Why I hope 9th edition uses PL only and no points

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.

**Wayniac**

Peregrine wrote:
Sounds like a pretty miserable time TBH, if something as basic as "I need 6s to wound this thing, that doesn't seem very effective so I'll shoot at this thing I wound on 2s instead" gets you a bad reputation. Why play a game at all if you get judged and shunned for understanding how the rules work and making intelligent strategic decisions?

No, the sort of thing that got you a bad reputation was "Only this unit is good in the codex, with this specific upgrade, so spam that and ignore the rest", it wasn't choices in game it was choices in what you brought and devolving everything into ignoring the staple units. This was the days just before the Dakka classic of "Mauleed Marines" came about, which was to my recollection one of the first times I ever saw that level of min/maxing in 40k.

**Grimtuff**

Peregrine wrote:
Sounds like a pretty miserable time TBH, if something as basic as "I need 6s to wound this thing, that doesn't seem very effective so I'll shoot at this thing I wound on 2s instead" gets you a bad reputation. Why play a game at all if you get judged and shunned for understanding how the rules work and making intelligent strategic decisions?

That's not what is being said and you know it. Want me to give you the correct end of the stick?

**Peregrine**

Wayniac wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Sounds like a pretty miserable time TBH, if something as basic as "I need 6s to wound this thing, that doesn't seem very effective so I'll shoot at this thing I wound on 2s instead" gets you a bad reputation. Why play a game at all if you get judged and shunned for understanding how the rules work and making intelligent strategic decisions?
No, the sort of thing that got you a bad reputation was "Only this unit is good in the codex, with this specific upgrade, so spam that and ignore the rest", it wasn't choices in game it was choices in what you brought and devolving everything into ignoring the staple units. This was the days just before the Dakka classic of "Mauleed Marines" came about, which was to my recollection one of the first times I ever saw that level of min/maxing in 40k.

But that's spamming, not "mathhammer". What people call "mathhammer" is just basic understanding of the rules and dice math.

**Grimtuff**

Peregrine wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Sounds like a pretty miserable time TBH, if something as basic as "I need 6s to wound this thing, that doesn't seem very effective so I'll shoot at this thing I wound on 2s instead" gets you a bad reputation. Why play a game at all if you get judged and shunned for understanding how the rules work and making intelligent strategic decisions?
No, the sort of thing that got you a bad reputation was "Only this unit is good in the codex, with this specific upgrade, so spam that and ignore the rest", it wasn't choices in game it was choices in what you brought and devolving everything into ignoring the staple units. This was the days just before the Dakka classic of "Mauleed Marines" came about, which was to my recollection one of the first times I ever saw that level of min/maxing in 40k.

But that's spamming, not "mathhammer". What people call "mathhammer" is just basic understanding of the rules and dice math.

Nope. Wrong again. Those are tactics and strategy.

Mathhammer is squeezing every last little bit of efficiency out of something regardless of if there are more thematic or appropriate choices and everyone else is some kind of individual with a railroad spike rammed through their head for even suggesting to take the "lesser" choice.

**Peregrine**

Grimtuff wrote:
Nope. Wrong again. Those are tactics and strategy.

Mathhammer is squeezing every last little bit of efficiency out of something regardless of if there are more thematic or appropriate choices and everyone else is some kind of individual with a railroad spike rammed through their head for even suggesting to take the "lesser" choice.

It really isn't. Over and over again I've seen "mathhammer" used to describe any evaluation of dice math, not just this supposed "math at all costs" approach. For example, "here's the mathhammer on a charge out of deep strike with a re-roll" as a guide to deciding if you should attempt it or not.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Grimtuff wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Sounds like a pretty miserable time TBH, if something as basic as "I need 6s to wound this thing, that doesn't seem very effective so I'll shoot at this thing I wound on 2s instead" gets you a bad reputation. Why play a game at all if you get judged and shunned for understanding how the rules work and making intelligent strategic decisions?
No, the sort of thing that got you a bad reputation was "Only this unit is good in the codex, with this specific upgrade, so spam that and ignore the rest", it wasn't choices in game it was choices in what you brought and devolving everything into ignoring the staple units. This was the days just before the Dakka classic of "Mauleed Marines" came about, which was to my recollection one of the first times I ever saw that level of min/maxing in 40k.

But that's spamming, not "mathhammer". What people call "mathhammer" is just basic understanding of the rules and dice math.

