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.
alextroy wrote: Seems someone is missing the concept of an Anti-Infantry weapon being better than an Anti-Tank Weapon in some circumstances. Or a multi-use weapon being better than both.
Seems someone doesn't understand how IG work. You don't take anti-infantry heavy weapons because you already have lasguns, Wyverns, etc that are great at killing infantry. You take anti-tank heavy weapons, and the lascannon is the best anti-tank weapon. The autocannon is only better than a lascannon in weird edge case scenarios that are mostly created for the sole purpose of "proving" that the autocannon has a place. The vast majority of the time if both weapons cost the same you're taking the lascannon. In a conventional points list you at least have to think about whether you're willing to invest 20 points in a heavy weapon and maybe consider the cheaper option. In a PL game they both cost zero points so you take the lascannon, anything else is crippling your squad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnnyHell wrote: This Peregrine / Blacksails “stop liking what I don’t like” tag-team is pretty tiresome. WE GET IT GUYS YOU DON’T LIKE PL. Stop trying to tell people they’re wrong for liking playing the game the way they want to, you’ll have a happier day.
This "stop hating what I like" tag team is pretty tiresome. WE GET IT GUYS YOU LIKE PL. Stop trying to tell people that they're wrong for pointing out GW's incompetence in game design, you'll have a happier day.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chamberlain wrote: I don't think they'd have done that without a very, very good reason.
You seem to be forgetting GW's long history of incompetence in game design. Why would you ever make the assumption that if GW did something they must have a very good reason for it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
frozenwastes wrote: The local marine player who takes his hunter killer missiles likes them and likes that his list isn't made weaker by taking them.
Do you honestly not see how selfish this is? The local marine player benefits from it, but at the expense of the marine player who doesn't take those missiles having their list made weaker. That player is selfishly advocating changing the point system to buff their particular unit choices, turning a balancing system into another thing to exploit for personal gain.
Thanks for playing, but try harder. I don’t use PL, but think you should stop deriding people who do. Helps if you read my posts instead of just trying a “NO YOU ARE!” response. ;-)
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
alextroy wrote: I thought we were talking about PL vs Points, not IG weapon load outs. We all know that Autocannons are bad, but that is because they just don't have a good niche due to their rules. I think we can make a case for Heavy Bolters vs Missile Launchers vs Lascannons as options for many units that can take one of the three. I'm darn sure that a Heavy Bolter is better against infantry than a Lascannon. Not an issue when playing guard, but PL isn't exclusively for guard.
IG are the only army that can take autocannons on their infantry squad, so IG was implicit. And no, you can't make a case for those weapons. HBs do the thing that your basic weapons already do, and don't do it all that well. Maybe you'd occasionally take one if you're list tailoring against an army that has nothing but horde infantry, but list tailoring is bad and you should feel bad about doing that. Missile launchers are just weaker lascannons against big targets in exchange for an alternate shot that is bad at the thing it's supposed to be used for. If you're shooting missile launchers at light infanty (outside of mopping up in a game you've already won) instead of tanks you're almost certainly making a mistake, and if you're shooting at tanks you should have taken a lascannon instead.
So no, HB/AC vs. LC is not an interesting choice in a PL game. It's an interesting choice in a conventional points game because you have to decide if paying more points for a more powerful weapon is worth it, when both options cost the same you almost always take the lascannon.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
A Lascannon can kill one target max.
An autocannon could kill two, and/or the two shots somewhat mitigates the poor Guard BS 4+.
Against some opponents/targets the autocannon is a better choice.
In 8th it’s not entirely as simple as “this weapon is better”. “Better at what?” is what you need to ask.
And again, you’re approaching this with a min/max Matched Play mindset. Which is anathema to PL games.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
JohnnyHell wrote: A Lascannon can kill one target max.
An autocannon could kill two
Can =/= likely to. Against anything but horde infantry (which, again, you are not shooting your heavy weapons at) the autocannon's higher rate of fire is offset by its significantly lower chance of converting a hit into an unsaved wound. For example, against basic MEQs the lascannon actually kills more of them on average despite having half the rate of fire.
and/or the two shots somewhat mitigates the poor Guard BS 4+.
That is not how math works, at all.
In 8th it’s not entirely as simple as “this weapon is better”. “Better at what?” is what you need to ask.
