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.

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

It doesn't. It also doesn't stop people from banging the table every time you roll the dice. Or screaming 'Booyah!' at you every time you try to speak to them. That's not its job.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

For the record, list tailoring is cheating, full stop.

And, again, no it isn't. Unless you and your opponent have agreed to not do it, of course.

List tailoring is perfectly acceptable if it's what both players expect to happen. It's pretty much expected and inevitable if you play against the same people regularly.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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?

You realise that ignoring the answers doesn't make them magically disappear, right?

PL isn't intended to be 100% accurate. It's intended to be a rough guide to get two more-or-less equivalent forces on the table without being as detailed as calculating the points for every upgrade. The original AoS approach of 'just use whatever you want' was a step too far into Nebulous Land for most people.

Personally, I would only ever use points. But that's because list-building and agonizing over every upgrade is a large part of the fun for me. Using PL would be like leaving fun on the table.

For me, the difference is the way you list build your lists with points and PL are very different, they foster different styles of lists.

Also, the rulebook has a ton of missions and special rules for PL games, like Sentries, that require PL and are actually super fun to play. The book acknowledges that people may often have slightly different PL totals, and addresses that in the Missiions. For many, you don't actually want equal PL, you want one higher than the other, as appropriate to the missions.

 Luciferian wrote:
Personally, I would only ever use points. But that's because list-building and agonizing over every upgrade is a large part of the fun for me. Using PL would be like leaving fun on the table.

That's absolutely fair, because that's how you enjoy the game. I wouldn't ever want someone to have to play the game in a way that they don't enjoy, or berate them for choosing their idea of fun.

 Luciferian wrote:
Personally, I would only ever use points. But that's because list-building and agonizing over every upgrade is a large part of the fun for me. Using PL would be like leaving fun on the table.

And that's fair.

Honestly, I don't even know if I could get a PL game at my stores because they are a very competitive lot, over all. I just find certain people's attitude toxic to the hobby over all. There's no reason to treat every pickup game like it was a try-out for the NBA, after all.

 Charistoph wrote:

And that's fair.

Honestly, I don't even know if I could get a PL game at my stores because they are a very competitive lot, over all. I just find certain people's attitude toxic to the hobby over all. There's no reason to treat every pickup game like it was a try-out for the NBA, after all.

If that's the way they want to play, that's the way they want to play. Nothing "toxic" about it. Believe it or not, some people are capable of playing a fun and friendly game based on points values and optimized lists. This binary choice between having fun or playing competitively is a false dichotomy. Some people can have a fun, healthy, and competitive game where both players enjoy themselves even though one player wins and one loses. There's no need to pathologize high-level or competitive play, just find someone else to play with if you prefer to play more casually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
Personally, I would only ever use points. But that's because list-building and agonizing over every upgrade is a large part of the fun for me. Using PL would be like leaving fun on the table.

That's absolutely fair, because that's how you enjoy the game. I wouldn't ever want someone to have to play the game in a way that they don't enjoy, or berate them for choosing their idea of fun.

Nor would I. There are a lot of ways to play the game and a lot of ways to have fun.

But how does PL stop people from min-maxing?

How do points stop people from min-maxing?

 Luciferian wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

And that's fair.

Honestly, I don't even know if I could get a PL game at my stores because they are a very competitive lot, over all. I just find certain people's attitude toxic to the hobby over all. There's no reason to treat every pickup game like it was a try-out for the NBA, after all.

If that's the way they want to play, that's the way they want to play. Nothing "toxic" about it. Believe it or not, some people are capable of playing a fun and friendly game based on points values and optimized lists. This binary choice between having fun or playing competitively is a false dichotomy. Some people can have a fun, healthy, and competitive game where both players enjoy themselves even though one player wins and one loses. There's no need to pathologize high-level or competitive play, just find someone else to play with if you prefer to play more casually.

I think you miss the point of the last two sentences. What is toxic is when people call someone trash or cheater for wanting to play in a different or even less-granular way. I've never been called either locally, but I have been called that here by certain parties, and they are the ones I was calling toxic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

auticus wrote:

But how does PL stop people from min-maxing?

How do points stop people from min-maxing?

Indeed, it is just a different form/shape of it, especially when both are imbalanced.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Show me where it says I need to have my list prepared.

I mean, I suppose if part of your enjoyment of the hobby is carrying a bunch of extra boxes to a game and then not using the models in them, well, you can make your list at the store or whatever. I don't see how this is an improvement over having the pre-game discussion before you leave so you can take only the boxes that you need, but I guess everyone has their different opinions...

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.

This, however, is nonsense. PL does not remove the fact that some options are more effective than others, or that taking the most effective option is the way to win games. It does change which particular option is the best one (typically to the one that is most expensive in the normal point system), but the pressure to take the most efficient upgrade for the point cost is still exactly the same. The idea that PL promotes building lists based on fluff or aesthetics is purely a player creation, it's certain people deciding that "let's play a game with PL" implies "don't take the best options" and creating social pressure to comply with their style of play or be shunned from the community.

Or can you not understand how 217+48 is more complex than 3+4?

And the point is that it doesn't matter. 217+48 and 3+4 are both so utterly simple that the difference in complexity is irrelevant unless you're a small child struggling with basic math, especially in 2019 when everyone has a calculator in their pocket so you're literally talking about a difference in difficulty consisting of an extra faction of a second to press three more buttons.

