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.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You chose to side with "streamlining" over accessibility - and that's pretty damn ableist.

Just like you do. Except you think that as long as you haven't personally seen someone saying "I want this" in this specific forum it doesn't matter and those people don't exist. You are such a shameless hypocrite.

Okay, yep, you've fully lost it.

Don't worry, the rest of the thread can see it too.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And now we're shifting to "unwilling", implying that disabled folks aren't actually disabled, they just "don't want to" play. Hi, another textbook ableist phrase.

No, that's just you being dishonest and claiming that the "willing" part of that refers to disabled people, not people who have no disability-related obstacles but still dislike the normal point system. You're doing an excellent job of making it clear that "ableism" and "gatekeeping" have no meaning to you beyond being tools for bludgeoning people into submission when you have no better argument to make.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Okay, yep, you've fully lost it.

I could say the same about you, once you decided to abuse "ableist" and "gatekeeping" to refer to any change you don't like and ignore their actual definitions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What part of "I enjoy PL" automatically means "I would refuse to accommodate someone who wasn't able to use it"?

Why is "I can accommodate someone who isn't able to use it" a defense for PL but not a defense for points-only 40k?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And now we're shifting to "unwilling", implying that disabled folks aren't actually disabled, they just "don't want to" play. Hi, another textbook ableist phrase.

No, that's just you being dishonest and claiming that the "willing" part of that refers to disabled people, not people who have no disability-related obstacles but still dislike the normal point system. You're doing an excellent job of making it clear that "ableism" and "gatekeeping" have no meaning to you beyond being tools for bludgeoning people into submission when you have no better argument to make.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Okay, yep, you've fully lost it.

I could say the same about you, once you decided to abuse "ableist" and "gatekeeping" to refer to any change you don't like and ignore their actual definitions.

I literally quoted the definition of gatekeeping for you. You then ignored it.

Edit: If there was a good system for people who can't use PL or points, then I'd love to see it included. I cannot think of what kind of system that would be, so accommodations would need to be made on an individual basis, unless someone has a good idea for how it would work.

But PL already exists. It's already made. It's already there-you don't need special accommodations, because it's already in reality.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I literally quoted the definition of gatekeeping for you. You then ignored it.

You quoted a definition that does not match the accusations being made here and ignored where it explicitly talks about "controlling" access, not merely doing a thing without sufficient concern for people who might be excluded.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And now we're shifting to "unwilling", implying that disabled folks aren't actually disabled, they just "don't want to" play. Hi, another textbook ableist phrase.

No, that's just you being dishonest and claiming that the "willing" part of that refers to disabled people, not people who have no disability-related obstacles but still dislike the normal point system. You're doing an excellent job of making it clear that "ableism" and "gatekeeping" have no meaning to you beyond being tools for bludgeoning people into submission when you have no better argument to make.

In other words, "I'm getting mad that I'm being called out on my behaviour, and am now trying to make you look bad for calling it out".

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Okay, yep, you've fully lost it.

I could say the same about you, once you decided to abuse "ableist" and "gatekeeping" to refer to any change you don't like and ignore their actual definitions.

Except I'm not referring to "change I don't like" - I've quite thoroughly explained why these changes are specifically rooted in your own ableism, lack of empathy, and willingness to gatekeep based on the above, and the rest of the thread can see that.

The fact that you've tried to concoct some kind of similar thing for me is hilarious because you've applied your own way of thinking to me, and found out the hard way that I don't share your same self-centredness.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I literally quoted the definition of gatekeeping for you. You then ignored it.

You quoted a definition that does not match the accusations being made here and ignored where it explicitly talks about "controlling" access, not merely doing a thing without sufficient concern for people who might be excluded.

And controlling doesn't require a motive.

You can use words to mean things that aren't the common definition, but that's not good communication.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Edit: If there was a good system for people who can't use PL or points, then I'd love to see it included. I cannot think of what kind of system that would be, so accommodations would need to be made on an individual basis, unless someone has a good idea for how it would work.

