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.
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?
Easier list building is a strength of PL, encouraging 'cool stuff' is not.
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.
Of course it is relevant if we are talking about what system encourages what. Using either system will not get free lollipops mailed to you if you take cool looking weapons, however, in one taking cool weapons makes your army weaker where in another it doesn't (at least as much.)
And frankly, your idea of deliberately and explicitly overpaying for stuff looks like just a transparent attempt to avoid having to cede the point.
But that't the whole fething point of PL: deliberately and explicitly overpaying for stuff! Every time you use PL, and you're not taking the most powerful stuff, that's what your're doing. If you don't mind doing so under PL, why would you mind it under the points?
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.
And the ease of use is a perfectly valid reason to prefer PL, the problem is some people claiming that the system does stuff it literally does not.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/20 22:23:29
Slipspace wrote: 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.
Exactly. The *only* drawback people seem to bring against PL is that it's not as balanced/efficient. And that's a fair reason.
However, if balance/efficiency isn't a relevant factor for them, that drawback to PL isn't really a drawback. So sure, one could say "why don't you play points anyways, you don't care about the balance or efficiency", but someone could just as well reply "why shouldn't I play with PL instead"?
If balance and efficiency are ignored, then that particular difference between points and PL becomes moot. In which case, then points and PL need to be compared on different factors - such as speed of list building, personal perceptions of the systems, the local community and potential tournaments, and other variables.
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.
I've driven in London, bicycles are considerably faster than cars, even little old ladies with the shopping in the basket leave you miles behind.
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.
The rules don't even require points or PL to be used, all that is required is agreement to the metric and value.
Trouble is, there are none so blind as those that will not see, or as deaf as those that refuse to listen
Crimson wrote: But that't the whole fething point of PL: deliberately and explicitly overpaying for stuff!
It's really not.
Every time you use PL, and you're not taking the most powerful stuff, that's what your're doing.
From your point of view. How about looking at from the inverse - if you're taking the strongest weapons, you're cheating by taking good stuff from free.
If you don't mind doing so under PL, why would you mind it under the points?
Because points have a different association with them, from the player base for them, and for the game design insinuation that smaller upgrades have a tangible effect on your list.
It's like the XP boost/nerf effects that happened with WoW (at least, I think it was WoW). Despite both having the same effect generally, the "boost after resting" effect was perceived to be better because it *sounded* better. With PL/points, sure, you *could* treat them functionally the same, but the perception that people have of PL for being less anally retentive about upgrades is not to be ignored.
And the ease of use is a perfectly valid reason to prefer PL, the problem is some people claiming that the system does stuff it literally does not.
If someone says "it elicits X response in me", who are you to say that their feeling isn't genuine?
Let's compare some buying a car. The first car they get in, they drive around, and they quite like it. They get in the second car, and despite both cars being the same make, same age, same mileage, they say "look, I actually prefer the first - I don't know why, but I prefer it." Are you really going to claim that their personal preference, which is completely subjective and down to them, is fake?
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.
Fair enough. Again, probably doesn't stop most local groups asking for them, and I'm pretty sure out of courtesy, you *should* show your opponent a list, but if it's not in the rules, then it's not in the rules!
Besides, I'd default to YWSIWYG anyways.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/20 22:42:39
I've driven in London, bicycles are considerably faster than cars, even little old ladies with the shopping in the basket leave you miles behind.
You know what, that was an excellent counterpoint, and an great example of rational argumentation!
The rules don't even require points or PL to be used, all that is required is agreement to the metric and value.
Trouble is, there are none so blind as those that will not see, or as deaf as those that refuse to listen
A lot of these discussions are actually about the attitude and playstyles, and people attribute their preferences to the rule systems they commonly use even though those things are not really related.
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?
Easier list building is a strength of PL, encouraging 'cool stuff' is not.
When using points, having aesthetic equipment choices can result in your army being illegal as it takes you over the point limit. When using PL, having aesthetic equipment choices can't result in your army being illegal as they can't take you over a PL limit.
Hence, points can discourage using aesthetic equipment choices in a way PL wouldn't.
What part of that, exactly, are you disagreeing with here?
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.
