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.

PenitentJake wrote:
Already explained why.

And your "explanations" fail to hold up to even the slightest scrutiny. You claim that "time savings" is important but that time savings is a negligible difference over the entire process of creating a list, and you spend more time than you save arguing on this forum to defend PL. You claim that you don't need the accuracy of normal points or don't care about balance but you can't provide any convincing argument for how having that accuracy would hurt you. So we have to come to one of two conclusions here: either your reasons for liking PL are weak and not worth considering, or you value PL for gatekeeping purposes and the other reasons are nothing more than an attempt to defend PL without admitting the real appeal of it.

You are the gate keeper, because YOU don't want other people to have fun unless they're having it your way.

The same can be said about literally every conceivable change to the game. If you want AoC you're gatekeeping. If you don't want AoC you're gatekeeping. And yet somehow your redundant point system is the only time you consider advocating changes to the game to be gatekeeping.

We're fine with you using them- even in Crusade if you want to and can find other people who will agree to it.

You: "it's not gatekeeping because you can house rule Crusade to use a different point system even if GW doesn't support it."

Also you: "if GW doesn't give me an official point system where upgrades cost zero points that's gatekeeping."

Nice double standard there.

What do you consider gatekeeping, CSB? Define it, if you could, for us.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Already explained why.

And your "explanations" fail to hold up to even the slightest scrutiny. You claim that "time savings" is important but that time savings is a negligible difference over the entire process of creating a list, and you spend more time than you save arguing on this forum to defend PL. You claim that you don't need the accuracy of normal points or don't care about balance but you can't provide any convincing argument for how having that accuracy would hurt you. So we have to come to one of two conclusions here: either your reasons for liking PL are weak and not worth considering, or you value PL for gatekeeping purposes and the other reasons are nothing more than an attempt to defend PL without admitting the real appeal of it.

You are the gate keeper, because YOU don't want other people to have fun unless they're having it your way.

The same can be said about literally every conceivable change to the game. If you want AoC you're gatekeeping. If you don't want AoC you're gatekeeping. And yet somehow your redundant point system is the only time you consider advocating changes to the game to be gatekeeping.

We're fine with you using them- even in Crusade if you want to and can find other people who will agree to it.

You: "it's not gatekeeping because you can house rule Crusade to use a different point system even if GW doesn't support it."

Also you: "if GW doesn't give me an official point system where upgrades cost zero points that's gatekeeping."

Nice double standard there.

People can like what they want. That is enough. There doesn't need to be some quantum of validity to what someone likes.

The reason people keep coming back is because you're refusing to treat their experiences and opinions as valid, you can disagree, but to outright tell them they're objectively wrong for enjoying something you don't is hard to understand.

Them using PL does no harm, you adamantly telling them they're wrong for doing so and needing to have a method of game drafting removed, which has no impact on you comes across as gatekeeping.

I don't say that to be horrible, I do it on the slim chance you'll either introspect or at least retrospect on the situation and hopefully in the future consider that other people's enjoyment of something doesn't have to negatively impact your enjoyment of something and to want to exclude people or want to force them to do something they have no interest in, isn't healthy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What do you consider gatekeeping, CSB? Define it, if you could, for us.

Cambridge dictionary:

the activity of trying to control who gets particular resources, power, or opportunities, and who does not

I'm sure they're wrong too though.

 JNAProductions wrote:
What do you consider gatekeeping, CSB? Define it, if you could, for us.

Gatekeeping = excluding people from a group with deliberate intent to do so.

"I like PL because it sends a message to competitive players that they aren't welcome here" is gatekeeping. "PL is a bad system and should be removed" is not gatekeeping even if the effect of the change would be people leaving. Same thing with other rule changes. Adding AoC is not gatekeeping, removing AoC is not gatekeeping. None of these changes are done for the purpose of keeping particular people/groups out of the community. And I have made it very clear that the normal point system works just fine for casual/narrative play and that I expect most PL players would continue playing with the normal point system if/when PL is removed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:
People can like what they want. That is enough. There doesn't need to be some quantum of validity to what someone likes.

There needs to be some validity if they want anyone to care about their preferences when considering potential changes to the game. If the only argument for keeping PL is "I like it" then PL needs to go.

