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.

Hecaton wrote:

Andykp wrote:

No one has said that you can’t argue against anyone with a disability. It’s how you go about that argument that matters.

No, people have. Stop being disingenuous; you've repeatedly been trying to steer the conversation towards "agreeing with me is morally wrong" this whole thread.

Andykp wrote:
As for agreeing to have both systems, that’s what we have been saying for 21 pages.

No. The starting post in the thread was not a kumbayah post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
You need to get a dictionary and look up “literally”, and while you’re at it have a look at “objective”. Might make these discussion a bit easier for us all.

I'm very aware of the definition. He wanted people to justify their like of points as opposed to PL, which is exactly your "explain it, I'll wait" comment.

No, no and no.

He “literally” didn’t say that did he?

Disagree with me all you want. Disagree with anyone. It’s all good. Dont tell me how to enjoy things or experience things. That’s just dumb.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Open Play, on the other hand, doesn't affect you at all if you don't play it - which you self-admittedly don't.

It doesn't affect the people who do play it.

A strange thing to say, from someone who doesn't play it. As someone who *does* play it, I can categorically tell you you're wrong. The rest is silence.

And let's not forget here that the topic is normal points vs. PL as a point system.

It isn't a versus. It's asking "if points were removed, would you still play 40k." Not the same thing.

And the existence of PL does affect me because playing Crusade means either dealing with the worse point system or trying to convince everyone else to house rule a conversion over to the better point system. Crusade with normal points would be a very appealing change for me.

So do that. You can absolutely advocate for Crusade to use a points system. I'll happily support your effort to do so! Just don't take PL away from the people who want it.

This literally all could have been avoided if, after BIndmage said "I use Open Play and PL because of my conditions", every other user said "oh gak, yeah, that's totally fair, I see why you'd need that, let's maybe not get rid of a tool that helps you. I might not appreciate Open Play and PL myself, but I can see that you appreciate having those tools, so I suppose that you should have access to them".
Hell, that should have been the ONLY response necessary if a user says "I like 'X Thing That Doesn't Actually Stop You Enjoying What You Like".

You know, like mature adults.

"This would have been avoided if you'd just validated my opinions and not attempted to discuss the merits of the thing I love and cling to as part of my identity."

It's more of a "this could have been avoided if you let people enjoy things that don't affect you at all".

It ain't hard to do. Besides, you have no interest in discussing the merits, as you ignore all of them when they are mentioned.

Nice to see you getting back to being rude and insulting by accusing everyone who disagrees with you of not being mature adults.

I told you, I'm calling a spade a spade. When I see maturity, I'll call it maturity.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Hecaton LITERALLY ASKED.

Christ, are you actually reading this thread?

No, I have not read this entire thread and your massive wall of text replies giving a million individual quote replies with the same answer. If that was genuinely asked then I acknowledge that it is an answer to the question, however irrelevant to this thread.

You literally called to remove the part of the game that BIndmage plays!

Ok? The context of that quote was that this discussion itself is somehow preventing them from playing the game, that saying "PL should be removed" somehow forces them to justify their opinion and keeps them from playing.

And I'll once again note that no other topic gets this kind of reaction. When people talk about removing AoC or whatever there is no "YOUR PREVENTING ME FROM PLAYING" response, people just debate the merits of the change. Why is PL/Open™ Play™ the only thing where this happens?

The thread wasn't even ABOUT points vs PL - you pushed it to become that! The thread TOPIC was "would you keep playing 40k if points were gone" - there was no need to make comments like "PL should be removed from the game". You made that happen.

Oh please. The literal words didn't say "points vs. PL" but it was very clearly another points vs. PL debate from the very beginning, complete with OP taking a side in favor of PL.

Because they have Open Play and Power Level at present, until you get your way and burn them out.

And the alternative games would likely be a better fit for their needs than even Open™ Play™ With™ PL™ Points™.

 Insectum7 wrote:
"How would people feel if we removed all the (insert group of people here)? You know, purely theoretical, of course?"

Sorry, are you comparing points to people? Like, you're implying that OP is a racist?
That's one spicy take. Want some hot wings with that?

Also, I thought you had me on ignore? How's that going for you?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
As someone who *does* play it, I can categorically tell you you're wrong.

Oh really. Please tell me how GW giving you permission to change the rules makes any difference, especially given the fact that people were changing rules and playing this kind of game long before GW's marketing department came up with Open™ Play™ as a way to sell primaris marines to tyranid players.

So do that. You can absolutely advocate for Crusade to use a points system. I'll happily support your effort to do so! Just don't take PL away from the people who want it.

I find this fascinating. You argue passionately against removing PL because you like the (supposed) convenience factor it gives you and feel having to use the normal point system would be an unreasonable burden, but you're perfectly happy with making me take on the burden of house ruling Crusade into a more functional game. Why is your convenience more valuable than mine?

