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.

 Jidmah wrote:
Because especially at 25 PL, having a whole unit less than your opponent can make the game be an uphill battle. It's also leagues more difficult to build a modular army that allows you switch in an out parts of it.
Most importantly though, it creates a "feels bad" moment when the ultramarines and custodes players can't add anything, while an army like DG or orks doesn't have any issues just tossing in pox walkers, chaos spawn or a support character.

This is a valid point. So what do I do when my IG army is at 24 out of 25 points and my cheapest unit is 2 points (and all but one of those 2 point units is a niche support character that nobody ever uses)? Do I have to play with less than a full army because I can only add stuff in full-unit increments or can we go back to using the normal point system now? And maybe consider that the problem with Crusade here is the weird and anti-narrative ban on changing equipment?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
Yes, if you suggest playing mirror matches with the exact same models as something that shouldn't be avoided in the first place, playing chess is the only answer you deserve. Do you want a game in which the only thing that matters is proving yourself? Chess is a good way to find what you're looking for, it's an extremely balanced game, cheap and popular. You'll find plenty of opponents.

You are completely missing the point. It is not that people should play mirror matches, it's that if you do play that hypothetical mirror match with the armies described you have a clear balance issue caused by an error in the point system. The two armies are given the same point cost but one is indisputably stronger than the other. The point is to provide a clear example of the error, where you can't complain about how "nobody can tell which one is better because they're too different", not to suggest that anyone will or should play that specific game.

But I suspect you know this and just keep mentioning chess because you know there is no defense of PL in this scenario but you can't admit that PL is a bad system.

CadianSgtBob wrote:


You are completely missing the point. It is not that people should play mirror matches, it's that if you do play that hypothetical mirror match with the armies described you have a clear balance issue caused by an error in the point system. The two armies are given the same point cost but one is indisputably stronger than the other. The point is to provide a clear example of the error, where you can't complain about how "nobody can tell which one is better because they're too different", not to suggest that anyone will or should play that specific game.

But I suspect you know this and just keep mentioning chess because you know there is no defense of PL in this scenario but you can't admit that PL is a bad system.

You are missing my point. I don't believe 40k is a proper competitive game, like chess can be. It's still a beer and pretzel game. Sure it can be quite competitive, but even at its best it doesn't have the features to be something like a successful E sport, or chess.

With that in mind, playing exact mirror matches should be pointless. So his example is pointless. And to be honest two identical armies with just a few wargear of difference aren't that distance in power, even if one is optimized and one isn't. Skill and luck might compensate. Not to mention that with PL it's rather unlikely that one clone army has all the worst options and other one has all the best, overall with PL something might be optimized and something isn't, especially in an age of frequent changes/FAQs. So overall two clone armies shouldn't be distant in power anyway.

I believe posters like you or E.Plague are people who keep records of their win/losses and are obsessed with "official at all cost" because otherwise their record would be invalidated. And they wouldn't have proof about their success in the game. People with that mentality will never be satisfied with 40k, except maybe for a limited amount of time, because, no matter all the effort GW puts in to lure the competitive crowd, 40k can't be a proper competitive game and even GW doesn't want it to be, it wants it to be imperfect and unbalanced to sell more and that's not gonna change, that's why I suggested to play something else.

 Blackie wrote:
With that in mind, playing exact mirror matches should be pointless.

Thank you for dishonestly ignoring the fact where I said nobody is actually playing this game, it's just a hypothetical scenario to prove that PL indisputably does not come to the correct conclusion. These are two forces that are indisputably not equal in strength but have equal point costs under PL.

Skill and luck might compensate.

It still proves that PL is a failure. The purpose of a point system is to accurately assign a numerical value to a unit's on-table strength for list building purposes. PL is clearly shown to be wrong here. Worse, it is not merely wrong because GW set a wrong point cost somewhere, an error that could in theory be corrected. It is wrong because it is incapable of being right. And when you have a system that has this obvious conceptual failure, a failure the normal point system does not share, it is time to take it out back and put it out of its misery.

I believe posters like you or E.Plague are people who keep records of their win/losses and are obsessed with "official at all cost" because otherwise their record would be invalidated.

