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.

Karol wrote:
On the flip side the company makes people buy 15-25 models per army, and not gazylion rotated out on a quarterly schedul.

Actually Infinity is REALLY bad for rotating out models. They recently cut nearly half the Aleph faction from sale and a good many were not that old.

CB has brought out and retired models over the years quite a lot. However they "get away" with it more than firms like GW might because the game itself has never had a complete visual representation of models. Many units have multiple weapon options but only one model with no optional parts. So players are already very used to using proxies in the game. Furthermore units that are rotated out aren't removed from the rules, just the game and the skirmish nature means that you can not only keep up with multiple proxies; but you can also often find other units to do a similar role or build around a new strategy.

That said CB also seems to be speeding up when they replace things, apparently the new Morat update is going to be much faster and more complete an update than they've done in the past.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Infinity has plenty of unit synergies. It also has plenty of counters to most. A really simple one is units with Smoke Grenades. They bring out the full potential of many units. Another example is Repeaters. They're basically worthless unless you have a Hacker, and the Hacker is much weaker without Repeaters. Why does Infinity succeed so much more when it comes to balance, when entire core units fall apart if not handled right? I could run a meta list, one with every synergy possible, and I'd still lose to a more skilled player, with a worse list.

We're not counting skew lists, as they deliberately unbalance their list. But in Infinity, if someone skews towards Heavy Infantry, if I have even a bit of hacking, they tend to fall over. Alternatively, if the person brings a Killer Hacker, my guy now has to be more careful. Alternatively, if I bring melee units, they'll often fair well against Heavy Infantry. Infinity is more complex than 40k, allows for quite a few options, and has missions with narratives that would blow most 40k narrative missions out of the water, as its standard ITS missions.

You have pretty much answered yourself - when the balance between pre-game decisions and in-game decisions is heavily weighted towards in-game decisions, then you can handle list imbalance on the fly, because their impact on end result is limited. In 40k lists have the dominant impact on the end result and thus the most weight of balance is put onto the very limited utility of points. In all similar thread I have endlessly stressed, that balance comes from dynamic, game time mechanics and limitations in freeform list building (promoting TAC lists, when done right, steers away from problems with balancing skew). If you don't want to limit options, then you have to include game time balancing mechanisms. Those range from sideboards, through staggered army selection, to bonus to "who goes first this round" rolls for losing players, etc.

Balance is achievable, balance through points is not.

The problem with PL is that MANY upgrades are pointless to take and are never used, so now you are paying for these things that shouldn't even be on the unit.

Scourges leader can take a Blast Pistol and a power lance, on a dedicated long range shooting unit that will never see play that will make the unit cost most.

If these add value to the unit then no I would not like it.

Slipspace 805449 11388726 wrote:
How does PL solve that problem? PL is just points with less granularity.

If someone doesn't want to learn to play and build an army, PL are an easier way to make an army out of a random collection, as you don't even have to worry if the load outs are legal, if you stick to the new boxs. A good system for people who don't really want to play the game.

Slipspace wrote:

nou wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

nou wrote:
It is funny, how nobody in those threads ever answers to „Mawlock type” examples in a way other than „nobody plays anything else than meta chasing competitive/meta FLGS pickup anyway, so the problem averages away”.

I literally have no idea what any of that sentence means. Can you elaborate?

You have a Mawlock example earlier in this thread. It is example of a case fundamentally impossible to balance with points outside of statistical Meta. It is of course not the only one, basically anything that has heavily swingy utility depending on matchup or that relies heavily on synergies (in which case you can’t balance the cost between a single intance of such unit vs spam list with this unit). Balancing of such cases for tournament meta universally ends up with those being a straight handicap in casual/narrative play.

How does PL solve that problem? PL is just points with less granularity.

You keep bringing up this idea of "impossible to balance" but that's akin to saying we can't achieve perfection so we shouldn't try to improve. It may be that in some cases tweaking rules is going to be more effective than changing points. But if points are all we have (and they're not - see the recent changes to Necron Command Protocols for a good example) the more granular system allows for more effective balancing within that paradigm.

Mawlock example is as far from "we can't achieve perfection" as possible, the swing in point efficiency of that unit was easily 300-500 points between UP crap and meta unit.