It ain't hard to do. Besides, you have no interest in discussing the merits, as you ignore all of them when they are mentioned.

What do you want me to say? The only "merits" you can point to are an obviously false time argument and a vague "I enjoy it". And I've certainly not ignored the time argument given how many times I've explained why it doesn't work.

(There's also the CAAC gatekeeping merit, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't value that.)

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Hecaton LITERALLY ASKED.

Christ, are you actually reading this thread?

No, I have not read this entire thread

Evidently.

You literally called to remove the part of the game that BIndmage plays!

Ok? The context of that quote was that this discussion itself is somehow preventing them from playing the game, that saying "PL should be removed" somehow forces them to justify their opinion and keeps them from playing.

This discussion itself is you saying that BIndmage shouldn't be able to play it how they want. Your words.

Why is PL/Open™ Play™ the only thing where this happens?

Maybe it's because people don't pull out ableist language or try to shame people over something which *doesn't affect them*.

The thread wasn't even ABOUT points vs PL - you pushed it to become that! The thread TOPIC was "would you keep playing 40k if points were gone" - there was no need to make comments like "PL should be removed from the game". You made that happen.

Oh please. The literal words didn't say "points vs. PL" but it was very clearly another points vs. PL debate from the very beginning, complete with OP taking a side in favor of PL.

Strange that you're delving into subtext of words now, but not doing the same for your own language.

And you're right, the words didn't say that. Thank you.

Because they have Open Play and Power Level at present, until you get your way and burn them out.

And the alternative games would likely be a better fit for their needs than even Open™ Play™ With™ PL™ Points™.

You know their needs better than they do? Oh almighty clairvoyancy!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
As someone who *does* play it, I can categorically tell you you're wrong.

Oh really. Please tell me how GW giving you permission to change the rules makes any difference, especially given the fact that people were changing rules and playing this kind of game long before GW's marketing department came up with Open™ Play™ as a way to sell primaris marines to tyranid players.

Simple. It encourages me to do so, because I can point to the rules and say "yup, this is intended and allowed". I can actually say "yeah, GW want me to do things my way, and I want to share this experience with you, the player across the table from me".

I personally see a lot of value in that.

So do that. You can absolutely advocate for Crusade to use a points system. I'll happily support your effort to do so! Just don't take PL away from the people who want it.

I find this fascinating. You argue passionately against removing PL because you like the (supposed) convenience factor it gives you and feel having to use the normal point system would be an unreasonable burden, but you're perfectly happy with making me take on the burden of house ruling Crusade into a more functional game. Why is your convenience more valuable than mine?

House-ruling? I never said house-ruling. I'd fully support GW making a version of Crusade that uses points. My apologies if I wasn't clear, but I definitely didn't intend for you to have to house-rule it.

It ain't hard to do. Besides, you have no interest in discussing the merits, as you ignore all of them when they are mentioned.

What do you want me to say?

"I don't enjoy PL, but I respect that you do. I guess that PL does have its uses."

The only "merits" you can point to are an obviously false time argument and a vague "I enjoy it".

Again, have you missed BIndmage and mine's personal testimony when it comes to time? And, for what it's worth "I enjoy it" is all the reason someone should need.

And I've certainly not ignored the time argument given how many times I've explained why it doesn't work.

You haven't explained at all how it doesn't work without implying that the experience of other users is invalid.

(There's also the CAAC gatekeeping merit, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't value that.)

Yeah, I don't value the argument that I've never even mentioned.

Andykp wrote:


Don’t need battle scribe with power levels, luckily it’s all in the rules.

To make an army and keep track of all the rules you're almost certainly still going to need it if you're in the situation above.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:

Yeah, you came out of the female marine arguments really well……..

The fact that people with broken moral compasses don't like my opinions tells me I'm doing it right, not wrong.

CadianSgtBob wrote:


Oh really. Please tell me how GW giving you permission to change the rules makes any difference, especially given the fact that people were changing rules and playing this kind of game long before GW's marketing department came up with Open™ Play™ as a way to sell primaris marines to tyranid players.

As you say, this has always been done. Two of my group were old when the dinosaurs were roaming about - they played wargames in the 70s and this is how it waa done. Its literally nothing new.

What does gw codifying it in the rulebook confer? Legitimacy. It's a valid way to play. Nothing more, nothing less.

There's a lot of players for whomever officialdom trumps all else. Without it written down somewhere in a rulebook, your way of playing has no validity. It might as well not exist. All gw has done is said 'you're way of playing is as good as anyone else's, welcome to the table' and the naysayers can go stew.

Build a bigger table, not higher walls.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
"How would people feel if we removed all the (insert group of people here)? You know, purely theoretical, of course?"

Sorry, are you comparing points to people? Like, you're implying that OP is a racist?
That's one spicy take. Want some hot wings with that?

Also, I thought you had me on ignore? How's that going for you?

