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.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

nou wrote:
Perhaps a quote from Rick Priestley can make you rethink a bit or two...

Not really, given my low opinion of him and his work. He has a lot of importance from a historical point of view but he's a relic of a time when game design was much less understood and the standards for quality were much lower.

But even in that quote he acknowledges that points are appropriate for the way the majority of 40k games are played: as a two-player matched play game. This is the game type that gets the vast majority of support in the 40k rules, with everything else being given a total of a paragraph or two in the entire rules. So no, I'm not really concerned that points may not be a good idea for a cooperative pseudo-RPG where you regularly play "tanks are not allowed" games.

nou wrote:
I once wrote an elaborate post about why solving point costs in Warhammer is not doable, but I don't feel like repeating it. So to make a long story short, the reason is that all resolution steps in 40k are non-linear so the math behind the point balance in 40k is therefore chaotic. They made a good step towards linearity and thus better solvability of point balance with switching to flat rolls for WS and initial rarity of AP, but because core rules of 8th/9th are so limited and the scope and 40k is so massive, they then bolted on a huge amount of non-linear or straight up non-quantifiable elements back on. The only way to tackle the balance now is statistical, which doesn't work outside of a very narrow context of "the meta", and a statistical balance has a metric ton of drawbacks. It is enough to say, that in rock/paper/scissors, all "factions" have a perfect 50% win rate but every game is a one way slaughter.

Sorry, but that's a ridiculous argument. 40k having non-linear mechanics makes it difficult to create accurate point costs based on a formula and no playtesting or statistical analysis of results. It's not a problem for point costs in general. You can still base point costs on a unit or option's effectiveness against a representative sample of opponents. For example, if you want to balance flamers vs. melta you can calculate their effectiveness against each of a comprehensive set of targets (light infantry, MEQs, vehicles, etc), apply a weighting factor representing their relative frequency, and compare their total weighted firepower. And then once you set costs based on that calculation you collect playtesting data. If one of them is the clear most popular choice then you got the point costs wrong and you adjust appropriately and do further playtesting. If they're being taken in roughly equal amounts and your playtesters disagree on which one is better then you probably have the right cost.

But as you approach too much granularity, you can no longer adequately establish how much melta is worth relative to a flamer

You claim this but your claim does not match reality. Competitive players regularly make these evaluations with that level of precision.

Re-read what you just wrote in the context of this thread.

You have just proven (exactly as has been written above and many times before in similar threads), that outside of Matched, points do not make too much sense, because you base your point costs on relative frequency of matchups within the meta. Once you step outside of what is "the way the majority of 40k games are played", those relative frequencies no longer apply. And this is where PLs step in - because points are very often skewed against your local environment/way of play and they do not provide more reliable metrics than PLs. EVERY PL supporter in this thread underlined, that their games do not follow the meta. One example I often invoke in such discussions - during 7th, the effective value of a Mawlock swinged from UP crap to mainstay choice in tournament lists, because it's utility relied on existence of large blobs of MEQs and TEQs "in the meta". If you mostly/only played against GEQ or MSU armies of your friends, including a Mawlock that was properly costed for tournament play was a straight up handicap for you. You can't balance such cases by any point juggling, and they are plenty.

My claims perfectly match reality, you are just obsessed with removing everything that doesn't suit your narrative from the scope of the conversation. And in many cases from the game entirely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

nou wrote:
But this kind of approach to wargaming is completely unsuitable for US pickup culture, where any attempt at pre game conversation above "2000pts GT Matched" is perceived as an insult and being a GW apologetist by (too) many players.

It's not being a GW apologist, it's missing the clear message that GW is giving you. Look at the game GW actually publishes, not your nostalgia for 1980s pseudo-RPG games in the 40k setting, and you see a game that is entirely dedicated to matched play pickup games. 60% is straight tournament-style games, 39% is "matched play with a table of upgrades" narrative games, and 1% is an occasional footnote saying something about maybe doing some vague thing with having a less-structured story game without giving any real details or support for the idea.

You may want to read this https://www.goonhammer.com/the-goonhammer-2022-reader-survey-and-what-it-tells-us-about-the-community/

Overread wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The problem is that PL players aren't advocating for the removal of anything, but the fear of points being removed is being used to discredit PL players.

There's nothing wrong with people saying "I don't wanna use PL, but I'm happy with everyone else who wants to use it".

I think the issue is that GW has been encouraging PL for a while - eg the casual way they put PL on the unit profile but not points.

I'd imagine that's because with PL, you only need to print one single number, maybe two. There's no indication that removing the single PL number from the unit profile would mean points would take it's place.

Personally I don't see the point of Power-Levels.

And that's okay. I'm not asking you to "see the point" - only to respect that some people like and prefer it.

Thus two people with the same intention and attitude can use PL and have a great time; whilst two others with different intentions and attitudes can have a horrible time.

The same can be said of points. I think the bigger problem isn't which system people choose to build their army, but their "intentions and attitudes" in both ways. If there's a mismatch, you won't have a good time.

