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.

Aelyn wrote:

If you're having trouble understanding the "PL encourages weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons" point, try thinking of it another way:

Points force you to look at every upgrade in your army and judge whether or not they are worth it. Therefore, they encourage you to only take what is "useful" (or "more efficient") for the unit's goal. Therefore, playing with points discourages taking upgrades for any reason other than efficiency.

If you play with points, you have to decide what the most efficient equipment is. Does the Devastator Sergeant benefit from a Power Fist or a Power Axe? If not, best leave him with a chainsword, those points can be best spent elsewhere. But if you play with PL, you can give the sergeant whichever option you want, and it won't actively hamper you to take whichever you think is coolest.

It's not that PL encourages taking aesthetic upgrades directly, it's that points actively discourage it while PL is neutral to it. Which means that in comparison to points, PL encourages it.

*sigh*

You need to consider the usefulness of the upgrades in PL just the same, there they just all cost the same, so many more are even more obviously worthless than with points. And if your answer is, 'but I don't care about their worth in the game, you min-maxer' then you can just as easily not care with points too, except then you're not quite so badly gimping yourself by taking the suboptimal choices.

 Bosskelot wrote:
But it will hamper you because the PL of the unit assumes you're taking the best possible equipment and upgrades.

That shouldn't be a problem if you don't care about "optimising" and "best possible equipment". Something I feel people simply aren't understanding is that not everyone cares about the best possible equipment. As such, that negative aspect isn't a factor.

Plus, I actually believe I read somewhere that it's calculated from the average of highest to lowest possible values - not the highest. Of course, if all you care about is "optimisation" and "best possible equipment", then that wouldn't matter, as you'd still say that anything barring the best would be a poor decision.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
However, I personally would find it "implausible" to treat points as a system that encourages me to choose "cool" upgrades.

Practical example regarding unit's I am building. Intercessors. I can give the sergeant either a chainsword, a power sword or a power fist. These are pretty much options from the worst to best, and in points their cost reflect that, the chainsword is the cheapest, the fist is most expensive. I gave my sergeants mix of all these weapons, as I think it is cooler if there is some variety, and under points I don't feel that the performance of my army would be unduly hampered by this choice; I paid a fair price for each weapon. Under the PL anything but giving the fist to all the sergeants would make the army weaker. Now you may not care about the performance, and that's fine, but of the two systems the points actually rewards variety of choices where the PL encourages always to take the most powerful weapon. This is literally the the conclusion one rationally comes to by looking at the rules. If despite this for some bizarre reason using the PL encourages to do the opposite that may personally be true for you, but it is not a result of the system any more than PL encouraging you to take up tap dancing would.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
But it will hamper you because the PL of the unit assumes you're taking the best possible equipment and upgrades.

That shouldn't be a problem if you don't care about "optimising" and "best possible equipment". Something I feel people simply aren't understanding is that not everyone cares about the best possible equipment. As such, that negative aspect isn't a factor.

Plus, I actually believe I read somewhere that it's calculated from the average of highest to lowest possible values - not the highest. Of course, if all you care about is "optimisation" and "best possible equipment", then that wouldn't matter, as you'd still say that anything barring the best would be a poor decision.

This 'not caring' has nothing to do with the system being used. You can 'not care' with points just as well.

 Crimson wrote:
*sigh*

You need to consider the usefulness of the upgrades in PL just the same, there they just all cost the same, so many more are even more obviously worthless than with points. And if your answer is, 'but I don't care about their worth in the game, you min-maxer' then you can just as easily not care with points too, except then you're not quite so badly gimping yourself by taking the suboptimal choices.

Sorry, *need*? Since when did I *need* to do that. Or is that just a personal opinion asserted as a fact?

The problem with points is, even IF you don't care about them, you can still end up going over the assigned limit, and unfortunately, the Matched Play system isn't as forgiving as Narrative or Open when it comes to going over/under the assigned limit. Moreso than this, the majority of points players see the points limit as something that must be adhered to (which I won't make any comment on), an attitude which is encouraged by tournaments also adopting the points system - Power Level players, on the other hand, are far more likely to waive a minor indiscrepancy (which won't occur because I preferred how a thunder hammer looked compared to a chainsword).

Sub-optimal is only an issue if you care about optimisation. If you don't care, then it's not a problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
However, I personally would find it "implausible" to treat points as a system that encourages me to choose "cool" upgrades.

Practical example regarding unit's I am building. Intercessors. I can give the sergeant either a chainsword, a power sword or a power fist. These are pretty much options from the worst to best, and in points their cost reflect that, the chainsword is the cheapest, the fist is most expensive. I gave my sergeants mix of all these weapons, as I think it is cooler if there is some variety, and under points I don't feel that the performance of my army would be unduly hampered by this choice; I paid a fair price for each weapon. Under the PL anything but giving the fist to all the sergeants would make the army weaker. Now you may not care about the performance, and that's fine, but of the two systems the points actually rewards variety of choices where the PL encourages always to take the most powerful weapon. This is literally the the conclusion one rationally comes to by looking at the rules. If despite this for some bizarre reason using the PL encourages to do the opposite that may personally be true for you, but it is not a result of the system any more than PL encouraging you to take up tap dancing would.

