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.

 techsoldaten wrote:
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.

Yeah, but why doesn't it happen with all those other things? Why is nobody declaring themselves a "vehicles with AV and facings" player and feeling threatened and attacked by their removal? Even under the most charitable interpretation of how much extra time is required to use the normal point system changing the vehicle AV and facing mechanics is a much more significant change to the game. And yet nobody has that kind of emotional investment in the subject, they just debate the merits of each option and that's the end of it.

(This is largely a rhetorical question, as the answer seems very clearly to be that PL serves as a proxy for a particular concept of "casual play". Nothing about its practical implementation or usage is really relevant to PL advocates, all that matters is this symbolic status.)

Hecaton wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Disabled players get forgotten about constantly. We're not edge cases, or an insignificant number ~20% of Canadians (~25% of Americans) are disabled.

If you don't understand why that specific response to my question is ableist, I'd suggest talking with disabled 40k players you know. And if you say "I don't know any"...think about that for a bit.

I have ADHD. I literally have a neurodevelopmental disability. I asked about dyscalculia because it's a disability that would strongly indicate that PL would be of benefit to you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
Mike drop post from smudge. End of.

Well I'm glad I have that well-known liar blocked :-D


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
Hecatons comment is ableist i suppose because why does he need to know of blindmage suffers with anything to understand that there are people there who and disabilities that impact their hobby experience. I can’t speak for blindmage but that’s my understanding. Does Blindmage having a specific disability make his comments more or less valid. It doesn’t actually make any difference.

I mean potentially, yeah. Dyscalculia would be one that makes his opinion on PL *very* valid.

Also see my point about how I have a neurodevelopmental disability as well.

I wholeheartedly reject the idea that someone can claim a disability, and then it becomes morally wrong to argue against them. That's an untenable idea. The reason it needs to be brought up is because "I have a disability => PL is required" doesn't follow from the premises, so it's worth interrogating further.

Just a note, because you obviously don't pay attention, I'm not a guy!

Andykp wrote:

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

Just because I don't kiss the ring and admit I'm wrong about everything because someone I was communicating with claimed a disability?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
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.

Yeah, but why doesn't it happen with all those other things? Why is nobody declaring themselves a "vehicles with AV and facings" player and feeling threatened and attacked by their removal? Even under the most charitable interpretation of how much extra time is required to use the normal point system changing the vehicle AV and facing mechanics is a much more significant change to the game. And yet nobody has that kind of emotional investment in the subject, they just debate the merits of each option and that's the end of it.

(This is largely a rhetorical question, as the answer seems very clearly to be that PL serves as a proxy for a particular concept of "casual play". Nothing about its practical implementation or usage is really relevant to PL advocates, all that matters is this symbolic status.)

Makes perfect sense to me.

When you change / narrow a field of acceptable subjects, people cling to the simplest ideas they can find. It's a natural response to change, sort of a survival instinct. Think of cruise passengers in the water clinging to life preservers, they're not going to let go for any reason.

GW introduced a change to how the math is done. Nothing to do with the game or setting, just how players count what's in their lists.

Once people bought into the idea, they stopped thinking critically about how it compares to points. Because the paradigm was oversimplified to the point where it grossly distorted any approximation of balance that exists in the game, the only way to defend Power Levels was to talk about them in terms of personal preference, i.e. power levels are cool because I like them.

Once PL became a point of personal preference, that preference could become an essential aspect of one's identity. The PL People are a reflection of preference elevated to existential being, sometimes called obsession.

The reason there are no AV Facings People is because the mechanic was removed from the game. There's nothing in the active edition to compare it to, hence no focus of desire, envy for what the other has, or resentment over rationally superior rulesets. Just a nostalgia for past editions that shall never return...

I do think having both Points and power level harms the game in the long run.
Since they are both pulling the design in two ways.

In the end, PL are just points done differently and GW is rather avg at best at game design to begin with.

One of the big issues is once you pull something out, if it does harm it’s hard to put back in. And if it does have purpose or good ideas for design (which PL does) then that can be worse than if they just sucked and no one cared.

One big thing about a lot of upgrades in 40k is optimised cost.
Some things are useless if not against specific things, which you don’t find out until you start hitting the table so is not even worth considering without forwarn information.
PL can change that, and can lead to different design from different creators at GW.
And how far should GW go making sure both work under the same systems.

I have changed my opinion over time, I now think PL is mostly a issue for the same reasons I think a lot of 40k is so bad. GW sucks and will copy great ideas into 40k with little idea of why they worked so well in other places.
With like a afternoon of effort they could probably make an edition of 40k that was great running on PL.
But by splitting it in two, they will continue to fail both internal systems for years like they do with most of 40k.

Re: Armor facings - Horus Heresy says hi.

Apple fox wrote:
One big thing about a lot of upgrades in 40k is optimised cost.
Some things are useless if not against specific things, which you don’t find out until you start hitting the table so is not even worth considering without forwarn information.
PL can change that, and can lead to different design from different creators at GW.

How does PL help with that? If thing X is only good against a particular opponent Y then an army that includes X will always have balance problems. Either you balance the army against every non-Y opponent and give it an unfair advantage against Y because you're getting a free anti-Y upgrade or you balance against Y and the army is weak against every non-Y opponent because it doesn't have any tailored buffs against those other opponents. The solution is not an alternative point system, it's to stop putting things like "+1 to hit against orks" in the game at all.

With like a afternoon of effort they could probably make an edition of 40k that was great running on PL.