Of course it is relevant if we are talking about what system encourages what. Using either system will not get free lollipops mailed to you if you take cool looking weapons, however, in one taking cool weapons makes your army weaker where in another it doesn't (at least as much.)
Having an illegal army and having a non-optimised army are very different things. One is relevant to what I'm saying, one is not.
And frankly, your idea of deliberately and explicitly overpaying for stuff looks like just a transparent attempt to avoid having to cede the point.
But that't the whole fething point of PL: deliberately and explicitly overpaying for stuff! Every time you use PL, and you're not taking the most powerful stuff, that's what your're doing. If you don't mind doing so under PL, why would you mind it under the points?
So your argument is "If you like PL, you can spend time going back and forth between multiple pages and sources to figure out larger numbers (ignoring the fact that multiple separate calculations and larger numbers both make calculation errors more likely), then use these in the same way you'd have used the much simpler-to-use and easily-available numbers printed on the datasheets"... and you don't see why that's ridiculous?
So your argument is "If you like PL, you can spend time going back and forth between multiple pages and sources to figure out larger numbers (ignoring the fact that multiple separate calculations and larger numbers both make calculation errors more likely), then use these in the same way you'd have used the much simpler-to-use and easily-available numbers printed on the datasheets"... and you don't see why that's ridiculous?
I don't actually expect anyone to do that, but yes, you could, and it would be the same than using the PL, except more laborious. Thus the real strength of Pl is the ease of use, and that's it. But overpaying (or playing with under pointed list really, but it's the same) sidesteps all you other objections.
How exactly does PL encourage aesthetic choices? Please be clear.
And, as a question to something that was brought up earlier, which is easier to explain from an aesthetic point of view: An entire squad being missing, or a few upgrades being missing?
The example given was a power sword-but what if the power sword was overloaded in a recent battle, and therefore was being repaired by a techpriest? You can't wait for the sword to be fixed before going to the battle, so you do without.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
JNAProductions wrote: How exactly does PL encourage aesthetic choices? Please be clear.
Power Level encourages aesthetic choices in that the game does not assign a value to them itself. You are left to choose your own, from your own set of values.
It does not care why you're choosing the weapon you do, only that all options are down to you, and if you want it, you're free to have it. Your choice will not affect anything else of your list.
On the other hand, points assigns value to a weapon based on it's in game effectiveness. Despite any other values you might assign to it, it is clear from the game's design that the only thing of value to that gun is it's points value. Therefore, the game makes it clear that balance is the value it wishes to enforce.
And, as a question to something that was brought up earlier, which is easier to explain from an aesthetic point of view: An entire squad being missing, or a few upgrades being missing?
Realistically, it depends upon the narrative you've forged. But, ignoring all forged narratives, from an aesthetic point of view? A whole squad, I think. At least there is no discrepancy between what is on the table, and what's on your list.
No-one would be able to tell you're missing an Intercessor Squad, or your third Infantry Squad. They would be able to see that your Sergeant has a power fist, and that's not been marked on the army list. If I saw that, I'd genuinely feel sorry for my opponent, and let them add the power fist. They clearly like how it looks, and I don't want to perpetuate a system of "looks matter less than gameplay". Of course, that's if I played points.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/20 23:40:00
So your argument is "If you like PL, you can spend time going back and forth between multiple pages and sources to figure out larger numbers (ignoring the fact that multiple separate calculations and larger numbers both make calculation errors more likely), then use these in the same way you'd have used the much simpler-to-use and easily-available numbers printed on the datasheets"... and you don't see why that's ridiculous?
I don't actually expect anyone to do that, but yes, you could, and it would be the same than using the PL, except more laborious. Thus the real strength of Pl is the ease of use, and that's it. But overpaying (or playing with under pointed list really, but it's the same) sidesteps all you other objections.
Okay, fine. I can accept that deliberately (and badly) approximating PL in points, through a needlessly-laborious process, does allow you to sidestep the disadvantage of points that I pointed out, at the cost of it taking a significant amount more time to calculate the list and inviting more errors along the way.
If that's the mental gymnastics you need to jump through to avoid having to accept that this is a specific and rather narrow way in which PL is better than points, then... congrats?
