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.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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".

A couple examples: casualties of "the pursuit of balance" that my play group mourns:
Shokk Attack Gun mishap charts
Peril's of the Warp mishap (goodbye giga-chad psyker hulks)

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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.

Even in your example it's still a problem, the fire can spread, the smoke spreads, sentimental valuables, danger to life etc. The scale of impact can be mitigated by various factors but it's still a problem having a burning house. And having a "default balance" in 40k is objectively better because those that don't want it can easily remove it far easier than people can add it themselves while still being able to play with anyone. Realistically pl style players wouldn't even be affected by any system since they could just ignore upgrades or have a fixed squad house rule that takes mere seconds to implement. Their style of play is unaffected by any structure system I can think of.

I think it's pretty clear which is better for 40k to have.

Yeah, it's kind of funny to see this burning house example continue to get trotted out when we in the US have spent multiple days this summer experiencing horrible smog that is hazardous to people with breathing problems due to wildfires in Canada. Yes, it's an analogy, but it's funny to see it fall apart under scrutiny, much like most of the other arguments in favor of the 10e upgrade approach...

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Yeah, it's kind of funny to see this burning house example continue to get trotted out when we in the US have spent multiple days this summer experiencing horrible smog that is hazardous to people with breathing problems due to wildfires in Canada. Yes, it's an analogy, but it's funny to see it fall apart under scrutiny, much like most of the other arguments in favor of the 10e upgrade approach...

It is a poor analogy.

I don't believe anyone has caused my "arguments" to fall apart under scrutiny. Probably because they are not arguments and just expressing why we prefer the change in direction. Wish more people on the grumpy train would just express what they dislike about the current system without the incessant need to claim objective superiority on a purely subjective discussion.

"Subject: Re: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?"

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Yeah, it's kind of funny to see this burning house example continue to get trotted out when we in the US have spent multiple days this summer experiencing horrible smog that is hazardous to people with breathing problems due to wildfires in Canada. Yes, it's an analogy, but it's funny to see it fall apart under scrutiny, much like most of the other arguments in favor of the 10e upgrade approach...

It is a poor analogy.

I don't believe anyone has caused my "arguments" to fall apart under scrutiny. Probably because they are not arguments and just expressing why we prefer the change in direction. Wish more people on the grumpy train would just express what they dislike about the current system without the incessant need to claim objective superiority on a purely subjective discussion.

"Subject: Re: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?"

Because if 40k is to have one system (which it looks like it will) then the superior option for all is the old way. Because as established the pl players can simply carry on with minimal effort however they want to. Which is fine nobody will stop you playing something in that way.

Much like the burning house you can be indifferent but the rest of the community would rather not have your burning house ruin their day etc and would like to get it back to normal.

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

Snipped down for ease of tracking, but bravo and well said.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

"Subject: Re: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?"

Another well toned and worded post.

If I could order a hypothetical round of beers and say "that's a good set of points to draw a line under it", these would be it.

Swastakowey wrote:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Yeah, it's kind of funny to see this burning house example continue to get trotted out when we in the US have spent multiple days this summer experiencing horrible smog that is hazardous to people with breathing problems due to wildfires in Canada. Yes, it's an analogy, but it's funny to see it fall apart under scrutiny, much like most of the other arguments in favor of the 10e upgrade approach...

It is a poor analogy.

I don't believe anyone has caused my "arguments" to fall apart under scrutiny. Probably because they are not arguments and just expressing why we prefer the change in direction. Wish more people on the grumpy train would just express what they dislike about the current system without the incessant need to claim objective superiority on a purely subjective discussion.

"Subject: Re: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?"

Because if 40k is to have one system (which it looks like it will) then the superior option for all is the old way. Because as established the pl players can simply carry on with minimal effort however they want to. Which is fine nobody will stop you playing something in that way.

Much like the burning house you can be indifferent but the rest of the community would rather not have your burning house ruin their day etc and would like to get it back to normal.

Pretty sure most of the people who enjoy PL also think that, if there had to be one system, granular points is the better choice than PL.