Here's a possible system: each player puts models on the table and you play the game with no point system at all, just like AoS had on release day. Or do you think that balance is more important than the needs of disabled people who can't use PL?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What part of "I enjoy PL" automatically means "I would refuse to accommodate someone who wasn't able to use it"?

Why is "I can accommodate someone who isn't able to use it" a defense for PL but not a defense for points-only 40k?

Uh, because it's not a defence of PL? It's a defence of a different, as of yet non-existent, system which would exist to support those who were unable to use PL - a hypothetical system which I happily would endorse if it existed.

So, given that you suggested the need and target group for it, how would *you* implement it? After all, you raised the issue.

 JNAProductions wrote:
And controlling doesn't require a motive.

It absolutely does. Controlling by definition involves actively determining the thing being controlled. If there is no motive or agency then the thing is uncontrolled, events are just happening as they will and nothing is actively directing them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So, given that you suggested the need and target group for it, how would *you* implement it? After all, you raised the issue.

No points at all. Each player puts some models on the table and you play the game. Just like AoS had in its initial release. PL does not exist, the normal point system does not exist.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Edit: If there was a good system for people who can't use PL or points, then I'd love to see it included. I cannot think of what kind of system that would be, so accommodations would need to be made on an individual basis, unless someone has a good idea for how it would work.

Here's a possible system: each player puts models on the table and you play the game with no point system at all, just like AoS had on release day. Or do you think that balance is more important than the needs of disabled people who can't use PL?

I think the people who can't use PL should have a way of playing the game, and if the system of "each player puts models on the table without points" is the only way to do that, then I'm okay with that, because it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the game.

Personally, I'd propose a system of pre-built or slottable lists, but that's just me.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Edit: If there was a good system for people who can't use PL or points, then I'd love to see it included. I cannot think of what kind of system that would be, so accommodations would need to be made on an individual basis, unless someone has a good idea for how it would work.

Here's a possible system: each player puts models on the table and you play the game with no point system at all, just like AoS had on release day. Or do you think that balance is more important than the needs of disabled people who can't use PL?

I don't think that's a system in anything but the most technical sense.

And balance is important-moreso for me than for the people in this thread who play PL, but it still matters. However, rough balance can be good enough.

If I field Nurgle Daemons that are, in a perfectly balanced game, worth 2,107 points; and my opponent fields Space Marines that, in a perfectly balanced game, worth 1,989 points... That's good enough for a solid game, assuming we're reasonably close in skill levels and the dice are fair.

If you're more like Smudge, and favor the narrative of the hobby more than the gameplay itself, then you can be even rougher-if you want a desperate last stand of IG against Nids, where the IG get 1,500 points or 75 PL, and the Nids get 4,000 points/200 PL (or get 2,000/100, but keep respawning for free; or get 1,000/50 a turn, or whatever) then the game is not gonna be balanced, but that's fine, because it's not the point. When one side has double or more the other side, it's fine if the exact number would be 2.05X instead of 2.00X in a perfect game.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I think the people who can't use PL should have a way of playing the game, and if the system of "each player puts models on the table without points" is the only way to do that, then I'm okay with that, because it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the game.

So you are ok with the removal of points from Crusade? No more supply limit since units no longer cost points, no more requisitions with variable costs depending on the point cost of the unit, etc. I suppose that could be done, but I know at least one Crusade fan would be very unhappy about not having the supply limit mechanic anymore.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So, given that you suggested the need and target group for it, how would *you* implement it? After all, you raised the issue.

No points at all. Each player puts some models on the table and you play the game. Just like AoS had in its initial release. PL does not exist, the normal point system does not exist.

Now, I agreed with you up until that last sentence, because that's not something I've ever specified or wanted.

I don't know why you have this idea knocking around in your head that there can be only ONE SINGLE WAY TO PLAY TM, but that's just not true, and it's not a stance I've ever supported.

