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.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Andykp wrote:
And it should cease to exist because you don’t, seems reasonable.

No, it should cease to exist because it's a redundant system and eliminating redundancy is a basic game design principle.

Which is why you think there shouldn’t be WS and BS-just a “hit” stat.
Nor Armor, Wounds, and Toughness-just one stat of HP.

Or, hear me out-simplicity is a good goal, but when stuff works as-is, you don’t need to break it to make stuff simpler.

Removing PL wouldn't break anything though. It would just be going back to how the game was before. You already have points, which again, is an old system that everyone is used to.
It's less breaking the car, and more removing the second steering wheel that was added because the designers thought that the passenger should drive too.

Crap analogy, the 2nd steering wheel fundamentally changes the function of a vehicle and will cause an accident or render it inoperable if used. PL running in parallel has 0 system failures for people using points. The closer analogue would be a dummy 2nd steering wheel, so the passenger feels they have enough control to do what they like while the main driver (points) chooses where the car (game) goes.

I said I was done but it just keeps getting more ridiculous. I'd agree with Hecaton though, it hasn't been proven that the existence of PL gets rid of gatekeeping, as aptly demonstrated in here.

I know you're fighting the good fight Jid, not in the name of PL but in am attempt to get people to expand their thinking. But just walk away and let them have their 'victory'.

 Jidmah wrote:
This has been proven to be wrong.

It really hasn't. Repeating over and over again that you like a system is not the same thing as proving that it should exist, unless you think the mere fact that your opinion that you enjoy a thing means GW should keep providing it for you forever regardless of its merits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
The closer analogue would be a dummy 2nd steering wheel, so the passenger feels they have enough control to do what they like while the main driver (points) chooses where the car (game) goes.

Yep, which would also be stupid design and any sane car manufacturer would remove the redundant fake steering wheel.

Who are the gatekeepers here, those of us who want to support systems that enable a wide range of tastes and style to play the game, who don’t want to change it for anyone so everybody can keep enjoying the game as they are doing, or sgt bob and hecaton who want t9 limit the options available because many of us are hobbying wrong and enjoying ourselves the right way? You lot are an absolute joke.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
This has been proven to be wrong.

It really hasn't. Repeating over and over again that you like a system is not the same thing as proving that it should exist, unless you think the mere fact that your opinion that you enjoy a thing means GW should keep providing it for you forever regardless of its merits.

Literally none of that is written in any of my posts. I'd say that you should go read them, but at this point I'm fairly sure that you are just arguing in bad faith and try to discredit any person that has a different opinion than yourself.

Dudeface wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Andykp wrote:
And it should cease to exist because you don’t, seems reasonable.

No, it should cease to exist because it's a redundant system and eliminating redundancy is a basic game design principle.

Which is why you think there shouldn’t be WS and BS-just a “hit” stat.
Nor Armor, Wounds, and Toughness-just one stat of HP.

Or, hear me out-simplicity is a good goal, but when stuff works as-is, you don’t need to break it to make stuff simpler.

Removing PL wouldn't break anything though. It would just be going back to how the game was before. You already have points, which again, is an old system that everyone is used to.
It's less breaking the car, and more removing the second steering wheel that was added because the designers thought that the passenger should drive too.

Crap analogy, the 2nd steering wheel fundamentally changes the function of a vehicle and will cause an accident or render it inoperable if used. PL running in parallel has 0 system failures for people using points. The closer analogue would be a dummy 2nd steering wheel, so the passenger feels they have enough control to do what they like while the main driver (points) chooses where the car (game) goes.

Fair enough, but you still lose nothing by removing the second dummy wheel and it will free up resources and funds.

Deadnight wrote:
I'd argue a better 'car' analogy is having manual or automatic gearboxes

This is the perfect analogy.

According to Hecaton and and lil' Bobby, there is zero reason for automatic gearboxes to exist. Yet, the vast majority of their countrymen can't drive stick.

I demand that all automatic gearboxes should be removed as they take away development time from the clearly superior manual cars!

 Jidmah wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
I'd argue a better 'car' analogy is having manual or automatic gearboxes

This is the perfect analogy.