Plus I find the argument of making the maths easier strange in an age where pretty much everyone is carrying a pocket calculator with them now. Tablets and phones are both super common (in fact not having one on you is considered quite abnormal now) and whilst there are some good opposing arguments for mandating game apps for wargames, most phone calculators are quick, simple to use and work well. They are unlikely to crash; place minimal power drain and requirements on the phone and should only be needed in the setup phase which you could even do at home before the game day.

Carrying a pocket calculator still doesn't change things like losing track of where you are in a long string of calculations. Should I need to use a calculator to work out the cost of a single unit?

vipoid wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
That's totally fine - play points instead. That's what points is for.

No-one's trying to take away your choice. Don't take ours away.

The issue is that GW having PL as a system is actively hurting the point system. e.g.

- The decision to include PL on dataslates instead of points, making the latter more awkward to begin with.

As I said, is there any evidence that GW would include points on a datasheet even IF PL was removed, or is it simply because that PL is a smaller number which doesn't have much variation?

- Using CP for artefacts and warlord traits is very clearly done to facilitate both systems but actively hurts points by removing any cost differences between strong and weak items

Again, there is no indication that this would change with the PL system gone, or that it couldn't be done with the points system anyway. It's not like the relics are all the same "strength" anyways, regardless of whatever weapon they upgrade.

- Removing point costs from a lot of items is clearly an attempt to gradually merge points with PL, to the detriment of the former.

Possibly, or it could simply be GW not knowing how to balance the point system effectively, and them wishing to promote more beyond the barebones build of certain units.

I don't mind PL existing alongside points, so long as points don't suffer as a result.

Likewise, but I don't agree with your assertion that the very existence of PL is to blame for the legitimate issues with points.

CadianSgtBob wrote:But even in that quote he acknowledges that points are appropriate for the way the majority of 40k games are played: as a two-player matched play game. This is the game type that gets the vast majority of support in the 40k rules, with everything else being given a total of a paragraph or two in the entire rules. So no, I'm not really concerned that points may not be a good idea for a cooperative pseudo-RPG where you regularly play "tanks are not allowed" games.

Exactly! You're absolutely that points would be appropriate for a two-player matched play game. But you're missing the crucial thing here - what myself and others are saying about our enjoyment of PL is that we're not playing tourney standard matched play games. It's that simple!

You keep points for the games that you want, but PL works for what we want.

CadianSgtBob wrote:Look at the game GW actually publishes

Yeah - one with PL and Open Play.

Sorry, you can't simultaneously say that "GW should stop supporting non-Matched games" and also claim that "GW only published Matched games".

Again, as I asked before - why do you care if people play a different kind of game to you?

nou wrote:
You have just proven (exactly as has been written above and many times before in similar threads), that outside of Matched, points do not make too much sense, because you base your point costs on relative frequency of matchups within the meta.

Ok? 99% of 40k is matched play, games outside that structure are a poorly-defined and completely unsupported footnote. I'm fine with admitting that GW's rules don't do a great job of covering a scenario that GW isn't interested in supporting but I'm not sure why you think that has any relevance to points vs. less-accurate points.

And this is where PLs step in

No it isn't. PL, at best, is also capable of handling the situation but does not offer any advantages. Having point costs be less accurate does not make them more able to adapt to different metagames, especially when GW is adjusting the normal point values more frequently than PL.

This is once again demonstrating the problem with PL defenders: you treat "PL doesn't completely suck" and "PL works better than points" as equivalent arguments and assume that any scenario where normal points encounter a flaw must be one where PL is better. But in reality PL has every flaw that the normal point system has but also has other flaws on top of that. There are many scenarios where the normal point system does something that PL can't, there are none where PL does something the normal point system can't.

You may want to read this https://www.goonhammer.com/the-goonhammer-2022-reader-survey-and-what-it-tells-us-about-the-community/

What about it? I'm very familiar with that survey and nothing in there in any way contradicts what I said.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

nou wrote:
You have just proven (exactly as has been written above and many times before in similar threads), that outside of Matched, points do not make too much sense, because you base your point costs on relative frequency of matchups within the meta.

Ok? 99% of 40k is matched play, games outside that structure are a poorly-defined and completely unsupported footnote. I'm fine with admitting that GW's rules don't do a great job of covering a scenario that GW isn't interested in supporting but I'm not sure why you think that has any relevance to points vs. less-accurate points.

And this is where PLs step in

No it isn't. PL, at best, is also capable of handling the situation but does not offer any advantages. Having point costs be less accurate does not make them more able to adapt to different metagames, especially when GW is adjusting the normal point values more frequently than PL.

This is once again demonstrating the problem with PL defenders: you treat "PL doesn't completely suck" and "PL works better than points" as equivalent arguments and assume that any scenario where normal points encounter a flaw must be one where PL is better. But in reality PL has every flaw that the normal point system has but also has other flaws on top of that. There are many scenarios where the normal point system does something that PL can't, there are none where PL does something the normal point system can't.

You may want to read this https://www.goonhammer.com/the-goonhammer-2022-reader-survey-and-what-it-tells-us-about-the-community/

What about it? I'm very familiar with that survey and nothing in there in any way contradicts what I said.