Them using PL does no harm

But the existence of PL does. Wasting development time on a redundant point system is bad. Having PL apply for things like reserve costs in matched play is bad. Requiring house rules to get rid of the broken point system in Crusade is bad. If those people want to make up their own PL equivalent and play with that once PL is removed I don't care, but PL needs to be removed from the game as published by GW.

I don't want Competitive players to leave the hobby, which is why I started this thread in a way. They are the leg holding up this hobby. GW wouldn't have record profits, because the casual people damn sure weren't panic buying 9th during covid. That was the Competitive peoples. So if competetive dies, or leaves for another game, 40k will likely go away as well. So, if GW in there horribly straight track record of making horribly bad predictions of what their fans want, were to go FULL PL in 10th, would that shift a large portion of the player base.

CSB, I respect your opinion, but it is an extremely small minority. The "I won't play anymore if X happens" camp. I think most people here would continue to buy Warcrack 40k until the nurse takes away the credit card.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Already explained why.

And your "explanations" fail to hold up to even the slightest scrutiny.

Others on this site have agreed with my points of view, as do the folks with whom I actually play. I think you overestimate your own importance as an arbiter of objective truth... Especially given that objective truth is so incredibly rare, there's a very compelling argument that it doesn't exist at all.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

You claim that "time savings" is important but that time savings is a negligible difference over the entire process of creating a list, and you spend more time than you save arguing on this forum to defend PL.

It's possible that I may have said something that you interpreted as "time savings"... But I don't actually think so.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

You claim that you don't need the accuracy of normal points or don't care about balance

Once again, nuance in diction and language is important to some people. You may think "Balance is not my highest priority" means "balance isn't important" but it doesn't. In fact, I even modified my original stance concerning units (like the Baneblade) where the swing can be particularly egregious. In those cases, it wouldn't be a terrible idea to include some scaling in the PL cost.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

but you can't provide any convincing argument for how having that accuracy would hurt you.

Nobody can provide a convincing argument to a person who has predetermined that they will refuse to be convinced. I started my first Crusade about 3 months after 9th's BRB dropped, and it has been running without a reset ever since. If I was using points, I'd have had to recalculate the cost of everything at least six times since then. As it is, I've done it once. I like that, and so do other Crusaders. We don't want change every 3 months... Or rather, we want our changes to be motivated by story events rather than "Balance Patches" which never seem to satisfy anyone anyways.

Multiple people have told you they feel the same way. You don't care, because you just want it to be your way and only your way. Well I'm sorry bro- this ed? The designers aren't in step with the way you think. There are other games. Go play them. Or go play points. No one is stopping you. When the Guard dex drops, there's a good chance that anything that is scaring you about GW converting to a PL only system will have been nothing but sturm und drang anyway. And even if not, none of us who support PL are actually advocating for the removal of points- most of us recognize that a fanbase can only be as big as it is broad.

Homogenize it, and you alienate and disenfranchise people. Most of us don't want that. We realize that it would have an impact on the company's ability to keep producing the high volume to which we've become accustomed.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

So we have to come to one of two conclusions here: either your reasons for liking PL are weak and not worth considering, or you value PL for gatekeeping purposes and the other reasons are nothing more than an attempt to defend PL without admitting the real appeal of it.

There is a third possible conclusion, but it isn't very diplomatic or kind to you, so I'll keep it to myself.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

You are the gate keeper, because YOU don't want other people to have fun unless they're having it your way.

The same can be said about literally every conceivable change to the game. If you want AoC you're gatekeeping.

Nope. Only if you simultaneously don't believe other people should be able to choose for themselves. And we do. No gatekeeping.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

If you don't want AoC you're gatekeeping.

Nope. Only if you simultaneously don't believe that other people should be able to choose for themselves. And we do. No gatekeeping.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

And yet somehow your redundant point system is the only time you consider advocating changes to the game to be gatekeeping.

It makes a lot of sense if you actually think about it: you're talking about the wholescale removal of a mechanic that many people like for different reasons, despite the fact that you've been given other viable alternatives by the company itself, and you and anyone else who hates PL, by conscious design, are not required to use it.

Other suggestions are more constructive and reasonable. I'm willing to talk about those ideas and discus their merits and shortcomings, and how such changes might be most successfully implemented.

The whole scale removal of game sizes, or list building systems is neither constructive nor reasonable given the obvious appeal of those sytems to many people, and again, for wildly varying reasons.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

We're fine with you using them- even in Crusade if you want to and can find other people who will agree to it.

