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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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?

Your essentially making my point for me. The issue isn't inherently the system, it's expectations of what the game should be and making lists according to that expectation. You seem incapable of understanding that a player would play a less competitive list for fluff, unit variety and fun. Your acting like every player should be taking the most bleeding edge choice and crush their opponents and only points hold you back from doing so.

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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.

That's assuming PL is more correct to begin with, which I demonstrated it cannot be with the simple example of how Company Veterans work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HoundsofDemos wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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?

Your essentially making my point for me. The issue isn't inherently the system, it's expectations of what the game should be and making lists according to that expectation. You seem incapable of understanding that a player would play a less competitive list for fluff, unit variety and fun. Your acting like every player should be taking the most bleeding edge choice and crush their opponents and only points hold you back from doing so.

I didn't defend your point at all. Two equal pointed lists have almost a 33% difference when calculated at PL because of Deathwatch Vets all being able to take Combi weapons and Heavy Thunder Hammers. That's not something you ordinarily do as that's a lot of eggs in one basket. Spend the points necessary. PL can NEVER take that into account.

and again you seem incapable of understanding that just because you can do something, two players might agree to not do that. Besides not owning the models, even in a power level game I wouldn't spam the strongest options unless my opponent explicitly asked for a hardcore game. Maybe it's just my local gaming scene but that seems like one common sense and two not being a dick.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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.

That's assuming PL is more correct to begin with, which I demonstrated it cannot be with the simple example of how Company Veterans work.

No, it is not assuming that PL is more correct to being with. Neither I, nor anyone else here, has once advocated about the ACCURACY of the PL system. That is an assumption that you are putting in to your equation to bring your scarecrow arguments in.

In point of fact, if you bothered to actually read what I wrote, you would see that I do not place any more level of accuracy on either method than I would an Ork Stormtrooper shooting away from Leia on the Death Star.

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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.

That's assuming PL is more correct to begin with, which I demonstrated it cannot be with the simple example of how Company Veterans work.

No, it is not assuming that PL is more correct to being with. Neither I, nor anyone else here, has once advocated about the ACCURACY of the PL system. That is an assumption that you are putting in to your equation to bring your scarecrow arguments in.

In point of fact, if you bothered to actually read what I wrote, you would see that I do not place any more level of accuracy on either method than I would an Ork Stormtrooper shooting away from Leia on the Death Star.

Actually no, because it leads to the next point I'm going to make.

If you know PL isnt accurate, then what's the point of defending it and using it in the first place instead of going 1st Iteration of AoS?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

No, it is not assuming that PL is more correct to being with. Neither I, nor anyone else here, has once advocated about the ACCURACY of the PL system. That is an assumption that you are putting in to your equation to bring your scarecrow arguments in.

In point of fact, if you bothered to actually read what I wrote, you would see that I do not place any more level of accuracy on either method than I would an Ork Stormtrooper shooting away from Leia on the Death Star.

Actually no, because it leads to the next point I'm going to make.

If you know PL isnt accurate, then what's the point of defending it and using it in the first place instead of going 1st Iteration of AoS?

Because you're not listening the the other half of the statement.

BOTH PL and Points are inaccurate with GW. That they both provide a structured limit isn't in question. That the Warhammer games have NEVER had an accurately balanced pricing structure IS the point and one shouldn't go in with the expectation that they ever will. And since both are woefully inaccurate and unbalanced, it doesn't matter that much in the long run which is used.

 Charistoph wrote:


BOTH PL and Points are inaccurate with GW. That they both provide a structured limit isn't in question. That the Warhammer games have NEVER had an accurately balanced pricing structure IS the point and one shouldn't go in with the expectation that they ever will. And since both are woefully inaccurate and unbalanced, it doesn't matter that much in the long run which is used.

Points aren't balanced perfectly, but they allow more balance than Power Level. This is objective fact.

Real quick, tell me where points aren't balanced.

Because while I'm sure there are some very valid discrepancies, most of the time it boils down to "what I want to use is overcosted" and "what my opponent beat me with is undercosted".

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:


BOTH PL and Points are inaccurate with GW. That they both provide a structured limit isn't in question. That the Warhammer games have NEVER had an accurately balanced pricing structure IS the point and one shouldn't go in with the expectation that they ever will. And since both are woefully inaccurate and unbalanced, it doesn't matter that much in the long run which is used.

