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.

 Peregrine wrote:
Just make gun noises and push your toys around the table.

This describes me. I just need dice to figure out if the gun noises hit. I also play the Dawn of War voice packs sometimes. And video game music too. Games get intense man.

Careful, you my be "virtue signalling".

 Peregrine wrote:
It's hardly a straw man when it's the only justification for PL, other than virtue signalling. Over and over again PL advocates talk about how much easier it is to do the basic math of adding up point costs.

Well, it is easier. Doesn't mean we're stupid though. My job as a pilot requires me to do mental math all the time, so when I'm relaxing I like to relax.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Careful, you my be "virtue signalling".

Oh, I know. This isn't the first PL thread to show up. Unfortunately, it would seem that there is a massive disconnect between people who play for funsies and people who play for the competition. Peregrine has a certain perspective and simply can't or refuses to fathom any other as being even remotely valid, and comes off as aggressive and condescending. Besides, he doesn't even like 8th edition, so I don't know why his opinion even matters to those of us that do.

I play for funsies and I vastly prefer points for most of the reasons posted.

I don't play PL when I can avoid it for the reasons posted here.

Oddly enough, we've run into a situation where Peregrine (ugh) is actually right.

 Mmmpi wrote:
I play for funsies and I vastly prefer points for most of the reasons posted.

I don't play PL when I can avoid it for the reasons posted here.

Oddly enough, we've run into a situation where Peregrine (ugh) is actually right.

Which is fine because you're doing what you like. Buy why can't PL players just get along without being called either stupid or virtue signalers? I personally don't care enough about points to bother counting them all up. I've done it before and it was fine, but I just prefer the ease of use PL provides regardless of any imbalances. And honestly, my games with PL have been more balanced than most basketball games I've played and I enjoyed those.

Dandelion wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
I play for funsies and I vastly prefer points for most of the reasons posted.

I don't play PL when I can avoid it for the reasons posted here.

Oddly enough, we've run into a situation where Peregrine (ugh) is actually right.

Which is fine because you're doing what you like. Buy why can't PL players just get along without being called either stupid or virtue signalers? I personally don't care enough about points to bother counting them all up. I've done it before and it was fine, but I just prefer the ease of use PL provides regardless of any imbalances. And honestly, my games with PL have been more balanced than most basketball games I've played and I enjoyed those.

Honest question: How much harder is it to add up points than PL?

If the issue is that points are in the back of the book while PL is right there, that's GW making points LESS convenient to make PL seem better-they used to have points right there on the page with unit rules.

I've read six pages of virtue signaling in this thread alone.

I don't care what you play. Just like you don't want to be called stupid because you don't want to use math, doesn't mean you get to lord your casualness over the rest of us either.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Honest question: How much harder is it to add up points than PL?

If the issue is that points are in the back of the book while PL is right there, that's GW making points LESS convenient to make PL seem better-they used to have points right there on the page with unit rules.

When PL takes 3 seconds to do and points can take several minutes, including swapping out certain loadouts to stay under points, I'd say it's considerably easier. And no I don't use battescribe, so don't even bring it up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mmmpi wrote:
I've read six pages of virtue signaling in this thread alone.

I don't care what you play. Just like you don't want to be called stupid because you don't want to use math, doesn't mean you get to lord your casualness over the rest of us either.

Each time a PL thread pops up someone says: "PL sux no one uses it", to which someone else replies: "no, I use it and I like it" and by the end of it the second player is accused of being a stupid casual lording his casualness over the normies because he never got past a second grade level of math. So stop insulting us and we'll stop talking about it, it's really that simple.

I don't use Battlescribe either.

And considering a game takes several hours... I don't see five minutes as an awful amount of time to spend making a list. Not to mention, as time goes on, you'll memorize points values. I can rattle off all my Nurgle Daemons without looking at the book, easy.

Dandelion wrote:
Well, it is easier. Doesn't mean we're stupid though. My job as a pilot requires me to do mental math all the time, so when I'm relaxing I like to relax.

So why do you use a point system (yes, PL is a point system, just a less accurate one) and play a game that requires doing mental math if you want to make reasonable decisions about strategy?

Oh, I know. This isn't the first PL thread to show up. Unfortunately, it would seem that there is a massive disconnect between people who play for funsies and people who play for the competition. Peregrine has a certain perspective and simply can't or refuses to fathom any other as being even remotely valid, and comes off as aggressive and condescending. Besides, he doesn't even like 8th edition, so I don't know why his opinion even matters to those of us that do.

