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.

Everyone posting in this thread needs to chill out and stop with the personal attacks. People are actually allowed to like playing the game however they choose, unless you are playing them it does not impact you in any way. Any further rudeness here will be met with an orbital bombardment.

 insaniak wrote:
And for that PL are just fine, because if their list doesn't work, they have more freedom to swap options around without having to rework their entire list.

Having the opportunity to break apart models because you assembled them wrong and your army sucks as a result is not really a great selling point for PL.

Nor is having to rearrange your list because you can't just swap out a unit and drop a piece of wargear elsewhere. That's where PL completely falls down as an ease-of-use option for me. I don't enjoy list tetris; frankly I find it obnoxious and often gets in the way of trying to build a fluffy, thematic, or just vaguely competent list.

 insaniak wrote:
Honestly, the rest of your post is still thoroughly steeped in a preconception of how 'everyone' plays the game. I regularly played against a guy some years ago who always used the exact same army, and always used the exact same strategy, and almost always lost. I've seen players who just ignored points entirely, put whatever they happened to own on the table and played until one side is all dead, or they get bored or run out of time. I've played in gaming groups where we built lists specifically intended to stomp each other, and others where we deliberately built lists to be silly, or based around a narrative, or just to find out how a given combo would work against another army. For myself, even in my fairly brief stint playing in tournies, winning has rarely specifically been the objective, and some of the most entertaining games I've played have been ones where I lost horribly.

There are a lot of players out there for whom how powerful their list is, is a minimal factor in how they enjoy the game.

Yes, there absolutely are, and despite your repeated implication that I'm some sort of competitive player who just doesn't 'get it', I do in fact understand casual play as that's really all I do.

But you just illustrated:

-A guy who will calculate the points cost for his army once and then never again, so the advantages of PL are irrelevant.
-People who are ignoring the listbuilding limitations entirely and just plunking stuff down, so whether the rules support points or PL doesn't matter.
-Min-maxers who will look for the most powerful builds regardless of PL or points.
-People who are building silly, narrative, or experimental lists and can knock them out in minutes with a listbuilding app regardless of the structuring mechanism, since optimizing down to the last point isn't their goal.

You've just laid out a bunch of use cases for people who can do fine with either listbuilding system and don't actually benefit from PL.

For all the players who play competitively, play casually but want a fair game, play casually and don't want an optimization arms race with their friends, are new to the game and don't know whether they're assembling a cheesy min-maxed list or a brokenly weak one, they're all better off with points.

The demographic that PL benefits is the subset of players who don't really care about winning or losing, yet simultaneously care enough about balance that they aren't comfortable just putting models on the table and eyeballing it, but don't care enough about balance to use a more effective (if slightly more complicated) system, and aren't willing to use an app to automate away the elementary school level arithmetic required. I know that demographic exists. I contend that it is an awful lot smaller than the demographics who benefit from a less gakky balancing mechanism, even strictly among casual players.

 catbarf wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
And for that PL are just fine, because if their list doesn't work, they have more freedom to swap options around without having to rework their entire list.

Having the opportunity to break apart models because you assembled them wrong and your army sucks as a result is not really a great selling point for PL.

Why is this "not really a great selling point for PL" but fine for points?

Nor is having to rearrange your list because you can't just swap out a unit and drop a piece of wargear elsewhere. That's where PL completely falls down as an ease-of-use option for me. I don't enjoy list tetris; frankly I find it obnoxious and often gets in the way of trying to build a fluffy, thematic, or just vaguely competent list.

Funny, that's exactly why I liked PL. I hated having to go swap out grenades or small random crap like that because someone wants to do some weird points value.

Removed.

Andykp wrote:
3. Liking power levels is the same as alcoholism. (That ones a belter by the way and no way insulting to anyone who has alcohol issues or suffered because of loved ones who do)

I said no such thing, please do not take statements out of context like that. The comment about alcoholism is specifically a response to insaniak's mistaken assertion that in English "I do not think this is a problem" and "I do not have a problem" are by definition the same thing. It is deliberately an extreme example, one where we can all agree that the person saying "this isn't a problem" does in fact have a problem and therefore prove insaniak's "rule" wrong. It is not relevant to any other part of this discussion.