You're right, you do. And when you ask the question you find that the lascannon is better against pretty much every relevant target. In a conventional points game the lascannon is more powerful but also more expensive, so you have a choice between taking the better weapon at 20 points or saving 10 points by taking a weaker weapon. In a PL game they cost the same, and the choice is automatically the lascannon.
And again, you’re approaching this with a min/max Matched Play mindset. Which is anathema to PL games.
No it isn't. Having weapons cost zero points or not has nothing to do with how much you min/max. That's entirely your personal feelings about different rules, and it highlights what I keep saying about virtue signalling: PL is not good because of RAW, it's useful because you've decided that it is "casual" and that min/maxing is "anathema" to it and therefore asking for a PL game tells your opponent that min/maxing is not welcome.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/15 10:32:59
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: Do you honestly not see how selfish this is? The local marine player benefits from it, but at the expense of the marine player who doesn't take those missiles having their list made weaker. That player is selfishly advocating changing the point system to buff their particular unit choices, turning a balancing system into another thing to exploit for personal gain.
Everyone should go for the way to play that they enjoy and that they can find other people who also enjoy it.
We should be selfish with our hobbies as they are about our own enjoyment. We should have both a detailed points system and a simplified power level system for both 40k and AoS. And allow people to try things out and figure out what type of warhammer experience works best for them. We just need to not be a total donkey-cave and try to advocate for one system and have the system other people want scrapped.
That would selfish in the truly negative sense. And that's your postilion.
alextroy wrote: Besides, everyone know that people only take Mortars on Guardsmen now days
Something tells me that this will be blamed on GW messing up points and thus excused from being considered a negative result of a points system always producing a best possible choice in a given combination of terrain, the type of stuff in people's armies and scenarios.
It should surprise no one that people prefer the system of their choice when they are comparing the real world version of the one they don't like with the idealized version of the one they prefer.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/15 19:42:10
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better.
I hope I haven't been idealizing power levels that much. They definitely have their weaknesses. Speed and simplicity come at a price and when GW messes up and gets the number off by 1, that's like getting the number off by 20 in points. And when things have a wide variety of options like a predator or inquisition acolytes the power level tends to be off more than with other data sheets.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/15 20:49:30
frozenwastes wrote: Something tells me that this will be blamed on GW messing up points and thus excused from being considered a negative result of a points system always producing a best possible choice in a given combination of terrain, the type of stuff in people's armies and scenarios.
Nobody is disputing that, in a point system, there will be a best choice. That's why in PL games there is a best choice. The argument is that people are laughably wrong when they try to claim that PL "lets you play whatever you want" or "doesn't have best choices" when all PL does is change which particular units/upgrades are the best choice. You still have the exact same choice between taking the best thing or weakening your own list.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chamberlain wrote: Everyone should go for the way to play that they enjoy and that they can find other people who also enjoy it.
There's a difference between "play what you enjoy" and "pick the point system that makes your army more powerful than your opponent's army and insist that you get to use that one".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/15 21:11:24
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
JohnnyHell wrote: A Lascannon can kill one target max.
An autocannon could kill two
Can =/= likely to. Against anything but horde infantry (which, again, you are not shooting your heavy weapons at) the autocannon's higher rate of fire is offset by its significantly lower chance of converting a hit into an unsaved wound. For example, against basic MEQs the lascannon actually kills more of them on average despite having half the rate of fire.
and/or the two shots somewhat mitigates the poor Guard BS 4+.
That is not how math works, at all.
In 8th it’s not entirely as simple as “this weapon is better”. “Better at what?” is what you need to ask.
You're right, you do. And when you ask the question you find that the lascannon is better against pretty much every relevant target. In a conventional points game the lascannon is more powerful but also more expensive, so you have a choice between taking the better weapon at 20 points or saving 10 points by taking a weaker weapon. In a PL game they cost the same, and the choice is automatically the lascannon.
And again, you’re approaching this with a min/max Matched Play mindset. Which is anathema to PL games.
No it isn't. Having weapons cost zero points or not has nothing to do with how much you min/max. That's entirely your personal feelings about different rules, and it highlights what I keep saying about virtue signalling: PL is not good because of RAW, it's useful because you've decided that it is "casual" and that min/maxing is "anathema" to it and therefore asking for a PL game tells your opponent that min/maxing is not welcome.
Only hateful people use the phrase 'virtue signalling'. Way to show your true colours.