You: "it's not gatekeeping because you can house rule Crusade to use a different point system even if GW doesn't support it."

No, the reason it isn't gate keeping, because I'm not taking anything away from people or preventing them from doing whatever it is that they want to do. ANd GW themselves have published the 20 points = 1 PL formula. They recommend PL for Crusade for sure, but they know that people have always House-ruled and they expect as much out of this edition. It is specifically the reason why they named their company Games WORKSHOP.

Besides, it wasn't all that long ago that you were advocating for the removal of Crusade altogether (more gatekeeping) and you're still advocating for the removal of Open (more gatekeeping).

You have the system that works for you. Use it.

I have the system that works for me. I will use it.

That is what "not gatekeeping" looks like.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Also you: "if GW doesn't give me an official point system where upgrades cost zero points that's gatekeeping."

No- GW HAS given me an official list building system that doesn't have costs for most equipment upgrades. It's you wanting to take it away from us just because YOU don't like it that is gate keeping. If it was in anyway preventing you from playing the way you wanted play, you might have a leg to stand on.

It isn't. You don't.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Nice double standard there.

No double standard. Just your failure to understand that conceptually, the term "Gatekeeping" refers to "Making one's own interests exclusive" - which, when it comes to you and I, clearly only you are doing.

PenitentJake wrote:
No double standard. Just your failure to understand that conceptually, the term "Gatekeeping" refers to "Making one's own interests exclusive" - which, when it comes to you and I, clearly only you are doing.

No it isn't. That's not what gatekeeping means at all. Gatekeeping is the deliberate exclusion of certain people as the direct goal of an action.

Suggesting that GW move from plastic to resin is not gatekeeping. It has the likely effect of increasing the cost of the game and that increase in cost may result in some people being unable to play but that isn't the goal of the change. The goal of moving to resin would be that resin allows a higher level of detail and a more desirable product for some people, the exclusion of some people is just an unfortunate side effect of the change and those people would still be welcomed into the community if they could find a way to afford the new kits.

Removing PL is not gatekeeping. A tiny minority of players may stop playing as a result but the goal is to improve the game by removing a redundant and error-prone system. Anyone who currently uses PL would be welcome to remain, and I expect that the vast majority of them would continue to play.

The fact that you have decided that a slightly different point system would be a dealbreaker for you does not mean that GW is obligated to continue to provide it for you. Nor does it mean that any suggestion which threatens your preferred system is gatekeeping. You are perfectly welcome to stay and use the normal point system once it becomes the only point system.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
No double standard. Just your failure to understand that conceptually, the term "Gatekeeping" refers to "Making one's own interests exclusive" - which, when it comes to you and I, clearly only you are doing.

No it isn't. That's not what gatekeeping means at all. Gatekeeping is the deliberate exclusion of certain people as the direct goal of an action.

Suggesting that GW move from plastic to resin is not gatekeeping. It has the likely effect of increasing the cost of the game and that increase in cost may result in some people being unable to play but that isn't the goal of the change. The goal of moving to resin would be that resin allows a higher level of detail and a more desirable product for some people, the exclusion of some people is just an unfortunate side effect of the change and those people would still be welcomed into the community if they could find a way to afford the new kits.

Removing PL is not gatekeeping. A tiny minority of players may stop playing as a result but the goal is to improve the game by removing a redundant and error-prone system. Anyone who currently uses PL would be welcome to remain, and I expect that the vast majority of them would continue to play.

The fact that you have decided that a slightly different point system would be a dealbreaker for you does not mean that GW is obligated to continue to provide it for you. Nor does it mean that any suggestion which threatens your preferred system is gatekeeping. You are perfectly welcome to stay and use the normal point system once it becomes the only point system.

Results matter. So does motive.

Would you accept "I didn't mean to burn your house down," as good enough, if someone burned it down with some fireworks? It wasn't their intention to do so-not in the slightest! They just wanted a cool fireworks show-but the end result is you now need a new home.

Moreover, given your attitude in this thread, I have a hankering suspicion that it's more than just "Points better" guiding your reasons. Spite is a word that comes to mind.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
CSB, I respect your opinion, but it is an extremely small minority. The "I won't play anymore if X happens" camp. I think most people here would continue to buy Warcrack 40k until the nurse takes away the credit card.

