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.
insaniak wrote: I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, here. List tailoring happens with points as well.
To offer a counterpoint, the argument in favor of PL here seems to be that it is flat out depending entirely on List Tailoring.
Just because burglaries happen even when people lock their doors, doesn't mean it's okay for me to walk up in your house and steal stuff because you didn't lock it.
Whether or not that's a bad thing, though, depends entirely on what you and your opponent are expecting.
A random pick up game.
Since that's what PL is supposed to be good at, right? It's fast and easy.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, here. List tailoring happens with points as well.
If I write a list at 1,500 Points, I have already chosen my upgrades. To list tailor, I'd have literally rewrite my list.
If I write a list at 75 PL, I have not chosen my upgrades. If I'm playing Marines or some other faction with a lot of options, I can now pick EXACTLY what upgrades will do best without altering my list in the slightest.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
To offer a counterpoint, the argument in favor of PL here seems to be that it is flat out depending entirely on List Tailoring.
Sounds like you've misunderstood, then. There was an argument made that it can make list tailoring easier, which it can by simple virtue of being quicker and easier to make lists. The argument wasn't that it only works if you list tailor.
insaniak wrote: Sounds like you've misunderstood, then. There was an argument made that it can make list tailoring easier, which it can by simple virtue of being quicker and easier to make lists. The argument wasn't that it only works if you list tailor.
No, I fully understand.
"It makes list tailoring easier"- yeah, that's not really a selling point. List tailoring is deliberately giving one person an advantage over the other.
"It works if people don't exploit it"- yeah, well not locking your doors works if people don't go into your house and steal your stuff.
"It's more suitable between friends"- yeah, I'm not arguing this at all. This is exactly where it has its purpose- for narrative, goofy, fun little games between pals that don't really care about balance or even winning, just to see what happens.
List tailoring and minmaxing mindsets are incompatible with PL. PL falls apart without a big old gentleperson’s agreement not to be a douchebag.
- PL is a (probably) quicker army building system.
- Points is (probably) more balanced.
- There’s nothing more to it than that.
Everything else is personal preference. State your preference for sure, that’s the point of the thread, but the amount of time some folk spend ragging on PL and telling people they’re wrong/stupid/lazy/smell funny (last one may not have been said) for using PL is just strange. It’s possible to prefer one thing without a polarised internet rage hatred for another thing.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
Indeed. If this thread has done anything, it's served to show that some people seem to be so set in their way of playing the game that they simply can't see that there are other valid ways to play.
The fact that you (generic you, not directed at anyone specifically) don't like something doesn't make it wrong, or inherently bad. Others may like it just fine.
JohnnyHell wrote: List tailoring and minmaxing mindsets are incompatible with PL. PL falls apart without a big old gentleperson’s agreement not to be a douchebag.
But this thread has PL advocates arguing that PL is a good thing because it makes list tailoring easier. It can't be that incompatible with PL if it's the PL side talking about it.
Everything else is personal preference. State your preference for sure, that’s the point of the thread, but the amount of time some folk spend ragging on PL and telling people they’re wrong/stupid/lazy/smell funny (last one may not have been said) for using PL is just strange. It’s possible to prefer one thing without a polarised internet rage hatred for another thing.
PL advocates get criticism because they go beyond "I enjoy this bad thing" and defend PL as a good system. That means it's no longer just a preference, it's a claim about the merits of a rules system in some objective sense. It's like fast food. Once in a while I get a nostalgia craving for the Taco Bell at my former university and I eat an awful burrito. It would be a TFG move to walk in and start badgering me about how awful Taco Bell is if I'm just eating my "food", but it would be entirely fair to argue the point if I tried to claim that Taco Bell is actually good food. At that point I'd be taking a side in an argument, not merely saying "I know it's garbage but I'm going to eat it anyway".
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
PL advocates get criticism because they go beyond "I enjoy this bad thing" and defend PL as a good system.
If it does what they want it to do, it is a good system, for them.
It may not be a good system for you, because you want something different from the game.
It's like fast food. Once in a while I get a nostalgia craving for the Taco Bell at my former university and I eat an awful burrito. It would be a TFG move to walk in and start badgering me about how awful Taco Bell is if I'm just eating my "food", but it would be entirely fair to argue the point if I tried to claim that Taco Bell is actually good food. At that point I'd be taking a side in an argument, not merely saying "I know it's garbage but I'm going to eat it anyway".