4. Painting owl still cannot understand that anyone else might like something they don’t.

As I have said multiple times: there is a difference between "how can you like X" and "if you like X then here's a better way of accomplishing that goal". If you say "I like tea" and I offer you a 50% off coupon for your favorite tea shop that is not an example of failing to understand how you could like something I don't like.

And if we are really playing the game wrong and having so much less fun than everyone (this is your assumption not mine) then why have GW decided that everyone should use a similar system this edition?

Most likely because someone at GW has an ego problem. They wanted PL to be the only system at the start of 8th, with the standard points clearly being phased out in favor of PL. GW saw the backlash over PL and, rather than admitting that it's a bad system that the majority of the players didn't want, started pushing the game in the direction of PL with more and more factions getting free upgrades until 10th made PL the only system.

Or maybe it’s just a ploy to get remove barriers to entry like we have said all along.

That would require that a few seconds of extra math is a meaningful barrier to entry, especially when GW is also pushing an app that does all the math for you. Combat patrol is an effort to remove barriers to entry. A system like "take X units" would be removing barriers to entry. PL is a system with 95% of the complexity and difficulty of the normal point system and does next to nothing to reduce the barriers to entry. A new player who can understand the concepts of building a list with PL can easily take the tiny additional step of applying the concept of spending points to purchase units to spending points to upgrade those units.

And let's not forget the posts by someone (I forget who at this point) talking about their experiences getting people into games. X-Wing, a game with a point system that worked until very recently exactly like the traditional point system in 40k, had a 5x better retention rate than 40k. If using a standard point system was a meaningful barrier to entry then X-Wing would also struggle with player retention.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Why is this "not really a great selling point for PL" but fine for points?

Because in the standard point system more options are viable and when options are sub-optimal they're less likely to be significantly sub-optimal. In the standard point system if you built your sergeant with a plasma pistol it wasn't usually the best choice but at least you were only paying 5 points for 3 points of value and there were cases where the plasma pistol was a good choice (like spending the last 5 points in your list). In PL there are far more situations where a choice is clearly wrong and has no redeeming aspects. If you take a laspistol instead of a plasma pistol you are simply wrong. Your model is built wrong and there is no conceivable situation where the laspistol is correct. You either tear apart the model and build it correctly or you take a clear loss of value every time you put that model on the table.

Hecaton wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Why is this "not really a great selling point for PL" but fine for points?

First if all, points does other things better so it's a net win. Second of all, points can actually accommodate for different loadouts on the same unit being viable with different points costs.

Right, that's why we saw such a breadth of lists that nobody could realistically predict what someone might bring simply based on the faction used!

 Kanluwen wrote:
Right, that's why we saw such a breadth of lists that nobody could realistically predict what someone might bring simply based on the faction used!

IOW, the worst-case scenario for the traditional point system's failure is that it matches the best-case scenario for PL.

 Kanluwen wrote:


Right, that's why we saw such a breadth of lists that nobody could realistically predict what someone might bring simply based on the faction used!

And you saw more under PL?

Hecaton wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


Right, that's why we saw such a breadth of lists that nobody could realistically predict what someone might bring simply based on the faction used!

And you saw more under PL?

Yeah. Didn't you?

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yeah. Didn't you?

Did you see more diversity because PL encouraged it, or because the only people using PL were the ones who didn't care about list optimization and take a bunch of random stuff no matter what point system they use?

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yeah. Didn't you?

Did you see more diversity because PL encouraged it, or because the only people using PL were the ones who didn't care about list optimization and take a bunch of random stuff no matter what point system they use?

It's so weird that you are so laserfocused on "list optimization" while seemingly forgetting that can simply be replaced by "netlisting".
Writing lists is a joke. Writing good lists is even simpler...yet I cannot overexaggerate how often I see people running a list that's just a copy/paste of a tournament list. They might as well start linking them as webstore bundles.