Only at the cost of discarding a ton of options that PL can't accommodate. Which I guess is a valid alternative game but it would mean a lot of people are unhappy about losing their toys.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
One big thing about a lot of upgrades in 40k is optimised cost.
Some things are useless if not against specific things, which you don’t find out until you start hitting the table so is not even worth considering without forwarn information.
PL can change that, and can lead to different design from different creators at GW.

How does PL help with that? If thing X is only good against a particular opponent Y then an army that includes X will always have balance problems. Either you balance the army against every non-Y opponent and give it an unfair advantage against Y because you're getting a free anti-Y upgrade or you balance against Y and the army is weak against every non-Y opponent because it doesn't have any tailored buffs against those other opponents. The solution is not an alternative point system, it's to stop putting things like "+1 to hit against orks" in the game at all.

With like a afternoon of effort they could probably make an edition of 40k that was great running on PL.

Only at the cost of discarding a ton of options that PL can't accommodate. Which I guess is a valid alternative game but it would mean a lot of people are unhappy about losing their toys.

Lots of games use other balance ideas like a sideboard. I just think of PL as points, I don’t say PL can fix this. Just that PL can work just fine, like other games.

And there are lots of options in other games ever with there points being structured like PL.
Warmachine as much as a lot of 40k players hate, has lots of idea that’s 40k could get some inspiration from.
Not taking fully, but some ideas.
One thing warmachine does is upgrades one there big things tend to just be more options and opportunities on a unit itself, a close combat unit does have upgrades for range. There is a ranged unit with ranged upgrades.
And both get support from other different units.

Another is a sideboard. If PL was used with a sideboard.
TAC squad idea.
Every tac squad is 5 or 10 marines. 6/12 PL
One marine is a Sargent.
1PL gives during deployment any combination of equipment from this list in combination with there starting equipment.
1PL gives a list of special weapons, which act as a upgrade.
1PL gives a heavy weapon list, heavy weapons are great but with a downside (Slow, need support)
Now a less usful equipment can be chosen during deployment against some foes.

With work other army’s can get similar and other mechanics for ballance. Demons have more choice on the battlefield, Eldar more on battlefield choice of upgrades. Tau more like marines with a bit of Eldar style adaptive choices.

Different, but I don’t think it’s really a loss of choices from current 40k, where so much of the choice is effectively just saying some random words and buffs happen. Or the massive bloat we are dealing with.

Hecaton wrote:

Andykp wrote:

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

Just because I don't kiss the ring and admit I'm wrong about everything because someone I was communicating with claimed a disability?

No, because you say lots of unpleasant things, accuse people of all manner of things you are guilty of yourself and don’t have an ounce empathy or understanding about you. And when someone calls you out on your unpleasantness you play the victim then claim a moral victory.

Andykp wrote:
No, because you say lots of unpleasant things, accuse people of all manner of things you are guilty of yourself and don’t have an ounce empathy or understanding about you. And when someone calls you out on your unpleasantness you play the victim then claim a moral victory.

Is your last name Lumière? Because that's really some top-tier projection.

What disagreement do you think is morally permissible when someone claims a disability like Blindmage did? It doesn't seem you allow for it. That's a morally bankrupt way of conducting yourself.

Slipspace wrote:


PL is a game mechanic.

Let's take the example I mentioned previously - 7th edition Formations. Many were broken beyond belief. According to you, discussing the possibility of removing them is verboten if one person says they enjoy them. That's insane.

To be fair, PL and points are mutually exclusive, when you play a game you choose one mechanic and ignore the other. There's no format that involves both PL and points all at once.

Formations were part of the game instead, any game. You couldn't decide to remove them outside house rules.

I also don't get why people consider having two systems as bloat. Points and PL are only used in listbuilding, there's nothing to remember during the game or any confusion due to having two systems to determine the value of units and gear.

Technically Matched Play uses both points and PL as Strategic Reserves an other rules are based off PL.

 Blackie wrote:


To be fair, PL and points are mutually exclusive, when you play a game you choose one mechanic and ignore the other. There's no format that involves both PL and points all at once.

Formations were part of the game instead, any game. You couldn't decide to remove them outside house rules.

I also don't get why people consider having two systems as bloat. Points and PL are only used in listbuilding, there's nothing to remember during the game or any confusion due to having two systems to determine the value of units and gear.

You're not really addressing his comment though.

 Blackie wrote:
I also don't get why people consider having two systems as bloat. Points and PL are only used in listbuilding, there's nothing to remember during the game or any confusion due to having two systems to determine the value of units and gear.

It's textbook bloat because it's literally two systems doing the exact same thing. There is only design space for one point system, once you have the normal point system there is no reason to add a second one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:
Technically Matched Play uses both points and PL as Strategic Reserves an other rules are based off PL.

Thank you for adding another point against the whole "PL has no effect on you so you can't argue for removing it" argument.

There is no "design space".

PL are literally calculated from points for ease of use.

As long as points are not properly balanced for every single unit in every single codex and not just for the top few choices and their optimal wargear of half the codices, points are just a waste of time for people not optimizing their lists.

The error margin created by GW's inability to put proper point costs on every single gun and sword is simply larger than the error margin created by using average loadout costs.

CadianSgtBob wrote:


It's textbook bloat because it's literally two systems doing the exact same thing. There is only design space for one point system, once you have the normal point system there is no reason to add a second one.

Maybe. But you can skip one of them entirely without missing anything in your games. And PL are printed on the datasheets, so they don't really make books thicker.