Points aren't balanced perfectly, but they allow more balance than Power Level. This is objective fact.

Real quick, tell me where points aren't balanced.

Because while I'm sure there are some very valid discrepancies, most of the time it boils down to "what I want to use is overcosted" and "what my opponent beat me with is undercosted".

Lets go by the fact that if I am looking to make a list designed solely to win, the game has entire factions that don't even need to be looked at. 40k isn't and never has been balanced. Have a Grey Knights player take 2000 points of stuff vs AM or Eldar and see how it goes.

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

No, it is not assuming that PL is more correct to being with. Neither I, nor anyone else here, has once advocated about the ACCURACY of the PL system. That is an assumption that you are putting in to your equation to bring your scarecrow arguments in.

In point of fact, if you bothered to actually read what I wrote, you would see that I do not place any more level of accuracy on either method than I would an Ork Stormtrooper shooting away from Leia on the Death Star.

Actually no, because it leads to the next point I'm going to make.

If you know PL isnt accurate, then what's the point of defending it and using it in the first place instead of going 1st Iteration of AoS?

Because you're not listening the the other half of the statement.

BOTH PL and Points are inaccurate with GW. That they both provide a structured limit isn't in question. That the Warhammer games have NEVER had an accurately balanced pricing structure IS the point and one shouldn't go in with the expectation that they ever will. And since both are woefully inaccurate and unbalanced, it doesn't matter that much in the long run which is used.

So why not go for better structure than a system that has little of it, if at all?

You'd literally be better off just playing without any system and making pewpew noises.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:


BOTH PL and Points are inaccurate with GW. That they both provide a structured limit isn't in question. That the Warhammer games have NEVER had an accurately balanced pricing structure IS the point and one shouldn't go in with the expectation that they ever will. And since both are woefully inaccurate and unbalanced, it doesn't matter that much in the long run which is used.

Points aren't balanced perfectly, but they allow more balance than Power Level. This is objective fact.

Real quick, tell me where points aren't balanced.

Because while I'm sure there are some very valid discrepancies, most of the time it boils down to "what I want to use is overcosted" and "what my opponent beat me with is undercosted".

Lets go by the fact that if I am looking to make a list designed solely to win, the game has entire factions that don't even need to be looked at. 40k isn't and never has been balanced. Have a Grey Knights player take 2000 points of stuff vs AM or Eldar and see how it goes.

Look at a 100 PL list doing the same thing and watch Grey Knights suffer even worse? What's the point you're making?

HoundsofDemos wrote:

Lets go by the fact that if I am looking to make a list designed solely to win, the game has entire factions that don't even need to be looked at. 40k isn't and never has been balanced. Have a Grey Knights player take 2000 points of stuff vs AM or Eldar and see how it goes.

And let me guess, using power level just completely erases the problem?

LOL no.

At a certain point your argument is just "it is all imperfect, so why bother?"

Imperfect balance is better than imbalance.

Beyond that you may as well be determining the winner by setting up your models and determining the winner by fart noises.

That neither system is balanced and if a player is intent on breaking it, you'll get a similar result.

Yes PL makes it easier but it's the players intent that matters more than the structure of the system. You seem to like to play very competitive games and only want to take the most optimized lists. With that mindset, PL is a worse system. If your goal is to just take some cool models with less optimized options and have a friendly game, PL saves some time and still gives some structure.

I'm not arguing PL is better, rather that it works fine for what it is intended. To be a quicker way to play a friendly non competitive game.

How is it any quicker though? Why aren't you going into a shop with some prepared lists for the common point values instead of walking in with every model you own and making the list there?

That's just...that's just silly.

And for friendly chill games it works fine. So does going one for one unit without even using them. It's slightly less lazy 1st Edition AoS.

But when you want actual balance, points are the least broken measure of balance.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
And for friendly chill games it works fine. So does going one for one unit without even using them. It's slightly less lazy 1st Edition AoS.

But when you want actual balance, points are the least broken measure of balance.

And then it begs the question: what do any of you lose from a more balanced point system?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

And then it begs the question: what do any of you lose from a more balanced point system?

Are you proposing one? If so, a more balanced point system would be fine, if it were playtested and continuously re-evaluated based on additions to the game.

But I would lose nothing. Because it's 40k- you could put considerable effort into balancing the game and every Codex could include a hot naked chick and $500.00, and players would still whinge.