Nope. Wrong again. Those are tactics and strategy.

Mathhammer is squeezing every last little bit of efficiency out of something regardless of if there are more thematic or appropriate choices and everyone else is some kind of individual with a railroad spike rammed through their head for even suggesting to take the "lesser" choice.

Isn't that just min-maxing? I always thought mathhammer was just a tongue in cheek term used to refer to calculating probability.

**Wayniac**

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Grimtuff wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Sounds like a pretty miserable time TBH, if something as basic as "I need 6s to wound this thing, that doesn't seem very effective so I'll shoot at this thing I wound on 2s instead" gets you a bad reputation. Why play a game at all if you get judged and shunned for understanding how the rules work and making intelligent strategic decisions?
No, the sort of thing that got you a bad reputation was "Only this unit is good in the codex, with this specific upgrade, so spam that and ignore the rest", it wasn't choices in game it was choices in what you brought and devolving everything into ignoring the staple units. This was the days just before the Dakka classic of "Mauleed Marines" came about, which was to my recollection one of the first times I ever saw that level of min/maxing in 40k.

But that's spamming, not "mathhammer". What people call "mathhammer" is just basic understanding of the rules and dice math.

Nope. Wrong again. Those are tactics and strategy.

Mathhammer is squeezing every last little bit of efficiency out of something regardless of if there are more thematic or appropriate choices and everyone else is some kind of individual with a railroad spike rammed through their head for even suggesting to take the "lesser" choice.

Isn't that just min-maxing? I always thought mathhammer was just a tongue in cheek term used to refer to calculating probability.

I've always seen mathhammer specifically be used for the whole "Unit A is statistically better than this other, equivalent unit B. Therefore, there is no reason to ever take Unit B" sort of thing, when you turn everything into an exercise in probability. This gives you a 0.03% better chance of doing something over this other choice, basically yeah what Grimtuff said. Squeezing every little bit out of something, usually without ever actually using it and just using probability and statistics, and then state unequivocally how that choice is either superior to everything and should be spammed, or inferior and is only taken by losers/CAACers/insert term here.

Mathhammer is what enables the extreme min/maxing, basically by removing the "trial and error" or "test it out and see how it works" approach from the game.

**Martel732**

I sometimes attend events where everyone is "powergaming". Are they all waac tfgs?

Predictive disciplines such as probability exist to reduce trial and error.

**Luke_Prowler**

Mathhammer is a tool in which some people abuse without understanding other tools they have access to or over rely on in arguments since it's much harder to describe how something like effectiveness, force concentration, range, or movement makes something useful.

Subscribing it as something inherently bad is nonsense.

**Lance845**

Luke_Prowler wrote:
Mathhammer is a tool in which some people abuse without understanding other tools they have access to or over rely on in arguments since it's much harder to describe how something like effectiveness, force concentration, range, or movement makes something useful.

Subscribing it as something inherently bad is nonsense.

This is getting close to being comparable to the war on terrorism. A tactic. You might as well be upset that people are not lining up in firing lines on oposite sides of the battlefield.

Mathhammer is a lense to use to calculate effectivness. Just that. A way to look at it. Not the only way. Not a complete picture. Only a partial picture from one direction. Relying on it entirely is as dumb as disregarding it entirely.

**Grimtuff**

And once again it is quite apparent when certain people started this hobby. Both Wayne and I started playing in the mid and late nineties respectively and it is no coincidence that our experiences are the same here.

**Wayniac**

Grimtuff wrote:
And once again it is quite apparent when certain people started this hobby. Both Wayne and I started playing in the mid and late nineties respectively and it is no coincidence that our experiences are the same here.

Pretty much. I mean obviously you had some of that going on, but it wasn't nearly as prevalent as it is now. As I said, it was considered pretty crappy in my area to be the sort of person who picked stuff entirely to min/max rather than pick units that fit the background.

**Martel732**

Grimtuff wrote:
And once again it is quite apparent when certain people started this hobby. Both Wayne and I started playing in the mid and late nineties respectively and it is no coincidence that our experiences are the same here.

I startes in 93 and was tabled mercilessly my first few games by people who were better at the math.

Mathhammer goes back to 2nd ed easy.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Wayniac wrote:
Grimtuff wrote:
And once again it is quite apparent when certain people started this hobby. Both Wayne and I started playing in the mid and late nineties respectively and it is no coincidence that our experiences are the same here.

