point system but that's a specific case error that can at least theoretically be fixed by assigning the appropriate point cost to the upgrade. In PL it is by design impossible to have the correct cost for both a plasma pistol and a laspistol so at least one of those options will be discouraged no matter what cost you assign.
Nope, it still does - in ANY 40k game, no matter how "balanced", simply because of opportunity cost, there will always be options which might be thematically appropriate but unwise to take. That has always been the case.
I disagree. Informed consent and player awareness and empathy should ABSOLUTELY be necessary. Establishing the social contract and mutual goals is something I encourage in any game, as a BASELINE expectation. And this isn't even brought on by GW's standards, it's more been established by how I wish to treat people and relationships in the real world.
But why? Why is it better to have a flawed game that requires such discussion instead of a better game where the game is enjoyable even if you don't have the pre-game conversation? What value is being added if the game rules are balanced and well designed?
I'm not saying that points shouldn't be balanced and well designed, or that there shouldn't be the chance to pick up and silently roll against a faceless stranger. My question is why you can't let PL exist when it doesn't hurt you. The absence of PL doesn't suddenly fix the issues with points. What problem do you have with people choosing to play a different way, and choosing to have a pre-game discussion?
Why do I want pre-game discussion? The same reason I want discussions with my friends about our boundaries with one another, the same reason I discuss goals with co-workers and ensemble members, the same reason I establish my own boundaries in role-playing games - because it's polite and helps to avoid conflicts of interest.
EviscerationPlague wrote:I'd rather have less players than a worse game.
And that's why people are calling you a gatekeeper, and why you're the problem here.
Yeah, one is more inherently embarassing than the other. No, not everything is worth defending because some people are having "fun".
Why not?
Was Battle Demi-Company a good thing, yes or no? People had fun with it after all.
Was their fun at the expense of other people, ie the people they played against and got steamrolled by?
Also LOOOOL at saying I am a gatekeeper. I'm perfectly willing to defend my position on less players is fine if it means better rules, and no I don't care you feel otherwise. If 40k gained a million players tomorrow by making you use your models in a Snakes and Ladders ruleset, I'd be saying the same thing.
So, you're a tool.
Sorry, just calling a spade a spade.
It's an extreme example, but it gets the point across of rules quality being more important than your lazy "I don't want to think when putting together a list in an inherently flawed system". You and other PL defenders only give the same defenses of "I don't care", "Why does it matter if I like it", "Points aren't balanced either", and so on. These are NON defenses of the system.
That's because we don't need to defend it. What are we defending it from, the rabid crying of people who it doesn't actually affect in the slightest? Removing PL won't change anything for you, no more than keeping it around would. There's no need to defend it, because your premises are entirely based on the idea that it actually affects you. It doesn't.
The only embarrassing thing here is how violently you hate people enjoying smaller numbers.
Literally the only upside is "it's slightly faster to make a list", which also doesn't matter since the person it's supposed to apply to (people doing garagehammer that don't even need a point system to begin with because forge the narrative, as you apparently bought into that rhetoric) are planning these games a few days to a week in advance. At that point, don't you already have time to throw together a list or just use the same list as last week?
In other words, "if you don't play 40k every week on the spot with no planning, you don't get to have an opinion on the game".
Also I'd 100% do a Crusade campaign if it weren't for the fact it uses PL. That makes it bad by default.
And what if Crusade had the option to use points?
Also LOOOOOL at saying negotiating the game should be standard. You really did buy the "forge the narrative" crap.
Is that a problem? Or are you just crying because someone enjoys the game different to you?
Boo hoo, I enjoy ensuring player consent in my games? Is consent something you struggle with?
I love how Smudge avoids the points being made.
Was Battle Demi Company good design or good for the game? Yes or no?
EviscerationPlague wrote:I love how Smudge avoids the points being made.
Was Battle Demi Company good design or good for the game? Yes or no?
I love that you think the two are comparable. The Gladius (which was the main issue, not the Demi Company Formation) directly affects the enjoyment of others, because someone needs to play against the Gladius, and is defensible by saying "but it's official, and it's in the rules".
Power Level does not directly affect the enjoyment of others, because you don't have to play it, and you can say that you'd rather play a game of points, and that is entirely within your rights to do so.
You legit don't know what you're saying. Gladius was the overarching formation where you got 3 Combat Doctrines to use. You then had the Demi Company, which was the core, and then Battle Demi Company which was when you brought two for the free stuff. So first off, to say Gladius was the problem is laughable.
Secondly they are comparable. Both PL and Battle Demi-Company give you free models. Battle Demi-Company was more strict on it though compared to PL. War Convocation (the AdMech formation) gave free upgrades.
Thirdly......you didn't have to play either of those or use those either. CAD was the standard. Soooooo not sure what that point you're trying to make is.
So how about you answer the question: is Battle Demi Company or War Convo good design or good for the game, yes or no?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Except that it's NOT minor, as they've told you. It might be minor to you, but you don't speak for everyone.
5+5+5+70 = 85 is objectively a minor bit of adding up numbers, especially compared to all the other math required to play 40k. Some people may be in a position where a minor additional burden is too much but the difference between PL and normal points is absolutely minor.
Minor to you. Not to them. You constantly doubling down on this idea that it's trivial, when to other people it isn't, is exactly what I mean by minimising their experiences.
What's wrong with giving people official recognition?
Why doesn't each data sheet say something like "transport capacity: 10 PRIMARIS models, unless you would like to change the rules and have the equally valid option to carry 10 models of any type"?
I have no idea what you're trying to say with this.
In smaller numbers, maybe, and their experiences were all written off as "fringe" play and unofficial. Now, they are just as valid in their enjoyment as you are.
And I can still write them off as "fringe" play if I want.
Yes, but you'd be categorically wrong to declare that it wasn't supported and valid though.
I don't care what label GW does or does not put on it, Open™ Play™ is still a fringe thing that most players have no interest in. But why does it matter what some random person on the internet thinks about what a private group is doing? It's not like pickup games at a store/club where you need a standardized set of rules you can use with random strangers.
So why do you care that it exists?
My enjoyment of the game is entirely casual, and you don't get to "um actually" my own thoughts and feelings like you know me.
I do in fact get to do that.
Uh, still nah. Unless you want me to start making up your own thoughts and feelings?
If I see someone screaming and flipping tables and threatening to punch everyone I don't care if they say "I'm not angry", it's very obvious that they are. If I see someone making 7300+ posts about their hobby, caring a lot about the stories happening in their games, etc, the label "casual" does not apply no matter how many times they try to claim it does.
Again, I think we have very different ideas of what "casual" is referring to, which you've oh-so-casually removed from your reply to me.
I *play* casually. I enjoy the game moderately.
And remember, "casual" is not the opposite of "competitive". Many narrative players don't care about winning, don't fight for every advantage, etc, but are absolutely not casual about their games.
As I said, we definitely have different ideas of what "casual" means.
I play casually. I don't care for balance. I don't aim to win. I don't really give two hoots as long as *everyone is having fun* - and considering that "having fun" is the only goal I have in mind, I'd absolutely say that I'm casual.
You seem to have this idea that if you have any kind of investment, you can't be casual, and I disagree. So, in future, I suggest that we both use terms that we can agree upon.
What? Yes, it absolutely IS ableism to question how a disabled person feels as if they're not actually "correct" in how they are feeling and thinking. How would you feel if, after you hypothetically smash your head against a wall and feel understandably in pain, someone else said "yeah, nah, you're absolutely fine - are you SURE you're in pain?" - it would be insulting to act like they know how you're feeling better than you do. When you're doing it to someone who feels that way due to a condition or disability, you're being patronising and ableist.
That has nothing to do with the thing I actually said. "I think these people would quit if they had to use the normal point system" is not a statement about how the disabled person is feeling, it's speculation about hypothetical actions by a third party. And it is not in any way ableist to say that the disabled person is wrong.
It's got everything to do with what you've been sayin. You've been saying that you doubt if disabled players *actually* want to use PL or if they're just being hoodwinked into it, and doubting when they've said that they wouldn't play if they had to use points. You're hearing what they're saying, and because it doesn't align with how you expect people to think and behave, you cast doubt on their feelings and experiences. It's ableist behaviour.
Why do you want to invalidate anyone?
Because CAAC players are toxic donkey-caves. Do you not want to invalidate WAAC players? Are you ok with WAAC players cheating, rules lawyering, pressuring people into accepting unfair rulings, etc, as long as the WAAC player is doing it to someone other than you?
As I said - I don't want to invalidate anyone. If WAAC players want to do their stuff, they can do so with people who agree to play against them. Throw two WAAC players against eachother, and let them have fun.
As I said - I'm entirely in favour of players discussing their goals and intentions pre-game to work out how they want to go about enjoying themselves. If a CAAC player and a WAAC player bumped into eachother and discussed a game, they'd quickly find that their initial goals would not be aligned, and so they have two choices - they can compromise, or they can politely agree to not play, and find other people more suited for their personal enjoyment.
So no, I don't want to invalidate anyone from playing, so long as they're not looking to invalidate anyone else.
What base isn't covered?
Lots of them! Among other things, we need:
* A more granular version of the normal point system, including things like scaling (as with Tau crisis suits) the cost of duplicate copies of an option to account for uniformity being better than mixed gear.
* A point system with granularity in between PL and normal points.
* A point system with granularity in between PL and the system above.
* Another point system with granularity in between PL and the system above.
* A point system with less granularity than PL (but not fixed lists).
* A point system where a model's point cost is its number of wounds.
* A point system where a model's point cost is its number of Crusade achievements.
* A point system where each player has a random modifier to their point total to reflect the uncertainties of logistics in war.
I can keep going on, until the section of the rulebook on army construction has more pages than the rest of the game combined. But I think you'll acknowledge that there is a limit to how many different point systems we need, and the fact that at least one person might want a system is not sufficient reason for including it?
And these point systems you mention, what audiences are they trying to appeal to? I've shown which audiences I'm appealing to in my hypothetical tripartite system, but all you've done is list a variety of ways to build a list, not for what purpose they exist for.
Can you show me people who want in-between systems? Is there an accessibility issue there? Because, at the end of the day, that's my priority here - accessibility. My pre-gen system and PL are both accessible for different audiences, and therefore necessary.
Points does exactly the same thing - I may be discouraged from taking a thematic upgrade I'll still never use but want to have because it would "waste" points.
No it doesn't. Once again, since you still don't get it: the normal point system has specific case errors, PL has specific case errors and inherent systemic errors. You may be discouraged from "wasting" points on a particular upgrade in the normal point system but that's a specific case error that can at least theoretically be fixed by assigning the appropriate point cost to the upgrade. In PL it is by design impossible to have the correct cost for both a plasma pistol and a laspistol so at least one of those options will be discouraged no matter what cost you assign.
Nope, it still does - in ANY 40k game, no matter how "balanced", simply because of opportunity cost, there will always be options which might be thematically appropriate but unwise to take. That has always been the case.
I disagree. Informed consent and player awareness and empathy should ABSOLUTELY be necessary. Establishing the social contract and mutual goals is something I encourage in any game, as a BASELINE expectation. And this isn't even brought on by GW's standards, it's more been established by how I wish to treat people and relationships in the real world.
But why? Why is it better to have a flawed game that requires such discussion instead of a better game where the game is enjoyable even if you don't have the pre-game conversation? What value is being added if the game rules are balanced and well designed?
I'm not saying that points shouldn't be balanced and well designed, or that there shouldn't be the chance to pick up and silently roll against a faceless stranger. My question is why you can't let PL exist when it doesn't hurt you. The absence of PL doesn't suddenly fix the issues with points. What problem do you have with people choosing to play a different way, and choosing to have a pre-game discussion?
Why do I want pre-game discussion? The same reason I want discussions with my friends about our boundaries with one another, the same reason I discuss goals with co-workers and ensemble members, the same reason I establish my own boundaries in role-playing games - because it's polite and helps to avoid conflicts of interest.
EviscerationPlague wrote:I'd rather have less players than a worse game.
And that's why people are calling you a gatekeeper, and why you're the problem here.
Yeah, one is more inherently embarassing than the other. No, not everything is worth defending because some people are having "fun".
Why not?
Was Battle Demi-Company a good thing, yes or no? People had fun with it after all.
Was their fun at the expense of other people, ie the people they played against and got steamrolled by?
Also LOOOOL at saying I am a gatekeeper. I'm perfectly willing to defend my position on less players is fine if it means better rules, and no I don't care you feel otherwise. If 40k gained a million players tomorrow by making you use your models in a Snakes and Ladders ruleset, I'd be saying the same thing.
So, you're a tool.
Sorry, just calling a spade a spade.
It's an extreme example, but it gets the point across of rules quality being more important than your lazy "I don't want to think when putting together a list in an inherently flawed system". You and other PL defenders only give the same defenses of "I don't care", "Why does it matter if I like it", "Points aren't balanced either", and so on. These are NON defenses of the system.
That's because we don't need to defend it. What are we defending it from, the rabid crying of people who it doesn't actually affect in the slightest? Removing PL won't change anything for you, no more than keeping it around would. There's no need to defend it, because your premises are entirely based on the idea that it actually affects you. It doesn't.
The only embarrassing thing here is how violently you hate people enjoying smaller numbers.
Literally the only upside is "it's slightly faster to make a list", which also doesn't matter since the person it's supposed to apply to (people doing garagehammer that don't even need a point system to begin with because forge the narrative, as you apparently bought into that rhetoric) are planning these games a few days to a week in advance. At that point, don't you already have time to throw together a list or just use the same list as last week?
In other words, "if you don't play 40k every week on the spot with no planning, you don't get to have an opinion on the game".
Also I'd 100% do a Crusade campaign if it weren't for the fact it uses PL. That makes it bad by default.
And what if Crusade had the option to use points?
Also LOOOOOL at saying negotiating the game should be standard. You really did buy the "forge the narrative" crap.
Is that a problem? Or are you just crying because someone enjoys the game different to you?
Boo hoo, I enjoy ensuring player consent in my games? Is consent something you struggle with?
I love how Smudge avoids the points being made.
Was Battle Demi Company good design or good for the game? Yes or no?
That's why I have them blocked. They don't argue in good faith and responding to them just makes the forum a worse place.
Nah, I'm waiting for them to actually defend Battle Demi-Company and War Convocation.
I could care less about a past edition with a very different design. It's a different game now.
Based on the game as it currently exists. Playing with PL and the basic rules isn't some crime against wargaming, it's literally playing the game the way the book suggests. I don't see why that option needs to be removed when it makes the game more accessible to various audiences.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Except that it's NOT minor, as they've told you. It might be minor to you, but you don't speak for everyone.
5+5+5+70 = 85 is objectively a minor bit of adding up numbers, especially compared to all the other math required to play 40k. Some people may be in a position where a minor additional burden is too much but the difference between PL and normal points is absolutely minor.
Minor to you. Not to them. You constantly doubling down on this idea that it's trivial, when to other people it isn't, is exactly what I mean by minimising their experiences.
What's wrong with giving people official recognition?
Why doesn't each data sheet say something like "transport capacity: 10 PRIMARIS models, unless you would like to change the rules and have the equally valid option to carry 10 models of any type"?
I have no idea what you're trying to say with this.
In smaller numbers, maybe, and their experiences were all written off as "fringe" play and unofficial. Now, they are just as valid in their enjoyment as you are.
And I can still write them off as "fringe" play if I want.
Yes, but you'd be categorically wrong to declare that it wasn't supported and valid though.
I don't care what label GW does or does not put on it, Open™ Play™ is still a fringe thing that most players have no interest in. But why does it matter what some random person on the internet thinks about what a private group is doing? It's not like pickup games at a store/club where you need a standardized set of rules you can use with random strangers.
So why do you care that it exists?
My enjoyment of the game is entirely casual, and you don't get to "um actually" my own thoughts and feelings like you know me.
I do in fact get to do that.
Uh, still nah. Unless you want me to start making up your own thoughts and feelings?
If I see someone screaming and flipping tables and threatening to punch everyone I don't care if they say "I'm not angry", it's very obvious that they are. If I see someone making 7300+ posts about their hobby, caring a lot about the stories happening in their games, etc, the label "casual" does not apply no matter how many times they try to claim it does.
Again, I think we have very different ideas of what "casual" is referring to, which you've oh-so-casually removed from your reply to me.
I *play* casually. I enjoy the game moderately.
And remember, "casual" is not the opposite of "competitive". Many narrative players don't care about winning, don't fight for every advantage, etc, but are absolutely not casual about their games.
As I said, we definitely have different ideas of what "casual" means.
I play casually. I don't care for balance. I don't aim to win. I don't really give two hoots as long as *everyone is having fun* - and considering that "having fun" is the only goal I have in mind, I'd absolutely say that I'm casual.
You seem to have this idea that if you have any kind of investment, you can't be casual, and I disagree. So, in future, I suggest that we both use terms that we can agree upon.
What? Yes, it absolutely IS ableism to question how a disabled person feels as if they're not actually "correct" in how they are feeling and thinking. How would you feel if, after you hypothetically smash your head against a wall and feel understandably in pain, someone else said "yeah, nah, you're absolutely fine - are you SURE you're in pain?" - it would be insulting to act like they know how you're feeling better than you do. When you're doing it to someone who feels that way due to a condition or disability, you're being patronising and ableist.