However, points encourages you to take the weapon that has best value for points. Not aesthetic, not variety, but best value. Therefore, points encourages you to take the "best" weapon - best in this situation being power-to-price. Neither is a better system, beyond what you perceive it as, and what you value in a system.

I rationally look at the PL system, and I perceive that it encourages me to take what I like, because "best value" isn't a factor. It's clear that your idea of rational isn't the same as mine. I respect your opinion to what you deem as rational; I only ask you respect mine too.

If PL were to encourage me to start tap dancing, that would ALSO be truthful. You cannot claim that it's "implausible", when it's all a matter of subjective opinion.

This 'not caring' has nothing to do with the system being used. You can 'not care' with points just as well.

However, not caring with points still means that I'm spending a limited resource, and my opponent has every right to hold me accountable if I'm over the limit for that resource.

It might not affect me that I'm spending it, but my opponent certainly will, and if they say "I'm not okay with that, I need you to make your list fit", then that will affect me.

Power Level removes upgrades from this problem.

Furthermore, again, if my subjective perception of PL is that it encourages me to care less, then that's a completely valid reason to choose PL. Right now, all you're telling me is that PL and points are the same - so there really shouldn't be a problem with me choosing PL, should there?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sorry, *need*? Since when did I *need* to do that. Or is that just a personal opinion asserted as a fact?

I literally said you need to consider the usefulness of the upgrades in PL 'just the same', if that is 'not at all' to you, then that can apply under the points too.

The problem with points is, even IF you don't care about them, you can still end up going over the assigned limit, and unfortunately, the Matched Play system isn't as forgiving as Narrative or Open when it comes to going over/under the assigned limit. Moreso than this, the majority of points players see the points limit as something that must be adhered to (which I won't make any comment on), an attitude which is encouraged by tournaments also adopting the points system - Power Level players, on the other hand, are far more likely to waive a minor indiscrepancy (which won't occur because I preferred how a thunder hammer looked compared to a chainsword).

Again, not a feature of the system. You can accidentally go over the PL limit too, and I don't care you being a few points over unless it is a tournament. In the previous thread about the point limits majority opinion was that in the casual game the point limit is just an approximation, the people who were adamant about not budging were a tiny but vocal minority.

Sub-optimal is only an issue if you care about optimisation. If you don't care, then it's not a problem.

And I repeat millionth time: you can just as well not care under the points. You're literally attributing PL things that are not features of the system and this is which is bugging me.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
However, points encourages you to take the weapon that has best value for points. Not aesthetic, not variety, but best value. Therefore, points encourages you to take the "best" weapon - best in this situation being power-to-price. Neither is a better system, beyond what you perceive it as, and what you value in a system.

If that is an analysis one wants to make then one does that under the PL too. It is not a feature of a system, but the thinking process of the player. In both systems the options effectively have a cost, in one system it just is the same cost for each weapon regardless of how good they are.

I rationally look at the PL system, and I perceive that it encourages me to take what I like, because "best value" isn't a factor. It's clear that your idea of rational isn't the same as mine. I respect your opinion to what you deem as rational; I only ask you respect mine too.

If PL were to encourage me to start tap dancing, that would ALSO be truthful. You cannot claim that it's "implausible", when it's all a matter of subjective opinion.

You have not rationally looked at the system, because your reasoning is irrational. It is indeed like the tap dancing, it may be personally true to you, but it is still magical thinking based nonsense.

 Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sorry, *need*? Since when did I *need* to do that. Or is that just a personal opinion asserted as a fact?

I literally said you need to consider the usefulness of the upgrades in PL 'just the same', if that is 'not at all' to you, then that can apply under the points too.

No, you don't *need* to at all. That's list optimisation talking. You don't *need* to consider it at all. I already explained how in points, that's not the same.

Again, not a feature of the system. You can accidentally go over the PL limit too,

From unit choices, not from upgrades. Big difference.

and I don't care you being a few points over unless it is a tournament. In the previous thread about the point limits majority opinion was that in the casual game the point limit is just an approximation, the people who were adamant about not budging were a tiny but vocal minority.

So why, when PL is also an approximation, is that a problem for some?

Sub-optimal is only an issue if you care about optimisation. If you don't care, then it's not a problem.

And I repeat millionth time: you can just as well not care under the points. You're literally attributing PL things that are not features of the system and this is which is bugging me.

And I'm repeating that in points, it doesn't MATTER if you don't care about the points - your opponent has every right to. If you're over because you liked that plasma pistol, your opponent has every right to reprimand you.
In PL, that simply cannot happen, because upgrades won't affect the price of a unit.