Just pointing out that merely stating that something is theoretical doesn't mean it won't give rise to controversy. Maybe Fezzik didn't think the theoretical would piss some people off, but maybe he did and used it for attention, or maybe something else. I dunno. But the long and short of it is that the title and opening post are plainly not percieved as "neutral, innocent" questions.

Oh I ignore most of it.

A cultural shift to destroy the Cult of Officialdom might be more useful than making everything under the sun Official™ By™ Word™ Of™ God™.

My $0.02.

And we do have a term where I live for someone who uses "just asking questions!" as a defense in arguments.

JAQing off.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A cultural shift to destroy the Cult of Officialdom might be more useful than making everything under the sun Official™ By™ Word™ Of™ God™.

My $0.02

I agree, but more content means GW can sell more. I'm happy that people are going back to older editions and experimenting with alternate, non GW rule sets, personally.

I doubt many from the Cult of Officialdom will jump from their walls to play Open. I imagine most are just using Matched Play rules.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

And we do have a term where I live for someone who uses "just asking questions!" as a defense in arguments.

JAQing off.

Oh I've never heard that before. That's funny.

 Blndmage wrote:
Do we somehow now have a right to play the game, FOLLOWING THE fething RULES, without needing to justify why we find it preferable?
Or should we just stop playing? Or more specifically, stop posting on here, because this always happened when we talk about how much we enjoy playing the game with PL and Open Play,as opposed to points and Matched Play? We've tried all kinds of combinations.

You don't need to justify anything. You don't have to participate in this thread. Certain people disagree with your take on the rules, and you're welcome to discuss it. What's not cool is coming into this thread and acting like you're personally being attacked when nobody's been talking to you.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Designers (and players) want the focus of a unit's value to be the characteristics that it earns, not what it costs to add to the list.

Then why does Crusade use the standard points-based list construction where a unit's point cost is the focus of its value in assembling your list, and the only time its advancements are counted up is the "if one player has way more XP" bonus CP mechanic?

As previously explained, (twice) as soon as any unit receives it's first battle honour or scar, the cost paid for it no longer reflects its value. Therefore wasting time on starting cost equalization is pointless. A Crusade player is more concerned about a unit's growth after purchase, because that is the unit's true value in a Crusade game. This doesn't manifest in terms of "How often advancements are counted up" - how often this happens is not particular relevant. What is relevant, is that in every single battle fought, the honours and scars of every unit are far more important to a player than its cost in deciding everything from whether or not the unit is selected from the Order of Battle to participate in the game, to which enemies it should target to which objectives/ agendas/ actions it should be selected to perform.

In Crusade, PL is relevant exactly ONCE- when a unit is chosen to be added to an Order of Battle. From that point forward, PL is a real contender for the least important piece of information associated with the unit. To add an equipment cost into the equation makes little sense.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Spoiler:

PL has additional value to the Crusader for its relative stability. I'm not sure how many updates points have had since 9th dropped, but I think PL has only been updated twice. And that is very valuable to a Crusader- we have to earn our supply limit increases, so quarterly changes in the value of PL would be ridiculously annoying. You bust your ass to earn the extra 5PL, and you add your unit of choice, having lined up the narrative to support the units arrival; you fight your first battle and the unit bonds with the army, you write up the post battle story... And then some Jackhole spams too many of a unit at a tournament and the next week your unit costs too much to include?

If a unit's point cost changing is such a massive problem (implying it's probably not just a 1 PL change) for you then maybe you should consider the fact that your unit was way overpowered and including it at its former cost was going to be a major negative experience for your opponent.

Whether or not my unit was overpowered when added to the list is irrelevant. What is relevant is what that unit can do in any given battle, which changes from game to game. Heck, if you're playing sisters, just as an example, you might buy a unit of Battle Sisters. In your first game, they might do something (like fail a break test or lose a key fight) that makes you want them to take a Penitent Oath- when this happens, they entire unit is removed from your Order of Battle and replaced with an identical number of Repentia AND NO PL ARE ADDED, SUBTRACTED OR ALTERED IN ANY WAY. Five games later, they may redeem themselves, at which point the unit is removed from your roster again, and it can come back as Celestians or Seraphim, again with Zero impact on PL.

What does making the BSS pay PL for their Simulacrum mean once the unit has become Repentia? How does that additional cost continue to be relevant, when the unit has completely changed its identity?

(Caveat: If the new unit has a PL level that will not fit within your supply limit, you have to modify the supply limit to accommodate the new unit in order to use the requisition that makes the unit swap happen- so PL still has some impact upon the rules... But clearly, a unit's starting cost means very little in a game where the entire unit and everything about it can change based on a story event.)

CadianSgtBob wrote:

And TBH this is only a problem because of the broken supply limit mechanic, where you're encouraged to play larger games but can only do so if everyone in the group agrees to spend RP to get there.