That has nothing to do with the thing I actually said. "I think these people would quit if they had to use the normal point system" is not a statement about how the disabled person is feeling, it's speculation about hypothetical actions by a third party. And it is not in any way ableist to say that the disabled person is wrong.
It's got everything to do with what you've been sayin. You've been saying that you doubt if disabled players *actually* want to use PL or if they're just being hoodwinked into it, and doubting when they've said that they wouldn't play if they had to use points. You're hearing what they're saying, and because it doesn't align with how you expect people to think and behave, you cast doubt on their feelings and experiences. It's ableist behaviour.
Why do you want to invalidate anyone?
Because CAAC players are toxic donkey-caves. Do you not want to invalidate WAAC players? Are you ok with WAAC players cheating, rules lawyering, pressuring people into accepting unfair rulings, etc, as long as the WAAC player is doing it to someone other than you?
As I said - I don't want to invalidate anyone. If WAAC players want to do their stuff, they can do so with people who agree to play against them. Throw two WAAC players against eachother, and let them have fun.
As I said - I'm entirely in favour of players discussing their goals and intentions pre-game to work out how they want to go about enjoying themselves. If a CAAC player and a WAAC player bumped into eachother and discussed a game, they'd quickly find that their initial goals would not be aligned, and so they have two choices - they can compromise, or they can politely agree to not play, and find other people more suited for their personal enjoyment.
So no, I don't want to invalidate anyone from playing, so long as they're not looking to invalidate anyone else.
What base isn't covered?
Lots of them! Among other things, we need:
* A more granular version of the normal point system, including things like scaling (as with Tau crisis suits) the cost of duplicate copies of an option to account for uniformity being better than mixed gear.
* A point system with granularity in between PL and normal points.
* A point system with granularity in between PL and the system above.
* Another point system with granularity in between PL and the system above.
* A point system with less granularity than PL (but not fixed lists).
* A point system where a model's point cost is its number of wounds.
* A point system where a model's point cost is its number of Crusade achievements.
* A point system where each player has a random modifier to their point total to reflect the uncertainties of logistics in war.
I can keep going on, until the section of the rulebook on army construction has more pages than the rest of the game combined. But I think you'll acknowledge that there is a limit to how many different point systems we need, and the fact that at least one person might want a system is not sufficient reason for including it?
And these point systems you mention, what audiences are they trying to appeal to? I've shown which audiences I'm appealing to in my hypothetical tripartite system, but all you've done is list a variety of ways to build a list, not for what purpose they exist for.
Can you show me people who want in-between systems? Is there an accessibility issue there? Because, at the end of the day, that's my priority here - accessibility. My pre-gen system and PL are both accessible for different audiences, and therefore necessary.
Points does exactly the same thing - I may be discouraged from taking a thematic upgrade I'll still never use but want to have because it would "waste" points.
No it doesn't. Once again, since you still don't get it: the normal point system has specific case errors, PL has specific case errors and inherent systemic errors. You may be discouraged from "wasting" points on a particular upgrade in the normal point system but that's a specific case error that can at least theoretically be fixed by assigning the appropriate point cost to the upgrade. In PL it is by design impossible to have the correct cost for both a plasma pistol and a laspistol so at least one of those options will be discouraged no matter what cost you assign.
Nope, it still does - in ANY 40k game, no matter how "balanced", simply because of opportunity cost, there will always be options which might be thematically appropriate but unwise to take. That has always been the case.
I disagree. Informed consent and player awareness and empathy should ABSOLUTELY be necessary. Establishing the social contract and mutual goals is something I encourage in any game, as a BASELINE expectation. And this isn't even brought on by GW's standards, it's more been established by how I wish to treat people and relationships in the real world.
But why? Why is it better to have a flawed game that requires such discussion instead of a better game where the game is enjoyable even if you don't have the pre-game conversation? What value is being added if the game rules are balanced and well designed?
I'm not saying that points shouldn't be balanced and well designed, or that there shouldn't be the chance to pick up and silently roll against a faceless stranger. My question is why you can't let PL exist when it doesn't hurt you. The absence of PL doesn't suddenly fix the issues with points. What problem do you have with people choosing to play a different way, and choosing to have a pre-game discussion?
Why do I want pre-game discussion? The same reason I want discussions with my friends about our boundaries with one another, the same reason I discuss goals with co-workers and ensemble members, the same reason I establish my own boundaries in role-playing games - because it's polite and helps to avoid conflicts of interest.
EviscerationPlague wrote:I'd rather have less players than a worse game.
And that's why people are calling you a gatekeeper, and why you're the problem here.
Yeah, one is more inherently embarassing than the other. No, not everything is worth defending because some people are having "fun".
Why not?
Was Battle Demi-Company a good thing, yes or no? People had fun with it after all.
Was their fun at the expense of other people, ie the people they played against and got steamrolled by?
Also LOOOOL at saying I am a gatekeeper. I'm perfectly willing to defend my position on less players is fine if it means better rules, and no I don't care you feel otherwise. If 40k gained a million players tomorrow by making you use your models in a Snakes and Ladders ruleset, I'd be saying the same thing.
So, you're a tool.
Sorry, just calling a spade a spade.
It's an extreme example, but it gets the point across of rules quality being more important than your lazy "I don't want to think when putting together a list in an inherently flawed system". You and other PL defenders only give the same defenses of "I don't care", "Why does it matter if I like it", "Points aren't balanced either", and so on. These are NON defenses of the system.
That's because we don't need to defend it. What are we defending it from, the rabid crying of people who it doesn't actually affect in the slightest? Removing PL won't change anything for you, no more than keeping it around would. There's no need to defend it, because your premises are entirely based on the idea that it actually affects you. It doesn't.
The only embarrassing thing here is how violently you hate people enjoying smaller numbers.
Literally the only upside is "it's slightly faster to make a list", which also doesn't matter since the person it's supposed to apply to (people doing garagehammer that don't even need a point system to begin with because forge the narrative, as you apparently bought into that rhetoric) are planning these games a few days to a week in advance. At that point, don't you already have time to throw together a list or just use the same list as last week?
In other words, "if you don't play 40k every week on the spot with no planning, you don't get to have an opinion on the game".
Also I'd 100% do a Crusade campaign if it weren't for the fact it uses PL. That makes it bad by default.
And what if Crusade had the option to use points?
Also LOOOOOL at saying negotiating the game should be standard. You really did buy the "forge the narrative" crap.
Is that a problem? Or are you just crying because someone enjoys the game different to you?
Boo hoo, I enjoy ensuring player consent in my games? Is consent something you struggle with?
I love how Smudge avoids the points being made.
Was Battle Demi Company good design or good for the game? Yes or no?
That's why I have them blocked. They don't argue in good faith and responding to them just makes the forum a worse place.
Nah, I'm waiting for them to actually defend Battle Demi-Company and War Convocation.
They're not defensible, they were a poor design choice and the only remaining vestige on that scale is summoned units outside of match play in 40k. I'd note that matched play now gives free units at times, or replacement models for lost units as mechanics, just not to the point where your army doubles in size.
Points aren't the problem though, just as they aren't now. It'd be trivial to say "summoning requires the PL put in reserves" same as with points but they didn't for whatever reason. That's a problem with the open/narrative rules base, not PL.
So, back over to you, now we established that your army growing beyond it's starting size for free is a bad idea, why does it matter whether that happens in points or PL given the points mechanic chosen is divorced from the issue.
The demon summoning thing is a way to get free models in this very edition, when using PL.
You can't pay reinforcement points in a PL army - in fact, newly summoned Daemon units are 100% free.
Each character can summon any number of daemons per turn, up until it suffers so many mortal wounds from rolling doubles during the summoning that it dies.
Blndmage wrote: I could care less about a past edition with a very different design. It's a different game now.
The mistakes of previous editions matter because they're the same mistake that GW is currently making with PL: giving free upgrades. In some of the formation cases the bonus was literally "all upgrades for the units are free". You can not defend PL without also defending those previous mistakes.
Based on the game as it currently exists. Playing with PL and the basic rules isn't some crime against wargaming, it's literally playing the game the way the book suggests. I don't see why that option needs to be removed when it makes the game more accessible to various audiences.
* Removing redundant rules is good game design.
* Avoiding wasted development time on a redundant and failed system lets GW focus on the system that works better.
* Having narrative play use the normal point system by default removes the need to ask for house rules to make it function properly.
* Removing PL means less temptation for GW's CAAC element to attempt to make it the default (or even only) system again.
Balanced against this we have a minute or two of time savings at most, a time savings you seem determined to spend arguing on the forums about how important it was for you to save the time. If you stopped arguing in defense of PL and used the normal system you'd have a net gain in time.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Except that it's NOT minor, as they've told you. It might be minor to you, but you don't speak for everyone.
5+5+5+70 = 85 is objectively a minor bit of adding up numbers, especially compared to all the other math required to play 40k. Some people may be in a position where a minor additional burden is too much but the difference between PL and normal points is absolutely minor.
Minor to you. Not to them. You constantly doubling down on this idea that it's trivial, when to other people it isn't, is exactly what I mean by minimising their experiences.
What's wrong with giving people official recognition?
Why doesn't each data sheet say something like "transport capacity: 10 PRIMARIS models, unless you would like to change the rules and have the equally valid option to carry 10 models of any type"?
I have no idea what you're trying to say with this.
In smaller numbers, maybe, and their experiences were all written off as "fringe" play and unofficial. Now, they are just as valid in their enjoyment as you are.
And I can still write them off as "fringe" play if I want.
Yes, but you'd be categorically wrong to declare that it wasn't supported and valid though.
I don't care what label GW does or does not put on it, Open™ Play™ is still a fringe thing that most players have no interest in. But why does it matter what some random person on the internet thinks about what a private group is doing? It's not like pickup games at a store/club where you need a standardized set of rules you can use with random strangers.
So why do you care that it exists?
My enjoyment of the game is entirely casual, and you don't get to "um actually" my own thoughts and feelings like you know me.
I do in fact get to do that.
Uh, still nah. Unless you want me to start making up your own thoughts and feelings?
If I see someone screaming and flipping tables and threatening to punch everyone I don't care if they say "I'm not angry", it's very obvious that they are. If I see someone making 7300+ posts about their hobby, caring a lot about the stories happening in their games, etc, the label "casual" does not apply no matter how many times they try to claim it does.
Again, I think we have very different ideas of what "casual" is referring to, which you've oh-so-casually removed from your reply to me.
I *play* casually. I enjoy the game moderately.
And remember, "casual" is not the opposite of "competitive". Many narrative players don't care about winning, don't fight for every advantage, etc, but are absolutely not casual about their games.
As I said, we definitely have different ideas of what "casual" means.
I play casually. I don't care for balance. I don't aim to win. I don't really give two hoots as long as *everyone is having fun* - and considering that "having fun" is the only goal I have in mind, I'd absolutely say that I'm casual.
You seem to have this idea that if you have any kind of investment, you can't be casual, and I disagree. So, in future, I suggest that we both use terms that we can agree upon.
What? Yes, it absolutely IS ableism to question how a disabled person feels as if they're not actually "correct" in how they are feeling and thinking. How would you feel if, after you hypothetically smash your head against a wall and feel understandably in pain, someone else said "yeah, nah, you're absolutely fine - are you SURE you're in pain?" - it would be insulting to act like they know how you're feeling better than you do. When you're doing it to someone who feels that way due to a condition or disability, you're being patronising and ableist.
That has nothing to do with the thing I actually said. "I think these people would quit if they had to use the normal point system" is not a statement about how the disabled person is feeling, it's speculation about hypothetical actions by a third party. And it is not in any way ableist to say that the disabled person is wrong.
It's got everything to do with what you've been sayin. You've been saying that you doubt if disabled players *actually* want to use PL or if they're just being hoodwinked into it, and doubting when they've said that they wouldn't play if they had to use points. You're hearing what they're saying, and because it doesn't align with how you expect people to think and behave, you cast doubt on their feelings and experiences. It's ableist behaviour.
Why do you want to invalidate anyone?
Because CAAC players are toxic donkey-caves. Do you not want to invalidate WAAC players? Are you ok with WAAC players cheating, rules lawyering, pressuring people into accepting unfair rulings, etc, as long as the WAAC player is doing it to someone other than you?
As I said - I don't want to invalidate anyone. If WAAC players want to do their stuff, they can do so with people who agree to play against them. Throw two WAAC players against eachother, and let them have fun.
As I said - I'm entirely in favour of players discussing their goals and intentions pre-game to work out how they want to go about enjoying themselves. If a CAAC player and a WAAC player bumped into eachother and discussed a game, they'd quickly find that their initial goals would not be aligned, and so they have two choices - they can compromise, or they can politely agree to not play, and find other people more suited for their personal enjoyment.
So no, I don't want to invalidate anyone from playing, so long as they're not looking to invalidate anyone else.
What base isn't covered?
Lots of them! Among other things, we need:
* A more granular version of the normal point system, including things like scaling (as with Tau crisis suits) the cost of duplicate copies of an option to account for uniformity being better than mixed gear.
* A point system with granularity in between PL and normal points.
* A point system with granularity in between PL and the system above.
* Another point system with granularity in between PL and the system above.
* A point system with less granularity than PL (but not fixed lists).
* A point system where a model's point cost is its number of wounds.
* A point system where a model's point cost is its number of Crusade achievements.
* A point system where each player has a random modifier to their point total to reflect the uncertainties of logistics in war.
I can keep going on, until the section of the rulebook on army construction has more pages than the rest of the game combined. But I think you'll acknowledge that there is a limit to how many different point systems we need, and the fact that at least one person might want a system is not sufficient reason for including it?
And these point systems you mention, what audiences are they trying to appeal to? I've shown which audiences I'm appealing to in my hypothetical tripartite system, but all you've done is list a variety of ways to build a list, not for what purpose they exist for.
Can you show me people who want in-between systems? Is there an accessibility issue there? Because, at the end of the day, that's my priority here - accessibility. My pre-gen system and PL are both accessible for different audiences, and therefore necessary.
Points does exactly the same thing - I may be discouraged from taking a thematic upgrade I'll still never use but want to have because it would "waste" points.
No it doesn't. Once again, since you still don't get it: the normal point system has specific case errors, PL has specific case errors and inherent systemic errors. You may be discouraged from "wasting" points on a particular upgrade in the normal point system but that's a specific case error that can at least theoretically be fixed by assigning the appropriate point cost to the upgrade. In PL it is by design impossible to have the correct cost for both a plasma pistol and a laspistol so at least one of those options will be discouraged no matter what cost you assign.
Nope, it still does - in ANY 40k game, no matter how "balanced", simply because of opportunity cost, there will always be options which might be thematically appropriate but unwise to take. That has always been the case.
I disagree. Informed consent and player awareness and empathy should ABSOLUTELY be necessary. Establishing the social contract and mutual goals is something I encourage in any game, as a BASELINE expectation. And this isn't even brought on by GW's standards, it's more been established by how I wish to treat people and relationships in the real world.
But why? Why is it better to have a flawed game that requires such discussion instead of a better game where the game is enjoyable even if you don't have the pre-game conversation? What value is being added if the game rules are balanced and well designed?
I'm not saying that points shouldn't be balanced and well designed, or that there shouldn't be the chance to pick up and silently roll against a faceless stranger. My question is why you can't let PL exist when it doesn't hurt you. The absence of PL doesn't suddenly fix the issues with points. What problem do you have with people choosing to play a different way, and choosing to have a pre-game discussion?
Why do I want pre-game discussion? The same reason I want discussions with my friends about our boundaries with one another, the same reason I discuss goals with co-workers and ensemble members, the same reason I establish my own boundaries in role-playing games - because it's polite and helps to avoid conflicts of interest.
EviscerationPlague wrote:I'd rather have less players than a worse game.
And that's why people are calling you a gatekeeper, and why you're the problem here.
Yeah, one is more inherently embarassing than the other. No, not everything is worth defending because some people are having "fun".
Why not?
Was Battle Demi-Company a good thing, yes or no? People had fun with it after all.
Was their fun at the expense of other people, ie the people they played against and got steamrolled by?
Also LOOOOL at saying I am a gatekeeper. I'm perfectly willing to defend my position on less players is fine if it means better rules, and no I don't care you feel otherwise. If 40k gained a million players tomorrow by making you use your models in a Snakes and Ladders ruleset, I'd be saying the same thing.
So, you're a tool.
Sorry, just calling a spade a spade.
It's an extreme example, but it gets the point across of rules quality being more important than your lazy "I don't want to think when putting together a list in an inherently flawed system". You and other PL defenders only give the same defenses of "I don't care", "Why does it matter if I like it", "Points aren't balanced either", and so on. These are NON defenses of the system.
That's because we don't need to defend it. What are we defending it from, the rabid crying of people who it doesn't actually affect in the slightest? Removing PL won't change anything for you, no more than keeping it around would. There's no need to defend it, because your premises are entirely based on the idea that it actually affects you. It doesn't.
The only embarrassing thing here is how violently you hate people enjoying smaller numbers.
Literally the only upside is "it's slightly faster to make a list", which also doesn't matter since the person it's supposed to apply to (people doing garagehammer that don't even need a point system to begin with because forge the narrative, as you apparently bought into that rhetoric) are planning these games a few days to a week in advance. At that point, don't you already have time to throw together a list or just use the same list as last week?