But considering PL is basically just (Min Cost+Max Cost)/10 on any given unit... Why not include it? Other folk have more fun with it.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Yeah, it's kind of funny to see this burning house example continue to get trotted out when we in the US have spent multiple days this summer experiencing horrible smog that is hazardous to people with breathing problems due to wildfires in Canada. Yes, it's an analogy, but it's funny to see it fall apart under scrutiny, much like most of the other arguments in favor of the 10e upgrade approach...

It is a poor analogy.

I don't believe anyone has caused my "arguments" to fall apart under scrutiny. Probably because they are not arguments and just expressing why we prefer the change in direction. Wish more people on the grumpy train would just express what they dislike about the current system without the incessant need to claim objective superiority on a purely subjective discussion.

"Subject: Re: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?"

Because if 40k is to have one system (which it looks like it will) then the superior option for all is the old way. Because as established the pl players can simply carry on with minimal effort however they want to. Which is fine nobody will stop you playing something in that way.

Much like the burning house you can be indifferent but the rest of the community would rather not have your burning house ruin their day etc and would like to get it back to normal.

Pretty sure most of the people who enjoy PL also think that, if there had to be one system, granular points is the better choice than PL.

But considering PL is basically just (Min Cost+Max Cost)/10 on any given unit... Why not include it? Other folk have more fun with it.

I said I'd rather that too. But I feel like 10th is an attempt at a compromise from gw for reasons I can't fathom, likely becausethey want one. So if they want one they have a clear choice which is best. Or go back to 2. Hence why people are using the word "objective".

Swastakowey wrote:
I said I'd rather that too. But I feel like 10th is an attempt at a compromise from gw for reasons I can't fathom, likely because they want one. So if they want one they have a clear choice which is best. Or go back to 2. Hence why people are using the word "objective".

I've mentioned before a few times in this thread, but the reason is simple. They have metrics that show this design direction is more profitable than maintaining the old system. There's many possibilities as to the exact reason for this decision, but the bottom line is to drive sales of models.

This is speculation/my rational: After hearing the interviews of former employee's tell-all's describing the funnel or trumpet method of customer acquisition, it makes sense to me that this system helps acquire new customers at the expense of deep enfranchised player's. The combat patrol rules and the culling of old models also points this direction as well.

EDIT: I am not try to justify the abandonment of enfranchised players, however, I suspect that the people who already own armies and are enfranchised spend only a fraction as much as a new player/collector.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

Swastakowey wrote:
I said I'd rather that too. But I feel like 10th is an attempt at a compromise from gw for reasons I can't fathom, likely because they want one. So if they want one they have a clear choice which is best. Or go back to 2. Hence why people are using the word "objective".

I've mentioned before a few times in this thread, but the reason is simple. They have metrics that show this design direction is more profitable than maintaining the old system. There's many possibilities as to the exact reason for this decision, but the bottom line is to drive sales of models.

This is speculation/my rational: After hearing the interviews of former employee's tell-all's describing the funnel or trumpet method of customer acquisition, it makes sense to me that this system helps acquire new customers at the expense of deep enfranchised player's. The combat patrol rules and the culling of old models also points this direction as well.

EDIT: I am not try to justify the abandonment of enfranchised players, however, I suspect that the people who already own armies and are enfranchised spend only a fraction as much as a new player/collector.

I can see how their new models achieve this, but the points system doesn't really do this in any meaningful way. I'd argue this new system is really punishing for new players because they're left with all sorts of trap options. For example the new starter set I played felt incredibly one sided and I came away feeling like I wasted my time. Because it's an insanely weighted box as i later found out.

Yes you still have traps with points costs but it's not nearly as bad.

I also watched the interview. While they had been on point with the idea of contrast paints their imbalances lead to the opposite of a front end fun experience if it's so easy to make such one sided match ups. Especially in such things as the starter box.