You saw more diversity for the simple fact that "optimization" isn't really compatible with "fun".

 Kanluwen wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


Right, that's why we saw such a breadth of lists that nobody could realistically predict what someone might bring simply based on the faction used!

And you saw more under PL?

Yeah. Didn't you?

No. I saw more under points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
[
You saw more diversity for the simple fact that "optimization" isn't really compatible with "fun".

No, it is. Most people find achieving system mastery to be fun. You're the weird minority exception if you don't.

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's so weird that you are so laserfocused on "list optimization" while seemingly forgetting that can simply be replaced by "netlisting".
Writing lists is a joke. Writing good lists is even simpler...yet I cannot overexaggerate how often I see people running a list that's just a copy/paste of a tournament list. They might as well start linking them as webstore bundles.

What does that have to do with PL vs. traditional points? It's not like PL having obvious choices like "should I take a free hunter-killer missile on my tank" makes "netlisting" go away.

You saw more diversity for the simple fact that "optimization" isn't really compatible with "fun".

Just quoting this before you edit it, so next time the "people who dislike PL are telling us we're having fun the wrong way" argument comes up I can point to you defending PL by explicitly saying that people who enjoy list optimization aren't having fun the right way.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's so weird that you are so laserfocused on "list optimization" while seemingly forgetting that can simply be replaced by "netlisting".
Writing lists is a joke. Writing good lists is even simpler...yet I cannot overexaggerate how often I see people running a list that's just a copy/paste of a tournament list. They might as well start linking them as webstore bundles.

What does that have to do with PL vs. traditional points? It's not like PL having obvious choices like "should I take a free hunter-killer missile on my tank" makes "netlisting" go away.

And this argument alone disqualifies you from being taken seriously going forward.

Because really, you're trying to say that PL has "obvious choices" when points have literally been used as the metric for whether a unit is playable or not?!

You saw more diversity for the simple fact that "optimization" isn't really compatible with "fun".

Just quoting this before you edit it, so next time the "people who dislike PL are telling us we're having fun the wrong way" argument comes up I can point to you defending PL by explicitly saying that people who enjoy list optimization aren't having fun the right way.

If that's how you chose to interpret the statement you sliced to ribbons, that's fine.

You asked a leading question and got the soundbyte you wanted. Congratulations.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Because really, you're trying to say that PL has "obvious choices" when points have literally been used as the metric for whether a unit is playable or not?!

PL has that exact same problem plus additional problems like the free missiles or LRBT sponsons. Like I said, the worst-case failure for the traditional point system is the best-case outcome for PL.

You asked a leading question and got the soundbyte you wanted. Congratulations.

There was nothing leading at all about it. You could have said "some people don't enjoy list optimization and used PL". You made the voluntary choice to instead say "list optimization isn't really compatible with fun" as a blanket statement, doing exactly the thing PL advocates accuse us of doing.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Why is this "not really a great selling point for PL" but fine for points?

In a decent points system it is much rarer, because the outcome of taking something other than every upgrade you can is more 'at least you're saving some points' and less 'you built your unit wrong, dumbass, try again'.

The fact that you can rework the units that PL has failed to appropriately cost isn't an advantage for PL; it's an escape clause whose utility depends on how willing you are to either rebuild models or ignore WYSIWG. You can always do the same under points, it's just less necessary, since taking a less-kitted unit has some utility under points (saving cost) but no utility under PL at all.

Points haven't always done a fantastic job of making all options (or taking no options) equally viable, but they at least can do so, and have gotten reasonably close at times. PL doesn't even try.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Because really, you're trying to say that PL has "obvious choices" when points have literally been used as the metric for whether a unit is playable or not?!

PL has that exact same problem plus additional problems like the free missiles or LRBT sponsons. Like I said, the worst-case failure for the traditional point system is the best-case outcome for PL.

You asked a leading question and got the soundbyte you wanted. Congratulations.