In other words, "if you don't play 40k every week on the spot with no planning, you don't get to have an opinion on the game".
Also I'd 100% do a Crusade campaign if it weren't for the fact it uses PL. That makes it bad by default.
And what if Crusade had the option to use points?
Also LOOOOOL at saying negotiating the game should be standard. You really did buy the "forge the narrative" crap.
Is that a problem? Or are you just crying because someone enjoys the game different to you?
Boo hoo, I enjoy ensuring player consent in my games? Is consent something you struggle with?
So we're now basically playing the consent card and accusing a poster of predisposition to rape SIMPLY to win an argument on why they should do things your way?
So to be clear before I start: I don't play as often or as hard as some of you do, so I'm not "challenging" anyone's interpretation of rules- I'm player with less experience seeking clarification.
From what I can see in the BRB and the Daemon books, it looks to me like summoned Daemons are "free" regardless of whether points or PL are being used in the game being played. PL is used to determine how many Daemons can arrive (a single unit with the Daemonic ritual keyword of 3-18 PL). The number of PL is not a "cost," so even in a points game, PL is used to determine the amount of Daemons that show up.
Nowhere in the Daemon dex, nor the Daemon FAQ nor the BRB nor its FAQ do I see anything that says that summoned Daemons must be treated like Strategic Reserves.
But even if it DID say that, Strategic Reserves are purchased with CP using PL, not points.
Now a lot of you are seeing things I am not seeing, and you all seem to agree, which means there must be something I'm missing. Is it in a GT mission pack or something?
Blndmage wrote: Why is it wrong to have a Basic and Advanced version of the game?
PL is not a Basic version of the game. It has 99% of the complexity of the normal point system because it's just the standard concept of points-based list construction. Once you understand one system you immediately understand how to use the other. Something like the idea of fixed standard lists for each faction would be a genuine Basic system but PL is not that system.
And if you're talking about Open™ Play™ then Open™ Play™ isn't a genuine Basic game either. It's not like the old starter box books where you have a simplified set of rules for two forces composed of basic troops, Open™ Play™ is just the standard game but with a note saying "you can choose to change any rules you like". It gives no guidance whatsoever on how you might want to change them, when you might want to use or omit certain rules, etc. All it does is grant a completely meaningless label of Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™ Game™ to the things you would do exactly the same way of Open™ Play™ didn't exist. And TBH the continued existence of Open™ Play™ only encourages GW to be complacent about providing a genuine Basic game instead.
PenitentJake wrote: So to be clear before I start: I don't play as often or as hard as some of you do, so I'm not "challenging" anyone's interpretation of rules- I'm player with less experience seeking clarification.
From what I can see in the BRB and the Daemon books, it looks to me like summoned Daemons are "free" regardless of whether points or PL are being used in the game being played. PL is used to determine how many Daemons can arrive (a single unit with the Daemonic ritual keyword of 3-18 PL). The number of PL is not a "cost," so even in a points game, PL is used to determine the amount of Daemons that show up.
Nowhere in the Daemon dex, nor the Daemon FAQ nor the BRB nor its FAQ do I see anything that says that summoned Daemons must be treated like Strategic Reserves.
But even if it DID say that, Strategic Reserves are purchased with CP using PL, not points.
Now a lot of you are seeing things I am not seeing, and you all seem to agree, which means there must be something I'm missing. Is it in a GT mission pack or something?
Demon Summoning has always been treated as reserves, which has a very real definition in 40k.You can't call up reserves in matched play without paying for them. The way you pay for reserves is strictly with points. There is no way to play with summoning reserves with PL, IE the arguement that summoning Demons in PL is free. Which automatically means one player is 100% playing in bad faith.
PenitentJake wrote: So to be clear before I start: I don't play as often or as hard as some of you do, so I'm not "challenging" anyone's interpretation of rules- I'm player with less experience seeking clarification.
In normal matched play games you have a CP cost to put things in reserve based on their PL point cost but you also have a rule that all units summoned (or otherwise created) during the game must be paid for with points out of your army total. If you want to summon 250 points worth of demons you start the game with 1750 out of 2000 points and a 250 point summoning pool. Once you have summoned 250 points worth of models you can no longer summon. Effectively summoning is an alternate deployment with the ability to choose which unit you deploy as you deploy it, not free models.
In narrative games there is no such limit. You build a full 100 point army and then summon an unlimited number of additional units, including using those summoned units to summon more units. You could theoretically end the nominal 100 point game with 500 points worth of models on the table.
Blndmage wrote: Why is it wrong to have a Basic and Advanced version of the game?
The competitive player, players that like the cruncher version have thing to math out and break down.
The people who are actively turned off by that level of crunch can play without worrying about it.
You can have two versions of a thing with both serving different purposes.
its not, but PL is not the basic rules, its the dumb down rules.
The game has always been about points, and point based system. PL is not equivalent to a basic set of rules, its a Lite version of the game. Matched and the "Advanced rules" ARE the basic version of the game and have been for the last like how many years has it been since 3rd? That long.
PL is a fine way to play the game if you are just looking to roll dice for a Warhammer themed game. But its definitly a stripped out version of the intention of the basic rules.
Since there is no real time wasted on the creation of those rules, i dont really see an issue having it because im pretty damn sure GW just takes the point cost of the unit and divides it by 20 and calls it PL.
I always thought the conversion was 1PL=15points. IE A CC is 2PL. A Infantry Squad is 3. Which was based I think around the 8th ed cost of 45(?) I can't recall, but I feel like 20 is high. When was the very LAST PL update?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I always thought the conversion was 1PL=15points. IE A CC is 2PL. A Infantry Squad is 3. Which was based I think around the 8th ed cost of 45(?) I can't recall, but I feel like 20 is high. When was the very LAST PL update?
It might be 15 = PL now, i remember last time i looked at PL it was roughly 20 points, but truth be told i think you can safely say either and you will be in the same ball park.
No, because it's the actual definition of the word.
It is *a* definition and interpretation. Not the only one.
Casual just as well describes someone like me *while playing the game*. I may be passionate and invested, but it does not extend to the tabletop or for winning or balance. As such, I am casual about such matters.
People just misuse it to mean "not competitive" because they like it as an identity no matter how inaccurate it is.
Who are you to tell people which identities they aren't allowed to embrace?
If you understand and care about the game enough to have passionate opinions on the precise details of the point system it uses then you are not a casual player.
I disagree. They can absolutely be a casual *player*, but they might not be a casual hobbyist.
If you understand and care about the game enough to have informed pre-game conversations about game styles then you are not a casual player.
I actually think that everyone is capable of doing so, even if it is a short conversation - it is as simple as asking "so, how are we playing this? What do you want to get out of this? What kind of game do you want to have?" - that can easily be casual.
If you are so devoted to a particular story (as PenitentJake is) that any change to the army construction rules would invalidate your story and destroy your enjoyment of the game then you are not a casual player.
I still disagree. They might be a devoted and invested hobbyist, but them as a *PLAYER* is a different context.
Again, please focus on what I refer to myself as - a casual PLAYER, not a casual HOBBYIST.
Again, back to this idea of "intention" - what DO GW intend, because one minute you're saying they're intending for pickup games, and then you're saying they're intending for CAAC games where you need to talk with your opponents. Which one is it?
I did not say the second thing, you seem to be very confused and mixing up multiple separate points.
GW currently intends to make matched play and pickup games the focus of the game. The entire system is designed around points-based list construction with generic scenarios suitable for any random pairing of armies, GW is running official tournaments with blind pairings, and GW is heavily promoting both of these things in their marketing. Even Crusade has a section on "how to use your Crusade list against random strangers who aren't playing Crusade".
GWat the start of 8th attempted to make PL the focus of the game, in line with the CAAC attitudes expressed by GW employees in the past. But this a past event, from before their current emphasis on pickup and tournament games, so it does not in any way contradict my statements about the current state of the game.
As I've already stated, can you show me this stated intention and deliberate effort from GW to do this? You keep mentioning GW making PL the focus, but in what way? By simply making PL exist? I don't see it. Can you show me some actual quotes or design notes from GW employees that you mention? What are these CAAC attitudes expressed?
GW does not deliberately intend to have pre-game conversations (at least AFAIK). Those comments were about the players normalizing GW's incompetence.
Again, you say incompetence, I say "setting standards".
I've never said anything about "pro-PL people being polite and reasonable and never saying anything bad", and I think you know that.
Then the comment doesn't apply to you (and wasn't addressed to you directly). But let's not pretend that those claims don't exist.
I mean this with genuine questioning, but I don't actually remember anyone explicitly saying "everyone who is pro-PL has only ever been respectful and polite and reasonable" - at least, perhaps their statements were true at that time.
It's not even a GW thing - this is something I do in *every* game, because it's good to set boundaries and expectations.
But why? What boundaries and expectations are you setting that don't follow directly from flaws (real or perceived) in the game?
Because it's respectful, and helps to make sure that we're all working towards the same thing, or that our intentions are aligned. The boundaries and expectations I might be setting might be things like "are we trying to tell a fun story, or are we trying to always make the mathematically best options", or "are we using a mulligan system if we mess up rules" or "hey, if the game's going south, do we want to call it there?" or "I'm not actually familiar with all my army's rules, could we not use them please?" or "I'm just here to playtest my tournament list, so we don't need to actually *finish* the game, if that's okay?"
It's all about just communicating and making clear what you actually want.
It's only an "error" if you believe that two different options need to be mechanically balanced.
Well yes, of course they need to be balanced. The entire purpose of a point system is to assign an accurate numerical value to each option's strength. Failure in this basic task is a failure of the system.
Do they need to be balanced? How finely? Again, it's coming down to what we're expecting from a system. You expect a value system to be balanced wherein all options are priced separately. I don't expect that. You regard it's inability to meet that requirement as a failure. I regard it's failure to meet that requirement without concern. That is why PL doesn't work for you, but works for me.
Does that make sense?
Hecaton wrote:That's why I have them blocked. They don't argue in good faith and responding to them just makes the forum a worse place.
That's a strange way of saying that I call out your flawed points, but hey - at least you remember me!
EviscerationPlague wrote:I love how Smudge avoids the points being made.
Was Battle Demi Company good design or good for the game? Yes or no?
I love that you think the two are comparable. The Gladius (which was the main issue, not the Demi Company Formation) directly affects the enjoyment of others, because someone needs to play against the Gladius, and is defensible by saying "but it's official, and it's in the rules".
Power Level does not directly affect the enjoyment of others, because you don't have to play it, and you can say that you'd rather play a game of points, and that is entirely within your rights to do so.
You legit don't know what you're saying. Gladius was the overarching formation where you got 3 Combat Doctrines to use. You then had the Demi Company, which was the core, and then Battle Demi Company which was when you brought two for the free stuff. So first off, to say Gladius was the problem is laughable.
Actually, I think you'll find you're still wrong. Taking two Demi-Companies outside of a Gladius didn't give you free stuff. You had to take the Gladius, then two Battle Demi-Companies, and THEN you could take free transports. The issue wasn't the simple existence of the Battle Demi-Company, it was the Demi-Company within the Gladius.
Come on, get your facts right.
Secondly they are comparable. Both PL and Battle Demi-Company give you free models. Battle Demi-Company was more strict on it though compared to PL. War Convocation (the AdMech formation) gave free upgrades.
Again, you miss in what WAY they give upgrades. PL REQUIRES you to play PL. If you don't play PL, then you cannot be affected, simple as. The Gladius, on the other hand, was entirely legal and "normal" in the, at the time, only way of playing. It was as coded into the game as the bolters the Marines were carrying.
If you can't tell the difference, then there's no point in have this discussion.
Thirdly......you didn't have to play either of those or use those either. CAD was the standard. Soooooo not sure what that point you're trying to make is.
No, *you* didn't have to, but your opponent could, and you couldn't "stop" them. Like I said - you had no choice (short of refusing to play full stop or agreeing prior to the game to remove an otherwise "core" element) but to play against it if your opponent decided to take it.
This is unlike PL, where simply by playing points, you don't have to worry about the Big Bad Scary PL coming to take away your fun times with your toy soldiers.
As I said - they're not the same thing.
So how about you answer the question: is Battle Demi Company or War Convo good design or good for the game, yes or no?
Why are you asking me to answer a question that has no bearing on the topic? As I've said - PL doesn't require you to get involved to care. You can happily live your life and PL won't affect you if you don't play a PL game. The same could not be said of Formations, which were hard-baked into the game to such a degree that they just as legit as the CAD, and, short of just not playing, you had to play against them.
Your "question" has as much weight as me asking what you favourite pizza topping is.
Just Tony wrote:So we're now basically playing the consent card and accusing a poster of predisposition to rape SIMPLY to win an argument on why they should do things your way? I don't have the words...
I never accused anything - if the only way you see consent being important is sex then that's not on me, but I apologise for causing you to infer that. Informed consent is vital in ALL interactions, especially if you want them to be productive and respectful.
Secondly, I find it strange that you think this is about "doing this my way", when I've repeatedly advocated for EVERYONE to do things their way, and not to step on the toes of others. I don't want anyone else here in this thread to have to play a version of 40k which they don't enjoy - and I expect the same level of decency and empathy to be extended.
Do I want people to do things "my way"? Of course not, that would be boring.
So we're now basically playing the consent card and accusing a poster of predisposition to rape SIMPLY to win an argument on why they should do things your way?
I don't have the words...
Report that gak. Smudge loves to use actual moral issues as shields for their gakky opinions on things like PL and female Space Marines. "Give me what I want or it's tantamount to rape!"
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I always thought the conversion was 1PL=15points. IE A CC is 2PL. A Infantry Squad is 3. Which was based I think around the 8th ed cost of 45(?) I can't recall, but I feel like 20 is high. When was the very LAST PL update?
It might be 15 = PL now, i remember last time i looked at PL it was roughly 20 points, but truth be told i think you can safely say either and you will be in the same ball park.
It's still 20 points, but you frequently round up or can break it in some way (like with my Harlequin Troupes).
PenitentJake wrote: So to be clear before I start: I don't play as often or as hard as some of you do, so I'm not "challenging" anyone's interpretation of rules- I'm player with less experience seeking clarification.
In normal matched play games you have a CP cost to put things in reserve based on their PL point cost but you also have a rule that all units summoned (or otherwise created) during the game must be paid for with points out of your army total. If you want to summon 250 points worth of demons you start the game with 1750 out of 2000 points and a 250 point summoning pool. Once you have summoned 250 points worth of models you can no longer summon. Effectively summoning is an alternate deployment with the ability to choose which unit you deploy as you deploy it, not free models.
In narrative games there is no such limit. You build a full 100 point army and then summon an unlimited number of additional units, including using those summoned units to summon more units. You could theoretically end the nominal 100 point game with 500 points worth of models on the table.
Thanks- that is how I seemed to remember it working- I didn't check the Matched play rules in the BRB- I bet that's where it is.
I think the reason you don't pay for them in Crusade is that they aren't added to your order of battle, so they never stick around long enough to get Battle Honours, nor would you ever be able to summon units with Battle Honours. Hmmm... This is giving me campaign ideas. Who knew?
Some good has come out of this thread at long last.
Edit: Of course, I don't have the 9th CSM dex yet, nor the 9th Daemon dex yet, so any campaign work would be premature.
PenitentJake wrote: I think the reason you don't pay for them in Crusade is that they aren't added to your order of battle, so they never stick around long enough to get Battle Honours, nor would you ever be able to summon units with Battle Honours.
I think you're being really optimistic in assuming it was a deliberate choice, rather than another case of GW releasing something broken and then only bothering to fix it in matched play because "no true narrative player would ever exploit that".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I actually think that everyone is capable of doing so, even if it is a short conversation - it is as simple as asking "so, how are we playing this? What do you want to get out of this? What kind of game do you want to have?" - that can easily be casual.
I don't think you understand what "casual" means. A genuine casual player is going to give you a confused look and say something like "what do you mean by 'how are we playing this', you roll dice I guess?" because a casual player does not have any of this context of casual vs. narrative vs. competitive stuff that only very invested players follow. Nor do they care about that whole debate even if you insisted on explaining it to them. The whole concept of a "type of game" is beyond them, they just put their box of space marines on the table and roll dice against their buddy who took the other half of the starter set.
As I've already stated, can you show me this stated intention and deliberate effort from GW to do this? You keep mentioning GW making PL the focus, but in what way? By simply making PL exist? I don't see it. Can you show me some actual quotes or design notes from GW employees that you mention? What are these CAAC attitudes expressed?
The CAAC quotes are from WD articles, blog posts, etc, from years ago and I'm not digging through decades of archived material trying to find something that meets your demands. And I don't have an explicit statement about PL being the focus, only reading between the lines with an understanding of game design. GW has never commented on the subject in any official form. Sorry if that isn't satisfying enough but I don't care if you accept that my interpretation is correct, whether or not you agree with it I still have a valid claim to concern about PL existing that is not about gatekeeping.
I mean this with genuine questioning, but I don't actually remember anyone explicitly saying "everyone who is pro-PL has only ever been respectful and polite and reasonable" - at least, perhaps their statements were true at that time.