This post sums up to me that you are either unwell or a troll. That article contradicts everything you said, you have zero respect for anyone else’s experiences or preferences and can’t hold an argument in good faith. Goodbye.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Should I need to use a calculator to work out the cost of a single unit?

Do you honestly have this problem or are you just trying to make a point in an internet argument? I have never encountered a unit where adding up the individual upgrade costs is too difficult to do without a calculator. And in the rare case where I've had to make a list with PL I've always added up the point costs with a calculator.

As I said, is there any evidence that GW would include points on a datasheet even IF PL was removed, or is it simply because that PL is a smaller number which doesn't have much variation?

Just the fact that GW used to put points on the datasheet until they pushed them out at the beginning of 8th, when they tried to make PL the default point system.

You keep points for the games that you want, but PL works for what we want.

You keep saying this but other than "it takes a few seconds less to add up the numbers" you still haven't given any reason why PL does anything the normal point system can't do just as well. All you've done is repeat the GW marketing claim that PL is "narrative" or "open" because that's where GW printed the PL rules, as if the long history of successful open and narrative style games under the normal point system doesn't exist.

(I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don't value PL as a gatekeeping tool.)

Sorry, you can't simultaneously say that "GW should stop supporting non-Matched games" and also claim that "GW only published Matched games".

PL is not a requirement for non-matched-play games, and removing PL does not in any way mean dropping what limited support GW currently gives them.

PL is also used in matched play games (9th edition's version of narrative play).

Again, as I asked before - why do you care if people play a different kind of game to you?

Because this is a discussion of points vs. PL. If you don't want to see people disagreeing with your chosen system then maybe you shouldn't read this thread?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
This post sums up to me that you are either unwell or a troll. That article contradicts everything you said, you have zero respect for anyone else’s experiences or preferences and can’t hold an argument in good faith. Goodbye.

Well that's certainly some shameless lying in defense of your accusation of dishonesty. Maybe you should look in the mirror before accusing other people of arguing in bad faith?

Not one bit of that survey says anything to contradict what I said. Nowhere in there does it even address the question of open play or PL vs. points. But I guess you're hoping nobody actually reads the article to find out that you're lying?

Honest hypothetical. You agree to meet a friend at a local b&M for a game of 40k, 2k each. When you both arrive, your friend explains there has been an issue where he double booked. He only has 1 hour to play before he has to head home. You understand, and offer to play a smaller game, just to spend time together. What about half our lists? Without knowing each other's factions, which is honestly easier to setup a smaller but even game? PL or points?

I think the obvious answer is PL, because it uses whole numbers, without a lot of mucking about with a calculator. You can jump into a smaller game far easier with PL than with points. If you

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
As I said, is there any evidence that GW would include points on a datasheet even IF PL was removed, or is it simply because that PL is a smaller number which doesn't have much variation?

Hard to say. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if 8th was intended to use only PL, so the dataslates were arranged with that in mind (hence why points are just shoved into some tables at the end).

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Again, there is no indication that this would change with the PL system gone, or that it couldn't be done with the points system anyway. It's not like the relics are all the same "strength" anyways, regardless of whatever weapon they upgrade.

Eh, I think it's pretty telling that GW moved to using CP only when PL came into play. In every past edition relics have been paid for with points, like everything else.

I do agree that it could be done with points removing PL, the issue is that the current method allows them to use the same system for both points and PL, and I simply don't think GW can be arsed making separate relic/WLT costs for the two.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Possibly, or it could simply be GW not knowing how to balance the point system effectively, and them wishing to promote more beyond the barebones build of certain units.

Not impossible but I have serious doubts.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Likewise, but I don't agree with your assertion that the very existence of PL is to blame for the legitimate issues with points.

I don't think PL's existence is to blame per se, so much as how GW handles and balances the two systems.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Should I need to use a calculator to work out the cost of a single unit?

Do you honestly have this problem or are you just trying to make a point in an internet argument? I have never encountered a unit where adding up the individual upgrade costs is too difficult to do without a calculator. And in the rare case where I've had to make a list with PL I've always added up the point costs with a calculator.

I mean, it's rather self-evident that there are more calculations involved with points than with PL. Is it difficult? Not for me. Is it tedious? Yes.

I experience no tedium with PL.

As I said, is there any evidence that GW would include points on a datasheet even IF PL was removed, or is it simply because that PL is a smaller number which doesn't have much variation?

Just the fact that GW used to put points on the datasheet until they pushed them out at the beginning of 8th, when they tried to make PL the default point system.

Yes, where they *checks notes* released the game with both points and PL?
Not sure about the authenticity of that one.

You keep points for the games that you want, but PL works for what we want.

You keep saying this but other than "it takes a few seconds less to add up the numbers" you still haven't given any reason why PL does anything the normal point system can't do just as well.

Do I need to? I mean, seriously, why do I need to justify my enjoyment of it to you? I'm not asking you to change what you do. I'm not even asking you to understand why I do what I do - why do I need to demand your understanding? The only thing I ask is respect, the same amount that I afford to you.

All you've done is repeat the GW marketing claim that PL is "narrative" or "open" because that's where GW printed the PL rules, as if the long history of successful open and narrative style games under the normal point system doesn't exist.