The other thing they miss with the video game analogy is video games tend to be patched and updated and when done successfully you have lots of long term players willing to spend money in incremental amounts. GW taking a video game approach seriously would still get front up money from initial buyers and streams of money from existing ones. But the focus on front end might hurt the other.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:


I've mentioned before a few times in this thread, but the reason is simple. They have metrics that show this design direction is more profitable than maintaining the old system. There's many possibilities as to the exact reason for this decision, but the bottom line is to drive sales of models.

Nah. Someone in GW is claiming that that's what the metrics show, I'm certain, but it'a clearly not. Casual players need balance more than anyone, the current PL-like system inherently creates imbalance. GW is making an objectively dumb move here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

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.

Are you going to answer his question or avoid it because you know it'll prove you wrong?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Why are you wincing? Because it hurts to be emotionally invested in the objectively inferior system?

Dudeface wrote:

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

Snipped down for ease of tracking, but bravo and well said.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

"Subject: Re: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?"

Another well toned and worded post.

If I could order a hypothetical round of beers and say "that's a good set of points to draw a line under it", these would be it.

Smudge is great! They always hit the nail on the head!

And really there isn't anywhere to go after these posts but I bet they do! I’ll chip in For those bears!


Automatically Appended Next Post:


The wincing is at the flagrant misuse of the word objective!

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Yeah, it's kind of funny to see this burning house example continue to get trotted out when we in the US have spent multiple days this summer experiencing horrible smog that is hazardous to people with breathing problems due to wildfires in Canada. Yes, it's an analogy, but it's funny to see it fall apart under scrutiny, much like most of the other arguments in favor of the 10e upgrade approach...

It is a poor analogy.

I don't believe anyone has caused my "arguments" to fall apart under scrutiny. Probably because they are not arguments and just expressing why we prefer the change in direction. Wish more people on the grumpy train would just express what they dislike about the current system without the incessant need to claim objective superiority on a purely subjective discussion.

"Subject: Re: Do you like the 10th edition approach to unit upgrades?"

There's an incongruity between the 10th edition points and 10th edition indexes. Many of the printed units only work if some amount of points for wargear system existed. The incongruity negatively impacts matched play, and anti-pl folks believe this incongruity must be fixed. The usage of objective is usually in the context that points are objectively better at fixing that incongruity than PL. For instance, take a Wraithnight. If you don't just make the D-Cannon option cost more points. how do you make he Sword and Board wraithnight a viable option for the same costs? You could buff the Sword(...a lot) or you can split the unit sheet in two. Both of these options could create additional negative externalities. The sword becomes too good, and then no one takes D-Cannons anymore, or now it's 4+ knight lists dominating the meta. Points for wargear fixes the problem in a more straight forward manner with less chance of a downside. Though if GW did fix the problem without having to re-introduce points, I'd be fine with that because the cost to value disparity is the real problem. Many ways to fix it, you don't have to fix it the "objectively best way" so long as it gets fixed.

This is of course if you think that all options should be equally viable, or balanced according to their value. And I think that's the rub. I'm starting to see that the real argument here is more axiomatic about "what is a game" For most pro-points people, our definition of a game is going to include lots of words like; fair, balanced, competition, and skill. While for some of the pro-PL people it is more of some type of minimal structure to have a social interaction over. No definition is the right definition. However, A working game under the competitive definition will mostly likely meet all the needs of the social definition, the opposite is not the case. All As are Bs but not all Bs are As.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:


I've mentioned before a few times in this thread, but the reason is simple. They have metrics that show this design direction is more profitable than maintaining the old system. There's many possibilities as to the exact reason for this decision, but the bottom line is to drive sales of models.

Nah. Someone in GW is claiming that that's what the metrics show, I'm certain, but it'a clearly not. Casual players need balance more than anyone, the current PL-like system inherently creates imbalance. GW is making an objectively dumb move here.

GW almost assuredly makes decisions with more information that we have, but that doesn't mean they make good decisions.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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*.