So maybe it doesn't apply to you but I didn't address it to you. It absolutely applies to Andykp and I notice that he hasn't said one word in criticism of the people on his side being needlessly rude and insulting.
Because it's respectful, and helps to make sure that we're all working towards the same thing, or that our intentions are aligned. The boundaries and expectations I might be setting might be things like "are we trying to tell a fun story, or are we trying to always make the mathematically best options", or "are we using a mulligan system if we mess up rules" or "hey, if the game's going south, do we want to call it there?" or "I'm not actually familiar with all my army's rules, could we not use them please?" or "I'm just here to playtest my tournament list, so we don't need to actually *finish* the game, if that's okay?"
But that's all the result of failures! This is what I mean about normalizing GW incompetence, you can't even imagine a world where those questions aren't necessary. There is no need to ask about story vs. mathematical optimization in a game where there is good balance instead of having "story" options be decisively inferior on the table. There is no need to ask about mulligans or omitting rules if the rules aren't such a bloated mess that forgetting stuff is common and a player can show up to a game without being familiar with their own rules. Etc. The only thing that could possibly still be a pre-game conversation is asking for tournament playtesting, but TBH people aren't showing up to a pickup game for that, they're playtesting in private groups where everyone is already expecting a playtesting session.
Do they need to be balanced? How finely?
As finely as possible within the scope of systems that are practical to use. Why excuse needless error when it's so trivially easy to improve balance? It would be one thing if using PL took a few minutes to write a list and to get the improvement of the normal point system you had to work a full eight-hour day solving complicated math problems but that's not the reality of the situation. PL is only negligibly easier, the additional time required to use the point system and see the full benefits of improved balance is less time than you just spent writing this post in defense of PL. If you stopped arguing about PL on this forum and just used the normal point system you'd come out ahead.
CadianSgtBob wrote: PL is only negligibly easier, the additional time required to use the point system and see the full benefits of improved balance is less time than you just spent writing this post in defense of PL.
The difference between using points and PL is about more than math. It's about a sort of headspace. For me, load out isn't even a part of list building. It comes at a different stage in the process of getting from my head to the table. Because I'm mostly playing 25 PL games, even my smallest collection is larger than my list.
This means I can build a list based on the units I like and not worry about load-out at all. Like, not even bother reading what the special and heavy options are, because they literally don't matter at the time I'm building the list.
Then, before every game I just put all the standard models on the table, and then add specials heavies and upgrades from my collection as desired and not do ANY MATH AT ALL. It's fething AWESOME.
If you stopped arguing about PL on this forum and just used the normal point system you'd come out ahead.
And if YOU could just see that everyone on this thread is on your side about keeping Points as they are, and stop insisting on the removal of PL then EVERYONE would come out ahead.
PenitentJake wrote: This means I can build a list based on the units I like and not worry about load-out at all.
But why does it matter if you have to worry about those weapons? If it takes you 10 minutes to write a PL list and 11 minutes to write a list that considers equipment costs why is it such a big deal? And TBH, with small games it's likely to be the reverse and be 15 minutes to make a list with PL vs. 10 minutes to write a list with normal points because PL can only add or remove things in whole-unit increments if you're at 24/25 or 26/25 points.
I also find it interesting that you're so dedicated to the concept of your Crusade force remaining the same over time unless a specific story event involves a change. You can't add a new unit without having at least one game to tell the story of it being requisitioned and integrated with your force but you're perfectly happy to put a squad into your list without knowing which weapons it will be armed with. Do you not build the heavy/special weapons models as part of the unit? Most people I know who are that dedicated to narrative play have units with fixed weapons because it is essential for story purposes that those specific models are always used together. This is second platoon's third squad, armed with a grenade launcher and lascannon, and those specific ten models will always be used together with no substitutions permitted. They're all painted and based to match, they have third squad's markings on their shoulder pads, etc. But apparently you'd boot the grenade launcher model out of the squad in favor of a flamer if that's what your pre-game whim decided on?
I'm not saying you're wrong here, I just find it an interesting contrast to the other ways you play the game.
And if YOU could just see that everyone on this thread is on your side about keeping Points as they are, and stop insisting on the removal of PL then EVERYONE would come out ahead.
Or we could just remove PL for all of the reasons I've suggested. But I'm not the one claiming that saving time is the important part.
Blndmage wrote: I could care less about a past edition with a very different design. It's a different game now.
It's not a different game, and the problems with PL are the same exact problems that Battle Demi-Company and War Convocation had.
You’re just full of nonsense you aren’t you.
You avoid the question too. Is Battle Demi Company or War Convo good design or good for the game, yes or no?
I'll bite.
Battle Demi-Company was good(ish) for the game. It encouraged players to play a thematic Space Marine army that was decently competitive. The reward for BDC was a bunch of transports that while free points were paid for by taking less than optimal units. If all similar formations provided a similar bonus, it would have been even better for the game.
War Convocation was an abomination. It allowed you to take the all the best options for less points. That is a recipe for disaster.
But ultimately, the PL vs Points Debate is just a matter of the opinion of which produces a more enjoyable play experience. Balanced rules are desirable, but better balance does not necessarily make for a better play experience. This is doubly true when we are looking at two ways to value units that both fail to make what I would say is the most enjoyable play experience.
What is that you ask? A system that encourages your army to look like the background and is balanced around that type of army build. Power Level fails because it too often places a wide balance gap between a thematic build and a power build at the same PL for a unit. Points fail because they are so simplistic that it misses the forest by valuing the trees in isolation.
So we're now basically playing the consent card and accusing a poster of predisposition to rape SIMPLY to win an argument on why they should do things your way?
I don't have the words...
Report that gak. Smudge loves to use actual moral issues as shields for their gakky opinions on things like PL and female Space Marines. "Give me what I want or it's tantamount to rape!"
I can't. Yellow triangles are ableist and transphobic.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So "Reinforcement Points" are a thing you pay to add units to your army after the battle begins (summoned daemons).
In PL games, you obviously can't use "Reinforcement Points" so... you can just add units to your army after the battle begins.
Eh, to be fair Vampire Counts did that in Fantasy, so it's not as if that's unusual for a GW game. It's still bs, but it's not a problem unique to PL, but rather poor design.
Kind of like how having to constantly flip to the back of the book to look at points values isn't a problem inherent to points, but terrible formatting.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So "Reinforcement Points" are a thing you pay to add units to your army after the battle begins (summoned daemons).
In PL games, you obviously can't use "Reinforcement Points" so... you can just add units to your army after the battle begins.
Eh, to be fair Vampire Counts did that in Fantasy, so it's not as if that's unusual for a GW game. It's still bs, but it's not a problem unique to PL, but rather poor design.
Kind of like how having to constantly flip to the back of the book to look at points values isn't a problem inherent to points, but terrible formatting.
Vampire Counts could only summon skeletons or zombies, it was stoppable by the opponent, only once a turn and it was a random number of models and generally not enough to make a huge difference.
Skeletons were also pricey for what they were with this in mind and zombies could be replenished but were deleted quite easy. VC were like Wood Elves in almost ignoring how a game would usually be played and were designed with this in mind. I dont think modern GW games have the depth for this sort of faction currently.
The fact that "reinforcement points" could be expanded to "reinforcement costs" with about 5 words added to encompass PL is being touted as a problem with PL when it's the core rules at fault there.
PL also doesn't ever get you "free models". Free ripper swarms exist in pointed matched play though as an example of the rule being applied at random.
Dudeface wrote: The fact that "reinforcement points" could be expanded to "reinforcement costs" with about 5 words added to encompass PL is being touted as a problem with PL when it's the core rules at fault there.
PL also doesn't ever get you "free models". Free ripper swarms exist in pointed matched play though as an example of the rule being applied at random.
Not sure why you think the free reinforcement thing isn't by design. After all, why shouldn't the daemon player forge the narrative? Or I dunno, maybe just like there is no difference between 6 and 10 Space Marines in PL, maybe GW sees no difference between 3 and 6 Nurglings in PL also.
Hecaton wrote:Smudge loves to use actual moral issues as shields for their gakky opinions on things like PL and female Space Marines. "Give me what I want or it's tantamount to rape!"
For saying you have me on block, you do like to talk about me. I really did make an impression on you, didn't I?
CadianSgtBob wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I actually think that everyone is capable of doing so, even if it is a short conversation - it is as simple as asking "so, how are we playing this? What do you want to get out of this? What kind of game do you want to have?" - that can easily be casual.
I don't think you understand what "casual" means. A genuine casual player is going to give you a confused look and say something like "what do you mean by 'how are we playing this', you roll dice I guess?" because a casual player does not have any of this context of casual vs. narrative vs. competitive stuff that only very invested players follow. Nor do they care about that whole debate even if you insisted on explaining it to them. The whole concept of a "type of game" is beyond them, they just put their box of space marines on the table and roll dice against their buddy who took the other half of the starter set.
As I've said, I don't think that your definition of "casual" is entirely holistic of casual attitudes, and the range of which they can express themselves.
Someone can be entirely wholeheartedly into the tournament scene, but be a casual painter.
Someone can be massively into converting their models, but only have a casual interest in playing the game.
Someone can be a top tier player, but only have a casual interest in the lore.
Someone can be invested in the hobby, but only play casually.
In the field that they specify (like I did), these are all casual. You can be casual in one aspect, and serious in others. For me, I have already professed myself to be a casual *player*, and I believe that identity sticks.
Personally, I don't like this tone of a "genuine" casual player, or trying to put this idea of "true" or "genuine" on people's identities and experiences - it reeks of exclusionary attitudes. If not that, let my actions bear out my attitudes - I don't care for winning, I play for the sake of playing, and have less care for balance than I do aesthetic. If not a casual *player*, what am I?
Also, I think you're being far too literal when I refer to "type of game" - I am referring to "do we want a friendly beer and pretzels game" or "do we want to go full ham and tournament this" kind of dynamics, the same kind of chat you'd have before a football game with your mates. I'm not talking about "which of these rules do we follow", I'm going even more basic than that.
As I've already stated, can you show me this stated intention and deliberate effort from GW to do this? You keep mentioning GW making PL the focus, but in what way? By simply making PL exist? I don't see it. Can you show me some actual quotes or design notes from GW employees that you mention? What are these CAAC attitudes expressed?
The CAAC quotes are from WD articles, blog posts, etc, from years ago and I'm not digging through decades of archived material trying to find something that meets your demands. And I don't have an explicit statement about PL being the focus, only reading between the lines with an understanding of game design. GW has never commented on the subject in any official form. Sorry if that isn't satisfying enough but I don't care if you accept that my interpretation is correct, whether or not you agree with it I still have a valid claim to concern about PL existing that is not about gatekeeping.
The bolded is all I needed to see. Thank you.
I mean this with genuine questioning, but I don't actually remember anyone explicitly saying "everyone who is pro-PL has only ever been respectful and polite and reasonable" - at least, perhaps their statements were true at that time.
So maybe it doesn't apply to you but I didn't address it to you. It absolutely applies to Andykp and I notice that he hasn't said one word in criticism of the people on his side being needlessly rude and insulting.
It should be noted, while I don't speak for Andykp, that the comment you mention was made over halfway back through the thread, and, at that time (as I actually demonstrated a page later), there was an overwhelming disparity in the severity of comments that had been made between viewpoints.
Now, I am not going to be going back through and going through the other HALF of the thread to examine how that has changed, but let's not kid ourselves with context here - Andykp's comment was made at a time when you, and others sharing your perspective, had been overwhelmingly disrespectful and hostile, and I don't actually recall being given a single apology over the matter.
I don't condone certain comments made on both ends, but I do find it ironic that you're calling for civility and respect when yourself and others like you have consistently refused to do so for me.
Because it's respectful, and helps to make sure that we're all working towards the same thing, or that our intentions are aligned. The boundaries and expectations I might be setting might be things like "are we trying to tell a fun story, or are we trying to always make the mathematically best options", or "are we using a mulligan system if we mess up rules" or "hey, if the game's going south, do we want to call it there?" or "I'm not actually familiar with all my army's rules, could we not use them please?" or "I'm just here to playtest my tournament list, so we don't need to actually *finish* the game, if that's okay?"
But that's all the result of failures! This is what I mean about normalizing GW incompetence, you can't even imagine a world where those questions aren't necessary. There is no need to ask about story vs. mathematical optimization in a game where there is good balance instead of having "story" options be decisively inferior on the table. There is no need to ask about mulligans or omitting rules if the rules aren't such a bloated mess that forgetting stuff is common and a player can show up to a game without being familiar with their own rules. Etc. The only thing that could possibly still be a pre-game conversation is asking for tournament playtesting, but TBH people aren't showing up to a pickup game for that, they're playtesting in private groups where everyone is already expecting a playtesting session.
Have you missed where I said that this is something I learned from outside of GW games, and apply to things beyond GW? Of all the various things to blame GW for (and there are many, just look at the poor CSM book), encouraging me to take a more communicative and player-led approach isn't one of them! This is something more inspired by D&D, by theatre, by relationships and friendships.
It's literally just called communication, and of all the things 40k should be, it should be a chance to HAVE communication. I don't want a game where two strangers rock up, say nothing, and push toy soldiers around. I want a game where people can talk, communicate, lay out how they're feeling and what they want, and work to support and empower the other.
Fundamentally, I think we both want different things, and that's okay, but don't take what I enjoy away from me!
Do they need to be balanced? How finely?
As finely as possible within the scope of systems that are practical to use. Why excuse needless error when it's so trivially easy to improve balance?
Is it "trivially" easy? If it's so easy, why hasn't it been done in previous editions? Which editions were perfectly balanced? If balance is so "trivially easy", do it for me now.
If you stopped arguing about PL on this forum and just used the normal point system you'd come out ahead.
But why should I? I wouldn't have to argue about PL if you just let folks enjoy themselves how they want. Also, I wouldn't have saved time to use on points because I haven't played any games during this "discussion", that's an utterly ridiculous argument on your part.
If you could learn to live and let live, you wouldn't be wasting your time on this.
CadianSgtBob wrote:
PenitentJake wrote: This means I can build a list based on the units I like and not worry about load-out at all.
But why does it matter if you have to worry about those weapons? If it takes you 10 minutes to write a PL list and 11 minutes to write a list that considers equipment costs why is it such a big deal? And TBH, with small games it's likely to be the reverse and be 15 minutes to make a list with PL vs. 10 minutes to write a list with normal points because PL can only add or remove things in whole-unit increments if you're at 24/25 or 26/25 points.
Okay, I'm kinda sick of seeing this whole "points only takes a minute more" concept thrown around, because it's utterly hyperbolic. I would be perfectly happy to construct two separate lists, one with PL, and the other with points, out of my existing Primaris army, and see which one is faster. I'd be happy to stick it to 1500 points, or 75PL, and see how long both take - have no interest in cheating, but I want to put this idea that there's only about a minute saved to bed.
And if YOU could just see that everyone on this thread is on your side about keeping Points as they are, and stop insisting on the removal of PL then EVERYONE would come out ahead.
Or we could just remove PL for all of the reasons I've suggested.
But what reasons? All the reasons you given only mean something to you - they mean nothing to me. Why do I care about half the reasons you've given? At the end of the day, you can carry on unaffected if PL goes, but I can't carry on without changing, over some "reasons" that only appeal to you!
Where is your sense of empathy?
EviscerationPlague wrote:You still avoided the question like Smudge is.
I answered it - it's not my fault you asked a question that has no bearing to the actual topic. Why don't you answer mine?
Ask stupid questions, get stupid responses - it ain't hard.
Blndmage wrote: I could care less about a past edition with a very different design. It's a different game now.
It's not a different game, and the problems with PL are the same exact problems that Battle Demi-Company and War Convocation had.
You’re just full of nonsense you aren’t you.
You avoid the question too. Is Battle Demi Company or War Convo good design or good for the game, yes or no?
You avoided my question. Are you full of nonsense? Yes or no? (Hint: the answers yes )
Maybe because you did not ask a question at all. You made a statement, which does not invite a response. If you can't tell the difference between basic English structures like these, then maybe you shouldn't be getting into an intellectual argument in this thread.
PenitentJake wrote: This means I can build a list based on the units I like and not worry about load-out at all.
But why does it matter if you have to worry about those weapons? If it takes you 10 minutes to write a PL list and 11 minutes to write a list that considers equipment costs why is it such a big deal? And TBH, with small games it's likely to be the reverse and be 15 minutes to make a list with PL vs. 10 minutes to write a list with normal points because PL can only add or remove things in whole-unit increments if you're at 24/25 or 26/25 points.
Okay, I'm kinda sick of seeing this whole "points only takes a minute more" concept thrown around, because it's utterly hyperbolic. I would be perfectly happy to construct two separate lists, one with PL, and the other with points, out of my existing Primaris army, and see which one is faster. I'd be happy to stick it to 1500 points, or 75PL, and see how long both take - have no interest in cheating, but I want to put this idea that there's only about a minute saved to bed.
Just out of curiosity, I've just made a 1500pts list using points vs using PLs and a stopwatch.
Pure math time:
- PLs: 13 individual entries, pure math time 0:30, without calculator.