According to Hecaton and and lil' Bobby, there is zero reason for automatic gearboxes to exist. Yet, the vast majority of their countrymen can't drive stick.

I demand that all automatic gearboxes should be removed as they take away development time from the clearly superior manual cars!

Is there a car that has both manual and automatic gearboxes though? It's one or the other, isn't it?
The car in the analogy is the game system. Not all cars in existence.

As far as I'm aware most (non-electric) cars can be bought with one or the other. When you buy a car, you are paying for the development time of both.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
So, I haven't read all the 28 pages of this thread, but what if PL got a little refinement?... A system like that would be "good enough" for most things in the game I think.

Why settle for good enough? A bolt pistol is more powerful than a laspistol, it should cost more points.

 Aenar wrote:
I have an even more radical solution: what if GW kept both PL and points, as they do right now?
PL lovers would have PL, competitive players would have points. Everyone is happy, the end.

Only if we get actual points instead of the god damn halfway point we get right now where several units are moving to a PL state because PL players keep claiming it is good enough, it is fething NOT!

Andykp wrote:
And for the millionth time, BALANCE ISN’T THAT IMPORTANT TO ME SO I DON’T CARE.

Use number of wounds in each list then, stop claiming GW's pts system that values a lasgun at the same price as a plasma gun is better.

Tyel wrote:
Tbh if GW released "Force Levels" which were proscribed 1k/2k points army lists that were theoretically sort of balanced in terms of power and in terms of not representing a skew, I think some of the player base might go for it.

I guess arguably that's the line with the combat patrol boxes - but I don't know how they stack up in terms of each other.

Impossible when they keep patching the game.

 JNAProductions wrote:
If there was ONLY PL then yeah, you'd have a leg to stand on. But since points are still here... The solution to not deal with the problem Andykp doesn't have but you do is just use points.

Where is my pts system where Guardsmen pay for plasma guns?

Andykp wrote:
Who are the gatekeepers here, those of us who want to support systems that enable a wide range of tastes and style to play the game, who don’t want to change it for anyone so everybody can keep enjoying the game as they are doing, or sgt bob and hecaton who want t9 limit the options available because many of us are hobbying wrong and enjoying ourselves the right way? You lot are an absolute joke.

If PL supporters kept their likes of this stupid system to themselves and pts were not moving in the direction of PL I would not be hating on PL.

 vict0988 wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
So, I haven't read all the 28 pages of this thread, but what if PL got a little refinement?... A system like that would be "good enough" for most things in the game I think.

Why settle for good enough? A bolt pistol is more powerful than a laspistol, it should cost more points.

 Aenar wrote:
I have an even more radical solution: what if GW kept both PL and points, as they do right now?
PL lovers would have PL, competitive players would have points. Everyone is happy, the end.

Only if we get actual points instead of the god damn halfway point we get right now where several units are moving to a PL state because PL players keep claiming it is good enough, it is fething NOT!

Andykp wrote:
And for the millionth time, BALANCE ISN’T THAT IMPORTANT TO ME SO I DON’T CARE.

Use number of wounds in each list then, stop claiming GW's pts system that values a lasgun at the same price as a plasma gun is better.

Tyel wrote:
Tbh if GW released "Force Levels" which were proscribed 1k/2k points army lists that were theoretically sort of balanced in terms of power and in terms of not representing a skew, I think some of the player base might go for it.

I guess arguably that's the line with the combat patrol boxes - but I don't know how they stack up in terms of each other.

Impossible when they keep patching the game.

 JNAProductions wrote:
If there was ONLY PL then yeah, you'd have a leg to stand on. But since points are still here... The solution to not deal with the problem Andykp doesn't have but you do is just use points.

Where is my pts system where Guardsmen pay for plasma guns?

Andykp wrote:
Who are the gatekeepers here, those of us who want to support systems that enable a wide range of tastes and style to play the game, who don’t want to change it for anyone so everybody can keep enjoying the game as they are doing, or sgt bob and hecaton who want t9 limit the options available because many of us are hobbying wrong and enjoying ourselves the right way? You lot are an absolute joke.