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

Will you stop being so arrogant in declaring that your opinion has value? Or is arrogance permitted when someone agrees with you?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Show me where it says I need to have my list prepared.

I mean, I suppose if part of your enjoyment of the hobby is carrying a bunch of extra boxes to a game and then not using the models in them, well, you can make your list at the store or whatever. I don't see how this is an improvement over having the pre-game discussion before you leave so you can take only the boxes that you need, but I guess everyone has their different opinions...

Thank you.

 Peregrine wrote:

This, however, is nonsense. PL does not remove the fact that some options are more effective than others, or that taking the most effective option is the way to win games. It does change which particular option is the best one (typically to the one that is most expensive in the normal point system), but the pressure to take the most efficient upgrade for the point cost is still exactly the same. The idea that PL promotes building lists based on fluff or aesthetics is purely a player creation, it's certain people deciding that "let's play a game with PL" implies "don't take the best options" and creating social pressure to comply with their style of play or be shunned from the community.

You're once again misreading the argument.

He didn't say that PL removes the effectiveness of certain options. He said that the effectiveness of those options isn't something that the people in favour of Power Levels tend to consider.

That 'pressure' to take the most efficient upgrade is only present if you are actually trying to make an optimised list. For many players, that's just not a thing. They've built their models based on what looked the best, or on their home-brew fluff, or because they really, really like a particular type of weapon or unit, and they write their lists based on the models they have, not the models that would be the most effective.

Yet again, not everyone plays the way you do, and the fact that you consider any other way of playing an absurdity doesn't actually change that.

 insaniak wrote:
You're once again misreading the argument.

He didn't say that PL removes the effectiveness of certain options. He said that the effectiveness of those options isn't something that the people in favour of Power Levels tend to consider.

That 'pressure' to take the most efficient upgrade is only present if you are actually trying to make an optimised list. For many players, that's just not a thing. They've built their models based on what looked the best, or on their home-brew fluff, or because they really, really like a particular type of weapon or unit, and they write their lists based on the models they have, not the models that would be the most effective.

Yet again, not everyone plays the way you do, and the fact that you consider any other way of playing an absurdity doesn't actually change that.

But none of that has anything to do with PL.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Show me where it says I need to have my list prepared.

I mean, I suppose if part of your enjoyment of the hobby is carrying a bunch of extra boxes to a game and then not using the models in them, well, you can make your list at the store or whatever. I don't see how this is an improvement over having the pre-game discussion before you leave so you can take only the boxes that you need, but I guess everyone has their different opinions...

Thank you.

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.

This, however, is nonsense. PL does not remove the fact that some options are more effective than others, or that taking the most effective option is the way to win games.

I never claimed it did change how effective the weapon was.

I said that people don't always choose things based on the effectiveness. Some people choose a weapon because of things beyond the simple mechanics. I'm fully aware that you seem to see a heavy bolter as just a heavy 3 s5 ap-1 bolt weapon, but it's more than just that to other people - therefore, the mere effectiveness of a weapon isn't always the deciding factor.

I can't believe I need to spell it out again, but different people have different opinions which are all subjective and equally valid.

It does change which particular option is the best one (typically to the one that is most expensive in the normal point system), but the pressure to take the most efficient upgrade for the point cost is still exactly the same.

And the data seems to indicate that the people for whom this pressure to take the most efficient options is weakest in, also happen to be the ones who like power level.

If power level really were just as encouraging of the "efficient player" mindset, then why do most "efficient players" play points, and the people least likely to fit into the "efficient players" mindset play PL?

The idea that PL promotes building lists based on fluff or aesthetics is purely a player creation, it's certain people deciding that "let's play a game with PL" implies "don't take the best options" and creating social pressure to comply with their style of play or be shunned from the community.

And this is different from the inherent social pressures of tournament play, general points (where the best options aren't based on their profile alone, but rather on their value for points - thus creating the same arms race of optimisation, just optimising a different element, that being value rather than pure strength), or from the vastly more competitive scene of Dakkadakka? And you have the gall to say that "PL players are bad because they create a social pressure to comply to them"?

Both groups have social pressures. That's just how human psychology works. If you don't like one group, join another. Don't like either, don't join one and make your own.

Or can you not understand how 217+48 is more complex than 3+4?

And the point is that it doesn't matter. 217+48 and 3+4 are both so utterly simple that the difference in complexity is irrelevant unless you're a small child struggling with basic math, especially in 2019 when everyone has a calculator in their pocket so you're literally talking about a difference in difficulty consisting of an extra faction of a second to press three more buttons.

So you're saying that points are only as easy as PL when you have to use a calculator? Lol

I don't CARE if using a calculator is just as fast. I shouldn't NEED to use a calculator. I shouldn't NEED to have to use a third party source to do the work for me. Considering that my phone is quite poor anyways, and the battery drains faster than the battery of a hotshot lasgun, I want to avoid using it as much as possible. Therefore, not having to use a calculator is very appealing.

If your only argument for points being just as fast is when you're using a calculator, then I think that line of debate is well and truly concluded.

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

Will you stop being so arrogant in declaring that your opinion has value? Or is arrogance permitted when someone agrees with you?