You could not be more wrong. I hate tournament play and most of my games are narrative games. I just, unlike you, understand game design and why PL is an inherently flawed system that needs to end.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Well Wyches for 1, Kabals also would benefit with -1pt a lot. Reavers too. Troupes going up 1pt would be ideal as well.

Marines? A lot, tactical, Inter and Assault Inter are all 1pt too high IMO, I know its 1pts, but over 20 models thats 20pts, if you did that for a few other units like Impulsos going down 20pts, now a Inter+Impulsor combo is 40pts cheaper.

Also going up 1pt on some units while others go down can really balance a book too, DE again, Wracks +1pt and Kabals -1pt will at least make you think twice about replacing Kabals in a Kabal detachment with Wracks lol. Wracks are 40pts and so are Kabals, you will never see kabals over wracks, so if just 1 unit changes you most likely will.

But I don't think these are good examples.

I mean DE were the top faction when their codex came out. And then there were a swing of 1-2~ point hikes (which typically worked out as 10-20 points a unit).
Which left DE... still the top faction.
It was only the release of the even more broken 2022 Codexes (Custodes, Tau, CWE & Harlequins, Tyranids) that brought DE down to a still respectable win rate.

For internal balance you can maybe argue that if a minimum unit of Wracks went up to 45 points while a minimum unit of Kabalites went down to 35, it might be worth having min-units of Kabals as your cheap chaff/rear objective holder/screener unit over wracks. But I'm not convinced. I certainly can't see anyone spamming Kabalites in the way some lists spam Wracks. I also don't think its changing DE performance versus other factions.

And this is I think the fundamental divide. Internal balance can be a concern - if a laspistol is free, should a plasma pistol be free, or 1 point, 2, 5, 10 etc? But I don't think GW is that concerned about this any more - because its somewhat academic. The concern is faction win% - which is a macro problem rather than a micro problem. And that isn't a function of a unit being 1 point too cheap or too expensive. If Marines for instance have a problem, getting tactical marines and intercessors for 1 point less isn't going to make a difference. 5-10% cuts across the whole army might - but this would be because would spam the most efficient options, that would presumably have become even more efficient by this process.

CadianSgtBob wrote:


Thank you for dishonestly ignoring the fact where I said nobody is actually playing this game, it's just a hypothetical scenario to prove that PL indisputably does not come to the correct conclusion. These are two forces that are indisputably not equal in strength but have equal point costs under PL.

What you're refusing to accept (because I can't believe you don't understand it) is that a player using PL is not obsessed with balance. The small advantage of equipping the specialist with the best weapon and the sargeant with the best loadout doesn't really change their experience.

And who cares abouth an hypothetical when it's so unlikely to happen that it basically doesn't exist? Also, 40k is so wide that odds of having 50/50 games are almost impossible, so even if perfect mirror matches are not perfect 50/50, who cares again?

PL is imperfect and unbalanced, more than the points system. But some players prefer it because the extra that is added by the points system doens't worth the extra effort, even if it's just 10 more minutes to work around a list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CadianSgtBob wrote:


You could not be more wrong. I hate tournament play and most of my games are narrative games. I just, unlike you, understand game design and why PL is an inherently flawed system that needs to end.

But this a perfect example of the people I was talking about. You're obsessed with the idea of something imperfect that somehow stains your experience, even if you don't play PL. The idea of something imperfect to your game, even if it has 0 impact on you directly, terrifies you because it somehow undervalues your fun. How can a game designer or someone that truly understands game design find fun in a game in which something that imperfect exists? See what I mean?

So hypothetically; I wonder what would happen if PL completely replaced points, all the less casually-minded players therefore started playing in the PL pool and 'exploiting' the inherent weaknesses of the system ('All of my Deathwatch Veterans can have thunder hammers and combi-plasma for no cost? Don't mind if I do...')?
Would PL still be viewed as being just as good as it is now by those who are in favour of it?

 Lord Damocles wrote:
So hypothetically; I wonder what would happen if PL completely replaced points, all the less casually-minded players therefore started playing in the PL pool and 'exploiting' the inherent weaknesses of the system ('All of my Deathwatch Veterans can have thunder hammers and combi-plasma for no cost? Don't mind if I do...')?
Would PL still be viewed as being just as good as it is now by those who are in favour of it?