No, there is a disconnect between people who sabotage their own experience to prove how "casual" they are and people who use the superior point system. It doesn't matter if you're "casual" or competitive or whatever, the conventional point system is better in all situations. You are never going to improve your game experience, casual or competitive, by having a less-accurate evaluation of a unit's strength when determining the forces each player will have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
And considering a game takes several hours... I don't see five minutes as an awful amount of time to spend making a list. Not to mention, as time goes on, you'll memorize points values. I can rattle off all my Nurgle Daemons without looking at the book, easy.

Exactly. You're talking about a few minutes of extra time, at most, in a 2-3 hour game. And it would be even less time if GW wasn't so stubborn about pushing their shiny new toy on everyone and hadn't deliberately used a poor organization system for conventional points to make PL look more appealing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Your problem is you don't respect anyone that disagrees with you.

No, I don't respect people that disagree with me for terrible reasons. People who disagree with me and have legitimate reasons to back up their disagreement don't lose any respect. If you're feeling disrespected over your disagreement it's 100% your fault.

Dandelion wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
I've read six pages of virtue signaling in this thread alone.

I don't care what you play. Just like you don't want to be called stupid because you don't want to use math, doesn't mean you get to lord your casualness over the rest of us either.

Each time a PL thread pops up someone says: "PL sux no one uses it", to which someone else replies: "no, I use it and I like it" and by the end of it the second player is accused of being a stupid casual lording his casualness over the normies because he never got past a second grade level of math. So stop insulting us and we'll stop talking about it, it's really that simple.

Or, every time one of these threads pops up someone says "I think points are better for x/y/z reasons", and they get back, "Well, I only play casually". As if the person he's talking to is a WAAC donkey ditch. So, yeah. Drop the insults and the passive aggressiveness.

 Peregrine wrote:

So why do you use a point system (yes, PL is a point system, just a less accurate one) and play a game that requires doing mental math if you want to make reasonable decisions about strategy?

Because less mental math is better mental math. I also find it amusing that you think unbalanced games don't involve reasonable decisions about strategy but whatever.

No, there is a disconnect between people who sabotage their own experience to prove how "casual" they are and people who use the superior point system. It doesn't matter if you're "casual" or competitive or whatever, the conventional point system is better in all situations. You are never going to improve your game experience, casual or competitive, by having a less-accurate evaluation of a unit's strength when determining the forces each player will have.

Prove that I am sabotaging my experience to show how casual I am. Prove it.
Now, considering the only people I play PL against are my family, tell me, what do I have to gain from showcasing my casualness to them? They know who I am. They don't give a rat's ass about how "casual" I am in a game about tiny toy soldiers. And most of them don't even know competitive 40k is even a thing.
Also, one of my brother's is only passingly interested in 40k and I've only played Open Play *gasp* against him.

As for your last point, granular points will not somehow make my gaming experience better because at the end of the day they are all arbitrary and pretty inconsistent across books anyway.
PL just gives a rough idea of the size of game we want to play: 25PL is small and quick, 100 PL is big and will take a while. Whether I'm at 95 PL and my opponent is at 105 PL it doesn't really matter. My most recent game involved only playing my fully painted models against my brother's fully painted models. It ended up being my 38PL vs his 43PL... and I won. Would calculating points have changed that?

Also, don't forget, I can guarantee you that my games are not at all like any games you've played, between house rules and board set-up you'd barely recognize it as the 40k you're likely used to. So it's really not reasonable for you to make broad assumptions about how I like to push toys around.

I'm not asking you to understand, I'm asking you to let live.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mmmpi wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
I've read six pages of virtue signaling in this thread alone.

I don't care what you play. Just like you don't want to be called stupid because you don't want to use math, doesn't mean you get to lord your casualness over the rest of us either.

Each time a PL thread pops up someone says: "PL sux no one uses it", to which someone else replies: "no, I use it and I like it" and by the end of it the second player is accused of being a stupid casual lording his casualness over the normies because he never got past a second grade level of math. So stop insulting us and we'll stop talking about it, it's really that simple.

Or, every time one of these threads pops up someone says "I think points are better for x/y/z reasons", and they get back, "Well, I only play casually". As if the person he's talking to is a WAAC donkey ditch. So, yeah. Drop the insults and the passive aggressiveness.