Aelyn wrote: Okay, fine. I can accept that deliberately (and badly) approximating PL in points, through a needlessly-laborious process, does allow you to sidestep the disadvantage of points that I pointed out, at the cost of it taking a significant amount more time to calculate the list and inviting more errors along the way.
If that's the mental gymnastics you need to jump through to avoid having to accept that this is a specific and rather narrow way in which PL is better than points, then... congrats?
PL is a lot better than points in ease of use and speed of list building, I just wouldn't attribute that ease encouraging any particular sort of lists as it that ease applies to every sort of list.
JNAProductions wrote: How exactly does PL encourage aesthetic choices? Please be clear.
PL doesn't directly encourage aesthetic choices, but unlike points, it doesn't directly discourage them. Therefore, compared to points, PL is more inviting of aesthetic choices.
And, as a question to something that was brought up earlier, which is easier to explain from an aesthetic point of view: An entire squad being missing, or a few upgrades being missing?
Depends on the army. If it's Guard, probably the squad. If it's something like Eldar or Chaos, probably the upgrade.
The example given was a power sword-but what if the power sword was overloaded in a recent battle, and therefore was being repaired by a techpriest? You can't wait for the sword to be fixed before going to the battle, so you do without.
In that particular case, that works. It works less well when you're explaining why exactly one of the Tyranid Warriors in the army has talons instead of the modelled bonesword/lashwhip. But thank you for at least trying to see how the story of the game and the army can take precedence for some players.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/21 00:04:14
But how does PL encourage you to take subpar options?
Assigning no cost (or, really, equal cost) to all upgrades doesn't mean that, say, a Heavy Bolter becomes BETTER than a Grav Cannon.
Points can (and SHOULD, but don't succeed at the moment) encourage any choices, because their relative value is equal. A Heavy Bolter, while not as good as a Grav Cannon, is cheaper, and so their relative value is equal. But if all upgrades cost the same, as in PL, then the Grav Cannon's superior statline means it's pretty much an auto-pick over the Heavy Bolter.
Edit: And before anyone says "Well I don't care how effective it is," you can not care about that in points too. Power Level does nothing to make you care less than points.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/21 00:09:50
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
In points, the existence of the points themselves indicate that the weapons have a value each, based on their in-game output. The fact that it tells us "A is worth X, B is worth Y" indicates this. With Power Level not assigning a value to each weapon, it lets you, the player, choose free of what's "supposed" to be good or bad value.
Yes, PL doesn't encourage taking "subpar" options directly, but does so by removing the value of all options, putting them all on one playing field.
Assigning no cost (or, really, equal cost) to all upgrades doesn't mean that, say, a Heavy Bolter becomes BETTER than a Grav Cannon.
No, but it means that you're not actively choosing something because it's cheap. It means you're choosing it because that weapon means something to you, your personal value. To some, that personal value is "how strong is it". To others, it's "how cool it looks".
PL doesn't make anything better or worse than any other. They just put all the control of the value in your hands.
Points can (and SHOULD, but don't succeed at the moment) encourage any choices, because their relative value is equal. A Heavy Bolter, while not as good as a Grav Cannon, is cheaper, and so their relative value is equal. But if all upgrades cost the same, as in PL, then the Grav Cannon's superior statline means it's pretty much an auto-pick over the Heavy Bolter.
And you're not wrong - except that "relative value" is only referring to effect in the game - not for other values.
Points should be the perfect way to balance the game based on the value of in-game effect, but with Power Level, you have the freedom to choose without the game forcing the idea that "hey, this is a cheap gun, this is good value for strength!"
It's all about the perception of control, and imposing your own values.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/21 00:34:18
As a power level advocate, power level doesn’t encourage any kind of behaviour to use sub par stuff or visa versa. It’s a points system just like points but simpler. What happens though is that players who are happier using subpar options for what ever reason (plot, looks etc) are more likely to prefer the more relaxed style of power level. It’s the whole cause and effect being the wrong way round. Power level is attractive to casual less competetive players because of the features that aren’t contestable, simplicity, time saving and vagueness. And equal those players are put off points by the strict adherence to the system and and the whole optimal vs sub optimal way of things.