- Points: 38 individual entries, pure math time 1:15, had to use calculator for that to not get lost in what has been counted already
BUT
- PLs time overhead for actually constructing the list, that is to make all the choices necessary at the list building stage and noting the list down for print: 5 minutes, had to swap one unit to fit under the limit.
- Points time overhead, for having to choose and juggle all upgrades for all unit entries: the same 5 mins from PLs (it's the same list) plus about 20 minutes for choosing loadouts with point considerations in mind, noting the list down and formatting it for print, with the last 5 minutes spent on juggling the last 10 points to fit 1500. This also doesn't account for the time to actually optimise the list and do math for point efficiencies against my known opponent and their army, as this was not the part of the excercise and is also not necessary for the actual game context those lists were created for.
Additional note: this is made out of about 10000pts of owned models for a single faction. If you only have own 2000 pts + spares here and there worth 500-1000 pts, then you basically own a single list and have little need for juggling points, so here PLs vs points have narrower overhead gap.
Now with PLs, you also have to add a time to choose loadouts before the match, but that is 90% covered by putting the models on the table, with only "invisible" wargear to note down and inform my opponent of - I'll very generously add 5 mins for that
So, totals:
PLs: 10 minutes, 30 seconds
points: 26 minutes, 15 seconds (plus any optimisation time)
Now, another element to that is: PL list is perfectly reusable from game to game in "cross tailoring for balance" narrative environment I play in. Ability to swap loadouts just by selecting different models adds no time over the listed 10m 30s. Point list? Not so much, as with many list entries not being round 5-10 pts you have to juggle all those odd pts upgrades around. This adds between 10 to 20 minutes before each game I want to play with the same narrative balance goal I play when using PLs. And anticipating the question "why I care about juggling those points" - I have built both of those lists to be legal - that is to the standard of presentation required in both systems - and to the scrutiny levels expected from players of both systems. On top of that - in a friendly, narrative context, all this "but PLs allow for sooooo much free gear it makes the game utterly broken" crap is completely irrelevant, as in such context you are not building your lists for advantage and not in the void of blind pickup, but in a co-op fashion, so you don't care for min-maxing potential within the system.
So no, PLs vs Points is not "just a minute saved on adding fewer numbers" and PLs have a very clear utility context. With the standard game taking about 3 hrs, that is 1/7th-1/6th time overhead saved, about the same time it would take me to commute to the nearest FLGS.
One other thing to note, which some posters here seem to not realise/ignore: any PL player that has started in edition prior to 8th has an actual experience with both systems and often decades worth of list building with points under their belt. On the other hand, points advocates clearly state, that they have zero practical experience with PLs and all their views are purely theoretical. This simple fact makes position of those posters utterly bizarre - they literally try to convince people, that their life experience is wrong - not merely their PoV - both on time saved and practical, real life balance levels produced by both systems.
Dudeface wrote: The fact that "reinforcement points" could be expanded to "reinforcement costs" with about 5 words added to encompass PL is being touted as a problem with PL when it's the core rules at fault there.
PL also doesn't ever get you "free models". Free ripper swarms exist in pointed matched play though as an example of the rule being applied at random.
Right, but them's the rules. GW clearly intended to allow infinite summoning in PL games, given that Reinforcement Points explicitly excludes PL and I doubt they just "forgot" PL existed.
Game design choices are exactly what we are talking about here, otherwise there's no debate - heck, upgrade choices could be expanded to include PL cost.
"Lascannon = +1 power level"
"Plasma = 0 power level, or +1 if 2 are taken" etc. etc.
Also list tailoring is bad automatically, and a system that encourages or facilitates list tailoring is a bad system.
GW should balance their own game, not the players.
I have always viewed PL as basically the demo mode of the game. you can use it to show someone new to the game the rough idea of it with out getting into the weeds.
Dudeface wrote: Both sides including myself have been to some degree: abrupt, rude, negligent, outright offensive or ignorant.
The point is this thread needs to die.
Evidently some people use PL and enjoy it, some people don't want to use it and think it should go irrespective of any justification.
Those two trains of thought are incompatible at this juncture and were going to loop endlessly (again).
Can we all agree to leave it?
Lol, request mod-hood then if you want to close the thread. You can't unilaterally make that call, especially when the post right above this one (as well as mine earlier) pushed back on this dubious assertion you made that summoning isn't intended to be unlimited in PL games.
As the person who started this thread 40 pages ago, I have asked the mods to close it twice now, with zero success. I can only surmise this is being kept open by a mod.
Dudeface wrote: Both sides including myself have been to some degree: abrupt, rude, negligent, outright offensive or ignorant.
The point is this thread needs to die.
Evidently some people use PL and enjoy it, some people don't want to use it and think it should go irrespective of any justification.
Those two trains of thought are incompatible at this juncture and were going to loop endlessly (again).
Can we all agree to leave it?
Lol, request mod-hood then if you want to close the thread. You can't unilaterally make that call, especially when the post right above this one (as well as mine earlier) pushed back on this dubious assertion you made that summoning isn't intended to be unlimited in PL games.
I didn't state it wasn't intended, I said stating PL is bad because of summoning when the rule isn't attached to PL, it's a "matched play" restriction rule. If summoning is what upsets the anti-PL crowd it's a literal 1 sentence change to that rule to change it.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: As the person who started this thread 40 pages ago, I have asked the mods to close it twice now, with zero success. I can only surmise this is being kept open by a mod.
Post a bunch of political stuff.
Wait, only works half the time. Post a bunch of right leaning political stuff...
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: As the person who started this thread 40 pages ago, I have asked the mods to close it twice now, with zero success. I can only surmise this is being kept open by a mod.
Well, again, dakka has a rep as an unmoderated cesspit. (Going for the lock here)
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: As the person who started this thread 40 pages ago, I have asked the mods to close it twice now, with zero success. I can only surmise this is being kept open by a mod.
Post a bunch of political stuff.
Wait, only works half the time. Post a bunch of right leaning political stuff...
Anyone who plays PL is a facist nazi/crazy SJW [delete as appropriate]!
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: As the person who started this thread 40 pages ago, I have asked the mods to close it twice now, with zero success. I can only surmise this is being kept open by a mod.
Post a bunch of political stuff.
Wait, only works half the time. Post a bunch of right leaning political stuff...
It's very funny to me that people will post things like this when the stuff actually getting threads locked is like, white supremacy, homophobia/transphobia, etc, and nothing actually right leaning.
Blndmage wrote: So where should those of us who play Open and/or us PL post and discuss the game with that in mind then?
Open a thread for PL play and suggestions - the entire premise of this thread is a discussion of removing points, not a general discussion of PL which will no doubt not have content from the PL detractors.
Blndmage wrote:So where should those of us who play Open and/or us PL post and discuss the game with that in mind then?
Power Level Appreciation Thread.
How incredibly difficult is it to think of that?
Dudeface wrote:
Blndmage wrote: So where should those of us who play Open and/or us PL post and discuss the game with that in mind then?
Open a thread for PL play and suggestions - the entire premise of this thread is a discussion of removing points, not a general discussion of PL which will no doubt not have content from the PL detractors.
Apparently not that difficult.
Backspacehacker wrote:
Blndmage wrote: So where should those of us who play Open and/or us PL post and discuss the game with that in mind then?
By opening a thread to discuss it? Like the one we are in now, like the one that is 30+ pages?
You mean the one predicated on the polarizing removal of points?
Hey substance of the topic is another thing, they asked where can we talk about it, and this thread is proof of just that discussing PL, the fact its predicated on removing points is not really relevant to where you can talk about it.
Just a normal player. The reality is that you care far more about the game than genuine casual players. And remember that forums like this are not a representative sample, the people here are the 5-10% least casual players in the entire community. So being one of the most casual members of the forum doesn't mean a lot.
Also, I think you're being far too literal when I refer to "type of game" - I am referring to "do we want a friendly beer and pretzels game" or "do we want to go full ham and tournament this" kind of dynamics, the same kind of chat you'd have before a football game with your mates. I'm not talking about "which of these rules do we follow", I'm going even more basic than that.
"I don't know dude, I just have this box of space marines, do people even do tournaments for this stuff?"
-Actual casual player
It's literally just called communication, and of all the things 40k should be, it should be a chance to HAVE communication. I don't want a game where two strangers rock up, say nothing, and push toy soldiers around. I want a game where people can talk, communicate, lay out how they're feeling and what they want, and work to support and empower the other.
But, again, why do you value this? Never in my entire life have I had a conversation about "hey, I know this game is unbalanced so what power level do we want to aim for" and felt that it has added anything of value to my life other than allowing us to overcome the flaws of the game. What gain is there in having to agree to a thing after discussing it vs. having that thing already settled without needing a discussion? Do you just love arguing and need more excuses to do it?
And please don't make straw man arguments. Not needing to have a pre-game conversation about how to play the game is not the same as not having conversation at all. We can still talk about football, make plans for dinner after the game, vent about work, etc. The game will absolutely not be played in silence. But those things have nothing to do with the pre-game negotiation you are talking about.
If balance is so "trivially easy", do it for me now.
Delete PL. Use only the normal point system. Balance is improved with a trivial amount of effort.
Is this perfect balance? No. But perfect balance is not what I said was trivially easy. Improving balance is.
Where is your sense of empathy?
I'll have empathy for your "needs" when you can point to more than a trivial time savings as a practical value for PL. Until then, until the benefit of you is more than trivial, it will be outweighed by even modest gains for other people.
But I might ask you the same question: where was your sense of empathy when you dismissed the 5+ alternative point systems I requested? Why don't you value my needs?
Because by your own statements, you don’t actually want them and are just proposing them as hyperbole at best and an attempt to make someone else look bad at worst.
There are that many types of player in the game that I genuinely don't believe you can call anyone truly "normal" because there IS no norm.
The reality is that you care far more about the game than genuine casual players. And remember that forums like this are not a representative sample, the people here are the 5-10% least casual players in the entire community. So being one of the most casual members of the forum doesn't mean a lot.
Do you actually know what I'm talking about, because it sounds that you don't.
Forum engagement =/= playing
Painting =/= playing
Lore =/= playing
Modelling =/=playing
Playing = playing
I have repeated ad nauseam that I am a casual player, not a casual hobbyist. Please, listen what I am saying, because I think you think I'm saying something else.
Also, I think you're being far too literal when I refer to "type of game" - I am referring to "do we want a friendly beer and pretzels game" or "do we want to go full ham and tournament this" kind of dynamics, the same kind of chat you'd have before a football game with your mates. I'm not talking about "which of these rules do we follow", I'm going even more basic than that.
"I don't know dude, I just have this box of space marines, do people even do tournaments for this stuff?"
-Actual casual player
Also an actual casual player:
"Yeah, I like my Space Marines, but I'm just here to put them on the table and have fun, I'm not desperate to win".
Why do you need to be so contrarian over what people are and aren't allowed to be?
It's literally just called communication, and of all the things 40k should be, it should be a chance to HAVE communication. I don't want a game where two strangers rock up, say nothing, and push toy soldiers around. I want a game where people can talk, communicate, lay out how they're feeling and what they want, and work to support and empower the other.
But, again, why do you value this?
Because communication is good?? I've never once thought in my life "hey, you know what'd be great - NOT communicating my feelings and expectations with someone and seeing how that goes".
What gain is there in having to agree to a thing after discussing it vs. having that thing already settled without needing a discussion?
Because not everything can or should be settled pre-discussion, because reality is messy, people have different wants and needs, and no ruleset should ever circumvent human experiences.
For example, there is no ruleset so perfect that you and I would be able to have a game, because we have fundamentally different intentions and expectations - and that's okay! The issue is acting like we aren't people with out own desires and needs.
Do you just love arguing and need more excuses to do it?
The fact that you think that setting boundaries and expectations is "arguing" says a lot about how you communicate with people.
And please don't make straw man arguments. Not needing to have a pre-game conversation about how to play the game is not the same as not having conversation at all. We can still talk about football, make plans for dinner after the game, vent about work, etc. The game will absolutely not be played in silence. But those things have nothing to do with the pre-game negotiation you are talking about.
Well, actually, those things *aren't* appealing to some - some people genuinely don't want to talk about real life when they play, and only want to talk about the game - which is why having a pre-game chat about how both parties want to play is so critically important!
If balance is so "trivially easy", do it for me now.
Delete PL. Use only the normal point system. Balance is improved with a trivial amount of effort.
That literally doesn't change anything about how balanced *your* games are though. All you've done is take a steaming gak over my games. You haven't affected your own balance at all.
Try again, buster.
Where is your sense of empathy?
I'll have empathy for your "needs" when you can point to more than a trivial time savings as a practical value for PL.
This just in, apparently basic levels of empathy need to be justified and earned via an argument, instead of just respecting people.
Nope, I stand by exactly what I've said - you are devoid of respect. It is ironic that you complain about folks treating you how you treat others.
But I might ask you the same question: where was your sense of empathy when you dismissed the 5+ alternative point systems I requested? Why don't you value my needs?
If you'll notice, I actually never dismissed them, and said that, if you showed me someone who *genuinely* had a use for them (so, I'm not going to be listening to you here, because I'm sure you can appreciate that I am skeptical of your bias, having never mentioned these before, and only bringing them up to attempt to discredit my argument that there should be more accessible systems), then I'd be fully on board.
Because, unlike you, I actually want people to have the tools they ask for, instead of taking them away because I don't use them.
It's called empathy. You might want to try it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Because by your own statements, you don’t actually want them and are just proposing them as hyperbole at best and an attempt to make someone else look bad at worst.
Shhhhh, they know this, but they'll almost certainly kick up a fuss about people being exclusionary.
If you *are* genuine about it, could you lay out in detail how such systems would all work, the audience (specifically, I want testimonies) for said system, and also you to accept that PL is valid. If you can't or won't do that, then why should we entertain this discussion further if you're making bad faith hyperbole arguments?
Here's a real-world experiment to settle this question. PL vs. normal points, 2000 points and 100 points. No battlescribe, no GW app, just a .txt document in notepad and the windows calculator. And just to make sure I gave every benefit of the doubt to PL I wrote the points list first, so any time savings from already knowing roughly what the list would contain was applied to the PL time.
Normal points:
PL:
TL;DR: 5 minutes to build a list with PL, 6 minutes to build a list with normal points.
Now, are they fully optimized tournament lists? No, but that doesn't matter. Making choices is the same in both systems and if anything it will skew the results even further in favor of the normal point system. If I add another 30 minutes to each list as I debate the merits of plasma delivery via Valkyrie vs. plasma delivery via Hades drill the one minute of time savings becomes an even smaller percentage of the total time spent.
Can we now acknowledge the obvious, that PL has no reason to exist?
CadianSgtBob wrote:Here's a real-world experiment to settle this question. PL vs. normal points, 2000 points and 100 points. No battlescribe, no GW app, just a .txt document in notepad and the windows calculator. And just to make sure I gave every benefit of the doubt to PL I wrote the points list first, so any time savings from already knowing roughly what the list would contain was applied to the PL time.
[...]
TL;DR: 6 minutes to build a list with PL, 5 minutes to build a list with normal points.
Now, are they fully optimized tournament lists? No, but that doesn't matter. Making choices is the same in both systems and if anything it will skew the results even further in favor of the normal point system. If I add another 30 minutes to each list as I debate the merits of plasma delivery via Valkyrie vs. plasma delivery via Hades drill the one minute of time savings becomes an even smaller percentage of the total time spent.
Can we now acknowledge the obvious, that PL has no reason to exist?
No, because as we've ascertained, PL has no reason for YOU to use it. Your experiences aren't the same as everyone else's, which at this point, I feel should go without saying, but here we are.
When I have the energy to do so, I'll repeat this same performance, as I actually mentioned earlier, with a 75 PL and 1500 point list, and see how long it takes, to demonstrate that your experience isn't the only one.
My 1500 point list is trivial to write - 3x Baneblades, 2 without sponsons, one with one pair of sponsons, a patrol with Creed, 1x scions with 2x plasma and plasma Pistol, and a Trojan dedicated transport
Power Level I can't remember off the top of my head like I can points for Baneblades, BS3 Plasma, Creed, and Scions.
Baneblades are 410 (470 with sponsons), scions are 45, plasma are 10 each but the pistol is free, creed is 60, Trojans are 85.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Your experiences aren't the same as everyone else's, which at this point, I feel should go without saying, but here we are.
You can keep saying this but you still can't provide any reason why they aren't. You make a bunch of vague statements about "I prefer PL" or "I find points difficult" but no details. Why? Because when you look at the details there's no significant difference. Both lists were made with the exact same process (add a core set of units, add up points, add secondary units to fill points, make final adjustments) and at no point was there any functional difference between them. The normal point system had a few more digits to type and a tiny bit of additional math to add up 10+10+10+70=100 but that's a few seconds of difference at most. There is no point in the process where you can point to it and say "yes, that is the part that takes longer" with a compelling reason for why it takes longer. And TBH I'm not even sure that PL was really faster beyond the margin of random variation, I wouldn't be surprised if the PL list took longer if I did the test again.
The reality here is that I'm not exceptional. I don't have exceptional skill at math, I don't play an exceptional amount of 40k (my army is currently in storage and I haven't played a game in at least a year) with a bunch of lists memorized, and I certainly don't have some amazing strategic brilliance at figuring out perfect lists. PL is just not an easier tool to use by any meaningful margin.
