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.

Andykp wrote:
If they are all bad ideas why are you suggesting them?

Because they're better than PL, or at least no worse than PL. 10th edition points with only significant upgrades (LRBT sponsons, etc) having point costs is still a bad system because it ignores the plasma pistol problem, and there is no argument for including it instead of or in addition to the traditional point system. But it's a better system than PL, and any argument in favor of including PL as an additional system applies even better to it.

Also, to point out the double standard of the "two system" argument. You recognize all of the problems with having multiple point systems and the flaws in those systems when you want to reject everything other than PL as an alternative system, but then you won't apply those same arguments to eliminating PL and only using a single point system.

Do you have a source for your data that those that used PL were a tiny minority? I’ll answer for you, no.

This poll is pretty clear that PL is a minority, and people who care about PL and would have their enjoyment of the game significantly damaged are a subset of that minority. Even you have said that you played with the traditional point system just fine in the past and wouldn't feel much of an impact if that's the only system you had. The people who need PL to enjoy the game are a minority that is far too small to justify having additional point systems.

And finally, you are finally admitting that you think we all have to play the game your way to enjoy it properly. Took 90 pages but we finally got the truth from you. We are doing it wrong and you are doing it right so we should be stopped. Thanks jervis.

You can enjoy the game the same way with the standard point system, as you admit to doing in the past. Nothing about your casual/narrative approach requires PL to function, at best PL is a very minor time savings in list construction. And you have consistently rejected my suggestions about using a point system that is even better suited to your claimed goals for how you play the game.

And let me again remind you that there is a difference between "you are wrong for liking X" and "GW should not add additional rules bloat to support X". Jervis says the former, I said the latter.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Because PL is both the one referred to in points of comparison, has previously existed and is being discussed as a viable addition.

The rest is irrelevant whataboutism.

Previous existence is irrelevant. Ideas should be evaluated on their own merits, and if new ideas are better than old ones then relics of the past should be discarded. And any argument against all of the other point systems I listed applies equally well to PL.

OK, the points system you're arguing for (a reinstatement of the historic points scale and system verbatim), isn't granular enough to actually make meaningful distinctions. You cannot balance reasonably a las pistol, bolt pistol and plasma pistol inside of a 5pt window for a common human.

I'd want to explode out the range to 10,000 points being a standard game a tweak from things being 5x the cost now.

This would make the maths harder in some cases but would also facilitate a simpler less granular system for those not bothered for the minutiae.

I could also forsee a "formation" based system where loadouts are fixed, units taken in predetermined clumps and slotted together to make an army like a flexible combat patrol. It takes options and complication away but would facilitate better balancing and potentially alternating activations.

Tl;Dr, what you propose isn't perfect either and I'm sure there are superior options or variants out there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:


This poll is pretty clear that PL is a minority, and people who care about PL and would have their enjoyment of the game significantly damaged are a subset of that minority. Even you have said that you played with the traditional point system just fine in the past and wouldn't feel much of an impact if that's the only system you had. The people who need PL to enjoy the game are a minority that is far too small to justify having additional point systems.

This poll isn't about PL, it's about "do you like the 10th points system". It's also not factoring if people used either historically or whether the existence of either bothers the other. Its enough to say people aren't happy as things are now, it's about all it tells you.

Andykp wrote:

Don’t forget the valuable space it took up in the data sheet. It can’t be allowed to exist!

You do remember that you said that one of the main reasons you used power level was because it was on the datasheet and didn't require page flipping?

So, if the positions were flipped and granular points was on the sheet and power level were in the back, which would you have used?

How are smaller Pl easyer to calculate than larger point's? Calculators have been around a long time. You could even just ask to your phone using your voice.

It's rediculas to say any amount of basic math being reduced in difficulty is worth even slight imbalances. Learn to use modern tools or get better at basic math in your head.

Boosykes wrote:
How are smaller Pl easyer to calculate than larger point's? Calculators have been around a long time. You could even just ask to your phone using your voice.

It's rediculas to say any amount of basic math being reduced in difficulty is worth even slight imbalances. Learn to use modern tools or get better at basic math in your head.

There are 4 glaring errors in your post that can be corrected with basic English skills in your head or using any modern grammar check tools. I understand that might seem harsh, it isn't intended as an attack, just to point out that hand waving peoples problems or preferences away with tech isn't always the answer.

I also assumed that you correctly set your location on your profile and as such are first language English, apologies if not.

Dudeface wrote:

Tl;Dr, what you propose isn't perfect either and I'm sure there are superior options or variants out there.

It's a good job nobody's looking for a perfect system.

For what must be the thousandth time, nobody is claiming points are a perfect solution. The claim is they are superior to PL because they have all the features of the PL system, with one important extra feature which is the ability to adjust costs with greater granularity. Would systems with even more granularity be better? Maybe. Yet again, this isn't a defence of PL. Just like Andykp's explanation about achieving better balance in his group through cooperative list building also isn't a defence of PL.

I think this is probably what's causing the most frustration in this thread. There's the repetition of already answered claims, then there's a string of defences of PL and none of them seem to actually rely on any of the benefits of the PL system at all.

Slipspace wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Tl;Dr, what you propose isn't perfect either and I'm sure there are superior options or variants out there.

It's a good job nobody's looking for a perfect system.

For what must be the thousandth time, nobody is claiming points are a perfect solution. The claim is they are superior to PL because they have all the features of the PL system, with one important extra feature which is the ability to adjust costs with greater granularity. Would systems with even more granularity be better? Maybe. Yet again, this isn't a defence of PL. Just like Andykp's explanation about achieving better balance in his group through cooperative list building also isn't a defence of PL.