How many SM units/chapters do the exact same thing? That's bloat, massive bloat. Reduce the entire line to firstborn SW, DA and BA, the most flavourful chapters. Remove everything else .

What about AM tanks? Keep the leman russ, with only one cannon variant and the gatling variant, the chimera and the hellhound. Maybe one baneblade. Remove all the other tanks, they all try to accomplish the same job. That's the amount of textbook bloat I personally would love to reduce.

 Jidmah wrote:
There is no "design space".

Of course there is. The fact that it's very limited design space doesn't change the fact that a point system is an element of a game's mechanics and involves game design decisions.

The error margin created by GW's inability to put proper point costs on every single gun and sword is simply larger than the error margin created by using average loadout costs.

And, once again, there is zero reason to include a system that has all of the errors of the normal point system plus additional errors that are inherent to its structure. The solution here is to dump the redundant PL system and focus on improving the system that at least in theory can do better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
But you can skip one of them entirely without missing anything in your games.

Except, as Blndmage helpfully pointed out, you can't. PL is used for reserves and various stratagems in matched play even when you're using the normal point system for list construction, and PL is built into Crusade unless you house rule it out.

Plus, as I've mentioned before, there's the issue of wasted development time on a redundant system and the concern that as long as GW's PL mistake continues to exist the anti-competitive elements at GW that invented it in the first place will continue to try to push it back into relevancy rather than admit defeat and properly marginalize it. It would be best to just get rid of it entirely.

How many SM units/chapters do the exact same thing? That's bloat, massive bloat. Reduce the entire line to firstborn SW, DA and BA, the most flavourful chapters. Remove everything else .

What about AM tanks? Keep the leman russ, with only one cannon variant and the gatling variant, the chimera and the hellhound. Maybe one baneblade. Remove all the other tanks, they all try to accomplish the same job. That's the amount of textbook bloat I personally would love to reduce.

I agree. Space marines need to have primaris marines removed, all the chapters consolidated into a single book with no more special rules than every other faction gets for their regiments/hive fleets/etc, and a bunch of their units (like the ugly flyer models) cut. Guard absolutely need a tank consolidation, we have too many variants that are completely useless because there's only design space for 2-3 at most. But none of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Plus, as I've mentioned before, there's the issue of wasted development time on a redundant system and the concern that as long as GW's PL mistake continues to exist the anti-competitive elements at GW that invented it in the first place will continue to try to push it back into relevancy rather than admit defeat and properly marginalize it. It would be best to just get rid of it entirely.

Yeah, technically there might be a few examples of overlapping between the systems, but they're still pretty rare and most of them are about pre game tactics. And even if there are mechanics that involve both systems during the actual game it's just an insignificant part of the bloat. This isn't a trial, lawyering has no real value here. Claiming that PL and points are mutually exclusive is not that far from the truth.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
But none of that has anything to do with the topic of this thread.

It is if the main reason why people are against PL is that "there isn't design space" and/or they add "textbook bloat", when in reality they contribute to an insignificant fraction of those problems, at most.

 Blackie wrote:
Yeah, technically there might be a few examples of overlapping between the systems, but they're still pretty rare and most of them are about pre game tactics.

It's hardly "rare" when we're talking about a core game mechanic that is frequently used.

It is if the main reason why people are against PL is that "there isn't design space" and/or they add "textbook bloat", when in reality they contribute to an insignificant fraction of those problems, at most.

No, it's not relevant at all. Keeping or removing PL does not in any way prevent other solutions to rules bloat issues elsewhere. In a topic of PL vs. points those other issues are completely irrelevant.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

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.

Yes- you're pointing out the piece that I myself called attention to in the parenthetical Caveat section of the post- PL does continue to be the limiting factor in terms of how many units you can include in a game. What I am saying in the rest of the section is that the cost for the unit when you add it to your roster is the only time that the cost is actually a measure of the unit's combat effectiveness. As soon as the unit changes its combat effectiveness as a result of game play, the PL cost no longer represents what the unit is capable of doing.

Subsequent decisions about whether or not to bring that unit to battle do require you to conform to a PL limit, it's true, but the determining factor for whether or not you WANT to include in the battle is no longer based on a cost/benefits analysis of efficiency... Which is ALWAYS a huge determinant if not the standard for inclusion of a unit in a matched play game.

Fair call though... I could have worded my original post better.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

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?

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here, but I'll take a stab at responding.

So when I talk about PL no longer accurately reflecting a unit's combat effectiveness, it never rises to the discrepancy of a 500pt Baneblade for 100pts- or at least I don't think it does. I haven't read the Baneblade entry for a while, so I'm not sure what the difference in points as between the base tank and its optimal upgrades. Maybe it is 400 points.

What I'm talking about is the PL cost you pay when you add a unit to your roster is theoretically a reflection of it's combat effectiveness. But that combat effectiveness is going to change over time, while the PL cost is likely to remain constant. There are circumstances where it can change, but this typically only happens when the unit is swapped in or out as in the Repentia example below. I still have to build a 25PL army to play against another 25PL army, so the PL cost of the unit does continue to impact the game, but the actual decision about whether or not I select a given unit will have more to do with its actual combat effectiveness, rather than its PL cost.

Does this imbalance a Crusade game?

Maybe. I mean it certainly will in some cases. But remember, in Crusade, "Victory" is about more than winning a single game. I'd rather lose and have three units complete agendas than win and have none complete an objective- and in than context, if all of the uber, overpowered units arrayed against me are used by my opponent to win the game, then they might not end up being used to prevent me from achieving my agendas, in which case the imbalance was a non-issue.