I didn't intend to insult, but when your counter (i.e that I'm virtue signaling) has no bearing on the opposition's stance then I feel justified in showing how ridiculous that supposition is.
plus, if my statement seemed passive aggressive, how do you think your statement looks to me? Hint: it's very passive aggressive. So you really only have yourself to blame for my response.

Dandelion wrote:
Because less mental math is better mental math.

That's not answering my question. If you want to minimize mental math then why do you use a point system that involves doing mental math to add up the point costs of your units? Why do you play a game that is very heavy on mental math instead of something less math-focused?

I also find it amusing that you think unbalanced games don't involve reasonable decisions about strategy but whatever.

That's not what I said at all. The point about strategy decisions is about mental math, not balance. Making reasonable decisions about strategy in 40k requires doing mental math on things like evaluating a unit's average damage and how likely it is to succeed at killing potential targets. And it requires doing that all game, with calculations that are more complicated than adding up point costs. But here you are, focusing on reducing a minute or two of mental math in list construction instead of the 2-3 hours you have to do during the rest of the game.

Prove that I am sabotaging my experience to show how casual I am. Prove it.

You are using a point system that is worse for casual play, where the sole advantage over the conventional point system is that it allows you to make a public statement (such as your forum posts here) about how "casual" you are by rejecting balance. If you weren't doing this just to prove how "casual" you are then you'd use the conventional point system and improve your games.

My most recent game involved only playing my fully painted models against my brother's fully painted models. It ended up being my 38PL vs his 43PL... and I won. Would calculating points have changed that?

If you aren't going to care about a 13% difference in point costs then why are you bothering with a point system at all? You don't need it to figure out how big the game is, just throw down roughly equal piles of models on each side and start playing. Want a short game? Put down 2-3 squads. Want a longer game? Make it 5-6 squads and a couple of tanks. I mean, you're defining your game by "all of our painted models" here so why add up point costs at all?

Also, don't forget, I can guarantee you that my games are not at all like any games you've played, between house rules and board set-up you'd barely recognize it as the 40k you're likely used to.

If you aren't playing 40k then why are you talking about your games on a 40k forum?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dandelion wrote:
I'm not asking you to understand, I'm asking you to let live.

You're free to leave this discussion at any time. Let's not pretend that I'm hunting you down and forcing you to listen to my hated of PL, you voluntarily joined a discussion about the subject and that includes having your statements criticized.

Dandelion wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mmmpi wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
I've read six pages of virtue signaling in this thread alone.

I don't care what you play. Just like you don't want to be called stupid because you don't want to use math, doesn't mean you get to lord your casualness over the rest of us either.

Each time a PL thread pops up someone says: "PL sux no one uses it", to which someone else replies: "no, I use it and I like it" and by the end of it the second player is accused of being a stupid casual lording his casualness over the normies because he never got past a second grade level of math. So stop insulting us and we'll stop talking about it, it's really that simple.

Or, every time one of these threads pops up someone says "I think points are better for x/y/z reasons", and they get back, "Well, I only play casually". As if the person he's talking to is a WAAC donkey ditch. So, yeah. Drop the insults and the passive aggressiveness.

I didn't intend to insult, but when your counter (i.e that I'm virtue signaling) has no bearing on the opposition's stance then I feel justified in showing how ridiculous that supposition is.
plus, if my statement seemed passive aggressive, how do you think your statement looks to me? Hint: it's very passive aggressive. So you really only have yourself to blame for my response.

Ah, projection. As for myself, I've been very open on how I feel about it. I openly said my point/accusation. So you really only have yourself to blame for my response.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Also, don't forget, I can guarantee you that my games are not at all like any games you've played, between house rules and board set-up you'd barely recognize it as the 40k you're likely used to.

If you aren't playing 40k then why are you talking about your games on a 40k forum?

This is rather a good point. If we 'can't understand' your home brew system, then why argue it's merits by those of us who play the normal rule set?

 Peregrine wrote:

If you aren't going to care about a 13% difference in point costs then why are you bothering with a point system at all? You don't need it to figure out how big the game is, just throw down roughly equal piles of models on each side and start playing. Want a short game? Put down 2-3 squads. Want a longer game? Make it 5-6 squads and a couple of tanks. I mean, you're defining your game by "all of our painted models" here so why add up point costs at all?