But that's kind of the point I was making. I would probably keep playing even if the game moved to strictly PL, although I'd prefer to find a group that plays an older edition or third party rules if GW is going to abandon their current efforts to provide a balanced game. And I suspect that the same is true for the vast majority of people who use PL, if PL was removed they'd continue playing with the normal point system. And in both cases the people whose preferred system became the only system would still be perfectly happy for the other side to stay in the game. So it's ridiculous to claim that making a change to the rules is "gatekeeping" just because there are people who don't like that change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Would you accept "I didn't mean to burn your house down," as good enough, if someone burned it down with some fireworks? It wasn't their intention to do so-not in the slightest! They just wanted a cool fireworks show-but the end result is you now need a new home.

That's a pretty hyperbolic comparison. Removing PL does not mean destroying the game, it's just a few minutes of extra list building time occasionally. A better analogy would be if that fireworks show burned a small patch of grass, and in that case I wouldn't be really upset about the need to toss a handful of grass seeds onto the dead spot. I would prefer that it not happen, obviously, but it's hardly the end of the world if it does.

And results don't really matter when gatekeeping, by definition, requires deliberate intent to exclude a targeted group. Even if you argue that removing PL would be a bad thing it absolutely is not gatekeeping.

Moreover, given your attitude in this thread, I have a hankering suspicion that it's more than just "Points better" guiding your reasons. Spite is a word that comes to mind.

And I have a hankering suspicion that you're defending PL for CAAC reasons, not because it's a system with any practical value. So I guess we're even then.

I don't even play PL. I use points-but I'm capable of empathizing with others. I know that my preferences aren't the only one.

And the comparison might be extreme, but the analogy holds true-motive matters, but so does the end result.
Making the game worse for some (people who enjoy PL) for no benefit (people who prefer points have points, right now, and nothing stops us from playing with them) is not a positive outcome.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I don't even play PL. I use points-but I'm capable of empathizing with others. I know that my preferences aren't the only one.

And I have a hankering suspicion you're lying about not using PL. See how easy it is to have hankering suspicions and pretend they have anything to do with reality?

Making the game worse for some (people who enjoy PL) for no benefit (people who prefer points have points, right now, and nothing stops us from playing with them) is not a positive outcome.

Again, "this has a negative outcome" is not the same as gatekeeping. Whether or not removing PL is a good idea it is absolutely not gatekeeping.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I don't even play PL. I use points-but I'm capable of empathizing with others. I know that my preferences aren't the only one.

And I have a hankering suspicion you're lying about not using PL. See how easy it is to have hankering suspicions and pretend they have anything to do with reality?

Making the game worse for some (people who enjoy PL) for no benefit (people who prefer points have points, right now, and nothing stops us from playing with them) is not a positive outcome.

Again, "this has a negative outcome" is not the same as gatekeeping. Whether or not removing PL is a good idea it is absolutely not gatekeeping.

You can check any list I've posted to the forum. All use points. I believe my first 8th edition list was in 2017. Used points.
Last one was about three months ago-also points.
Every list in between I posted? Points.

And you agree, then, that removing something people enjoy with no gain for anyone else is a bad thing?

 JNAProductions wrote:
You can check any list I've posted to the forum. All use points. I believe my first 8th edition list was in 2017. Used points.
Last one was about three months ago-also points.
Every list in between I posted? Points.

I have a hankering suspicion you bribed the mods to edit those posts to let you win this argument and every one of them was originally submitted with PL.

And you agree, then, that removing something people enjoy with no gain for anyone else is a bad thing?

I agree to no such thing, please do not dishonestly misquote me on that. I said that whether or not removing PL is a good idea it is not gatekeeping, nowhere did I say that it is a bad thing. Removing PL is absolutely a good thing with gain for non-PL payers.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You can check any list I've posted to the forum. All use points. I believe my first 8th edition list was in 2017. Used points.
Last one was about three months ago-also points.
Every list in between I posted? Points.

I have a hankering suspicion you bribed the mods to edit those posts to let you win this argument and every one of them was originally submitted with PL.

And you agree, then, that removing something people enjoy with no gain for anyone else is a bad thing?

I agree to no such thing, please do not dishonestly misquote me on that. I said that whether or not removing PL is a good idea it is not gatekeeping, nowhere did I say that it is a bad thing. Removing PL is absolutely a good thing with gain for non-PL payers.