There was nothing leading at all about it. You could have said "some people don't enjoy list optimization and used PL". You made the voluntary choice to instead say "list optimization isn't really compatible with fun" as a blanket statement, doing exactly the thing PL advocates accuse us of doing.

It’s very odd that you get so upset with people allegedly doing what you do all the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Why is this "not really a great selling point for PL" but fine for points?

In a decent points system it is much rarer, because the outcome of taking something other than every upgrade you can is more 'at least you're saving some points' and less 'you built your unit wrong, dumbass, try again'.

The fact that you can rework the units that PL has failed to appropriately cost isn't an advantage for PL; it's an escape clause whose utility depends on how willing you are to either rebuild models or ignore WYSIWG. You can always do the same under points, it's just less necessary, since taking a less-kitted unit has some utility under points (saving cost) but no utility under PL at all.

Points haven't always done a fantastic job of making all options (or taking no options) equally viable, but they at least can do so, and have gotten reasonably close at times. PL doesn't even try.

PL isn’t about taking viable or whatever options, it’s about taking what works for you. Be it because it’s cool, looks good, is a model you have always liked or because it’s an effective choice. Not all things are about utility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


Right, that's why we saw such a breadth of lists that nobody could realistically predict what someone might bring simply based on the faction used!

And you saw more under PL?

Yeah. Didn't you?

No. I saw more under points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
[
You saw more diversity for the simple fact that "optimization" isn't really compatible with "fun".

No, it is. Most people find achieving system mastery to be fun. You're the weird minority exception if you don't.

I’m forever hearing people getting excited about system mastery! Nothing weird about just wanting to have fun in your hobby, you will find most people don’t want to masters in their chosen hobbies, competent is more often enough. And if 40K is such a god awful unbalanced mess why would you want to try and master that?

Andykp wrote:
It’s very odd that you get so upset with people allegedly doing what you do all the time.

Kanluwen: "list optimization isn't really compatible with fun."

Me: "if X is what you find fun then here are some ways to accomplish that goal."

Not at all the same.

PL isn’t about taking viable or whatever options, it’s about taking what works for you. Be it because it’s cool, looks good, is a model you have always liked or because it’s an effective choice. Not all things are about utility.

But how exactly does PL enable that in ways that the traditional point system can't? I get that if you don't care about list optimization PL's flaws won't hurt you as much but that's not the same as PL being "about taking what works for you" or having any advantage in that scenario. In fact, PL is worse for that because it has far more cases where there is tension between "what looks cool/matches my lore/etc" and "what is obviously the correct choice from a rules point of view". The traditional point system encourages choices based on things other than list optimization by reducing the number of cases where you can gain win percentage by taking a specific overpowered option.

IOW, in the traditional point system you can arm your LRBTs with whatever sponson choice you want and it's probably at least a reasonably ok decision because the system tries to evaluate all options correctly. In PL if you don't take the sponsons you feel like an idiot for not making a choice the rules are telling you is de facto mandatory to take.

Andykp wrote:
PL isn’t about taking viable or whatever options, it’s about taking what works for you. Be it because it’s cool, looks good, is a model you have always liked or because it’s an effective choice. Not all things are about utility.

The purpose of a resource-based force-building system is to assign costs that reflect the relative utility of each unit or option, ensuring that competently-made lists of equal resource value will have comparable performance on the tabletop. If it doesn't do that, it's failing at its one job.

Frankly, the idea that a unit that sucks due to bad pricing is okay because maybe it 'works for you' is a total cop-out. If it's cool, looks good, or is a model you've always liked none of that matters one iota for its actual effectiveness on the tabletop, and the points/PL ought to reflect its actual value, not force you to choose between either the unit you like or the one that's actually worth the price.

Andykp wrote:

I’m forever hearing people getting excited about system mastery! Nothing weird about just wanting to have fun in your hobby, you will find most people don’t want to masters in their chosen hobbies, competent is more often enough. And if 40K is such a god awful unbalanced mess why would you want to try and master that?