You're dismissing the personal subjective opinions and feelings of individuals as "implausible" simply because you don't understand how things affect them.
If PL affects me in a certain way, that is not implausible. That's called being an individual with a subjective opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

If that is an analysis one wants to make then one does that under the PL too. It is not a feature of a system, but the thinking process of the player. In both systems the options effectively have a cost, in one system it just is the same cost for each weapon regardless of how good they are.

Thinking process, absolutely! Now you're beginning to understand!

If I have a thinking process that encourages me to look at PL as the more "casual" one, and you have a thinking process that encourages you to see points just the same, then neither of us are wrong. That's just called having different perceptions. That's absolutely fine. All I'm asking is that you respect the fact I have that perception, just as I respect you have yours.

You have not rationally looked at the system, because your reasoning is irrational.

Irrational to you. An opinion. Stop touting opinion as fact.

It is indeed like the tap dancing, it may be personally true to you, but it is still magical thinking based nonsense.

But how is it nonsense when it clearly has an effect on me. It's nonsense to you, just as saying "points is just as encouraging of casual play" is to me. However, even though I personally don't believe it, I respect that you do, and therefore it's not my place to say what's true and false, when it's all your opinion.

 Crimson wrote:
*sigh*

You need to consider the usefulness of the upgrades in PL just the same, there they just all cost the same, so many more are even more obviously worthless than with points. And if your answer is, 'but I don't care about their worth in the game, you min-maxer' then you can just as easily not care with points too, except then you're not quite so badly gimping yourself by taking the suboptimal choices.

I understand where you're coming from, but you missed the distinction here. Remember, we're talking about the effect that the points / PL system has on your ability to take equipment because of the aesthetic appeal, not looking at the in-game power here.

What happens if I've built a model one way because I like the look, but when building a list later, that random upgrade (and the other I have chosen over the course of building an army for aesthetic appeal) puts me over the limit? I'm now forced to either change the models in my list or use some sort of proxy rule. For someone focusing more on the aesthetic angle, either of these would be a distasteful outcome - after all, if the Devastator Sergeant has a power sword (gifted to him by the Company Master on his ascent to the rank of Sergeant), why would he choose to leave it switched off for a battle with the lives of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of civilians at stake?

The same issue literally cannot occur in PL, since there is no way for the aesthetic equipment choice to make your army illegal.

If you are building from a gamist perspective, then yes, you will want to consider the effectiveness of your equipment in both systems. If you are building from a non-gamist perspective, points add an extra layer of restrictions to your decision (or ability to play) which PL does not. Hence PL not discouraging aesthetic equipment choices in the way points discourage them.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

I literally said you need to consider the usefulness of the upgrades in PL 'just the same', if that is 'not at all' to you, then that can apply under the points too.

No, you don't *need* to at all. That's list optimisation talking. You don't *need* to consider it at all.

Do you have trouble understanding what I write. 'Not at all,' it is right there.

From unit choices, not from upgrades. Big difference.

Is it? This is only about the ease of list building aspect which agreed was one of the strengths of PL.

So why, when PL is also an approximation, is that a problem for some?

I don't know. But Peregrine can tell you.

And I'm repeating that in points, it doesn't MATTER if you don't care about the points - your opponent has every right to. If you're over because you liked that plasma pistol, your opponent has every right to reprimand you.
In PL, that simply cannot happen, because upgrades won't affect the price of a unit.

Of course it can happen, you can go over in PL too, it is just easier to calculate. But you could just aim to build you point lists about 200 points under the limit, so then there is no risk of going over the limit due couple of upgrades. Sure, you might gimp your list, but as you don't care about optimisation what does it matter?

Thinking process, absolutely! Now you're beginning to understand!

If I have a thinking process that encourages me to look at PL as the more "casual" one, and you have a thinking process that encourages you to see points just the same, then neither of us are wrong. That's just called having different perceptions. That's absolutely fine. All I'm asking is that you respect the fact I have that perception, just as I respect you have yours.

But how is it nonsense when it clearly has an effect on me. It's nonsense to you, just as saying "points is just as encouraging of casual play" is to me. However, even though I personally don't believe it, I respect that you do, and therefore it's not my place to say what's true and false, when it's all your opinion.

It can have an effect on you and still be irrational. Saying 'PL encourages taking what looks cool' is not a rational statement, nothing in the rules of that system as they actually exist, does that. On this sort of forum where the intent is to discuss things with other people in somewhat objective manner you must be able to back up your statements with some logic. I can't just barge into a Grey Knight thread and say that they are overpowered because seeing large amounts of colour silver makes me nauseous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aelyn wrote:

I understand where you're coming from, but you missed the distinction here. Remember, we're talking about the effect that the points / PL system has on your ability to take equipment because of the aesthetic appeal, not looking at the in-game power here.