I haven't even claimed that. I've only claimed that I prefer it, because I find it easier and more accessible.

Sorry, you can't simultaneously say that "GW should stop supporting non-Matched games" and also claim that "GW only published Matched games".

PL is not a requirement for non-matched-play games, and removing PL does not in any way mean dropping what limited support GW currently gives them.

PL is also used in matched play games (9th edition's version of narrative play).

Exactly - you point out that GW does non-matched play games. The very existence of PL also indicates that GW has priorities beyond just points.

My point stands - you can't simultaneously complain that "GW doesn't invest enough in points" but also claim "GW clearly only care about points, so why does PL exist?"

Again, as I asked before - why do you care if people play a different kind of game to you?

Because this is a discussion of points vs. PL. If you don't want to see people disagreeing with your chosen system then maybe you shouldn't read this thread?

But it's not just a discussion of points vs PL - you're actively saying that PL should be removed, and all those who play it should play something else.

If it was just answering the OP, that could be handled with a simple "yes, it would", or "no, it wouldn't" or even "I like XYZ" or "I don't like XYZ" - it's when you start throwing in additional stuff like "PL shouldn't exist" or "the people who play PL only do so to gatekeep from others" that I take an objection.

I don't care if you like it or don't like it; I do, however, have an issue when you tell me that I'm enjoying myself wrong.

Are you capable of expressing your dislike of something without also bringing down the people who *do* enjoy it?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
As I said, is there any evidence that GW would include points on a datasheet even IF PL was removed, or is it simply because that PL is a smaller number which doesn't have much variation?

Hard to say. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if 8th was intended to use only PL, so the dataslates were arranged with that in mind (hence why points are just shoved into some tables at the end).

So that's a no. I have nothing wrong with speculation, but don't treat it as a fact which you can use to clobber PL over the head with.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Again, there is no indication that this would change with the PL system gone, or that it couldn't be done with the points system anyway. It's not like the relics are all the same "strength" anyways, regardless of whatever weapon they upgrade.

Eh, I think it's pretty telling that GW moved to using CP only when PL came into play. In every past edition relics have been paid for with points, like everything else.

I do agree that it could be done with points removing PL, the issue is that the current method allows them to use the same system for both points and PL, and I simply don't think GW can be arsed making separate relic/WLT costs for the two.

In past editions, we haven't had command points, or faction keywords, or stratagems. Are those to blame for PL too?

Again, I think the inclusion of relics isn't even linked to PL, considering how relics and stratagems didn't exist in the base game (Indexes).

GW's laziness to not have two more distinct systems isn't a fault of PL.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Possibly, or it could simply be GW not knowing how to balance the point system effectively, and them wishing to promote more beyond the barebones build of certain units.

Not impossible but I have serious doubts.

Seeing how GW has never been flawless, or even near to it, with their points balance (see, Formations) I'm inclined to blame stupidity to their actions.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Likewise, but I don't agree with your assertion that the very existence of PL is to blame for the legitimate issues with points.

I don't think PL's existence is to blame per se, so much as how GW handles and balances the two systems.

Perhaps, but that's not a fault of PL existing, and I think that arguing that PL existing is a bad thing misses the point.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Honest hypothetical. You agree to meet a friend at a local b&M for a game of 40k, 2k each. When you both arrive, your friend explains there has been an issue where he double booked. He only has 1 hour to play before he has to head home. You understand, and offer to play a smaller game, just to spend time together. What about half our lists? Without knowing each other's factions, which is honestly easier to setup a smaller but even game? PL or points?

Neither. Not that 1K game would fit into an hour with setup and takedown, but... no. Your premise is faulty. If you're cutting down lists, you know what models you have and what they cost either way (or at least have them on paper). Excising entire units and then tidying up by removing the odd model isn't going to take an appreciable amount of time.

I think the obvious answer is PL, because it uses whole numbers

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Honest hypothetical. You agree to meet a friend at a local b&M for a game of 40k, 2k each. When you both arrive, your friend explains there has been an issue where he double booked. He only has 1 hour to play before he has to head home. You understand, and offer to play a smaller game, just to spend time together. What about half our lists? Without knowing each other's factions, which is honestly easier to setup a smaller but even game? PL or points?

None of the above. I brought the models for a standard 2000 point game with me, I didn't bring my entire collection. So either I have one of my standard 500/1000 point lists with appropriate models ready or I don't have an army. And TBH with only an hour to play, including setup time and making new lists, even a 1000 point game isn't realistic.

And I note that, to even attempt to create a realistic scenario where PL comes out ahead, you have to put in completely unrealistic time pressure and PL still probably doesn't make any difference because a few minutes of difference in due to calculating points is going to have less of an effect on whether or not you finish the game than having a variety of lists already prepared in advance, how many rule questions come up during the game, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I mean, it's rather self-evident that there are more calculations involved with points than with PL. Is it difficult? Not for me. Is it tedious? Yes.

So now you've moved the goalposts from needing a calculator to "I find adding 60+10+10+10+5 tedious". I can't really argue with your subjective personal opinion about what you find tedious but you certainly haven't established any difficulty beyond that subjective personal opinion.