Yes, clearly I am spending hundreds of dollars and getting the forum itself modified (so that way it doesn't show that a mod edited it) to win an internet argument. You got me, well-played. /s

What benefit is there to removing PL? I can reasonably see excising it from reference in things like stratagems and reserve limits, or amending those to be points or PL (whichever is being used), but what benefit is there to getting rid of something that people enjoy?

PenitentJake wrote:
Besides, it wasn't all that long ago that you were advocating for the removal of Crusade altogether (more gatekeeping) and you're still advocating for the removal of Open (more gatekeeping).

Only because you consider any modification to Crusade equivalent to removing it. My preference would be that Crusade is changed significantly because, while it offers some useful ideas, it's still a deeply flawed narrative system that has a lot of room for improvement. But there would absolutely still be narrative play in 40k, and likely something fairly similar to Crusade.

Open Play, however, can be removed with no loss to anyone. We don't need official permission to change the rules. And the entire concept of being so obsessed with "officialness" that you can't change the rules without official permission but simultaneously not enjoying the game unless you change the rules is an absurd contradiction. Remove Open™ Play™ as wasted text, let people continue playing simplified or non-standard games as they did before GW's marketing department put an official brand name on it.

And in neither situation is it gatekeeping to argue for these changes. The goal is to improve 40k, not to exclude any particular group from playing it, and I expect that most people would continue playing the game even if they currently disagree with the changes.

PenitentJake wrote:


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!

I've played Crusade, it would be better with points.

While i think PL is a horribly unblanced way to try and play the game, I dont see any reasonable reason for removing it if there is a sizable amount of the community that utilizes it.

Like if say 1/10th of the community is like die hard PL players then yeah fine leave it in, no harm no foul. but if its something super small like 1% of the community is tapping into it, i really dont see the issue with remove it or just letting it fall to the wayside.

It was a half baked attempted from the get go any way. I would not champion for removing it, but i would not be upset if it was removed.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yes, clearly I am spending hundreds of dollars and getting the forum itself modified (so that way it doesn't show that a mod edited it) to win an internet argument. You got me, well-played. /s

What part of "hankering suspicion" do you not understand? Clearly you believe that you can apply those words to any speculation you want, no matter how offensive or absurd, and it magically becomes a valid argument.

What benefit is there to removing PL? I can reasonably see excising it from reference in things like stratagems and reserve limits, or amending those to be points or PL (whichever is being used), but what benefit is there to getting rid of something that people enjoy?

I've already answered this multiple times, but once again:

1) Eliminating redundancy is good game design. It simplifies the game and avoids wasting developer time on something that is not needed.

2) Having multiple point systems divides the community. Consolidating everything back into a single point system removes the incompatibility and maintains 40k's biggest advantage: the fact that it's the game that everyone plays and you can show up at any random store for a pickup game and expect to play.

3) PL currently exists in matched play where it absolutely does not belong.

4) Crusade uses PL by default and requires house ruling it away for those of us who want to play Crusade but reject the idea of using the less-accurate point system. Having Crusade use normal points makes it a more appealing game variant.

5) Officially removing PL shuts down any effort by GW to bring it back as the primary system as they seem to have intended at the start of 8th (mirroring what they did with AoS on launch). We know there are people at GW who dislike competitive play and only grudgingly accept the need to support it and I'm sure they would love to make 40k PL-only at the earliest possible opportunity.

Balanced against these goals we have some vague "I like it" comments and a negligible time savings in list construction. Getting rid of PL is obvious.

I apologize for the offense I’ve caused you. I should’ve spoken with more care.

But, as for your second half of the post, 40k is a game. It’s also a massively imperfect game-removing PL ain’t gonna make it closer to perfect, but it will diminish the enjoyment of some people in the hobby. For a game that’s meant to be fun, that’s bad.
You don’t seem willing to acknowledge that other people honestly have more fun with PL than points.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

No it isn't. That's not what gatekeeping means at all. Gatekeeping is the deliberate exclusion of certain people as the direct goal of an action.

Right. And since you are advocated the removal of PL, you are deliberately excluding people who prefer it.

They, who are not advocating for the removal of points are, are not excluding you.

Thanks for proving my point gatekeeper.