I could say the same. Why are you so sure your opinion has value, if you're so eager to invalidate mine.

The simple fact is it is default for people discussing in a forum to have equally valid and audible voices. That's the POINT of a forum. Every opinion is as valid as the other. The issues arise when people attempt to undermine the validity of a person's mere opinion and subjectivity, or assert their opinions as indisputable fact - both of which you are doing. If you start encouraging the idea that some opinions that only affect the person speaking them are not permitted to be heard, then you compromise every single person within that forum, and destroy the social contract which it is based around.

Well done Peregrine! You just destroyed the concept of a forum, where people are supposed to come together to discuss things as equals, sharing opinions with the same validity within the social contract of the forum. Are you proud?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
But none of that has anything to do with PL.

Yes it does.

In the points system, you must pay for the options according purely to their strength in the game, and their other values are ignored. I'm not saying that's a bad thing - but I am saying it's only useful for players who care about strength and balance.

For the players who don't care about that, their creativity and fun should not have to suffer because they liked the look of X weapon. This is why PL comes in. It treats all weapons as equal, despite their differences in strength, because the strength isn't the valuable part for the PL players.

Or, let's compare to music, purely because I think I can explain better with music.
It's like comparing Eminem's 'Rap God' to Shostakovitch's Fugue in A Major. For people who care about harmony and melody, I think the A Major Fugue would be incredibly suitable for them (I won't say enjoyable, but interesting - seeing as that piece lacks any dissonance, as a stylistic choice). Hell, the name of the piece focuses on this - the tonality and harmony of it were incredibly valued and prioritized in the creation of it, and are the things a listener would value in it too.
Rap God has very little melody, and pretty much no harmony, but that's not important. The lyrical content and rhythmic emphasis are the focus of the piece, and are what a typical listener of rap would value.
Of COURSE someone who only likes 20th century music would dislike rap - because rap puts focus on things they simply don't care for. Likewise, rap lovers would find no value in a piano fugue.*

*People can like more than one, but for the sake of this argument, I'm assuming two very close-minded music lovers!

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

It doesn't; the beauty of PL for min maxers is that PL produces very different min maxed lists to what points system produces. This adds variety to the game, because before you could only 'solve' 40k by discovering the 'winningest list' under points, but now there is a complete shake up in the fact there is a second system, PL, to build armies, and ergo a completely different 'winningest list' to discover.

 Blndmage wrote:
For me, the difference is the way you list build your lists with points and PL are very different, they foster different styles of lists.

Also, the rulebook has a ton of missions and special rules for PL games, like Sentries, that require PL and are actually super fun to play. The book acknowledges that people may often have slightly different PL totals, and addresses that in the Missiions. For many, you don't actually want equal PL, you want one higher than the other, as appropriate to the missions.

Because it's getting lost in bickering.

I feel that the above are some valid reasons, not based on individual preferences that show some of the differentiation between Points and PL.

Also, see the new CA, the Narritive PL based section is amazing! It continues to define the difference between the two (main, I'm not discounting open play, as they've done aweso,e stuff there as well) style of play within the community.

While you can try to make the Narritive mission special rules contort to the Points system, it's obvious that Narritive and Matched Play (not necessarily PL and Points, as the Matched Play section says you can use PL as your balancing factor, or even number of Wounds) are gear toward different styles of play.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
If power level really were just as encouraging of the "efficient player" mindset, then why do most "efficient players" play points, and the people least likely to fit into the "efficient players" mindset play PL?

Three reasons, none of them related to anything about PL being good:

1) People who care about a rules-focused approach to the game tend to have a better understanding of game design and recognize that PL is a bad system and use the normal point system.

2) Just by the odds, 71% of the people responding to this poll prefer the normal points system. Even if attitudes about efficiency had nothing to do with choice of rules you'd still find that most efficiency-minded players use normal points because most players in general use normal points.

3) PL advocates have created a social construct around PL being the "casual" format and use "let's play PL" as shorthand for "don't optimize your list or you aren't welcome". So even if efficiency-focused players wanted to use PL they'd find themselves rejected by the other PL players and go back to using normal points.

And this is different from the inherent social pressures of tournament play, general points (where the best options aren't based on their profile alone, but rather on their value for points - thus creating the same arms race of optimisation, just optimising a different element, that being value rather than pure strength), or from the vastly more competitive scene of Dakkadakka? And you have the gall to say that "PL players are bad because they create a social pressure to comply to them"?

Both groups have social pressures. That's just how human psychology works. If you don't like one group, join another. Don't like either, don't join one and make your own.

None of that social pressure has anything to do with your choice of point system. The difference between the two is that PL has all of the pressures of normal points (optimizing your list based on point efficiency), but then PL players have added all kinds of unwritten rules about how much optimization is "too much".

So you're saying that points are only as easy as PL when you have to use a calculator? Lol

I'm saying that adding up your points using a calculator (which you have on your phone) is so obviously easier than doing it by hand that talking about how easy or hard mental math is just doesn't have any relevance to reality. It doesn't matter if you're adding up 217+48+61+105+49 or 18+5+7+24+19, using a calculator makes it easier and avoids mistakes.