In that particular example we already knew we had roughly similar sized armies because we had experience with them, I just added them up later out of curiosity, so no we didn't add up points before. But that's the thing they're roughly similar. PL gives us roughly similar forces to use, especially when trying to devise a narrative. It just is easier to get right than straight up eyeballing it and is easier then. That's really about it. It's not better than points, it's just different and it has pros and cons.

Really though, I was just trying to show that points aren't a necessary metric for fun. They're nice and useful don't get me wrong, but fun games can be played without them.

If you aren't playing 40k then why are you talking about your games on a 40k forum?

ITC isn't 40k either but people talk about that too.

You are using a point system that is worse for casual play, where the sole advantage over the conventional point system is that it allows you to make a public statement (such as your forum posts here) about how "casual" you are by rejecting balance. If you weren't doing this just to prove how "casual" you are then you'd use the conventional point system and improve your games.

That's not proof. That's just an argument. The point is that you can't really prove your premise. I mean, were I to go to a random store or club I'd just use what they're using: either points or PL. The only time the whole debate about the worth of PL comes up is with people like you. To date, I've only defended PL to 6 or 7 people, and all of that has been online. I'm not making threads dedicated to praising casual games. I've even weighed in on points discussions based on the point based games I've played. This really isn't an all or nothing division here.

And I don't really know what I'd get out of you knowing I play PL sometimes. I mean, as far as I know you're just a bird and as far as you know I'm just a flower. It's an anonymous site. Were I to quit dakka in the next 5 minutes, your opinion of me would have 0 effect on my life.

You're free to leave this discussion at any time. Let's not pretend that I'm hunting you down and forcing you to listen to my hated of PL, you voluntarily joined a discussion about the subject and that includes having your statements criticized.

You missed the point. It was a more general commentary on accepting differing preferences even if you yourself don't subscribe to them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mmmpi wrote:

Ah, projection. As for myself, I've been very open on how I feel about it. I openly said my point/accusation. So you really only have yourself to blame for my response.

Then don't be upset when I call out your accusation. And your second sentence makes no sense since you started it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mmmpi wrote:

If you aren't playing 40k then why are you talking about your games on a 40k forum?

This is rather a good point. If we 'can't understand' your home brew system, then why argue it's merits by those of us who play the normal rule set?

Perhaps I didn't convey the idea clearly. No two groups of gamers will play the same version of 40K. Between differing metas, interpretations of rules, house rules (even official ones like ITC), terrain usage, armies in use etc... and that's before considering personal playstyles. The only person that I know of actually playing 40k by the rules is BaconCatBug. Even GW isn't playing the 40k they wrote. A such, it is pretty arrogant to presume to know how and why people play the game.

While I love that there is a second ruleset aimed at casual play I actually somewhat agree with SlayerFans criticism on PL. This is a thread for discussing it, and "if you don't like it don't play it" isn't an answer, he's literally just giving the reasons why he thinks it's a bad system and chooses not to play it. Some people don't do discussion well.

On the other hand, Peregrine as usual comes in being overly hostile, while burning down a bunch of strawmen he hastily constructed himself, and, as is par for his course, just made this place more abysmal to discuss anything at all. Wish we could just have a measured conversation as we were doing before, even if some people weren't being that receptive to it it's a hell of a step up from whatever this just became over the last page.

CrownAxe wrote:So because you have fun with power levels means we can’t have a discussion on a forum about which point system is better?

Better is subjective. Which is EXACTLY my point.

We can absolutely discuss why we might think it is better for ourselves, but a lot of people seem to be incapable of understanding that other people's ideas of "better" isn't the same as their own.

Because I have fun with PL means it is better for me. If you want to discuss why you prefer yours without insulting my enjoyment, I'm all ears.

Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Because paying for that power sword means I can't buy X unit, because now I went over the points limit.

You're rather selfishly looking at this from the point of view of what makes your personal army best and choosing the point system that allows you to optimize it.

And you do the same with yours - you choose points because it "optimises" your list because you didn't take every upgrade. You don't want to be charged for equipment you didn't take, which is fair enough for you. Still optimising in that sense.

Have you considered the opposite situation? For example, the fact that a squad with flamers is cheaper than one with plasma guns in the conventional point system might allow you to include X unit, while the PL point system has both upgrades cost the same and denies the opportunity to make the first unit cheaper and free up enough points to take X.