So... this entire time you've been badgering proponents of power levels solely because you prefer to adhere to a specific, narrow definition of the word 'good'...?
If you like it, it's good. It may not be nutritious. It may not be properly cooked. It may look like something that's already been eaten at least once and then put into a new tortilla. But if it achieves your goal (in this case, satisfying your craving for dodgy junk food) then it's good for that purpose.
I very much doubt anyone is going to try to claim that the Power Level setup is a perfect system. It's quite clearly not. But it fills a purpose, and for those who like using it, it does so better than points. The fact that you don't agree with the reasons for that doesn't make it any less the case, and so doesn't make the system any less 'good' for the purpose for which it is intended, and for which those people use it.
By that standard nothing can be good or bad and the terms lose all meaning. If you want to abandon the entire concept of good or bad things, well, that's your call to make but I think you're going to be alone in that position.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: By that standard nothing can be good or bad and the terms lose all meaning.
No, by that standard 'good' or 'bad' depends entirely on your frame of reference.
Which is kind of how those words work. No physicist is ever going to look up from his electron microscope and exclaim 'By jove! I've found the perfect system for building force lists for 28mm miniature gaming! It was encoded into the atomic structure of this grain of sand, all along!' 'Good' and 'Bad' are not fundamental absolutes, hard-coded into the bedrock of the universe. They're entirely subjective.
And again another Pl vs points discussion and it boils down to slayer fan and peregrine not accepting that doing something differently than how they like is ok. Their way isn’t “good” to me. It sounds horrendous. I can’t imagine a worse game to play. But that’s fine because the game is trying to cater for both types.
I only played point-based lists, until the last weekend, when we started to play PL based campagne...
And although my harlequin list contained 1,2k points and the other players had lists around 900 - 1k points, all the games felt pretty balanced (and I won not a single one of them... )
We also used the custom character rules, which worked really nice and gave a bit of extra flavour.
I think it depends heavily on the players intention while building his list. In my gaming environment everybody is pretty chilled and plays stylie oriented lists, which seems to work out pretty well.
Indeed. There’s being a contrarian for kicks and there’s being utter forum poison. Dragging every PL thread toward lock because you personally don’t like that others like PL is the latter.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
JohnnyHell wrote:List tailoring and minmaxing mindsets are incompatible with PL. PL falls apart without a big old gentleperson’s agreement not to be a douchebag.
- PL is a (probably) quicker army building system.
- Points is (probably) more balanced.
- There’s nothing more to it than that.
Everything else is personal preference. State your preference for sure, that’s the point of the thread, but the amount of time some folk spend ragging on PL and telling people they’re wrong/stupid/lazy/smell funny (last one may not have been said) for using PL is just strange. It’s possible to prefer one thing without a polarised internet rage hatred for another thing.
insaniak wrote:
Peregrine wrote: By that standard nothing can be good or bad and the terms lose all meaning.
No, by that standard 'good' or 'bad' depends entirely on your frame of reference.
Which is kind of how those words work. No physicist is ever going to look up from his electron microscope and exclaim 'By jove! I've found the perfect system for building force lists for 28mm miniature gaming! It was encoded into the atomic structure of this grain of sand, all along!' 'Good' and 'Bad' are not fundamental absolutes, hard-coded into the bedrock of the universe. They're entirely subjective.
Andykp wrote:And again another Pl vs points discussion and it boils down to slayer fan and peregrine not accepting that doing something differently than how they like is ok. Their way isn’t “good” to me. It sounds horrendous. I can’t imagine a worse game to play. But that’s fine because the game is trying to cater for both types.
Agreed with all three. The sooner people stop making assumptions about what is good and bad for other people, and respect that both their own and other people's opinions are subjective, the better.
There is no universal good and bad. This whole discussion is a matter of opinion. If your opinion is "I don't like this", that's fine. If your view is "this is good as a fact", you are making incorrect claims.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: There is no universal good and bad. This whole discussion is a matter of opinion. If your opinion is "I don't like this", that's fine. If your view is "this is good as a fact", you are making incorrect claim.