I think this is probably what's causing the most frustration in this thread. There's the repetition of already answered claims, then there's a string of defences of PL and none of them seem to actually rely on any of the benefits of the PL system at all.

You've taken a quote entirely put of context - if we shouldn't accept something that isn't good enough, why is the old points system verbatim now suddenly the perfect answer? Why aren't these people looking for better?

I guess you're right, the frustration is that some people can't understand that people just want "good enough for them", they also can't parse that PL is that threshold for some, points ala 9th is it for some and neither for others.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Andykp wrote:

Don’t forget the valuable space it took up in the data sheet. It can’t be allowed to exist!

You do remember that you said that one of the main reasons you used power level was because it was on the datasheet and didn't require page flipping?

So, if the positions were flipped and granular points was on the sheet and power level were in the back, which would you have used?

That was sarcasm sorry.

I used to use points all the time when they were on army list entry. But they moved them because they wanted to change them all the time, so if they put them back and left the alone that would be better than just points ala 8th/9th.

A better question would be which would be better for me, granular points that didn’t change but had cost for upgrades or the current style 10th points that are going to adjusted all the time but no upgrades?

That’s a tough one and I don’t really know. I like points not changing and we don’t have that. That would take some thought on my part to decide.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Boosykes wrote:
How are smaller Pl easyer to calculate than larger point's? Calculators have been around a long time. You could even just ask to your phone using your voice.

It's rediculas to say any amount of basic math being reduced in difficulty is worth even slight imbalances. Learn to use modern tools or get better at basic math in your head.

Or don’t and use power levels.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Tl;Dr, what you propose isn't perfect either and I'm sure there are superior options or variants out there.

It's a good job nobody's looking for a perfect system.

For what must be the thousandth time, nobody is claiming points are a perfect solution. The claim is they are superior to PL because they have all the features of the PL system, with one important extra feature which is the ability to adjust costs with greater granularity. Would systems with even more granularity be better? Maybe. Yet again, this isn't a defence of PL. Just like Andykp's explanation about achieving better balance in his group through cooperative list building also isn't a defence of PL.

I think this is probably what's causing the most frustration in this thread. There's the repetition of already answered claims, then there's a string of defences of PL and none of them seem to actually rely on any of the benefits of the PL system at all.

Why would you believe the people who actually used the system when they tell you why it worked for them??

Dudeface wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Tl;Dr, what you propose isn't perfect either and I'm sure there are superior options or variants out there.

It's a good job nobody's looking for a perfect system.

For what must be the thousandth time, nobody is claiming points are a perfect solution. The claim is they are superior to PL because they have all the features of the PL system, with one important extra feature which is the ability to adjust costs with greater granularity. Would systems with even more granularity be better? Maybe. Yet again, this isn't a defence of PL. Just like Andykp's explanation about achieving better balance in his group through cooperative list building also isn't a defence of PL.

I think this is probably what's causing the most frustration in this thread. There's the repetition of already answered claims, then there's a string of defences of PL and none of them seem to actually rely on any of the benefits of the PL system at all.

You've taken a quote entirely put of context - if we shouldn't accept something that isn't good enough, why is the old points system verbatim now suddenly the perfect answer? Why aren't these people looking for better.

Because you haven't actually shown that more granularity than the traditional points system offered would be better. If it is, maybe that would be a better system. If PL is just a points system, but with a systemic flaw that prevents it working properly for a very large number of people, why should we keep it in favour of a different system that demonstrably does what both sides of this debate need?

Andykp wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Tl;Dr, what you propose isn't perfect either and I'm sure there are superior options or variants out there.

It's a good job nobody's looking for a perfect system.

For what must be the thousandth time, nobody is claiming points are a perfect solution. The claim is they are superior to PL because they have all the features of the PL system, with one important extra feature which is the ability to adjust costs with greater granularity. Would systems with even more granularity be better? Maybe. Yet again, this isn't a defence of PL. Just like Andykp's explanation about achieving better balance in his group through cooperative list building also isn't a defence of PL.

I think this is probably what's causing the most frustration in this thread. There's the repetition of already answered claims, then there's a string of defences of PL and none of them seem to actually rely on any of the benefits of the PL system at all.

Why would you believe the people who actually used the system when they tell you why it worked for them??

Can you clarify what you mean here, because it doesn't seem to relate to my post at all?

I'm not disbelieving that your group worked together to create a more balanced game and that you also use PL to build your armies. What I'm pointing out, is that PL itself has nothing to do with the ability to cooperatively balance a game.

Slipspace wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Tl;Dr, what you propose isn't perfect either and I'm sure there are superior options or variants out there.

It's a good job nobody's looking for a perfect system.

For what must be the thousandth time, nobody is claiming points are a perfect solution. The claim is they are superior to PL because they have all the features of the PL system, with one important extra feature which is the ability to adjust costs with greater granularity. Would systems with even more granularity be better? Maybe. Yet again, this isn't a defence of PL. Just like Andykp's explanation about achieving better balance in his group through cooperative list building also isn't a defence of PL.

I think this is probably what's causing the most frustration in this thread. There's the repetition of already answered claims, then there's a string of defences of PL and none of them seem to actually rely on any of the benefits of the PL system at all.

You've taken a quote entirely put of context - if we shouldn't accept something that isn't good enough, why is the old points system verbatim now suddenly the perfect answer? Why aren't these people looking for better.