Pretty much. I mean obviously you had some of that going on, but it wasn't nearly as prevalent as it is now. As I said, it was considered pretty crappy in my area to be the sort of person who picked stuff entirely to min/max rather than pick units that fit the background.

If balance is so bad though that one person filling up all on a basic troop that is broken (5th Grey Hunters) compared to the other person filling up on a troop that is bad (Tactical Marines), how is that a better experience than the Vanilla Marine player just loading up on Scouts instead?

You can't act like the Mathhammer exists but the units are all next to each other somewhat in effectiveness. This is the same game where we got the 6th edition iteration of Rubric Marines.

**Melissia**

Grimtuff wrote:
There was and there wasn't though. It was there, but I remember a time when the whole concept was the sole domain of the powergamer

Your memory is faulty. Discussions of what was effective against what, and what was useful in what situations, were not uncommon or relegated to powergamers. Don't don the rose-tinted glasses and complain in a hoarse voice "things were so much better back in my time". You're not that old yet.

**Grimtuff**

Melissia wrote:
Grimtuff wrote:
There was and there wasn't though. It was there, but I remember a time when the whole concept was the sole domain of the powergamer
Your memory is faulty. Discussions of what was effective against what, and what was useful in what situations, were not uncommon or relegated to powergamers. Don't don the rose-tinted glasses and complain in a hoarse voice "things were so much better back in my time". You're not that old yet.

It's really not. Maybe the GW store I started this hobby in was full of "too cool for school" types (more than likely so, once I was asked if I was still a virgin by one of the members of staff there after geeking out over something, but I digress...) and having an kind of in depth tactical discussion beyond the norm and really getting into crunching numbers would get you an eye roll at best and berated at worst. There is a reason things like Munchkin exist, it was satirize this type of approach to the game.

I am NOT saying "tHiNgS wErE bEtTeR bAcK wHeN" because they really were not (see above. feth you Neil) but at some point there was a paradigm shift where you had to take only the best units all the time every time and you were a braindead bozo if you did not. You see it all the time on here, practically everyone assumes you are playing matched play at a tournament. Nothing else.

**Slipspace**

I've been playing since the mid 90s and my experiences are very different to Grimtuff's and Wayniac's. Mathhammer has been a thing for as long as I've been playing, in the sense of people figuring out the probability of certain actions being successful or calculating which units/options were better than others. I don't think there was much of a stigma against it where I played and we still had plenty of fluffy armies alongside some powergaming ones too. It seems like some people's definition of mathhammer is "WAAC powergamer who uses lots of maths" but I would simplify that to "WAAC powergamer". Mathhammer is a tool, not an attitude.

**auticus**

Largely because of the association. WAAC powergamer typically uses math to distill the game down to 5% of the units seen, so therefore all people that use math in the game are WAAC powergamer.

Because thats how people roll.

**SemperMortis**

That is a hard no from me. As a fellow Ork player I'll explain why the PL system is garbage from the very beginning. Lets take 2 common units that are roughly comparable. A mob of boyz and a squad of space Marines. 10 boyz is 4PL and 5 Marines is 5PL. Those 10 boyz cost 70pts, give them max upgrades, like dual Saws on the Nob and a Rokkit and you can get them to 112 pts. 30 of which is a single nob with dual saws. The Space Marines on the other hand are 65pts base and with ridiculous upgrades you can get them to 129...so that sounds about right because the boyz are 1PL lower right? Nope. For starters, that Rokkit is borderline useless in a mob of 10 orkz, the Nob is ridiculously equipped and serves little purpose, even if he gets into CC since he is still just a regular nob, 30pts gets you 4 attacks at WS4+ for 2 hits, so slghtly less then 2 dead Marines on average. The reality is that these upgrades are mostly wasted and are either nice to have but not really worth paying for OR they are just flat out worse. In the case of the Space Marine tactical squad. Those 5 Marines MAX at the 129, but realistically they are more efficient/better at closer to 113pts. For that they get a Lascannon and a Sergeant with a Thunder Hammer AND a stormbolter, or for like 6pts more he can have a Combi Flamer

The gist of this is that for some units PL is WAY better because of the options they have available, for others its actually detrimental because they lack any worthwhile options at all.