The game itself doesn't go very far in terms of encouraging people to play larger games: it makes this possible, of course, but it leaves everyone the choice of how quickly they get there or whether they go there at all. It does this because the stories can be wildly, wildly diverse as we'll see below, and keeping flexibility is the key to empowering that.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

If you use the obvious fix of having no supply limit at all (and why not, total unit pool isn't much of a constraint since idle units don't gain XP)

In some campaigns, this could work. A lot of folks actually prefer a system where you start with a massive order of battle which you could never field all at once... But models die. Like permanently. This approach isn't talked about in Crusade, and it should be. I mean, it's easy enough to tweak it to make Crusade function in this type of campaign, but I think there would have been better buy in from some old school narrative players if this had been discussed as another way of running a Crusade.

But it is worth pointing out that the supply limit mechanic provides a methodology for connecting escalation to the narrative. You want the thing you did to trigger the RP gain that you use to bump your supply limit to be a story event that would have that consequence. So let's say for example, you win a narrow victory; the way to use the rules as a tool to shape the story might go like this:

You won, but it was close because an enemy melee unit just about took the critical objective. High command determines that based on the events of that battle, they should send a dedicated melee unit as reinforcements to ensure that this weakness is addressed, because next time, you might not be so lucky.

Now the events of the battle are narratively linked to the reward that battle provides... and the resulting escalation is not just a rule, but a part of the army's history.

An army shrinking from battle to battle is also very narrative, but the stories told about why/ how it happened tend to be pretty samey- usually it's just "unit X got killed by unit Y in battle Z" but clever narrative players will also add layers of story that arise from the consequences of the unit not being there.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

or having supply limit automatically increase at scheduled points in the campaign (like as in escalation leagues).

I understand the reasons why leagues do this, and certainly, it has a lot of utility- I don't begrudge anyone for taking this approach. For me personally, it isn't narrative enough- forces just randomly growing at regular intervals doesn't feel very fluffy to me, though I'm sure you could come up with a story to fit the rule.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Or you could even just adopt the popular league rule that point changes (and new codex releases, etc) don't apply until the next season.

Again, in some instances, this CAN work, assuming you and your group are following the seasons approach. So far, we've mostly been playing in our own corner of space, but eventually the overall narrative will be impacted by events elsewhere in the galaxy. The seasons in question may be long over by the time the books from that season see use in our campaign. Due to points changes being aligned with seasons, they would be accompanied by all the OTHER STUFF which comes with a new season- new campaign specific missions, theme rules (like grudges, planet strike or wars of faith) and of course honours and scars. Because they're a package deal, adopting the points changes without also adopting all the other stuff seems weird.

And it does seem to be GW's approach that players will run Crusades for each season, giving them a six month window for the campaign and then reset for the next... But that's only one approach. You may have a roster fight at Charadon that represents a collection of detachments from your force, and another Roster fight at Octarius which represents a different collection of detachments... But maybe they're still a part of the same army.

So now, when the fight comes to Vigilus, you might start with a brand new collection of detachments from the same force... But this time, when your roster grows, maybe you're bringing "The Heroes of Octarius" as reinforcements, rather than adding new green units.

I love this approach because I'm a colossal nerd. I don't want to hit a reset button on my Crusades. I just want them to keep growing. There might be years where certain parts of the army can't fight in certain battles because they are locked into certain campaigns in particular theatres of war, but eventually they will be able to reunite and be reassigned according to the needs of high command.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

But thanks for making the very revealing comment that a person making competitive-oriented list building choices in a competitive play environment is a "jackhole" for doing it.

It may have come across as a bit heavy handed, but it really does illustrate a fundamental difference between types of player. And BTW, I'm not saying that either type of player is better than the other, just that they have different priorities.

There is the type of player who prioritizes winning. This player STILL makes a lot of decisions based on fluff or rule of cool, but never decisions that come at the expense of the ability to win. For this player, the army needs to be the fluffiest and coolest it can be within the parameters of having a decent chance to win. And this is absolutely okay- it's absolutely facilitated by the ruleset.

Then there is the type of player who prioritizes rule of cool and fluff. They'll still make some decisions based on competitiveness, but only never decisions that come at the expense of using models which are important to their story. And again, nothing wrong with this approach.

The kind of player that I refer to as a Jackhole above, is someone who strays further than this and fields combinations of units that could be argued to be exploits by folks with competitive leanings, or absolutely fluff breaking according to those with a more narrative bent... And sometimes this player fields things that fall into both categories at the same time. Again, if it's rules legal, the player isn't entirely to blame because GW SHOULD have made a rules set that didn't allow the player to do what they did. I get that. But I also believe that if that player knows that their army is an exploit, or unfluffy, or both... They should be allowed to win the tournament, but they probably shouldn't expect to also be a contender to the sportsmanship trophy.