Again, I'm not a PL advocate; tried it and I prefer the balance points brings. Just suggesting you quit being such an active a killjoy and spending so much time telling others how they're allowed to play the game.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
JohnnyHell wrote: A Lascannon can kill one target max.
An autocannon could kill two
Can =/= likely to. Against anything but horde infantry (which, again, you are not shooting your heavy weapons at) the autocannon's higher rate of fire is offset by its significantly lower chance of converting a hit into an unsaved wound. For example, against basic MEQs the lascannon actually kills more of them on average despite having half the rate of fire.
and/or the two shots somewhat mitigates the poor Guard BS 4+.
That is not how math works, at all.
In 8th it’s not entirely as simple as “this weapon is better”. “Better at what?” is what you need to ask.
You're right, you do. And when you ask the question you find that the lascannon is better against pretty much every relevant target. In a conventional points game the lascannon is more powerful but also more expensive, so you have a choice between taking the better weapon at 20 points or saving 10 points by taking a weaker weapon. In a PL game they cost the same, and the choice is automatically the lascannon.
And again, you’re approaching this with a min/max Matched Play mindset. Which is anathema to PL games.
No it isn't. Having weapons cost zero points or not has nothing to do with how much you min/max. That's entirely your personal feelings about different rules, and it highlights what I keep saying about virtue signalling: PL is not good because of RAW, it's useful because you've decided that it is "casual" and that min/maxing is "anathema" to it and therefore asking for a PL game tells your opponent that min/maxing is not welcome.
Only hateful people use the phrase 'virtue signalling'. Way to show your true colours.
Again, I'm not a PL advocate; tried it and I prefer the balance points brings. Just suggesting you quit being such an active a killjoy and spending so much time telling others how they're allowed to play the game.
Guy's been showing his true colours for about ten pages now, I can't believe people are still responding to him.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
Chamberlain wrote: Everyone should go for the way to play that they enjoy and that they can find other people who also enjoy it.
There's a difference between "play what you enjoy" and "pick the point system that makes your army more powerful than your opponent's army and insist that you get to use that one".
The only one advocating that a system be scrapped is you. Is anyone else really insisting on anything? They're just pointing out the ways they find PL useful in their gaming experience. You're the one insisting the tool they like to use should be scrapped.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vaklor4 wrote: Guy's been showing his true colours for about ten pages now, I can't believe people are still responding to him.
You know what, you're right. This isn't going anywhere. Now he's actually suggesting that people are selfishly choosing power level to make their armies more powerful than their opponents.
Points and power levels have their upsides and downsides. People should pick what works for them and their opponents.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/15 23:39:20
JohnnyHell wrote: A Lascannon can kill one target max.
An autocannon could kill two
Can =/= likely to. Against anything but horde infantry (which, again, you are not shooting your heavy weapons at) the autocannon's higher rate of fire is offset by its significantly lower chance of converting a hit into an unsaved wound. For example, against basic MEQs the lascannon actually kills more of them on average despite having half the rate of fire.
and/or the two shots somewhat mitigates the poor Guard BS 4+.
That is not how math works, at all.
In 8th it’s not entirely as simple as “this weapon is better”. “Better at what?” is what you need to ask.
You're right, you do. And when you ask the question you find that the lascannon is better against pretty much every relevant target. In a conventional points game the lascannon is more powerful but also more expensive, so you have a choice between taking the better weapon at 20 points or saving 10 points by taking a weaker weapon. In a PL game they cost the same, and the choice is automatically the lascannon.
And again, you’re approaching this with a min/max Matched Play mindset. Which is anathema to PL games.
No it isn't. Having weapons cost zero points or not has nothing to do with how much you min/max. That's entirely your personal feelings about different rules, and it highlights what I keep saying about virtue signalling: PL is not good because of RAW, it's useful because you've decided that it is "casual" and that min/maxing is "anathema" to it and therefore asking for a PL game tells your opponent that min/maxing is not welcome.
Only hateful people use the phrase 'virtue signalling'. Way to show your true colours.
Again, I'm not a PL advocate; tried it and I prefer the balance points brings. Just suggesting you quit being such an active a killjoy and spending so much time telling others how they're allowed to play the game.
So centre left people like myself are hateful, makes me wonder what you'd call conservatives.
And you have it wrong others are talking down to matched players as if they are lesser for using points over PL and he's just refusing to take it lying down, and every reply is logically consistent.