What happens if I've built a model one way because I like the look, but when building a list later, that random upgrade (and the other I have chosen over the course of building an army for aesthetic appeal) puts me over the limit? I'm now forced to either change the models in my list or use some sort of proxy rule. For someone focusing more on the aesthetic angle, either of these would be a distasteful outcome - after all, if the Devastator Sergeant has a power sword (gifted to him by the Company Master on his ascent to the rank of Sergeant), why would he choose to leave it switched off for a battle with the lives of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of civilians at stake?

The same issue literally cannot occur in PL, since there is no way for the aesthetic equipment choice to make your army illegal.

If you are building from a gamist perspective, then yes, you will want to consider the effectiveness of your equipment in both systems. If you are building from a non-gamist perspective, points add an extra layer of restrictions to your decision (or ability to play) which PL does not. Hence PL not discouraging aesthetic equipment choices in the way points discourage them.

But it can happen in PL too. I built the units that I think looks cool and I'd like to use and they add up to 51 PL. now I cant use them in a 50 PL game. But what, you say, why not just play a 51 (or 52, or 55) PL. game, sure, that is a good solution, but then that applies to points too. You list comes to 1024 points due your upgrades, just play a 1050, or 1100 point game.

OK, here is actually an easy point hack for PL users in point games. Count the maximum amount of points any any unit's cost can be. Always pay that cost for that unit, regardless of the stuff you actually took. Now you don't need to worry about upgrades, and will have a point compliant list. This is pretty much all that PL does, except with smaller numbers.

Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

I literally said you need to consider the usefulness of the upgrades in PL 'just the same', if that is 'not at all' to you, then that can apply under the points too.

No, you don't *need* to at all. That's list optimisation talking. You don't *need* to consider it at all.

Do you have trouble understanding what I write. 'Not at all,' it is right there.

You said need. I read exactly what you said. I disagree.

From unit choices, not from upgrades. Big difference.

Is it? This is only about the ease of list building aspect which agreed was one of the strengths of PL.

And not having to worry about unit upgrades affecting the final total of your list is one less thing to worry about than power level. Thus, easier.

And I'm repeating that in points, it doesn't MATTER if you don't care about the points - your opponent has every right to. If you're over because you liked that plasma pistol, your opponent has every right to reprimand you.
In PL, that simply cannot happen, because upgrades won't affect the price of a unit.

Of course it can happen, you can go over in PL too, it is just easier to calculate. But you could just aim to build you point lists about 200 points under the limit, so then there is no risk of going over the limit due couple of upgrades. Sure, you might gimp your list, but as you don't care about optimisation what does it matter?

Alternatively, I could play with a system that simply doesn't require me to factor in upgrades at all. I can still gimp my list, but only in what units I choose, not in BOTH units and upgrades.

Again, even in your idea of "aim for 200 points under", I'm still having to make choices between upgrades and units. I don't want to play with a system that makes me choose that. I don't find value in that.

It can have an effect on you and still be irrational.

I disagree. If someone feels certain way, no matter what they feel, that is completely valid to feel that way. You might disagree, but you cannot devalue that person's experience.

I might see the Mona Lisa, and my experience might be one of anger, but you cannot claim to say that my experience is "implausible" or any less valid than yours. That's called being an individual.

Saying 'PL encourages taking what looks cool' is not a rational statement, nothing in the rules of that system as they actually exist, does that.

I never said that. I said "PL encourages ME to take what looks cool". Personal. Subjective. And as a result, completely valid.

On this sort of forum where the intent is to discuss things with other people in somewhat objective manner you must be able to back up your statements with some logic.

At the same time,it is the intent to respect other people's opinions, even if you disagree, or don't understand them. You are expected to accept that other people have their own reasons and opinions, and while you can disagree with that, you cannot call the simple act of having an opinion "implausible" - otherwise, what's to stop me doing the same to you?

Congratulations, now you have a forum where people devalue the mere voice of others just because they think something different, and now the simple ability to have a voice is practically squandered.

I can't just barge into a Grey Knight thread and say that they are overpowered because seeing large amounts of colour silver makes me nauseous.

You can say that. Other people can disagree, but your view cannot be called "implausible".

However, your "example" doesn't quite work, because GK being "overpowered" in that context is specifically to do with the mathematics of the game. Nausea is not a mathematical factor.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

I literally said you need to consider the usefulness of the upgrades in PL 'just the same', if that is 'not at all' to you, then that can apply under the points too.

No, you don't *need* to at all. That's list optimisation talking. You don't *need* to consider it at all.

Do you have trouble understanding what I write. 'Not at all,' it is right there.

You said need. I read exactly what you said. I disagree.

JFC!. You need to consider them 'just the same,' that same may be 'not at all' thus you're not considering at all.

You can say that. Other people can disagree, but your view cannot be called "implausible".

I never said implausible, I said 'irrational.'

However, your "example" doesn't quite work, because GK being "overpowered" in that context is specifically to do with the mathematics of the game. Nausea is not a mathematical factor.