The simple fact is it is default for people discussing in a forum to have equally valid and audible voices. That's the POINT of a forum. Every opinion is as valid as the other. The issues arise when people attempt to undermine the validity of a person's mere opinion and subjectivity, or assert their opinions as indisputable fact - both of which you are doing. If you start encouraging the idea that some opinions that only affect the person speaking them are not permitted to be heard, then you compromise every single person within that forum, and destroy the social contract which it is based around.

Well done Peregrine! You just destroyed the concept of a forum, where people are supposed to come together to discuss things as equals, sharing opinions with the same validity within the social contract of the forum. Are you proud?

Never did I say that your opinions are not permitted to be heard. You are wrong, but you are free to continue posting your wrong opinions and nobody is lobbying for you to be banned. But I think it says a lot that you have to continue to resort to a defense as weak as "I have a right to have an opinion". A well-supported position does not require stating the obvious because much stronger defenses exist.

In the points system, you must pay for the options according purely to their strength in the game, and their other values are ignored.

Yes, which is exactly how it works in PL. The only difference is that in the normal point system upgrades have different costs and you can have strategic choices like taking a less-powerful option because it is cheaper, while in PL they all have the same cost and the only value that matters is how powerful its stat line is.

For the players who don't care about that, their creativity and fun should not have to suffer because they liked the look of X weapon. This is why PL comes in. It treats all weapons as equal, despite their differences in strength, because the strength isn't the valuable part for the PL players.

Except that's not how it works at all. In PL if you like the look of X weapon you'd better hope it's the most powerful one because you're paying the price for the most powerful weapon. For example, in PL you will never take a flamer because a plasma gun costs the same and is a much more powerful option. Like the look of a flamer? Too bad, you're going to be making a weaker list by taking it. At least under the normal point system you can save a few points by taking that flamer.

The only time "creativity and fun" don't suffer under PL is when you decide not to care about list optimization and take a weaker option, which you can also do in the normal point system. Nothing about PL encourages taking weaker options because you like the aesthetics, that is purely a social construct certain players have invented.

Or, let's compare to music, purely because I think I can explain better with music.

Except what your comparison misses is that PL is just a worse version of the normal point system. It doesn't create a genuinely different experience, it just assigns a less accurate point cost to units. A more relevant music comparison would be having the choice of listening to the rap song, or listening to the exact same song except it's been through a few rounds of file compression and you're playing it on the cheapest possible low-end speakers.

 Blndmage wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
For me, the difference is the way you list build your lists with points and PL are very different, they foster different styles of lists.

Also, the rulebook has a ton of missions and special rules for PL games, like Sentries, that require PL and are actually super fun to play. The book acknowledges that people may often have slightly different PL totals, and addresses that in the Missiions. For many, you don't actually want equal PL, you want one higher than the other, as appropriate to the missions.

Because it's getting lost in bickering.

I feel that the above are some valid reasons, not based on individual preferences that show some of the differentiation between Points and PL.

Also, see the new CA, the Narritive PL based section is amazing! It continues to define the difference between the two (main, I'm not discounting open play, as they've done aweso,e stuff there as well) style of play within the community.

While you can try to make the Narritive mission special rules contort to the Points system, it's obvious that Narritive and Matched Play (not necessarily PL and Points, as the Matched Play section says you can use PL as your balancing factor, or even number of Wounds) are gear toward different styles of play.

I fear that your POV is a voice in the wilderness when it comes to Peregrine, as he dismisses Narrative Play section of the BRB in it's entirety, so any further reasoning based on content contained therein is fundamentally without merit in his eyes. We had this talk few times already and it's really hopeless - you should just accept that your way of having fun with 40K is invalid, wrong and bad

At the very least you should translate all narrative section to points, but at the same time do such feat with strict accordance to the rules as written by GW, and remember, that any homebrew rules written ever are even worse crap than official GW rules and any rules modification not sanctioned by ITC are done for your personal advantage (you filthy cheater)

nou wrote:
I fear that your POV is a voice in the wilderness when it comes to Peregrine, as he dismisses Narrative Play section of the BRB in it's entirety, so any further reasoning based on content contained therein is fundamentally without merit in his eyes. We had this talk few times already and it's really hopeless - you should just accept that your way of having fun with 40K is invalid, wrong and bad

Oh look, this straw man again. Let's just ignore that my objection to GW's "narrative" section is that it's a narrative system and narrative players should be demanding better, not that narrative gaming is without merit and you shouldn't do it.

 Peregrine wrote:

nou wrote:
I fear that your POV is a voice in the wilderness when it comes to Peregrine, as he dismisses Narrative Play section of the BRB in it's entirety, so any further reasoning based on content contained therein is fundamentally without merit in his eyes. We had this talk few times already and it's really hopeless - you should just accept that your way of having fun with 40K is invalid, wrong and bad

Oh look, this straw man again. Let's just ignore that my objection to GW's "narrative" section is that it's a narrative system and narrative players should be demanding better, not that narrative gaming is without merit and you shouldn't do it.

This is true. Remember what the first Chapter Approved gave us for Open Play/Narrative? Customizable Land Raiders!!!!!!
What did the second one give us? Character customization!!!!!!

That's really not a lot for a whole type of game dedicated to these kinds of rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

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

It doesn't. It also doesn't stop people from banging the table every time you roll the dice. Or screaming 'Booyah!' at you every time you try to speak to them. That's not its job.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

For the record, list tailoring is cheating, full stop.