In this hypothetical situation, there should be three ways of building an army - points, PL, and this 'no points' system you proposed, and they should all be valid and official. Each one caters to different wants and needs, and the existence of one doesn't affect the existence of another.

Why is this hard to understand?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Edit: If there was a good system for people who can't use PL or points, then I'd love to see it included. I cannot think of what kind of system that would be, so accommodations would need to be made on an individual basis, unless someone has a good idea for how it would work.

Here's a possible system: each player puts models on the table and you play the game with no point system at all, just like AoS had on release day. Or do you think that balance is more important than the needs of disabled people who can't use PL?

I think the people who can't use PL should have a way of playing the game, and if the system of "each player puts models on the table without points" is the only way to do that, then I'm okay with that, because it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the game.

Personally, I'd propose a system of pre-built or slottable lists, but that's just me.

That's... Incredibly obvious, and I feel silly for not thinking of it.

Yeah, precon lists would make a ton of sense. Hell, you could even playtest those specific lists and tweak them to make sure they play nicely together.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I think the people who can't use PL should have a way of playing the game, and if the system of "each player puts models on the table without points" is the only way to do that, then I'm okay with that, because it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the game.

So you are ok with the removal of points from Crusade?

No, where did I say that? You're putting words where none came.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I don't think that's a system in anything but the most technical sense.

It was good enough for GW when they released AoS.

And balance is important-moreso for me than for the people in this thread who play PL, but it still matters. However, rough balance can be good enough.

Cool, so just like me you prioritize balance over maximizing accessibility and you're fine with a system that excludes certain people as long as you feel that balance concerns justify it. Thanks for finally recognizing the point I was getting at.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I don't think that's a system in anything but the most technical sense.

It was good enough for GW when they released AoS.

And balance is important-moreso for me than for the people in this thread who play PL, but it still matters. However, rough balance can be good enough.

Cool, so just like me you prioritize balance over maximizing accessibility and you're fine with a system that excludes certain people as long as you feel that balance concerns justify it. Thanks for finally recognizing the point I was getting at.

And AoS sucked when it first came out. Badly.
There's a reason they added points back in.

And absolutely not-I want balance, but I am 100% fine with people who have other priorities gaining enjoyment and playing with 40k in different ways.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
And balance is important-moreso for me than for the people in this thread who play PL, but it still matters. However, rough balance can be good enough.

Cool, so just like me you prioritize balance over maximizing accessibility and you're fine with a system that excludes certain people as long as you feel that balance concerns justify it. Thanks for finally recognizing the point I was getting at.

I don't think that's what JNA said at all?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
And balance is important-moreso for me than for the people in this thread who play PL, but it still matters. However, rough balance can be good enough.

Cool, so just like me you prioritize balance over maximizing accessibility and you're fine with a system that excludes certain people as long as you feel that balance concerns justify it. Thanks for finally recognizing the point I was getting at.

I don't think that's what JNA said at all?

It's not. CSB is literally putting words in other people's mouths.

CSB
I noticed you've ignored my entire post.
Is my group of 20 players, insignificant?
They have almost all said that if they had to play with points and all the Advanced Rules, they wouldn't play at all

To be clear, if Open Play was removed, that's 20 less people playing the game and buying minis.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I mean, "But i love when people use that as a way to incorporate 'bad balance is good' into their mindset"
Is a pretty damn inconsistent, considering you are implying people who point out that we play with dolls is backing bad balance.

The other inconsistent part is, why are you embarrassed over a second set of rules for a game that you dont even have to play.
You are playing a game where you paint toys and roll dies as you make believe you are having them shoot at each other, and the thing that you are embarrassed about is a point system that hardly anyone uses?

That right there is a really inconsistent take.

Except it does, because they then point out I'm apparently taking it "too seriously" and then we should just do the balancing ourselves (have you even bothered to read the posts from people defending PL?). At that point you dont need to pay for rules. Just go pew pew and the player that made the best pew pew noises wins. We literally have best poster in the thread saying it's fine that Laspistols and Plasma Pistols cost the same because they dont care and thinking too much on it is taking things too seriously.