As to how PL handle similar problems - because of the feature that is dismissed by 40k community as "cheating". At it's core, PLs are equipped to handle post-game-initiation tailoring. You have your list of X PLs that has a lot of room to choose upgrades AFTER mission parameters and matchup are known, but the main bulk of both lists is already there and known to both players. This is pretty much an equivalent of staggered deployment or Chain of Command split listbuilding and points are completely unequipped for this kind of process without explicit instructions on how to split list building into back and forth stages. But there is a very, very strong opposition to any kind of sideboard mechanics within competitive 40k community, so this trait of PLs is outright dismissed. So while PLs can't directly handle Mawlock, they provide the room to increase the utility of the rest of the list against that particular matchup, in which Mawlock is a handicap. The best way to handle Mawlock however, is narrative way of doing things - applying value to units during cooperative list building. Which I know, is near impossible in pickup. This is why so many succesful games implement sideboards.

In theory, both Stratagems and Secondaries, being post-game-initiation mechanisms, should increase balance. But GW being GW, and ITC being ITC, both those mechanisms are implemented in a terrible way. Too many stratagems are simply special rules tied directly to units, so in the end aren't really game time decisions, and secondaries can be tailored against and towards in list building stage, so instead of diminishing list building impact, they emphasise it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
One important thing about me and my posts: I use the term 'narrative' in the scope and meaning as used in historical wargaming. NOT as "I play Crusade" or "I play whatever GW is calling their limited narrative game mode nowadays". Using CSB's method of differentiation, I use the term 'narrative', not Narrative™.

Karol wrote:
On the flip side the company makes people buy 15-25 models per army, and not gazylion rotated out on a quarterly schedul.

Compared to other skirmish games, say GW ones like Necromunda or Kill Team, the company makes people buy a lot of models.

 Overread wrote:

Karol wrote:
On the flip side the company makes people buy 15-25 models per army, and not gazylion rotated out on a quarterly schedul.

Actually Infinity is REALLY bad for rotating out models. They recently cut nearly half the Aleph faction from sale and a good many were not that old.

CB has brought out and retired models over the years quite a lot. However they "get away" with it more than firms like GW might because the game itself has never had a complete visual representation of models. Many units have multiple weapon options but only one model with no optional parts. So players are already very used to using proxies in the game. Furthermore units that are rotated out aren't removed from the rules, just the game and the skirmish nature means that you can not only keep up with multiple proxies; but you can also often find other units to do a similar role or build around a new strategy.

That said CB also seems to be speeding up when they replace things, apparently the new Morat update is going to be much faster and more complete an update than they've done in the past.

yes, that is what I am saying. You can take a starter box, 2 blisters and a unit box of infinity and play with it, then use part of it for something else etc. Meanwhile if you want a w40k or AoS working army, you are at best rotating stuff once and edition, and this goes for the best of the best designed books for almost no factions. Only the GK are in a situation where people have been playing the an identical list for 2 editions, possibly 3. Harlequins come close to that and that is it.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
The problem with PL is that MANY upgrades are pointless to take and are never used, so now you are paying for these things that shouldn't even be on the unit.

Problem with PL.... is that it wasn't designed to min max. PL system is a quick way to get games, a nice system for those who don't want to buy extra boxes or to magnetize stuff and are ok with what they have glued on their models. It's not meant for people who want to min max stuff.

With that in mind the PL system is not more unbalanced than the points one, it should be actually more balanced. But not because of the rules or the possibilities in list building, because of the players' mentality. Those who use PL and WYSIWYG will never field anything near the flavour of the month lists.

PL and competitive gaming are mutually exclusive.

nou wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

nou wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

nou wrote:
It is funny, how nobody in those threads ever answers to „Mawlock type” examples in a way other than „nobody plays anything else than meta chasing competitive/meta FLGS pickup anyway, so the problem averages away”.

I literally have no idea what any of that sentence means. Can you elaborate?

You have a Mawlock example earlier in this thread. It is example of a case fundamentally impossible to balance with points outside of statistical Meta. It is of course not the only one, basically anything that has heavily swingy utility depending on matchup or that relies heavily on synergies (in which case you can’t balance the cost between a single intance of such unit vs spam list with this unit). Balancing of such cases for tournament meta universally ends up with those being a straight handicap in casual/narrative play.

How does PL solve that problem? PL is just points with less granularity.

You keep bringing up this idea of "impossible to balance" but that's akin to saying we can't achieve perfection so we shouldn't try to improve. It may be that in some cases tweaking rules is going to be more effective than changing points. But if points are all we have (and they're not - see the recent changes to Necron Command Protocols for a good example) the more granular system allows for more effective balancing within that paradigm.

Mawlock example is as far from "we can't achieve perfection" as possible, the swing in point efficiency of that unit was easily 300-500 points between UP crap and meta unit.

