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.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

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.

Then pretending everything is fine isn't going to fix anything, either. If you know they're a weak army, you need to advise people looking into buying them in the first place that the kits, while EXCELLENT for bitz, are useless for tabletop play, and it's actually insulting for those that want to use Grey Knights to put on kiddie gloves. I used them in 4th and I knew exactly what I was getting into. I didn't ask my opponents to be nice because that's an insult towards the both of us.

If anything we should be sending more critical emails towards GW about their treatment about Grey Knights and their absolute blatant lies about improvements. Nobody cares about those campaigns though of course, as heaven forbid you be critical about the bad things with the game.

At this point you really lost me. Would I advise a new player that an army is weak at this point, yes I would. Every edition has strong and weak armies If they choose that army any way or had it from a previous edition and wanted to get a game in, then yea I'm not going to go out of my way and be an ass and crush them.

Again to me that's boring and I doubt it's fun for them either. I play to win once the game starts but I will take lists that is cognizant of my opponents expectations for the game.

I'm not pretending everything is fine, and I would like GW to make things more balanced. But as the game stands, they aren't and it falls to the players to figure it out.

Slayerfan:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
At this point you really lost me. Would I advise a new player that an army is weak at this point, yes I would. Every edition has strong and weak armies If they choose that army any way or had it from a previous edition and wanted to get a game in, then yea I'm not going to go out of my way and be an ass and crush them.

Again to me that's boring and I doubt it's fun for them either. I play to win once the game starts but I will take lists that is cognizant of my opponents expectations for the game.

I'm not pretending everything is fine, and I would like GW to make things more balanced. But as the game stands, they aren't and it falls to the players to figure it out.

Then it's better to advise those new players what's good and what's not.

This is an expensive hobby. Getting your money's worth is VERY important, especially for a newer player that could be turned off completely because they invested badly. On top of that, the more bad kits we buy, the more likely GW thinks everything is okay.

What's good and what isn't change between editions and local meta. I give the following advise to new players. I'm honest about the current general power ranking of a faction, but also mention that will shift over time. Pick a faction that you enjoy the models, background and would want to build and paint and collect.

I can always tone down my list to give someone a good game. I can't make someone love a faction or dislike it. A large part of this hobby has nothing to do with the table top and keeping people interested long term means they need an army they identify with.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Then it's better to advise those new players what's good and what's not.

Good is subjective, and even "good" competitive units are only good for as long as the meta stays the same. If those new players want to win, then they can chase the meta. If they want to play with units they like for whatever reason, then they don't need to be told anything.

It's why my advice for new players, who aren't that fussed about winning, is always "pick the army that you like the look of or the lore for". Because that will never change (drastically, at least).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
At this point you really lost me. Would I advise a new player that an army is weak at this point, yes I would. Every edition has strong and weak armies If they choose that army any way or had it from a previous edition and wanted to get a game in, then yea I'm not going to go out of my way and be an ass and crush them.

Again to me that's boring and I doubt it's fun for them either. I play to win once the game starts but I will take lists that is cognizant of my opponents expectations for the game.

I'm not pretending everything is fine, and I would like GW to make things more balanced. But as the game stands, they aren't and it falls to the players to figure it out.

Then it's better to advise those new players what's good and what's not.

This is an expensive hobby. Getting your money's worth is VERY important, especially for a newer player that could be turned off completely because they invested badly. On top of that, the more bad kits we buy, the more likely GW thinks everything is okay.

You assume the player in question has the same priorities you do. What if they just really like the aesthetics of a certain army, or its background? Sure, I'm happy to tell new players what's powerful and what isn't but some people are genuinely not bothered by that and just want to collect what's cool.

 insaniak wrote:
I would call it list tailoring.

Whether or not that's a bad thing, though, depends entirely on what you and your opponent are expecting.

Is it though? The list gives the troops being paid for with PL, the weapons are not needed to be listed, they are all free. Can a list be tailored with items not needing to be specified on the list?

Whilst I agree that PL works OK if people don't try to min-max, I find it utterly hilarious that a PL advocate listed an ability to list tailor more easily as a positive for the system... That goes completely against the intended 'spirit' of the PL and is considered total WAAC behaviour in most circles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dr Coconut wrote:

Is it though? The list gives the troops being paid for with PL, the weapons are not needed to be listed, they are all free. Can a list be tailored with items not needing to be specified on the list?

