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:
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.

Well, can you provide a valid different definition of "cheat" than, "to violate rules dishonestly," that applies to this situation?

I suppose there is the, "act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage," but considering that both players would be aware and agreeing to the situation, it isn't unfair or dishonest.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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

How is 75% equivalent? A Chaos army which brought in a pre-CA list then bought the CA list, realized what he brought was 75% of the previously agreed amount with two other players and went and bought his Daemon Primarch to pad the points, all without having anything changed in their rules?

 Bosskelot wrote:
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.

I can think of one. It's called, "going to Slayer's and Peregrine's clubs and convincing them to troll them by only playing PL for a month just to watch heads explode."

And as others have mentioned, they just want to quickly set up a game and get going and they didn't arrange it before hand. Not everyone can dedicate themselves from 6 to midnight every night they show up.

There's also just teaching the base rules of the game. Points provide a certain competitive pressure unnecessary in tutorials.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
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.

You say disorganised. That's only to your standard.
Consider how you would look through my eyes, if you think I'm disorganised.

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.

It's clear that all you care about is power. If you simply can't understand anything else, or even entertain the notion of it, I won't waste my energy on you.

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.

Okay, I've already told you about this. This is blatant personal attacks, and directed insults. Reporting.

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.

Sorry what?? You genuinely believe that you should only do something if you intend on becoming better and the only thing that matter is progression within it??
So musicians can't perform because they like it? Gamers can't play because it's escapism and relaxing? Writers shouldn't write unless they're trying to become bestsellers?

Do you actually understand what a hobby is? Because I really think you don't. A hobby is supposed to be fun. Not a chore, not an exercise. F U N.

Holy moly, I thought you were a certain kind of special before, but this takes the prize as the most outrageous thing you've said.

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.

If you can't notice the difference between someone having a different idea of fun, and asking that to be recognized and respected, and people literally calling millennia of scientific facts about the actual world a hoax, then I'm afraid I'm far above debating with you.

List Tailoring should be considered cheating IF you know what the opponent is taking specifically, but they don't really know what you will be bringing. This could happen if your opponent has only 1 army with limited options and you have either multiple armies or tons of options with 1 army.
Or, if you bring 2-3 specific lists and only decide which to use after finding out what your opponent is bringing.

However, list tailoring AFTER a game against an opponent you know will play again is perfectly legit and expected. If your list didn't do very well, it's natural that you would want to make adjustments before your next game.
This is also actually a service to your opponent as they might not want to keep playing the same game over and over.

-

 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.

And yet they're continually adding to Narritive Play, the Battle Honours in CA18 are a perfect example of things made for Narritive play.

They're aware that the Narritive system in the corebook is lacking, and are continually adding to it.

Part of their approach to the Narritive side of the game is using the nature of PL to shape the game. Rules are based around the PL of a unit, or mission where you score VP = PL, etc.

They have A LOT to manage with this game. And the Matched Play group won't give them a second to work on the other types of play.

The Narritive Play, as they have it now, including the CA additions, make it the best time to play Narritive 40k. There's actually rules for it. You don't have to make things up and hope your group will go with it. You can straight up use what you're given.

I am curious how I was interpreted when I said an advantage of PL was you can write a list and swap out models to different load outs without recalculating/finetuning the list.

I was more thinking about if I made a cool new boss Nob model or big shoota boy and just wanted to get it on the table. I was however misinterpreted as saying you could 'gotcha' an all armor army by last minute tailoring the weapon selections.

 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.

Your reading comprehension is severly lacking Peregrine, you should focus a bit less on your biases and a bit more on what is actually written - there is nothing in that passage about your attitude towards narrative gaming as a whole, only about Narrative section of the BRB in the context of what Blndmage wrote, and in your answer you confirm every word of what I wrote.

Seriously, back away for a second and actually think before you post - but beware, you might find that thinking is actually fun thing to do

nareik wrote:
I am curious how I was interpreted when I said an advantage of PL was you can write a list and swap out models to different load outs without recalculating/finetuning the list.

I was more thinking about if I made a cool new boss Nob model or big shoota boy and just wanted to get it on the table. I was however misinterpreted as saying you could 'gotcha' an all armor army by last minute tailoring the weapon selections.