Have you considered that I really don't care that much what the unit is armed with so much that I get to field the unit in the first place? It might just be a case of perception, but having the unit prices be flat costs doesn't make me think "oh, I really wish I could shave a few points off this unit so I could fit another one in". It's probably a perception thing, but that's what I see.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Not really. I don't go in with the mindset of "ooh, I need to maximise the irrelevant point value of this unit and make EVERYTHING as powerful as it can be!!". I go in with the mindset of "I'd like this unit, and this unit, and this unit. He looks like a cool model, I'll grab you. Yeah, lemme roll to hit with his... plasma gun? Yup, looks like a plasma gun to me, let's go!"

Call it stupid, call it what you want, but that's my PERSONAL idea of enjoyment.

I will call it stupid because it is stupid, and I seriously doubt you (or anyone else) actually play that way. Are you honestly telling me you care so little about the rules that you don't even know what weapons your models are armed with until you look down at the table (after rolling dice to hit) and see what they're holding? That you don't make any strategic plans and just say "let me roll some dice, who knows what they might be"? If that's genuinely your attitude towards the game why even play a game at all? Just make gun noises and push your toys around the table.

And this is why people don't play you.

Sorry, is my idea of fun wrong? You're genuinely telling me that I shouldn't play 40k because I don't do it the way you do?
(And yeah, I'm honestly saying all of that. No, don't worry, I wouldn't play you either.)

Sorry, but I'd rather play a game which is more relaxed, and PERSONALLY more fun to me, than have someone demanding I pay for what is essentially a cosmetic upgrade (seeing as it won't be used).

Oh really? Never going to be used? You mean, if your model with a plasma pistol is within 12" of a target you're going to decline to shoot because it's "just cosmetic"? Of course not. You're going to shoot that plasma pistol. What you're asking for here is to get the power of the upgrades you're taking without having to pay for them.

Actually, if my opponent was in that 12" range, I'd probably be charging them. Not to mention the Sergeant would probably be dead by this point.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:If you think points are that hard to calculate that you need power levels...yeah you wouldn't be terribly smart.

Yes, because insulting the intelligence of the other side of the discussion is such a polite and respectful thing to do.

And just from a numbers perspective, it is patently easier. I'm not saying points are hard, but I am saying that 1+1 is easier than 1+1+1+1+1+1. There are literally less numbers involved, and less variables.
Again, points aren't hard. I've used them for decades beforehand. But maybe I would rather pay a flat cost than calculate every minute detail.

Peregrine wrote:It's hardly a straw man when it's the only justification for PL, other than virtue signalling. Over and over again PL advocates talk about how much easier it is to do the basic math of adding up point costs.

It IS physically easier. 1+1 is easier than 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1.

I don't play PL to virtue signal. I play it because I enjoy it more, for myself. If I wanted to virtue signal, I'd be saying that anyone who played points was a WAAC powergamer, and that casual was the only way to play.
It's not. It's the way I prefer to play, but each to their own.

Mmmpi wrote:I've read six pages of virtue signaling in this thread alone.

I've read six pages of people calling other people's ideas of fun wrong, and even some claiming that they shouldn't be playing the game because of it.

I don't care what you play. Just like you don't want to be called stupid because you don't want to use math, doesn't mean you get to lord your casualness over the rest of us either

That's fair. Just like you don't want to be called WAAC tryhard TFGs because you optimise relentlessly, doesn't mean you get to insult other people's ideas of fun. *


*that was made in jest, before anyone comes in claiming I called all points players WAAC tryhard TFGs.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:
While I love that there is a second ruleset aimed at casual play I actually somewhat agree with SlayerFans criticism on PL. This is a thread for discussing it, and "if you don't like it don't play it" isn't an answer, he's literally just giving the reasons why he thinks it's a bad system and chooses to play it. Some people don't do discussion well.

Which is fair enough - except Slayerfan also insults people's intelligence, and doesn't respect that other people have fun differently.

Sharing your own opinion on why you dislike it? Absolutely fine.
Saying someone is playing the "wrong" way, and their idea of fun makes them less smart? Not so dandy.

On the other hand, Peregrine as usual comes in being overly hostile, while burning down a bunch of strawmen he hastily constructed himself, and, as is par for his course, just made this place more abysmal to discuss anything at all. Wish we could just have a measured conversation as we were doing before, even if some people weren't being that receptive to it it's a hell of a step up from whatever this just became over the last page.

Agreed.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And you do the same with yours - you choose points because it "optimises" your list because you didn't take every upgrade. You don't want to be charged for equipment you didn't take, which is fair enough for you. Still optimising in that sense.