Yes, where they *checks notes* released the game with both points and PL?
Not sure about the authenticity of that one.

They released it with both normal points and PL but it was very clear that the intent was for PL to be the primary point system, and that the intent was to phase out the old system once people accepted PL. PL got all the prominence in the rulebooks, the normal point system was an appendix at the back where you'd hopefully never bother to use it.

Do I need to? I mean, seriously, why do I need to justify my enjoyment of it to you?

You're participating in a discussion of points vs. PL. If you don't want to justify your position on the subject then maybe you shouldn't participate in a thread where that is the topic for discussion? Nobody is hunting you down and demanding a justification for your opinion outside of this thread.

My point stands - you can't simultaneously complain that "GW doesn't invest enough in points" but also claim "GW clearly only care about points, so why does PL exist?"

That is not what I said, please do not make straw man arguments. GW only cares about matched play, which is fully compatible with the argument that GW needs to stop investing in PL and focus on the better point system.

And just to be clear: matched play is not Matched™ Play™. Crusade is matched play as the term is being used in the quotes you are replying to here, it is not Matched™ Play™.

Yeah... Imma just say that, while I'm firmly in the "Points are the better system" camp, the reasonableness of a lot of the PL fans here has convinced me that it's, at worst, a harmless addition. GW has bad balance, but getting rid of PL won't change that.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yeah... Imma just say that, while I'm firmly in the "Points are the better system" camp, the reasonableness of a lot of the PL fans here has convinced me that it's, at worst, a harmless addition. GW has bad balance, but getting rid of PL won't change that.

Touch patronising, but thanks!

The reason points were shoved at the end of book in a table and PL not is because they knew when they designed them that pints would be adjusted a lot. So made them separate from the datafaxes so the wouldn’t have to reprint them all the time. Just update the points table like they do every quarter. They stated this at the time as the rationale. (The fact that PL rarely changes is another advantage for me, not chasing the meta it means I don’t have to search out the most up to date version all the time).

There’s room for both systems to work side by side. I think if GW goes he way of AOS wi5 points and options in 40k it will be done in attempt to make balance for match play easier, not to appease narrative gamers. Not sure it will happen but I think both systems are here for a while at least.

Andykp wrote:

The reason points were shoved at the end of book in a table and PL not is because they knew when they designed them that pints would be adjusted a lot.

Hoe dare you. The notion of adjusting pints is downright offensive and deluded. And completely unnecessary. A pint is a pint and that is the end of it sir.

^hugs emotionally traumatised pint of guinness^



Levity/off

Deadnight wrote:

Andykp wrote:

The reason points were shoved at the end of book in a table and PL not is because they knew when they designed them that pints would be adjusted a lot.

Hoe dare you. The notion of adjusting pints is downright offensive and deluded. And completely unnecessary. A pint is a pint and that is the end of it sir.

^hugs emotionally traumatised pint of guinness^



Levity/off

Buckle up, here we go for another 14 pages of discussion about pints vs mls

Deadnight wrote:

Andykp wrote:

The reason points were shoved at the end of book in a table and PL not is because they knew when they designed them that pints would be adjusted a lot.

Hoe dare you. The notion of adjusting pints is downright offensive and deluded. And completely unnecessary. A pint is a pint and that is the end of it sir.

^hugs emotionally traumatised pint of guinness^



Levity/off

We could adjust pints up?! make them bigger.

nou wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

Andykp wrote:

The reason points were shoved at the end of book in a table and PL not is because they knew when they designed them that pints would be adjusted a lot.

Hoe dare you. The notion of adjusting pints is downright offensive and deluded. And completely unnecessary. A pint is a pint and that is the end of it sir.

^hugs emotionally traumatised pint of guinness^



Levity/off

Buckle up, here we go for another 14 pages of discussion about pints vs mls

I prefer mls. When you use pints, you have to pay extra for the straw, but when you use mls it is a part of the cost of the drink.

Andykp wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

Andykp wrote:

The reason points were shoved at the end of book in a table and PL not is because they knew when they designed them that pints would be adjusted a lot.

Hoe dare you. The notion of adjusting pints is downright offensive and deluded. And completely unnecessary. A pint is a pint and that is the end of it sir.

^hugs emotionally traumatised pint of guinness^



Levity/off

We could adjust pints up?! make them bigger.

You can't appropriately balance a pint, it's value will be completely different in US meta and UK meta, and slightly off in Australia. We should stop supporting pints, 99% of the all beer is served in mls! Everyone should drink as I do - in nice, round, metric 500ml.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I mean, it's rather self-evident that there are more calculations involved with points than with PL. Is it difficult? Not for me. Is it tedious? Yes.

So now you've moved the goalposts from needing a calculator to "I find adding 60+10+10+10+5 tedious". I can't really argue with your subjective personal opinion about what you find tedious but you certainly haven't established any difficulty beyond that subjective personal opinion.

I don't think I ever argued that it wasn't tedious. I've never said a calculator is *needed*, only that a common defence is "just use one", and I shouldn't have to for tedious sums.