Chamberlain wrote: Now she's actually suggesting that people are selfishly choosing power level to make their armies more powerful than their opponents.
Uh, that is exactly what the person I was responding to advocated: that "my list with hunter killer missiles is more powerful under PL" is a good reason to use PL.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
JohnnyHell wrote: A Lascannon can kill one target max.
An autocannon could kill two
Can =/= likely to. Against anything but horde infantry (which, again, you are not shooting your heavy weapons at) the autocannon's higher rate of fire is offset by its significantly lower chance of converting a hit into an unsaved wound. For example, against basic MEQs the lascannon actually kills more of them on average despite having half the rate of fire.
and/or the two shots somewhat mitigates the poor Guard BS 4+.
That is not how math works, at all.
In 8th it’s not entirely as simple as “this weapon is better”. “Better at what?” is what you need to ask.
You're right, you do. And when you ask the question you find that the lascannon is better against pretty much every relevant target. In a conventional points game the lascannon is more powerful but also more expensive, so you have a choice between taking the better weapon at 20 points or saving 10 points by taking a weaker weapon. In a PL game they cost the same, and the choice is automatically the lascannon.
And again, you’re approaching this with a min/max Matched Play mindset. Which is anathema to PL games.
No it isn't. Having weapons cost zero points or not has nothing to do with how much you min/max. That's entirely your personal feelings about different rules, and it highlights what I keep saying about virtue signalling: PL is not good because of RAW, it's useful because you've decided that it is "casual" and that min/maxing is "anathema" to it and therefore asking for a PL game tells your opponent that min/maxing is not welcome.
Only hateful people use the phrase 'virtue signalling'. Way to show your true colours.
Again, I'm not a PL advocate; tried it and I prefer the balance points brings. Just suggesting you quit being such an active a killjoy and spending so much time telling others how they're allowed to play the game.
So centre left people like myself are hateful, makes me wonder what you'd call conservatives.
And you have it wrong others are talking down to matched players as if they are lesser for using points over PL and he's just refusing to take it lying down, and every reply is logically consistent.
It's a natural human trait to view yourself as more reasonable then you really are. From this side you come off a lot harsher than you thing.
No one was talking down to you guys until Peregrine came into this thread swinging. And naturally you guys ruffled enough feathers to get the out come you wanted.
Peregrine wrote: Nobody is disputing that, in a point system, there will be a best choice. That's why in PL games there is a best choice. The argument is that people are laughably wrong when they try to claim that PL "lets you play whatever you want" or "doesn't have best choices" when all PL does is change which particular units/upgrades are the best choice. You still have the exact same choice between taking the best thing or weakening your own list.
If it's the case that there will always be an optimal choice regardless of the points system you use, and not choosing that option will weaken your list, then what's the advantage of the points system over PL? You're essentially just claiming that the set of optimal choices under points is somehow better than the set of optimal choices under PL... how do you support that position? Why do we need points at all?
How does power levels help modellers over points? Model what you want, and then just pay the points for that model. I also can't fathom a reason power levels make your army cheaper.
*Edit* I also scratch my head whenever people say power levels are great for when you don't care about min-maxing or making optimal choices, but then are bothered that certain builds using points is not optimal (like the HK missile example above). If you don't care about optimization, then at least have the consistency to not care about optimization in both systems.
Lol. That's sooooo obvious. For one you can model cool looking model without worrying about your army becoming WORTHLESS PIECE OF JUNK because you pay way too much for what it is. Like unit I fielded yesterday. It was fun unit to build, liked to paint it, it looks sweet but costs way too much for 5 T4 3+ save guys with 1W each. If I would like that unit to be even remotely playable I would need to throw down like 90% of gear it has. And no just because you like modelling doesn't mean you want to deliberately lose every game because you liked to build some models.
Also you don't need bazillion replacement models to ensure you can have cheaper alternative model to stay in point limit. I have lost count times I need to degrade weapon just to fit to point level. With point cost I need two models. With PL I need 1. You really don't see how LESS MODELS NEEDED equals to CHEAPER ARMY TO BUY? For example for sake of dropping 10 points I might need to change my entire battlewagon. You don't really see how it's MUCH cheaper that I don't need to have 2 versions of battlewagon? One with couple big shootas for fun, 1 for when I run out of points so need to drop something to fit into point limit.