A couple have said that. Honestly, I think PL is a perfect place to test out army builds since they aren't so structured, nor is there the competitive pressure associated with point lists, so we don't have declarations of "cheater" and what not.

Of course, those who would call you "cheater" probably wouldn't be playing PL, anyway, because they automatically consider you a cheater for even wanting to use PL in the first place, and at least one considers people a cheat for showing up to the game without a list.

 Blndmage wrote:

 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.

And yet they're continually adding to Narritive Play, the Battle Honours in CA18 are a perfect example of things made for Narritive play.

They're aware that the Narritive system in the corebook is lacking, and are continually adding to it.

Part of their approach to the Narritive side of the game is using the nature of PL to shape the game. Rules are based around the PL of a unit, or mission where you score VP = PL, etc.

They have A LOT to manage with this game. And the Matched Play group won't give them a second to work on the other types of play.

The Narritive Play, as they have it now, including the CA additions, make it the best time to play Narritive 40k. There's actually rules for it. You don't have to make things up and hope your group will go with it. You can straight up use what you're given.

Not to mention, that just last week a dedicated campaign system book went up on preorder. How about that for supporting Narrative Play?

 Blndmage wrote:

 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.

And yet they're continually adding to Narritive Play, the Battle Honours in CA18 are a perfect example of things made for Narritive play.

They're aware that the Narritive system in the corebook is lacking, and are continually adding to it.

Part of their approach to the Narritive side of the game is using the nature of PL to shape the game. Rules are based around the PL of a unit, or mission where you score VP = PL, etc.

They have A LOT to manage with this game. And the Matched Play group won't give them a second to work on the other types of play.

The Narritive Play, as they have it now, including the CA additions, make it the best time to play Narritive 40k. There's actually rules for it. You don't have to make things up and hope your group will go with it. You can straight up use what you're given.

I would say that GW is now seeing the value in not just the flavor of the week tourno-spam, but in the narrative focused side as well. GW has been giving more and more stuff to add to the narrative toolbox(CA17, CA18, Urban Conquest)recently. PL is the best thing to happen in a while. More and more people are coming back to the hobby(personal & other returnees exp in group) and preferring PL, but points is an equally valid way of doing so.

the real point is, some people just cant have fun unless everyone else is having the exact same type of fun as them. if not then they're obviously wrong and nothing can change that. Wait wasnt there an episode of Seinfeld with a guy and some soup and arbitrary dismissal? What a crappy way to look at the world and your place in it. forget the far future someone lives in the grim darkness of the early 21st century. Not everything is sunshine and rainbows but...

Something else I like about PL, though it is not universal, is it encourages taking an upgrade where taking any upgrade at all would be suboptimal under points.

A couple of examples; number 1; the loyal 32.

The loyal 32 is one of my favourite things about 8th; I feel every imperial army needs at least a platoon of IG to feel like a real imperial army and the loyal 32 fill that narrative role nicely. The thing that disappoints me there is that these guardsmen are always barebones, which just seems like a lost opportunity to me visually.

PL here has the advantage of facilitating taking variant weapons, even though points efficiency wise the models would be better naked.

Similarly, I like how PL encourages you to get a little more imaginative with deathwatch squads. Whenever I've read about deathwatch in novels the marines are equipped with a medley of specialist weapons. I feel PL succeeds at nudging players in this direction instead of taking the squad boring barebones, just like the loyal 32.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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.

This is a fine reason to use PL. As I said, we've used them before.

But overall, I think PL is something I'd only use for teaching or with friends. Sort of like how I'd be very fast and loose in an RPG or dungeon crawler with friends but I'd be a bit more by the book if playing with people I don't know yet.

 insaniak wrote:
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.

Uh, the very concept of List Tailoring means that both players cannot do that. It's one person making his list after the other guy, to specifically counter it. Otherwise, you're just two people telling each other what you're bringing and making sure there's a means to match up with it.

Most of the time I use points but I have a friend who has a bunch of smaller armies that are built more to a theme rather than "optimised" so when I play against him we use Power Level. It works out fine because I tone down my force a bit and don't max out on upgrades. We roll dice, have fun and generally just hang out. The local GW usually runs PL based campaign or league style events and anyone who wants to go a bit more "hard" arranges to use points with their opponents beforehand.