Fractional pts (pts but options and models can cost 8,5 instead of just 8 or 9)

pts (las pistol 0; bolt pistol 1; plasma pistol 3. 11-19 Necron Warriors is okay)

Not quite nuPoints (pts but options under 20 pts are free and set unit numbers)

PL (set unit numbers PL=(2*pts cost+pts cost of most expensive upgrades)/40)

I don't think anyone actually prefers nuPoints over all the other options. I would argue all of them are too similar to pts to be worth considering alongside pts, they all share an immense amount of commonalities, fractional pts is very similar to PL even if they're the furthest apart on the scale. You thinking they should all be accepted makes total sense, it's not so much about the objective merits of each system at that point as it's a question of there being people who would prefer it over every other option already on the list. I'd rather be arguing on the internet than in real life, any of us are free to leave or come back as we please. I have no problem with people having different subjective opinions.

Tittliewinks22 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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".

A couple examples: casualties of "the pursuit of balance" that my play group mourns:
Shokk Attack Gun mishap charts
Peril's of the Warp mishap (goodbye giga-chad psyker hulks)

Perfect imbalance does not preclude zany rules, it precludes utterly useless options like a 0 pt las pistol that can be replaced with a 0 pt plasma pistol.

Since some folk don't seem to be getting the point on this:
No one is telling PL users they are playing 'wrong'.
No one is saying that PL users are lying about their experiences.
No one is telling PL users that their experiences are invalid.
No one is telling PL users that Matched Play is all that matters.
No one is telling PL users that their kind of play cannot or will not be accounted for.
No one is attacking or insulting PL users themselves.
No one is unable to see or understand that people approach the game in different ways.
GW historically being poor at getting points costs correct does not mean all attempt to do so should be abandoned.

All anyone is trying to make the PL users understand (with increasing exasperation) is that Power Levels/NuPoints do not contribute to your preferred type of game. The fact that you like more narrative games, that you don't care about balance (to whatever degree), that you don't like the cost of things changing regularly; none of that is actively improved by the use of PL nor is any of it inherent to the PL system. It is not because of PL that you are able to play or enjoy the kinds of games that you do.
So, when any of you claim that PL 'works better for you', the fundamental question remains: what is it that PL/NP does that *makes* it work better for you? What does the PL system actually do in of itself, and independent of any social contract or group agreement to do, or not do, certain things? This is where the frustration arises, because so far, no one has been able to answer that question with anything tangible that is actively provided by PL and not by traditional points.
The PL system does not include anything mechnically to make games more narrative. If you only want to get balance 'close enough' between two armies, what advantage is PL offering over, say, just using 'base' points costs for everything, or perhaps pricing everything at it's highest potential cost, without needing GW to make a seperate system to do so? If you don't like how regularly the points values are altered, why not just stick with the values you have?

Narrative, story-driven, casual games are great. But those kinds of games will work best when they build on a strong core framework where everything possible is done to ensure all the options are costed appropriately. From that, you can do whatever you like *with* that core. You can have deliberately lop-sided forces for a last stand scenario, you can alter the costs of certain units or equipment to represent a different level of scarcity, you can make up your own units or equipment and cost them based on precedent that already exists; because the core framework gives you a rough idea of how much something should be worth. If the core is strong, then you run far less risk of breaking the game when you start to get creative like that.
Then, for those who just want to play the game 'as is' and have a reasonable chance at success based on their ability to play it rather than taking the 'correct' options, the core is there and, if balanced well enough, can facilitate pickup games and tournaments.

Doing the reverse, taking a loose and unbalanced system and trying to restrain it so that it can work in those scenarios, is much more difficult if not entirely impossible. So a strong core (traditionally granular points) works for all types of players - the more 'competitive' types, because they can use the base game as written and it functions universally, and the more 'narrative' types because they can tinker with it with less risk of outright breaking it. But a loose system (PL/NP) only works for the 'narrative' types, because the flaws it has are mitigated by the social contracts and adjustments they would use anyway.

This is also why the 'just go back to having both' argument doesn't really work, because there is no *reason* to have the secondary system. It is not 'saying you're having fun wrong' to point out that the system you choose to use isn't actually providing anything to facilitate the game type you want, so why does it need to exist in the first place?