Hence Jackhole. Again, I admit, possibly heavy handed. The point still stands: the actions of this player may cause the Matched Play overlords to make changes to Matched to fix the exploit, and that makes sense. But it makes far less sense in Crusade, where a) players are less like to field exploits as they have chosen a mode that prioritize narrative over victory and b) such exploit are issues only until various honours/ scars and quest upgrades completely change the way the unit acts or the way other units act relative to it even IF one or two players choose to bring exploits.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

No thanks. Keep PL and never have that problem.

Here's a question: would you support a dual-points system where the matched play points are done as they are now, and the Crusade points use the exact same structure (paying for upgrades, etc) but changes are only applied once per year?

Would I support it? Well, if it was implemented before the end of this edition, I'd consider it. It would be better than forcing Crusade to update as often as matched does, so it's a step in the direction of compromise, which is the right direction.

If it's implemented for 10th, probably not? But it wouldn't be due entirely to this change in particular. Given how much development we've done with 9th, and how ideally suited to our particular needs it is, it's unlikely that I'll play in 10th at all. I am buying up 9th ed dexes for armies I might not get around to playing for another four or five years, because I'm planning for this to be my last edition.

In my mind, no edition of the game has been as bad for the game as the concept of edition churn itself. Since this was the version where the game peaked for me, I have pretty strong reasons to believe it's all down hill from here. Either they do a soft reset and we're hammered by edition inequality across the release schedule the way guard and daemons are being hammered right now, or they do a hard reset where they start with a streamlined, clutter free elegant system, which most Dakkanaughts will prefer and I will personally find empty and vacuous; as time goes on, GW will reply the clutter one dex at a time- bringing it closer to the game I want to play but the closer it gets, the more the zeitgeist will turn against it until edition 11 drops....

No thanks.

So that's the answer to the question about whether I'd accept it. But I think the bigger question, as I'm hoping my posts in this thread have been consistently asking is why is such a change necessary? What would it actually achieve, when any unit I add to my Order of Battle can be so fundamentally altered by the gameplay over time?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

GW likes having their two primary modes of play, and I think a lot of players do too. Matched players don't want Crusade's book keeping and the unpredictable and imbalanced impact of experience interfering with rehearsed tactics and the painstakingly play-tested, and Crusade players don't want to feel like the fundamental rules (like the aircraft limit or the subfaction soup ban) and roster values are changing every 3-6 months when some of us are engaged in stories that have been ongoing since our codices dropped.

But why is PL essential to this?

As I explained in the post you've responded to, it helps keep the play modes distinct, and it is an intentional effort to get people to think more about how a unit will grow over time rather than thinking hardest about it when it is added to the list. The stability issue is huge too, and if we were trying to use one unit of measure for both games, Crusade environments have a harder time staying stable. Because we do have PL, we've seen Crusade governed by a system that has changed TWICE since it's inception, vs. a system that changes every 3 months.

It is easier to just keep both Points and PL as is, rather than cut PL and then invent a bunch of ways to modify points so as to achieve some of the things for Crusade that PL did well. Especially since it would all be done for the sake of solving a problem that doesn't really exist.



What does the aircraft limit have to do with wanting the point system to be less accurate?

If you want to staple Crusade to Matched, you have to tone down the complexity of progression and tracking at the expense of nuance and options

No you don't. GW had Crusade-style progression in previous editions without needing a separate point system and separate core game mechanics. If anything Crusade and narrative play in general would work better because you would no longer have as much of the tension between what is the best option within the rules and which option best represents the story. It's a win for everyone if you don't have to feel bad about taking a laspistol instead of a plasma pistol.

I’m genuinely amazed by the last few pages of this thread. Even by dakka standards.


I remember the last time I felt similar here it was when none other, than the (in)fameous Peregrine was giving the same „maybe play some other game then, because I don’t like PLs so I should not have to endure their existence in the rulebook” crap to Blndmage YEARS AGO.

Kudos to you Blndmage for enduring those self righteous idiots.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Maybe it's because people don't pull out ableist language or try to shame people over something which *doesn't affect them*.

Sorry, but "PL is a bad system and here's why" is not ableist language or shaming anyone.

And I once again note that no other rule change gets this reaction. Nobody calls it "ableist" to say that AoC should be removed, or when someone says an AoC advocate is wrong about their balance claims and would have a better game without AoC. It's only with PL and Open™ Play™ that one particular rule is vital to a person's identity as a "PL player" or "Open™ Play™ player". Why is this?

You know their needs better than they do? Oh almighty clairvoyancy!

Yeah, go ahead and mock me for suggesting some alternative options they may have not been aware of. That's really a constructive response that makes you look good.

Simple. It encourages me to do so, because I can point to the rules and say "yup, this is intended and allowed". I can actually say "yeah, GW want me to do things my way, and I want to share this experience with you, the player across the table from me".