These factors, and others (we'll get there) are reasons why I don't think it's necessary to modify the PL system. Beyond that, modifying it every three months would just be a colossal pain in the duff, especially since so little would be gained by doing it.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

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.

Again, absolutely not my best choice of words... especially in caps. Seriously facepalm. Sorry man- let me explain what I was trying to get at.

So I buy 10 BSS, and I add them to my list- it's 6 PL, I bring whatever load out I want.

Now in the world where PL doesn't exist, I have to weigh whether or not to bring a special, a heavy, a cherub or a simulacrum... because now there's a cost for those things. So what do I do? While now I have to do math, right? Because I probably can't afford all four of those things, but I can probably afford one. Maybe two if I only take one upgrade on a different unit... But then that's more math. And hey, you know what- for some people that's fun... they want to do that. Heck, there were times when I used to do that, and I always found it fun. So yeah, you suck it up- you put in the time, you do the math, and you get it done. You feel proud, and it's kinda cool. Gee, maybe CSB and all those other guys had a point! This is what the game should feel like.

And then you play your first game. The enemy has an objective. You know your painstakingly crafted BSS squad will save the day: you spent an hour doing math and comparing every possible load out combination. Except this day happens to be THAT "Any given Sunday" and four sisters get taken out, you lose two more to attrition and the opponent maintains control of the objective, costing you the battle.

In shame, you swear the oath.

And the loadout you spent the extra time theorycrafting the perfect loadout? Yeah, it's just... gone. The 6PL BSS becomes a 6PL Repentia squad. So is the game any better because you paid for the gear which you no longer have? And when you redeem the unit and replace them with a 7PL Celestian squad, do they have to pay for their upgrades? What if they're the exact same upgrades the BSS had before they swore the oath?

By now, you're probably thinking "Gee, this could be... Easier." That week, the balance update drops...

CadianSgtBob wrote:

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.

Well this is debatable. Remember, this is Crusade we're talking about, so ostensibly, if you're playing Crusade it's because you want to create an extended narrative. I mean to each their own- if it isn't important for you to translate mechanics into the story being told, or to use the mechanics to guide the story, then I'm not going to tell you you're playing wrong, as long as what you're doing makes you and your opponent happy.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

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.

Okay, 3 things:

1. Theoretically, it takes some time for your opponent to built and paint their new Baneblade Squadron, so you'll likely have enough notice that your friend wants to use it long before the game when it can finally be used, and if you're a collaborative storyteller, you'll likely start working toward raising the supply limit for your friend's sake...

2. But it's Crusade, so maybe you'll say something like "Cool. In the next game, I want to run a recon scenario against you to see if I can get intel about an incoming Baneblade Squadron." And in that game, you might choose to prioritize victory over agenda acquisition to maximize RP yield over XP... But again it's also because in the story, the victory condition is the thing that gives you the intel on the Baneblades. The idea being that you use the Baneblade battle to guide the narrative- you're giving your opponent the whole "I've got baneblades" story by having the battles that lead up to the big fight still be "about the Baneblades" even when the aren't on the table. So maybe in subsequent battles, you go after one of the baneblade's crew, who is filling in for one of the dudes in an infantry squad. Sure, it's about playing games to raise your supply limit, but those fights ARE still a story.

3. There are other options here that you haven't listed. My favourite is for you to team up with an allied Crusader and you each build a detachment in such a way that your combined PL equals that of your Baneblade toting common enemy. But you could also just say "Dude, it's gonna take a few weeks to get my Supply Limit up high enough, so let's just play a one off at a points value that works. Maybe Battle-forged Open War deck, Strike Force?" A third option might be an asymmetrical mission- I haven't studied the mission packs in enough detail, nor do I own all of them; I seem to recall the Goonhammer reviews talking about asymmetry in the Octarius Crusade Mission packs. A custom asymmetrical battle is also an option, though I try to avoid discussing house rules as a solution in forums, not because I'm afraid to use them in my own games if my opponents are cool with it, but more because it muddies the water in a forum where you are explicitly discussing other published rules. One strategy that would be "rules legal" is to allow the player with the lower limit to add PL with fortifications or allies (Imperial Agents/ Agents of Chaos) or unaligned units that are available only temporarily based on the circumstance of the battle.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

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.

As described above, there are numerous ways around the problem, but again I stress that the situation you describe IS a part of campaign style narrative escalation games. Most people playing these games recognize that the story of the game IS the actions you take to earn the resources, so doing that in order to get to the point where fighting big battles is possible isn't a chore... It's literally what we signed up to do.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

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.

So no, it doesn't change the identity of the army, but it does break the immersion of the campaign when a force which you were able to field last week, suddenly can't be fielded this week for circumstances which are outside the story and beyond the control of the players. Constant changes to the value of units do affect the ways in which those units may be fielded, and at that point, it can become a story issue. Sure, you're right... it isn't a big deal... But it's just another one of those things you don't have to worry about at all if you just stick with the status quo and keep both PL and Points. Especially when replacing PL gets you so little in return.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

(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.)

I'd debate this too. You can build a 5k PL Order of battle if you want to- you're still only fielding 150PL max at a time. In our campaign, the planet we're on right now has 245 territories, and you can only hold a territory if you've got a detachment there. That's a lot of territory.

At a certain point though, of course you're right, you will start to feel like you've achieved everything you wanted to with a given Crusade, at which point you might start growing another faction's Crusade to the same epic proportions.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

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.