Of course you need to list the weapons regardless! It's not like in a point game I could just swap between any options that happened to have the same cost.

 Crimson wrote:

 Dr Coconut wrote:

Is it though? The list gives the troops being paid for with PL, the weapons are not needed to be listed, they are all free. Can a list be tailored with items not needing to be specified on the list?

Of course you need to list the weapons regardless! It's not like in a point game I could just swap between any options that happened to have the same cost.

Exactly. Sure, there's no difference in how much you pay, but you still need to say "I chose X"

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Then pretending everything is fine isn't going to fix anything, either.

Being willing to put a bit of work in at your end, or not being willing/interested in wielding the broken stuff isn't sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending everything is fine though.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If you know they're a weak army, you need to advise people looking into buying them in the first place that the kits, while EXCELLENT for bitz, are useless for tabletop play

This may be true, but only in a very narrow fashion, if you are only interested in playing at the top level of tournament competition (which isn'tanything remotely close to defining 'table top play'). Football is more than just the UEFA cup final, and table top play play is more than just the top level of competition. And At at point, if all you want is that. you might as well say that there's about three lists that work at any time, and the meta shifts every six months, so get ready to chase that dragon. While you may be focused on the 'absolute' scale, those of us who favour the 'relative' scale find ways to make far more things work.

If they're a weak army, competitively speaking point that out, by all means, and if that's what they're after, point them in the right direction (with the caveat that, as above, things change) but also point out that that isn't the only way to play. Not everyone is interested in that sort of thing.

Honestly speaking, the best advice to give people looking into buying anything isn't what you suggest (that so much is useless and only good for bits), but rather, to find like minded people, who want To play the same kind of game.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

and it's actually insulting for those that want to use Grey Knights to put on kiddie gloves.

Toning down lists isn't necessarily 'kiddie gloves' either. Any 12 year old can read dakka and find and wield a broken power list. Fielding that doesn't make you a better person or general. If anything, All it says of you is you are only interested in 'absolute' power and it cán suggest a very narrow view of the game. If anything, rather than adhering to the 'absolute' scale, I'd argue 'matching' lists 'relatively' p, especially the lower tiered lists is a far more interesting and intriguing mark of your skill at both list building and understanding of the game. Once the game starts, go for it, but really, I'm interesting in a 'fair fight' far more than I'm intèrested in 'most powerful list'. If that means tone down, I'll gladly do it. Ymmv

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

I didn't ask my opponents to be nice because that's an insult towards the both of us.

I played 'proper' competitive wargames for a long time. When I played warmachine, I did the same thing as you say here. Then again, warmachine was a far different beast. And a very empowering one at that. It embraced the competitive side. Often in a very good, very enjoyable way. It was a game where, essentially, everything (bar a handful of howlers) was capable of being built into a game winning strategy, and you really felt like an equal and that your stuff could go toe to toe with the best. And while I hàve immensely enjoyed my time playing competitive warmachine/hordes, I'll be the first to admit that whilst enjoyable, a lot of things got sacrificed on the 'competitive' altar to make it so. And I don't necessarily think it's worth it, all of the time.

That said, 40k is not that game. Pretending otherwise is being a part of the problem. Or lying. And while folks scream for years into the internet about all the faults and the imbalances (and often they're not wrong), that won't change anything. Frankly, that means you can either embrace the imbalance, or as I see it, be willing to do a bit of work at your end to make it a bit better. Especially if the other person isn't interested in that side of the game. As I se it, accommodating people isn't 'insulting them because you're not inflicting a one-turn gotcha on them with the latest uber-build', its simply a case of investing in your community. Hell, I'll invest time and energy into what my friends want, my family wants, or what my wife wants, even if it isn't 100 percent what I want. At the end of the day, if you're willing to accommodate, my experience is they'll acomodate back.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If anything we should be sending more critical emails towards GW about their treatment about Grey Knights and their absolute blatant lies about improvements. Nobody cares about those campaigns though of course, as heaven forbid you be critical about the bad things with the game.