So let me get this straight: "a unit's point cost should reflect its actual strength, including purchased upgrades, as closely as possible" is optimizing just like "I don't want this particular upgrade I like to cost me points, so I want to use the point system where I get it for free"? Are you serious?

Have you considered that I really don't care that much what the unit is armed with so much that I get to field the unit in the first place? It might just be a case of perception, but having the unit prices be flat costs doesn't make me think "oh, I really wish I could shave a few points off this unit so I could fit another one in". It's probably a perception thing, but that's what I see.

IOW, you want to get all of your upgrades for free so you don't have to consider whether or not they are worth points compared to having additional units. I get that you want free stuff for yourself, but that doesn't make it good game design.

And this is why people don't play you.

Plenty of people play me. But if people whose idea of playing a game is to mindlessly roll dice at each other without even being aware of what their units are equipped with want to refuse to play me then no, I don't think I'm missing anything.

You're genuinely telling me that I shouldn't play 40k because I don't do it the way you do?

I'm questioning why you bother to play 40k at all when you reject the entire concept of a game. If you aren't even bothering to look at what weapons a unit has until after you've already rolled to hit then you aren't playing a game anymore, you're rolling dice mindlessly and counting who gets more 4+ results. Maybe this is the sort of "beer and pretzels" game where you have to get black-out drunk to find it appealing?

Actually, if my opponent was in that 12" range, I'd probably be charging them. Not to mention the Sergeant would probably be dead by this point.

You do realize that you can shoot AND charge, right? And you didn't answer my question. If you had a plasma pistol shot would you decline to fire because the pistol is "just aesthetic" or would you insist that the plasma pistol on your model exists rules-wise and take the shot?

I'm not saying points are hard, but I am saying that 1+1 is easier than 1+1+1+1+1+1. There are literally less numbers involved, and less variables.

Both are so trivially easy that I find it unbelievable that anyone, other than small children, could complain that either is meaningfully harder than the other. Or that, in the age of universal smartphones, anyone could care whether they're putting 1+1+1+1 or 112+33+55+80 into their calculator to add up the point costs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dandelion wrote:
They're nice and useful don't get me wrong, but fun games can be played without them.

However, it is much more likely that a game that is better balanced via using the superior point system will be more fun. The fact that you can, by blind luck, have a balanced game using a less-accurate point system does not make the alternative better.

ITC isn't 40k either but people talk about that too.

ITC doesn't claim that it's so far from 40k that I wouldn't recognize it. If your game is genuinely that different then your discussion of it doesn't belong on a 40k forum because it isn't 40k. It's like me trying to argue that the conventional point system is better than PL because in X-Wing you need to add up the cost of upgrades to determine half-points values for damaged ships.

And I don't really know what I'd get out of you knowing I play PL sometimes. I mean, as far as I know you're just a bird and as far as you know I'm just a flower. It's an anonymous site. Were I to quit dakka in the next 5 minutes, your opinion of me would have 0 effect on my life.

If it's all so meaningless then why are you posting here? You clearly care enough about the subject to participate in the discussion and want people to know that you like PL, otherwise you wouldn't be here. So please drop this absurd argument.

You missed the point. It was a more general commentary on accepting differing preferences even if you yourself don't subscribe to them.

Why should I accept your ridiculous preferences in the context of a discussion of those preferences? If you want to have your preferences without criticism then leave this thread, go play silently, and don't present them for discussion. If you want to say "I like X" in a discussion forum then you should be prepared for someone else to say "no, X sucks".

Perhaps I didn't convey the idea clearly. No two groups of gamers will play the same version of 40K. Between differing metas, interpretations of rules, house rules (even official ones like ITC), terrain usage, armies in use etc... and that's before considering personal playstyles. The only person that I know of actually playing 40k by the rules is BaconCatBug. Even GW isn't playing the 40k they wrote. A such, it is pretty arrogant to presume to know how and why people play the game.

Huh. I played 40K in Western MA in multiple stores, even dipping down into Northern Connecticut. I've played in California. Now I'm playing in Japan. I'm literally playing the same game in all three areas. So, yeah. Don't give me that dung.

Then don't be upset when I call out your accusation.

And I don't really know what I'd get out of you knowing I play PL sometimes. I mean, as far as I know you're just a bird and as far as you know I'm just a flower. It's an anonymous site. Were I to quit dakka in the next 5 minutes, your opinion of me would have 0 effect on my life.

There's that passive aggressive again. Seriously. If you don't care, why are you still replying?

text removed.