Frankly, I'm not trying to argue anything beyond my subjective personal opinion, and I've not claimed to otherwise. All I've asked is that you *respect* said opinion without invalidating my preferred way to play.

Yes, where they *checks notes* released the game with both points and PL?
Not sure about the authenticity of that one.

They released it with both normal points and PL but it was very clear that the intent was for PL to be the primary point system, and that the intent was to phase out the old system once people accepted PL. PL got all the prominence in the rulebooks, the normal point system was an appendix at the back where you'd hopefully never bother to use it.

Again, you mention this "very clear intent" - can you support that with anything beyond your, let's see, "subjective personal opinion"?

There's no reason to believe that points wouldn't still be in the back of the book.

Do I need to? I mean, seriously, why do I need to justify my enjoyment of it to you?

You're participating in a discussion of points vs. PL. If you don't want to justify your position on the subject then maybe you shouldn't participate in a thread where that is the topic for discussion? Nobody is hunting you down and demanding a justification for your opinion outside of this thread.

As I've said repeatedly, I'm not trying to justify my position. I don't need to justify it to anyone.

What *is* happening is you asking me to justify it, which I don't need to do. All of my responses are asking you to respect that I don't want what I enjoy to be removed, because it doesn't actually affect you in the slightest if I use it or not.

You're welcome to extoll the virtues of points, and now if they were gone, you wouldn't play 40k any more, but that doesn't mean you should be saying that "PL shouldn't exist, screw you".

So, I ask once more - why does it matter if people do enjoy PL? You can dislike PL as much as you like, I'm not discussing that. What I'm asking is why you'd take them away from other hobbyists.

GW only cares about matched play, which is fully compatible with the argument that GW needs to stop investing in PL and focus on the better point system.

If GW only cares about matched play, why do other game modes exist?

Deadnight wrote:

Andykp wrote:
The reason points were shoved at the end of book in a table and PL not is because they knew when they designed them that pints would be adjusted a lot.

Hoe dare you. The notion of adjusting pints is downright offensive and deluded. And completely unnecessary. A pint is a pint and that is the end of it sir.

It comes in pints?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I've never said a calculator is *needed*, only that a common defence is "just use one", and I shouldn't have to for tedious sums.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Should I need to use a calculator to work out the cost of a single unit?

Again, you mention this "very clear intent" - can you support that with anything beyond your, let's see, "subjective personal opinion"?

No, obviously I can't provide anything more than speculation when you and I both know GW never announced anything explicit about the chance. But I'm not sure why you think "nobody has a definite answer here" is a useful response to a particular interpretation of the events.

What *is* happening is you asking me to justify it, which I don't need to do.

Then don't. If you don't need to justify your position then don't continue participating in a discussion of the subject. It's ridiculous to complain about having to justify your position when the only reason you're even talking about the subject is that you voluntarily went into the thread to read and post in it. Nobody cornered you at your local store/club/garage and forced you to justify the choice to use PL.

What I'm asking is why you'd take them away from other hobbyists.

Because any time spent on PL is wasted development time that could be spent on doing something useful. And because I know there's an anti-competitive element at GW that wants to push PL as the primary, or even only, point system and as long as PL still exists they will keep trying to make PL the focus.

If GW only cares about matched play, why do other game modes exist?

Because, again, matched play and Matched™ Play™ are not the same thing. Matched™ Play™ is matched play. The annual tournament pack is matched play. Crusade is matched play. The only thing that isn't matched play is certain versions of open play and GW provides essentially zero support or acknowledgement for those things.

nou wrote:
A) because assigning points that „accurately reflect unit’s power” is impossible outside of a very strict and defined context 40k doesn’t have and will never have, because of freeform list building and open scenario structures. And on top of that, because players actively demand the existence of "list building as a skill", point efficiency discrepancies must exist within the point system. Bad choices must exist for optimal choices to exist.

That's not an argument for PL, because PL has all those same problems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
B) in a narrative setting you already work in cooperation with your opponent to ensure a fair game at forces composition and scenario preparation stage, so minmaxing isn’t really a thing - PL system does not put any sort of pressure against the narrative. Exactly the same with points - in a narrative context you do not restrict yourself only to the most optimal choices. PLs provide enough game size framework to work with and points do not offer any benefit over this utility. Both with points and PLs I have played both high power and low power games and PLs are simply more convenient to use, because they do not create an illusion of balance points do. You have to realise one thing about narrative gaming and point systems adjusted for competitive gaming in a "list building as a skill" environment - because bad choices must exist in order for optimal choices to exist, if you want to play a fair game outside of competitive context, you have to manually adjust effective power of lists against each other based on your knowledge of nominal value vs effective value discrepancies of units, be it with points or PLs. This is because you do not have "the crutch" of trying to maximise the absolute value, which is, by the definition of the maximum, open to mistakes only on one side. If you aim at a low power, or mid power game, you have to mind both OP and UP units, not only dismiss UP. You are also frequently and deliberately building armies around suboptimal units if it so happens, that you need them for the narrative - you are actively using the entire spectrum of choices that are in this game, not only optimal ones.