Because you haven't actually shown that more granularity than the traditional points system offered would be better. If it is, maybe that would be a better system. If PL is just a points system, but with a systemic flaw that prevents it working properly for a very large number of people, why should we keep it in favour of a different system that demonstrably does what both sides of this debate need?

To take the game from where it is now to granular points there are plenty of models that are X.5 points and the aforementioned lack of scope or nuance to separate minimal impact changes such as las>bolt>plasma pistol on a guard sergeant.

Just to get rid of the half point models you'd need to double it from where we are now, unless you don't accept that as evidence the current granularity would be insufficient and we should now have decimals on points?

I’m referring to the fact that you dint seem to accept any of the reasons we used power level as valid reason to do so. So you are valuing the your opinion of peoples experiences above their own. Which is a fundamentally flawed way to look at things that are actually all about people’s experience.

It isn’t a hypothetical, for the last two editions people had the ability to choose between the two systems, and the fact that we did choose the other one over points shows that there were merits to that system not present in the other that made it more suitable.

When people explain what those merits are they are very much to be viewed through the prism of that persons experience. To dismiss them is not only ignorant but disrespectful and rude and the main reason I keep posting in this discussion.

So when you say “ There's the repetition of already answered claims, then there's a string of defences of PL and none of them seem to actually rely on any of the benefits of the PL system at all.” you are dismissing the experience of people who have actually used the system discussed simply because you cannot see the same benefits applying to you using it.

So in response I advise that you when someone who liked using PL tells you why they liked it and why it worked for them, as we have many many times, rather than dismissing it or questioning it, just accept it as a description of someone’s lived experience. After all, why would we lie about something so unimportant?

This principle applies to much more important things in life than wargaming and army list making too. Maybe it’s something to consider in a greater sphere of life.

@Dudeface Why do you assume you can't have decimal points values?

Fantasy players were happy playing how many editions where there were fractional point values? For Skaven, you had fractional points in 4th and 5th, then again in 7th and 8th.

Dudeface wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Tl;Dr, what you propose isn't perfect either and I'm sure there are superior options or variants out there.

It's a good job nobody's looking for a perfect system.

For what must be the thousandth time, nobody is claiming points are a perfect solution. The claim is they are superior to PL because they have all the features of the PL system, with one important extra feature which is the ability to adjust costs with greater granularity. Would systems with even more granularity be better? Maybe. Yet again, this isn't a defence of PL. Just like Andykp's explanation about achieving better balance in his group through cooperative list building also isn't a defence of PL.

I think this is probably what's causing the most frustration in this thread. There's the repetition of already answered claims, then there's a string of defences of PL and none of them seem to actually rely on any of the benefits of the PL system at all.

You've taken a quote entirely put of context - if we shouldn't accept something that isn't good enough, why is the old points system verbatim now suddenly the perfect answer? Why aren't these people looking for better.

Because you haven't actually shown that more granularity than the traditional points system offered would be better. If it is, maybe that would be a better system. If PL is just a points system, but with a systemic flaw that prevents it working properly for a very large number of people, why should we keep it in favour of a different system that demonstrably does what both sides of this debate need?

To take the game from where it is now to granular points there are plenty of models that are X.5 points and the aforementioned lack of scope or nuance to separate minimal impact changes such as las>bolt>plasma pistol on a guard sergeant.

Just to get rid of the half point models you'd need to double it from where we are now, unless you don't accept that as evidence the current granularity would be insufficient and we should now have decimals on points?

Keep unit prices as a whole as it is? Then add upgrade options? Not sure its that hard... The superior way would be rewrite the entire points system since right now it's pretty poor at doing it anyway. We all know a few updates in most of them will have been remade regardless so it's not a huge effort. Plus its an effort worth doing.

Also they may be minimal alone, but when spread across an entire list they are no longer minimal. On top of that you may have some odd amount of points left after filling out the list, so you can add a few things here and there to round it off.

Of all the objections this one is particularly weird.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
I’m referring to the fact that you dint seem to accept any of the reasons we used power level as valid reason to do so. So you are valuing the your opinion of peoples experiences above their own. Which is a fundamentally flawed way to look at things that are actually all about people’s experience.

It isn’t a hypothetical, for the last two editions people had the ability to choose between the two systems, and the fact that we did choose the other one over points shows that there were merits to that system not present in the other that made it more suitable.

When people explain what those merits are they are very much to be viewed through the prism of that persons experience. To dismiss them is not only ignorant but disrespectful and rude and the main reason I keep posting in this discussion.

So when you say “ There's the repetition of already answered claims, then there's a string of defences of PL and none of them seem to actually rely on any of the benefits of the PL system at all.” you are dismissing the experience of people who have actually used the system discussed simply because you cannot see the same benefits applying to you using it.

So in response I advise that you when someone who liked using PL tells you why they liked it and why it worked for them, as we have many many times, rather than dismissing it or questioning it, just accept it as a description of someone’s lived experience. After all, why would we lie about something so unimportant?

This principle applies to much more important things in life than wargaming and army list making too. Maybe it’s something to consider in a greater sphere of life.

It's ok to like something objectively inferior that seemingly does nothing for you. You can perceive something to be better for you than it truly is. In the same token, nobody is bothered if you enjoy it, we just want that trash system gone away from us who want to play the normal way. Instead we're dragged down to playing it for the moment at no benefit. Understandably people dont like it. The benefits you perceive are mostly subjective and come at great cost to what many people enjoy.

We know why you like it, we dont see it the same, we dont have to pretend it has much merit beyond your personal taste.