Alternatively, you're just plain wrong, PL is a trash system, and "that's just your opinion, man" is the weakest defense you can make.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
insaniak wrote: Which is kind of how those words work. No physicist is ever going to look up from his electron microscope and exclaim 'By jove! I've found the perfect system for building force lists for 28mm miniature gaming! It was encoded into the atomic structure of this grain of sand, all along!' 'Good' and 'Bad' are not fundamental absolutes, hard-coded into the bedrock of the universe. They're entirely subjective.
But wait, I thought it's all subjective and there is no right answer? How can you say that using an electron microscope to read the encoded messages in the sand is not a good way of building lists for 40k, and with such certainty that you can state that it is never going to happen? It's almost like there are good and bad ways of doing things, and you just don't accept that PL is one of the bad ways.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Andykp wrote: And again another Pl vs points discussion and it boils down to slayer fan and peregrine not accepting that doing something differently than how they like is ok. Their way isn’t “good” to me. It sounds horrendous. I can’t imagine a worse game to play. But that’s fine because the game is trying to cater for both types.
Again it all boils down to critics of PL posting reasons why PL is a trash system, and advocates of PL posting little more than "I enjoy it and I have an opinion". The closest thing to a reason for why PL is good they can come up with is saving a minimal amount of time in adding up the numbers, other than that it's all the very weak defense of insisting that they enjoy it therefore it must be good. Meanwhile you're claiming that the normal point system is "horrendous" and you "can't imagine a worse game to play", at least as harsh criticism as anything the anti-PL side is saying, but apparently this is ok and not a case of refusing to accept that someone is doing something differently because reasons.
Also, if you can't imagine a worse game to play than adding up your points more accurately then you really have very little imagination.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/16 11:28:33
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
The point here is the critics of PL can't seem to understand why anyone would use it. So you two are literally going and saying "Your way is wrong" while claiming that it's fine, but if your preference is said to be wrong it's all defensive.
PL is not for people like you or Slayer-Fan. It's not for people who want to min/max every little detail and emphasize listbuilding. What's so hard to understand about that? PL is for the person who buys a box and assembles them as they are shown, or does 1 flamer and 1 missile launcher because that's what they think the squad should have, rather than the person who number crunches that plasma is better than every other weapon, so why would you ever not take plasma.
PL is for the person who has a collection of models and wants to throw something together for a game, without focusing on eking out every little bit of optimization in the list or fine-tuning it to be as efficient as possible.
We get it. You and Slayer like points. You think PL has no place. That's fine; you are technically correct in that points are *more* balanced (yet not balanced) than PL because of being more granular. What's not okay though is your constant vehement and quite frankly ignorant repeated statements how anyone who thinks PL is fine is somehow wrong and trying to prove that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is incorrect. Let people enjoy what they want. Nobody is saying "Peregrine, you are forced to use Power Level" but you seem to be saying "Anyone who doesn't think power level is useless is wrong"
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/16 13:06:02
PL doesn't actually help any of those people. Remember, "its flaws aren't as bad for certain people" is not the same as "it is better for certain people". So far PL defenders have done a lot of arguing about how they have a right to express an opinion, or how some people use PL and don't immediately commit suicide over how miserable the experience has made them, but have provided very little to establish that PL is better for anyone. The closest anyone has come is the idea that PL is maybe a minute or two faster in a 2-3 hour game, which is about as negligible a benefit as you can get. Other than that it's all nonsense about "PL doesn't involve list optimization" or "PL lets me take lots of free stuff on my units".
Also, we get it, you like PL. That's fine, you're allowed to use PL. But what's not ok is your constant vehement and quite frankly ignorant repeated statements how PL has any merit whatsoever and trying to prove that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is incorrect. Let people hate what they want.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Also, we get it, you don't like PL. That's fine, you're allowed to not use PL. But what's not ok is your constant vehement and quite frankly ignorant repeated statements how PL don't have any merit whatsoever and trying to prove that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is incorrect. Let people like what they want.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: There is no universal good and bad. This whole discussion is a matter of opinion. If your opinion is "I don't like this", that's fine. If your view is "this is good as a fact", you are making incorrect claim.
Alternatively, you're just plain wrong, PL is a trash system, and "that's just your opinion, man" is the weakest defense you can make.