That's all us 'pro-points' lot really want from this debate - answers to these questions that arn't 'I just like it', negligible time savings in list building, or using it as some kind of identity card for being a narrative-type player. We'd also like people not to treat being asked those questions as a personal attack either on them or their chosen style of play. If such answers can't be provided, then that says a lot about the system being defended; as does resorting to emotionally charged responses in the face of critical and analytical scrutiny.

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

Sure. There is room for suggestions like re-scaling the traditional system to allow a smaller minimum increment without needing fractional points. But none of those suggestions lead to PL. PL is never the answer to any need other than "I want to use PL".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Why should anyone take you seriously?

Because "produce a citation with an exact quote from everything scattered all over the 90 page thread" instead of addressing the substance of the argument is not the devastating rebuttal you seem to think it is.

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.

PL is not a unique and separate system, it's just a minor downgrade of the standard point system. It does nothing new or interesting, it just adds some errors in exchange for sometimes giving a minor reduction in time required to write down a list. If all of the other systems I mentioned are "just their version of points/PL" and don't merit inclusion then neither does PL.

I'm 100% fine with extra systems.

At least you're consistent in accepting that having a 500 page rulebook of additional point systems is fine as long as one of them is PL.

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?

Because he clearly describes how the collaborative attitude towards list building created the desirable result and doesn't say anything about how using PL instead of the traditional system contributed.

Do you believe that there is no other possible way that things could be improved?

Of course not. But PL does not improve anything. It's a dead-end concept that has nothing new to offer. It's just the same old concept of open-ended matched play list construction but with known errors included. Of the known systems we have available the traditional point system is the clear best option, and any hypothetical improvement on the system will not go in the failed direction of PL.

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

Then why do you reject "take X units" if you want a system for people who can't do math and don't want to use a list building app? That is a system that solves the problem far better than PL and PL has no reason to exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tittliewinks22 wrote:
This is speculation/my rational: After hearing the interviews of former employee's tell-all's describing the funnel or trumpet method of customer acquisition, it makes sense to me that this system helps acquire new customers at the expense of deep enfranchised player's. The combat patrol rules and the culling of old models also points this direction as well.

I accept that this might be the explanation. After all, GW continued to employ Jervis long past the point where it was obvious that he was a narcissist who understood nothing about game design and GW's publication history is a litany of badly designed rules. But if it's true it's a profoundly stupid decision by GW. Pseudo-PL has 99% of the complexity of the traditional point system and offers no meaningful improvement in new customer retention, nothing to make up for the damage done to the existing players GW's business model depends on to provide free marketing for their products.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MalusCalibur wrote:
using it as some kind of identity card for being a narrative-type player

This is the heart of the problem and why no argument in defense of PL will ever really make sense. It's not about the practical advantages PL offers, it's about the fact that PL was created at a time when GW was starting to acknowledge and support competitive play. PL was attached to open/narrative play and became symbolic as the "casual system" for people who wanted to distance themselves from competitive play and that symbolic status is far more valuable than any functional advantage a system can offer. But for some reason people are never willing to admit this openly, and so we go around and around the endless cycle of weak defenses for PL followed by "just let us have fun" and attempts to frame disagreement with arguments as "invalidating our experiences".

Andykp wrote:

The wincing is at the flagrant misuse of the word objective!

It's not misuse, and the fact that you don't understand it as such is a problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CaulynDarr wrote:


GW almost assuredly makes decisions with more information that we have, but that doesn't mean they make good decisions.

They seem to hire salesmen into all positions, not game designers, so are prone to getting things wrong when it comes to game design that even a cursory undsratanding of the topic would advise you to avoid.

Honestly I question their "information." Very likely someone in their power structure has arrived at the answer they want and then cooks the books on the "information" until it says what they thing will support their conclusion.

Andykp wrote:


The wincing is at the flagrant misuse of the word objective!

It's a bit scary to see that some people do not understand how this is objective. Even comparing the emotive and almost directionless posts from team pl to the more reasoned posts of the people who would rather points should provide a clue. Especially when you factor in the context that gw's choice of system affects the entire community and it should be flagrantly clear.