Also yeah, the really bad system for constructing armies with zero thought behind it is far more embarassing than painting/putting together models and rolling dice on a table. The GW executive that suggested PL should be embarrassed, the GW rules writers that actually created it should be embarrassed, and the defenders of PL should be embarrassed.

"Except it does becasue they then point out im apparently taking it 'too seriously' "
Why do you care what others think? Just tell them its a a bad secondary point system GW tried to use, and no one really uses it that much, and move on. Like, why do you care if they think you are taking it to seriously for wanting to use points, the system taht everyone else uses.
You are putting WAY to much importance on what others think about the system, and there is literally no reason to be "Embarrassed" thats just silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tallonian4th wrote:
I've recently transitioned from playing Power Level to Points and I must admit I don't see what the fuss is with Points. It seems to make list building needlessly pernickety, needing multiple books and making it a real time sink. Also points seem to regularly change so having spent a long time creating a list it can then be upturned, meaning yet more time to rebuild the list.

I've not noticed more or less imbalance with either system so I can't see what the benefit of Points is over Power Level.

Its because generally the people who play PL are not making wombo combos. Its a LOT harder to exploit points vs PL. A PL game can be horribly exploited, the example i used again was rubrics, being able to give them all warpflamers and infernal bolters so you basically got like 100-200 points of free gear.
You could also do this with things like devestators, stern guards, vanguard, captains and what not. Its very easy to exploit PL, its not as easy to exploit points.

PL is just as embarrassing a thing as Scatterbikes and Battle Demi Company were. It doesn't MATTER if you say you won't exploit a system or not. A system that can be exploited, period, needs reworking.

To put into perspective, the amount of free crap you get with PL is just as bad as the free transports you got with Battle Demi Company or the free upgrades in the AdMech formation. It's frankly mind boggling those latter two get defense, but with this thread I'm not surprised.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:Also yeah, the really bad system for constructing armies with zero thought behind it is far more embarassing than painting/putting together models and rolling dice on a table. The GW executive that suggested PL should be embarrassed, the GW rules writers that actually created it should be embarrassed, and the defenders of PL should be embarrassed.

The only thing embarrassing here is getting so worked up over nothing. Breathe. Play with your points and toy soldiers.

CAAC coming up again! It's not "nothing". It's a gak system that doesn't deserve an ounce of defense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Name a part where I'm inconsistent instead of just being mad that I think PL should be deleted as it's embarassing to even think about.

Please illuminate me what:
- you finding PL an embarassing concept
- people referring to models as toy soldier upsetting you

Have to do with each other. While we're at it, clear up how:
- refer to models as toy soldiers
- bad balance is good

Are related. Likewise how do you make the jump from "PL is an embarassment" to "you must love bad balance based on how you describe your hobby".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It sounds like PL is another one of those "let the players balance the game!" decisions that GW has been making lately.

What do we pay them for again?

You mean the "let the players balance the game" decisions where they seek feedback and ideas from top end competitive players for points based play adjustments?

Ive already stated multiple times how PL is a garbage system for creating armies and an embarassing system to talk about mechanically. Not my fault it isn't clicking for you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:
CSB
I noticed you've ignored my entire post.
Is my group of 20 players, insignificant?
They have almost all said that if they had to play with points and all the Advanced Rules, they wouldn't play at all

To be clear, if Open Play was removed, that's 20 less people playing the game and buying minis.

I'd rather have less players than a worse game.

CadianSgtBob wrote:


Yep. That's an old document,

I think you're reading the date on the link. GW doesn't seem to change the links when they update the documents. If you go to the actual list of FAQ's you'll see that it was updated March 16, 2022. Old by Matched/ Points standards. But not as objectively old is the date in the link implies.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

and remember how much you praise PL for not being updated constantly? How you can use the same point values for years at a time?