You are just impervious to reason aren't you? Your opinion is not objective fact, Peregrine, no matter how much you post opinions as fact. You've posted on the internet enough to know this.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
Wayniac wrote: PL is not for people like you or Slayer-Fan. It's not for people who want to min/max every little detail and emphasize listbuilding. What's so hard to understand about that? PL is for the person who buys a box and assembles them as they are shown, or does 1 flamer and 1 missile launcher because that's what they think the squad should have, rather than the person who number crunches that plasma is better than every other weapon, so why would you ever not take plasma.
PL is for the person who has a collection of models and wants to throw something together for a game, without focusing on eking out every little bit of optimization in the list or fine-tuning it to be as efficient as possible.
Other times PL comes in handy:
-We run a 'Rambo Marine' game from time to time, where a few players get to control one individual Astartes (loyalist or heretic depending on our mood). We use "Power Level as a very rough balancing tool, and our Marines have loadouts that aren't usually Codex Compliant (Marines with Astartes shotguns, Dual Bolters, Rotor Cannons, dual power axes, etc.) But usually our enemy mob loadouts are somewhat randomized. (We have a chart for to roll on). I might even write our rules up on here for everyone to play with.
-It's great to just test a few things out and to use as a learning tool. On Warhammer nights locally, we get a LOT of players that come in and build what they see on the Space Marine box, or what they think is cool. So usually to teach them the fundamentals- we don't worry about points, we use PL and the teacher throws down a pretty basic loadout to just show him how certain things work and how to maximize what he has and use it more effectively.
There's a time where I want a chilled out, simple basic game of just basic troops. And there's narrative games, where I've taken members of one of my Kill-Teams and merged them together in a squad. Power Level would work just fine for this.
Then there's actually wanting to play a more serious game, and get a real challenge and I want it to be as balanced as possible. Power Level does NOT do this very well at all. Yes, you can say 'points are flawed and not balanced', but they're a lot more reliable than Power Level. At the end of the day, I'll take an imperfect tool over the wrong tool.
And yes, I know that it's easy to say "Both players will take optimized squads in their lists". Okay, that's... not really something that every squad can do. Or even every army.
And saying "Both players will just make their lists maximized to get the most out of them". Okay, fine. Let's pretend that's possible. I'm going to play Chaos Space Marines. Now, optimize your list for me. Am I playing a massive horde of cultists or a large war machine army? Am I going shooty or smashy? You wouldn't know unless you were deliberately tailoring the list to what I have. And when it comes to list tailoring, one person is getting an advantage and the other guy is the hapless lackwit that's about to get his army wiped out. That's what list tailoring is. That's why it's not considered fair gaming- what happens when you tailor your list to mine, and then I realize it and start making changes? Do we go back and forth? No. This is why at the most, "I am bringing Imperial Guard" or "I am bringing Eldar" is all you need to know to build your list toward.
My GF and I hold a weekly game. For the first few months we built based on PL. Needless to say I was getting ruined every game until we switched to a points basis.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: There is no universal good and bad. This whole discussion is a matter of opinion. If your opinion is "I don't like this", that's fine. If your view is "this is good as a fact", you are making incorrect claim.
Alternatively, you're just plain wrong, PL is a trash system, and "that's just your opinion, man" is the weakest defense you can make.
You are just impervious to reason aren't you? Your opinion is not objective fact, Peregrine, no matter how much you post opinions as fact. You've posted on the internet enough to know this.
His modus operandi is pretty constant - dismiss anything which is not his initial POV as invalid way of thinking and then conclude that other people are idiots and their views have no merits whatsoever. Funnily enough, if you follow his viewpoints for long enough you will eventually find him debating as fiercely as ever his own viewpoint from a while ago (actually point balance is one of those areas in which he contradicts himself).
The fact that Peregrine copied my argument despite nobody saying points were wrong or bad (unlike his arguments against PL) kinda shows that they have no interest in an actual debate, just wanting to show that they're right.
Wayniac wrote: The point here is the critics of PL can't seem to understand why anyone would use it. So you two are literally going and saying "Your way is wrong" while claiming that it's fine, but if your preference is said to be wrong it's all defensive.