From what I gather PL players tend to play with friends rather than pick up games, it likely would go on as before.

 Blackie wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:


You could not be more wrong. I hate tournament play and most of my games are narrative games. I just, unlike you, understand game design and why PL is an inherently flawed system that needs to end.

But this a perfect example of the people I was talking about. You're obsessed with the idea of something imperfect that somehow stains your experience, even if you don't play PL. The idea of something imperfect to your game, even if it has 0 impact on you directly, terrifies you because it somehow undervalues your fun. How can a game designer or someone that truly understands game design find fun in a game in which something that imperfect exists? See what I mean?

Honestly, no. This entire paragraph is randomly assigning motives to another person (which is incredibly distasteful) and doesn't have anything to do with anything beyond maybe trying to undercut his 'credibility' in a really bizarre way.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
So hypothetically; I wonder what would happen if PL completely replaced points, all the less casually-minded players therefore started playing in the PL pool and 'exploiting' the inherent weaknesses of the system ('All of my Deathwatch Veterans can have thunder hammers and combi-plasma for no cost? Don't mind if I do...')?
Would PL still be viewed as being just as good as it is now by those who are in favour of it?

The none PL players would likely all be abusing it so the net change for them would be limited, it'd simply be "who milked more free stuff" as their main concern. For the current PL gamers it's all largely done on mutual understanding and with close player groups as far as I'm aware, so nothing would change because they're unlikely to play said person with a billion "free" things.

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
So hypothetically; I wonder what would happen if PL completely replaced points, all the less casually-minded players therefore started playing in the PL pool and 'exploiting' the inherent weaknesses of the system ('All of my Deathwatch Veterans can have thunder hammers and combi-plasma for no cost? Don't mind if I do...')?
Would PL still be viewed as being just as good as it is now by those who are in favour of it?

The none PL players would likely all be abusing it so the net change for them would be limited, it'd simply be "who milked more free stuff" as their main concern. For the current PL gamers it's all largely done on mutual understanding and with close player groups as far as I'm aware, so nothing would change because they're unlikely to play said person with a billion "free" things.

Except you can already do that with points and not have that large a discrepancy of power.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
So hypothetically; I wonder what would happen if PL completely replaced points, all the less casually-minded players therefore started playing in the PL pool and 'exploiting' the inherent weaknesses of the system ('All of my Deathwatch Veterans can have thunder hammers and combi-plasma for no cost? Don't mind if I do...')?
Would PL still be viewed as being just as good as it is now by those who are in favour of it?

The none PL players would likely all be abusing it so the net change for them would be limited, it'd simply be "who milked more free stuff" as their main concern. For the current PL gamers it's all largely done on mutual understanding and with close player groups as far as I'm aware, so nothing would change because they're unlikely to play said person with a billion "free" things.

Except you can already do that with points and not have that large a discrepancy of power.

So points are also a blind crapshoot between who can abuse the rules the most, just the gaps smaller, gotcha.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
So hypothetically; I wonder what would happen if PL completely replaced points, all the less casually-minded players therefore started playing in the PL pool and 'exploiting' the inherent weaknesses of the system ('All of my Deathwatch Veterans can have thunder hammers and combi-plasma for no cost? Don't mind if I do...')?
Would PL still be viewed as being just as good as it is now by those who are in favour of it?

The none PL players would likely all be abusing it so the net change for them would be limited, it'd simply be "who milked more free stuff" as their main concern. For the current PL gamers it's all largely done on mutual understanding and with close player groups as far as I'm aware, so nothing would change because they're unlikely to play said person with a billion "free" things.

Except you can already do that with points and not have that large a discrepancy of power.

So points are also a blind crapshoot between who can abuse the rules the most, just the gaps smaller, gotcha.

Dingdingding

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
So hypothetically; I wonder what would happen if PL completely replaced points, all the less casually-minded players therefore started playing in the PL pool and 'exploiting' the inherent weaknesses of the system ('All of my Deathwatch Veterans can have thunder hammers and combi-plasma for no cost? Don't mind if I do...')?
Would PL still be viewed as being just as good as it is now by those who are in favour of it?