Reds8n

If people don't want to be asked why they are posting here or told to leave then they shouldn't make elaborate declarations of how they don't care about the subject (but stubbornly insist on posting about it anyway) or try to pretend that criticizing their posts in a discussion forum is equivalent to coming to their house unprovoked and lecturing them about how they need to stop having fun the wrong way.

 JNAProductions wrote:


And considering a game takes several hours... I don't see five minutes as an awful amount of time to spend making a list. Not to mention, as time goes on, you'll memorize points values. I can rattle off all my Nurgle Daemons without looking at the book, easy.

Perhaps. But then again, perhaps someone prefers to use those extra minutes to watch a Youtube video about cute baby sloths making funny noises. And who am I to tell them that it is a bad trade-off... actually sounds pretty damn awesome trade-off when I think about it.

I almost exclusively use points, as I usually arrange my games well beforehand, but PL are perfectly fine for more ad hoc 'Let's play in half and hour, grab some models' type of situations.

I gota go with Peregrine PL has no real use in the end unless you don't play to win and basic addition is hard for you. The simple fact that it is so easy to game PL compared to points kinda ruins it for me at least.

same here, PL is a great thing for 2 folks who have never played and want to throw down with the easy build zero option models that came in Dark Imperium or forgebane.

but once you have a collection, and 'Choices' of models ..

Playing PL can end up like playing chess where the White player is missing a queen and 7 pawns.

40K is at its core a tactical strategy game and it feels bad to hand out a beating with a superior force, (Regardless of skill)

it feels worse to be on the other end of that repeatedly and then later find out that in points you were always going to lose, the balance swings too far.

Playing PL can end up like playing chess where the White player is missing a queen and 7 pawns.

How does playing with points not give you these exact same results?

The entire point of listbuilding is to break the points OR power level and to field a chess force of all queens if you can.

One thing I do like about PL on a conceptual level is that you aren't forced to choose between optimization from a gaming perspective, making your collection look as nice from a collecting perspective, and making the social aspect easier by having pure WYSIWYG force.

Couple of examples. I have Death Guard from the box set and the push-fit cases. I could convert these, but it wouldn't look quite as nice without spending a bunch more time on it. So I have two power fists and two plague swords which I may not want to take. What are my options? Either tell my opponent "They're not really there this game", which makes me feel worse for not playing WYSIWYG and which could potentially lead to confusion or feelbads for my opponent, or I can suck it up and pay the points - and that means I can't take the extra Nurgling squad I wanted, all because I've taken four melee upgrades for a unit which I never want to even approach combat.

More extreme example. Deathwatch. I have the Deathwatch squad from Overkill. It's lovingly painted, and I originally got it for display. Now I have started gaming with Deathwatch. In a points game, I'm forced to either shelve them, take counts-as way too far, or not only take them as a badly-optimised unit but pay points for the privilege. In PL, I would have to pay a touch more for the biker or the terminator, but it's nowhere near as bad.

PL games? I don't have to worry about these frustrations. They don't ruin the experience, no, but they do detract from it. But in PL games, I could take a unit that I built to look cool and play it as-is, no issues.

I play points. I do think that, for people interested in 40K as a competitive game, points are better. I also think that, for people interested in 40K as a cinematic experience or as a side bonus to owning a model collection, PL makes a lot of sense as a way to remove these little niggles.

auticus wrote:

Playing PL can end up like playing chess where the White player is missing a queen and 7 pawns.

How does playing with points not give you these exact same results?

The entire point of listbuilding is to break the points OR power level and to field a chess force of all queens if you can.

This.


PL games are actually more balanced than points-games, more often than not, mainly because people don't have as many pre-broken net/meta lists and adding toys to models for free is a great counter to the extremes of hordes and Knights that dominate tournaments (or did pre-FAQ).

Of course, if there'd be a proper PL-based tournament circuit, people would probably break it as quickly and easily as the points system and people willing to put the work in to break PL probably can.

But the idea that I couldn't possibly make two lists of equal point values that aren't ludicrously imbalanced is hilarious. Pick a Top Nova list or something (even post FAQ) and play it against equal points of all-White Scars Terminators or a Kroot army or something. There's nothing in PL that could produce imbalances worse than those in points.