Peregrine wrote: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.

And at that point, any rational person immediately laughs at your inability to see your own opinions, biases, and personal preferences as anything but Absolute Fact, and anything that isn't your opinion is Wrong.

Peregrine, you are, without a doubt, the single most closed minded person anyone could hope to debate things with. Not because you don't like PL: that's absolutely fine, and your personal preference. Not that you disagree with me about it: that's healthy for a fanbase. It's because anything that you value must be factually "good", and if someone points out that "hey, THAT is your opinion, and not a fact", you say that they're wrong.

"That's just your opinion" may be the only defence against you saying "I think PL is trash", but it's the perfect defence against it.

Peregrine wrote:PL doesn't actually help any of those people.

Is this the Almighty Truth speaking?
What right do you have to presume to tell me what helps me?

So far PL defenders have done a lot of arguing about how they have a right to express an opinion

Which we do. We have as much right as you do to express yours - and we're fine with you expressing your OPINION. What seems to be the problems are the PL advocates are calling you out on your opinions being declared by you as facts, and your inability to recognise the opinions of others.

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.

If anyone says that they subjectively think it is better, it factually IS better for them. Because being good or bad in this particular situation is a matter of opinion.

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".

So you admit there IS a benefit?
Baby steps.

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.

Alternatively
"Also, we get it, you hate PL. That's fine, you're allowed to refuse PL. But what's not ok is your constant vehement and quite frankly ignorant repeated statements on how PL has no merit whatsover and trying to prove that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is incorrect. Let people like what they want."

It practically writes itself!

JNAProductions wrote:But how does PL stop people from min-maxing?

Likewise, how do points?

In any case, the issue isn't with the system, but rather with the people who go in to those systems looking to minmax.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

And then it begs the question: what do any of you lose from a more balanced point system?

Are you proposing one? If so, a more balanced point system would be fine, if it were playtested and continuously re-evaluated based on additions to the game.

But I would lose nothing. Because it's 40k- you could put considerable effort into balancing the game and every Codex could include a hot naked chick and $500.00, and players would still whinge.

Fair enough. I know I try and put effort into my homebrew rules, with me having created several threads during 7th.

The core GW has is overall fine, but some tweaks would just make it SO much better.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
How is it any quicker though? Why aren't you going into a shop with some prepared lists for the common point values instead of walking in with every model you own and making the list there?

That's just...that's just silly.

Cause my area is chill and fluid? Yea I would have a few lists at various point levels but I might want a quick second game or maybe I'm at home and me and some friends just want to make a new list in a few minutes to try something new with out adding it up in excel or spending time mashing away on my phone with battlescribe.

I don't play in a very competitive meta outside the occasional tournament and I do personally prefer points. 9/10 that's what I use for a game.

My main point is that for a fun balanced game, players need to come to an agreement about what kind of game they are playing. The idea that two complete strangers could meet up to 40k with no prior conversation about how the game should be played and both walking away with an enjoyable experience is not something I have experienced and not something 40k is well structured for.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Fair enough. I know I try and put effort into my homebrew rules, with me having created several threads during 7th.

Cool. Wanna help me playtest something or propose a few suggestions to a project of mine?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Peregrine wrote: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.

And at that point, any rational person immediately laughs at your inability to see your own opinions, biases, and personal preferences as anything but Absolute Fact, and anything that isn't your opinion is Wrong.

Peregrine, you are, without a doubt, the single most closed minded person anyone could hope to debate things with. Not because you don't like PL: that's absolutely fine, and your personal preference. Not that you disagree with me about it: that's healthy for a fanbase. It's because anything that you value must be factually "good", and if someone points out that "hey, THAT is your opinion, and not a fact", you say that they're wrong.

"That's just your opinion" may be the only defence against you saying "I think PL is trash", but it's the perfect defence against it.

Peregrine wrote:PL doesn't actually help any of those people.

Is this the Almighty Truth speaking?
What right do you have to presume to tell me what helps me?

So far PL defenders have done a lot of arguing about how they have a right to express an opinion

Which we do. We have as much right as you do to express yours - and we're fine with you expressing your OPINION. What seems to be the problems are the PL advocates are calling you out on your opinions being declared by you as facts, and your inability to recognise the opinions of others.

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.

If anyone says that they subjectively think it is better, it factually IS better for them. Because being good or bad in this particular situation is a matter of opinion.