When I have the energy to do so, I'll repeat this same performance, as I actually mentioned earlier, with a 75 PL and 1500 point list, and see how long it takes, to demonstrate that your experience isn't the only one.
Please do, and please be honest about it. Don't spend a bunch of time making a perfectly optimized 1500 point tournament list and compare it to quickly duplicating one of your stock 75 point lists. I made an honest effort to build the two lists with the exact same process and same level of care given to unit selection and I even made the one potential source of bias I could foresee favor the side I dislike.
Can you justify your favorite pizza toppings?
What about your favorite sandwich ingredients?
Or, are those just what you happen to like best? Because when it comes to toy soldier games, "I like this," even without good articulation as to WHY you like it... Is totally fine. This is a hobby we partake in for fun-if it's more fun to play with PL, play with PL. If you only like to play 40k wearing a scarf, wear that scarf. If your favorite army is Word Bearers, play the crap out of Word Bearers.
Optimizing lists to match your playstyle is part of player skill though, plus facing the exact same armies all the time is super boring.
I believe 40k has never been designed for "blind" games against random opponents, regardless of how popular this way of playing might be in some areas. Heck, I know pineapple on pizza is pretty popular somewhere (very far from where I live thankfully) and I can't think of a worst kind of heresy .
Please keep one of my national treasures out of your tawdry arguments over Power Levels. Next you will drag poutine into your polemics about having to paint your miniatures to get 10 VPs. Keep this up and I will come over there and put ketchup on all of your pasta. And your chips.
Optimizing lists to match your playstyle is part of player skill though, plus facing the exact same armies all the time is super boring.
I believe 40k has never been designed for "blind" games against random opponents, regardless of how popular this way of playing might be in some areas. Heck, I know pineapple on pizza is pretty popular somewhere (very far from where I live thankfully) and I can't think of a worst kind of heresy .
Please keep one of my national treasures out of your tawdry arguments over Power Levels. Next you will drag poutine into your polemics about having to paint your miniatures to get 10 VPs. Keep this up and I will come over there and put ketchup on all of your pasta. And your chips.
Depends where you are, chips in the UK regularly get a dose of ketchup and are great.
CadianSgtBob wrote: Here's a real-world experiment to settle this question. PL vs. normal points, 2000 points and 100 points. No battlescribe, no GW app, just a .txt document in notepad and the windows calculator. And just to make sure I gave every benefit of the doubt to PL I wrote the points list first, so any time savings from already knowing roughly what the list would contain was applied to the PL time.
Normal points:
PL:
TL;DR: 6 minutes to build a list with PL, 5 minutes to build a list with normal points.
Now, are they fully optimized tournament lists? No, but that doesn't matter. Making choices is the same in both systems and if anything it will skew the results even further in favor of the normal point system. If I add another 30 minutes to each list as I debate the merits of plasma delivery via Valkyrie vs. plasma delivery via Hades drill the one minute of time savings becomes an even smaller percentage of the total time spent.
Can we now acknowledge the obvious, that PL has no reason to exist?
Except as I've already explained, when I and other people in my group build lists, we don't even pick equipment. Your PL list took as long as it did because you factored load-out into the list, which in a PL game is unnecessary at the list building stage. You can do it as you're packing your models up to go to wherever it is you're playing, and if you happen to be the host, you can do it as you're putting models on the table. And next game? You can use the same list, but the loadouts you choose THAT day may be entirely different, but it doesn't matter, because the value of the units doesn't change based on the load out.
Now obviously, not everyone who plays PL does it this way- some people will think about load-out at the list building stage. Also, for Crusade players like me, once the load-out is chosen, it is locked in until you burn RP to modify it. But even so, I still don't bother thinking about load-out at all when I'm doing the list building- I still leave until game day.
The difference {for some people) between list building with PL vs. list building with points is not a difference of degree- it is a conceptually dissimilar experience. Equipment selection isn't an integrated part of the list-building process with PL- it's an afterthought. And when you finally get to that stage where you're picking equipment, you just grab whichever models you feel like using that day, knowing that the list you made isn't going to change in value no matter which load-out you pick.
With points, you must pick your load out at the list building stage- you have no choice, because which load-out you pick plays a part in how many units you get to bring. Buy too much expensive gear and you don't get to bring as many dudes. Not an issue with PL.
PenitentJake wrote: Your PL list took as long as it did because you factored load-out into the list, which in a PL game is unnecessary at the list building stage.
So much wrong in so few words.
First of all, no, that's not why it took that long. All of the equipment choices were incredibly obvious because that's what PL does. Why debate LRBT sponson options when, if they all cost the same zero points, multimeltas are the obvious correct answer? Why would you ever not take the free plasma pistol and power sword on every sergeant? Etc. I spent more time typing out the words than it took to pick which things to add.
Second, no, it isn't unnecessary. Units go in a list for a reason and their equipment is part of that reason. For example, the command squad with plasma guns goes with the Hades drill (and is required to take the drill). Its whole purpose in the list is to deep strike and kill something with special weapons, and because of the 9" minimum range on deep strike that means 4x plasma guns. Any other equipment choice would contradict its role in the list.
Third, no, it doesn't take longer at all. There is zero difference between taking five minutes in one single session and taking five minutes divided up into four minutes to write the list and one minute to pick the equipment. Ignoring equipment when you start putting a list together doesn't change the total time required to make the list, it just defers some of that time until later. The end result is still the same total amount of time spent.
Fourth, who cares? Even if you increase the time savings to a whole two minutes who ****ing cares? It's still a choice between four minutes and six minutes out of a 3-4 hour game. You're nitpicking at a ridiculously minor detail and ignoring the broader point that there is no meaningful difference in time here.
But even so, I still don't bother thinking about load-out at all when I'm doing the list building- I still leave until game day.
You're contradicting yourself here. You play Crusade which means fixed lists, how do you leave equipment choices to game day when they have to be written permanently into your order of battle and only changed at a high price? You might be willing to spend tons of RP changing things on game day but even then you still have to pick a default choice to start with, you can't leave it as "TBD" in your list.
Buy too much expensive gear and you don't get to bring as many dudes.
Why would you think that this is a good thing? If you brought a ton of expensive and powerful equipment for your dudes why should you have the same number of dudes as someone who brought their dudes with basic starting equipment only? Do you not think you should have to pay the fair price for your powerful gear? Or is your opponent expected to sacrifice their fun and replace everything in their own list with all the expensive stuff just so they aren't at a significant disadvantage?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Can you justify your favorite pizza toppings?
What about your favorite sandwich ingredients?
Or, are those just what you happen to like best? Because when it comes to toy soldier games, "I like this," even without good articulation as to WHY you like it... Is totally fine. This is a hobby we partake in for fun-if it's more fun to play with PL, play with PL. If you only like to play 40k wearing a scarf, wear that scarf. If your favorite army is Word Bearers, play the crap out of Word Bearers.
Cool. Use PL and enjoy it. But if you want to argue against having it removed then you need something more compelling than "I like it and I don't have to justify it".
I just don't understand how it would take longer in PL you have the added bonus that your guard list doesn't pay for squad upgrades anyway (sounds familiar). I'd love to see you take an honest crack doing the same for say chaos marines, even just balancing it out to ~2k can take some hefty reshuffling and calculations that adds way more time due to the granularity and not wanting 10+ points free.
Edit: PL didn't take longer you messed your own tl;dr up
Well that starts to sounds a bit like the argument why someone things that the metric system is better then the imperial one. When all their life they lived under the yoke of the imperial system.
Regular Pts are easy, because majority people use them. If your remember how much a 5 man termintor squad with a thunder hammer and force staff costs, then you remember how much it costs. Same for an NDK with Psilancer and Heavy psycanon, with or without teleport. PL would require you to learn a second, not better, way of creating lists, which also plays merry hell with army composition, because those TH you only take one per squad are a totaly different option if they cost 0pts.
Karol wrote: Well that starts to sounds a bit like the argument why someone things that the metric system is better then the imperial one. When all their life they lived under the yoke of the imperial system.
Regular Pts are easy, because majority people use them. If your remember how much a 5 man termintor squad with a thunder hammer and force staff costs, then you remember how much it costs. Same for an NDK with Psilancer and Heavy psycanon, with or without teleport. PL would require you to learn a second, not better, way of creating lists, which also plays merry hell with army composition, because those TH you only take one per squad are a totaly different option if they cost 0pts.
I just can't ever spare the extra five or ten minutes to write up a list with points instead of power level - I'm far too busy driving my collection of super cars, going to important business meetings, and banging my supermodel girlfriends to be spending my time writing army lists.
Dudeface wrote: I just don't understand how it would take longer in PL you have the added bonus that your guard list doesn't pay for squad upgrades anyway (sounds familiar). I'd love to see you take an honest crack doing the same for say chaos marines, even just balancing it out to ~2k can take some hefty reshuffling and calculations that adds way more time due to the granularity and not wanting 10+ points free.
Edit: PL didn't take longer you messed your own tl;dr up
God dammit. I had it right in the lists themselves, fixed the TL;DR.
And maybe I'll look at CSM later, but I don't really have any clue how a CSM list is supposed to work (and haven't even read the new codex yet) so I'm not sure my fumbling around with it is going to tell you much. I suspect the method that is faster in the test would just be the one I do second, since the first pass took care of having to read the datasheets and figure out what all the options are.
Well then considering GW is bad at inventing new stuff, and new stuff takes both design time, space in the books and has bad interactions with how box load outs are build, then clearly over all PL are at best not much different from points on a player vs player basis, and worse by sole virtue of existing on a over all game state level.
Optimizing lists to match your playstyle is part of player skill though, plus facing the exact same armies all the time is super boring.
I believe 40k has never been designed for "blind" games against random opponents, regardless of how popular this way of playing might be in some areas. Heck, I know pineapple on pizza is pretty popular somewhere (very far from where I live thankfully) and I can't think of a worst kind of heresy .
Please keep one of my national treasures out of your tawdry arguments over Power Levels. Next you will drag poutine into your polemics about having to paint your miniatures to get 10 VPs. Keep this up and I will come over there and put ketchup on all of your pasta. And your chips.
You can keep your ketchup, although it's really common to put it on chips here (to the point that's basically the only thing people put ketchup on).
My example was to make people understand that popular doesn't mean right or best. Just popular. In my example I can't think of a worst kind of heresy but I totally respect the tastes of those who like that. Instead, I can't accept those who like that saying "it's the best way to do it" or, even worse, "it's how it's supposed to be". That's it, like in my food example, also in 40k there's no better way to do it, because better is a subjective term.
And just to be perfectly clear, for me and my group a rule that grants VPs for painted armies never existed .
Blackie wrote: And just to be perfectly clear, for me and my group a rule that grants VPs for painted armies never existed .
Hey, we have something in common! Unpainted models aren't permitted at all so there's no point in giving everyone 10 VP, we just do scoring out of 90 points.
Blackie wrote: And just to be perfectly clear, for me and my group a rule that grants VPs for painted armies never existed .
Hey, we have something in common! Unpainted models aren't permitted at all so there's no point in giving everyone 10 VP, we just do scoring out of 90 points.
No we don't have that in common. We don't care about painted/unpainted and have no problems playing with or against unpainted stuff, even whole grey plastic armies. Just like we don't care about conversions or base/models' sizes. As long as it's clear what is what everything is good . We do try to play fully painted armies and we certainly prefer to do that, but if a player gets new stuff he/she should be able to play it immediately, let alone if he/she gets a whole new army.
And rushed or too simple paint jobs just to be battle ready are worse to look at than grey plastic or primed models .
PenitentJake wrote: This means I can build a list based on the units I like and not worry about load-out at all.
But why does it matter if you have to worry about those weapons? If it takes you 10 minutes to write a PL list and 11 minutes to write a list that considers equipment costs why is it such a big deal? And TBH, with small games it's likely to be the reverse and be 15 minutes to make a list with PL vs. 10 minutes to write a list with normal points because PL can only add or remove things in whole-unit increments if you're at 24/25 or 26/25 points.
Okay, I'm kinda sick of seeing this whole "points only takes a minute more" concept thrown around, because it's utterly hyperbolic. I would be perfectly happy to construct two separate lists, one with PL, and the other with points, out of my existing Primaris army, and see which one is faster. I'd be happy to stick it to 1500 points, or 75PL, and see how long both take - have no interest in cheating, but I want to put this idea that there's only about a minute saved to bed.
Just out of curiosity, I've just made a 1500pts list using points vs using PLs and a stopwatch.
Pure math time:
- PLs: 13 individual entries, pure math time 0:30, without calculator.
- Points: 38 individual entries, pure math time 1:15, had to use calculator for that to not get lost in what has been counted already
BUT
- PLs time overhead for actually constructing the list, that is to make all the choices necessary at the list building stage and noting the list down for print: 5 minutes, had to swap one unit to fit under the limit.
- Points time overhead, for having to choose and juggle all upgrades for all unit entries: the same 5 mins from PLs (it's the same list) plus about 20 minutes for choosing loadouts with point considerations in mind, noting the list down and formatting it for print, with the last 5 minutes spent on juggling the last 10 points to fit 1500. This also doesn't account for the time to actually optimise the list and do math for point efficiencies against my known opponent and their army, as this was not the part of the excercise and is also not necessary for the actual game context those lists were created for.
Additional note: this is made out of about 10000pts of owned models for a single faction. If you only have own 2000 pts + spares here and there worth 500-1000 pts, then you basically own a single list and have little need for juggling points, so here PLs vs points have narrower overhead gap.
Now with PLs, you also have to add a time to choose loadouts before the match, but that is 90% covered by putting the models on the table, with only "invisible" wargear to note down and inform my opponent of - I'll very generously add 5 mins for that
So, totals:
PLs: 10 minutes, 30 seconds
points: 26 minutes, 15 seconds (plus any optimisation time)
Now, another element to that is: PL list is perfectly reusable from game to game in "cross tailoring for balance" narrative environment I play in. Ability to swap loadouts just by selecting different models adds no time over the listed 10m 30s. Point list? Not so much, as with many list entries not being round 5-10 pts you have to juggle all those odd pts upgrades around. This adds between 10 to 20 minutes before each game I want to play with the same narrative balance goal I play when using PLs. And anticipating the question "why I care about juggling those points" - I have built both of those lists to be legal - that is to the standard of presentation required in both systems - and to the scrutiny levels expected from players of both systems. On top of that - in a friendly, narrative context, all this "but PLs allow for sooooo much free gear it makes the game utterly broken" crap is completely irrelevant, as in such context you are not building your lists for advantage and not in the void of blind pickup, but in a co-op fashion, so you don't care for min-maxing potential within the system.
So no, PLs vs Points is not "just a minute saved on adding fewer numbers" and PLs have a very clear utility context. With the standard game taking about 3 hrs, that is 1/7th-1/6th time overhead saved, about the same time it would take me to commute to the nearest FLGS.
One other thing to note, which some posters here seem to not realise/ignore: any PL player that has started in edition prior to 8th has an actual experience with both systems and often decades worth of list building with points under their belt. On the other hand, points advocates clearly state, that they have zero practical experience with PLs and all their views are purely theoretical. This simple fact makes position of those posters utterly bizarre - they literally try to convince people, that their life experience is wrong - not merely their PoV - both on time saved and practical, real life balance levels produced by both systems.
You could just build a 1400 pt list and add more or less wargear as you please instead of going for exactly 1500 pts. Then there is the whole optimization argument, yes you could be spending time optimizing your pts list, but you could do the same for your PL list. People try to optimize their Guardsmen and Plague Marine Squads even though they get free wargear, you still have the question of which options are most optimal. For Necrons there is no time difference between a PL list and a pts list on Battlescribe. Your pts list building also sounds like it is very inefficient. It took me less than 6 minutes to make a SKTBs Necrons pts list at 1999 pts, I think your main problem is adding options all at the end and then ending up with not enough points, if you just add the most pts-efficient options to the units as you go then you won't have to go back and forth a lot. Start off with SK in a sup/com detachment, add a Patrol with a Cloakmancer, 20 Warriors. Add Plasmancer and Ghost Ark. Add 2x3 TBs, 2 DDAs, filling up FA and HS. Check points. Add Warriors, Lychguard and a Hexmark Destroyer to get close to pts limit and add relics. Finish remaining points by adding shields to one unit of Tomb Blades and a couple of gauss Tomb Blades to the same unit. Do random stuff to make the list look legal to Battlescribe and save. I wouldn't be surprised to see the list win a tournament.
It took me less than 7 minutes to make a Fleshtearers despite not having played them in 9th (are we really in 9th?). It's probably pretty terrible, but there are terrible datasheets in PL games as well. I just added Gabriel Seth, a Master Apothecary, Intercessors, Predators and Aggressors and fiddled with the remaining points for a few minutes.
Lord Damocles wrote: I just can't ever spare the extra five or ten minutes to write up a list with points instead of power level - I'm far too busy driving my collection of super cars, going to important business meetings, and banging my supermodel girlfriends to be spending my time writing army lists.
I've painted my models too nicely to play PL so that I have to change all my wargear from the most pts-efficient to the most powerful. /sarcasm
vict0988 wrote: I think your main problem is adding options all at the end and then ending up with not enough points, if you just add the most pts-efficient options to the units as you go then you won't have to go back and forth a lot.