Weird guy.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/16 07:13:04
tneva82 wrote: For one you can model cool looking model without worrying about your army becoming WORTHLESS PIECE OF JUNK because you pay way too much for what it is.
Not true at all. For example, I prefer the appearance of LRBTs without sponsons on them. In a PL game I am overpaying for those no-sponson LRBTs because I could have two more heavy weapons for zero additional cost. They're WORTHLESS PIECES OF JUNK. In a conventional points game I don't pay for weapons I'm not taking, and the point cost more accurately reflects the power of my chosen configuration. So I actually have greater flexibility to choose what looks cool without worrying about making a crippled unit.
Also you don't need bazillion replacement models to ensure you can have cheaper alternative model to stay in point limit. I have lost count times I need to degrade weapon just to fit to point level. With point cost I need two models. With PL I need 1. You really don't see how LESS MODELS NEEDED equals to CHEAPER ARMY TO BUY?
PL does not require less models. If you're over the point limit (or significantly under it) in a PL game you have to change an entire unit composed of a $50 tank model or an entire squad of infantry. If you're over the point limit in a normal game you can often swap a model or two instead of an entire unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kadeton wrote: If it's the case that there will always be an optimal choice regardless of the points system you use, and not choosing that option will weaken your list, then what's the advantage of the points system over PL? You're essentially just claiming that the set of optimal choices under points is somehow better than the set of optimal choices under PL... how do you support that position? Why do we need points at all?
Even though there is usually still an optimal choice you can still narrow the gap between options. In a PL game an autocannon is never the correct choice, it costs way more than it should. In a conventional points game the autocannon is still probably not cheap enough relative to the lascannon, but it's at least cheaper at all. That reduces the gap in power between the two options even if you still conclude that the lascannon is the right choice.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/16 12:51:21
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
kadeton wrote: If it's the case that there will always be an optimal choice regardless of the points system you use, and not choosing that option will weaken your list, then what's the advantage of the points system over PL? You're essentially just claiming that the set of optimal choices under points is somehow better than the set of optimal choices under PL... how do you support that position? Why do we need points at all?
Even though there is usually still an optimal choice you can still narrow the gap between options. In a PL game an autocannon is never the correct choice, it costs way more than it should. In a conventional points game the autocannon is still probably not cheap enough relative to the lascannon, but it's at least cheaper at all. That reduces the gap in power between the two options even if you still conclude that the lascannon is the right choice.
Sure, makes sense. But how is that better? You've still got an optimal choice and a sub-optimal choice, even if they're closer together.
Competitive players are going to pick up on that gap, no matter how small it is. Non-competitive players aren't going to care either way, they'll take whatever they feel like. So who benefits from points over PL?
kadeton wrote: Sure, makes sense. But how is that better? You've still got an optimal choice and a sub-optimal choice, even if they're closer together.
Competitive players are going to pick up on that gap, no matter how small it is. Non-competitive players aren't going to care either way, they'll take whatever they feel like. So who benefits from points over PL?
It's better because improving balance is always a good thing. Imagine a hypothetical game where the best option is 0.0000000000001% better than the second-best option. Yeah, that's a difference and the most dedicated competitive players will take the best option, but a game between someone who took the best option and someone who took the second-best option because it fit their fluff is going to be effectively an even match. The better list's advantage isn't going to be decisive enough to ruin the experience for the player who didn't take that best option, and both people end up having fun. That's clearly an extreme hypothetical scenario, but the closer the gap gets the closer we get to that world.
Or maybe they have it backwards, and the "second-best option" is actually the best one, and the players smart enough to figure it out gain an advantage. It's much easier to have that happen when the gap is small compared to when the gap is huge and obvious and impossible to miss.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/16 13:10:51
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: It's better because improving balance is always a good thing. Imagine a hypothetical game where the best option is 0.0000000000001% better than the second-best option. Yeah, that's a difference and the most dedicated competitive players will take the best option, but a game between someone who took the best option and someone who took the second-best option because it fit their fluff is going to be effectively an even match. Or maybe they have it backwards, and the "second-best option" is actually the best one, and the players smart enough to figure it out gain an advantage. It's much easier to have that happen when the gap is small compared to when the gap is huge and obvious and impossible to miss.
In that hypothetical game where the two options are so evenly matched, imagine also that those weapons cost the same number of points and are balanced accordingly. Now there's no difference between PL and points, right?