PL is faster. That’s it. Whether the time savings is negligible is subjective. You don’t think it’s worth it. That’s fine. Some people think it is. That’s also fine.

Start of saying no one is saying we are lying or wrong (when they clearly are numerous times) and then go on a multiple paragraph rant about how we are playing it working and are wither too dumb to notice we aren’t having fun or are lying. Then doubles down by saying we should go back to a two system set up where we can have power levels and points because our way is ruining the game, FOR US!

You are trying to apply analytical scrutiny to a thing that is a matter of personal preference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Swastakowey wrote:

Andykp wrote:


The wincing is at the flagrant misuse of the word objective!

It's a bit scary to see that some people do not understand how this is objective. Even comparing the emotive and almost directionless posts from team pl to the more reasoned posts of the people who would rather points should provide a clue. Especially when you factor in the context that gw's choice of system affects the entire community and it should be flagrantly clear.

Because it isn’t, it’s a matter of personal preference, it’s a matter of taste. It’s subjective.

Definition of subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Which points system to use and which provides the most fun experience is entirely subjective. Proven by the fact that I had more fun using power level than points for the last 2 editions.

Andykp wrote:
Proven by the fact that I had more fun using power level than points for the last 2 editions.

"I had more fun eating a McDonalds burger on vacation than eating a nice burger that night my wife announced she was divorcing me to hook up with my dad, this proves that the McDonalds burger is better."

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Proven by the fact that I had more fun using power level than points for the last 2 editions.

"I had more fun eating a McDonalds burger on vacation than eating a nice burger that night my wife announced she was divorcing me to hook up with my dad, this proves that the McDonalds burger is better."

Odd analogy but in that instance, yes. Sorry to hear about your wife/dad.

Andykp wrote:
Odd analogy but in that instance, yes. Sorry to hear about your wife/dad.

The analogy is exactly accurate to what you have said and no, it doesn't prove that the burger is superior. The experience surrounding the burger was superior but the burger itself did not contribute to that. Therefore the comparison is proof that being on vacation is better than a traumatic divorce announcement, it is not in any way proof that the fast food burger is better.

Same thing with you and PL. Your overall experience of 40k may have been better in the games where you used PL but that's because you had a good group of like-minded people, PL saving you a few seconds in writing down the list wasn't what made those games more enjoyable. None of the stuff you talk about enjoying had anything to do with PL, PL was simply present by coincidence and at best didn't actively sabotage your enjoyment enough to offset the good parts.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Odd analogy but in that instance, yes. Sorry to hear about your wife/dad.

The analogy is exactly accurate to what you have said and no, it doesn't prove that the burger is superior. The experience surrounding the burger was superior but the burger itself did not contribute to that. Therefore the comparison is proof that being on vacation is better than a traumatic divorce announcement, it is not in any way proof that the fast food burger is better.

Same thing with you and PL. Your overall experience of 40k may have been better in the games where you used PL but that's because you had a good group of like-minded people, PL saving you a few seconds in writing down the list wasn't what made those games more enjoyable. None of the stuff you talk about enjoying had anything to do with PL, PL was simply present by coincidence and at best didn't actively sabotage your enjoyment enough to offset the good parts.

I’ve had some good burgers in my time but there are always days when nothing but a Maccies will do. And when you eat that greasy cheesy quarter pounder with no pickles it’s the best damn burger in the world. (Normally while hungover).

If you are eating a meal is enjoyment not a key metric? It is for me. Same when I play a wargame. Now the points system isn’t the key to my enjoyment, oh no. But when there was a choice of two, and one did its job better than the other and contributed to my over all enjoyment I would say that’s the better one. And that was power levels for me.

But of course it’s totally subjective.

Andykp wrote:


Because it isn’t, it’s a matter of personal preference, it’s a matter of taste. It’s subjective.

Definition of subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Which points system to use and which provides the most fun experience is entirely subjective. Proven by the fact that I had more fun using power level than points for the last 2 editions.

Your reasoning is subjective but it's not a relevant or useful metric.

"Subjective statement: The cake is delicious. Objective statement: The cake contains 250 calories per serving."