I will be honest, I have played exactly 2 games since my codex (Custodes) dropped, and neither game was in PL. As none of my model options vary in cost, it got me thinking. Then I saw the changes to IG squads, and most of DG/SM, and felt like maybe this was where GW was going. Many people have told me I was foolish for thinking GW would ever abandon points, but here we are.

In total honestly, I have never played Crusade, or any narrative games, there is not a large community here and every just sees 40k as an expensive way to death match until the DnD group starts.

That being said, I have also never played PL, or competetively. At least not with the intent to win a prize. I have only ever played for fun.

The two games I played in PL were to teach a friend who knew absolutely zilch about the game. Once they got the hang of it, they began using points. In that respect, I felt the value in PL, it truly eased the burden of learning the process. Easier to get to rolling dice when the new player isn't wasting hours learning to scrounge up the points to include that 1 squad they really like.

So I like the idea of PL, but honestly, I think CSB has a good point. As it is currently is fine, but it shouldn't be a key thing GW wastes time on leveling. As it's only real purpose is for extremely new people or the far more casual crowds. If GW wants their success to continue, they have to stick with points, but I'd like them to continue to make PL available.

I dunno the right mix, but I feel GW trying to wrap their diseased brains around balancing two completely opposed systems of balance for the future of 40k is a losing idea. GW is too incompetent to correctly put out a 9 page FAQ.

PenitentJake wrote:
Right. And since you are advocated the removal of PL, you are deliberately excluding people who prefer it.

That's an incredibly dishonest argument and you know it. Making a game change that some people don't like is not the same as excluding them from the game. And I have said multiple times that I expect that most people who prefer PL would continue to play with the normal point system even if PL was removed.

And I note that you're conveniently ignoring the fact that, by your argument here, adding the AoC rule was gatekeeping. Not adding the AoC rule was gatekeeping. Keeping the AoC rule is gatekeeping. Removing the AoC rule is gatekeeping. Every conceivable change or lack of change is gatekeeping because someone prefers it to be the other way. So congratulations, you've reduced "gatekeeping" to a meaningless term.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
The two games I played in PL were to teach a friend who knew absolutely zilch about the game. Once they got the hang of it, they began using points. In that respect, I felt the value in PL, it truly eased the burden of learning the process. Easier to get to rolling dice when the new player isn't wasting hours learning to scrounge up the points to include that 1 squad they really like.

Are many people doing teaching games with the newbies making their own lists? In my experience all of those games were done with the more experienced player providing both lists (and usually all of the models), new players didn't start making their own lists until they'd had at least a couple of games and started to get a decent grasp of how everything works.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
PL doesn't enable you to play the game, it saves you [...] time in list construction.

Hah, lil' bobby admitted that PL does have value. Victory!

 Jidmah wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:
PL doesn't enable you to play the game, it saves you [...] time in list construction.

Hah, lil' bobby admitted that PL does have value. Victory!

Sure, if you dishonestly cut out the "negligible" from the quote and completely change the meaning of it. But I guess the fact that you have to sink to that level of dishonesty says a lot about the weakness of both your pro-PL argument and your moral character.

 JNAProductions wrote:

And you agree, then, that removing something people enjoy with no gain for anyone else is a bad thing?

Nah, because even ONE minute spent on developing PL is a waste of time and embarrassing.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

And you agree, then, that removing something people enjoy with no gain for anyone else is a bad thing?

Nah, because even ONE minute spent on developing PL is a waste of time and embarrassing.

How is it "embarassing"? Are you approaching people with your rulebook and saying "don't look at that PL number, I'm ashamed they exist"?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:
PL doesn't enable you to play the game, it saves you [...] time in list construction.

Hah, lil' bobby admitted that PL does have value. Victory!

Sure, if you dishonestly cut out the "negligible" from the quote and completely change the meaning of it. But I guess the fact that you have to sink to that level of dishonesty says a lot about the weakness of both your pro-PL argument and your moral character.

No, lil' bobby, I just did the same as you did and removed the unnecessary stuff from your post.

According to yourself, you are never wrong, therefore this statement is absolute and shall not be questioned, not even by you.

You clearly have conceded the point of PL having value, which means you have admitted to being wrong all along.

But if you, insist, here is the full quote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:
PL is a great enabler to play quick games and, it saves you a lot of time in list construction. I just hate the idea of PL and it's extremely important to me that people do not enjoy the hobby in any other way than me. Those people are gatekeeping me from hating on PL.

