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.
2022/07/07 17:16:25
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.
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.
To many unpainted models to count.
2022/07/07 17:58:36
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you 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.
2022/07/07 18:49:09
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you 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.
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.
To many unpainted models to count.
2022/07/07 18:55:36
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you 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.
2022/07/07 19:02:07
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.
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/07 19:03:12
They/them
2022/07/07 19:15:34
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you 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.
2022/07/07 19:30:39
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you 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.
To many unpainted models to count.
2022/07/07 19:30:45
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.
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?
2022/07/07 19:48:31
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?
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.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/07/07 20:01:16
THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD!
2022/07/07 20:08:04
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.
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?
Did we have PL then? Yes or no? Or was it points?
2022/07/07 20:11:51
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
Evidently, you do. Evidently, I don't.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/07/07 20:19:21
They/them
2022/07/07 20:27:37
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/07 20:37:56
THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD!
2022/07/07 21:10:08
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.
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.
2022/07/07 21:13:12
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.
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/07 21:22:35
2022/07/07 21:24:59
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.
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.
2022/07/07 21:31:17
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
213PL 60PL 12PL 9-17PL (she/her)
2022/07/07 21:32:20
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.
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.
2022/07/07 21:33:20
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
2022/07/07 23:36:58
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/07/07 23:39:09
THE PLANET BROKE BEFORE THE GUARD!
2022/07/08 00:00:34
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.
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/07/08 00:41:26
2022/07/08 00:46:29
Subject: If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play?
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.
60PL 
12PL 