**Grimtuff**

Slipspace wrote:
I've been playing since the mid 90s and my experiences are very different to Grimtuff's and Wayniac's. Mathhammer has been a thing for as long as I've been playing, in the sense of people figuring out the probability of certain actions being successful or calculating which units/options were better than others. I don't think there was much of a stigma against it where I played and we still had plenty of fluffy armies alongside some powergaming ones too. It seems like some people's definition of mathhammer is "WAAC powergamer who uses lots of maths" but I would simplify that to "WAAC powergamer". Mathhammer is a tool, not an attitude.

Heh, the Venn diagram crosses over a lot there. I have yet to meet a hardcore mathhammerer (in any game, WMH especially) that is not an utter chore to play against.

**Melissia**

Grimtuff wrote:
but at some point there was a paradigm shift where you had to take only the best units all the time every time

I disagree. Almost every match I have these days are just fun matches where people bring only slightly optimized lists. Most people who want to do superdupercompetitive plays go to tournaments. And I also disagree that it was at all like that back then. In 2nd edition, the game was horrendously broken and anyone who wanted to could ruin the game easily. There were obviously better choices, obviously more powerful choices, that many people took not because of lore or fun, but so they could get that kick of having won. Just like you're saying happened today.

If anything I feel with the influx of new players, there's a lot less tendency for any particular player I run in to any given day to be TFG.

**Martel732**

Grimtuff wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
I've been playing since the mid 90s and my experiences are very different to Grimtuff's and Wayniac's. Mathhammer has been a thing for as long as I've been playing, in the sense of people figuring out the probability of certain actions being successful or calculating which units/options were better than others. I don't think there was much of a stigma against it where I played and we still had plenty of fluffy armies alongside some powergaming ones too. It seems like some people's definition of mathhammer is "WAAC powergamer who uses lots of maths" but I would simplify that to "WAAC powergamer". Mathhammer is a tool, not an attitude.

Heh, the Venn diagram crosses over a lot there. I have yet to meet a hardcore mathhammerer (in any game, WMH especially) that is not an utter chore to play against.

My least fun games are usually vs CAACs.

**Melissia**

Stop trying to force that acronym, Martel.

**Lance845**

What is it supposed to stand for?

**G00fySmiley**

SemperMortis wrote:
That is a hard no from me. As a fellow Ork player I'll explain why the PL system is garbage from the very beginning. Lets take 2 common units that are roughly comparable. A mob of boyz and a squad of space Marines. 10 boyz is 4PL and 5 Marines is 5PL. Those 10 boyz cost 70pts, give them max upgrades, like dual Saws on the Nob and a Rokkit and you can get them to 112 pts. 30 of which is a single nob with dual saws. The Space Marines on the other hand are 65pts base and with ridiculous upgrades you can get them to 129...so that sounds about right because the boyz are 1PL lower right? Nope. For starters, that Rokkit is borderline useless in a mob of 10 orkz, the Nob is ridiculously equipped and serves little purpose, even if he gets into CC since he is still just a regular nob, 30pts gets you 4 attacks at WS4+ for 2 hits, so slghtly less then 2 dead Marines on average. The reality is that these upgrades are mostly wasted and are either nice to have but not really worth paying for OR they are just flat out worse. In the case of the Space Marine tactical squad. Those 5 Marines MAX at the 129, but realistically they are more efficient/better at closer to 113pts. For that they get a Lascannon and a Sergeant with a Thunder Hammer AND a stormbolter, or for like 6pts more he can have a Combi Flamer

The gist of this is that for some units PL is WAY better because of the options they have available, for others its actually detrimental because they lack any worthwhile options at all.

eh i mean space marines are not a good comparison as tac squads and most of thier weapons are pretty overpriced. you will not see tac marines with lascannons in any top tournament list for a reason.

the second part of pure PL though would be balancing weaposn so there are not auto takes. instead of having that lascannon be str 9 ap-4 D d6 make it str 9 ap-3 D3 making it the better tank gun but less swingy and such

**Bharring**

Lance845 wrote:
What is it supposed to stand for?

"Casual At All Costs"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grimtuff wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
I've been playing since the mid 90s and my experiences are very different to Grimtuff's and Wayniac's. Mathhammer has been a thing for as long as I've been playing, in the sense of people figuring out the probability of certain actions being successful or calculating which units/options were better than others. I don't think there was much of a stigma against it where I played and we still had plenty of fluffy armies alongside some powergaming ones too. It seems like some people's definition of mathhammer is "WAAC powergamer who uses lots of maths" but I would simplify that to "WAAC powergamer". Mathhammer is a tool, not an attitude.