The none PL players would likely all be abusing it so the net change for them would be limited, it'd simply be "who milked more free stuff" as their main concern. For the current PL gamers it's all largely done on mutual understanding and with close player groups as far as I'm aware, so nothing would change because they're unlikely to play said person with a billion "free" things.

Except you can already do that with points and not have that large a discrepancy of power.

So points are also a blind crapshoot between who can abuse the rules the most, just the gaps smaller, gotcha.

How did you come to that conclusion?

The current "state" of 40k is about making as rampantly broken a list as possible, while still remaining "legal". It's why we have 20 page discussions on YMDC about the interpretation of what "Hull" means or "Is" is. Seriously, remember when everyone got their knickers in a twist over whether or not the wording of Dakka dakka dakka allowed destroyed Ork Units to attack again after being removed from the table?

40k is about trying to guess the best way to exploit the current rules for a chance to win. Everything else is "open" which who cares, because that's essentially PL anyway.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
So hypothetically; I wonder what would happen if PL completely replaced points, all the less casually-minded players therefore started playing in the PL pool and 'exploiting' the inherent weaknesses of the system ('All of my Deathwatch Veterans can have thunder hammers and combi-plasma for no cost? Don't mind if I do...')?
Would PL still be viewed as being just as good as it is now by those who are in favour of it?

The none PL players would likely all be abusing it so the net change for them would be limited, it'd simply be "who milked more free stuff" as their main concern. For the current PL gamers it's all largely done on mutual understanding and with close player groups as far as I'm aware, so nothing would change because they're unlikely to play said person with a billion "free" things.

Except you can already do that with points and not have that large a discrepancy of power.

So points are also a blind crapshoot between who can abuse the rules the most, just the gaps smaller, gotcha.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Because you said you can do all of the stuff in an all PL based world (all the abusing units for free stuff and min maxxing for advantage) with points today, but there's less of a gap in power than with PL.

 Blackie wrote:
What you're refusing to accept (because I can't believe you don't understand it) is that a player using PL is not obsessed with balance.

I've used PL. I like balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
The current "state" of 40k is about making as rampantly broken a list as possible, while still remaining "legal". It's why we have 20 page discussions on YMDC about the interpretation of what "Hull" means or "Is" is. Seriously, remember when everyone got their knickers in a twist over whether or not the wording of Dakka dakka dakka allowed destroyed Ork Units to attack again after being removed from the table?

40k is about trying to guess the best way to exploit the current rules for a chance to win. Everything else is "open" which who cares, because that's essentially PL anyway.

That's because GW doesn't set an ethical example. It's why there's more crime and corruption in dictatorial/totalitarian states.

Hecaton wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
What you're refusing to accept (because I can't believe you don't understand it) is that a player using PL is not obsessed with balance.

I've used PL. I like balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
The current "state" of 40k is about making as rampantly broken a list as possible, while still remaining "legal". It's why we have 20 page discussions on YMDC about the interpretation of what "Hull" means or "Is" is. Seriously, remember when everyone got their knickers in a twist over whether or not the wording of Dakka dakka dakka allowed destroyed Ork Units to attack again after being removed from the table?

40k is about trying to guess the best way to exploit the current rules for a chance to win. Everything else is "open" which who cares, because that's essentially PL anyway.

That's because GW doesn't set an ethical example. It's why there's more crime and corruption in dictatorial/totalitarian states.

I'm sorry, what are you on about? Ethical example? They have a giant book that is called the BASE RULE BOOK. If you need more of a example of how to play the game and not be a total nard, Also, I have no idea what that has to do with political states?

We are talking about the human infatuation with the ability to gain advantage.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
So hypothetically; I wonder what would happen if PL completely replaced points, all the less casually-minded players therefore started playing in the PL pool and 'exploiting' the inherent weaknesses of the system ('All of my Deathwatch Veterans can have thunder hammers and combi-plasma for no cost? Don't mind if I do...')?
Would PL still be viewed as being just as good as it is now by those who are in favour of it?