What do you mean "How can I..."? That's a FEATURE for my. It's one of the many reasons WHY I prefer PL. I would hate rebuilding a list every 3 months. Especially since three months is is likely long enough for me to accumulate battle honours, which means the values contained in the update would not reflect the combat effectiveness of the unit anyway. Total waste of time given my play style. Probably not a waste of time for people with other play styles, which is why GW gave them the alternative of points.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

The other side of that is that the once-every-few-years points update for PL is unlikely to be relevant to you because your codex was released after the update and you'll need to use the values printed in the codex.

This true; the only dex released since the last update is Chaos, so yeah, if I play a chaos army, I'll take the PL from the dex. I'll check them against the PDF out of curiosity, but it's easy enough to just build out of the dex.

CadianSgtBob wrote:


The normal point system, on the other hand, is always relevant in 1-2 page table form. Either you use the 1-2 page table in your codex or you use the 1-2 page table in the update pdf.

Legit. Can't argue with this.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

https://www.goonhammer.com/the-goonhammer-2022-reader-survey-and-what-it-tells-us-about-the-community/

Nothing in that survey addresses PL or disability.

Well not directly, but it does tell you the percentage of players who play Crusade, and while some of them will love points so much that they choose to use points and not PL, it's safe to assume that most of them use PL. Certainly more than half of them, and bro, even half is way more than three.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Removing PL would be a non-exclusionary suggestion if it wasn't possible for you to play points without making any changes. But it IS possible to play with points without making changes, which means the only reason for removing PL IS exclusionary.

I have already addressed the reasons for removing PL, so please stop lying and pretending that the only reason is deliberate and targeted exclusion of specific groups.

What my post is saying is that since you can choose to play points with the rules as they are, your reasons for suggesting the removal of PL are irrelevant. If you, and your meta are perfectly able to play points as is, you get nothing out of the removal of PL. The only thing removing them does is prevent OTHER PEOPLE from using them.

And that is what EXCLUSIONARY means.

Which is why it is gate keeping.

CadianSgtBob wrote:


This is a case of missing the difference between open play and Open™ Play™, and perhaps I should have made that more clear.

Spoiler:

Open play, as in the choose your own rules style of game, is defined by an attitude of "screw officialness". For example, the people in 5th edition playing games where they ignored the FOC because they wanted to have a battle between two all-tank armies and following the FOC would get in the way of that concept. Whether or not it is Official™ is irrelevant to them.

Open™ Play™, the Official™ Way™ To™ Play™ defined by GW, is this weird incoherent hybrid of "do whatever you want" and "officialness is very important and you can only make these specific changes". This is why it is a redundant concept that should be removed from the rules. The people who find it appealing don't need the Official™ 40k™ Game™ approval, and the people who want an official and standardized game format don't find it appealing.

Ahh. Right, that makes sense now- thanks for clarifying. You are correct- based on your assertions here, there is no contradiction.

It is worth pointing out, however that while Open Play TM is a thing that actually exists, open play is a thing that doesn't.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

If casual players, by definition (according to you) don't care about the games they play, why would balanced lists be important an important thing for them to aspire to (also according to you)?

Because getting wiped off the table 100-0 isn't fun. The casual player doesn't invest much in the game but that doesn't mean they're going to have fun when when they lose every game, many of them before they even get to take a turn. A balanced game allows them to show up with a low-effort list and not get penalized as harshly for not making the correct choices, increasing the chances that the game is enjoyable even if they lose.

Sure, but the issue is that if this IS their actual experience, they can always solve the problem by choosing to use points. You don't need to "protect" anyone else from evil PL any more than you need to protect yourself from Evil PL because Points still exist, and ANYONE having a rough time with PL is just as free to use Points as they always have been, and hopefully always will be.

Problem solved, by which I mean "Problem never existed in the first place."