That's not what narrative play is. A Crusade league has none of those things but is narrative play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Honest hypothetical. You agree to meet a friend at a local b&M for a game of 40k, 2k each. When you both arrive, your friend explains there has been an issue where he double booked. He only has 1 hour to play before he has to head home. You understand, and offer to play a smaller game, just to spend time together. What about half our lists? Without knowing each other's factions, which is honestly easier to setup a smaller but even game? PL or points?

I think the obvious answer is PL, because it uses whole numbers, without a lot of mucking about with a calculator. You can jump into a smaller game far easier with PL than with points. If you

If you can't add up 3 digit numbers on your phone you got problems, man. Remember - you're just cutting units out of your list. If I drop my Harlequin list down to 50 PL from 100, I could just as easily drop it to 1000 from 2000. The same units will be present. I'd just boot up Battlescribe and start deleting units until I got down to just under 1000.

Moreover, points uses whole numbers. In general, the kind of person who can't add 3 digit numbers together in their head is *probably* not going to be able to play 40k without getting rules wrong, however (and I'm sure they'll be mysteriously in their favor).

I'd also tell the person they were disrespecting my time by doing what they did. Honestly I'd just say "Pick the game you want to play, me or your other opponent. I don't want to be rushed when playing."

Andykp wrote:This post sums up to me that you are either unwell or a troll. That article contradicts everything you said, you have zero respect for anyone else’s experiences or preferences and can’t hold an argument in good faith. Goodbye.

Is this what dakka has come to? "If you disagree with me you either have a mental illness or are simply trying to destroy civil discourse"?

How is this not moderated by now?






Ultimately it comes down to the writers being of the Jervis Johnson school of gaming, ie. "Death before competitive play" and it shows. PL is an extension of the whole "eyeball method" from the AOS first release where you just kind of flung stuff out there.


A wargame works best from a balanced starting point. You can play narratively, competitively, and casually from that starting point whereas an imbalanced or poorly implemented/lacking granularity gaming system only facilitates one of those game modes happening well, one being able to be "dealt with" but a lot of work, and one being next to impossible. It's not that narrative gamers are the ones trying to bork the system for the non-narrative gamers, it's that the narrative gamers working for GW actively ARE.

 Just Tony wrote:
How is this not moderated by now?

Because the mod who's been posting in this thread agrees with them.

Lots to unpack here. Personally I think those calling CSB "unwell or a troll" are way out of line.

That Rick Priestley quote pops up quite frequently in discussions like these and I always feel like it's completely pointless. It doesn't take a genius to consider that points can only measure a unit's general usefulness under "normal" conditions and collaborating together once a scenario and terrain are known will likely generate a more balanced game (assuming - crucially - both players are competent at such an exercise). But in the context of theses discussions it's irrelevant. Why?

1. It's an idealised scenario that doesn't exist for the most part in the types of gaming we're discussing here. Wargames have existed for over a century and were always relatively niche. They only really became much more popular from the 1980s, once GW started publishing its own games. Yes, I'm aware other systems existed beforehand, but I don't think you can realistically claim wargames were commercially more successful or popular prior to GW. Every successful system since that time has included a system of points. Why? Because the thing that GW realised is that making a successful game requires standardisation. It requires players to be able to play not just their small group of mates at home, but to show up at a club and know they're on the same page as everyone else there. You know which GW game of the last 20 years bombed spectacularly at launch? AoS. Mainly because it had no points (and was a terrible system filled with stupid little rules about lengths of moustaches). Once points were added? Suddenly much more successful. Points may not be 100% accurate in all scenarios, but we don't need complete perfection, we just need good enough.

2. PL is a points system, so the quote doesn't even support the contention that PL are superior. PL is just a less granular system of points, which is why most people advocating for points don't understand the purpose of it. For them PL has no advantages over points at all. As to why they're arguing against PL and asking people to justify the use of PL? It's the topic of this thread. That's how discussion and debate works. I can't believe that even has to be stated.

3. That brings me on to convenience. I'm sorry, but claiming adding up a smaller series of slightly larger numbers is a genuine advantage of PL is just bizarre. Yes, it's literally true that there's going to be less cognitive load in adding up PL, but the difference is so miniscule and the time saved also so tiny I have to wonder if this is a serious argument. If it is, it doesn't say much for the advantages of PL if this is what its advocates bring up. A game takes 2-3 hours to play, and we're quibbling over an extra 5 minutes (being very generous indeed), which is most often spent away from the table anyway. And the scenario where someone wants to cut down from 2k to 1k points for time reasons? No, points is not meaningfully slower to adjust than PL. I've done this multiple times and it takes, at most, a couple of minutes.

It is funny, how nobody in those threads ever answers to „Mawlock type” examples in a way other than „nobody plays anything else than meta chasing competitive/meta FLGS pickup anyway, so the problem averages away”.

nou wrote:
It is funny, how nobody in those threads ever answers to „Mawlock type” examples in a way other than „nobody plays anything else than meta chasing competitive/meta FLGS pickup anyway, so the problem averages away”.

I literally have no idea what any of that sentence means. Can you elaborate?