Heh, the Venn diagram crosses over a lot there. I have yet to meet a hardcore mathhammerer (in any game, WMH especially) that is not an utter chore to play against.

This may be selection bias. You're more likely to consider someone a "hardcore mathhammerer" if they aren't as into other aspects of the hobby.

There are plenty of people who "get" the math, but aren't "powergamers". But they're much less likely to be telling you why your choice to use Tac Marines or Dire Avengers was bad, you're dumb for not seeing the numbers, and you should feel bad for being dumb. So they don't come across as "hardcore mathhammerers".

It's really just a subset of the TFG problem.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Grimtuff wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
I've been playing since the mid 90s and my experiences are very different to Grimtuff's and Wayniac's. Mathhammer has been a thing for as long as I've been playing, in the sense of people figuring out the probability of certain actions being successful or calculating which units/options were better than others. I don't think there was much of a stigma against it where I played and we still had plenty of fluffy armies alongside some powergaming ones too. It seems like some people's definition of mathhammer is "WAAC powergamer who uses lots of maths" but I would simplify that to "WAAC powergamer". Mathhammer is a tool, not an attitude.

Heh, the Venn diagram crosses over a lot there. I have yet to meet a hardcore mathhammerer (in any game, WMH especially) that is not an utter chore to play against.

My least fun games are usually vs CAACs.

My least favorite games are usually against TFGs, regardless of their interests.

There are fun people I've played that enjoy more competitive games, and fun people I've played that enjoy more casual games. The primary difference between them and TFGs has been their attitude, not their goals.

**Wayniac**

Lance845 wrote:
What is it supposed to stand for?

Casual At All Cost. From a previous thread asking about it, this is what my answer was:

Technically, it's someone who is a "sore loser" and blames their opponent having a cheese list for everything, usually with the implication of moral superiority for playing a fluffy list. The opposite of WAAC, where instead of arguing dubious rules that border on cheating, they instead take the moral high ground by saying things like "Well you're playing a filthy list"

Too often though, it's used by a few angry people here (not naming names, but we all know who I mean) as a pejorative against anyone who feels that 40k/GW games, in general, aren't meant for cutthroat competitive play and you do not, in fact, have to always bring the best units possible to have fun. So just like you see WAAC thrown around to mean anyone who plays competitively, even if they don't try to rules lawyer dubiously worded rules, you see CAAC thrown around to indicate anyone who doesn't always build the best list they can but actually cares about the background, lore, and tone of the game beyond treating it as a competitive e-sport in every game, tournament or not.

CAAC is basically David Sirlin's definition of the "scrub": Someone who adds their own moral code/restrictions to the game, that they expect everyone to adhere to, and then cry foul when they encounter someone who doesn't. An example might be someone who thinks that under 3000 points you shouldn't field any superheavies. No such restriction exists in the game. So this hypothetical person will pitch a fit and cry cheese if they fight a superheavy below 3000 points, even though THEY were the one who added that arbitrary rule to how the game "should" be.

Here it's used in that second paragraph; Peregrine and others use it to refer to someone who dislikes comp play and argues why comp play and min/maxing everything is bad, and it gets used to disparage anyone who doesn't think you should always be min/maxing your lists.

**Martel732**

More than one CAAC has complained about tricornering, which is the only real way to make BA assault elements survivable.

**Bharring**

That's like saying more than one WAAC has taken Gman to a tournament.

Some people feel some tactics - like tricornering - are too "gamey" and feel off. What's wrong with complaining about something you didn't like?

That's just "Casual at reasonable cost".

**Peregrine**

A casual player is someone who invests very little in the game. They don't play much, they don't buy large collections, they don't bother to learn tactics, they don't participate in game forums, etc. The game just isn't important to them.

A CAAC player is the person screaming BE MORE CASUAL BEER AND PRETZELS!!!! at everyone. They have their unwritten rules about how the game is "meant to be played" (many of then involving "WAAC cheese" or their personal headcanon about fluff) and you are expected to follow all of them. Only they know what fun is, anyone who enjoys something they don't like is "not playing for fun". And god help you if you beat them too often or put more effort into winning than they do. Unlike real casual players they care a lot about the game, and "casual" is just smug narcissism about how nobody else is having fun the right way.