Some people DO speculate that recent changes to points indicate a shift to a PL mindset, and you have my word brother that if that ever does occur, I will be right there with you complaining about it, because in my eyes, that absolutely would be a problem. It just hasn't actually happened yet, and even the immediate removal of PL would have no effect on whether or not it eventually does happen.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
... what? So your argument for getting rid of PL is "PL is too hard for certain people", and you also don't see that as a reason to get rid of points? Or are you saying that there should be an option for people who don't want to use points OR PL? Sure - there should be. That's not something I disagree with.

My argument is that you're an ableist gatekeeper because you're doing the exact same thing you accuse me of doing. You defend PL even though it excludes (some) disabled people from playing the game and you don't seem to care one bit about that. PL meets your needs so you're willing to write off those people as acceptable losses.

Or you can concede the obvious: that it isn't gatekeeping just because the effect is that some people are unable or unwilling to play the game.

Nah. Look man, PL is simpler math- it's lower numbers AND far fewer upgrade costs. And sure, there are some people that can't do the math necessary to build a list with PL... But all of those people would have an even harder time doing it with points, which means your position (points only) is worse than Smudge's (points and PL both continue to exist).

The cool thing is that since Open TM continues to exist in Smudge's world, and it's missions are either Relative vs. Absolute Size (BRB open missions) or size agnostic (Open War Deck) their world DOES include options for people who struggle with PL level math. Since Open TM is ANOTHER of the things you insist on removing, in your world, there is no option for people who struggle with PL level math.

You can argue that the removal of Open TM would automatically beget the existence of open play, which you can then theorize would be even more friendly to poor math skills than Open Play TM... and it might. But there is no guarantee, that either of those things would happen.

 JNAProductions wrote:
What part of "I enjoy PL" automatically means "I would refuse to accommodate someone who wasn't able to use it"?

That seems to be where Blndmage is at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:
Because getting wiped off the table 100-0 isn't fun. The casual player doesn't invest much in the game but that doesn't mean they're going to have fun when when they lose every game, many of them before they even get to take a turn. A balanced game allows them to show up with a low-effort list and not get penalized as harshly for not making the correct choices, increasing the chances that the game is enjoyable even if they lose.

That's much more likely to happen with PL than with points.

 JNAProductions wrote:
And AoS sucked when it first came out. Badly.
There's a reason they added points back in.

Correct. And there is a reason why PL is a failed system that should be removed. You don't get to accuse me of ableist gatekeeping for prioritizing game design over accessibility and then turn around and make the exact same priority choice yourself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:
CSB
I noticed you've ignored my entire post.
Is my group of 20 players, insignificant?
They have almost all said that if they had to play with points and all the Advanced Rules, they wouldn't play at all

To be clear, if Open Play was removed, that's 20 less people playing the game and buying minis.

Are these 20 people genuinely so set on this specific point system that taking 16 minutes to make a list instead of 15 minutes would be an impossible barrier and end their interest in the game? Or do they only say this because you've presented the normal point system as this massive and unnecessary burden. I am extremely skeptical that all of them are perfectly fine with the standard form of points-based list construction, but only if upgrade costs are not counted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:
What do you mean "How can I..."?

I mean that there are two possible scenarios here: either the point values for PL are updated frequently or the point values for PL are updated once every few years. If they are updated frequently then yes, most point values can be found in a nice 1-2 page table but your claim about the virtues of a system that rarely changes is no longer true. If they are updated once every few years then yes, you have consistency over time but it means that a lot of armies will no longer be able to use that 1-2 page table because they have had a codex update since the last points document was published and you have to use the point values in the codex (where they are spread out in the datasheet second, not compiled into a table). The fact that the point document has been updated relatively recently at this specific moment in time doesn't change the general situation. At some point a year or two from now you will either have a compiled point document of very limited relevance or you will have had several point updates that invalidated your existing armies.

Well not directly, but it does tell you the percentage of players who play Crusade, and while some of them will love points so much that they choose to use points and not PL, it's safe to assume that most of them use PL. Certainly more than half of them, and bro, even half is way more than three.