But why do you need that? Why do you value that? If the entire starting premise is "the normal rules of 40k need to be changed and here's how I want to do it" why do you care if GW has given you permission to do it? You've already rejected their authority!

Again, have you missed BIndmage and mine's personal testimony when it comes to time?

I've seen it. I think you're either mistaken about how long it takes or exaggerating it to make a point. And it is an amusing argument at this point given your insistence on spending all of your theoretical time savings defending the need for PL in an internet argument. Your time is your time but it's pretty funny that your primary defense of PL is "I can save 5 minutes on list building and then use those 5 minutes to argue about how important it was to save them". If you just used normal points and stopped trying to defend PL you'd probably see a net gain in free time available.

Yeah, I don't value the argument that I've never even mentioned.

The fact that you haven't mentioned it doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true. Very often the CAAC types will never admit it directly but it's clear from their actions and inability to come up with any other defense for PL that the primary thing they value is that PL discourages "competitive" players from joining their games.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
The fact that you haven't mentioned it doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true. Very often the CAAC types will never admit it directly but it's clear from their actions and inability to come up with any other defense for PL that the primary thing they value is that PL discourages "competitive" players from joining their games.

TBF if power levels magically made people less competitive (or actually did keep the competitive types away) I would use it even more than I do now.

Sadly it does not.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Again, have you missed BIndmage and mine's personal testimony when it comes to time?

I've seen it. I think you're either mistaken about how long it takes or exaggerating it to make a point. And it is an amusing argument at this point given your insistence on spending all of your theoretical time savings defending the need for PL in an internet argument. Your time is your time but it's pretty funny that your primary defense of PL is "I can save 5 minutes on list building and then use those 5 minutes to argue about how important it was to save them". If you just used normal points and stopped trying to defend PL you'd probably see a net gain in free time available.

WHY WOULD I LIE!?!!
feth

nou wrote:
I’m genuinely amazed by the last few pages of this thread. Even by dakka standards.


I remember the last time I felt similar here it was when none other, than the (in)fameous Peregrine was giving the same „maybe play some other game then, because I don’t like PLs so I should not have to endure their existence in the rulebook” crap to Blndmage YEARS AGO.

Kudos to you Blndmage for enduring those self righteous idiots.

Blindmage is a tough cookie, which is appropriate because he/she/they is an ardent Oldcron(bestcron) fan.

 Blndmage wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Thank you Sgt_Smudge and others.

*Deep breath*

Ok, let's get to this then.

Folks want me to give a rundown of my disabilities, to prove that my case is valid?

Metal health:
- we are neurodivergent, we're autistic, as have DID thanks to a buttload of childhood trauma (don't worry, it get better). This means we dissociate, and /or have others front mid game. We have a large number of Littles who have shown interest in playing. Some of my headmates have dyscalculia.

- much of our trauma comes from a childhood in the 80's with disabilities. I've had some of these same invalidating tactics used against us our whole lives.

- extreme depression and suicidal thoughts.

- due to my chronic pain(see next section),I have very limited energy to dedicate to playing, if I do play 40k, it's probably the sole things I do that day.

Physical health:

- as mentioned, we have chronic pain, to the point of passing out between each of these points (let alone while playing). This makes playing 40k very difficult already.

- we're dependent on a mobility scooter to get around. We only have range to reach the tiny GW store in our town, Wich has virtually no scene, as the two LFGSs have cornered the play space.

- we're terminally ill with blood cancer. We've outlived 3drs, we're given a prognosis of 20yrs, then 7-10. It's been 18. By all rights I should be dead, again.

- I say again, because we've died at least twice (clinical death) once as an infant and again at 2. We've been chronically hospitalized our entire life. We spent more than half of kindergarten and grades 1-3 in hospital, usually in an oxygen tent (they don't exist anymore, feel free to look them up).

- visual impairment. Legally blind without glasses, which we've been wearing since we were 6 months old (adjusted).

---

Are we disabled enough yet?
Do we somehow now have a right to play the game, FOLLOWING THE fething RULES, without needing to justify why we find it preferable?
Or should we just stop playing? Or more specifically, stop posting on here, because this always happened when we talk about how much we enjoy playing the game with PL and Open Play,as opposed to points and Matched Play? We've tried all kinds of combinations.

Well luckily list building apps like Battlescribe help to make it so you don't do extraneous math. Math is EXTREMELY easy for me but I still use Battlescribe since it keeps track of point updates and new rules. Also don't have to do a lot of typing and writing which is a plus.

Battlescribe isn't compatible with my screen readers.

I am 100% certain there could be a way to get it to be compatible. Trust me when I say that things like Battlescribe and Waha are total game changers for playing the game.

 Insectum7 wrote:

nou wrote:
I’m genuinely amazed by the last few pages of this thread. Even by dakka standards.


I remember the last time I felt similar here it was when none other, than the (in)fameous Peregrine was giving the same „maybe play some other game then, because I don’t like PLs so I should not have to endure their existence in the rulebook” crap to Blndmage YEARS AGO.