Its a very simplistic and weird way to see the world where experiences are an ultimate thing. In my experience not brushing my teeth works for me, don't dare tell me its probably not a good method of hygiene.

Swastakowey wrote:

Keep unit prices as a whole as it is? Then add upgrade options? Not sure its that hard... The superior way would be rewrite the entire points system since right now it's pretty poor at doing it anyway. We all know a few updates in most of them will have been remade regardless so it's not a huge effort. Plus its an effort worth doing.

Also they may be minimal alone, but when spread across an entire list they are no longer minimal. On top of that you may have some odd amount of points left after filling out the list, so you can add a few things here and there to round it off.

Of all the objections this one is particularly weird.

If you're going to rewrite it, rewrite it with increased scale to get better balance? It makes it harder but in the event a 10 body unit isn't worth 70 but is worth more than 60 it allows that more comfortably without decimals and means that a bolt pistol being a point more than a laspistol has more than meaning than "auto take because fillup points" or "never take, not even worth 1 point".

Edit: to clarify have I misunderstood and you suggest keeping units at a fixed cost per block of guys, i.e. guardsman squad might be 67pts after some balance tweaks but only ever come in 10's? Or would you be happy with a unit of 13 guys at 6.7 points each or whatever?

A Town Called Malus wrote:@Dudeface Why do you assume you can't have decimal points values?

Fantasy players were happy playing how many editions where there were fractional point values?

Because it shows the system is inherently flawed at it's intended task and needs to be expanded by a scale of at least 2 to work.

Dudeface wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:@Dudeface Why do you assume you can't have decimal points values?

Fantasy players were happy playing how many editions where there were fractional point values?

Because it shows the system is inherently flawed at it's intended task and needs to be expanded by a scale of at least 2 to work.

No it doesn't, because fractional points were never something that the system was incapable of handling. GW chose to make the idiotic decision that everything should be in increments of 5. That's not a problem with granular points, it's a problem with the GW rules design team as a whole being incompetent.

Dudeface wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:

Keep unit prices as a whole as it is? Then add upgrade options? Not sure its that hard... The superior way would be rewrite the entire points system since right now it's pretty poor at doing it anyway. We all know a few updates in most of them will have been remade regardless so it's not a huge effort. Plus its an effort worth doing.

Also they may be minimal alone, but when spread across an entire list they are no longer minimal. On top of that you may have some odd amount of points left after filling out the list, so you can add a few things here and there to round it off.

Of all the objections this one is particularly weird.

If you're going to rewrite it, rewrite it with increased scale to get better balance? It makes it harder but in the event a 10 body unit isn't worth 70 but is worth more than 60 it allows that more comfortably without decimals and means that a bolt pistol being a point more than a laspistol has more than meaning than "auto take because fillup points" or "never take, not even worth 1 point".

A Town Called Malus wrote:@Dudeface Why do you assume you can't have decimal points values?

Fantasy players were happy playing how many editions where there were fractional point values?

Because it shows the system is inherently flawed at it's intended task and needs to be expanded by a scale of at least 2 to work.

We aren't demanding something perfect, we just want the old system which is objectively superior to the current and since it already existed shouldn't be that hard to keep. Plus having some bolt pistols to remove or add because you're 15 points under or over is better than rearranging your entire list.

Dudeface wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Tl;Dr, what you propose isn't perfect either and I'm sure there are superior options or variants out there.

It's a good job nobody's looking for a perfect system.

For what must be the thousandth time, nobody is claiming points are a perfect solution. The claim is they are superior to PL because they have all the features of the PL system, with one important extra feature which is the ability to adjust costs with greater granularity. Would systems with even more granularity be better? Maybe. Yet again, this isn't a defence of PL. Just like Andykp's explanation about achieving better balance in his group through cooperative list building also isn't a defence of PL.

I think this is probably what's causing the most frustration in this thread. There's the repetition of already answered claims, then there's a string of defences of PL and none of them seem to actually rely on any of the benefits of the PL system at all.

You've taken a quote entirely put of context - if we shouldn't accept something that isn't good enough, why is the old points system verbatim now suddenly the perfect answer? Why aren't these people looking for better.

Because you haven't actually shown that more granularity than the traditional points system offered would be better. If it is, maybe that would be a better system. If PL is just a points system, but with a systemic flaw that prevents it working properly for a very large number of people, why should we keep it in favour of a different system that demonstrably does what both sides of this debate need?

To take the game from where it is now to granular points there are plenty of models that are X.5 points and the aforementioned lack of scope or nuance to separate minimal impact changes such as las>bolt>plasma pistol on a guard sergeant.

Just to get rid of the half point models you'd need to double it from where we are now, unless you don't accept that as evidence the current granularity would be insufficient and we should now have decimals on points?

That's a weird take. Firstly, you're assuming that the points GW have calculated are accurate. Secondly, you're ignoring the fact that the current PL-style points usually include some sort of cost for upgrades in its totals that may lead to weird results if you just divide the unit's cost by the number of models in the unit. Thirdly, you're ignoring the fact we haven't had half points since 2nd edition and the system worked just fine. Finally, you're assuming there's any real problem with using half points. Personally, I doubt that would be necessary, but it's not really a problem if it is.

Andykp wrote:I’m referring to the fact that you dint seem to accept any of the reasons we used power level as valid reason to do so. So you are valuing the your opinion of peoples experiences above their own. Which is a fundamentally flawed way to look at things that are actually all about people’s experience.

It isn’t a hypothetical, for the last two editions people had the ability to choose between the two systems, and the fact that we did choose the other one over points shows that there were merits to that system not present in the other that made it more suitable.