The objective of points is to provide structure and restraint. Maybe even some balance. The opinions for points aren't "works for me" or "I like it" but listing the reasons it's better able to do its job and accommodate pl players at the same time.

It's OK to like something for subjective reasons, we all do.

Andykp wrote:
If you are eating a meal is enjoyment not a key metric?

It is, but you're missing the point of the analogy. Enjoyment of the total experience and enjoyment of the burger itself are two very different things. The overall experience of the vacation meal was clearly superior but that's the result of vacations being more enjoyable than traumatic divorce announcements, it has nothing to do with the quality of the burger and certainly doesn't prove that a McDonalds burger is superior. At best it proves that the McDonalds burger was not so unimaginably horrible that it produced misery equivalent to the divorce announcement.

With PL you are pulling a bait and switch by making arguments for the total game experience being better and then using them as "proof" that PL is a better system for you, ignoring all of the other things that made the total game experience better while PL did nothing to help.

But when there was a choice of two, and one did its job better than the other and contributed to my over all enjoyment I would say that’s the better one.

But it didn't contribute in any meaningful way. Let's review what you said:

The other thing they don’t seem to get is that with power level used by a group of like minded folk who are happy discuss army composition before the game and for them all to design armies with the idea of an enjoyable game for all as the goal, a balanced game is achieved, I would argue more successfully than with points. I say this because we enjoy gripping close games where a few dice rolls or decisions decide the fate of your army in most battles we have, very rarely is one side stomped. Where all I heard for two editions from most the posters arguing for points so vehemently is how unbalanced the game is and how one sided games are all the time. Meanwhile I was enjoying great thematic balanced enjoyable games with the same system just approached differently. Which is why I disagree with the notion that points are objectively better than power level, because that in no way reflects my experiences.

Not one bit of that had anything to do with the slight time savings of PL.

Yet everything to do with the fact that the only benefit you keep mentioning about points is that it brings better balance. Yet balance in the last editions was crap according to everyone on every internet forum everywhere. But with the “worse” system I was able to enjoy well balanced games. So the one benefit you claim points has over the way I played was cancelled out by us all playing nicely and ensuring everyone enjoyed their games. So PL wins again.

FOR ME!

And I didnt miss the point of your analogy, it was a bad one. Because regardless of the objective betterness of the burger. You enjoyed one more than the other. So the crap burger eaten in a happy situation was the better burger.

Andykp wrote:
So PL wins again.

No it doesn't. The fact that your group managed to invest effort in your own collaborative balancing efforts and overcome the drawbacks of PL does not mean that PL was a success. You spent more work balancing PL than you would have had to spend to get the same results with the traditional point system. At best PL didn't fail so badly that it was impossible to make up for its flaws and that is not even close to the same thing as a win.

So the crap burger eaten in a happy situation was the better burger.

No it wasn't. It was the better total experience, not the better burger.

Andykp wrote:
Yet everything to do with the fact that the only benefit you keep mentioning about points is that it brings better balance. Yet balance in the last editions was crap according to everyone on every internet forum everywhere. But with the “worse” system I was able to enjoy well balanced games. So the one benefit you claim points has over the way I played was cancelled out by us all playing nicely and ensuring everyone enjoyed their games. So PL wins again.

FOR ME!

I don't think you've been reading... list construction being easier , being able to build a list with quantity over quality (e.g more barebones russ v tricked out russ), which directly leads to balance of a sort. Not perfect balance of course but leagues ahead of pl. Etc etc.

These objective measures lead to a subjectively better experience. You may enjoy the worse thing for whatever reasons you want. But I have no idea why people opting for a better system if they play as you or not gets your Jimmies rustled?

Objectively bmws suck, they cost me an arm and a leg because mechanically they fall apart. But I like the look subjectively so I put up with it. You'll never see me be delusional about it.

Why are people so deadset on convincing others that their experiences don't matter, and they'd be better off with something they've already had and chose to do differently?
Again, I prefer points to PL. But I'm not hurt by the existence of PL in addition to more granular points.

Live and let live.