Irrelevant to my point. People who want to be anti-competence and resolve everything through randomness are a vanishing minority.

It's a huge pity that 10th edition opted to use the PL system. In my area its been a large barrier for people wanting to play the game. The core rules arent too bad in our eyes, as far as GW rules go. But when it comes to building a list the army books fail massively. I personally have given up playing, i'd rather hold on the hope that as more army books are released they add some upgrades back in. But then you have the problem of waiting years for some factions if this even transpires.

Having 40 points left over and having to add something in you dont want or shuffle round entire units sucks. In my case, I can't opt to take multiple bare bones leman russ tanks instead of fewer more tricked out tanks. I'll have the same amount of tanks as my hypothetical Guard opponent but the number of guns pointed at each other can be vastly different. This problem is repeated across any unit with upgrades.

There is no good justification for this change in points system, I personally, as every one else realistically does, feels like I NEED to include all the upgrades or im playing with a handicap. This is not a subjective feeling but an objective one. If I wanted to play a story game with handicaps or extra rules it was easy in the past. Especially as you could use points to better quantify (even if imperfectly) what kind of imbalance you might be causing with the story. But under this new system it does nothing I can see to assist in this perceived casual playstyle (i'd argue story based games arent casual, but require effort and as a result you rarely see this kind of play in reality) but hinders everyone else in their ability to roughly trust that everyone has what they paid for.

Why does the group who want to have less constraints need to be told how to have less of those and also force the vast majority to navigate this inferior list building experience? Even if you liked PL surely the obvious answer is you can be part of the small compromise camp as it once was while the normal players can carry on? Instead it seems a fanatical contrarianism to defend the attempted assimilation is being displayed.

If GW announces that they are going back to the duality system in theory PL players wont care because they're so casual but points players will love it, so it seems a win win?

Swastakowey wrote:
It's a huge pity that 10th edition opted to use the PL system. In my area its been a large barrier for people wanting to play the game. The core rules arent too bad in our eyes, as far as GW rules go. But when it comes to building a list the army books fail massively. I personally have given up playing, i'd rather hold on the hope that as more army books are released they add some upgrades back in. But then you have the problem of waiting years for some factions if this even transpires.

Having 40 points left over and having to add something in you dont want or shuffle round entire units sucks. In my case, I can't opt to take multiple bare bones leman russ tanks instead of fewer more tricked out tanks. I'll have the same amount of tanks as my hypothetical Guard opponent but the number of guns pointed at each other can be vastly different. This problem is repeated across any unit with upgrades.

There is no good justification for this change in points system, I personally, as every one else realistically does, feels like I NEED to include all the upgrades or im playing with a handicap. This is not a subjective feeling but an objective one. If I wanted to play a story game with handicaps or extra rules it was easy in the past. Especially as you could use points to better quantify (even if imperfectly) what kind of imbalance you might be causing with the story. But under this new system it does nothing I can see to assist in this perceived casual playstyle (i'd argue story based games arent casual, but require effort and as a result you rarely see this kind of play in reality) but hinders everyone else in their ability to roughly trust that everyone has what they paid for.

Why does the group who want to have less constraints need to be told how to have less of those and also force the vast majority to navigate this inferior list building experience? Even if you liked PL surely the obvious answer is you can be part of the small compromise camp as it once was while the normal players can carry on? Instead it seems a fanatical contrarianism to defend the attempted assimilation is being displayed.

If GW announces that they are going back to the duality system in theory PL players wont care because they're so casual but points players will love it, so it seems a win win?

There a few things in here that jump out.

“ I personally, as every one else realistically does, feels like I NEED to include all the upgrades or im playing with a handicap.”

You feeling this way is fine, but to say that “realistically everyone” does implies I am lying when I and other are saying we do not feel this way. Just because you feel this way or even most people you know does not mean everyone does. Don’t fall into the same trap as the others and think your way is the only way.

“ This is not a subjective feeling but an objective one”

Errr, no it isn’t.

“ Why does the group who want to have less constraints need to be told how to have less of those and also force the vast majority to navigate this inferior list building experience.”