If power level was the only way it would be awful because all the people drawn to points would maximise all their units in PL and then the rest of us would be worse off. As it is it is mostly a like minded minority that use the system and because most are playing in the same way it doesn’t get abused.
Assigning no cost (or, really, equal cost) to all upgrades doesn't mean that, say, a Heavy Bolter becomes BETTER than a Grav Cannon.
Points can (and SHOULD, but don't succeed at the moment) encourage any choices, because their relative value is equal. A Heavy Bolter, while not as good as a Grav Cannon, is cheaper, and so their relative value is equal. But if all upgrades cost the same, as in PL, then the Grav Cannon's superior statline means it's pretty much an auto-pick over the Heavy Bolter.
Edit: And before anyone says "Well I don't care how effective it is," you can not care about that in points too. Power Level does nothing to make you care less than points.
It got drowned a page before, but here you have an example provided:
"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..."
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're trying to put objectivity in to something that is purely subjective. Subjective things like opinions, cannot properly be measured so there is no objectivity to it.
To use your bike comparison, people aren't trying to compare bikes versus cars because of efficiencies or economies, they were saying that they preferred bikes because they liked the wind in the hair while riding a bike and not what it feels like in a car, and you saying that reason is not true.
Crimson wrote:
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.
Then why are you trying to present this as an objective downside of PL?
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
In points, the existence of the points themselves indicate that the weapons have a value each, based on their in-game output. The fact that it tells us "A is worth X, B is worth Y" indicates this.
With Power Level not assigning a value to each weapon, it lets you, the player, choose free of what's "supposed" to be good or bad value.
Yes, PL doesn't encourage taking "subpar" options directly, but does so by removing the value of all options, putting them all on one playing field.
Assigning no cost (or, really, equal cost) to all upgrades doesn't mean that, say, a Heavy Bolter becomes BETTER than a Grav Cannon.
No, but it means that you're not actively choosing something because it's cheap. It means you're choosing it because that weapon means something to you, your personal value.
To some, that personal value is "how strong is it".
To others, it's "how cool it looks".
PL doesn't make anything better or worse than any other. They just put all the control of the value in your hands.
Points can (and SHOULD, but don't succeed at the moment) encourage any choices, because their relative value is equal. A Heavy Bolter, while not as good as a Grav Cannon, is cheaper, and so their relative value is equal. But if all upgrades cost the same, as in PL, then the Grav Cannon's superior statline means it's pretty much an auto-pick over the Heavy Bolter.
And you're not wrong - except that "relative value" is only referring to effect in the game - not for other values.
Points should be the perfect way to balance the game based on the value of in-game effect, but with Power Level, you have the freedom to choose without the game forcing the idea that "hey, this is a cheap gun, this is good value for strength!"
It's all about the perception of control, and imposing your own values.
If you don't care about how effective an option is on the tabletop, why does assigning a specific points value to it matter?
It's all just looks, after all.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Andykp wrote: As a power level advocate, power level doesn’t encourage any kind of behaviour to use sub par stuff or visa versa. It’s a points system just like points but simpler. What happens though is that players who are happier using subpar options for what ever reason (plot, looks etc) are more likely to prefer the more relaxed style of power level. It’s the whole cause and effect being the wrong way round. Power level is attractive to casual less competetive players because of the features that aren’t contestable, simplicity, time saving and vagueness. And equal those players are put off points by the strict adherence to the system and and the whole optimal vs sub optimal way of things.
If power level was the only way it would be awful because all the people drawn to points would maximise all their units in PL and then the rest of us would be worse off. As it is it is mostly a like minded minority that use the system and because most are playing in the same way it doesn’t get abused.
JNAProductions wrote: If you don't care about how effective an option is on the tabletop, why does assigning a specific points value to it matter?
It's all just looks, after all.
Because assigning specific points tells me that the game designers have assigned a value to this weapon relative to it's combat potential. They've chosen what the aspect of importance is, and how valuable it is at that aspect.
I personally don't like the game telling me "this is what's important". By having no value for upgrades in the PL system, the game puts no value on anything, allowing the player to choose the things they want because of personal values.