You're quoting the first line of a three paragraph section on these player types that goes on to clearly explain that the "jackhole" that I'm referring to is not merely a competitive player- it is someone who intentionally includes exploits in their army beyond what would be deemed reasonable beyond reasonable standards of competitiveness.

You can't quote the first line of a three paragraph post to score a point when the point you're trying to score has already been addressed by the parts of the post that follow the piece you quoted. I shouldn't say "You can't" - what I mean is that you shouldn't, because the response I made following the piece you quoted is the same response to this.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

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 doesn't do the job on its own- it's part of a suite of differences between the modes. Every one of those differences that you take away makes the versions of the game more samey. And this impacts not just Crusade- it impacts all the other game modes too. Better to leave the modal characteristics of the game as they are. This isn't saying "Don't continue to improve each of the modes" - go ahead, do that! Add more balance to Matched, since that's where balance matters most. Add more content to Crusade, like the Narrative Campaigner's Handbook- a collection of ideas for moderated and non-moderate Crusade Campaign Systems. Or change the way Campaign books are organized so that there are only two books per season- one for Matched (with missions AND Rules) and one for Crusade (Missions and Rules). That's the kind of development I can get behind, because it helps the people who have chosen a particular mode of play get more of the qualities that made them choose that mode.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

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.

Not really. In Matched the army you build is made from units in the dex.

In Crusade, the army you build is from your Order of Battle- a list of units that you've already paid for when you added them to said order of battle. You pay for them to make them available. The list building stage isn't the stage were units are "purchased" - it's merely the stage where you decide which of the units you've previously payed for are necessary in the current engagement. This difference is mostly conceptual, I agree, but it is very significant in terms of how the game functions.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

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.

The "Balance errors" that you speak of aren't characteristics of PL. The conscious decision to not cost most equipment ISN'T an error- it is a design choice meant to de-emphasize the act of adding a unit to your Order of Battle in order to highlight the act of growing and changing that unit over time using resources like RP or XP which are connected to the story by virtue of being earned, rather than PL or points, which are not connected to the story in any way.

The other source of imbalance in Crusade is the unit growth that occurs- also not an error but a design choice.

These two factors definitely make Crusade less balanced, but they aren't "inherent errors" - they're design choices that help make Crusade better at telling stories. It's hard to tell a story when you're more worried about balance than you are the narrative- and most Crusade players have Narrative as their priority: that's why they are Crusade players. If balance was their priority, they'd be playing matched.

PenitentJake wrote:

So when I talk about PL no longer accurately reflecting a unit's combat effectiveness, it never rises to the discrepancy of a 500pt Baneblade for 100pts- or at least I don't think it does. I haven't read the Baneblade entry for a while, so I'm not sure what the difference in points as between the base tank and its optimal upgrades. Maybe it is 400 points.

2 things: depending on what period of history you are talking about, the Baneblade had appx 250 points of upgrades, so it isn't far off. Nowadays with points cuts (and a whole bunch of the upgrades becoming essentially free, like PL), the Baneblade's stock loadout and the Baneblade's upgraded loadout are only 120 pts apart - though that is often considered to be the equivalent of like 6 PL. Currently, though, the Baneblade's PL cost is way out of whack with it's points, because points have been updated to balance the units but PL less so.

My Legendary Keeper of Secrets (12 PL) is better in combat and more survivable than the GW Exalted Keeper (23 PL) who is also a Lord of War because of Crusade Upgrades fwiw.

PenitentJake wrote:

Does this imbalance a Crusade game?

Maybe. I mean it certainly will in some cases. But remember, in Crusade, "Victory" is about more than winning a single game. I'd rather lose and have three units complete agendas than win and have none complete an objective- and in than context, if all of the uber, overpowered units arrayed against me are used by my opponent to win the game, then they might not end up being used to prevent me from achieving my agendas, in which case the imbalance was a non-issue.

PenitentJake wrote:

These two factors definitely make Crusade less balanced, but they aren't "inherent errors" - they're design choices that help make Crusade better at telling stories. It's hard to tell a story when you're more worried about balance than you are the narrative- and most Crusade players have Narrative as their priority: that's why they are Crusade players. If balance was their priority, they'd be playing matched.

So uh, lots of issues here that tout crusade as something that it is not by including unstated assumptions. So let me go in order:
1) Balance is important in Crusade. Not because victory is important, but because fun for both players is important. Playing when badly outmatched isn't any fun for a lot of people - in fact, I would say it is less fun for narrative people if they want their narrative to be more than: "Dear Sector Command: the evil Adepta Sororitas wiped out my Imperial Guard to a man again, for the fifth time. At this point, the fact that anyone is still alive is a miracle."

2) Crusade is a progression system and doesn't help tell stories at all. There are bonuses and (easily avoided) maluses for units that participate in games. *Some* books, like the Sisters, have other fun rules that add a bit of flavor (the Repentia thing), but that is not always a trait of Crusade, and does not require Crusade to happen in a campaign in the first place.

I need you to understand point 2 especially PenitentJake because I have said it like r
Eight or nine times to you now and you brush it off with "well if you play your army a certain way (the GW Approved Way) crusade is great!" Well yeah, sure, but that's not different than Matched is/was for me in terms of "just follow the rules man, if you want narrative, houserule"

Like I appreciate that you have fun with Crusade, I really do. But it has major flaws and gaps and you need to acknowledge them rather than trying to paper over them and continuing to tout it as some GW triumph that they never have done before.