The only people forcing anyone to do anything is GW. The community did not make this change. In fact nearly all the pro PL side on here have said we think there should be the same system used in 8th and 9th where you had a choice, use the messy points system you all love that changes every few months or nice simple power levels. So WE aren’t forcing you to do anything.

“ be part of the small compromise camp as it once was while the normal players can carry on”

Normal players, oh dear it is too late you have already jumped into the preachy judgemental camp that believe their way is the only way and anyone doing anything else is ruining their fun.

Very poor choice of words if you were trying to be anything other than another voice on here complaining that we are playing the game wrong.

In answer to your whole post, you are angry at the wrong people. GW did this not the people on here who have said “I don’t mind it” or “I preferred how it was in 8th or 9th but I can live with this” (hardly fanatical devotion ). You will not find a single post on here saying that PL is amazing and everyone should use, but you will find plenty saying that points are the only way for the game to work properly.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:

Andykp wrote:

I’m forever hearing people getting excited about system mastery! Nothing weird about just wanting to have fun in your hobby, you will find most people don’t want to masters in their chosen hobbies, competent is more often enough. And if 40K is such a god awful unbalanced mess why would you want to try and master that?

Irrelevant to my point. People who want to be anti-competence and resolve everything through randomness are a vanishing minority.

Who said anything about “anti-competence”, oh, only you. I dont know why. I actually said “competent is enough”. So what is your point? That everyone want to master their hobby or that no one wants to be incompetent, that’s two different points.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

Andykp wrote:
PL isn’t about taking viable or whatever options, it’s about taking what works for you. Be it because it’s cool, looks good, is a model you have always liked or because it’s an effective choice. Not all things are about utility.

The purpose of a resource-based force-building system is to assign costs that reflect the relative utility of each unit or option, ensuring that competently-made lists of equal resource value will have comparable performance on the tabletop. If it doesn't do that, it's failing at its one job.

Frankly, the idea that a unit that sucks due to bad pricing is okay because maybe it 'works for you' is a total cop-out. If it's cool, looks good, or is a model you've always liked none of that matters one iota for its actual effectiveness on the tabletop, and the points/PL ought to reflect its actual value, not force you to choose between either the unit you like or the one that's actually worth the price.

And here is more evidence of those that hate PL missing the point of it.

Andykp wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:
It's a huge pity that 10th edition opted to use the PL system. In my area its been a large barrier for people wanting to play the game. The core rules arent too bad in our eyes, as far as GW rules go. But when it comes to building a list the army books fail massively. I personally have given up playing, i'd rather hold on the hope that as more army books are released they add some upgrades back in. But then you have the problem of waiting years for some factions if this even transpires.

Having 40 points left over and having to add something in you dont want or shuffle round entire units sucks. In my case, I can't opt to take multiple bare bones leman russ tanks instead of fewer more tricked out tanks. I'll have the same amount of tanks as my hypothetical Guard opponent but the number of guns pointed at each other can be vastly different. This problem is repeated across any unit with upgrades.

There is no good justification for this change in points system, I personally, as every one else realistically does, feels like I NEED to include all the upgrades or im playing with a handicap. This is not a subjective feeling but an objective one. If I wanted to play a story game with handicaps or extra rules it was easy in the past. Especially as you could use points to better quantify (even if imperfectly) what kind of imbalance you might be causing with the story. But under this new system it does nothing I can see to assist in this perceived casual playstyle (i'd argue story based games arent casual, but require effort and as a result you rarely see this kind of play in reality) but hinders everyone else in their ability to roughly trust that everyone has what they paid for.

Why does the group who want to have less constraints need to be told how to have less of those and also force the vast majority to navigate this inferior list building experience? Even if you liked PL surely the obvious answer is you can be part of the small compromise camp as it once was while the normal players can carry on? Instead it seems a fanatical contrarianism to defend the attempted assimilation is being displayed.

If GW announces that they are going back to the duality system in theory PL players wont care because they're so casual but points players will love it, so it seems a win win?