I've never had any issue with people abusing power level because the only people I've played that use it approach it the same way. I'm sure the theoretical PL boogey man who puts 30pt of upgrades on all his Deathwatch veterans and insists on playing power level is out there somewhere, but I've never seen it. From my experience the people who really want to test their skills or list building all use points anyway.

I use points because it's what I'm used to, and because my main opponent is more involved with competitive circles and it's what he plays. PL just isn't his thing, but I'm happy to run either way so it generally ends up being points.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Uh, the very concept of List Tailoring means that both players cannot do that. It's one person making his list after the other guy, to specifically counter it. Otherwise, you're just two people telling each other what you're bringing and making sure there's a means to match up with it.

If you're playing the same guy regularly, you know what's in his list. Particularly if he only has a single army, as is the case for most casual players.

 insaniak wrote:
If you're playing the same guy regularly, you know what's in his list. Particularly if he only has a single army, as is the case for most casual players.

Well, I tend to play people with more armies than one, and the ones they do play are pretty versatile (a lot of guard players). Of all of us, I'm the one with the fewest armies- and I have 5 (3 in storage, only keeping 2 around now).

 insaniak wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Uh, the very concept of List Tailoring means that both players cannot do that. It's one person making his list after the other guy, to specifically counter it. Otherwise, you're just two people telling each other what you're bringing and making sure there's a means to match up with it.

If you're playing the same guy regularly, you know what's in his list. Particularly if he only has a single army, as is the case for most casual players.

Because of this exact confusion I refer to this as cross-tailoring, not list tailoring. IMHO it is the most fundamental way of ensuring a good game in friendly/narrative context and not waste time with glaringly mismatched blind lists.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
There is no universal good and bad. This whole discussion is a matter of opinion. If your opinion is "I don't like this", that's fine. If your view is "this is good as a fact", you are making incorrect claim.

Alternatively, you're just plain wrong, PL is a trash system, and "that's just your opinion, man" is the weakest defense you can make.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
Which is kind of how those words work. No physicist is ever going to look up from his electron microscope and exclaim 'By jove! I've found the perfect system for building force lists for 28mm miniature gaming! It was encoded into the atomic structure of this grain of sand, all along!' 'Good' and 'Bad' are not fundamental absolutes, hard-coded into the bedrock of the universe. They're entirely subjective.

But wait, I thought it's all subjective and there is no right answer? How can you say that using an electron microscope to read the encoded messages in the sand is not a good way of building lists for 40k, and with such certainty that you can state that it is never going to happen? It's almost like there are good and bad ways of doing things, and you just don't accept that PL is one of the bad ways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
And again another Pl vs points discussion and it boils down to slayer fan and peregrine not accepting that doing something differently than how they like is ok. Their way isn’t “good” to me. It sounds horrendous. I can’t imagine a worse game to play. But that’s fine because the game is trying to cater for both types.

Again it all boils down to critics of PL posting reasons why PL is a trash system, and advocates of PL posting little more than "I enjoy it and I have an opinion". The closest thing to a reason for why PL is good they can come up with is saving a minimal amount of time in adding up the numbers, other than that it's all the very weak defense of insisting that they enjoy it therefore it must be good. Meanwhile you're claiming that the normal point system is "horrendous" and you "can't imagine a worse game to play", at least as harsh criticism as anything the anti-PL side is saying, but apparently this is ok and not a case of refusing to accept that someone is doing something differently because reasons.

Also, if you can't imagine a worse game to play than adding up your points more accurately then you really have very little imagination.

I actually meant playing you or slayer fan was my idea of hell. Or people like u. Not the average people who use points but people who behave the way you do and hold the opinions masquerading as facts. I could probably play someone using points and have a decent time but it would be no better than using power levels I know that for sure. So for me, the defence of PL is it does the job just fine and is simpler and even encourages people to play nice. I say age of Sigmar was worse without points, but their points system is basically power level ten. It works much more like that than 40k points. U don’t pay for upgrades and characters in units etc. Works fine. I would be happy if they merged both 40k systems into that style so you could have less abritory numbers but still didn’t have to worry about taking an extra gretchin or Chainsword to get the most out of your points. So it could be take 5 tactical marines for 100pts. Add 5 more for another 100. No cost for upgrades. Would work just fine as it does for AoS.