Hecaton wrote:

Andykp wrote:
No, because you say lots of unpleasant things, accuse people of all manner of things you are guilty of yourself and don’t have an ounce empathy or understanding about you. And when someone calls you out on your unpleasantness you play the victim then claim a moral victory.

Is your last name Lumière? Because that's really some top-tier projection.

What disagreement do you think is morally permissible when someone claims a disability like Blindmage did? It doesn't seem you allow for it. That's a morally bankrupt way of conducting yourself.

Something like this:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Power Level is less granular than points. If the designers were perfect at balancing the game, PL would be less balanced than points, due to its broader nature. And, despite that not being true, I still play points. Part of that is at least the hope that the game will achieve more balance, part of it is I like fiddling with lists and scraping together little synergies, which isn't as fun to do with PL, part of it is familiarity, part of it is that the people I play with use points... There's a lot of reasons.

If GW switched over to full PL, I don't think it'd affect my playtime that much-it would affect how much I enjoy putting a list together, but that's a small part of the game.

That is 100% a disagreement in how I play the game, compared to Blndmage. She uses PL exclusively, I use point exclusively.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Andykp wrote:
No, because you say lots of unpleasant things, accuse people of all manner of things you are guilty of yourself and don’t have an ounce empathy or understanding about you. And when someone calls you out on your unpleasantness you play the victim then claim a moral victory.

Is your last name Lumière? Because that's really some top-tier projection.

What disagreement do you think is morally permissible when someone claims a disability like Blindmage did? It doesn't seem you allow for it. That's a morally bankrupt way of conducting yourself.

Something like this:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Power Level is less granular than points. If the designers were perfect at balancing the game, PL would be less balanced than points, due to its broader nature. And, despite that not being true, I still play points. Part of that is at least the hope that the game will achieve more balance, part of it is I like fiddling with lists and scraping together little synergies, which isn't as fun to do with PL, part of it is familiarity, part of it is that the people I play with use points... There's a lot of reasons.

If GW switched over to full PL, I don't think it'd affect my playtime that much-it would affect how much I enjoy putting a list together, but that's a small part of the game.

That is 100% a disagreement in how I play the game, compared to Blndmage. She uses PL exclusively, I use point exclusively.

I didn't ask you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:


Again, absolutely not my best choice of words... especially in caps. Seriously facepalm. Sorry man- let me explain what I was trying to get at.

So I buy 10 BSS, and I add them to my list- it's 6 PL, I bring whatever load out I want.

Now in the world where PL doesn't exist, I have to weigh whether or not to bring a special, a heavy, a cherub or a simulacrum... because now there's a cost for those things. So what do I do? While now I have to do math, right? Because I probably can't afford all four of those things, but I can probably afford one. Maybe two if I only take one upgrade on a different unit... But then that's more math. And hey, you know what- for some people that's fun... they want to do that. Heck, there were times when I used to do that, and I always found it fun. So yeah, you suck it up- you put in the time, you do the math, and you get it done. You feel proud, and it's kinda cool. Gee, maybe CSB and all those other guys had a point! This is what the game should feel like.

And then you play your first game. The enemy has an objective. You know your painstakingly crafted BSS squad will save the day: you spent an hour doing math and comparing every possible load out combination. Except this day happens to be THAT "Any given Sunday" and four sisters get taken out, you lose two more to attrition and the opponent maintains control of the objective, costing you the battle.

In shame, you swear the oath.

And the loadout you spent the extra time theorycrafting the perfect loadout? Yeah, it's just... gone. The 6PL BSS becomes a 6PL Repentia squad. So is the game any better because you paid for the gear which you no longer have? And when you redeem the unit and replace them with a 7PL Celestian squad, do they have to pay for their upgrades? What if they're the exact same upgrades the BSS had before they swore the oath?

By now, you're probably thinking "Gee, this could be... Easier." That week, the balance update drops...

Uh... a unit of 10 Repentia costs 140 points no matter what. So you're not paying for that wargear you put on the SoB squad anymore.

PenitentJake wrote:
As soon as the unit changes its combat effectiveness as a result of game play, the PL cost no longer represents what the unit is capable of doing.

It never represents it as accurately. But Crusade upgrades are still a multiplier on the base stats of the unit. For example, adding the re-roll 1s to hit buff is a flat 16% increase in a unit's offense which translates into some percentage increase in its overall power. And GW appears to be making the assumption that each side will have a roughly equivalent level of upgrades so that this factor balances out and a unit's point cost still remains an accurate representation of the unit's power relative to other units in the Crusade group.

But, as I've asked before, if PL does not accurately evaluate a unit's power and is not considered in whether or not to take a unit in a game why use a point system at all? Why not use Crusade XP as the point system for army construction, bringing an army composed of units up to a total number of Crusade ranks? Why do you so desperately want to keep this point system that you constantly dismiss the importance of?

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here, but I'll take a stab at responding.

No, you're missing the point of that one. Let me start over from the beginning.

You claimed that a unit's point cost changing because of GW balance updates would be a major problem because of supply limit. You have your 25 point army built from your 50 point supply limit, a balance update hits, and now you're at 26/25 points and 51/50 supply limit. Through no fault of your own you suddenly have a list and order of battle that are no longer legal. And my point is that you're in one of two scenarios:

1) The point adjustment is small and/or offset by point decreases elsewhere in your force. This is a non-issue, a single additional game can grant you enough additional supply limit to accommodate the change. And that's assuming you don't just allow anyone whose order of battle is taken over the supply limit by point updates a one-time free increase in supply limit to make it legal. If you really care about strict limits you could even make it an advance payment on the next RP purchase. You get +1 supply limit for free to put you at 51/51, but your next supply limit upgrade only gives +4 supply so you're at the same 55 you would have been at without the free loan.