When people explain what those merits are they are very much to be viewed through the prism of that persons experience. To dismiss them is not only ignorant but disrespectful and rude and the main reason I keep posting in this discussion.

So when you say “ There's the repetition of already answered claims, then there's a string of defences of PL and none of them seem to actually rely on any of the benefits of the PL system at all.” you are dismissing the experience of people who have actually used the system discussed simply because you cannot see the same benefits applying to you using it.

So in response I advise that you when someone who liked using PL tells you why they liked it and why it worked for them, as we have many many times, rather than dismissing it or questioning it, just accept it as a description of someone’s lived experience. After all, why would we lie about something so unimportant?

This principle applies to much more important things in life than wargaming and army list making too. Maybe it’s something to consider in a greater sphere of life.

Thanks for the condescending remark about my attitude to life. Another example of how the pro-PL folk are the paragon of goodness and light in the face of all those evil pro-points advocates, right? Not once have I made any personal attacks on anyone in this thread. Real classy of you to decide to stoop to that level.

The post you quoted was about a specific example, not your general attitude to PL, hence my confusion. As it turns out, your response really didn't have anything to do with said specific example, so why did you quote it? To be as clear as I can, I do not doubt that you sincerely hold the belief that you do about PL. I don't think you're lying. However, sincerely holding a belief does not mean that belief is immune to criticism. The fact remains, when queried, the pro-PL advocates haven't come up with a definitive answer to why PL is a better system than points. Hence myself and others pointing out that many of the defences don't seem to relate to PL at all.

You say we should just accept it without questioning it, but that just leads to shutting down discussion. If you express a sincere belief in something are we not allowed to ask why? Are we not allowed to dig deeper and question and critique it?

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:@Dudeface Why do you assume you can't have decimal points values?

Fantasy players were happy playing how many editions where there were fractional point values?

Because it shows the system is inherently flawed at it's intended task and needs to be expanded by a scale of at least 2 to work.

No it doesn't, because fractional points were never something that the system was incapable of handling. GW chose to make the idiotic decision that everything should be in increments of 5. That's not a problem with granular points, it's a problem with the GW rules design team as a whole being incompetent.

10 guys, 65 points. They could be 63, 67, 71, whatever. They're now 6.3, 6.7, 7.1 points each accordingly. You've just increased the points factor by 10, you're just using a decimal place where I suggested multiplying the numbers. What's the difference again?

Swastakowey wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:

Keep unit prices as a whole as it is? Then add upgrade options? Not sure its that hard... The superior way would be rewrite the entire points system since right now it's pretty poor at doing it anyway. We all know a few updates in most of them will have been remade regardless so it's not a huge effort. Plus its an effort worth doing.

Also they may be minimal alone, but when spread across an entire list they are no longer minimal. On top of that you may have some odd amount of points left after filling out the list, so you can add a few things here and there to round it off.

Of all the objections this one is particularly weird.

If you're going to rewrite it, rewrite it with increased scale to get better balance? It makes it harder but in the event a 10 body unit isn't worth 70 but is worth more than 60 it allows that more comfortably without decimals and means that a bolt pistol being a point more than a laspistol has more than meaning than "auto take because fillup points" or "never take, not even worth 1 point".

A Town Called Malus wrote:@Dudeface Why do you assume you can't have decimal points values?

Fantasy players were happy playing how many editions where there were fractional point values?

Because it shows the system is inherently flawed at it's intended task and needs to be expanded by a scale of at least 2 to work.

We aren't demanding something perfect, we just want the old system which is objectively superior to the current and since it already existed shouldn't be that hard to keep. Plus having some bolt pistols to remove or add because you're 15 points under or over is better than rearranging your entire list.

Understood and agree old was better than now, but it's not the best it could be, so why settle for less? I can't advocate spending 15 points on something that exist almost solely to add a point on though for the sakes of it.

Infinity actually uses fractions in its points system, and it’s done without issues when it’s used.

I think it’s always on weapons, it’s been a while since I looked deep into building there.

But to follow on with that thought, an issue is the opportunity cost of a weapon. If you get a plasma gun, and you don’t use it.
Its cost wasn’t wasted if you play the unit well and intended to use it.

It’s up to GW to create a game where the opportunity for use of the war gear is the reason you are picking it.

In this case, a heavy flamer or heavy Bolter, used for infantry can never be equal to a lascannon.
As the lascannons opportunity to fire and damage heavy and powerful targets will always be of high value.
And anti infantry weapons tend to be easy to get in almost all factions, often as defaults to various degree.
This also comes with the fact that GW is perfectly fine with army’s of heavy targets, right up to knights that throw the entire meta off.
Often resulting in heavy skew lists without good counter balances.

So under the current game they have done nearly nothing to actually utilise any of the strengths of the current system.

And why it works for some, it’s rather clearly flawed in a number of ways.
The Russ weapon options being quite an issue that highlights the problem.
But there is design issues from top to bottom that GW should address, but won’t.
So we are all left with a worse game for it.

ThePaintingOwl wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Cite each one

No.

Womp womp. Why should anyone take you seriously? Hecaton, isn't this what you've been complaining about with so many others? That they won't "defend their points"?

So why bring up this 10+ system?

To point out the double standard held by "two system" advocates. They are perfectly capable of understanding why having multiple point systems is a bad idea when it comes to dismissing point systems other than PL but promptly forget all of those arguments when it comes to the alternative point system they want to include. Every argument in favor of having two systems to include PL applies just as well to all those other systems and you can not advocate including PL but not the others.