PL is not for people like you or Slayer-Fan. It's not for people who want to min/max every little detail and emphasize listbuilding. What's so hard to understand about that? PL is for the person who buys a box and assembles them as they are shown, or does 1 flamer and 1 missile launcher because that's what they think the squad should have, rather than the person who number crunches that plasma is better than every other weapon, so why would you ever not take plasma.
PL is for the person who has a collection of models and wants to throw something together for a game, without focusing on eking out every little bit of optimization in the list or fine-tuning it to be as efficient as possible.
We get it. You and Slayer like points. You think PL has no place. That's fine; you are technically correct in that points are *more* balanced (yet not balanced) than PL because of being more granular. What's not okay though is your constant vehement and quite frankly ignorant repeated statements how anyone who thinks PL is fine is somehow wrong and trying to prove that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is incorrect. Let people enjoy what they want. Nobody is saying "Peregrine, you are forced to use Power Level" but you seem to be saying "Anyone who doesn't think power level is useless is wrong"
PL has no place for what you want because you might as well throw any point system out the window to throw a bunch of models on the table and go 1st iteration of Age Of Sigmar (and look how well THAT was received). The points currently aren't perfect, but they're a closer estimation for worth compared to PL.
You don't NEED PL to do that particular scenario of "fun". Why defend it like it's necessary? Either use a system to create that greater fairness or don't bother.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For the record, list tailoring is cheating, full stop.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/16 15:26:53
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Wayniac wrote: The point here is the critics of PL can't seem to understand why anyone would use it. So you two are literally going and saying "Your way is wrong" while claiming that it's fine, but if your preference is said to be wrong it's all defensive.
PL is not for people like you or Slayer-Fan. It's not for people who want to min/max every little detail and emphasize listbuilding. What's so hard to understand about that? PL is for the person who buys a box and assembles them as they are shown, or does 1 flamer and 1 missile launcher because that's what they think the squad should have, rather than the person who number crunches that plasma is better than every other weapon, so why would you ever not take plasma.
PL is for the person who has a collection of models and wants to throw something together for a game, without focusing on eking out every little bit of optimization in the list or fine-tuning it to be as efficient as possible.
We get it. You and Slayer like points. You think PL has no place. That's fine; you are technically correct in that points are *more* balanced (yet not balanced) than PL because of being more granular. What's not okay though is your constant vehement and quite frankly ignorant repeated statements how anyone who thinks PL is fine is somehow wrong and trying to prove that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is incorrect. Let people enjoy what they want. Nobody is saying "Peregrine, you are forced to use Power Level" but you seem to be saying "Anyone who doesn't think power level is useless is wrong"
PL has no place for what you want because you might as well throw any point system out the window to throw a bunch of models on the table and go 1st iteration of Age Of Sigmar (and look how well THAT was received). The points currently aren't perfect, but they're a closer estimation for worth compared to PL.
You don't NEED PL to do that particular scenario of "fun". Why defend it like it's necessary? Either use a system to create that greater fairness or don't bother.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For the record, list tailoring is cheating, full stop.
Honestly, I defend PL because I think it's a cool idea and one that has more merit for pickup games than points (because you don't have to fiddle with stuff working out a list). Points are better, but I don't think PL is terrible. And also I really liked 1st iteration AOS because it was trying to put an end to min/maxing (it didn't do this of course, but the idea was there). Concept-wise I love anything that isn't competitive style min/maxing and listbuilding exercises, even if they never turn out that way since people will always try to make things "the best"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/16 15:39:28
Again, the core difference seems to come down to a hand full of players saying, well I can break the game easier with PL than points so points are better. The rest of us are basically stating regardless of system, don't try to break the game unless that is also what your opponent is interested in game wise. Regardless of system used, 40k is an inherently imbalanced game, and sadly requires players to be liked minded to have a good game.
Charistoph wrote: It's more that some keep pushing that GW points are balanced in the first place, and don't consider that there are other factors than price point.
I think points are a more -specific- balance than PL.
In a PL game, you're going to optimize everything you can for a game. With points, you're going to squeeze things into a list around restrictions.
Kinda depends on what you want, I suppose.
Want or have, at any rate. Value is based on what you can take versus what you will be facing. Going against Conscript Spam with a focus on Lascannons and Meltaguns will not be very well balanced, even if the points cost more than with Heavy Bolters and Flamers. Conversely, facing off against an Armoured Company withe the reverse would also be unbalanced, even though running with the same number of models would be cheaper.