They would have to leave the points alone though. Hate all the tiny changed that people think make a massive difference, as if one or two points matters in a game like 40k. Doesn’t even account for a dice roll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And slayer fan you know you could create 2 lists using power levels to be equal, then highlight the difference in points to demonstrate how unbalanced points are. It is utterly useless as a comparison. So eldar vs deathwatch doesn’t matter at all.

nou wrote:
of this exact confusion I refer to this as cross-tailoring, not list tailoring. IMHO it is the most fundamental way of ensuring a good game in friendly/narrative context and not waste time with glaringly mismatched blind lists.

That makes more sense. I'd call it squaring up. A lot of friends and I do this (still using points), because we're trying to at least have a challenge without overwhelming the other with something he doesn't have stuff to deal with.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

nou wrote:
of this exact confusion I refer to this as cross-tailoring, not list tailoring. IMHO it is the most fundamental way of ensuring a good game in friendly/narrative context and not waste time with glaringly mismatched blind lists.

That makes more sense. I'd call it squaring up. A lot of friends and I do this (still using points), because we're trying to at least have a challenge without overwhelming the other with something he doesn't have stuff to deal with.

Either way, it IS still list tailoring, just a specific variant of it. It would be like saying Space Wolves aren't Space Marines. You are tailoring your list to match a specific target to remove a specific weakness or compound on a specific strength. That target could be as specific as a certain Eldar build or a more general all-comers. The act of fine tuning and tailoring it to match your playstyle is still the end goal and result.

 insaniak wrote:
If you're playing the same guy regularly, you know what's in his list. Particularly if he only has a single army, as is the case for most casual players.

And this is why list tailoring is generally poor behavior: it rewards the person who has more money to spend on buying additional options to match their opponent's list. Players with limited resources are left out and get minimal benefit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
Not to mention, that just last week a dedicated campaign system book went up on preorder. How about that for supporting Narrative Play?

Pretty weak, if you remember how it was in 5th edition.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
If you're playing the same guy regularly, you know what's in his list. Particularly if he only has a single army, as is the case for most casual players.

And this is why list tailoring is generally poor behavior: it rewards the person who has more money to spend on buying additional options to match their opponent's list. Players with limited resources are left out and get minimal benefit.

Since you have repeatedly displayed the empathy of a pet rock, I can't imagine you actually give a damn about poorer gamers being taken advantage of.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Since you have repeatedly displayed the empathy of a pet rock, I can't imagine you actually give a damn about poorer gamers being taken advantage of.

I have plenty of empathy for people who are genuinely in a difficult situation, like being poor. People who are just bad at defending a garbage system like PL are not an oppressed group that deserves sympathy, and I find it kind of offensive that you would compare the two.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Since you have repeatedly displayed the empathy of a pet rock, I can't imagine you actually give a damn about poorer gamers being taken advantage of.

I have plenty of empathy for people who are genuinely in a difficult situation, like being poor. People who are just bad at defending a garbage system like PL are not an oppressed group that deserves sympathy, and I find it kind of offensive that you would compare the two.

In a previous thread when I mentioned having difficulties with the hobby due to being poor and disabled, you basically said (paraphrasing from memory) "if it's that hard to play, and you can't afford it, then you should stop playing."

That's not empathy.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

nou wrote:
of this exact confusion I refer to this as cross-tailoring, not list tailoring. IMHO it is the most fundamental way of ensuring a good game in friendly/narrative context and not waste time with glaringly mismatched blind lists.

That makes more sense. I'd call it squaring up. A lot of friends and I do this (still using points), because we're trying to at least have a challenge without overwhelming the other with something he doesn't have stuff to deal with.

7th edition 40K was basically only enjoyable when using that kind of "cross-tailoring". 8th editions balance is much better so I don't find it that necessary anymore, aside from when you bring a skew-list and know your opponent could have a hard time dealing with that unprepaired.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
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.

You say disorganised. That's only to your standard.
Consider how you would look through my eyes, if you think I'm disorganised.

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.

It's clear that all you care about is power. If you simply can't understand anything else, or even entertain the notion of it, I won't waste my energy on you.

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.

Okay, I've already told you about this. This is blatant personal attacks, and directed insults. Reporting.