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".

So you admit there IS a benefit?
Baby steps.

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.

Alternatively
"Also, we get it, you hate PL. That's fine, you're allowed to refuse PL. But what's not ok is your constant vehement and quite frankly ignorant repeated statements on how PL has no merit whatsover and trying to prove that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is incorrect. Let people like what they want."

It practically writes itself!

JNAProductions wrote:But how does PL stop people from min-maxing?

Likewise, how do points?

In any case, the issue isn't with the system, but rather with the people who go in to those systems looking to minmax.

With points, you price the individual upgrades.

PL cannot do that whatsoever. A single Heavy Bolter is not worth the same as a single Grav Cannon. Ordinarily you pay a lot more for the Grav Cannon. Bam, that's how points does it. Another alternative is to look at Blood Angels Tactical Squads. Their Heavy Flamer is the same cost as a regular one in a minimum sized squad, yet the two weapons are clearly of different value (and I will laugh the moment you try to list the Assault profile for the Flamer a benefit to pick it over additional Strength and AP).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:How is it any quicker though? Why aren't you going into a shop with some prepared lists for the common point values instead of walking in with every model you own and making the list there?

Because I have better things to do with my time than make lists? What, are you going to write my itinerary for me?
I am, and my opponents, are fine with grabbing some boxes of models from our collections, and quickly making lists.

For example, we might find ourselves with a few hours free time, so will pop down to Warhammer World, I might grab my 2nd Company box and my vehicles box, and they might grab their Chaos box. Then, we decide the kind of game we want to play from the boards available, a rough size depending on how long we have, etc etc, and Power Level a list.
Simple.

That's just...that's just silly.

In your opinion. Some people think that it's perfectly reasonable.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Fair enough. I know I try and put effort into my homebrew rules, with me having created several threads during 7th.

Cool. Wanna help me playtest something or propose a few suggestions to a project of mine?

I'd actually love to see what you have going. I know I'm STILL finalizing my CSM, Loyalist Scum, and Necrons to post in my general 8th thread, and I like seeing new ideas people have for themselves all the time.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
With points, you price the individual upgrades.

PL cannot do that whatsoever. A single Heavy Bolter is not worth the same as a single Grav Cannon. Ordinarily you pay a lot more for the Grav Cannon. Bam, that's how points does it. Another alternative is to look at Blood Angels Tactical Squads. Their Heavy Flamer is the same cost as a regular one in a minimum sized squad, yet the two weapons are clearly of different value (and I will laugh the moment you try to list the Assault profile for the Flamer a benefit to pick it over additional Strength and AP).

I know how points work. However, it is slower to calculate, and encourages you to prioritize in-game effects over aesthetic or flavour.

I'm not saying points don't have a purpose. They do. I'm saying that some people don't find the purpose of points to be that valuable.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:How is it any quicker though? Why aren't you going into a shop with some prepared lists for the common point values instead of walking in with every model you own and making the list there?

Because I have better things to do with my time than make lists? What, are you going to write my itinerary for me?
I am, and my opponents, are fine with grabbing some boxes of models from our collections, and quickly making lists.

For example, we might find ourselves with a few hours free time, so will pop down to Warhammer World, I might grab my 2nd Company box and my vehicles box, and they might grab their Chaos box. Then, we decide the kind of game we want to play from the boards available, a rough size depending on how long we have, etc etc, and Power Level a list.
Simple.

That's just...that's just silly.

In your opinion. Some people think that it's perfectly reasonable.

...preparing your lists is literally part of the game. That's like the same as people saying they have better things to do than to build their models or paint them or actually play the game.

It's kinda all connected. I don't know how you create that disconnect, but I'll spend two weeks to even a month perfecting a list because it's something to take pride in like the models themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
With points, you price the individual upgrades.

PL cannot do that whatsoever. A single Heavy Bolter is not worth the same as a single Grav Cannon. Ordinarily you pay a lot more for the Grav Cannon. Bam, that's how points does it. Another alternative is to look at Blood Angels Tactical Squads. Their Heavy Flamer is the same cost as a regular one in a minimum sized squad, yet the two weapons are clearly of different value (and I will laugh the moment you try to list the Assault profile for the Flamer a benefit to pick it over additional Strength and AP).

I know how points work. However, it is slower to calculate, and encourages you to prioritize in-game effects over aesthetic or flavour.

