Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2022/07/06 20:00:04
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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 actual correct answer.
To many unpainted models to count.
2022/07/06 20:08:35
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/07/06 21:27:17
THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD!
2022/07/06 21:50:14
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
2022/07/07 00:29:20
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
They/them
2022/07/07 03:57:43
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/07 04:00:37
THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD!
2022/07/07 05:30:31
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
2022/07/07 06:16:12
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/07 06:17:23
2022/07/07 06:18:33
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD!
2022/07/07 06:18:44
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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'.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/07/07 06:20:41
greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy
"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are"
2022/07/07 06:24:35
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/07 06:25:48
THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD!
2022/07/07 06:43:06
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
Are free models good, yes or no?
2022/07/07 06:52:42
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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 .
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/07 06:58:48
2022/07/07 07:01:32
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/07 07:02:22
THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD!
2022/07/07 07:03:16
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
2022/07/07 07:04:58
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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?
2022/07/07 07:16:58
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy
"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are"
2022/07/07 07:23:44
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD!
2022/07/07 08:33:36
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
2022/07/07 09:04:32
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
2022/07/07 09:23:26
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/07 09:27:30
2022/07/07 09:44:29
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/07 12:09:39
greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy
"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are"
2022/07/07 10:32:21
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2022/07/07 13:20:27
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
2022/07/07 15:05:32
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
To many unpainted models to count.
2022/07/07 16:32:47
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
2022/07/07 16:46:56
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you 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.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
2022/07/07 17:03:38
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you 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.
. 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.