And this is where having an easier time at building an all-comers balance is usually achieved with PL than with Points, since Points will limit your options in building that All-Comers list.
This sounds a lot like list tailoring.
And what if you don't have options? Like Necrons or Daemons.
Way to miss the point of what you quoted. Balance is not always set up so cut and dry. A balanced all-comers list would have a mix of anti-infantry and anti-vehicle.
From there, is it list tailoring to set up a list to face any type of list, even though it may not be strong against a dedicated list? From what I understand, this is always the objective of any list building exercise.
Daemons, Craftworlders, and Necrons have options, unfortunately they require swapping whole units out instead of changing a Devastators/Heavy Weapon Squads loadout. They generally have other advantages outside of those without requiring additional units to compensate for them.
You deciding to bring no ounce of structure or effort into your list is not my concern, and it isn't something I'm going to think about when I bring in a list (because I go into a store prepared unlike you, apparently). Why should I have to accommodate your poor list building skills when I decided I wanted to put some effort into it?
SO, to recap for those who just joined us:
Power Levels are bad, because it is possible for a player to create an optimised list with them. This leaves those players who don't optimise their lists at a disadvantage, and is thus proof that the system is completely broken.
Points, by contrast, are good, because it is possible for a player to create an optimised list with them. This leaves those players who don't optimise their lists at a disadvantage, which is entirely their own fault.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I don't need to police my opponents in Monopoly as that has a strict set of rules.
Then you must really trust them when they're running the bank. It requires more policing, after all. Beyond that, Monopoly has more house rules to it than almost any other game that exists, and most people honestly don't know they are using house rules.
1. The basic concept of "don't cheat" is not something I should police, as most people will simply . If my opponent is caught cheating, then the game simply ends and they're disqualified. So there's no need for me to police the main banker for Monopoly.
I do agree there are people probably using house rules for Monopoly, as that sometimes happens with family board games. Did you know some people play Sorry! where you have a hand of 5 cards and you play individual cards in a more strategic fashion to the regular "randumb"? Think it's actually included with the rules in the game though.
I have only played by the rules in the box though. When my friends needed clarifications I pointed where in the rulebook the stuff is. Simple as that.
Yet, that was the very exact point that is being addressed in the line quoted. You are calling someone who brings a list that isn't granular as someone needing to be policed, which means they are cheating. And your last paragraph here indicates that you ARE policing people in Monopoly, despite your very assertion in the spoilered quote that you don't NEED to.
And PL is in the rules, so you really don't have a leg to stand on here with this approach.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Also to police my opponent when playing points is more silly because, with some exceptions granted, things are close to where they need to be in terms of worth. PL says that the Grav Cannon is worth the same price as the Heavy Bolter.
They're clearly not worth the same are they?
Wait, weren't you one of the people accusing another of just asking to change the point tally a little for cheating? If it is worth the accusation of cheating, it is worth policing, and that applies to points as well as other factors.
2. Changing the point values because you lack the ability to create the list is cheating, yes. If they're caught, they're no longer playing legally and the game is now pointless. I triple check my lists to make sure I am playing an honest game.
Again missing the point. Asking for an adjustment isn't cheating, because that means they recognized an issue instead of hiding it (which a cheater would do). And calling someone cheating for doing so IS policing someone on points, which means that you sir, are calling yourself silly in this very statement.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:The only agreement in place should be the point limit and the mission (assuming you didn't randomly choose that). At least points will give more balance via being granular, which therefore requires less policing. PL throws everything out the window and assumes all upgrades are worth the same when they CLEARLY are not.
You mean you don't need an agreement to use the same rules system, or are you just assuming that you will be? I state this in a day when you can bring Warhammer Fantasy models to play Age of Sigmar, 9th Age, and Kings of War with almost the same set of models in the same day. If you bring in a person who played several generations of 40K, but is new to 8th, then they will need to update their brain and that requires policing the system they are using, if only to make sure they don't make a mistake with the new system.