There a few things in here that jump out.

“ I personally, as every one else realistically does, feels like I NEED to include all the upgrades or im playing with a handicap.”

You feeling this way is fine, but to say that “realistically everyone” does implies I am lying when I and other are saying we do not feel this way. Just because you feel this way or even most people you know does not mean everyone does. Don’t fall into the same trap as the others and think your way is the only way.

“ This is not a subjective feeling but an objective one”

Errr, no it isn’t.

“ Why does the group who want to have less constraints need to be told how to have less of those and also force the vast majority to navigate this inferior list building experience.”

The only people forcing anyone to do anything is GW. The community did not make this change. In fact nearly all the pro PL side on here have said we think there should be the same system used in 8th and 9th where you had a choice, use the messy points system you all love that changes every few months or nice simple power levels. So WE aren’t forcing you to do anything.

“ be part of the small compromise camp as it once was while the normal players can carry on”

Normal players, oh dear it is too late you have already jumped into the preachy judgemental camp that believe their way is the only way and anyone doing anything else is ruining their fun.

Very poor choice of words if you were trying to be anything other than another voice on here complaining that we are playing the game wrong.

In answer to your whole post, you are angry at the wrong people. GW did this not the people on here who have said “I don’t mind it” or “I preferred how it was in 8th or 9th but I can live with this” (hardly fanatical devotion ). You will not find a single post on here saying that PL is amazing and everyone should use, but you will find plenty saying that points are the only way for the game to work properly.

You are abnormal though. It's OK to be abnormal. There's a reason points used to change and not pl, because changing pl would be a waste of time and effort considering pretty much nobody played it and no data would come from its use.

The feeling is objective because you literally are handicapping yourself. You can ignore that if you want but always could. The feeling of being burned from putting your hand in a fire is objective but you can still ignore it if you want.

I don't think my way is the only way but at least my (otherwise known as pretty much everyone's way) still let's you play your way.

Also under this inferior system the points will probably change too making this path of gw inferior to the old way for yourself as well?

It'll be interesting to see if this persists but I think we'll end up with units that have nearly no options if it does, being another loss for the game. Of course this would take many years to achieve by gw if they continue.

Andykp wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Andykp wrote:
PL isn’t about taking viable or whatever options, it’s about taking what works for you. Be it because it’s cool, looks good, is a model you have always liked or because it’s an effective choice. Not all things are about utility.

The purpose of a resource-based force-building system is to assign costs that reflect the relative utility of each unit or option, ensuring that competently-made lists of equal resource value will have comparable performance on the tabletop. If it doesn't do that, it's failing at its one job.

Frankly, the idea that a unit that sucks due to bad pricing is okay because maybe it 'works for you' is a total cop-out. If it's cool, looks good, or is a model you've always liked none of that matters one iota for its actual effectiveness on the tabletop, and the points/PL ought to reflect its actual value, not force you to choose between either the unit you like or the one that's actually worth the price.

And here is more evidence of those that hate PL missing the point of it.

How did anything about granulated points stop you from taking whatever works for you? You are once again saying that power level does a thing, when that thing is not anything extra to what actual points also does. People who wanted crisis suits equipped entirely with flamers were able to do that under points as well as power level. Power level does nothing to allow for what you just said over a proper points system.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Andykp wrote:
PL isn’t about taking viable or whatever options, it’s about taking what works for you. Be it because it’s cool, looks good, is a model you have always liked or because it’s an effective choice. Not all things are about utility.

The purpose of a resource-based force-building system is to assign costs that reflect the relative utility of each unit or option, ensuring that competently-made lists of equal resource value will have comparable performance on the tabletop. If it doesn't do that, it's failing at its one job.

Frankly, the idea that a unit that sucks due to bad pricing is okay because maybe it 'works for you' is a total cop-out. If it's cool, looks good, or is a model you've always liked none of that matters one iota for its actual effectiveness on the tabletop, and the points/PL ought to reflect its actual value, not force you to choose between either the unit you like or the one that's actually worth the price.