I'd just email them about making more Primaris, especially Breachers. That, and I'll be happy.

I just want to point out that, again, list strength and choice of point system have nothing to do with PL vs. normal points. A player who is more concerned with list optimization and winning than their opponent is going to have an advantage whether they use PL or normal points to build their list, the only thing that changes between the two systems is which specific list is the most overpowered one.

 Peregrine wrote:
the only thing that changes between the two systems is which specific list is the most overpowered one.

Totally! PL provides a second meta, making the game less stale!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:1. So someone can't agree to a fair and dishonest game? That doesn't make any sense.

Way to misinterpret.

You were saying that a game doesn't state what is cheating, I was trying to point out that the most significant definition is "violating the rules", and every game comes with the rules, so yes, they do have at least one page on not cheating by virtue of providing rules.

The other case in, "act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage," was more directed in the case of changing point limits or using PL, both players are well aware of the situation, so it is neither dishonest nor unfair, especially when you're dealing with a game where it can be determined at the army selection stage (how many are left to index?).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote: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.

They arranged the game before two of the players could get a copy. They came to the store, like you, with a prepared list, and then purchased the CA to see what changed. The Death Guard player started going through the point changes and comparing to his WRITTEN list (for some reasons, some people either do not use BattleScribe or do not trust BattleScribe, it's also possible BS wasn't updated for him), and found out that he had gained more than enough points to fit in Mortarion. The Necron player had already purchased the CA and made his list to match (though, ironically, forgot his Monolith at home). The Tyranid player was still going through his box to see what hadn't fallen apart during transport, and I ended up leaving before I found out if he took his list through CA.

See, people have these things called, "lives", and they can't always provide timely interactions to adjust for things like the release of a new book, like their first chance to get the CA book was the day they met for the game.

They also have experiences which may lead them to distrust certain services. BattleScribe is not always updated, nor always accurate to the latest book, which can lead to distrust from players. In addition, they may not want to use their valuable cell data and power to bring that information in when it is up to date. That they prefer to use tried and true tools (which points is compared to PL, just like pen and paper is to BattleScribe) should come as no shock to someone equally as hide-bound.

You can choose to believe it, or not, but it happened, and you can't prove that it didn't happen nor that it was impossible to happen. Interestingly enough, this is thread is not the first time I've mentioned this interaction to you. But what do you care, you called them cheaters there, too.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote: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.

That is one method, and often used before PL was introduced. Not everyone chooses to use the same method. As I said, PL keeps any competitive pressure off the game, and leaves competitive list building for a later time.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Then pretending everything is fine isn't going to fix anything, either. If you know they're a weak army, you need to advise people looking into buying them in the first place that the kits, while EXCELLENT for bitz, are useless for tabletop play, and it's actually insulting for those that want to use Grey Knights to put on kiddie gloves. I used them in 4th and I knew exactly what I was getting into. I didn't ask my opponents to be nice because that's an insult towards the both of us.

If anything we should be sending more critical emails towards GW about their treatment about Grey Knights and their absolute blatant lies about improvements. Nobody cares about those campaigns though of course, as heaven forbid you be critical about the bad things with the game.

So, from our interactions, you seem to think that the Points system is fine, and doesn't need to be fixed, yet...

Peregrine wrote:I just want to point out that, again, list strength and choice of point system have nothing to do with PL vs. normal points. A player who is more concerned with list optimization and winning than their opponent is going to have an advantage whether they use PL or normal points to build their list, the only thing that changes between the two systems is which specific list is the most overpowered one.

Umm, yes, list strength and choice of point system has a lot to do with PL vs normal points. That is one of your biggest complaints about the situation that you have repeatedly stated.

And there is no guarantee that specific lists will find more power versus each other between PL and points. Both Necrons and Eldar trend to customize more by unit than they do in unit. More often where you will find the power of a list is the favor of the developers and the recentness of the codex it is based on. That leads to a game where no matter which structure you base the game on, it will be inherently unbalanced.