2) The point adjustment is massive, generating so much of an increase in costs that you'll need multiple games to gain enough supply limit to cover it. In this case, with you benefiting from such a massive balance error in your favor, why wouldn't you want to correct the error and pay the fair price for the unit? Do you think that you should be entitled to keep using a 500 point tank for 100 points game after game just because GW made a typo in the original printing of the codex? Do you think your opponents will enjoy being on the wrong end of such a massive balance error?

Maybe. I mean it certainly will in some cases. But remember, in Crusade, "Victory" is about more than winning a single game. I'd rather lose and have three units complete agendas than win and have none complete an objective- and in than context, if all of the uber, overpowered units arrayed against me are used by my opponent to win the game, then they might not end up being used to prevent me from achieving my agendas, in which case the imbalance was a non-issue.

This is your opinion I guess, but let me point out two things: Crusade keeping the normal primary objective system implies that you should care about them and your force losing every battle but accomplishing a specific agenda is telling the story of a unit that is consistently failing in battle, and if you're consistently losing like that because of major balance issues it's likely that your opponent is going to deny your agendas as well. If you're getting tabled in 1-2 turns you probably aren't scoring a lot of agenda points, you're just telling the story of "well, guess we got annihilated again without accomplishing anything".

And the loadout you spent the extra time theorycrafting the perfect loadout? Yeah, it's just... gone.

It's gone because of your choice to immediately remove it. But let me present a couple more scenarios:

You use PL as your point system. All upgrades are free but you still have to choose between a flamer or a melta gun. You do the math or consider the narrative elements or debate which one you'd rather paint, and eventually you make the choice. And then next game you promptly toss that unit in the trash and all your effort was wasted.

You use the normal point system. You don't care about list optimization so you just take what looks cool (including the possibility of taking no upgrades at all) and the point cost accurately reflects the unit's value on the table. When they are shamed and replaced next game it doesn't matter because you didn't put any effort into list optimization and using the normal point system only took a few seconds longer than using PL.

Remember, this is Crusade we're talking about, so ostensibly, if you're playing Crusade it's because you want to create an extended narrative.

I do. The difference is that I don't necessarily want to create your extended narrative. You clearly have a preferred narrative where your Crusade force represents an isolated group fighting on its own. Contact with larger forces is rare, support is slow to arrive and takes extended coordination, and a new unit joining the force is a major story event. That's fine, that's a story you can tell. But it's not the only story. Maybe I want to tell a story where my Crusade force is part of a larger war. Maybe one battle they start as an independent scouting force probing for a weakness in the enemy lines (25 point game), but then for the next game high command says "congratulations, here's your Baneblade squadron now you're assigned to the offensive at this town" and a 150 point game is most appropriate. Having reinforcements added is a minor story event at best, stuff is constantly being thrown into the meat grinder and a Baneblade squadron is of little more importance than the unit receiving a crate of rations.

So tell me, why should my preferred narrative be gated behind the need to spend RP to unlock larger games? Why can't I just play larger games from the beginning if that's what suits my story?

You're quoting the first line of a three paragraph section on these player types that goes on to clearly explain that the "jackhole" that I'm referring to is not merely a competitive player- it is someone who intentionally includes exploits in their army beyond what would be deemed reasonable beyond reasonable standards of competitiveness.

This just proves my point! A person who spams multiple copies of an overpowered unit is not "exploiting" the rules or "beyond reasonable standards of competitiveness". That's just normal competitive play. And you're insulting the people who do it purely because you don't personally enjoy that style of play.

The "Balance errors" that you speak of aren't characteristics of PL. The conscious decision to not cost most equipment ISN'T an error- it is a design choice meant to de-emphasize the act of adding a unit to your Order of Battle in order to highlight the act of growing and changing that unit over time using resources like RP or XP which are connected to the story by virtue of being earned, rather than PL or points, which are not connected to the story in any way.

Then why is PL used for games outside of Crusade, where no such advancement occurs?

Hecaton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Andykp wrote:
No, because you say lots of unpleasant things, accuse people of all manner of things you are guilty of yourself and don’t have an ounce empathy or understanding about you. And when someone calls you out on your unpleasantness you play the victim then claim a moral victory.

Is your last name Lumière? Because that's really some top-tier projection.

What disagreement do you think is morally permissible when someone claims a disability like Blindmage did? It doesn't seem you allow for it. That's a morally bankrupt way of conducting yourself.

Something like this:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Power Level is less granular than points. If the designers were perfect at balancing the game, PL would be less balanced than points, due to its broader nature. And, despite that not being true, I still play points. Part of that is at least the hope that the game will achieve more balance, part of it is I like fiddling with lists and scraping together little synergies, which isn't as fun to do with PL, part of it is familiarity, part of it is that the people I play with use points... There's a lot of reasons.

If GW switched over to full PL, I don't think it'd affect my playtime that much-it would affect how much I enjoy putting a list together, but that's a small part of the game.

That is 100% a disagreement in how I play the game, compared to Blndmage. She uses PL exclusively, I use point exclusively.

I didn't ask you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:


Again, absolutely not my best choice of words... especially in caps. Seriously facepalm. Sorry man- let me explain what I was trying to get at.