That's a dishonest argument and you know it. The comment about three people was people who need to use PL because the normal point system is an impossible obstacle. Nowhere in the Goonhammer survey does it say anything about people needing to use PL, or even about people preferring to use PL. Even if you set aside the people who play Crusade with the normal point system it is likely that many, if not most, of the Crusade players in the survey group would be just fine with playing Crusade with normal points if GW got rid of PL.

What my post is saying is that since you can choose to play points with the rules as they are, your reasons for suggesting the removal of PL are irrelevant. If you, and your meta are perfectly able to play points as is, you get nothing out of the removal of PL. The only thing removing them does is prevent OTHER PEOPLE from using them.

And the game design improvement of removing rules bloat and redundant systems. And eliminating the need to house rule Crusade to use the better system. And removing the temptation for the CAAC faction at GW to try again to make PL the only system. You may not agree with these things being desirable but please do not dishonestly claim that they do not exist.

It is worth pointing out, however that while Open Play TM is a thing that actually exists, open play is a thing that doesn't.

Open play with no ™s absolutely exists. It existed before GW's marketing team created Open™ Play™, it exists now, and it will exist if/when GW removes Open™ Play™ from the rulebook. The fact that it doesn't have a brand label attached doesn't make it any less of a thing.

Sure, but the issue is that if this IS their actual experience, they can always solve the problem by choosing to use points.

But why have that bad experience in the first place? Why have them start with a system that is more prone to bad experiences and make them decide to try the different system instead? Why not have the only system be the one that doesn't have the inherent balance flaws that make the bad experience more likely?

Nah. Look man, PL is simpler math- it's lower numbers AND far fewer upgrade costs. And sure, there are some people that can't do the math necessary to build a list with PL... But all of those people would have an even harder time doing it with points, which means your position (points only) is worse than Smudge's (points and PL both continue to exist).

Call it worse if you want but either both of them are ableist gatekeeping or neither of them are ableist gatekeeping.

At this point you guys are oging round and round arguing just to argue.

The reality is, nothing is hurt by having PL in the game, and nothing is really suffering for it being there since GW is doing, and even saying this is being very generous, the bare minimum effort to even include PL values for units, so minimum its not even detracting from the rest of the game as its very clear GW has not even given PL a second glance over as we have seen multiple point rewords but i dont think there has ever been a PL rework.

Seriously at this point just disengage this is the classic XKCD comic of "No, you dont understand, some one was WRONG on the INTERNET!"

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Seriously at this point just disengage this is the classic XKCD comic of "No, you dont understand, some one was WRONG on the INTERNET!"

Then why don't you match actions to words, delete your post, and disengage instead of deciding that you need to get the last word.

So far one good point stands out in this massive prick waving contest:


Preconstructed lists.


Magic: The Gathering has had precons forever, and I'm pretty sure there are some ready made battleforce type substances in other mini games. Why not have a precon force for each faction? A roughly 1,000 point/whatever the feth PL is equivalent batch of models so that people who apparently can't or actively won't listbuild can lay models out and crack on. THAT is an actual good idea.


Also, it'd be funny to see the price of a precon just to put things into perspective...

I think those precons are called "Combat Patrol".

I like the idea of preconstructed lists, I actually think competitive gaming should only work that way. So that players really win on luck and decisions rather than having a better list.

Preconstructed lists (appropriately designed and tested to be reasonably on par of course) are what I'd expect from tournament and competitive gaming, where people are obsessed with 50/50 balance. And it's extremely easier to design balanced preconstructed lists than designing balanced codexes.

 Blackie wrote:
I like the idea of preconstructed lists, I actually think competitive gaming should only work that way. So that players really win on luck and decisions rather than having a better list.

Preconstructed lists (appropriately designed and tested to be reasonably on par of course) are what I'd expect from tournament and competitive gaming, where people are obsessed with 50/50 balance. And it's extremely easier to design balanced preconstructed lists than designing balanced codexes.

Oh god, can you imagine the tears when the precons aren't optimised and have less than stellar units in (whilst all being of a similar level).