No double standard as far as I'm concerned. If you can cite all the people who want these other point systems and why, and why they want them as entirely unique and separate systems instead of being just their version of points/PL, then I'm all in.

I don't see a bad idea here. If more people want more systems, I'm in. But if you want to convince me to take this point seriously, and not as the strawman we *all* know it is, you'll have to put your money where your mouth is, cite the demand for these systems, and then propose them in the PR forum. I look forward to your proposals.

Don't bring anyone else into this, respond to my take - I'm 100% fine with extra systems. You show me the demand, and put in the work to make it, and I'll support it. Now, chop chop.

vict0988 wrote:None of the options ThePaintingOwl suggested are high effort, so why PL and not all the others?

I'm fine with all the others - if they were actually wanted as their own unique systems that existed alongside all the others, and not just created as a strawman by bob. If our friend can actually put their money where their mouth is, and show they're not just being facetious, then I'll have no issues. The problem is, they won't, because it's entirely a strawman by their own admission.

ThePaintingOwl wrote:Previous existence is irrelevant. Ideas should be evaluated on their own merits

So propose your ideas of these 10+ systems, and cite their utility as tangibly distinct systems.

But your experiences are the result of the collaborative attitude towards list building, not the merits of the point system you used. The traditional point system would have worked even better, providing a more accurate starting point for your collaboration at a negligible cost in time to create a list. PL did not in any way contribute to your success.

And here's what we mean by disregarding people's lived experiences. What makes you so arrogant to believe that you know other people's feelings better than they do?

Andykp wrote:
You are the ones suggesting something new and different.

No, we're suggesting the point system that was used for the majority of 40k's existence: a single point system, conventional upgrade costs.

No, you advocated for 10+ systems of points, unless you're admitting to arguing in bad faith.

It is the system that functions best

*Functioned* "best" (by a certain metric and set of expectations), and weren't you literally the one earlier saying that we shouldn't hold onto relics of the past and trying to build something that properly worked? Why the appeal to the past? Why not an appeal to a more thorough investigation and series of trials at to the ACTUAL best system? Do you believe that there is no other possible way that things could be improved? Improved for whom? Yourself? What about those who it isn't improved for?

Your argument is full of contradictions.

and there is no good argument for having multiple point systems to cater to a small minority, most of whom don't even get significant value out of having a second point system.

But you proposed it. And I *do* have a good argument for multiple point systems - if it makes people happy, and doesn't step on the toes of other point systems existing, then it should exist.

Like I've been saying the whole time, actually.

If any of the ten or a million systems you are claiming to be good ideas are actually I good we have said we would consider them but none of them are something I am prepared to but time in to trialing.

They aren't good ideas. They're terrible ideas that are all inferior to the traditional point system and should not be implemented. But so is PL and any argument against the other systems applies equally well to PL. And any argument in support of PL applies equally well to the alternative systems, other than "I personally like PL".

This line of argument falls flat when people are actually fine with having 10 or 10,000,000 systems, and it's only because you can't stand other people doing things differently that you reject it.

You don't need to play any of the other systems. Stick to what you like. Let other people enjoy their stuff. I don't care if you think that's a weak argument, it's the only argument that matters as far as I'm concerned, in the same way I don't care about all your appeals to "objective balance". Live, and let live. You play your game, I'll play mine.

Boosykes wrote:How are smaller Pl easyer to calculate than larger point's? Calculators have been around a long time. You could even just ask to your phone using your voice.

It's rediculas to say any amount of basic math being reduced in difficulty is worth even slight imbalances. Learn to use modern tools or get better at basic math in your head.

Have you used your phone to spellcheck?
I'd normally never say anything about that, because I respect that not everyone shares the same language, or has the same luxuries to ensure their grammar is 100% perfect. But considering the flippant way you talk about how apparently people have no excuses not to be perfect with maths, I feel you deserve calling out on this particular hypocrisy. Why should I take this seriously when you don't do the same?

Either tech is the answer to everything (evidently incorrect), or there should be accessibility options and leniencies for those who don't fancy calculating 12+12+12+12+12+10+3+9+125

Apple fox wrote:
Infinity actually uses fractions in its points system, and it’s done without issues when it’s used.

I think it’s always on weapons, it’s been a while since I looked deep into building there.

It does uses increments of 0.5 for a list building resource called SWC (special weapons cost) normally capped at 6 for a 300 point game. It's a non-issue because Infinity has a free army builder app for mobile devices and a web version. You can save lists on one and pull them up in the other.

Still, even with the free app, list building in infinity is much more complex than 40k and would not appeal to anyone who is looking for something like the current simple points system of 10th.

 Arschbombe wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
Infinity actually uses fractions in its points system, and it’s done without issues when it’s used.

I think it’s always on weapons, it’s been a while since I looked deep into building there.

It does uses increments of 0.5 for a list building resource called SWC (special weapons cost) normally capped at 6 for a 300 point game. It's a non-issue because Infinity has a free army builder app for mobile devices and a web version. You can save lists on one and pull them up in the other.

Still, even with the free app, list building in infinity is much more complex than 40k and would not appeal to anyone who is looking for something like the current simple points system of 10th.

It's also the magnitude of scale, infinity isn't going to hit 150 models per side on some circumstances.

Dudeface wrote:

 Arschbombe wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
Infinity actually uses fractions in its points system, and it’s done without issues when it’s used.

I think it’s always on weapons, it’s been a while since I looked deep into building there.