And we are discussing the rules. They actually follow logic, just like the maths. If one says "Rule X encourages Y" then the assumption certainly is that it encourages it for some logically discernible rational reason, not because seeing rule X may cause some person behave in randomly irrational manner. If we assume the latter then pretty much anything can be said encourage anything and such statements become completely pointless.

 Crimson wrote:

Aelyn wrote:The same issue literally cannot occur in PL, since there is no way for the aesthetic equipment choice to make your army illegal.

If you are building from a gamist perspective, then yes, you will want to consider the effectiveness of your equipment in both systems. If you are building from a non-gamist perspective, points add an extra layer of restrictions to your decision (or ability to play) which PL does not. Hence PL not discouraging aesthetic equipment choices in the way points discourage them.

But it can happen in PL too. I built the units that I think looks cool and I'd like to use and they add up to 51 PL. now I cant use them in a 50 PL game. But what, you say, why not just play a 51 (or 52, or 55) PL. game, sure, that is a good solution, but then that applies to points too. You list comes to 1024 points due your upgrades, just play a 1050, or 1100 point game.

That has nothing to do with the equipment that has been chosen, though - that's about the units chosen. Remember again, we're talking about how points dissuade equipping units according to aesthetic preference, but PL does not.

 Crimson wrote:
OK, here is actually an easy point hack for PL users in point games. Count the maximum amount of points any any unit's cost can be. Always pay that cost for that unit, regardless of the stuff you actually took. Now you don't need to worry about upgrades, and will have a point compliant list. This is pretty much all that PL does, except with smaller numbers.

So now you're proposing a change to the points system to remove one of its disadvantages compared to PL? Isn't that a tacit admission that PL has advantages, even if they are small or contingent on the builder's priorities?

Galef wrote: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?

-

I think it more likely points get dropped out the back of the book, if you want points, you'll either have to refer back to the last time they were published, TO will have to publish them, or make them up yourself. GW are changing 40k. OOP, never made and obscure models are being removed from codex, Primaris are becoming the new, only flavour of marines. New models are being introduced through games that include a codex for the models. Kill team is becoming the pick up game goto, due to more time constraints in modern life, and increasing costs of hiring a village/community hall for entire days. To me, it looks like a gradual reboot of 40k, unlike when WH became AoS overnight.

Toofast wrote:Anything power level can do, points can do better. It only takes a couple minutes to build a list in battlescribe. I'm not sure why power level even exists. Maybe to teach someone their first few games it's fine but after that they should really be learning to build a list with points.

To build a list, maybe, but it takes the same time to write down the PL from the book. Using all the points is a different matter though. It can take an hour to tweek every last point to make the total.

PL exist as it's the new way GW do it. Starter sets don't include points any more in the documents, neither do the profiles in the kit boxes, WD use PL in their battle reports. Points are so last edition now..... Along with 'normal' marines (I'm refusing to go primaris though)

 Crimson wrote:
JFC!. You need to consider them 'just the same,' that same may be 'not at all' thus you're not considering at all.

Why do I *need* to consider them the same, when they have notable differences, some which are based in facts, and others based on personal intuitive feelings?

You can say that. Other people can disagree, but your view cannot be called "implausible".

I never said implausible, I said 'irrational.'

You supported nareik's statement of Peregrine having credence in calling people's arguments "implausible". You also claimed that the reasons for having those opinions were "literally untrue". You have no right to say what subjective reasoning people have for their preferences are true or untrue.

And we are discussing the rules.

No, we're discussing personal preferences. At least, that's what I'm trying to discuss. I'm discussing that some people like PL for both a mix of mechanical reasons (like speed), but also of perceived feelings towards it. My point being that for either reason, someone's preference of either system is completely valid.

Someone might like points because. to them, it encourages a more engaging meta. That's entirely their perception that PL has a more engaging meta, because PL can have one too, but if that's the reason they like points, so be it. That's not implausible, irrational, or invalid. It simply IS, and their reasoning for liking it is as good a reason as any.

Peregrine has been well shown here to dismiss people's reasons for why they like PL, simply because they don't respect the subjective preferences and perceptions of others, implying that Peregrine regards their perception and preferences to be the only ones considered valid.

 Crimson wrote:

But it can happen in PL too. I built the units that I think looks cool and I'd like to use and they add up to 51 PL. now I cant use them in a 50 PL game.

Just FYI, PL has no hard limit like points do. You just take roughly the amount agreed on. So 53 PL works for a 50 PL game just fine. Unlike in matched where you are explicitly forbidden from going over the points value.

Aelyn wrote:

So now you're proposing a change to the points system to remove one of its disadvantages compared to PL? Isn't that a tacit admission that PL has advantages, even if they are small or contingent on the builder's priorities?

It is not a change, you are always allowed to be under the point limit. And it is not an advantage, it is a disadvantage you for some bizarre reason want to have.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Why do I *need* to consider them the same, when they have notable differences, some which are based in facts, and others based on personal intuitive feelings?