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.

Sorry what?? You genuinely believe that you should only do something if you intend on becoming better and the only thing that matter is progression within it??
So musicians can't perform because they like it? Gamers can't play because it's escapism and relaxing? Writers shouldn't write unless they're trying to become bestsellers?

Do you actually understand what a hobby is? Because I really think you don't. A hobby is supposed to be fun. Not a chore, not an exercise. F U N.

Holy moly, I thought you were a certain kind of special before, but this takes the prize as the most outrageous thing you've said.

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.

If you can't notice the difference between someone having a different idea of fun, and asking that to be recognized and respected, and people literally calling millennia of scientific facts about the actual world a hoax, then I'm afraid I'm far above debating with you.

1. You probably consider me too methodical is my guess. Better methodical than a disorganized attempt at a hobby.
2. So if you don't care about the relative value of the weapons, you don't need anything whatsoever in terms of creating a more balanced match. Just throw the models on the table and make pewpew noises. It's that simple.
3. How is this a personal attack? It IS first grade math and not in the slightest difficult whatsoever. The kids I have tutored would be able to easily solve such basic problems. Or am I not allowed my opinion on what kind of math various age groups should be capable of? Seems like you're saying all opinions are valid after all.
4. No progress at a hobby is a waste of time, and as a former musician I scoff at anyone not looking to further their craft (ever see those pop punk guitarists that use the same three chords disparage talented musicians? It's almost disgusting). Simple as that. I don't have plans to paint my new army for now (I'll be getting those commissioned once I've finalized the potential paint schemes), but second-hand models that aren't painted are easy enough to come by that I plan to paint better than just doing Necrons (which still good admittedly but I'm looking to go beyond that).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
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.

Well, can you provide a valid different definition of "cheat" than, "to violate rules dishonestly," that applies to this situation?

I suppose there is the, "act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage," but considering that both players would be aware and agreeing to the situation, it isn't unfair or dishonest.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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

How is 75% equivalent? A Chaos army which brought in a pre-CA list then bought the CA list, realized what he brought was 75% of the previously agreed amount with two other players and went and bought his Daemon Primarch to pad the points, all without having anything changed in their rules?

 Bosskelot wrote:
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.

I can think of one. It's called, "going to Slayer's and Peregrine's clubs and convincing them to troll them by only playing PL for a month just to watch heads explode."

And as others have mentioned, they just want to quickly set up a game and get going and they didn't arrange it before hand. Not everyone can dedicate themselves from 6 to midnight every night they show up.

There's also just teaching the base rules of the game. Points provide a certain competitive pressure unnecessary in tutorials.

1. So someone can't agree to a fair and dishonest game? That doesn't make any sense.
2. I don't buy this scenario, mostly because the way you're explaining it doesn't make any sense. You went into the store without having bought CA, bought CA, and then adjusted the list? Ya know, instead of buying CA first and digesting the contents? I'd honestly refuse the game with you and tell you to go ahead and read it, so that you can come back with a correctly pointed list for a fairer game. After all, just adding units and upgrades at random doesn't really fix the issue.
I just got my copy on Monday and, even with Battlescribe being updated, I'm still making sure I understand everything correctly.
3. If you wanna teach the rules, just do a 500 point game or even Kill Team. The only real thing to keep in mind to not overwhelm a new player is to keep the game small.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Get ready for the entire thread to be Peregrine’s opinions on PL, because that’s how these always go (until thread lock).

Yep, called it ten pages ago. How depressing.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Get ready for the entire thread to be Peregrine’s opinions on PL, because that’s how these always go (until thread lock).

Yep, called it ten pages ago. How depressing.

Hey, cheer up, at least he told us he carefully and thoroughly considers all our points, he just finds all of them without any merit. And we learnt new ways of cheating with Slayer Fan.

I now believe that PL was created as a social experiment by GW to measure the behaviour that occurs between different groups of players with different attitudes to the game.