And, again, no it isn't. Unless you and your opponent have agreed to not do it, of course.

List tailoring is perfectly acceptable if it's what both players expect to happen. It's pretty much expected and inevitable if you play against the same people regularly.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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?

You realise that ignoring the answers doesn't make them magically disappear, right?

PL isn't intended to be 100% accurate. It's intended to be a rough guide to get two more-or-less equivalent forces on the table without being as detailed as calculating the points for every upgrade. The original AoS approach of 'just use whatever you want' was a step too far into Nebulous Land for most people.

Agreeing to your opponent list tailoring is agreeing for them to cheat. It doesn't matter if you let them or not, as there is a concept to cheating you're not grasping.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
If power level really were just as encouraging of the "efficient player" mindset, then why do most "efficient players" play points, and the people least likely to fit into the "efficient players" mindset play PL?

Three reasons, none of them related to anything about PL being good:

Spoiler:

1) People who care about a rules-focused approach to the game tend to have a better understanding of game design and recognize that PL is a bad system and use the normal point system.

2) Just by the odds, 71% of the people responding to this poll prefer the normal points system. Even if attitudes about efficiency had nothing to do with choice of rules you'd still find that most efficiency-minded players use normal points because most players in general use normal points.

3) PL advocates have created a social construct around PL being the "casual" format and use "let's play PL" as shorthand for "don't optimize your list or you aren't welcome". So even if efficiency-focused players wanted to use PL they'd find themselves rejected by the other PL players and go back to using normal points.

if your first inclination is negative, you usually tend to look at everything that way. Why would they be ostrascized & rejected? it's nothing that a 30 sec conversation with your opponent cant figure out. If I ask someone what they're playing and what list(if any they pre-made) they're gonna play and I say we can do points or pl, either answer is fine. I will not berate them for wanting something different than I do, but you know what, if that's how you react to players whom do not meet your narrowly defined idea, cool, not my style.

Spoiler:

And this is different from the inherent social pressures of tournament play, general points (where the best options aren't based on their profile alone, but rather on their value for points - thus creating the same arms race of optimisation, just optimising a different element, that being value rather than pure strength), or from the vastly more competitive scene of Dakkadakka? And you have the gall to say that "PL players are bad because they create a social pressure to comply to them"?

Both groups have social pressures. That's just how human psychology works. If you don't like one group, join another. Don't like either, don't join one and make your own.

None of that social pressure has anything to do with your choice of point system. The difference between the two is that PL has all of the pressures of normal points (optimizing your list based on point efficiency), but then PL players have added all kinds of unwritten rules about how much optimization is "too much".

So you're saying that points are only as easy as PL when you have to use a calculator? Lol

I'm saying that adding up your points using a calculator (which you have on your phone) is so obviously easier than doing it by hand that talking about how easy or hard mental math is just doesn't have any relevance to reality. It doesn't matter if you're adding up 217+48+61+105+49 or 18+5+7+24+19, using a calculator makes it easier and avoids mistakes.

The simple fact is it is default for people discussing in a forum to have equally valid and audible voices. That's the POINT of a forum. Every opinion is as valid as the other. The issues arise when people attempt to undermine the validity of a person's mere opinion and subjectivity, or assert their opinions as indisputable fact - both of which you are doing. If you start encouraging the idea that some opinions that only affect the person speaking them are not permitted to be heard, then you compromise every single person within that forum, and destroy the social contract which it is based around.

Well done Peregrine! You just destroyed the concept of a forum, where people are supposed to come together to discuss things as equals, sharing opinions with the same validity within the social contract of the forum. Are you proud?

Never did I say that your opinions are not permitted to be heard. You are wrong, but you are free to continue posting your wrong opinions and nobody is lobbying for you to be banned. But I think it says a lot that you have to continue to resort to a defense as weak as "I have a right to have an opinion". A well-supported position does not require stating the obvious because much stronger defenses exist.

In the points system, you must pay for the options according purely to their strength in the game, and their other values are ignored.

Yes, which is exactly how it works in PL. The only difference is that in the normal point system upgrades have different costs and you can have strategic choices like taking a less-powerful option because it is cheaper, while in PL they all have the same cost and the only value that matters is how powerful its stat line is.

For the players who don't care about that, their creativity and fun should not have to suffer because they liked the look of X weapon. This is why PL comes in. It treats all weapons as equal, despite their differences in strength, because the strength isn't the valuable part for the PL players.

Except that's not how it works at all. In PL if you like the look of X weapon you'd better hope it's the most powerful one because you're paying the price for the most powerful weapon. For example, in PL you will never take a flamer because a plasma gun costs the same and is a much more powerful option. Like the look of a flamer? Too bad, you're going to be making a weaker list by taking it. At least under the normal point system you can save a few points by taking that flamer.

you say it's bad, that kinda sounds subjective rather than objective, wait a second that would make that an opinion.

I've never suffered for taking flamers & meltas. Now I'm not gonna say I dont have a plasmagun or lascannon mixed in there just to cover all the bases, but I'm sure not making it a priority to pick the "best"(subjective) guns. Every unit I've ever purchased is due to loving how the model looks, not which is most efficient. Why does my redemptor have flamer & asscan, cuz it looks badass. I havent used the plasma for more than a year.

the only time "creativity and fun" don't suffer under PL is when you decide not to care about list optimization and take a weaker option(subjective), which you can also do in the normal point system. Nothing about PL encourages taking weaker options because you like the aesthetics, that is purely a social construct certain players have invented.