And here is more evidence of those that hate PL missing the point of it.

How did anything about granulated points stop you from taking whatever works for you? You are once again saying that power level does a thing, when that thing is not anything extra to what actual points also does. People who wanted crisis suits equipped entirely with flamers were able to do that under points as well as power level. Power level does nothing to allow for what you just said over a proper points system.

It didn’t. I never said points stopped me doing anything. Power level just made it slightly simpler to do. Power level doesn’t stop you doing anything with units and points don’t either. The fact that people seem to think you have to take the most optimised units with power level is them missing the point.

No one used power level? There are plenty of folk on here who would say otherwise. The way you play isn’t the only way everyone plays. Open your mind a bit and be open to the fact other people play the game differently from you.

Andykp wrote:

No one used power level? There are plenty of folk on here who would say otherwise. The way you play isn’t the only way everyone plays. Open your mind a bit and be open to the fact other people play the game differently from you.

I don't understand what you're trying to say or why it's relevant? I blatantly understand you play it a unique way and have said as much.

If I had to sum up your contribution to this thread over 90 pages it's repeating that pl is normal and liberating while most people find it the opposite then playing this weird game where you imply they're judging you negatively? In reality the system fails for normal players and its OK to like it if you want. If we read your posts correctly even you admit your reasons are flimsy and dont really help you beyond mere seconds saved so why not let people want a system that works for them and by extension works for you as we have clearly established? Aren't you tired of rewriting what essentially amounts to saying nothing on repeat? What is in place is inferior for all even looking at what you're saying?

Swastakowey wrote:

Andykp wrote:

No one used power level? There are plenty of folk on here who would say otherwise. The way you play isn’t the only way everyone plays. Open your mind a bit and be open to the fact other people play the game differently from you.

I don't understand what you're trying to say or why it's relevant? I blatantly understand you play it a unique way and have said as much.

If I had to sum up your contribution to this thread over 90 pages it's repeating that pl is normal and liberating while most people find it the opposite then playing this weird game where you imply they're judging you negatively? In reality the system fails for normal players and its OK to like it if you want. If we read your posts correctly even you admit your reasons are flimsy and dont really help you beyond mere seconds saved so why not let people want a system that works for them and by extension works for you as we have clearly established? Aren't you tired of rewriting what essentially amounts to saying nothing on repeat? What is in place is inferior for all even looking at what you're saying?

Andykp hasn't said they don't want points, they said they would prefer to have a choice between both.

I would add you need to be careful branding people as "normal" though.

Dudeface wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:

Andykp wrote:

No one used power level? There are plenty of folk on here who would say otherwise. The way you play isn’t the only way everyone plays. Open your mind a bit and be open to the fact other people play the game differently from you.

I don't understand what you're trying to say or why it's relevant? I blatantly understand you play it a unique way and have said as much.

If I had to sum up your contribution to this thread over 90 pages it's repeating that pl is normal and liberating while most people find it the opposite then playing this weird game where you imply they're judging you negatively? In reality the system fails for normal players and its OK to like it if you want. If we read your posts correctly even you admit your reasons are flimsy and dont really help you beyond mere seconds saved so why not let people want a system that works for them and by extension works for you as we have clearly established? Aren't you tired of rewriting what essentially amounts to saying nothing on repeat? What is in place is inferior for all even looking at what you're saying?

Andykp hasn't said they don't want points, they said they would prefer to have a choice between both.

I would add you need to be careful branding people as "normal" though.

But people who play with points are the norm? I don't see how it can be seen any other way...

If for some reason I was 1 of 3% of wargamers using points in a world where 97% of players didn't id never refer to my way as normal in a wargaming context. It makes no sense.

Swastakowey wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

I would add you need to be careful branding people as "normal" though.

But people who play with points are the norm? I don't see how it can be seen any other way...

People or behaviours being "abnormal" suggests they're doing something wrong, and by calling the majority the normal people you're calling the others abnormal. Not a big deal in this context, though.