This is where you actually hit the proverbial nail in the head. I play in pseudo-historical narrative way, there is no such thing as limiting yourself to the most obvious, point efficient loadouts. Loadouts are dictated by theme and scenario. I can’t stress it enough - my group utilises any and all choices in our games. We don’t create lists from easily remembered, pre-constructed, optimal builds for each unit. Doing this with points is more time consuming and on top of that, due to the whole „listbuilding should be a skill” internal point efficiency differences between choices, building historicals style lists with points does not increase resulting balance. Competitive players who seek the most point efficient choices should perfectly understand, that 2000pts of efficient choices is not equal 2000pts of inefficient choices. That is very much by definition of point efficiency and what every competitive player actively utilises when building a list.
So now thgis is about 10th ed primaris rumors. So far we have a Furioso Melta redemptor, Primaris Terminators, and JUMP PACK ASSAULT INTERCESSORS!!! Please god give me jump pack Primaris Librarians/Chaplains.
vict0988 wrote: I think your main problem is adding options all at the end and then ending up with not enough points, if you just add the most pts-efficient options to the units as you go then you won't have to go back and forth a lot.
This is where you actually hit the proverbial nail in the head. I play in pseudo-historical narrative way, there is no such thing as limiting yourself to the most obvious, point efficient loadouts. Loadouts are dictated by theme and scenario. I can’t stress it enough - my group utilises any and all choices in our games. We don’t create lists from easily remembered, pre-constructed, optimal builds for each unit. Doing this with points is more time consuming and on top of that, due to the whole „listbuilding should be a skill” internal point efficiency differences between choices, building historicals style lists with points does not increase resulting balance. Competitive players who seek the most point efficient choices should perfectly understand, that 2000pts of efficient choices is not equal 2000pts of inefficient choices. That is very much by definition of point efficiency and what every competitive player actively utilises when building a list.
If I am making a thematic Salamanders list I can still just slap thunder hammers on my Devastators and flamers on my Tacticals as I go along, I don't need to take grav cannons if I don't like or own them. Pts rewards me for taking the lesser option more often than PL does by usually making the lesser of the two options cheaper.
Anyone who likes internal point efficiency differences should love PL since it is riddled with such errors. Just like powergamers loved to say they could bring 100 wounds worth of wyvern-riding badasses vs their opponent's 100 wounds worth of cowardly goblins at the start of AOS. The difference between two 100 PL lists can be larger than the difference between two 2000 pt lists. Any sufficiently imbalanced game requires homebrew to be fun and effective, homebrew requires engagement and knowledge. When I play casual games against new factions that I don't have a deep understanding of I cannot tell whether my opponent brought a strong list, at best I can ask them whether they think their list is unfair for a casual game. Because GW's 9th edition codexes have so much lethality in-built so games quickly snowball so problems of imbalance feel real bad, in 8th games only snowballed really badly if you built a wombo-combo list or rolled hot.
Optimizing lists to match your playstyle is part of player skill though, plus facing the exact same armies all the time is super boring.
I believe 40k has never been designed for "blind" games against random opponents, regardless of how popular this way of playing might be in some areas. Heck, I know pineapple on pizza is pretty popular somewhere (very far from where I live thankfully) and I can't think of a worst kind of heresy .
Please keep one of my national treasures out of your tawdry arguments over Power Levels. Next you will drag poutine into your polemics about having to paint your miniatures to get 10 VPs. Keep this up and I will come over there and put ketchup on all of your pasta. And your chips.
You can keep your ketchup, although it's really common to put it on chips here (to the point that's basically the only thing people put ketchup on).
My example was to make people understand that popular doesn't mean right or best. Just popular. In my example I can't think of a worst kind of heresy but I totally respect the tastes of those who like that. Instead, I can't accept those who like that saying "it's the best way to do it" or, even worse, "it's how it's supposed to be". That's it, like in my food example, also in 40k there's no better way to do it, because better is a subjective term.
And just to be perfectly clear, for me and my group a rule that grants VPs for painted armies never existed .
To be clear, I am referring to Ketchup Chips - potato chips. I am not talking about french fries (or just fries) which English speakers on the other side of the Atlantic do indeed call chips. Those folks would also say that chips are crisps. Over here we call fries chips when they are served with fish. So I will put ketchup on your crisps. And your pasta. And your Power Levels. But not on your painted miniatures - there is a line that must not be crossed.
Anyone who likes internal point efficiency differences should love PL since it is riddled with such errors. (...) The difference between two 100 PL lists can be larger than the difference between two 2000 pt lists.
I would like to go back to example brought up earlier in this thread - 7th ed War Convo, SM Company, vs Eldar, vs Tyranids. Despite all those free points, both WarConvo and SM company were perfectly beatable by the most efficient Eldar lists, and yet I was able to construct numerous Eldar lists that were equal match for the bottom tier Tyranid codex. So please, don't perpetuate the myth, that somehow nominally 2000pts lists are effectively worth 2000pts. The spread of Eldar builds in the above example was easily 1000pts. And no, it doesn't apply to 7th ed only - this has always been the case, that is why you always have top-mid-low-thrash tier codices AND bad and good lists within a single codex.
And again - internal point efficiency differences is the key element that drives "listbuilding as a skill" demanded mostly by competitive players and it doesn't matter, if you look on unit by unit basis of nominal cost or list by list overall efficiency (where the list with proper synergies will always be worth more effective points than basically the same list without said synnergies). "Listbuilding as a skill" simply cannot exist otherwise.
Any sufficiently imbalanced game requires homebrew to be fun and effective, homebrew requires engagement and knowledge.
Very true, and this is exactly how 40k was, is and forever will be if you step outside of min-max domain of competitive meta. It actually baffles me, how you are able to defend "point driven balance" knowing this simple truth. I have stated this numerous times already - granularity of a 100-400 points is game size metrics that is precise and accurate enough for all practical purposes. Tell me, why should I obsess about a unit be priced at precisely 73 pts instead of 70 or 75, when in real life the effective, contextual point value of such unit can swing by +/- 50%, depending on matchup, scenario and terrain? In a game, where first turn advantage can easily exceed 50%?
I have played more than 200 games of 7th ed using our scenario balancing methods, and after first few dozens of "calibration" games, we were able to ensure closely balanced game experience in nearly all of the rest of them, using anything and everything, including FW, for total of 6 factions. In an edition deemed utterly broken and imbalanced.
The most interesting aspect here is that I use some of the same "point efficiency calculation and optimisation" methods as competitive players do. The only difference is that I utilise those towards list cross-balance at any list power levels instead of only min-maxing lists to squeeze the most from internal point efficiency discrepancies. And yet, most of competitive players do not understand or accept, that this is even possible.
Anyone who likes internal point efficiency differences should love PL since it is riddled with such errors. (...) The difference between two 100 PL lists can be larger than the difference between two 2000 pt lists.
I would like to go back to example brought up earlier in this thread - 7th ed War Convo, SM Company, vs Eldar, vs Tyranids. Despite all those free points, both WarConvo and SM company were perfectly beatable by the most efficient Eldar lists, and yet I was able to construct numerous Eldar lists that were equal match for the bottom tier Tyranid codex. So please, don't perpetuate the myth, that somehow nominally 2000pts lists are effectively worth 2000pts. The spread of Eldar builds in the above example was easily 1000pts. And no, it doesn't apply to 7th ed only - this has always been the case, that is why you always have top-mid-low-thrash tier codices AND bad and good lists within a single codex.
And again - internal point efficiency differences is the key element that drives "listbuilding as a skill" demanded mostly by competitive players and it doesn't matter, if you look on unit by unit basis of nominal cost or list by list overall efficiency (where the list with proper synergies will always be worth more effective points than basically the same list without said synnergies). "Listbuilding as a skill" simply cannot exist otherwise.
Any sufficiently imbalanced game requires homebrew to be fun and effective, homebrew requires engagement and knowledge.
Very true, and this is exactly how 40k was, is and forever will be if you step outside of min-max domain of competitive meta. It actually baffles me, how you are able to defend "point driven balance" knowing this simple truth. I have stated this numerous times already - granularity of a 100-400 points is game size metrics that is precise and accurate enough for all practical purposes. Tell me, why should I obsess about a unit be priced at precisely 73 pts instead of 70 or 75, when in real life the effective, contextual point value of such unit can swing by +/- 50%, depending on matchup, scenario and terrain? In a game, where first turn advantage can easily exceed 50%?
I have played more than 200 games of 7th ed using our scenario balancing methods, and after first few dozens of "calibration" games, we were able to ensure closely balanced game experience in nearly all of the rest of them, using anything and everything, including FW, for total of 6 factions. In an edition deemed utterly broken and imbalanced.
The most interesting aspect here is that I use some of the same "point efficiency calculation and optimisation" methods as competitive players do. The only difference is that I utilise those towards list cross-balance at any list power levels instead of only min-maxing lists to squeeze the most from internal point efficiency discrepancies. And yet, most of competitive players do not understand or accept, that this is even possible.
I don't post here often... probably years since my last one, can't be bothered to check.
But would you please stop. This isn't the place for well intentioned and well reasoned debate as you present. Me and my group use dakkadakka as a little peek into what the scum and villainy of the hobby are crying about today... and this thread has been giving us a lot of laughs along it's journey.
Please don't ruin our fun with your "common sense" and "good intentions" ?
Also, much as I normally use points... if someone is just starting or we want a quick game and don't have time to crunch the numbers... I'm more than happy to play power level, both have their place.
Given the choice, I'd stick to 100% power level. Just need to fix a few of the units with too many options (deathwatch vets? Harlequin troupes?) so that the min-maxers calm the heck down, then its a nice easy and approachable system
...now can we get back to slinging insults at each other, please? I need some entertainment ?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So now thgis is about 10th ed primaris rumors. So far we have a Furioso Melta redemptor, Primaris Terminators, and JUMP PACK ASSAULT INTERCESSORS!!! Please god give me jump pack Primaris Librarians/Chaplains.
I hope they don't until we get jump chaos lords, warbosses on bikes, etc.
Anyone who likes internal point efficiency differences should love PL since it is riddled with such errors. (...) The difference between two 100 PL lists can be larger than the difference between two 2000 pt lists.
I would like to go back to example brought up earlier in this thread - 7th ed War Convo, SM Company, vs Eldar, vs Tyranids. Despite all those free points, both WarConvo and SM company were perfectly beatable by the most efficient Eldar lists, and yet I was able to construct numerous Eldar lists that were equal match for the bottom tier Tyranid codex. So please, don't perpetuate the myth, that somehow nominally 2000pts lists are effectively worth 2000pts. The spread of Eldar builds in the above example was easily 1000pts. And no, it doesn't apply to 7th ed only - this has always been the case, that is why you always have top-mid-low-thrash tier codices AND bad and good lists within a single codex.
And again - internal point efficiency differences is the key element that drives "listbuilding as a skill" demanded mostly by competitive players and it doesn't matter, if you look on unit by unit basis of nominal cost or list by list overall efficiency (where the list with proper synergies will always be worth more effective points than basically the same list without said synnergies). "Listbuilding as a skill" simply cannot exist otherwise.
I am not saying 2000 pts=2000 pts, I am saying the difference between 2000 pts and 2000 pts is smaller than 100 pl and 100 pl. I am also constantly gunning for GW when their pts are out of wack, because I think the game is better when pts more accurately describe the value of a unit or option.
...why should I obsess about a unit be priced at precisely 73 pts instead of 70 or 75...
Because a plasma pistol is better than a las pistol and a 6-man squad should not cost as much as a 10-man squad. Pts also aren't 70 or 75 pts, it's 60 or 80 pts, that's a big difference. How about a unit worth 30 pts? It is either going to be effectively 20 or 40. I am not saying pts will ever be perfect, in any given meta the plasma pistol or las pistol will be more pts-efficient, I am just asking for the plasma gun to cost more. Ideally, GW's cost fits pretty well with the average meta making both options reasonably viable, but my low bar is things that are clearly more powerful should cost some amount of extra points. I also agree that you can get overly nitpicky with pts, like Monoliths costing 381 pts, this is a silly value. The actual value of a Monolith was around 300, making that last 1 pt seem all the sillier.
You might scoff at me being unwilling to take my S+1 AP-3 D1 weapons just because the S+2 AP-4 D2 weapon is free but I am just not married enough to the hyperphase sword to be willing to accept inferior stats for no benefit.
vict0988 wrote: ...but my low bar is things that are clearly more powerful should cost some amount of extra points.
Oh, but I agree. I have never defended thosePLs as flawless. If you go through my posts, you'll see, that what I defend is low granularity point systems.
However, you and I clearly disagree on what "clearly more powerful" option threshold is. If in real game, not theoretical mathhammer calculations, a given choice has neglectable or minimal impact on the outcome of the game, then I don't consider it "a clearly more powerful" option, no matter if on paper it is 2 or 3x "more efficient". In 40k, with it's IGOUGO structure and level of lethality, only really considerable effective point differences between lists actually impact the result of the game more than Initiative roll does.
Anyone who likes internal point efficiency differences should love PL since it is riddled with such errors. (...) The difference between two 100 PL lists can be larger than the difference between two 2000 pt lists.
I would like to go back to example brought up earlier in this thread - 7th ed War Convo, SM Company, vs Eldar, vs Tyranids. Despite all those free points, both WarConvo and SM company were perfectly beatable by the most efficient Eldar lists, and yet I was able to construct numerous Eldar lists that were equal match for the bottom tier Tyranid codex. So please, don't perpetuate the myth, that somehow nominally 2000pts lists are effectively worth 2000pts. The spread of Eldar builds in the above example was easily 1000pts. And no, it doesn't apply to 7th ed only - this has always been the case, that is why you always have top-mid-low-thrash tier codices AND bad and good lists within a single codex.
And again - internal point efficiency differences is the key element that drives "listbuilding as a skill" demanded mostly by competitive players and it doesn't matter, if you look on unit by unit basis of nominal cost or list by list overall efficiency (where the list with proper synergies will always be worth more effective points than basically the same list without said synnergies). "Listbuilding as a skill" simply cannot exist otherwise.
Any sufficiently imbalanced game requires homebrew to be fun and effective, homebrew requires engagement and knowledge.
Very true, and this is exactly how 40k was, is and forever will be if you step outside of min-max domain of competitive meta. It actually baffles me, how you are able to defend "point driven balance" knowing this simple truth. I have stated this numerous times already - granularity of a 100-400 points is game size metrics that is precise and accurate enough for all practical purposes. Tell me, why should I obsess about a unit be priced at precisely 73 pts instead of 70 or 75, when in real life the effective, contextual point value of such unit can swing by +/- 50%, depending on matchup, scenario and terrain? In a game, where first turn advantage can easily exceed 50%?
I have played more than 200 games of 7th ed using our scenario balancing methods, and after first few dozens of "calibration" games, we were able to ensure closely balanced game experience in nearly all of the rest of them, using anything and everything, including FW, for total of 6 factions. In an edition deemed utterly broken and imbalanced.
The most interesting aspect here is that I use some of the same "point efficiency calculation and optimisation" methods as competitive players do. The only difference is that I utilise those towards list cross-balance at any list power levels instead of only min-maxing lists to squeeze the most from internal point efficiency discrepancies. And yet, most of competitive players do not understand or accept, that this is even possible.
I don't post here often... probably years since my last one, can't be bothered to check.
But would you please stop. This isn't the place for well intentioned and well reasoned debate as you present. Me and my group use dakkadakka as a little peek into what the scum and villainy of the hobby are crying about today... and this thread has been giving us a lot of laughs along it's journey.
Please don't ruin our fun with your "common sense" and "good intentions" ?
Also, much as I normally use points... if someone is just starting or we want a quick game and don't have time to crunch the numbers... I'm more than happy to play power level, both have their place.
Given the choice, I'd stick to 100% power level. Just need to fix a few of the units with too many options (deathwatch vets? Harlequin troupes?) so that the min-maxers calm the heck down, then its a nice easy and approachable system
...now can we get back to slinging insults at each other, please? I need some entertainment ?
If you look into my post history, then you'll see, that nowadays I really, really try to restrain myself. But I'm merely a deeply flawed human being. I'll try to do better
nou wrote: This is where you actually hit the proverbial nail in the head. I play in pseudo-historical narrative way, there is no such thing as limiting yourself to the most obvious, point efficient loadouts. Loadouts are dictated by theme and scenario. I can’t stress it enough - my group utilises any and all choices in our games. We don’t create lists from easily remembered, pre-constructed, optimal builds for each unit. Doing this with points is more time consuming and on top of that, due to the whole „listbuilding should be a skill” internal point efficiency differences between choices, building historicals style lists with points does not increase resulting balance. Competitive players who seek the most point efficient choices should perfectly understand, that 2000pts of efficient choices is not equal 2000pts of inefficient choices. That is very much by definition of point efficiency and what every competitive player actively utilises when building a list.
None of this is a defense for PL. If you don't remember "LRBTs always have demolisher cannons" or whatever then yes, it will take you some more time to go back and look at the options. But you're going to be doing that regardless of which point system you're using and time spent deciding which option is a best fit for the story has nothing to do with the point system.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackie wrote: No we don't have that in common. We don't care about painted/unpainted and have no problems playing with or against unpainted stuff, even whole grey plastic armies. Just like we don't care about conversions or base/models' sizes. As long as it's clear what is what everything is good . We do try to play fully painted armies and we certainly prefer to do that, but if a player gets new stuff he/she should be able to play it immediately, let alone if he/she gets a whole new army.