The systems just favour different balancing structures. Points is more forgiving of fudging things by making crappy weapons cheap, while PL forces you to consider how to make crappy weapons good. As far as I can tell, that's the only difference.
Also, for someone who's enormously outspoken about how GW is doing a terrible job at every aspect of the game, it feels like a hell of a turnaround for you to entertain the possibility that they would get the balance right to within 0.0000000000001%.
kadeton wrote: In that hypothetical game where the two options are so evenly matched, imagine also that those weapons cost the same number of points and are balanced accordingly. Now there's no difference between PL and points, right?
The problem is that PLcan't balance things the same way that conventional points do. In a conventional points game you can have an option with weaker stats and a lower point cost to reflect it. In a PL game you can't. You've taken away a major balancing tool and gone all-in on making all weapons have equally powerful stats. Theoretically this is possible, but in the real world the conventional points system has a major advantage in getting closer to perfect balance and is a lot more likely to do so.
while PL forces you to consider how to make crappy weapons good.
Do you see the inherent contradiction in this statement?
Also, for someone who's enormously outspoken about how GW is doing a terrible job at every aspect of the game, it feels like a hell of a turnaround for you to entertain the possibility that they would get the balance right to within 0.0000000000001%.
I never said that. In fact I made it clear that this was a hypothetical scenario, and the goal is to get as close as possible. But if you want to use "GW sucks so badly at balancing that both systems are equally broken, and by 'equally' I mean '100% utterly broken'" as your defense of PL then that seems much more like an argument against ever playing 40k than an argument that PL is a good system.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
tneva82 wrote: Also you don't need bazillion replacement models to ensure you can have cheaper alternative model to stay in point limit. I have lost count times I need to degrade weapon just to fit to point level. With point cost I need two models. With PL I need 1. You really don't see how LESS MODELS NEEDED equals to CHEAPER ARMY TO BUY? For example for sake of dropping 10 points I might need to change my entire battlewagon. You don't really see how it's MUCH cheaper that I don't need to have 2 versions of battlewagon? One with couple big shootas for fun, 1 for when I run out of points so need to drop something to fit into point limit.
Weird guy.
In all honesty, it was because some models were in real world dollars so expensive I started figuring out how to use magnets and pins to swap loadouts.
Tanks, Aircraft and Dreadnaughts in particular.
Plus again looking at "the cup half full" I get to sometimes field these units with differing loadouts and can be pleasantly surprised in how they perform (easier to paint too).
I say with all honesty, I would be happy to help anyone with figuring out a way to make swappable options for any "chassis" if not already covered in detail already in Dakka.
I was a model builder before I was a tabletop player and that is my greater joy.
Part of the "fun" with points and lists is you sometimes have to make hard choices in order to fit as much meaningful equipment / models as you can into a list.
If we argue even the points "limit" does not matter it too becomes this slippering slope of how far can you go over and still be this happy fluff player and not TFG.
Peregrine certainly shows some stamina in making the point that as a system to achieve some semblance of balance, PLs are inferior to points in achieving that balance, I think that logic is pretty clearly made.
I think the warning being offered is being largely ignored: PLs are a much easier area for "abuse" or the proper wording would be "optimization" to be min/maxed even more than many posters would intend.
I am thinking you will be looking at some fully tooled-up characters and an awful lot of lascannons and assault cannons, that is not even thinking too hard, assuming people may or may not "understand" PLs are to signal a casual game. That system could even be prejudiced against most hoard armies since unit qty appears to be fairly closely paid for in the points.
As demonstrated in this forum, a secondary system only seems to allow further division of what is already a rather divisive player base.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Peregrine wrote: The problem is that PLcan't balance things the same way that conventional points do. In a conventional points game you can have an option with weaker stats and a lower point cost to reflect it. In a PL game you can't. You've taken away a major balancing tool and gone all-in on making all weapons have equally powerful stats. Theoretically this is possible, but in the real world the conventional points system has a major advantage in getting closer to perfect balance and is a lot more likely to do so.
The way I'd look at it is this: the designers of the game are always going to use the easiest tool available. I agree that it's easier to compensate using points, but I don't think "all weapon alternatives must have roughly equal value" is an insurmountable challenge, and I personally think the game would be better for it.
while PL forces you to consider how to make crappy weapons good.
Do you see the inherent contradiction in this statement?