I also hate kittens and puppies.

 Jidmah wrote:
I am a shameless liar.

Thanks for admitting that we've reached the point where you run out of arguments and desperately try to substitute lying and insults instead.

Self-reflection isn't a strength of yours, is it?

It's hilarious that you react so strongly to a post that was set up as a parody of yours.

Your last post applies to every single one of your own posts in this thread.

I've just gotta say, I love that the reason of "I genuinely struggle with certain calculations and the mental energy to build a list with points, so I use a simplified version that reduces my mental strain to play" is completely ignored as a valid reason for PL existing.

It helps people. That cannot be argued against, because the people it helps have said so. Unless you're telling them that their own personal needs are *wrong* (which would be arrogant in the extreme), this is not something that can be up for debate. Is it helpful for everyone, no! Is it helpful for some, yes!

By saying that "we should get rid of PL to free up time for more useful things" (which is, in itself, not even based in fact - there's no way to prove that the "time" spent on PL would be used to do anything other than invent a new points system or to create a new version of Dreadfleet or a new Space Marine subfaction), it implicitly says that you consider the needs and wants of players who may or may not have certain conditions or circumstances that prevent them from fully engaging with points to be negligible. It implicitly says that "I don't care about what you, as someone who is already likely marginalised, want or need".

The existence of PL doesn't seriously hurt anyone, and if you do feel threatened by an entirely optional form of play that legitimately provides aid for people, that's a you problem.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What benefit is there to removing PL? I can reasonably see excising it from reference in things like stratagems and reserve limits, or amending those to be points or PL (whichever is being used), but what benefit is there to getting rid of something that people enjoy?

I've already answered this multiple times, but once again:

1) Eliminating redundancy is good game design. It simplifies the game and avoids wasting developer time on something that is not needed.

PL is needed for certain players, according to their own testimony. Additionally, who determines what is "redundant"? One could argue that many factions in the game are redundant, many weapons are redundant, and if you're talking about simplifying the game, who determines how "simple" it gets? One statblock for all troops, one statblock for all vehicles, one statblock for all characters?

2) Having multiple point systems divides the community. Consolidating everything back into a single point system removes the incompatibility and maintains 40k's biggest advantage: the fact that it's the game that everyone plays and you can show up at any random store for a pickup game and expect to play.

But that simply isn't true because of different player mentalities, desires, and preferred outcomes. I don't have any interest in playing a cut-throat tourney level game, and I imagine that many other players would have no interest playing against me narrating and making decisions based on "cool factor". I believe in players making informed consensual discussions prior to their games where they can both outline their intentions and expectations from a game. Rocking up and putting models down without any discussion as to what you want out of the game sounds absolutely horrible to me.

The community is already divided, because people want different things - and that's okay!

3) PL currently exists in matched play where it absolutely does not belong.

This literally isn't an argument beyond "I don't want it".

4) Crusade uses PL by default and requires house ruling it away for those of us who want to play Crusade but reject the idea of using the less-accurate point system. Having Crusade use normal points makes it a more appealing game variant.

My response to this is that GW should officially make Crusade compatible with points. Again, I find it ironic that you say to PL/Open players that what they do should be covered by house rules so they don't need official support, but you seem unwilling to apply the same to your own wants and needs. On the other hand, I support your wants and needs for that official recognition, so I'm happy to fight your corner in getting points recognition for Crusade.

5) Officially removing PL shuts down any effort by GW to bring it back as the primary system as they seem to have intended at the start of 8th (mirroring what they did with AoS on launch). We know there are people at GW who dislike competitive play and only grudgingly accept the need to support it and I'm sure they would love to make 40k PL-only at the earliest possible opportunity.

And this honestly just sounds spiteful towards those who don't enjoy competitive play, and almost like an effort to delegitimise non-comp forms of play.

You literally don't have proof beyond rampant speculation about what GW "intended". When you can show me a quote from a GW designer about what they "intended" to do, and that intention being "we want to make 40k PL only, sod the competitive players", then I'll believe you.

Balanced against these goals we have some vague "I like it" comments and a negligible time savings in list construction.

And the whole disability aid aspect, and the fact it doesn't hurt you, and the fact that player enjoyment is a thing...