And rushed or too simple paint jobs just to be battle ready are worse to look at than grey plastic or primed models .
Gross. Have some standards.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote: However, you and I clearly disagree on what "clearly more powerful" option threshold is. If in real game, not theoretical mathhammer calculations, a given choice has neglectable or minimal impact on the outcome of the game, then I don't consider it "a clearly more powerful" option, no matter if on paper it is 2 or 3x "more efficient". In 40k, with it's IGOUGO structure and level of lethality, only really considerable effective point differences between lists actually impact the result of the game more than Initiative roll does.
Then why do you defend PL, a high-granularity system that cares about stuff that is too small to care about? Why do you care about +/-1 point in assigning costs? Why should my crisis suits have to pay +1 point for a mere pair of gun drones that will have negligible effect on the outcome of the game. Why even track all that stuff? Just make all point costs in increments of 5 to make the system even faster to use and avoid having to waste time trying to figure out how to spend those last few points when you're at 98/100 and no useful unit in your codex costs only 2 points.
Blackie has standards-they just aren't the same as yours.
Most people are capable of accepting that other people can value different things from themselves.
JNAProductions wrote: Blackie has standards-they just aren't the same as yours.
Most people are capable of accepting that other people can value different things from themselves.
mrspadge wrote: [
Please don't ruin our fun with your "common sense" and "good intentions" ?
After realising that CadianSgtBob was just intolerant of anybody playing the game anyway but theirs I put them on my ignore list. After that this thread has become significantly more boring, it's mostly quite reasonable people saying 'PL work in some (not all circumstances) and as long as it doesn't invalidate points what is the harm?' Or giving real world reasons why they and their groups use PL.
Tallonian4th wrote: After realising that CadianSgtBob was just intolerant of anybody playing the game anyway but theirs I put them on my ignore list. After that this thread has become significantly more boring, it's mostly quite reasonable people saying 'PL work in some (not all circumstances) and as long as it doesn't invalidate points what is the harm?' Or giving real world reasons why they and their groups use PL.
"Once I ignore everyone who disagrees with me I get lots of affirmation for my beliefs!"
The big problem with the game, and one that a PL system is perhaps trying to patch, is that way too many of the equipment options are just utter and complete garbage.
Seriously, in every codex there is a plethora of garbage items in every datasheet. For items to justify many of their current point costs there needs to be a fundamental change to the game that exceeds whatever we've seen in all the preceding editions. I have a bunch of special equip Space Marine Captains that will never see play unless I am playing super casual narrative, because their upgrade costs just don't warrant upgrading them.
Take for example plasma pistol. it needs to go to something like Pistol 2-3 to be worth 5 points on an infantry guardman because 5 points(if they did cost) for "one" shot that might do damage is just never going to cut it(which is probably why the Multi-Melta went to Heavy 2 and suddenly became usable). Hell, the old Plague Marine upgrades were lackluster at their point cost, even if they gave +1A when equipped. It's only now, that they are free, you will see Plague Marines and their melee weapons used.
Because all too often the upgrades often come at an extra cost of more bodies on the field. Again, with the old PM cost, you often would be served better by adding another body of Poxwalkers(or Plague Marines if you were in an adventurous mood) than getting an upgrade as the upgrade is a one dimensional upgrade whereas extra bodies serve more flexible purposes.
Now that I think about it the fundamental flaw of the system and why upgrades are rarely worth it is because there are too many steps where your shots might fail. First you need to hit, then you need to wound, and then your opponent needs to roll saves, who might also have some FnP system. When a weapon has to pass through so many Gates of Chance there is no wonder why upgrades are often not worth it. If GW would fundamentally change the system to have less Gates then it would probably be easier to justify weapon upgrades as their output becomes more straight forward.
Eldarsif wrote: Take for example plasma pistol. it needs to go to something like Pistol 2-3 to be worth 5 points on an infantry guardman because 5 points(if they did cost) for "one" shot that might do damage is just never going to cut it(which is probably why the Multi-Melta went to Heavy 2 and suddenly became usable).
The plasma pistol is actually a great example of systemic vs. single case errors. It is not a common pick but it's not that far off being viable. Consider a BS 3+ model like a veteran squad sergeant: a single shot plasma pistol is 5 points, a two-shot plasma gun is 10 points. Both of them have the same cost per shot and before power creep made 95% of the codex obsolete plasma spam was absolutely a viable strategy. The math changes a bit on regular infantry squads because GW made the weird decision to make BS 4+ plasma guns cost half the cost of a BS 3+ plasma gun despite doing 75% of the damage. But what that suggests is that the real value of a plasma pistol is 2-3 points and if GW set the price correctly you'd see them more often.
Contrast this with PL where the cost can never be correct. A plasma pistol is strictly better than a laspistol so if they're the same price there is no argument within the game rules for taking the laspistol. The plasma pistol is the correct strategy choice, the laspistol is only taken when you have some out-of-game narrative reason for deliberately equipping your unit with weaker weapons. The error in price is a systemic one that PL can not ever fix without no longer being PL. And it's an error that is repeated all over the game.
Now that I think about it the fundamental flaw of the system and why upgrades are rarely worth it is because there are too many steps where your shots might fail. First you need to hit, then you need to wound, and then your opponent needs to roll saves, who might also have some FnP system. When a weapon has to pass through so many Gates of Chance there is no wonder why upgrades are often not worth it. If GW would fundamentally change the system to have less Gates then it would probably be easier to justify weapon upgrades as their output becomes more straight forward.
This is a misunderstanding of statistics. Yes, there are "gates" but upgrades have easier gates to pass than basic equipment. You need to set aside the psychological factor of "my upgrade didn't work" and look at the statistics for the various options, and in many cases the upgrade is absolutely justified. And when it isn't it's because the point cost is too high for what you get, not because it has RNG gates to pass.
PenitentJake wrote: Your PL list took as long as it did because you factored load-out into the list, which in a PL game is unnecessary at the list building stage.
So much wrong in so few words.
First of all, no, that's not why it took that long. All of the equipment choices were incredibly obvious because that's what PL does. Why debate LRBT sponson options when, if they all cost the same zero points, multimeltas are the obvious correct answer? Why would you ever not take the free plasma pistol and power sword on every sergeant? Etc. I spent more time typing out the words than it took to pick which things to add.
It isn't a question of "Why would you ever..." The question isn't even asked. Whether or not the choices are obvious is irrelevant when you don't think about them. No matter how obvious they are, not thinking about them at all is faster than picking them because they're obvious. I literally build my list from the PL Update PDF on the Community site which first claimed didn't exist (wrong) and then claimed hadn't been updated for more than a year (wrong again). And if you'll notice, equipment isn't even in that PDF, because it doesn't need to be.
Second, no, it isn't unnecessary. Units go in a list for a reason and their equipment is part of that reason. For example, the command squad with plasma guns goes with the Hades drill (and is required to take the drill). Its whole purpose in the list is to deep strike and kill something with special weapons, and because of the 9" minimum range on deep strike that means 4x plasma guns. Any other equipment choice would contradict its role in the list.
Obviously, you want to know what a unit does when you add it too your list, and the load out that it can include will influence your decision about whether or not to include it. There are a few factors that influence why it's as easy as it is for me- I build small lists, and mostly for armies I've been playing since the 90's or aughts. Obviously, other people's experiences may differ from mine- a fact I've noted in most of my posts- including the one you've quoted. I do this because I'm not an arrogant prick who thinks that everyone else's experiences are the same as mine, or that everyone else's experiences should be the same as mine.
There is zero difference between taking five minutes in one single session and taking five minutes divided up into four minutes to write the list and one minute to pick the equipment. Ignoring equipment when you start putting a list together doesn't change the total time required to make the list, it just defers some of that time until later. The end result is still the same total amount of time spent.
Ahhh, but there is a difference- because with points, you literally CAN'T use the deferral method. If you tried, the value of your list would end up changing on game day, because the value of the list would change as you tweaked you load out. This is what I mean by a dissimilar experience - list construction day, assuming you have an adequate knowledge of what a given unit's role is, involves zero thought extended toward load out. The mustering an army day is mathless- the units have already been paid for, so you take what you want.
Fourth, who cares? Even if you increase the time savings to a whole two minutes who ****ing cares? It's still a choice between four minutes and six minutes out of a 3-4 hour game. You're nitpicking at a ridiculously minor detail and ignoring the broader point that there is no meaningful difference in time here.
Well, obviously, the people who like and use PL care, and there are more of us in this thread than there are who are advocating for PL's removal. when you add the people who don't like PL, but who also realize that since they don't have to use it, leaving it in the game has zero effect on them, you're even more outnumbered.
But even so, I still don't bother thinking about load-out at all when I'm doing the list building- I still leave until game day.
You're contradicting yourself here. You play Crusade which means fixed lists, how do you leave equipment choices to game day when they have to be written permanently into your order of battle and only changed at a high price? You might be willing to spend tons of RP changing things on game day but even then you still have to pick a default choice to start with, you can't leave it as "TBD" in your list.
I've created a spreadsheet unit card- I found that the published GW blanks don't have enough fields to contain all of the information I want to record, so I designed my own. On game day, I print enough blanks for me, and my opponent(s). I pick my load-out, my opponent picks theirs. Once we've picked, we eyeball both forces to see if anything should be swapped in or out- but usually both forces will be balanced enough that there isn't a lot of swapping necessary.
From there, we can play filling, out the unit cards as the game progresses when we have a spare moment or two in the action. We have to record agenda tallies while we play, so we're already writing on the cards anyway. We're all friends, and we can see the other players loadout on the models, so it doesn't have to by written down before we play.
At the end of the game, we'll do our post game book keeping, recording that on the cards too. Once that's done, we'll eventually fire up the computer and type all of the handwritten information into the digital spreadsheets. At that point, the unit is "Locked" - it's loadout can only be changed by battle honours or requisitions.
Next time we play, we don't print blank cards unless we're adding new units. You have to record any new information by hand on these printed cards, updating the spreadsheets after the post battle sequence again. And the process repeats.
Buy too much expensive gear and you don't get to bring as many dudes.
Why would you think that this is a good thing? If you brought a ton of expensive and powerful equipment for your dudes why should you have the same number of dudes as someone who brought their dudes with basic starting equipment only? Do you not think you should have to pay the fair price for your powerful gear? Or is your opponent expected to sacrifice their fun and replace everything in their own list with all the expensive stuff just so they aren't at a significant disadvantage?
This is the eyeballing part I referred to above, where we can swap models in or out to balance and obvious issues. Now after the first game, as mentioned above in both my post and yours, RAW the load-outs become locked. Because we're friends, we'll still swap heavies, specials and other upgrades for a fight if we need to, but we don't bother changing the cards, because it's a one-off balance fix for a particular game, rather than a permanent change to the Order of Battle.
But if you want to argue against having it removed then you need something more compelling than "I like it and I don't have to justify it".
But then you immediately feth it all up by saying this- not even noticing the contradiction between these two sentences, despite the fact you seem to accuse others of contradiction all the time.
Of course it's asked! You can't play a game with a unit that has "TBD" for weapons. At some point prior to starting the game you will have to finish creating the list by making those choices. And that time taken is still part of list construction because you don't have a finished list until it is done.
I literally build my list from the PL Update PDF on the Community site which first claimed didn't exist (wrong) and then claimed hadn't been updated for more than a year (wrong again).
You're right, I was wrong about it. I made the mistake of believing you when you praised the fact that the PL point lists don't change without looking it up myself to see if you were just making stuff up. I will concede that you were wrong in that claim and PL does get regular updates that invalidate your Crusade lists.
Ahhh, but there is a difference- because with points, you literally CAN'T use the deferral method.
Of course you can. I can write a list and then adjust it with a tiny amount of time on game day. Remember the entire process of creating a finished 2000 point list took six minutes. That's the absolute ceiling on how much it would take to adjust equipment on game day. More realistically you're talking about a difference of one minute vs. two minutes out of a 3-4 hour game.
And remember, if you're toning down a list for balance reasons it doesn't matter if you're short on points. If I show up to a game and decide that removing all of the plasma guns and lascannons from my infantry is the best way to tone down my list why do I care if the result is that I'm at 1950/2000 points? The entire goal here was to make my list weaker, why would I care that I'm not maximizing my available points? Hell, I've removed entire units from a list and just played at 1700 out of 2000 points or whatever. And you can't tell me that "ok, I'll delete the Manticores to make this fair" takes more than a few seconds.
Well, obviously, the people who like and use PL care
I don't think you genuinely care about saving a single minute in list construction. I think you care about PL as a symbol of a certain style of play and will cling to that single minute as "proof" that PL should exist. No reasonable person is going to even notice a difference of a single minute in a 3-4 hour game.
Next time we play, we don't print blank cards unless we're adding new units.
This is exactly the point. You save a single digit number of minutes in one game at the very start of your long Crusade campaign. And you probably don't even save that much time because your Crusade order of battle should be dictated by the concerns of the story as a whole, not by the whims of what happened in your first game. Your squad should be taking flamers instead of melta guns because it fits their story, a story you started writing before playing your first game, not because your first opponent happened to bring a weaker list and you wanted to tone yours down a bit by swapping melta for flamers.
And after the first game it becomes a complete non-issue. You've said in the past that adding a new unit to your order of battle is a major story event that requires multiple games to prepare for and then multiple games of incorporating the new unit into your force. So the single-digit minutes of time (at most) involved in deferring your choices until game day will only happen once every 3-5 games at most. So congratulations, you're arguing passionately for PL because it saves you a single minute of time out of 10-15 hours or more of gaming time. What an absolutely vital system for GW to maintain. /s
This is the eyeballing part I referred to above, where we can swap models in or out to balance and obvious issues. Now after the first game, as mentioned above in both my post and yours, RAW the load-outs become locked. Because we're friends, we'll still swap heavies, specials and other upgrades for a fight if we need to, but we don't bother changing the cards, because it's a one-off balance fix for a particular game, rather than a permanent change to the Order of Battle.
Like I said before, I find it hilarious that I have more commitment to story than you do. My units are built as units and I do not swap models unless absolutely necessary. I'll do it if I have to but I'm not going to be happy that third squad is using a random flamer pulled from a SWS instead of the grenade launcher model that is built and painted to be part of that unit. You, on the other hand, seem perfectly willing to break apart your units and substitute in random models if it suits your whim of the moment.
But then you immediately feth it all up by saying this- not even noticing the contradiction between these two sentences, despite the fact you seem to accuse others of contradiction all the time.
There's no contradiction at all. I don't care if you use PL while GW continues to make the mistake of allowing it to exist. I do care when you insist that GW should keep it and argue that it has any value besides "I like it".
I don't think IG should exist. What do they add to the setting, or the game? Daemons can do Infantry Horde, Tau can do military shooting tactics, a ton of factions can do tank-spam...
Who cares if some people like them? They add nothing to the game, far as I can see. Maybe they can get a mention as a truly NPC fodder faction, for other superhuman factions to mow down with ease, but that's all.
Not an actual position I hold-but an example of what CSB is doing when they say "Power Level doesn't deserve to exist." Maybe it'll get through to them.
JNAProductions wrote: I don't think IG should exist. What do they add to the setting, or the game? Daemons can do Infantry Horde, Tau can do military shooting tactics, a ton of factions can do tank-spam...
Who cares if some people like them? They add nothing to the game, far as I can see. Maybe they can get a mention as a truly NPC fodder faction, for other superhuman factions to mow down with ease, but that's all.
Not an actual position I hold-but an example of what CSB is doing when they say "Power Level doesn't deserve to exist." Maybe it'll get through to them.
Yes, because keeping an established faction with a large model range, entire novels dedicated to them, etc, is equivalent to keeping a redundant second point system so that some players can save one minute out of a 3-4 hour game. Do you stop to think at all before posting nonsense like this?
JNAProductions wrote: I don't think IG should exist. What do they add to the setting, or the game? Daemons can do Infantry Horde, Tau can do military shooting tactics, a ton of factions can do tank-spam...
Who cares if some people like them? They add nothing to the game, far as I can see. Maybe they can get a mention as a truly NPC fodder faction, for other superhuman factions to mow down with ease, but that's all.
Not an actual position I hold-but an example of what CSB is doing when they say "Power Level doesn't deserve to exist." Maybe it'll get through to them.
Yes, because keeping an established faction with a large model range, entire novels dedicated to them, etc, is equivalent to keeping a redundant second point system so that some players can save one minute out of a 3-4 hour game. Do you stop to think at all before posting nonsense like this?
When did 8th release? Five, six years ago now?
There are plenty of people who started 40k in that time period. Some of them stick to PL and modes of play other than Matched, because that's what they enjoy-and it's been with them since the very start of their 40k experience.
Of these players, how many do you think play IG? Because removing PL would affect them 100%, removing IG might very well not.
You've yet to have a compelling argument for why it should go-"I don't like it," isn't a reason to remove it entirely, it's just a reason to not play with it. "It makes the game worse," just straight up isn't true.
.