So I buy 10 BSS, and I add them to my list- it's 6 PL, I bring whatever load out I want.

Now in the world where PL doesn't exist, I have to weigh whether or not to bring a special, a heavy, a cherub or a simulacrum... because now there's a cost for those things. So what do I do? While now I have to do math, right? Because I probably can't afford all four of those things, but I can probably afford one. Maybe two if I only take one upgrade on a different unit... But then that's more math. And hey, you know what- for some people that's fun... they want to do that. Heck, there were times when I used to do that, and I always found it fun. So yeah, you suck it up- you put in the time, you do the math, and you get it done. You feel proud, and it's kinda cool. Gee, maybe CSB and all those other guys had a point! This is what the game should feel like.

And then you play your first game. The enemy has an objective. You know your painstakingly crafted BSS squad will save the day: you spent an hour doing math and comparing every possible load out combination. Except this day happens to be THAT "Any given Sunday" and four sisters get taken out, you lose two more to attrition and the opponent maintains control of the objective, costing you the battle.

In shame, you swear the oath.

And the loadout you spent the extra time theorycrafting the perfect loadout? Yeah, it's just... gone. The 6PL BSS becomes a 6PL Repentia squad. So is the game any better because you paid for the gear which you no longer have? And when you redeem the unit and replace them with a 7PL Celestian squad, do they have to pay for their upgrades? What if they're the exact same upgrades the BSS had before they swore the oath?

By now, you're probably thinking "Gee, this could be... Easier." That week, the balance update drops...

Uh... a unit of 10 Repentia costs 140 points no matter what. So you're not paying for that wargear you put on the SoB squad anymore.

You might not have asked him but he has shown what the moral high ground looks like, he has had an honest an pleasant discussion on here with people who disagree, he has voiced his opinions and respected other peoples. It’s been a breath of fresh air.

Andykp wrote:
You might not have asked him but he has shown what the moral high ground looks like, he has had an honest an pleasant discussion on here with people who disagree, he has voiced his opinions and respected other peoples. It’s been a breath of fresh air.

How odd that "reasonable" in this case seems to be defined entirely by how much someone agrees with you, or at least validates your opinions while only disagreeing with you a little bit. Meanwhile you're allowed to say things like "are you ill or just trolling" and it's fine because the rules for politeness don't apply to you.

Andykp wrote:

You might not have asked him but he has shown what the moral high ground looks like, he has had an honest an pleasant discussion on here with people who disagree, he has voiced his opinions and respected other peoples. It’s been a breath of fresh air.

The only reason you're saying that is because he said that things changing to PL wouldn't affect his play time that much. For those of us who have said it *would* negatively affect our playtime, you've had nothing but scorn and hostility.

If GE shifted fully to PL, I'd probably get more games.
Win win

 Blndmage wrote:
If GE shifted fully to PL, I'd probably get more games.
Win win

I'll point out that you've moved on to stating that you wish I wasn't able to enjoy the game whereas I haven't said anything of the sort to you. JNAP, am I allowed to fling similar insults back or will I be actioned on for doing it?

Hecaton wrote:

Andykp wrote:

You might not have asked him but he has shown what the moral high ground looks like, he has had an honest an pleasant discussion on here with people who disagree, he has voiced his opinions and respected other peoples. It’s been a breath of fresh air.

The only reason you're saying that is because he said that things changing to PL wouldn't affect his play time that much. For those of us who have said it *would* negatively affect our playtime, you've had nothing but scorn and hostility.

You are very wrong there. I have said throughout that I have no issues with pints and PL existing side by side, they both serve a purpose. Work for different people and that’s great. All for it. I don’t want you to not be able to use points. I want you to play with points and enjoy the game. I want to use PL and enjoy the game.

I have had nothing but scorn for people lecturing others on how to enjoy the game and saying we are doing it wrong. Nothing but scorn for people being jerks about what I and others enjoy.

And please for the love of god stop playing the victim, you do it every time anyone calls out your gakky attitude and it’s very sad. No one is trying to stop you using points, no one is saying you shouldn’t enjoy points based games. You play how you like. Just accept that we enjoy doing things differently. Can you even do that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Disabled players get forgotten about constantly. We're not edge cases, or an insignificant number ~20% of Canadians (~25% of Americans) are disabled.

If you don't understand why that specific response to my question is ableist, I'd suggest talking with disabled 40k players you know. And if you say "I don't know any"...think about that for a bit.

I have ADHD. I literally have a neurodevelopmental disability. I asked about dyscalculia because it's a disability that would strongly indicate that PL would be of benefit to you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
Mike drop post from smudge. End of.

Well I'm glad I have that well-known liar blocked :-D


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
Hecatons comment is ableist i suppose because why does he need to know of blindmage suffers with anything to understand that there are people there who and disabilities that impact their hobby experience. I can’t speak for blindmage but that’s my understanding. Does Blindmage having a specific disability make his comments more or less valid. It doesn’t actually make any difference.

I mean potentially, yeah. Dyscalculia would be one that makes his opinion on PL *very* valid.

Also see my point about how I have a neurodevelopmental disability as well.

I wholeheartedly reject the idea that someone can claim a disability, and then it becomes morally wrong to argue against them. That's an untenable idea. The reason it needs to be brought up is because "I have a disability => PL is required" doesn't follow from the premises, so it's worth interrogating further.

Just a note, because you obviously don't pay attention, I'm not a guy!

I really don’t pay attention, apologies.