I'm not saying points don't have a purpose. They do. I'm saying that some people don't find the purpose of points to be that valuable.

Which once again creates the problem that, with an in game effect, you'd have reason to take 2.8 Heavy Bolters over a Grav Cannon. When everything is priced the same, you can't make that decision. So that leads to the principle you might as well throw each system in the trash and go pewpew.

Also, harder to calculate? Did you somehow not be able to do this for several editions and had someone else do the math for you? I know you said you've played for a while. Simple addition is simple addition. You aren't doing trigonometry or anything.
It also helps that you simply bring lists for common point values ready to go. Sorry, but bringing your whole collection and making a list is irresponsible.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...preparing your lists is literally part of the game. That's like the same as people saying they have better things to do than to build their models or paint them or actually play the game.

Err, sorry, no?

Show me where it says I need to have my list prepared. It only says I need one at the start of the game, but that could be a list I've only just made. I don't need to make a list weeks in advance. I don't even need it hours in advance. Stop imposing your personal way to play as fact and a necessity for others. It's not true.

It's kinda all connected. I don't know how you create that disconnect, but I'll spend two weeks to even a month perfecting a list because it's something to take pride in like the models themselves.

And I'll take pride in my models by playing them how I want to, painting them how I want to, and taking the models I want to. You have your way, I'll have mine. Savvy?

Which once again creates the problem that, with an in game effect, you'd have reason to take 2.8 Heavy Bolters over a Grav Cannon. When everything is priced the same, you can't make that decision. So that leads to the principle you might as well throw each system in the trash and go pewpew.

You can make that decision. You just don't base it off of the effectiveness. You base it off which gun you like the look of, the fluff of, the flavour of.

Also, harder to calculate? Did you somehow not be able to do this for several editions and had someone else do the math for you? I know you said you've played for a while. Simple addition is simple addition. You aren't doing trigonometry or anything.

Simple addition can be made simpler. Or can you not understand how 217+48 is more complex than 3+4?

It's not about the calculation. It's about the amount of calculation, and the length of the sums. 1+1 is easier than 100+100.

And again - I have played 40k for several editions. I have played with points. I deal with standard three/four digit sums as part of my daily life. Just because I *can* do it doesn't mean I want to do it as part of my leisure time.

Sorry if I don't have fun the way you do, but my way is just as valid as yours. Will you concede that at least?

It also helps that you simply bring lists for common point values ready to go. Sorry, but bringing your whole collection and making a list is irresponsible.

And you became the arbiter of what is and is not responsible when, exactly?

You have no authority to claim what is, and is not, good, wrong, right, responsible, or necessary, Slayerfan. Will you stop being so arrogant?

Nowhere does it say you must prepare your list before you go to play.

Never once has he said "you must do that". He simply stated what is, in fact, demonstrably the norm.

No one cares how you personally choose to play. For all I care you can stuff your models in a sock and beat Magic players and determine winners by the density of your stool.

But most people would probably want you doing exactly that. Dragging all your models to the FLGS, asking for a game, and then making your list after you see what your opponent has just comes off as scummy.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Nowhere does it say you must prepare your list before you go to play.

Never once has he said "you must do that". He simply stated what is, in fact, demonstrably the norm.

No one cares how you personally choose to play. For all I care you can stuff your models in a sock and beat Magic players and determine winners by the density of your stool.

But most people would probably want you doing exactly that. Dragging all your models to the FLGS, asking for a game, and then making your list after you see what your opponent has just comes off as scummy.

Or it might help both players have a better game. If I roll up and my opponent wants to play pure grey knights or a fluffy inquisition list, then I would make a list that is a lot more toned down than if my opponent tells me they want to try out their latest tournament list.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Nowhere does it say you must prepare your list before you go to play.

Never once has he said "you must do that". He simply stated what is, in fact, demonstrably the norm.

No, he didn't. He said:

"preparing your lists is literally part of the game" (and for context, "preparing your list" meant doing it long in advance, not on the spot) - this is a falsehood, and not a universal part of the game.
"I'll spend two weeks to even a month perfecting a list because it's something to take pride in like the models themselves" - this is a personal slight, worded to imply that because I don't play the same way as Slayerfan, I apparently have no pride in my hobby.
"bringing your whole collection and making a list is irresponsible" This is literally Slayer saying 'if you don't prewrite your list, you're a bad person - you SHOULD/MUST prepare your list if you're a good person'

Again, I know that Slayer is no authority figure. I know that Slayer cannot actually say what MUST be. However, everything they've said quoted above is them attempting to enforce that there is a certain DEFINITE way to play that involves pre-writing lists, or else you are a lesser person.