Can’t believe this is still going on. Peregrine and slayer fan are so clearly not getting what anyone else’s points are it’s ridiculous discussing it with them. The argument for power level as well as points, not as a better system but a “different” one has been made comprehensively and many times over but they will not budge, out of either sheer pigheaded stubbornness or blind ignorance. I enjoy my games using power levels. And that is all that matters too me. And if using it means those two won’t ever play me, then that’s a bonus thrown in there too.

Andykp wrote:
Can’t believe this is still going on. Peregrine and slayer fan are so clearly not getting what anyone else’s points are it’s ridiculous discussing it with them. The argument for power level as well as points, not as a better system but a “different” one has been made comprehensively and many times over but they will not budge, out of either sheer pigheaded stubbornness or blind ignorance. I enjoy my games using power levels. And that is all that matters too me. And if using it means those two won’t ever play me, then that’s a bonus thrown in there too.

This thread comes up like every 2 weeks and has since 8th dropped, and the discussion has been identical in each of those dozens of threads with the same things being said until it is locked, only for it to return a couple weeks later and start over again.

I expect this to hit 30 pages, at least.

As for advising new players on what to buy;
When I started, Marines were OK but not good. Existing players warned me about this. The other faction I was looking at (CWE) was downright terrible (at the time, which is very rare for them), and players basically said don't start there. I picked Marines over CWE to start the game with a more generalist faction.

One of the first kits I picked up were ASM. I was aware they weren't particularly *good*, but I loved the unit. I played it a lot.I had a lot of fun.

In this case, I picked a "substandard" army and "substandard" units. As a new player. And it was a lot of fun.

So advise new players if they're looking at an army that isn't decent or well-rounded, but also advise them to go with what they like. The two factions I liked most were low-tier and trash-tier when I started, but they're also the factions that have been top-tier the most consistently since then.

On the math thing; I again recount the tale of my highschool friend in math league. Top kid in the state. Could multiply many-digit numbers in his head easily. But when adding a handful of 3-digit numbers together at a Math League event, he pulled out a calculator. There is no way he *couldn't* do the math. He clearly just *didn't want to*. Sometimes people don't want to do things they're perfectly capable of. Don't assume - and/or accuse - people of being incapable just because they don't want to.

Similarly, I *can* go hop on the treadmill right now (and should). But I don't want to. Are you going to go on a diatribe about I don't know how to walk?

nareik wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
the only thing that changes between the two systems is which specific list is the most overpowered one.

Totally! PL provides a second meta, making the game less stale!

This makes sense, why cant some people see that?
A secondary meta not connected to Tourno-spam is an excellent development from the birth of PL.

From the perspective of a competitive tournament player, the more metas that exist, the less effective what was once the primary armies are, unless they spend the time, money, and energy collecting models that are at the top of each available meta.

Thus not desirable.

Thus needing to trumpet it down lest GW go that route.

auticus wrote:
From the perspective of a competitive tournament player, the more metas that exist, the less effective what was once the primary armies are, unless they spend the time, money, and energy collecting models that are at the top of each available meta.

Thus not desirable.

Thus needing to trumpet it down lest GW go that route.

Not necessarily. In the Valley of the Sun (Phoenix, Arizona, metropolis) we have a couple GW stores (I think), and a few more not. Not everyone gathers to one store for a tournament because they live in different parts of the metropolis, and it covers a lot of territory. We have people who work towards several different tournaments around the western US, and that's what they dedicate their time to. They hit what tournaments they can, but they don't always hit everything, and they still enjoy their time.

Conversely, we have those who are either just building, or don't care for hyper-competitive atmospheres and build to their own pleasures and get games in without any seriousness.

And then we have the ones who are in the middle. They build a little for local competitive play, but also to their own pleasures. They'll engage in friendly games and the occasional local store's tournaments. And they enjoy their time in whatever game they get.

We even sometimes get people from the Tucson metropolis in the south coming up for some of the bigger stores' tournaments when they can as well. And this applies to 40K, AoS, WMH, and X-Wing.

That is an effective blend of diversity which can help hone a competitive player's edge and keep a game alive. Even taking time off to play a little narrative can help cleanse the pallet give new ideas for the competitive player, but only if one is not so close-minded to be the rabid tourney player which can actually break the meta like some of the WMH groups here are.