Kudos to you Blndmage for enduring those self righteous idiots.

Blindmage is a tough cookie, which is appropriate because he/she/they is an ardent Oldcron(bestcron) fan.

(She/her) I wish there was a way to note this better.

 Insectum7 wrote:

It is objectively true that points offer more granularity than PL, and objectively true that more granularity offers more precision in the effort towards balancing.

Anyone who refuses to acknowledge this either can't comprehend it or is being willfully ignorant to make their point. They're literally saying that feet are just as precise as millimeters when they really mean "I prefer using feet to measure". Whatever the case, arguing with them at this stage is pointless IMO. Anyone who has made it this long into the debate without figuring it out isn't going to come to any kind of epiphany today because of something you or I say.

 Blndmage wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

nou wrote:
I’m genuinely amazed by the last few pages of this thread. Even by dakka standards.


I remember the last time I felt similar here it was when none other, than the (in)fameous Peregrine was giving the same „maybe play some other game then, because I don’t like PLs so I should not have to endure their existence in the rulebook” crap to Blndmage YEARS AGO.

Kudos to you Blndmage for enduring those self righteous idiots.

Blindmage is a tough cookie, which is appropriate because he/she/they is an ardent Oldcron(bestcron) fan.

(She/her) I wish there was a way to note this better.

Ty!

What's awkward the phrasing or the lack of a 'declaration' associated with the avatar/identity? Just curious. Super off topic though, feel free to dm.

Toofast wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

It is objectively true that points offer more granularity than PL, and objectively true that more granularity offers more precision in the effort towards balancing.

Anyone who refuses to acknowledge this either can't comprehend it or is being willfully ignorant to make their point. They're literally saying that feet are just as precise as millimeters when they really mean "I prefer using feet to measure". Whatever the case, arguing with them at this stage is pointless IMO. Anyone who has made it this long into the debate without figuring it out isn't going to come to any kind of epiphany today because of something you or I say.

I agree with this 100%.

What I'M saying is that because granularity at the list building stage is not a desirable characteristic in a game with a built in progression system which radically changes the combat effectiveness of any given unit after any given game, PL is better suited to Crusade. Even if it wasn't, the status quo would be better than trying to somehow combine PL and Points into a single unit of measure that was ideal for both games, because if you're trying to combine PL and Points, you have the potential to make both Matched Play and Crusade worse, and the impact of a better list building mechanic for Crusade is worth neither the effort or the risk since list building in Crusade is almost a non-issue. It's such a small part of the game compared to how big a deal it is in Matched.

I know there are other people in this thread who may have said points is no more accurate; I don't agree, but I haven't bothered pointing it out because the conclusion they reach based on their point of view is the same as the conclusion I reach based on my point of view, which is that both PL and Points should continue to exist. It is, after all, the path of least resistance, and with two systems, you're free to choose the one that suits you best, whereas with one, you're stuck with it warts and all, love it or hate it.

Keeping both protects people who are supposedly arguing because they are afraid of losing points, or because they fear points becoming more like PL just as much as it protects ALL the people here who have spoken up and said that based on their genuine and legitimate experiences with the game and their genuine, legitimate preferences, would prefer to use PL.

Anyone who has made it this long into the debate without figuring out that two systems serve the entire community better than a single option that tries to work for every taste isn't going to come to any kind of epiphany today because of something you or I say.

Hecaton wrote:

Andykp wrote:


Don’t need battle scribe with power levels, luckily it’s all in the rules.

To make an army and keep track of all the rules you're almost certainly still going to need it if you're in the situation above.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:

Yeah, you came out of the female marine arguments really well……..

The fact that people with broken moral compasses don't like my opinions tells me I'm doing it right, not wrong.

You’re ability to imagine yourself on the moral high ground no matter how low you’ve sunk still amazes me.

PenitentJake wrote:
In Crusade, PL is relevant exactly ONCE- when a unit is chosen to be added to an Order of Battle.

What? No. PL is relevant every single game in Crusade. To play a Crusade game you assemble a 25/50/100/150 point army just like you assemble a 500/1000/2000/3000 point matched play army, using army construction rules that are word for word identical to the matched play rules with the exception of using a different point system. And a unit's Crusade upgrades not not have any part in army construction, a unit's point cost remains fixed in every game.

What is relevant is what that unit can do in any given battle, which changes from game to game.

It changes as a modifier on its base stats and point cost. If a unit is so blatantly overpowered that its point cost changing would be a major problem for your supply limit (remember that you get 1 RP for playing a game even if you lose, and that RP can be spent for +5 points of supply limit) then we're talking about a massive balance problem, a unit which is hundreds of points off in point cost in the normal point system. You're talking about something like "I get a 500 point Baneblade for 100 points because GW made a typo in the point cost". Why wouldn't you want to fix that mistake?