The only one inventing stuff is you, everything that you've stated as fact is subjective, at this point I'm not sure if you are actually able to have a non biased discussion. NO ONE IS SAYING THAT YOU'RE WAY TO PLAY IS WRONG, unfortunately that is the only thing you have consistently done.

if the foundation of your argument cannot withstand courteous public discourse(i.e. name calling, using subjective opinions as facts, etc..), then by virtue of your own statements, the basis of your point isnt in the spirit of the original post. which was for the OP to figure out which way is best for them. Not for you to continuously deride anyone whose opinion(see, subjective) doesnt align with yours.

Spoiler:

Or, let's compare to music, purely because I think I can explain better with music.

Except what your comparison misses is that PL is just a worse version of the normal point system. It doesn't create a genuinely different experience, it just assigns a less accurate point cost to units. A more relevant music comparison would be having the choice of listening to the rap song, or listening to the exact same song except it's been through a few rounds of file compression and you're playing it on the cheapest possible low-end speakers.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
If power level really were just as encouraging of the "efficient player" mindset, then why do most "efficient players" play points, and the people least likely to fit into the "efficient players" mindset play PL?

Three reasons, none of them related to anything about PL being good:

1) People who care about a rules-focused approach to the game tend to have a better understanding of game design and recognize that PL is a bad system and use the normal point system.

This point hinges on PL being "bad" - I thought we'd established that "bad" is a matter of opinion, and not a fact. So, why is the reason people think it's bad "because it's bad"?

2) Just by the odds, 71% of the people responding to this poll prefer the normal points system. Even if attitudes about efficiency had nothing to do with choice of rules you'd still find that most efficiency-minded players use normal points because most players in general use normal points.

Now that's fair. Purely from people using what they're used to, that makes sense, and the most commonly used system.

3) PL advocates have created a social construct around PL being the "casual" format and use "let's play PL" as shorthand for "don't optimize your list or you aren't welcome". So even if efficiency-focused players wanted to use PL they'd find themselves rejected by the other PL players and go back to using normal points.

And how is this any different from social construct that points players have created, especially tournament or competitive players? This is, of course, working under your assumption that these social constructs exist.
Again, if PL players reject the "efficiency players" with enough consistency that it appears on this list of why those players don't play PL, surely that is a perfect response as to how PL is not completely broken? As you put it, the people who would break the system don't play it, and therefore, it doesn't get broken.

None of that social pressure has anything to do with your choice of point system. The difference between the two is that PL has all of the pressures of normal points (optimizing your list based on point efficiency), but then PL players have added all kinds of unwritten rules about how much optimization is "too much".

And is that any different to the unwritten emphasis on making your list as powerful as possible by optimizing efficiency in the points system?

If we assume that both sides have social contracts, how are either of them worse than the other? One has unwritten rules about how much optimisation is too much, and one has unwritten rules that discourage casual play, and encourage optimisation play. Neither is inherently better or worse.

I'm saying that adding up your points using a calculator (which you have on your phone) is so obviously easier than doing it by hand that talking about how easy or hard mental math is just doesn't have any relevance to reality. It doesn't matter if you're adding up 217+48+61+105+49 or 18+5+7+24+19, using a calculator makes it easier and avoids mistakes.

But you're still relying on a calculator. My point is that I shouldn't have to. If I have to rely on a calculator to play the game, then that's a problem. Plus, you can still make mistakes on a calculator (I found this problem quite a few times with previous editions - I'd be typing in so many numbers, so many times, that I'd be bound to miss a number from a unit's value, or not press the addition key, and have to start again).

Never did I say that your opinions are not permitted to be heard. You are wrong

But why? How? You say this like it's a fact, but it's not. This is why the entire social contract of the forum breaks down - because you are mentally incapable of recognising both that your opinions are not facts and that other people's opinions, just because you disagree with them, are not wrong. Because of your failure to comprehend this basic element of discussion, the entire social contract of the forum breaks down.

[quoteBut I think it says a lot that you have to continue to resort to a defense as weak as "I have a right to have an opinion".

 insaniak wrote:

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

It doesn't. It also doesn't stop people from banging the table every time you roll the dice. Or screaming 'Booyah!' at you every time you try to speak to them. That's not its job.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

For the record, list tailoring is cheating, full stop.

And, again, no it isn't. Unless you and your opponent have agreed to not do it, of course.

List tailoring is perfectly acceptable if it's what both players expect to happen. It's pretty much expected and inevitable if you play against the same people regularly.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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?

You realise that ignoring the answers doesn't make them magically disappear, right?

PL isn't intended to be 100% accurate. It's intended to be a rough guide to get two more-or-less equivalent forces on the table without being as detailed as calculating the points for every upgrade. The original AoS approach of 'just use whatever you want' was a step too far into Nebulous Land for most people.

Why would you bother with a rough guide if you know it's not even a GOOD rough guide?

I can't believe I have to reiterate this, but you lose NOTHING from a more granular, balanced system. Literally nothing. At all.