It does uses increments of 0.5 for a list building resource called SWC (special weapons cost) normally capped at 6 for a 300 point game. It's a non-issue because Infinity has a free army builder app for mobile devices and a web version. You can save lists on one and pull them up in the other.

Still, even with the free app, list building in infinity is much more complex than 40k and would not appeal to anyone who is looking for something like the current simple points system of 10th.

It's also the magnitude of scale, infinity isn't going to hit 150 models per side on some circumstances.

Models count is largely a separate factor, it’s how they interact with the system.
Considering we have units now that are effectively just one point fits all, a game of 40K doesn’t have that different elements moving around more compared to infinity.
It’s just that some come with 10 models in 40K

Different yes, but I think comparable to how good system design goes a long way.

Dudeface wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:

Keep unit prices as a whole as it is? Then add upgrade options? Not sure its that hard... The superior way would be rewrite the entire points system since right now it's pretty poor at doing it anyway. We all know a few updates in most of them will have been remade regardless so it's not a huge effort. Plus its an effort worth doing.

Also they may be minimal alone, but when spread across an entire list they are no longer minimal. On top of that you may have some odd amount of points left after filling out the list, so you can add a few things here and there to round it off.

Of all the objections this one is particularly weird.

If you're going to rewrite it, rewrite it with increased scale to get better balance? It makes it harder but in the event a 10 body unit isn't worth 70 but is worth more than 60 it allows that more comfortably without decimals and means that a bolt pistol being a point more than a laspistol has more than meaning than "auto take because fillup points" or "never take, not even worth 1 point".

Edit: to clarify have I misunderstood and you suggest keeping units at a fixed cost per block of guys, i.e. guardsman squad might be 67pts after some balance tweaks but only ever come in 10's? Or would you be happy with a unit of 13 guys at 6.7 points each or whatever?

A Town Called Malus wrote:@Dudeface Why do you assume you can't have decimal points values?

Fantasy players were happy playing how many editions where there were fractional point values?

Because it shows the system is inherently flawed at it's intended task and needs to be expanded by a scale of at least 2 to work.

Micropoints have been suggested in this thread. But pts are just strictly better than PL, there are benefits to micropoints, but it's "bolt pistols are more appropriately costed" instead of "bolt pistols aren't completely useless like in PL" so it would actually be a subjective discussion as there are real downsides to it.

@Sgt_SmudgeMade A wants to amend nuPoints to be more like 9th pts, A does not want nuPoints to be entirely like 9th pts, B does not want any changes to nuPoints. C wants nuPoints to be more like PL, A does not want it. D wants nuPoints to become entirely like 9th pts. So now you have a request for at least 4 different systems. Dudeface is being devils advocate so while his arguments have been in favour of nuPoints instead of any other option that's not actually his opinion so the meaning of quotes and their support for one system or another can be ambiguous, not to mention time-consuming because of the length of the thread and depressing because of its repetitiveness. Like I want micropoints or fractional points but I mainly argue in favour of regular 9th edition points, can we agree at the very least that fractional points is a contender for being one of three systems because it should be obvious that many fans of pts don't want fractional pts or a higher pts base (40000 pt games for example) and then we have 9th edition pts and PL? You don't really need to respond, I was just trying to explain my thinking, you supporting however many systems people want is cool! I have no problem with that stance, I'm almost certain we'll never get 3 systems, I'm doubting GW will ever make wargear cost pts again.

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:

Keep unit prices as a whole as it is? Then add upgrade options? Not sure its that hard... The superior way would be rewrite the entire points system since right now it's pretty poor at doing it anyway. We all know a few updates in most of them will have been remade regardless so it's not a huge effort. Plus its an effort worth doing.

Also they may be minimal alone, but when spread across an entire list they are no longer minimal. On top of that you may have some odd amount of points left after filling out the list, so you can add a few things here and there to round it off.

Of all the objections this one is particularly weird.

If you're going to rewrite it, rewrite it with increased scale to get better balance? It makes it harder but in the event a 10 body unit isn't worth 70 but is worth more than 60 it allows that more comfortably without decimals and means that a bolt pistol being a point more than a laspistol has more than meaning than "auto take because fillup points" or "never take, not even worth 1 point".

Edit: to clarify have I misunderstood and you suggest keeping units at a fixed cost per block of guys, i.e. guardsman squad might be 67pts after some balance tweaks but only ever come in 10's? Or would you be happy with a unit of 13 guys at 6.7 points each or whatever?

A Town Called Malus wrote:@Dudeface Why do you assume you can't have decimal points values?

Fantasy players were happy playing how many editions where there were fractional point values?

Because it shows the system is inherently flawed at it's intended task and needs to be expanded by a scale of at least 2 to work.

Micropoints have been suggested in this thread. But pts are just strictly better than PL, there are benefits to micropoints, but it's "bolt pistols are more appropriately costed" instead of "bolt pistols aren't completely useless like in PL" so it would actually be a subjective discussion as there are real downsides to it.

@Sgt_SmudgeMade A wants to amend nuPoints to be more like 9th pts, A does not want nuPoints to be entirely like 9th pts, B does not want any changes to nuPoints. C wants nuPoints to be more like PL, A does not want it. D wants nuPoints to become entirely like 9th pts. So now you have a request for at least 4 different systems. Dudeface is being devils advocate so while his arguments have been in favour of nuPoints instead of any other option that's not actually his opinion so the meaning of quotes and their support for one system or another can be ambiguous, not to mention time-consuming because of the length of the thread and depressing because of its repetitiveness. Like I want micropoints or fractional points but I mainly argue in favour of regular 9th edition points, can we agree at the very least that fractional points is a contender for being one of three systems because it should be obvious that many fans of pts don't want fractional pts or a higher pts base (40000 pt games for example) and then we have 9th edition pts and PL? You don't really need to respond, I was just trying to explain my thinking, you supporting however many systems people want is cool! I have no problem with that stance, I'm almost certain we'll never get 3 systems, I'm doubting GW will ever make wargear cost pts again.