It's not that I care about something's effectiveness on tabletop. It's that the points system makes it clear that it is more preoccupied by in-game strength than other values.
So, you're basing what you feel on what others say?
Because the in-game stats and performance are exactly the same whether you build a list with Points or PL. Points just attempts to assign an appropriate value to the various different options, while PL says a Renegade Knight Gallant is worth 25% more than an Imperial Knight Gallant because options.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
JNAProductions wrote: If you don't care about how effective an option is on the tabletop, why does assigning a specific points value to it matter?
It's all just looks, after all.
Because assigning specific points tells me that the game designers have assigned a value to this weapon relative to it's combat potential. They've chosen what the aspect of importance is, and how valuable it is at that aspect.
I personally don't like the game telling me "this is what's important". By having no value for upgrades in the PL system, the game puts no value on anything, allowing the player to choose the things they want because of personal values.
It's not that I care about something's effectiveness on tabletop. It's that the points system makes it clear that it is more preoccupied by in-game strength than other values.
Except that's under the assumption people dont like the looks of the better option. The Heavy Bolter vs Grav Cannon is an excellent counter to your entire premise to be honest.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
JNAProductions wrote: If you don't care about how effective an option is on the tabletop, why does assigning a specific points value to it matter?
It's all just looks, after all.
Because assigning specific points tells me that the game designers have assigned a value to this weapon relative to it's combat potential. They've chosen what the aspect of importance is, and how valuable it is at that aspect.
I personally don't like the game telling me "this is what's important". By having no value for upgrades in the PL system, the game puts no value on anything, allowing the player to choose the things they want because of personal values.
It's not that I care about something's effectiveness on tabletop. It's that the points system makes it clear that it is more preoccupied by in-game strength than other values.
Except that's under the assumption people dont like the looks of the better option. The Heavy Bolter vs Grav Cannon is an excellent counter to your entire premise to be honest.
Okay. So the system works perfectly, assuming everybody has the same tastes and their tastes just so happen to align with what's good.
What do you think the odds of that are?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I personally don't like the game telling me "this is what's important". By having no value for upgrades in the PL system, the game puts no value on anything, allowing the player to choose the things they want because of personal values.
This is just your biases showing. Assigning all choices the same cost isn't "putting no value on anything", it's declaring that they're of equal value. The problem, once again, seems to be that you are confusing the written rules of PL with your personal approach to 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Charistoph wrote: To use your bike comparison, people aren't trying to compare bikes versus cars because of efficiencies or economies, they were saying that they preferred bikes because they liked the wind in the hair while riding a bike and not what it feels like in a car, and you saying that reason is not true.
Except no, that's not the case. They're saying they prefer bikes because they enjoy the free beer every day that automatically comes with owning a bike. And it's entirely accurate to point out that their claim of a causal relationship between the free beer and their enjoyment is absurd because the free beer doesn't exist. PL advocates can talk all they want about how they enjoy PL because of X, but if PL doesn't in fact produce X then they are, at best, displaying a very poor understanding of their hobby and what makes it fun.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/21 04:57:46
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Charistoph wrote: To use your bike comparison, people aren't trying to compare bikes versus cars because of efficiencies or economies, they were saying that they preferred bikes because they liked the wind in the hair while riding a bike and not what it feels like in a car, and you saying that reason is not true.
Except no, that's not the case. They're saying they prefer bikes because they enjoy the free beer every day that automatically comes with owning a bike. And it's entirely accurate to point out that their claim of a causal relationship between the free beer and their enjoyment is absurd because the free beer doesn't exist. PL advocates can talk all they want about how they enjoy PL because of X, but if PL doesn't in fact produce X then they are, at best, displaying a very poor understanding of their hobby and what makes it fun.
Wrong. While a couple have said that, others have not, yet you, Slayer, and Crimson are claiming to do mind-reading to say that they are all wrong and telling the wind-lovers are actually beer-lovers.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Because assigning specific points tells me that the game designers have assigned a value to this weapon relative to it's combat potential. They've chosen what the aspect of importance is, and how valuable it is at that aspect.