How about this:

PL and Points offer two different kinds of games, for different kinds of situations, and appeal to different kinds of people.

There is no wrong answer to what you prefer, and it's not a slight to point out what seems to be more common and preferred for balance.

As long as you don't play Magic: The Gathering you're not wrong.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
How about this:

PL and Points offer two different kinds of games, for different kinds of situations, and appeal to different kinds of people.

There is no wrong answer to what you prefer, and it's not a slight to point out what seems to be more common and preferred for balance.

As long as you don't play Magic: The Gathering you're not wrong.

bingo

Crimson wrote:Whilst I agree that PL works OK if people don't try to min-max, I find it utterly hilarious that a PL advocate listed an ability to list tailor more easily as a positive for the system... That goes completely against the intended 'spirit' of the PL and is considered total WAAC behaviour in most circles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dr Coconut wrote:

Is it though? The list gives the troops being paid for with PL, the weapons are not needed to be listed, they are all free. Can a list be tailored with items not needing to be specified on the list?

Of course you need to list the weapons regardless! It's not like in a point game I could just swap between any options that happened to have the same cost.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Dr Coconut wrote:

Is it though? The list gives the troops being paid for with PL, the weapons are not needed to be listed, they are all free. Can a list be tailored with items not needing to be specified on the list?

Of course you need to list the weapons regardless! It's not like in a point game I could just swap between any options that happened to have the same cost.

Exactly. Sure, there's no difference in how much you pay, but you still need to say "I chose X"

And precisely where in the rules (either core or full) does it state so?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
How about this:

PL and Points offer two different kinds of games, for different kinds of situations, and appeal to different kinds of people.

There is no wrong answer to what you prefer, and it's not a slight to point out what seems to be more common and preferred for balance.

As long as you don't play Magic: The Gathering you're not wrong.

But it is a slight to call people who prefer, or even just play, the newer and less common system to be losers and cheaters. And certain parties consider it a slight to even bring the subject up to them.

 Charistoph wrote:
But it is a slight to call people who prefer, or even just play, the newer and less common system to be losers and cheaters. And certain parties consider it a slight to even bring the subject up to them.

It can be easily exploited by someone, I've seen it done multiple times. Locally a few dudes like to try 'let's just make it easy and play to power level' with new guys, and then the 'winner' is running around the FLGS gloating that he board wiped someone in turn 2. I mean, yeah I probably would win if I had 10 heavy bolters, 10 lascannons, and 10 melee guys with power fists and storm shields. I'm quite certain that would annihilate some dude's couple of Start Collecting boxes and a squad of dudes he just put together. So yeah, I don't think Power Level is just something you'll find worth using when playing against just anybody but it certainly has its uses and I do use it for quite a few things.

That "certain party" you mentioned can be easily dealt with by using the 'ignore' feature. I did that a long while ago, and I found it's best not to feed someone who's obviously only logging in to get into a bickering contest and trying to get threads locked when they don't like the subject. When that "certain party" doesn't get responses, they will go away.

I've played a couple Power Level games, and usually it's just someone who wants to put their models on the table.

I've only seen it abused once. I was lamenting that I was paying Power Levels for a Harlie unit like they all and fusion pistols and their best CC weapons, whereas mine had 2 pistols and 2 Kisses for the entire unit. Then the other guy said "Oh, and these 3 squads of wolfen, it's not modelled, but since we're playing Power Levels they have all their upgrades".

The solution? I play Points with that player from now on.

(He wasn't really a "power gamer". He was new, and thought that's how you should play.)

I'd still accept a Power Level game generally, though. Probably not from that guy. And probably not from Peregrine (although points would probably be fine vs either). And certainly not from Slayer. For the most part it's fine.

I still prefer points to Power Level, though.

 Dr Coconut wrote:
And precisely where in the rules (either core or full) does it state so?

In those rules, it also never mentions "army list".

I think that it's obvious we're talking about rules and concepts beyond the Battle Primer (as much as I like it), such as the idea of having a solid defined list. The example game in the Primer, Open War, never mentions the idea of lists, but that is one mission alone - not all.

Now, I don't have the rulebook on me to comment on what others say, but I imagine they do specify something about army lists or force rosters.