(And if it's only a minor point cost adjustment then the supply limit thing is a non-issue. Play a single game and get +5 supply limit to accommodate it, problem solved.)

Heck, if you're playing sisters, just as an example, you might buy a unit of Battle Sisters. In your first game, they might do something (like fail a break test or lose a key fight) that makes you want them to take a Penitent Oath- when this happens, they entire unit is removed from your Order of Battle and replaced with an identical number of Repentia AND NO PL ARE ADDED, SUBTRACTED OR ALTERED IN ANY WAY. Five games later, they may redeem themselves, at which point the unit is removed from your roster again, and it can come back as Celestians or Seraphim, again with Zero impact on PL.

Um, what? The requisitions in question do change the point cost of the unit. You remove the original unit entirely and add a new unit which then gains some specific Crusade upgrades based on what the replaced unit has. If you replace a 5-model retributor squad (6 points) with a 4-model repentia squad (3 points) the unit in your Order of Battle will cost 3 points. This is the number which is counted towards your supply limit, and it will cost 3 points in list construction. In fact, the requisition makes this change in point cost explicit because it contains the restriction that you can not use the requisition if the new unit's point cost would cause you to exceed your supply limit.

But it is worth pointing out that the supply limit mechanic provides a methodology for connecting escalation to the narrative. You want the thing you did to trigger the RP gain that you use to bump your supply limit to be a story event that would have that consequence. So let's say for example, you win a narrow victory; the way to use the rules as a tool to shape the story might go like this:

Sure, but it shouldn't be necessary to do that. If I have a nice 50-point starting Order of Battle because I've been buying unit upgrades instead of supply limit and one of my opponents says "hey, let's play a 100 point game so I can use my new Baneblade squadron" I have two choices: either decline the game and fail to help with their narrative request or play several more games first and spend all of my RP on increasing supply limit. Being able to play larger games shouldn't be gated behind everyone having to agree to spend resources to unlock them, you should be able to just decide to play any appropriate game size based on the needs of the story.

I don't want to hit a reset button on my Crusades.

But you don't have to! Changing the point cost doesn't change the identity of your force. You can still continue to use all of those units exactly as they are, just with their new point costs. All waiting until the end of the season means is that you avoid the problem where you've arranged the specific details of your 25 point game next week and then a point update hits and your list is now at 27 points and no longer legal. If you wait until the end of your "season" (however that is defined in your group) you handle it all in the downtime while you're preparing the next chapter in the story, people are taking the opportunity to change armies, etc.

(Of course in practical terms there's a limit, as the game starts to become too unwieldy with every unit being at legendary rank and piled high with upgrades. At some point you have to hit a reset button to get things down to a manageable scale.)

It may have come across as a bit heavy handed, but it really does illustrate a fundamental difference between types of player. And BTW, I'm not saying that either type of player is better than the other, just that they have different priorities.

But you said exactly that! You called this competitive player a "jackhole" for playing the game competitively in a competitive context. That's not acknowledging that people have different goals for the game, it's insulting someone because their goals aren't the same as yours.

As I explained in the post you've responded to, it helps keep the play modes distinct, and it is an intentional effort to get people to think more about how a unit will grow over time rather than thinking hardest about it when it is added to the list.

But PL doesn't accomplish this goal at all. It's still the standard concept of points-based list construction where a unit has a set point cost and you create a list by choosing units up to a total point limit. It still forces you to build your 25 point list with the exact same process as matched play. The only difference is that, because of its inherent errors, the answer to optimization questions changes and there is a different set of best units/upgrades.

PenitentJake wrote:

Anyone who has made it this long into the debate without figuring out that two systems serve the entire community better than a single option that tries to work for every taste isn't going to come to any kind of epiphany today because of something you or I say.

I agree with this and think it the thread ought to be left at that conclusion.

 Blndmage wrote:
WHY WOULD I LIE!?!!
feth

I don't know, but I find it interesting that you jump to "WHY WOULD I LIE" as your response and ignore the fact that I provided a second interpretation: that you are simply mistaken.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
Question: is there any other subject that gets this kind of "I ENJOY THIS YOU CANT TAKE IT AWAY FROM ME THATS RUDE AND INVALIDATING AND ABLEIST" reaction? Like, here's some threads on removing mechanics from the game:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/805658.page
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/804347.page
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/805679.page

All three of these threads contain people arguing different sides on the merits of those particular rules but none of them have this weird thing where changing a game mechanic is invalidating someone's experiences and a personal attack on them. Why does PL get this reaction where other mechanics don't? Why do "PL players" make it a part of their identity in a way that "AoC players" or "vehicles with AV and facings" players don't?

Read Gulliver's Travels or Rene Girard for answers.

Basically, people have desires. When others don't share those desires, they feel threated. Identifying with that desire and classifying everyone else becomes a means of reinforcement and self-defense.