[i]If PL supporters kept their likes of this stupid system to themselves and pts were not moving in the direction of PL I would not be hating on PL.[/i]

How on earth are you concluding infantry squads getting free equipment in a competitive player based balance patch is "because PL players keep claiming it is good enough"?

I highlighted that last section, because I actually laughed at the thought that the PL players on these forums are somehow dictating the guard changes

Yeah, I'm fairly sure I read the suggestion about making all their upgrades free as a buff on goonhammer and r/warhammercompetitive way before it was introduced, neither particularly great defenders of PL.

Sounds like this to me:

 vict0988 wrote:

If PL supporters kept their likes of this stupid system to themselves and pts were not moving in the direction of PL I would not be hating on PL.

So, you're saying we should just shut up and not post at all?

Part of is now hoping that gw move entirely to PL because judging from this thread the meltdowns would be hilarious.

Dai wrote:
Part of is now hoping that gw move entirely to PL because judging from this thread the meltdowns would be hilarious.

Not really. Points are great for matched play and tempest of war. PL is great for crusade. I wouldn't want to miss either.

 Blndmage wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

If PL supporters kept their likes of this stupid system to themselves and pts were not moving in the direction of PL I would not be hating on PL.

So, you're saying we should just shut up and not post at all?

No, I'm having a good time.

 Jidmah wrote:
Yeah, I'm fairly sure I read the suggestion about making all their upgrades free as a buff on goonhammer and r/warhammercompetitive way before it was introduced, neither particularly great defenders of PL.

Sounds like this to me:

Spoiler:

Not surprised about warhammercompetitive, they post about AOS as well, it's the AOS players' faults! Goonhammer did predict Harlequins would be mediocre as well, they are losing credibility pretty fast in my book.

Dudeface wrote:
How on earth are you concluding infantry squads getting free equipment in a competitive player based balance patch is "because PL players keep claiming it is good enough"?

I highlighted that last section, because I actually laughed at the thought that the PL players on these forums are somehow dictating the guard changes

I don't think it was a big stretch, GW devs don't care about balance, some players don't care about balance, GW looks at players that don't care about balance and conclude that they don't need to care about balance. I haven't seen links to posts from competitive environments that suggested the change to Guardsmen weapons pricing but I'll trust Jidmah. I'd appreciate links so I can go and make angry rants at the idiots that made the suggestions instead of just making silly posts pretending to be angry at PL players.

Dai wrote:
Part of is now hoping that gw move entirely to PL because judging from this thread the meltdowns would be hilarious.

I really don't think they would, as I said it wouldn't change anything for me and I am more into micro-balance stuff than anyone else on Dakka. All I want is for the silly beta rules to be removed and for pts to get back to a healthy state as they were prior to SM 2.0.

Thank God i play 7th ed and mostly solo...

I mean, tbf I like low-granularity accounting systems as a matter of course.

Loved warmachine/hordes, especially mk2.

So I'm sympathetic to power level (and am happy to use it fyi) but if gw went with it as the ahem, 'proper'/only approach there would need to be modifications around it to smooth the rough edges (reduce drastically unit choices, or else split out the loadouts per box) of which there are many.

Look at how units were priced in wmh (mk2 mind!).

Winter guard cost 4/6pts for 6/10 men. No other options and squad sizes were set at min/max.*
You could add a sergeant and standard bearer for +2pts.
You could add up to 3 rocketeers (special weapons) for +1pt each.
You could add a buffing solo like kovnik Joe for +2pts on top of that.

*some units, especially convergence could actually swap out their weapons mid game from sword/shield to other things so there is space for variation. Also of note is that frequently rather than having a core chassis with various loadout options, pp presented the different 'end products' as separate unit. Eg it wasn't a juggernaut chassis with loadout a, b, c or d for +x or +y points. You had a juggernaut, deatroyer, marauder or decimator etc - if there's too many choices in a kit, present 2 different 'set units' of the pistol and melee option and the shooty option as a very tenuous and basic example.

 vict0988 wrote:
Not surprised about warhammercompetitive, they post about AOS as well, it's the AOS players' faults! Goonhammer did predict Harlequins would be mediocre as well, they are losing credibility pretty fast in my book.