 Just Tony wrote:

Andykp wrote:This post sums up to me that you are either unwell or a troll. That article contradicts everything you said, you have zero respect for anyone else’s experiences or preferences and can’t hold an argument in good faith. Goodbye.

Is this what dakka has come to? "If you disagree with me you either have a mental illness or are simply trying to destroy civil discourse"?

How is this not moderated by now?






Ultimately it comes down to the writers being of the Jervis Johnson school of gaming, ie. "Death before competitive play" and it shows. PL is an extension of the whole "eyeball method" from the AOS first release where you just kind of flung stuff out there.


A wargame works best from a balanced starting point. You can play narratively, competitively, and casually from that starting point whereas an imbalanced or poorly implemented/lacking granularity gaming system only facilitates one of those game modes happening well, one being able to be "dealt with" but a lot of work, and one being next to impossible. It's not that narrative gamers are the ones trying to bork the system for the non-narrative gamers, it's that the narrative gamers working for GW actively ARE.

We have covered balance, and we clearly disagree on its importance, and it’s clearly subjective.

As for mental illness, I didn’t mention mental illness, I just said unwell, he could have assorts but most likely he’s is just being a troll. He doesn’t just disagree, but has spent pages and pages arguing against reasonable people who have just been saying that there is more than one way to enjoy the game and he has spent those pages ranting that they are wrong and just virtue signalling and blah blah blah. I am perfectly happy for him and anyone else to disagree with me, the whole point of having points and power levels is that there is something there for you however you want to play. I like that. I want him and others to have pints, but I want power levels. They are better got me. End of. Now he can’t see that and can’t accept that others might prefer things he does not.

I am happy for him to have his preferences but am not going waste my time arguing with someone who is completely unwilling to accept that others like different things from him. It pointless (pun intended). And again to defend my comment that has upset you so much, if he really lacks the insight to see that other people like different things he doesn’t and that concept makes no sense to him then he is unwell, either mentally or physically. But far my likely is my second option, that he can see this but is deliberately arguing form a false position to antagonise people. So by saying he might be unwell I am giving him the benefit of the doubt.

I suffer from mental illness as do many people on here in one form or another, and know full well that that alone doesn’t stop you from emphasising with others. So I never intended to imply he had a mental illness, that was your interpretation of my comment. I was more thinking of an electrolyte imbalance impairing his thinking like low sodium levels or some kind of toxin. But most likely he is just deliberately being a argumentative for the sake of it.

Slipspace wrote:

nou wrote:
It is funny, how nobody in those threads ever answers to „Mawlock type” examples in a way other than „nobody plays anything else than meta chasing competitive/meta FLGS pickup anyway, so the problem averages away”.

I literally have no idea what any of that sentence means. Can you elaborate?

You have a Mawlock example earlier in this thread. It is example of a case fundamentally impossible to balance with points outside of statistical Meta. It is of course not the only one, basically anything that has heavily swingy utility depending on matchup or that relies heavily on synergies (in which case you can’t balance the cost between a single intance of such unit vs spam list with this unit). Balancing of such cases for tournament meta universally ends up with those being a straight handicap in casual/narrative play.

nou wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

nou wrote:
It is funny, how nobody in those threads ever answers to „Mawlock type” examples in a way other than „nobody plays anything else than meta chasing competitive/meta FLGS pickup anyway, so the problem averages away”.

I literally have no idea what any of that sentence means. Can you elaborate?

You have a Mawlock example earlier in this thread. It is example of a case fundamentally impossible to balance with points outside of statistical Meta. It is of course not the only one, basically anything that has heavily swingy utility depending on matchup or that relies heavily on synergies (in which case you can’t balance the cost between a single intance of such unit vs spam list with this unit). Balancing of such cases for tournament meta universally ends up with those being a straight handicap in casual/narrative play.

How does PL solve that problem? PL is just points with less granularity.

You keep bringing up this idea of "impossible to balance" but that's akin to saying we can't achieve perfection so we shouldn't try to improve. It may be that in some cases tweaking rules is going to be more effective than changing points. But if points are all we have (and they're not - see the recent changes to Necron Command Protocols for a good example) the more granular system allows for more effective balancing within that paradigm.

Infinity has plenty of unit synergies. It also has plenty of counters to most. A really simple one is units with Smoke Grenades. They bring out the full potential of many units. Another example is Repeaters. They're basically worthless unless you have a Hacker, and the Hacker is much weaker without Repeaters. Why does Infinity succeed so much more when it comes to balance, when entire core units fall apart if not handled right? I could run a meta list, one with every synergy possible, and I'd still lose to a more skilled player, with a worse list.

We're not counting skew lists, as they deliberately unbalance their list. But in Infinity, if someone skews towards Heavy Infantry, if I have even a bit of hacking, they tend to fall over. Alternatively, if the person brings a Killer Hacker, my guy now has to be more careful. Alternatively, if I bring melee units, they'll often fair well against Heavy Infantry. Infinity is more complex than 40k, allows for quite a few options, and has missions with narratives that would blow most 40k narrative missions out of the water, as its standard ITS missions.

On the flip side the company makes people buy 15-25 models per army, and not gazylion rotated out on a quarterly schedul.