The PL exploits actually worth doing are few and far between. Decking deathwatch units out might actually create powerful units, decking out nobz does not.
Only units witch large armories that have a wide difference in costs can actually exploit it, and even then the most expensive load-out might not actually be worth it. For example you still see a lot of terminators with assault cannons despite the CMC being more expensive.
Also keep in mind that even the most expensive loadout doesn't come at "no cost", but just at 50% off. PL always charges you for half of the most expensive wargear, whether you buy it or not.

And let's not forget that if PL became the competitive standard, GW would also have to address exploits. Problem units would be changed just like the hive tyrant's weapon options were changed recently - points clearly weren't able to solve that issue either.
This specifically isn't an inherent weakness of the system, but simply grown from the fact that it's a low effort solution on GW's side. If they cared it would be super simple to solve the issue.

That said, the one big issue PL has is granularity - nothing can ever cost less than 20 points, two similar units either cost the same or differ in 20 point steps. This makes it impossible to balance units against each other that differ by less than 20 points (KBB and snazzwagon, for example), support upgrades which are just 5 or 10 points (DG pathogens) or allow people to freely pick unit sizes.
That is why points remains absolutely necessary for healthy competitive play.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
So hypothetically; I wonder what would happen if PL completely replaced points, all the less casually-minded players therefore started playing in the PL pool and 'exploiting' the inherent weaknesses of the system ('All of my Deathwatch Veterans can have thunder hammers and combi-plasma for no cost? Don't mind if I do...')?
Would PL still be viewed as being just as good as it is now by those who are in favour of it?

The PL exploits actually worth doing are few and far between. Decking deathwatch units out might actually create powerful units, decking out nobz does not.
Only units witch large armories that have a wide difference in costs can actually exploit it, and even then the most expensive load-out might not actually be worth it. For example you still see a lot of terminators with assault cannons despite the CMC being more expensive.
Also keep in mind that even the most expensive loadout doesn't come at "no cost", but just at 50% off. PL always charges you for half of the most expensive wargear, whether you buy it or not.

And let's not forget that if PL became the competitive standard, GW would also have to address exploits. Problem units would be changed just like the hive tyrant's weapon options were changed recently - points clearly weren't able to solve that issue either.
This specifically isn't an inherent weakness of the system, but simply grown from the fact that it's a low effort solution on GW's side. If they cared it would be super simple to solve the issue.

That said, the one big issue PL has is granularity - nothing can ever cost less than 20 points, two similar units either cost the same or differ in 20 point steps. This makes it impossible to balance units against each other that differ by less than 20 points (KBB and snazzwagon, for example), support upgrades which are just 5 or 10 points (DG pathogens) or allow people to freely pick unit sizes.
That is why points remains absolutely necessary for healthy competitive play.

Yeah-PL is less granular.

But for the people who enjoy PL, that's irrelevant. I prefer the enhanced granularity of points (though I won't lie to you and say it's always gonna be more accurate to real balance) but others don't.

I do have gripes with PL, especially with Daemons-they're charged, as far as I can tell, for an Instrument and Icon for every ten models. That's the max you can take-but there's basically no point to taking more than one of each, since they don't stack.

Hecaton wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
What you're refusing to accept (because I can't believe you don't understand it) is that a player using PL is not obsessed with balance.

I've used PL. I like balance.

40k with points isn't balanced either, and I'd argue that the balance between two optimized armies using PL usually isn't any worse than two optimized armies using points.

 Jidmah wrote:
40k with points isn't balanced either, and I'd argue that the balance between two optimized armies using PL usually isn't any worse than two optimized armies using points.

I'd argue you're wrong. The lack of granularity for each unit, magnified by the number of units you run, can add up quick.

That assumption has two logical flaws:

First, they only add up if you assume that all units are either over-costed or all of them are under-costed - and that assumption is wrong.
Since it's a mix of both, they tend to cancel each other out and, in fact, don't add up fast.

Second, the armies of both players "gain" similar amounts of power from using PL, so the "adding up" doesn't actually impact balance as it happens on both sides.