Those differences only exist if you care about optimisation, which you admittedly don't. Your bizarre intuitions are something I cannot comment on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dandelion wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

But it can happen in PL too. I built the units that I think looks cool and I'd like to use and they add up to 51 PL. now I cant use them in a 50 PL game.

Just FYI, PL has no hard limit like points do. You just take roughly the amount agreed on. So 53 PL works for a 50 PL game just fine. Unlike in matched where you are explicitly forbidden from going over the points value.

It's actually the same with points. BRB: "Usually both players will use the same limit, but this does not need to be the case." So basically in both cases it is just what the players happen to agree upon and it doesn't need to be equal.

 Crimson wrote:

Aelyn wrote:

So now you're proposing a change to the points system to remove one of its disadvantages compared to PL? Isn't that a tacit admission that PL has advantages, even if they are small or contingent on the builder's priorities?

It is not a change, you are always allowed to be under the point limit. And it is not an advantage, it is a disadvantage you for some bizarre reason want to have.

Just to be clear, since you keep cutting out key points of posts and only addressing single paragraphs out of context:

My point was that PL removes one specific drawback of points: taking equipment based purely on aesthetic preference won't take you over the limit on a PL game, while it can take you over the limit in points games. Are you now saying that specific effect is a drawback of PL? Can you explain why?

Again, remember that this entire exchange has been based on my statement that points discourage players from taking equipment for aesthetic purposes while PL is neutral on the matter. I just want to make sure you're not shifting the goalposts.

(Also, FYI: I personally use points the vast majority of the time)

Crimson wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
The claim was made that 'the PL encouraging weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons.' This is simply not true. I don't mind you liking PL or playing PL, it is perfectly fine. But if you claim liking it for reasons that are not true, then I shall question your judgement.

That is a mind-reading assumption. A classic case of prejudice.

How it is that mind reading? I read the rules, not anyone's mind.

That you think that a person who likes something for a reason is not true is mind reading. Liking something is subjective, not objective. WHY someone likes something is equally subjective, not objective. Blue is my favorite color, but I don't like Ultramarines and prefer Black Templars, Imperial Fists, or Raven Guard if I'm going Marines because of their character and stories. Am I then very wrong for not liking Ultramarines because I like blue? That is the rough equivalent to what you are saying because you take one opinion as objective and then paste it as someone else's reasoning.

In order to have as fact something that is an opinion, one would have to be a mind-reader, or know the person more than they know themselves.

I know you don't know me that well, because no mortal does, yet you are taking it upon yourself to declare something as fact in regards to everyone talking here is presenting as a subjective opinion.

Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Why do I *need* to consider them the same, when they have notable differences, some which are based in facts, and others based on personal intuitive feelings?

Those differences only exist if you care about optimisation, which you admittedly don't. Your bizarre intuitions are something I cannot comment on.

Sorry, but without qualifying statements like, "if," and, "then", then "need" statements present absolutism.

Crimson wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

But it can happen in PL too. I built the units that I think looks cool and I'd like to use and they add up to 51 PL. now I cant use them in a 50 PL game.

Just FYI, PL has no hard limit like points do. You just take roughly the amount agreed on. So 53 PL works for a 50 PL game just fine. Unlike in matched where you are explicitly forbidden from going over the points value.

It's actually the same with points. BRB: "Usually both players will use the same limit, but this does not need to be the case." So basically in both cases it is just what the players happen to agree upon and it doesn't need to be equal.

You haven't met some of the people I have who will not give a game to someone who want to play a game at any point level that equals the next tournament. You also may not have read the thread where Peregrine and Slayer who think that only cheaters ask for different point values.

 Crimson wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Why do I *need* to consider them the same, when they have notable differences, some which are based in facts, and others based on personal intuitive feelings?

Those differences only exist if you care about optimisation, which you admittedly don't.

PL being faster to calculate than points is a difference that optimisation doesn't affect.
Furthermore, the other differences, while they are personal opinions, based on intuitions and perceptions, and as such are only applicable to me, are just as valid differences as any other.
Of course, that is only to me.

Your bizarre intuitions are something I cannot comment on.

Good. That's all I'm asking for - just acceptance of them being just as valid as any of your beliefs.

Ok, so to throw another example into the mix: Harlequin troupe loadout. You don't min/max those based solely on cost effectiveness calculated via equation "damage output of codex entry in the void divided by point cost in codex entry". How you min/max those is you calculate expected total damage output of a troupe before it is completely slain, which in case of footslogging troupe includes a cost of ablative wounds - you don't upgrade all troupers with fusion pistols and CC options if you cannot deliver the punch. So you end up with just a couple of Harlies with more than basic loadout despite all having an option to upgrade. But because in PLs unit cost is rigid, you actually don't play at disadvantage if you throw some mixed equipment on them and worry about model removal queue only on tabletop - in this case PLs directly promote aesthetic, fluffy and TAC oriented model builds, you are not punished for equiping "dead on arrival" dudes. Of course, if you play in a "standard mission type, on standard terrain setup, against standard armies" type of meta and your focus is on min/max approach to list building to win, you will want to max out on most effective choices in your predictable environment, so models that survive max out your potential damage output. But that is not the only way to play 40K...