This is what I am highlighting here - the aspect of "play this way or else you are inferior".

The norm is only the norm in their community. My norm is very different to theirs.

No one cares how you personally choose to play. For all I care you can stuff your models in a sock and beat Magic players and determine winners by the density of your stool.

You might not care. Some people in this thread, however, do seem to care, and seem to think it an absolute fact that myself, and people like myself, are wrong.

But most people would probably want you doing exactly that. Dragging all your models to the FLGS, asking for a game, and then making your list after you see what your opponent has just comes off as scummy.

When did I say I did it after I see what my opponent has? Or is this you making assumptions? That would be list tailoring, and I don't do that.

Allow me to explain, in further detail, how I play.
My opponent and I agree we will play a game. We pick up the armies we want to play, already stored in boxes that organise them into groupings (for example, all my Ultramarines 1st Company units are in the 1st Company box, all my main vehicles have a box, all my transports have a box, and the 2nd Company units are also in a box). We take a number of these boxes, and when we're at the venue and table, decide what kind of game we want to play (custom scenario, Open War cards, pre-gen mission, Kill Team etc etc) and the size of it. Then, we take a few minutes after deciding everything to write up our lists, independently, and then before deployment, we reveal our lists.

No list tailoring, no biases, no cheating.

Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
BOTH PL and Points are inaccurate with GW. That they both provide a structured limit isn't in question. That the Warhammer games have NEVER had an accurately balanced pricing structure IS the point and one shouldn't go in with the expectation that they ever will. And since both are woefully inaccurate and unbalanced, it doesn't matter that much in the long run which is used.

Points aren't balanced perfectly, but they allow more balance than Power Level. This is objective fact.

Real quick, tell me where points aren't balanced.

Because while I'm sure there are some very valid discrepancies, most of the time it boils down to "what I want to use is overcosted" and "what my opponent beat me with is undercosted".

And if you've been paying attention, I have stated that Points have the capacity to be more finely balanced (nor has anyone ever stated that PL was superior in fine balance), but GW simply won't do it. Not to mention if really improperly handled, it can actually be even more unbalancing than a PL.

I've already given a couple examples to Slayer, and they don't just lie in, "it beat me, therefore it is too powerful". For example, as 6th and 7th Edition progressed, all the Imperium Weapon upgrades were given the same price for all Infantry. That means that the Lascannon cost the same for both a Devastator, Long Fang, and Heavy Weapon Team. Now, the first two were BS: 4, and the HWT were BS: 3, to say nothing about their survivability. Long Fangs, in addition, could separate at least one shot to a different target, which provides more value for those Weapons.

FROM THERE, there were two different types of Heavy Weapon Teams in the very same Imperial Guard codex, one being part of Infantry and Command Squads, and the other in the Heavy Weapon Squad. Their cost to upgrade to a Lascannon was the same as for Devastators and between both Squads, however, the Heavy Weapon Squad cost much more per model (45 for 3 2W models vs 50 for 10 1W models, almost like having a built-in Heavy Bolter), making a Lascannon cost a lot more to field in Heavy Weapon Squads than in an Infantry Squad, even though the Lascannon has less value in an Infantry Squad due to everyone having to shoot the same thing.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

No, it is not assuming that PL is more correct to being with. Neither I, nor anyone else here, has once advocated about the ACCURACY of the PL system. That is an assumption that you are putting in to your equation to bring your scarecrow arguments in.

In point of fact, if you bothered to actually read what I wrote, you would see that I do not place any more level of accuracy on either method than I would an Ork Stormtrooper shooting away from Leia on the Death Star.

Actually no, because it leads to the next point I'm going to make.

If you know PL isnt accurate, then what's the point of defending it and using it in the first place instead of going 1st Iteration of AoS?

Because you're not listening the the other half of the statement.

BOTH PL and Points are inaccurate with GW. That they both provide a structured limit isn't in question. That the Warhammer games have NEVER had an accurately balanced pricing structure IS the point and one shouldn't go in with the expectation that they ever will. And since both are woefully inaccurate and unbalanced, it doesn't matter that much in the long run which is used.