Uses I have found for PLs:
--Great for throwing together a Force quickly from an army you don't normally play and aren't that serious about (but somehow have the models anyway)
--Great for lists in which you are putting together for BOTH players that will be playing several games against and tweaking wargear options to make them feel on-par with each other. I, for example, have a small collection for Marines, CSm and Necrons that I exclusively play against each other with my sons at home. PLs mean I can start with medium wargear options and if one list is consistently better, I can tone it down or buff up the other lists without changing the level of the game, just swap out for other choices.
--Great when you do not have the Codex or CA or BattleScribe, but can remember each unit's PL

What PLs are not great at is:
Putting together a serious list mean for competitive play

Since 99% of player tend to do the later and probably less than 1% do the former, Points are objectively the better choice. But that in no way makes PLs "useless"
If 1 person finds it useful, by definition, it's useful.

1 thing I actually don't like about PL is that you often cannot just add 1 additional model without paying the PL for several additional models. Sometimes, I just want to make a 3-man unit into a 4-man unit, NOT a 6 man, but the PL increase is the same for either

-

Aelyn wrote:
One thing I do like about PL on a conceptual level is that you aren't forced to choose between optimization from a gaming perspective, making your collection look as nice from a collecting perspective, and making the social aspect easier by having pure WYSIWYG force.

Couple of examples. I have Death Guard from the box set and the push-fit cases. I could convert these, but it wouldn't look quite as nice without spending a bunch more time on it. So I have two power fists and two plague swords which I may not want to take. What are my options? Either tell my opponent "They're not really there this game", which makes me feel worse for not playing WYSIWYG and which could potentially lead to confusion or feelbads for my opponent, or I can suck it up and pay the points - and that means I can't take the extra Nurgling squad I wanted, all because I've taken four melee upgrades for a unit which I never want to even approach combat.

More extreme example. Deathwatch. I have the Deathwatch squad from Overkill. It's lovingly painted, and I originally got it for display. Now I have started gaming with Deathwatch. In a points game, I'm forced to either shelve them, take counts-as way too far, or not only take them as a badly-optimised unit but pay points for the privilege. In PL, I would have to pay a touch more for the biker or the terminator, but it's nowhere near as bad.

PL games? I don't have to worry about these frustrations. They don't ruin the experience, no, but they do detract from it. But in PL games, I could take a unit that I built to look cool and play it as-is, no issues.

I play points. I do think that, for people interested in 40K as a competitive game, points are better. I also think that, for people interested in 40K as a cinematic experience or as a side bonus to owning a model collection, PL makes a lot of sense as a way to remove these little niggles.

I 100% see this as my reason for liking PL over points.
PL is very new, but it really does make the modelling and such, weapon choices, etc less stressful.
Like, does it make you want to have every possible thing modelled properly? Kinda, but I play Necrons, Nids, and Kroot, so my options are minimal or not a modelled thing Ian many cases. Then again, it gets you to buy models, and have bigger collections.

I've always themed my army collections around something. For my Necrons, it's an awakening tomb, hence having 5 full squads of Scarabs and tons of Spyders and Warriors.

In some ways, I feel like the flat cost per unit really helps when looking at your whole collecting and putting things together for a list. You don't need to worry who has what, interms of points for wargear, you just need to remember a simple, usually single digit, cost for the whole thing, and the "extra models" cost. It makes it far far easier to simply look over your forces at a tabletop distance and know the costs, rather than having to pick up and examine models to see what they have modelled on them.

 Galef wrote:

Since 99% of player tend to do the later and probably less than 1% do the former, Points are objectively the better choice.

I've seen a lot of people using this as an argument, and it amazes me. (Not picking on you specifically, just using this as an example.)

Do people really think that out of the however many hundred of thousands players there are worldwide, the vast majority are primarily interested in competitive play? I would eyeball it, based on my personal experience*, as closer to 30% "serious lists meant for competitive play" and 70% other.

I know people who are collectors and painters first, and use games almost as an excuse to actually use their models.

I know people who dabble in half a dozen armies, with one or two "mains", but a bunch of small armies meant for silly casual games.

I know people who collect "historical" forces, buioding to very specific designs taken from novels or the theoretical army design provided in other fluff.

I know people who like to design for scenarios and narrative games.

None of the above require perfect balance, and are well-suited for PL to provide a rough balance. The more refined point system simply isn't necessary.

Of course, I also know people who play competitively, for whom points are entirely appropriate.

* Yes, this is anecdotal, and is not a perfect view of the playerbase - but the same is true for anyone's experience, unless they've actually conducted proper market research.