The guys at goonhammer are great at gathering and analyzing data, not so much at drawing conclusions from it and even worse at making predictions.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Is there a car that has both manual and automatic gearboxes though? It's one or the other, isn't it?
The car in the analogy is the game system. Not all cars in existence.

Sort of. Subaru vehicles (possibly other brands) have (used to have, it's been a while) a thing called Sportshift. Which basically was an automatic transmission that allowed the operator more control over gear shifting without having to physically engage/disengage the clutch. More than a decade ago, I had a loner car with one while my car was in the shop. I was kinda weird to play around with shifting gears but not pressing a clutch pedal.

I imagine most drivers likely wouldn't use it (which is why I kinda doubt it's still around) since it was a little more effort. However, I think if someone did practice with it; they could upshift/downshift with the control of a manual transmission without additional coordination of a clutch pedal. Which at the time I drove one, would offer more performance compared to just letting the automatic transmission shift on its own.

A Tiptronic system (Spelling?) used to be on the Audi sports line, that was essentially Race level padel shifters, that changed so fast that a clutch pedal was irrelevant. So in that respect, yes, There are systems with both.

Also, as somewhat of a car enthusiast, I miss being able to buy Standard Transmission jeeps. I don't care how much better the MPG is on the new Autos, I just want to be able to control when my car shifts.

 vict0988 wrote:
Not surprised about warhammercompetitive, they post about AOS as well, it's the AOS players' faults! Goonhammer did predict Harlequins would be mediocre as well, they are losing credibility pretty fast in my book.

Except Goonhammer doesn't have one homogenous voice, and also you're just wrong and made this up.

Here's a direct quote from the roundtable immediately after the codex dropped "from a pure competitive standpoint I think you’re likely to see Harlequins more often than Craftworlds". Literally only Nick had hesitation in calling them a top tier 8+ army, the consensus was FAR from mediocre. Unless your definition of mediocre is "better than everything else in their own book and most of the other books".

I would mirror your wording in saying you were losing creditability but we all know you never had any to begin with.

Let’s start with the big question. This is a big book with massive expectations. What’s your impression on the overall power level of this book, on a 1-10 scale, where 1 is “Imperial Fists” and 10 is “Pre-nerf Drukhari?”

8

8

9

8

7

You're a fanboy clown Ventus. They were a 10/10 and not one person rated them that high. 8/10 is mediocre in comp 40k.

 Jidmah wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Not surprised about warhammercompetitive, they post about AOS as well, it's the AOS players' faults! Goonhammer did predict Harlequins would be mediocre as well, they are losing credibility pretty fast in my book.

The guys at goonhammer are great at gathering and analyzing data, not so much at drawing conclusions from it and even worse at making predictions.

Goonhammer make stupidly good getting started guides, they are informative and interesting to read. Arguing that they didn't get Harlequins wrong is just silly though.

 JNAProductions wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Andykp wrote:
And it should cease to exist because you don’t, seems reasonable.

No, it should cease to exist because it's a redundant system and eliminating redundancy is a basic game design principle.

Which is why you think there shouldn’t be WS and BS-just a “hit” stat.
Nor Armor, Wounds, and Toughness-just one stat of HP.

Or, hear me out-simplicity is a good goal, but when stuff works as-is, you don’t need to break it to make stuff simpler.

I think most people have actually complained about how the WS system has worked since 8th.

Which is actually a fair complaint. While a flat hit stat for melee isn't BAD, there's a problem with GW not taking advantage of the fact there's modifiers. NOW they capped modifiers which leads to silly rules in 9th like "cannot be hit on a 1-3". Dedicated melee units that are supposed to be skilled like Vanguard Vets and Lychguard should absolutely impose negative modifiers to hit naturally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
Yeah, I'm fairly sure I read the suggestion about making all their upgrades free as a buff on goonhammer and r/warhammercompetitive way before it was introduced, neither particularly great defenders of PL.