 Jidmah wrote:
That assumption has two logical flaws:

First, they only add up if you assume that all units are either over-costed or all of them are under-costed - and that assumption is wrong.
Since it's a mix of both, they tend to cancel each other out and, in fact, don't add up fast.

Second, the armies of both players "gain" similar amounts of power from using PL, so the "adding up" doesn't actually impact balance as it happens on both sides.

It's not a mix of both. My Orks are overwhelmingly over-costed in PL, and my Harlequins overwhelmingly under-costed.

Hecaton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
That assumption has two logical flaws:

First, they only add up if you assume that all units are either over-costed or all of them are under-costed - and that assumption is wrong.
Since it's a mix of both, they tend to cancel each other out and, in fact, don't add up fast.

Second, the armies of both players "gain" similar amounts of power from using PL, so the "adding up" doesn't actually impact balance as it happens on both sides.

It's not a mix of both. My Orks are overwhelmingly over-costed in PL, and my Harlequins overwhelmingly under-costed.

But that's pretty true in points too-Harlequins are undercosted. Orks are overcosted. You don't need to add "In PL" there, because it's true in general.

Hecaton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
That assumption has two logical flaws:

First, they only add up if you assume that all units are either over-costed or all of them are under-costed - and that assumption is wrong.
Since it's a mix of both, they tend to cancel each other out and, in fact, don't add up fast.

Second, the armies of both players "gain" similar amounts of power from using PL, so the "adding up" doesn't actually impact balance as it happens on both sides.

It's not a mix of both. My Orks are overwhelmingly over-costed in PL, and my Harlequins overwhelmingly under-costed.

They both follow the same formula to calculate PL from points. This can only be the case if points are also unbalanced in the same manner, proving that points don't actually provide better balance just because of higher granularity.

GW has shown either

A. total incompetence and disregard when it comes to balancing via points

Or

B. They intentionally imbalance the game via points to sell models. (A lot less likely)

However, if either one is true, it proves that GW cannot or is unwilling to actually balance the game via points, ergo it's "granularity" is moot. The only thing that can balance this game is not points, but USRs. Or make a clear baseline for every faction that can't be altered. ALL FACTIONS can only X with Elites, or Troops, for instance.

Otherwise, Points are just shades of different lipstick on the same pig. That's why I choose PL, because at the end of the day, it doesn't change anything, and I just want to play with my toys.

Tyel wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Well Wyches for 1, Kabals also would benefit with -1pt a lot. Reavers too. Troupes going up 1pt would be ideal as well.

Marines? A lot, tactical, Inter and Assault Inter are all 1pt too high IMO, I know its 1pts, but over 20 models thats 20pts, if you did that for a few other units like Impulsos going down 20pts, now a Inter+Impulsor combo is 40pts cheaper.

Also going up 1pt on some units while others go down can really balance a book too, DE again, Wracks +1pt and Kabals -1pt will at least make you think twice about replacing Kabals in a Kabal detachment with Wracks lol. Wracks are 40pts and so are Kabals, you will never see kabals over wracks, so if just 1 unit changes you most likely will.

But I don't think these are good examples.

I mean DE were the top faction when their codex came out. And then there were a swing of 1-2~ point hikes (which typically worked out as 10-20 points a unit).
Which left DE... still the top faction.
It was only the release of the even more broken 2022 Codexes (Custodes, Tau, CWE & Harlequins, Tyranids) that brought DE down to a still respectable win rate.

For internal balance you can maybe argue that if a minimum unit of Wracks went up to 45 points while a minimum unit of Kabalites went down to 35, it might be worth having min-units of Kabals as your cheap chaff/rear objective holder/screener unit over wracks. But I'm not convinced. I certainly can't see anyone spamming Kabalites in the way some lists spam Wracks. I also don't think its changing DE performance versus other factions.

And this is I think the fundamental divide. Internal balance can be a concern - if a laspistol is free, should a plasma pistol be free, or 1 point, 2, 5, 10 etc? But I don't think GW is that concerned about this any more - because its somewhat academic. The concern is faction win% - which is a macro problem rather than a micro problem. And that isn't a function of a unit being 1 point too cheap or too expensive. If Marines for instance have a problem, getting tactical marines and intercessors for 1 point less isn't going to make a difference. 5-10% cuts across the whole army might - but this would be because would spam the most efficient options, that would presumably have become even more efficient by this process.