I personally don't like the game telling me "this is what's important". By having no value for upgrades in the PL system, the game puts no value on anything, allowing the player to choose the things they want because of personal values.
It's not that I care about something's effectiveness on tabletop. It's that the points system makes it clear that it is more preoccupied by in-game strength than other values.
Except... the PL system still tells you "what's important" by having different PL values for units. Everything stated here can be an argument for using the completely points-less original AoS system over PL. All the criticisms of points and alleged advantages of PL can simply be swapped around to be criticisms of PL and advantages of having no valuation system at all.
For example:
Because assigning specific power levels tells me that the game designers have assigned a value to this unit relative to it's combat potential. They've chosen what the aspect of importance is, and how valuable it is at that aspect.
I personally don't like the game telling me "this is what's important". By having no value for units in the AoS system, the game puts no value on anything, allowing the player to choose the things they want because of personal values.
It's not that I care about something's effectiveness on tabletop. It's that the power level system makes it clear that it is more preoccupied by in-game strength than other values.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/21 07:25:14
JNAProductions wrote:So, you're basing what you feel on what others say?
Yes. That's how people typically form their feelings, based on their exposure to other people and generally the rest of the world. It's up to people to choose how they act on it, but yes, people absolutely form their feelings based on what others say.
That's the real world. I don't understand what kind of point you're making with that?
Because the in-game stats and performance are exactly the same whether you build a list with Points or PL.
Technically not. With points, you are encouraged to consider the weapon as good or bad based on it's power:point ratio. As such, the cheapness of something can affect how many you can bring. You can't perform with a weapon if you can't fit it in your list.
Points just attempts to assign an appropriate value to the various different options,
Appropriate in regards to it's in game performance. That's the bit I'm getting at.
Points ONLY cares about in game performance, it makes that very clear. The values it assigns are based on that.
With PL removing any kinds of values, it puts choice in the player's hands. You want to optimize? Go for it, we don't care. You want the cool looking option? Go for it, we don't care.
while PL says a Renegade Knight Gallant is worth 25% more than an Imperial Knight Gallant because options.
But it's not a Renegade Knight Gallant. It's a Renegade Knight.
Slayer-Fan123
Spoiler:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Except that's under the assumption people dont like the looks of the better option. The Heavy Bolter vs Grav Cannon is an excellent counter to your entire premise to be honest.
And that's just your opinion. The fact that you would rather take one over the other because it's stronger in game is your priority, not mine.
My whole point is that it puts ALL the choice in the player's hands as to which they prefer. There's no "I really want this, but it's super expensive and I can't afford that". If you want it, take it.
If you want to take the best mathematical options because that's how you enjoy the game, be my guest. However, in knowing that's why you chose it, I'm probably not going to play you because your attitude to the game is counter to mine.
If someone likes the looks of the "better" option ("better" in quote marks, because I'm assuming you're judging better by the narrow view of strength alone), then they like the looks of it. That's not my problem.
JNAProductions:
Spoiler:
JNAProductions wrote:Okay. So the system works perfectly, assuming everybody has the same tastes and their tastes just so happen to align with what's good.
What do you think the odds of that are?
I mean, hasn't it been demonstrated that the vast majority of people playing PL ARE the people with roughly the same tastes?
Yes, the system *can* be broken with people playing against others that they aren't compatible with, but isn't that the same with points?
What's the difference between a casual PL player vs a WAACPL player, as opposed to a casual points player vs a WAAC points player? Because both outcomes will result in the WAAC most likely making the game incredibly unpleasant for the casual player.
In which case, surely the issue isn't in the choice of point system, but rather in both players not playing against a more suitable opponent?
Peregrine:
Spoiler:
Peregrine wrote:This is just your biases showing. Assigning all choices the same cost isn't "putting no value on anything", it's declaring that they're of equal value.
0 is quite literally "no value", when dealing with a system like this.
Sure, they're equal value - that value being literally nothing. So yeah, they absolutely ARE putting no value on anything, that value being equal, but still nothing.
They put no inherent choice over another, there's no "hey, look at this gun, it's better, so it costs more - it's more valuable". approach.