Sounds like this to me:

Spoiler:

Yeah and Plague Marines with 0 cost to their upgrades is pure bad game design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

If PL supporters kept their likes of this stupid system to themselves and pts were not moving in the direction of PL I would not be hating on PL.

So, you're saying we should just shut up and not post at all?

You yourself said you were a game designer. By all accounts you should be defending PL on principle, even if you like it.

people complained how the WS System worked since 3rd
and GW only changed it for other games but not for 40k

 kodos wrote:
people complained how the WS System worked since 3rd
and GW only changed it for other games but not for 40k

Probably because the hit rolls were always based on 3-5.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 kodos wrote:
people complained how the WS System worked since 3rd
and GW only changed it for other games but not for 40k

Probably because the hit rolls were always based on 3-5.

Almost always 4-4 because so many units were WS 4. It doesn't really make any sense game-design-wise for Space Marines to need +1 to hit against Tau and Guard, they'll slaughter them regardless. The new WS system has effectively given most melee units +1 to hit and that's a great thing compared to how wimpy melee was previously, especially against Marines that couldn't get sweeping advanced if I recall correctly.

 Jidmah wrote:
Not really. Points are great for matched play and tempest of war. PL is great for crusade. I wouldn't want to miss either.

PL is not "great for crusade" unless you value the gatekeeping aspect. It adds nothing of value and Crusade would work better with normal points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
Who are the gatekeepers here, those of us who want to support systems that enable a wide range of tastes and style to play the game, who don’t want to change it for anyone so everybody can keep enjoying the game as they are doing, or sgt bob and hecaton who want t9 limit the options available because many of us are hobbying wrong and enjoying ourselves the right way? You lot are an absolute joke.

"We should remove this redundant point system even if a tiny minority of people will be slightly less happy with the game because of it" =/= gatekeeping.

"We need a separate redundant point system so we can tell competitive players they aren't welcome in our games" = gatekeeping.

PL doesn't enable you to play the game, it saves you a negligible amount of time in list construction.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
]
"We should remove this redundant point system even if a tiny minority of people will be slightly less happy with the game because of it" =/= gatekeeping.

"We need a separate redundant point system so we can tell competitive players they aren't welcome in our games" = gatekeeping.

PL doesn't enable you to play the game, it saves you a negligible amount of time in list construction.

"I don't value your opinion or what makes you happy and I want to get rid of it knowing that it'll make you unhappy, because my way is better and you must do the same" = gatekeeping

Points don't enable you to play the game, it just adds time to list construction.

Dudeface wrote:
"I don't value your opinion or what makes you happy and I want to get rid of it knowing that it'll make you unhappy, because my way is better and you must do the same" = gatekeeping

No, that is not at all gatekeeping. Gatekeeping is deliberately excluding someone from a group and the goal of removing PL is not exclusion. Some people might be unhappy with the change but people are unhappy about every change. My hope would be that the people who currently use PL would keep playing with the normal point system and I expect the vast majority of them would.

By your argument here adding AoC was gatekeeping because GW didn't value the opinions of people who didn't want marines to be more durable and insisted their way of playing the game was better. And removing AoC would also be gatekeeping because it wouldn't be valuing the opinions of the people who like having more durable marines. Literally every conceivable change to the game would be gatekeeping!

Points don't enable you to play the game, it just adds time to list construction.

The normal point system isn't required to play the game, I never said it was. Please don't make straw man arguments.

CadianSgtBob wrote:


PL is not "great for crusade" unless you value the gatekeeping aspect. It adds nothing of value and Crusade would work better with normal points.

Nope.

Already explained why. Many times. As have others. You have proven you won't listen, or even agree to disagree, so I'm not going to bother reposting. Nobody else should bother either.

We aren't gate keepers, because we don't want to remove the rules you like. You are the gate keeper, because YOU don't want other people to have fun unless they're having it your way.

All of us on the PL side? We're fine with you having points. We're fine with you using them- even in Crusade if you want to and can find other people who will agree to it. Therefore, definitionally NOT gatekeepers.

You on the other hand: Only CSBhammer can exist!