What does a year ago's points and release has to do with today? Right now DE is in B tier and has clear eternal balance issues. Changing the points isn't about having them get a better win rate it is LITERALL to help eternal balance. So yes taking Kabals in the Kabal detachment is the goal! Why do you think taking wracks as the kabal detachments troop is a good thing? People are will to take no trait wracks over trait kabals bc its that big of a difference. So yes 1pt swing on both units would still make wracks viable in coven (and people will take 15-70 still) but at the same time you'll see more kabals.

Also too big of a point change ruins units. Look at wyches, they went up and Raiders did too in a meta that they are weak into and everyone stopped taking them.

 Jidmah wrote:
Second, the armies of both players "gain" similar amounts of power from using PL, so the "adding up" doesn't actually impact balance as it happens on both sides.

This is not true at all. First of all, lack of granularity doesn't apply the same way to all armies. Armies that have few upgrade options don't get much benefit from PL, armies that can stack on a ton of upgrades (especially on core units) gain a massive advantage from that lack of granularity. Second, not all players are optimizing for PL. Remember that the theoretical use case for PL is in casual/narrative games which means at least some peopel are paying little attention to how effective their units are. A player who takes few upgrades for thematic reasons will be at an increasing disadvantage with every unit they take, a player who optimizes for PL efficiency will gain an advantage instead.

With the normal point system this is not the case. All units and upgrade choices are theoretically given the appropriate cost so it doesn't matter which ones you pick. Take units with few upgrades, pay fewer points. Take units with more upgrades, pay more points. There's no advantage to be gained from either approach to list building.

 Jidmah wrote:
40k with points isn't balanced either, and I'd argue that the balance between two optimized armies using PL usually isn't any worse than two optimized armies using points.

But it certainly isn't better. If you have one system that is flawed and another system that has all of the same flaws plus additional flaws and can never overcome those inherent flaws the second system should be scrapped. If the best you can say is that "both systems are bad" then it's a decisive argument against the existence of PL.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
PL always charges you for half of the most expensive wargear, whether you buy it or not.

And this is why PL is a broken system that should be removed. "Pay for stuff even if you don't take it" is a stupid approach to making a point system.

That said, the one big issue PL has is granularity - nothing can ever cost less than 20 points, two similar units either cost the same or differ in 20 point steps. This makes it impossible to balance units against each other that differ by less than 20 points (KBB and snazzwagon, for example), support upgrades which are just 5 or 10 points (DG pathogens) or allow people to freely pick unit sizes.
That is why points remains absolutely necessary for healthy competitive play.

Thank you for yet another example of why PL is a broken system that should be removed and why the normal point system remains absolutely necessary for healthy casual and narrative play.

You have repeatedly shown that you have no clue how either system works, so please stop changing the meaning of my posts by taking sentences out of context.

If you are unable to respond to posts as a whole, keep your unfounded opinion that is completely devoid of any arguments to yourself.

 JNAProductions wrote:
But that's pretty true in points too-Harlequins are undercosted. Orks are overcosted. You don't need to add "In PL" there, because it's true in general.

No, it's even more egregious in terms of PL compared to points. If you accept that Harlequins are better point-for-point than orks, then it's a problem that, say, an Ork boyz squad that costs 110 points is still 5 PL, but a 5 PL Harlequin squad would cost 128. And then Voidweavers are *still* 5 PL.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
They both follow the same formula to calculate PL from points. This can only be the case if points are also unbalanced in the same manner, proving that points don't actually provide better balance just because of higher granularity.

No, they do not. Harlequins exceed it and are punished less than orks for having wargear available on their datasheet. Don't want to run a 30 point KFF on your Big Mek? Too bad, you're paying the PL for it anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
You have repeatedly shown that you have no clue how either system works, so please stop changing the meaning of my posts by taking sentences out of context.

If you are unable to respond to posts as a whole, keep your unfounded opinion that is completely devoid of any arguments to yourself.

No, it's in context, you're just salty because it shows your points to be wrongheaded.