The player is left to choose free of any external favour or priority. If you want to go with the powerful option, that was your choice alone. If you want to go with the cool looking option, that was your choice.
The problem, once again, seems to be that you are confusing the written rules of PL with your personal approach to 40k.
As opposed to your problem of assuming that 40k has a right and wrong way to be played?
I *know* what the written rules are. My point is "this is how those written rules make me feel". I'm not trying to say that's universal. I'm saying that my interpretation of those rules, how they encourage me to act, is different from you, but just as valid.
Charistoph wrote: To use your bike comparison, people aren't trying to compare bikes versus cars because of efficiencies or economies, they were saying that they preferred bikes because they liked the wind in the hair while riding a bike and not what it feels like in a car, and you saying that reason is not true.
Except no, that's not the case. They're saying they prefer bikes because they enjoy the free beer every day that automatically comes with owning a bike.
Guys, we've got a telepath over here!
I mean, that's surely the only reason you could possibly have to completely put words in someone else's mouth and pretend that's what they meant all along?
Because otherwise, what's the difference between that and me saying "I think what Peregrine is TRYING to say is that he hates fun and gets irrationally offended when people play the game and have fun doing it". That would be completely absurd, wouldn't it?
And it's entirely accurate to point out that their claim of a causal relationship between the free beer and their enjoyment is absurd because the free beer doesn't exist.
The concept of "on the house" eludes you?
PL advocates can talk all they want about how they enjoy PL because of X, but if PL doesn't in fact produce X then they are, at best, displaying a very poor understanding of their hobby and what makes it fun.
Okay, let's make this real simple, just for you.
I, as a PL player, enjoy PL because of it being faster. PL factually IS faster. Your argument doesn't work on this point.
I, as a PL player, enjoy PL because it makes me feel more relaxed and casual. As I am the only person who knows how I feel, and I certainly know better than some bird of prey, this is a fact. Your argument doesn't work on this point.
I, as a PL player, enjoy PL because I prefer my local PL player base than the points player base. I am not saying my opinion is a fact, but I am saying that I *have* a preference. This is a fact. Your argument doesn't work on this point.
See? While I'm admitting my views are based on opinions, I'm not claiming that the opinions themselves are facts. I'm simply stating that I have those opinions, and the act of having those opinions is a fact. You cannot deny that, no more than I can deny that you as a human feel love, anger, or sadness.
Xca|iber:
Spoiler:
Xca|iber wrote:Except... the PL system still tells you "what's important" by having different PL values for units. Everything stated here can be an argument for using the completely points-less original AoS system over PL. All the criticisms of points and alleged advantages of PL can simply be swapped around to be criticisms of PL and advantages of having no valuation system at all.
I'm only talking about upgrades. Yes, someone who is more hardline could make that argument, and they're welcome to it, but I don't care about that.
I care that points tell me what "upgrades" are valuable. I don't have that same care about the units.
So yes, I absolutely see your point, and I'd fully support someone else if they were to have that belief, I'm not one of those people.
I think you're mistaking my issue with upgrades as being an issue with value systems in general.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/21 12:12:59
I cycle to work because it's faster (bike paths short cutting through nature reserves, more convenient river crossing points than roads). I use the diesel money saved to grab a half at the end of the shift/before I cycle home.
Check mate points fans!!
This is true btw, but I don't understand what this analogy has to do with whether pl is better than points (or indeed has ANY redeeming features)..
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/21 13:50:02
nareik wrote: I cycle to work because it's faster (bike paths short cutting through nature reserves, more convenient river crossing points than roads). I use the diesel money saved to grab a half at the end of the shift/before I cycle home.
Check mate points fans!!
This is true btw, but I don't understand what this analogy has to do with whether pl is better than points (or indeed has ANY redeeming features)..
I believe the analogy is that people like using their bikes because they like the feel of it, regardless if it's faster, slower, cheaper, or less reliant on infrastructure. To them, the experience they have riding the bike is enough to justify themselves riding it, and to them, that's just as valid a reason as any for them to use bikes.
Some people are trying to say that the fact they feel that way isn't a good enough reason to justify that individual doing it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/21 14:00:18
(Gallery)
, 