I largely agree with this partly devil's advocate partly because I think the conversation doesn't need to be adversial as it usually devolves into.

But yeah a "pl, casual points and competitive format" option would suit all better than we have for sure.

Andykp 810334 11576539 wrote:

Why would you believe the people who actually used the system when they tell you why it worked for them??

Because he doesn't have to. We are all now playing under a PL system. And it is not just not working, it is really bad for some armies. And it is always worse then what could have been done with regular points. Are or were regular points perfect? No, but just because something is not perfect or even not very good, it is not a reason to make it worse, just because some people find it okey for them.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
No, you advocated for 10+ systems of points, unless you're admitting to arguing in bad faith.

This entire thread is full of Bad Faith unfortunetly. Every time someone uses the term "objective" when describing why they prefer one system over another, I wince.

vict0988 wrote:Made A wants to amend nuPoints to be more like 9th pts, A does not want nuPoints to be entirely like 9th pts, B does not want any changes to nuPoints. C wants nuPoints to be more like PL, A does not want it. D wants nuPoints to become entirely like 9th pts. So now you have a request for at least 4 different systems. Dudeface is being devils advocate so while his arguments have been in favour of nuPoints instead of any other option that's not actually his opinion so the meaning of quotes and their support for one system or another can be ambiguous, not to mention time-consuming because of the length of the thread and depressing because of its repetitiveness. Like I want micropoints or fractional points but I mainly argue in favour of regular 9th edition points, can we agree at the very least that fractional points is a contender for being one of three systems because it should be obvious that many fans of pts don't want fractional pts or a higher pts base (40000 pt games for example) and then we have 9th edition pts and PL? You don't really need to respond, I was just trying to explain my thinking, you supporting however many systems people want is cool! I have no problem with that stance, I'm almost certain we'll never get 3 systems, I'm doubting GW will ever make wargear cost pts again.

This was rather difficult to read, but I'll go through it:

So, yes, 4 different systems, with 4 different takes - let's assume that these are all real people, and all want their version to exist *AS WELL AS* everyone else's, and that they aren't going to find a compromise or overlap between. I *support* all 4 people having their own system, that in this universe, there is:

Modified 9th ed points
Unmodified 10th ed points
Full 9th ed PL
Unmodified 9th ed points

The question I'd ask is "what modifications did people want making/not want making between the 1st, 2nd, and 4th groups" - if there are commonalities, some of those groups could be merged. If the distinction is too great between groups, then they should have their own systems. Now, I'm not going to say what those differences might be, because you didn't elaborate on their positions, and right so! These are outright just fictional examples - but *if* this were to be real, I'd support multiple systems rather than telling all 4 players to suck it up and play with a version that only one of them likes.

Quotes or support *can* be meaningless, but the real fundamental question is "should other people be supported in their chosen system to play, even if I don't like it". And, unfortunately, there's a fairly vocal group who say "no, you shouldn't be allowed to enjoy this, and I want to actively prevent you from enjoying it, because I consider it to be "objectively bad"" (ignoring, of course, that the given circumstances and factors involved in "enjoyment" are entirely subjective).

So, until *that* issue can be remedied, either by the thread being killed because there is no room for discussion when we have people policing how other people are allowed to enjoy their game of toy soldiers, or by people finally growing a sense of empathy and acceptance, this topic is unsustainable.

But, as for micropoints and fractional points - I'd never really enjoy a system that did that (of course, depending on execution), because I would prefer that the number bases were at least whole numbers, but most importantly, I'd never stop you from enjoying that system, and I'd love if you did get a system that enabled that for you!

As for the practicality of if we could all get the systems we wanted? Maybe it's a pipedream, but no more so than any of the people here talking about this is a pipedream for any real change about what GW is doing. And I think on that note, this discussion is *useless*.

Karol wrote:

Andykp 810334 11576539 wrote:

Why would you believe the people who actually used the system when they tell you why it worked for them??

No, but just because something is not perfect or even not very good, it is not a reason to make it worse, just because some people find it okey for them.

It is worse for some, not for others.

EDIT: Unfinished thought, there are people who find the new system better, not worse, than the old system. It is all subjective.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
No, you advocated for 10+ systems of points, unless you're admitting to arguing in bad faith.

This entire thread is full of Bad Faith unfortunetly. Every time someone uses the term "objective" when describing why they prefer one system over another, I wince.

Agreed. I have no issue with folks saying that "more precise points have the objective capacity to bring about a higher level of balance", but then they miss the fact that "more balance" does not always mean "better".

By all means, state facts, but ultimately, facts without context and meaning are useless. It's why I actually quite liked the analogy given about the burning house - to someone who owns one house and needs that to survive, it is an unmistakable tragedy, and is awful for them. But for someone who wanted their property burning down so that they could rebuild it, or maybe are just completely apathetic (hi billionaires!), this is not a tragedy for them. The "fact" is that the house is burning. The subjective part is "does that matter to you".*


*obviously, I'm not endorsing, condoning, or minimising the pain and stress brought about by house fires, and my apologies if anyone ever got that impression.