So why not go for better structure than a system that has little of it, if at all?

You'd literally be better off just playing without any system and making pewpew noises.

No, you wouldn't. The reaction to Age of Sigmar's launch without anything to provide structure with demonstrates how effective the minimal structure of PL provides to the game.

And because they are both inaccurate, neither one is really a better structure. Just because it has a better potential, doesn't mean it's better overall. I can take the best designs and best materials and have my 6-year-old son build a shed. I can then take a minimal design and minimal materials and give it to a decent contractor and come out with a better shed than what my son would provide. In the case of 40K, we have a minimal design and an effective design, but we're still dealing with a builder who cannot hammer or screw straight while confusing tabs and slots to make a total botch of it, no matter what design their using.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
With points, you price the individual upgrades.

PL cannot do that whatsoever. A single Heavy Bolter is not worth the same as a single Grav Cannon. Ordinarily you pay a lot more for the Grav Cannon. Bam, that's how points does it. Another alternative is to look at Blood Angels Tactical Squads. Their Heavy Flamer is the same cost as a regular one in a minimum sized squad, yet the two weapons are clearly of different value (and I will laugh the moment you try to list the Assault profile for the Flamer a benefit to pick it over additional Strength and AP).

I know how points work. However, it is slower to calculate, and encourages you to prioritize in-game effects over aesthetic or flavour.

Not really. What it does it require sacrifices in building units in order to give priority to desired in-game affects.

Adeptus Doritos wrote:Nowhere does it say you must prepare your list before you go to play.

Never once has he said "you must do that". He simply stated what is, in fact, demonstrably the norm.

No one cares how you personally choose to play. For all I care you can stuff your models in a sock and beat Magic players and determine winners by the density of your stool.

But most people would probably want you doing exactly that. Dragging all your models to the FLGS, asking for a game, and then making your list after you see what your opponent has just comes off as scummy.

Slayer is of the camp that if you haven't prepared your list and properly boxed it up for carriage before coming to the game table, then you are obviously cheating.

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.

explicitly this!

Wayniac wrote: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.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Nowhere does it say you must prepare your list before you go to play.

Never once has he said "you must do that". He simply stated what is, in fact, demonstrably the norm.

No, he didn't. He said:

"preparing your lists is literally part of the game" (and for context, "preparing your list" meant doing it long in advance, not on the spot) - this is a falsehood, and not a universal part of the game.
"I'll spend two weeks to even a month perfecting a list because it's something to take pride in like the models themselves" - this is a personal slight, worded to imply that because I don't play the same way as Slayerfan, I apparently have no pride in my hobby.
"bringing your whole collection and making a list is irresponsible" This is literally Slayer saying 'if you don't prewrite your list, you're a bad person - you SHOULD/MUST prepare your list if you're a good person'

Again, I know that Slayer is no authority figure. I know that Slayer cannot actually say what MUST be. However, everything they've said quoted above is them attempting to enforce that there is a certain DEFINITE way to play that involves pre-writing lists, or else you are a lesser person.

This is what I am highlighting here - the aspect of "play this way or else you are inferior".

The norm is only the norm in their community. My norm is very different to theirs.

No one cares how you personally choose to play. For all I care you can stuff your models in a sock and beat Magic players and determine winners by the density of your stool.

You might not care. Some people in this thread, however, do seem to care, and seem to think it an absolute fact that myself, and people like myself, are wrong.

But most people would probably want you doing exactly that. Dragging all your models to the FLGS, asking for a game, and then making your list after you see what your opponent has just comes off as scummy.

When did I say I did it after I see what my opponent has? Or is this you making assumptions? That would be list tailoring, and I don't do that.

Allow me to explain, in further detail, how I play.
My opponent and I agree we will play a game. We pick up the armies we want to play, already stored in boxes that organise them into groupings (for example, all my Ultramarines 1st Company units are in the 1st Company box, all my main vehicles have a box, all my transports have a box, and the 2nd Company units are also in a box). We take a number of these boxes, and when we're at the venue and table, decide what kind of game we want to play (custom scenario, Open War cards, pre-gen mission, Kill Team etc etc) and the size of it. Then, we take a few minutes after deciding everything to write up our lists, independently, and then before deployment, we reveal our lists.

No list tailoring, no biases, no cheating.

bam, well put.