And no it was already proven it can't produce equivalent forces. Did you miss that whole post about the Deathwatch vs Eldar PL comparison for 2000 points? The Deathwatch one was 156 and the Eldar was 98. Deathwatch would even not have every upgrade available (which is free of course), making them worse by default, compared to a point system where you only pay what you decide necessary.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Agreeing to your opponent list tailoring is agreeing for them to cheat..

I have no idea how to respond to this. It's like you're saying 'Telling your friend they can borrow your car is agreeing for them to steal your stuff...'


Can you try, for just a moment, to step outside your box and accept that different people expect different things from the game? Ive played in groups where we all knew each others' armies, and we specifically tried to build lists to outdo each other, or to include something new and unexpected that they wouldn't have an easy counter for. That was accepted and enjoyed by everyone involved. Not 'cheating' (by very definition, since it was something that we all agreed to)... just how we played the game.

Even without going that extreme, for people with smaller collections and a small group of regular opponents, list tailoring is simply a natural consequence. As they add to their collections, people will go for those things that they expect will do well against their regular opponents.


List tailoring is only a problem if you are expecting that both players will go into the game knowing not knowing what their opponent is fielding. But regardless of how many times you want to repeat it as if it's an actual rule, that's only one way to play the game.

While I am firmly in the camp that points are better, I still think PL have merit. ESPECIALLY in the "living ruleset" era in which points get updated in non-Codex sources.
PL rarely changes and as long as you aren't INTENTIONALLY slapping the most expensive upgrades you possibly can on every unit, PLs work just fine to bring 2 forces to RELATIVE equality.

Using PLs also allow for changes in wargear without dramatically affecting the rest of the list.
Countless times have I struggled to bring a list down below 2000pts when a single weapon change was needed to make a unit more efficient. The list was below 2000pts before, but because I wanna swap a Shuricannon for a Bright lance to get more anti-tank, I have to go back to the drawing board to alter the whole list.

And while this kind of list building is certainly a fun part of the hobby, it can also be infuriating. Especially when you have mild-severe OCD and HAVE to get within 5pts of the army limit, but still have a symmetrical list.
PLs presents a more relaxed form of list building that permits game-to-game wargear alterations without altering whole sections of a list to make those changes fit.

My teen boys are building their Marine lists and PLs allow us to use the same list each game (because they have few units and they wanna use them ALL), but try out different weapon options to see what works for them. We could use points, but we'd either have to be ok with being ~20pts above or below the Points limit (no thanx) or potentially have slightly different or non-optimized lists.

-

Peregrine wrote:1) People who care about a rules-focused approach to the game tend to have a better understanding of game design and recognize that PL is a bad system and use the normal point system.

And people who are well familiar with the rules-focused approach to the game tend to have e better understanding of game design and recognize that GW's point system is as much crap as you think the PL system is, and occasionally worse.

Peregrine wrote:2) Just by the odds, 71% of the people responding to this poll prefer the normal points system. Even if attitudes about efficiency had nothing to do with choice of rules you'd still find that most efficiency-minded players use normal points because most players in general use normal points.

And how many do so because their local meta is a bunch of tournament hounds which require Matched Play like mine is, or simply because they've always used points so why change now?

Peregrine wrote:3) PL advocates have created a social construct around PL being the "casual" format and use "let's play PL" as shorthand for "don't optimize your list or you aren't welcome". So even if efficiency-focused players wanted to use PL they'd find themselves rejected by the other PL players and go back to using normal points.

Only a couple have said that. Others recognize that either system is based on faulty materials so don't see the purpose of being hide-bound on one tiny aspect of the ruleset.

Peregrine wrote:None of that social pressure has anything to do with your choice of point system. The difference between the two is that PL has all of the pressures of normal points (optimizing your list based on point efficiency), but then PL players have added all kinds of unwritten rules about how much optimization is "too much".

Assumption. If the only way a person been introduced to the game is the points system because the meta is overly tournament-focused, then why would they ever consider any other option? OR the meta uses points because they are so used to using points?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Agreeing to your opponent list tailoring is agreeing for them to cheat. It doesn't matter if you let them or not, as there is a concept to cheating you're not grasping.

No it isn't, because there is no rule against list tailoring, and if their is no rule, it is not cheating. In fact, you will find that every single successful tournament player tailor their lists very tightly to take on expected lists. It may not be as purely tailored as one would take for any one specific army, but it is built with all the same considerations in mind.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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?

1. Nowhere it says that you need to have your models painted more than one color nor does it create a strict WYSIWYG. It isn't my fault you want to be as disorganized with your hobby as you are.
2. Which means you automatically make your list worse when you only get to choose between so many weapons. If your opponent likes the look of the better weapons in the first place, your argument falls apart immediately (clearly not everyone thinks the Heavy Bolter looks better than the Grav Cannon, which is what your idea hinges on) and now their list is automatically stronger, all by the fact all the weapons are the same exact cost. Free. Everything is free. A Devastator squad with all Grav Cannons and Lascannons costs the same as one with all Multi-Melta and Heavy Bolters. This doesn't make sense when you inspect it for more than a few seconds.
3. I don't need a calculator for either addition problem you presented. The only person it'll be harder for is a first grader. Maybe, at that.
So 40k probably isn't the hobby for you, as there's probably several people here that work with numbers and still have little issue with adding up regular points. It's like a guitarist refusing to advance their skills to what they could be. They shouldn't just be playing guitar "because they enjoy it". If you aren't growing at said hobby, you're wasting your time, end of story. It isn't even a hobby at that point, just something you do for fun.
4. And it's that special attitude "you're entitled to an opinion" that leads to the lack of critical thinking that leads to Flat Earthers still existing. There's clearly something wrong and they need to be told that, and how one goes about it is a different story.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Why would you bother with a rough guide if you know it's not even a GOOD rough guide?