I get the feeling that eventually (maybe not soon) GW will effectively "merge" the 2 systems as part of a effort to streamline a later edition.
Given how they are releasing models with fewer and fewer options, it's entirely feasible that they'll update to a single system that looks something like this:

5 Tactical Marines - 10ppm. Can add up to 5 more.
Any Special weapon is 10 pts
Any Heavy weapon is 15 pts
Any Sgt equipment is 10 pts

I used pts in 5/10/15 for ease of the example, but the point is that unlike PL, upgrades a cost and unlike Points are now, individual wargear does not have differing points.
A Lascannon costs the same as a Heavy Bolter. A Plasma costs the same as a Melta gun, etc.

I could easily see GW going to this kind of Points/PL hybrid to encourage players to build their units more loosely.
But this system would also require massive rebalancing of what the weapons actually do.
As-is, a Lascannon is worth far more than a HB, so the HB would need something extra. Heavy 5 could be a simple fix.
Multimeltas could finally be 2 Shots in this system to balance with the range of the Lascannon, and so on.

If all the options are closer to balanced and therefore can be the same "points" cost, then you don't need individual costs per weapon and can just have a "Heavy weapon cost" for the unit.

There will still be "clear winning upgrades" but how is that any different from now?

-

Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
But it is a slight to call people who prefer, or even just play, the newer and less common system to be losers and cheaters. And certain parties consider it a slight to even bring the subject up to them.

It can be easily exploited by someone, I've seen it done multiple times. Locally a few dudes like to try 'let's just make it easy and play to power level' with new guys, and then the 'winner' is running around the FLGS gloating that he board wiped someone in turn 2. I mean, yeah I probably would win if I had 10 heavy bolters, 10 lascannons, and 10 melee guys with power fists and storm shields. I'm quite certain that would annihilate some dude's couple of Start Collecting boxes and a squad of dudes he just put together. So yeah, I don't think Power Level is just something you'll find worth using when playing against just anybody but it certainly has its uses and I do use it for quite a few things.

Points and Power Level are both easily exploited since neither are properly balanced. Indeed, it is far easier to exploit points than Power Levels because there is an internal dialogue trying to insist that points provide better balance because the tuning is finer, so it isn't as readily questioned as being garbage. From there, yeah, you could fit all that in to a PL list, and be a total prick about it, but I've seen people be total pricks with points, too. Being a prick isn't dependent on pricing structure, it is how the game is being approached by the player.

But that is beside the point to what you quoted, it is the attitude of those parties who consider the PL players as losers and cheaters without any further knowledge that was the real point.

Adeptus Doritos wrote:That "certain party" you mentioned can be easily dealt with by using the 'ignore' feature. I did that a long while ago, and I found it's best not to feed someone who's obviously only logging in to get into a bickering contest and trying to get threads locked when they don't like the subject. When that "certain party" doesn't get responses, they will go away.

Having an opposing view isn't a problem, necessarily. I prefer to ignore people who continuously (demonstrating deliberate intent) falsify what I wrote for a counter argument. One such person did it so much I referenced their name in an alternate manner to indicate their ignored status. I don't know if they still frequent here because I took a sabbatical from GW when they put out an FAQ which countered their written words for Independent Characters, without providing an errata to address the written words.

 Charistoph wrote:
Points and Power Level are both easily exploited since neither are properly balanced. Indeed, it is far easier to exploit points than Power Levels because there is an internal dialogue trying to insist that points provide better balance because the tuning is finer, so it isn't as readily questioned as being garbage. From there, yeah, you could fit all that in to a PL list, and be a total prick about it, but I've seen people be total pricks with points, too. Being a prick isn't dependent on pricing structure, it is how the game is being approached by the player.

Well, again, I would think that depends on entirely who you're playing.

Like, say for example you asked me to do a PL game. We gonna need to have a conversation. I don't have the models to make every squad 'optimized'. I tend to buy armies based on a list I've made and tested, with a few extra options here and there- but rarely is my entire gaming army that's coming to the FLGS going to have more than 4k points in there. So, working with points makes more sense for me, because that's how I (and a lot of other people) buy and build up our armies. I simply do not have every option available modeled, and the 'optimize your unit' isn't really an option for me.