I have used PL once, in a game against a returning player who had a bunch of Marines against my Necrons. The game worked, nobody had a huge advantage and we engaged in a fun and interesting game. I wouldn't use PL as standard and vastly prefer points but I'm genuinely amused at the utter lack of empathy and understanding from certain members of this forum when people say they prefer PL. If somebody uses PL and enjoys their games as a result then the system works fine for them. Therefore the system works on some level. You can't escape that conclusion I'm afraid and all the protestations to the contrary are pointless. I don't know why it's so hard for some people to understand when players say they don't care about list optimisation so PL works fine for them. Like, that's not a difficult statement to parse. You may not agree with it and you may struggle to see how that would be an enjoyable game, but the statement is simple enough and acceptance of it does not actually require understanding, just a basic level of empathy.

As for Slayer-Fan's comments about what a hobby is, let's just say I couldn't disagree more. I've been a guitarist for decades now and don't have as much time to play as I once did. I'm probably about as good as I'm likely to get but it's still extremely enjoyable to me to sit down for an hour or two and thrash out some riffs or solos for a bit. Apparently it's not a hobby though and I'm completely wasting my time. Who knew.

Perhaps people should stop viewing the hobby, and indeed the world itself, in absolutes and understand there's often a spectrum of possibilities and approaches to different things.

 Blndmage wrote:
In a previous thread when I mentioned having difficulties with the hobby due to being poor and disabled, you basically said (paraphrasing from memory) "if it's that hard to play, and you can't afford it, then you should stop playing."

That's not empathy.

That's a rather dishonest "paraphrase" that is not at all what I said. And let's not forget the context of this exchange, where you posted about how unfair it is that people won't lose money to run a free tournament using exactly the rules you want or completely change their style of play to accommodate your fan codex army. If there's any "just stop playing" element it's because you're obviously unhappy with the situation as it is, you can't afford to change your own armies, and it is not reasonable to expect the entire rest of the group to change everything they do (at their own expense) to give you what you want.

Also, IIRC you didn't have a lot of empathy for poor players who want to play competitively but are apparently obligated to buy entire additional armies so they can have something to use with you.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
In a previous thread when I mentioned having difficulties with the hobby due to being poor and disabled, you basically said (paraphrasing from memory) "if it's that hard to play, and you can't afford it, then you should stop playing."

That's not empathy.

That's a rather dishonest "paraphrase" that is not at all what I said. And let's not forget the context of this exchange, where you posted about how unfair it is that people won't lose money to run a free tournament using exactly the rules you want or completely change their style of play to accommodate your fan codex army. If there's any "just stop playing" element it's because you're obviously unhappy with the situation as it is, you can't afford to change your own armies, and it is not reasonable to expect the entire rest of the group to change everything they do (at their own expense) to give you what you want.

Also, IIRC you didn't have a lot of empathy for poor players who want to play competitively but are apparently obligated to buy entire additional armies so they can have something to use with you.

Exactly. I'm not obligated to change my army (which I take pride in) because you're afraid of how the game will go. Research a product before you buy it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
In a previous thread when I mentioned having difficulties with the hobby due to being poor and disabled, you basically said (paraphrasing from memory) "if it's that hard to play, and you can't afford it, then you should stop playing."

That's not empathy.

That's a rather dishonest "paraphrase" that is not at all what I said. And let's not forget the context of this exchange, where you posted about how unfair it is that people won't lose money to run a free tournament using exactly the rules you want or completely change their style of play to accommodate your fan codex army. If there's any "just stop playing" element it's because you're obviously unhappy with the situation as it is, you can't afford to change your own armies, and it is not reasonable to expect the entire rest of the group to change everything they do (at their own expense) to give you what you want.

Also, IIRC you didn't have a lot of empathy for poor players who want to play competitively but are apparently obligated to buy entire additional armies so they can have something to use with you.

Exactly. I'm not obligated to change my army (which I take pride in) because you're afraid of how the game will go. Research a product before you buy it.

This again gets back to the core disagreement about both this how the game is played and what we get out of it personally. If i took a list that completely demolished my opponent and the game was completely one sided, I personally would not only gain nothing from that game, I would be actively bored. In an ideal world I want not only a close game but I want a diversity of lists to face.

If your only into 40k to smash face, 90 % of models for any given faction (or entire factions for that matter) will never see the table top. To me that's dull and I would gladly tone down my list in order for my opponent to see a wider variety of models and armies. If my opponent wants to play pure Grey Knights, then I would factor that into my list building and tone things down since I know that isn't a strong army this edition.