Aelyn wrote:

My point was that PL removes one specific drawback of points: taking equipment based purely on aesthetic preference won't take you over the limit on a PL game, while it can take you over the limit in points games.

Of course equipment doens't make you go over in PL as the equipment doesn't affect the cost. This is why list making is easier in PL, which is one of the strengths of that system, and I never have disputed that.

Are you now saying that specific effect is a drawback of PL? Can you explain why?

Again, remember that this entire exchange has been based on my statement that points discourage players from taking equipment for aesthetic purposes while PL is neutral on the matter. I just want to make sure you're not shifting the goalposts.

It is a drawback because you are still really paying for the equipment, you're just paying whether you take it or not. It is like my idea of just paying for the most expensive options for an unit in a point game regardless of whether you take them. This is why it does the opposite than what you claim: you pay for something whether you take it or not, thus it encourages taking the most powerful stuff. PL actively punishes 'taking cool stuff' unless that 'cool stuff' was the most powerful option to begin with. And again, if you don't care about effectiveness, you can always pay for stuff you don't actually take with points too.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Encouraging weapon upgrades for aesthetic reasons, not because it's all you can afford in X points

PL does no such thing. There is still an optimal weapon choice based on firepower per point, and taking a choice for aesthetic reasons still makes your army weaker. In fact, PL discourages taking aesthetic options because they all cost the same. In a normal game you might be able to be ok with taking a chainsword instead of a power fist because it looks cool since at least it costs fewer points for the weaker weapon. In a PL game you're punished for taking that cool chainsword because you're paying the points for a power fist.

Apparently this is hard for you to grasp, but many of the advocates for PL don't care about effectiveness per point or pure efficiency. This seems to be the root cause of most of the disagreements about PL. From this thread it seems most players who prefer PL also aren't as bothered about the pure efficiency of their lists, and rank other factors as more important when it comes to army construction. That's their opinion and we have to assume that's something that works for them. It's not something you can simply dismiss because it doesn't fit with your view of how the game should be played, regardless of your utter lack of understanding of other's opinions and arrogant dismissal of them.

In Peregrine's world view there are only those who will do anything to win and those that lie about it.

 Crimson wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

But it can happen in PL too. I built the units that I think looks cool and I'd like to use and they add up to 51 PL. now I cant use them in a 50 PL game.

Just FYI, PL has no hard limit like points do. You just take roughly the amount agreed on. So 53 PL works for a 50 PL game just fine. Unlike in matched where you are explicitly forbidden from going over the points value.

It's actually the same with points. BRB: "Usually both players will use the same limit, but this does not need to be the case." So basically in both cases it is just what the players happen to agree upon and it doesn't need to be equal.

No, it's not the same because PL doesn't have a limit at all. If I say I can have 1000 pts and you can have 1250 pts those are still hard limits that neither player can go over because going over is explicitly against the rules. Players using PL don't actually need to make any PL limit at all. Your argument on not being able to use 51 PL in a 50 PL game is wrong because you explicitly can. In fact I'm allowed to take all the PL I want so long as my opponent agrees to it.

Which at that point the PL is just one metric (among others) that helps guide the decision to accept the game as is or not. So 75PL vs 50PL might be too much to accept, but 60PL vs 50PL might be acceptable, depending on the missions or terrain as well as the perceived real strength of the certain units. e.g player A has a knight which counters player B too much so player B gets to take a little more than usual to even the odds.

It's really more of a discussion between players, where each side gets to adjust their stuff before the game begins to achieve a more enjoyable experience for both. Simply put, PL is there to allow on the fly adjustments with little pressure about exactitude. Points games tend to force players to come up with lists following the ever elusive "meta" to ensure they don't get stomped by someone who did, since such pre-game discussion and adjustments seem to be rare and taking players on blind seems to be more common.

So while you could do the above with points, it's really just unnecessary effort once you've cross-tailored your armies.

Slipspace wrote:
Apparently this is hard for you to grasp, but many of the advocates for PL don't care about effectiveness per point or pure efficiency.

It's perfectly easy to grasp.

It also makes zero sense as a point.

If you don't care about [point] efficiency, then you won't care about it regardless of whether you use points or power level.

 Charistoph wrote:

That you think that a person who likes something for a reason is not true is mind reading. Liking something is subjective, not objective. WHY someone likes something is equally subjective, not objective. Blue is my favorite color, but I don't like Ultramarines and prefer Black Templars, Imperial Fists, or Raven Guard if I'm going Marines because of their character and stories. Am I then very wrong for not liking Ultramarines because I like blue? That is the rough equivalent to what you are saying because you take one opinion as objective and then paste it as someone else's reasoning.