And, that's not quite the right analogy. PL assumes that people will take the upgrades that they want to take for the unit, not that they are all worth the same. As it is, some weapons may be pointed less, but are worth more in certain situations. A Lascannon isn't worth much against an Infantry Squad, but pretty decent when you're targeting a Chimera. Conversely, a Heavy Bolter is worth more when dealing with that Infantry Squad, and worth less against that Chimera.
Oddly enough, PL requires LESS policing because it doesn't matter if they didn't calculate in expensive options that a lot of people, either deliberately or unconciously.
3. You're not serious with this argument are you? The game does not equal the models, and that's why you get a lot of conversions happening in the first place.
Also the singular Heavy Bolter is actually not a lot better than a singular Lascannon against an Infantry Squad or a Tau Fire Warrior. A Heavy Bolter kills one Guardsman and a Lascannon kills over half of one. Meanwhile each one kills less than 1 Fire Warrior. Then the Lascannon ends up excelling vs a lot of big targets significantly compared these numbers against chaff.
See where the point values kinda come in there? Take two Heavy Bolters per Lascannon and now we're talking.
I am serious about the argument because that is how list building in 40K has been forever. The game is based around the models, and always has been. Models usually can only take a Heavy Bolter or a Lascannon in a position, be they a Devastator, Heavy Weapon Team or a tank sponson. You can't take two Heavy Bolters per Lascannon because the models don't support the situation. Points might be able to provide for that option across several positions, but they might not.
And you changed the goal posts in the example. It was an example of how the value of a weapon changes depending on what you will be facing. But guess what, a Heavy Bolter can potentially (though not probably) kill 3 Fire Warriors while the Lascannon can only every kill one. Statistics often go out the window once the game begins as the dice don't care about your math.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:4. Once again, one is CLEARLY more balanced due to granularity. What you propose is what happens when you might as well toss ANY point system out the window. You don't need points OR PL to just go "pewpew" like you want.
No, it isn't in Warhammer. Quite often it is unbalanced because of that granularity. When one army has different price points for the same weapon, that's a different level of balance. Heck, having Guardsmen pay the same as Astartes for the same Weapon is unbalanced! Heavy Weapon Squads in 7th had to pay the full price of Lascannons after paying the price for their Heavy Bolters, while Devastators and Infantry Squads didn't (apologies for the example, but it is one I am familiar with), and that demonstrates how such granularities are as unbalanced, or more than, Power Level.
I agree that points have the CAPACITY to be better balanced when dealing with a plethora of internal options (and have said so), but with GW that has never been utilized, and unlikely will never be in the foreseeable future.
JNAProductions wrote:So, what would you call building a 75 PL list with mostly Heavy Bolters and Assault Cannons (you know you're facing Orks) but, when faced with Mekspam, you swap it all for Lascannons and other heavier weapons?
Sounds like both groups are list tailoring, as the Ork player was building their list based on what the other player will be expecting to face. What's the problem?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/16 16:08:32
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Again, the core difference seems to come down to a hand full of players saying, well I can break the game easier with PL than points so points are better. The rest of us are basically stating regardless of system, don't try to break the game unless that is also what your opponent is interested in game wise. Regardless of system used, 40k is an inherently imbalanced game, and sadly requires players to be liked minded to have a good game.
One system is inherently easier to break though is the difference.
Someone earlier in the thread posted two different 2000 points lists for Eldar and Deathwatch. The Deathwatch one was 156 PL compared to the Eldar one being way below that.
Like, you don't see an issue there whatsoever?
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
HoundsofDemos wrote: Again, the core difference seems to come down to a hand full of players saying, well I can break the game easier with PL than points so points are better. The rest of us are basically stating regardless of system, don't try to break the game unless that is also what your opponent is interested in game wise. Regardless of system used, 40k is an inherently imbalanced game, and sadly requires players to be liked minded to have a good game.
One system is inherently easier to break though is the difference.
Someone earlier in the thread posted two different 2000 points lists for Eldar and Deathwatch. The Deathwatch one was 156 PL compared to the Eldar one being way below that.
Like, you don't see an issue there whatsoever?
I do, but not the same one you do. GW sucks at pricing. And wouldn't the reduction in points in CA indicate that the codice's initial pricing was broken to begin with? Especially when you can bring one list pre-CA and then post-CA bring in your Daemon Primarch with a little more wiggle room (true story), despite no other changes in model power.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