Because it's details don't get in the way and it is just as bad as the detailed one.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:I can't believe I have to reiterate this, but you lose NOTHING from a more granular, balanced system. Literally nothing. At all.

Already disproven.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Why would you bother with a rough guide if you know it's not even a GOOD rough guide?

Because you consider it good enough for its purpose?

I can't believe I have to reiterate this, but you lose NOTHING from a more granular, balanced system. Literally nothing. At all.

You don't have to reiterate it, since it's already been pointed out why that granular system is less appealing to those who prefer PL.

And no it was already proven it can't produce equivalent forces. Did you miss that whole post about the Deathwatch vs Eldar PL comparison for 2000 points? The Deathwatch one was 156 and the Eldar was 98. Deathwatch would even not have every upgrade available (which is free of course), making them worse by default, compared to a point system where you only pay what you decide necessary.

I tried typing up a response to this, but the twisted logic you're using here makes my brain hurt.


Let's just go with -
- being able to make imbalanced lists is not the same as not being able to make equivalent lists
and
- 'roughly equivalent' and 'equal' are not the same thing

 Charistoph wrote:

Peregrine wrote:1) People who care about a rules-focused approach to the game tend to have a better understanding of game design and recognize that PL is a bad system and use the normal point system.

And people who are well familiar with the rules-focused approach to the game tend to have e better understanding of game design and recognize that GW's point system is as much crap as you think the PL system is, and occasionally worse.

Peregrine wrote:2) Just by the odds, 71% of the people responding to this poll prefer the normal points system. Even if attitudes about efficiency had nothing to do with choice of rules you'd still find that most efficiency-minded players use normal points because most players in general use normal points.

And how many do so because their local meta is a bunch of tournament hounds which require Matched Play like mine is, or simply because they've always used points so why change now?

Peregrine wrote:3) PL advocates have created a social construct around PL being the "casual" format and use "let's play PL" as shorthand for "don't optimize your list or you aren't welcome". So even if efficiency-focused players wanted to use PL they'd find themselves rejected by the other PL players and go back to using normal points.

Only a couple have said that. Others recognize that either system is based on faulty materials so don't see the purpose of being hide-bound on one tiny aspect of the ruleset.

Peregrine wrote:None of that social pressure has anything to do with your choice of point system. The difference between the two is that PL has all of the pressures of normal points (optimizing your list based on point efficiency), but then PL players have added all kinds of unwritten rules about how much optimization is "too much".

Assumption. If the only way a person been introduced to the game is the points system because the meta is overly tournament-focused, then why would they ever consider any other option? OR the meta uses points because they are so used to using points?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Agreeing to your opponent list tailoring is agreeing for them to cheat. It doesn't matter if you let them or not, as there is a concept to cheating you're not grasping.

No it isn't, because there is no rule against list tailoring, and if their is no rule, it is not cheating. In fact, you will find that every single successful tournament player tailor their lists very tightly to take on expected lists. It may not be as purely tailored as one would take for any one specific army, but it is built with all the same considerations in mind.

All games don't have a page that explicitly lists what's cheating and what's not. If there is, you can probably count those on one hand, both at max.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Why would you bother with a rough guide if you know it's not even a GOOD rough guide?

Because you consider it good enough for its purpose?

I can't believe I have to reiterate this, but you lose NOTHING from a more granular, balanced system. Literally nothing. At all.

You don't have to reiterate it, since it's already been pointed out why that granular system is less appealing to those who prefer PL.

And no it was already proven it can't produce equivalent forces. Did you miss that whole post about the Deathwatch vs Eldar PL comparison for 2000 points? The Deathwatch one was 156 and the Eldar was 98. Deathwatch would even not have every upgrade available (which is free of course), making them worse by default, compared to a point system where you only pay what you decide necessary.

I tried typing up a response to this, but the twisted logic you're using here makes my brain hurt.


Let's just go with -
- being able to make imbalanced lists is not the same as not being able to make equivalent lists
and
- 'roughly equivalent' and 'equal' are not the same thing

And how is a 33% difference even close to roughly equal?

I'm not sure who PL is meant to be for outside of kids just entering the hobby and playing games at a GW store where PL is sort of encouraged.

Everyone else I know who plays 40k, even the casual narrative fluffbunnies, uses points because PL is universally recognised as being deeply flawed, open to abuse and something that punishes fluffy options more than it helps them and at worst just sort of teaches bad habits when it comes to army collecting and list building. My FLGS did a narrative campaign a while ago which is now transitioning into a Vigilus campaign and people are using points, even in those missions where it says the players use PL.

Even discounting battlescribe and phone calculators I just seriously don't get why anyone would ever willingly use PL outside of the example I gave at the start. It's a worse system and what it offers in return is so minor and inconsequential.

I'd say its a nice idea and an interesting experiment, but I also think it's failed.