If someone says they prefer bicycles over cars because they're more economical and environmentally friendly they have a rational point, if they say that they prefer bicycles over cars because they're faster then I have to question their reasoning.

You haven't met some of the people I have who will not give a game to someone who want to play a game at any point level that equals the next tournament. You also may not have read the thread where Peregrine and Slayer who think that only cheaters ask for different point values.

Those people being silly is not the fault of the point system. The rules are clear that you can play at any point level and the points don't need to be equal. This is actually the same thing that what I've been talking about PL too, people having an irrational preferences and associations regarding the rules that are not actually supported by the said rules.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 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.

Only one mention of using points, only in connection with battle-forged match play, no mention of PL

To use a points limit, you will need to reference the points values, which are found in a number of Warhammer 40,000 publications, such as codexes. In these you will find the points costs for every model and weapon described in that book. Simply add up the points values of all the models and weapons in your army, and make sure the total does not exceed the agreed limit for the game.

Again in match play..... The only mention of a list/roster, is used in association with points.

Once you have picked your army, record the details of it on a piece of paper (called your army roster). The roster must include the units in your army, details of the upgrades they have, and must also say which unit in the army will be the army’s Warlord.

Ergo, lists are only required with points, and specifically in match play.

Dandelion wrote:

No, it's not the same because PL doesn't have a limit at all. If I say I can have 1000 pts and you can have 1250 pts those are still hard limits that neither player can go over because going over is explicitly against the rules. Players using PL don't actually need to make any PL limit at all. Your argument on not being able to use 51 PL in a 50 PL game is wrong because you explicitly can. In fact I'm allowed to take all the PL I want so long as my opponent agrees to it.

Which at that point the PL is just one metric (among others) that helps guide the decision to accept the game as is or not. So 75PL vs 50PL might be too much to accept, but 60PL vs 50PL might be acceptable, depending on the missions or terrain as well as the perceived real strength of the certain units. e.g player A has a knight which counters player B too much so player B gets to take a little more than usual to even the odds.

It's really more of a discussion between players, where each side gets to adjust their stuff before the game begins to achieve a more enjoyable experience for both. Simply put, PL is there to allow on the fly adjustments with little pressure about exactitude. Points games tend to force players to come up with lists following the ever elusive "meta" to ensure they don't get stomped by someone who did, since such pre-game discussion and adjustments seem to be rare and taking players on blind seems to be more common.

So while you could do the above with points, it's really just unnecessary effort once you've cross-tailored your armies.

It is exactly the same. The 'limit' is just what is agreed upon, just like you agree with your opponent what PL sized armies to bring.

 Crimson wrote:

Aelyn wrote:

My point was that PL removes one specific drawback of points: taking equipment based purely on aesthetic preference won't take you over the limit on a PL game, while it can take you over the limit in points games.

Of course equipment doens't make you go over in PL as the equipment doesn't affect the cost. This is why list making is easier in PL, which is one of the strengths of that system, and I never have disputed that.

So if you accept "PL means equipment can't take you over on points" is a potential strength of the system, why were you trying to argue it wasn't a strength of the system?

 Crimson wrote:

Are you now saying that specific effect is a drawback of PL? Can you explain why?

Again, remember that this entire exchange has been based on my statement that points discourage players from taking equipment for aesthetic purposes while PL is neutral on the matter. I just want to make sure you're not shifting the goalposts.

It is a drawback because you are still really paying for the equipment, you're just paying whether you take it or not. It is like my idea of just paying for the most expensive options for an unit in a point game regardless of whether you take them. This is why it does the opposite than what you claim: you pay for something whether you take it or not, thus it encourages taking the most powerful stuff. PL actively punishes 'taking cool stuff' unless that 'cool stuff' was the most powerful option to begin with. And again, if you don't care about effectiveness, you can always pay for stuff you don't actually take with points too.

And you're back to talking about game efficiency, trying to argue that "taking something for aesthetic reasons" has a drawback of "less efficient in-game", which is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

And frankly, your idea of deliberately and explicitly overpaying for stuff looks like just a transparent attempt to avoid having to cede the point.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Apparently this is hard for you to grasp, but many of the advocates for PL don't care about effectiveness per point or pure efficiency.

It's perfectly easy to grasp.

It also makes zero sense as a point.

If you don't care about [point] efficiency, then you won't care about it regardless of whether you use points or power level.

And this is the thing making zero sense. It's a bizarre rationale to defend a poorly created system.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Apparently this is hard for you to grasp, but many of the advocates for PL don't care about effectiveness per point or pure efficiency.

It's perfectly easy to grasp.

It also makes zero sense as a point.

If you don't care about [point] efficiency, then you won't care about it regardless of whether you use points or power level.

If you don't care so much about the thing PL isn't so good at it no longer matters as a reason not to use that system. Clearly people using PL want some sort of structure to their army lists, otherwise they wouldn't be using PL at all. If they find PL easier or better than points for some reason other than efficiency that can count as a point in its favour for those people.