Not really. When the problem is "This weapon sucks compared to this other weapon," there are two paths available: make the sucky weapon much cheaper than the other, or make it not suck.
Peregrine wrote: In fact I made it clear that this was a hypothetical scenario, and the goal is to get as close as possible.
The question isn't really about whether you think GW can achieve perfect balance, it's about whether you think they can achieve balance to the extent that a competitive player can't tell which of the available options is the "best". I don't think they can - they never have before, and nor has any other wargame I've ever played, so based on that track record I think it's unlikely. In which case, we're stuck with obvious "best" choices anyway - so what's the advantage of being "closer"?
Peregrine wrote: But if you want to use "GW sucks so badly at balancing that both systems are equally broken, and by 'equally' I mean '100% utterly broken'" as your defense of PL then that seems much more like an argument against ever playing 40k than an argument that PL is a good system.
I'm not saying PL is a good system. I'm just asking why you think points is a good system? If they're both bad, I'll go for the one that doesn't require me to cross-reference tables at the back of the book.
I'm not saying PL is a good system. I'm just asking why you think points is a good system? If they're both bad, I'll go for the one that doesn't require me to cross-reference tables at the back of the book.
Your premise that they are both equally bad is false.
I’m surprised by the people pushing power levels. Isn’t the only protection from exploitation it has from WAAC min/maxers that it doesn’t have enough popularity for those people to play in that meta?
Reemule wrote: Isn’t the only protection from exploitation it has from WAAC min/maxers that it doesn’t have enough popularity for those people to play in that meta?
What protection from exploitation by "WAAC min/maxers" is provided by the points system? There seem to be plenty of them using it.
I would assume that, if PL were used competitively, non-competitive players would use the same protections that have always existed - don't play in tournaments, and don't play games with TFG.
What's the correct loadout for a squad of crisis suits in a power level game that makes them balanced against other equivalent units of equal power level?
Is it all suits having fusion blasters? All having Plasma? All having burst? Combinations? What about signature systems?
The idea that power levels were ever balanced for any unit with wargear options is pretty laughable. What is the "median" loadout for a unit as customisable as Crisis suits?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/16 14:35:58
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
A Town Called Malus wrote: What's the correct loadout for a squad of crisis suits in a power level game that makes them balanced against other equivalent units of equal power level?
Is it all suits having fusion blasters? All having Plasma? All having burst? Combinations? What about signature systems?
The idea that power levels were ever balanced for any unit with wargear options is pretty laughable. What is the "median" loadout for a unit as customisable as Crisis suits?
I've been asking that since launch day but no one can answer.
Is the median for a tac squad H bolter and a flamer? Is it missile launcher and a meltagun? Lascanon and plasmagun? No PL advocate will answer.
It's as frustrating as when people used to shout down valid complaints against 6th & 7th with force the narrative!!!
Because of you don't know what this fabled median is you can't really compare it to the points equivalent.
hobojebus wrote: Is the median for a tac squad H bolter and a flamer? Is it missile launcher and a meltagun? Lascanon and plasmagun? No PL advocate will answer.
It's as frustrating as when people used to shout down valid complaints against 6th & 7th with force the narrative!!!
Because of you don't know what this fabled median is you can't really compare it to the points equivalent.
This has been my constant problem:
If a person is playing a game by the rules as written why are they labelled TFG?
Breaking or playing outside of the rules is WAAC.
None of us have the ability to read minds so trying to adhere to unwritten rules to someone else's satisfaction appears to be a fool's game.
PLs do not inherently safeguard from competitive play, it is just not preferred by them since it is like "shooting fish in a barrel".
Then there is the "it is easier since I do not have to total wargear" which is a valid point if you have so many models you do not want to bother recording what they have.
I COULD say you are NOT playing fluffy.
I have an excel sheet of my "guys".
They each have names and list what gear that is glued on them (I only magnet big stuff).
Their points are their points, you just tally up your guys and go, I even assign them to given squads (that is already tallied) and if they took a really bad hit last game, they can sit out the next to "recover" when I need the points.
I bet you my pre-fab squads / lists will add-up faster than your PLs.
I think the argument for PLs is is to cover for LAZY gaming... not CASUAL play but SLACKER play.
It is also a VERY convenient excuse if you lose, "I could win if I really wanted to but TFG does not know how to play a casual game! It is SO irritating!"
I call you all out for what it is!
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