As to how PL handle similar problems - because of the feature that is dismissed by 40k community as "cheating". At it's core, PLs are equipped to handle post-game-initiation tailoring. You have your list of X PLs that has a lot of room to choose upgrades AFTER mission parameters and matchup are known, but the main bulk of both lists is already there and known to both players. This is pretty much an equivalent of staggered deployment or Chain of Command split listbuilding and points are completely unequipped for this kind of process without explicit instructions on how to split list building into back and forth stages. But there is a very, very strong opposition to any kind of sideboard mechanics within competitive 40k community, so this trait of PLs is outright dismissed. So while PLs can't directly handle Mawlock, they provide the room to increase the utility of the rest of the list against that particular matchup, in which Mawlock is a handicap. The best way to handle Mawlock however, is narrative way of doing things - applying value to units during cooperative list building. Which I know, is near impossible in pickup. This is why so many succesful games implement sideboards.

In theory, both Stratagems and Secondaries, being post-game-initiation mechanisms, should increase balance. But GW being GW, and ITC being ITC, both those mechanisms are implemented in a terrible way. Too many stratagems are simply special rules tied directly to units, so in the end aren't really game time decisions, and secondaries can be tailored against and towards in list building stage, so instead of diminishing list building impact, they emphasise it..

Points allow the same sideboard-style approach. As you note, the fact this isn't used is a culture/approach thing. It's not an inherent feature that PL has over points because, as I said before, PL is points, just less granular. That's what makes this argument so bizarre to me. You haven't shown how PL solves the "can't balance the Mawloc" problem in a way that points doesn't also allow.

I'd argue the best way to balance the Mawloc would have been a change in rules. It was fundamentally breaking too many rules and getting extra bonuses on top of that rule-breaking ability. Quick question for you: does the Mawloc still have such an extreme imbalance problem in the current Nid Codex?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I've never said a calculator is *needed*, only that a common defence is "just use one", and I shouldn't have to for tedious sums.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Should I need to use a calculator to work out the cost of a single unit?

My apologies for the use of a rhetorical question that seems to have gone over your head, but no - I wasn't claiming that one is *needed*, I was asking YOU if that was the case, considering that you kept advocating for the use of one.

Again, you mention this "very clear intent" - can you support that with anything beyond your, let's see, "subjective personal opinion"?

No, obviously I can't provide anything more than speculation when you and I both know GW never announced anything explicit about the chance. But I'm not sure why you think "nobody has a definite answer here" is a useful response to a particular interpretation of the events.

Likewise, I'm not sure why you think blatant speculation is a useful response either in this thread.

What *is* happening is you asking me to justify it, which I don't need to do.

Then don't. If you don't need to justify your position then don't continue participating in a discussion of the subject. It's ridiculous to complain about having to justify your position when the only reason you're even talking about the subject is that you voluntarily went into the thread to read and post in it. Nobody cornered you at your local store/club/garage and forced you to justify the choice to use PL.

I'm not justifying it. I never have in this thread, not in any real detail, because I don't need to. I'm not here to discuss if PL are good or bad, I'm not here to discuss how to even change PL. I'm simply here to say that when *you* (and others) make comments along the lines of "people who play only do so to gatekeep others" or "I want to get rid of PL, screw anyone who actually likes that", you're not discussing PL any more, you're actively looking to harm the way others enjoy their game.

I don't care how you play 40k, but why do you care how I do? Are you that incapable of criticising PL without also affecting the people who play and enjoy it? Serious question.

What I'm asking is why you'd take them away from other hobbyists.

Because any time spent on PL is wasted development time that could be spent on doing something useful.

Useful to you, perhaps. Why are you being so selfish?

And because I know there's an anti-competitive element at GW that wants to push PL as the primary, or even only, point system and as long as PL still exists they will keep trying to make PL the focus.

You "know" this, do you? Proof? Or is this more speculation masquerading as evidence?

If GW only cares about matched play, why do other game modes exist?

Because, again, matched play and Matched™ Play™ are not the same thing. Matched™ Play™ is matched play. The annual tournament pack is matched play. Crusade is matched play. The only thing that isn't matched play is certain versions of open play and GW provides essentially zero support or acknowledgement for those things.

As I said - GW produces both matched play, non-matched play, Matched™ Play™ and non-Matched™ Play™. They all exist. How can you turn around and patently ignore that those other things *do* exist?

You have a very self-centred mindset, is all I'm saying. I suggest maybe you let people enjoy things that have nothing to do with you, and be done with it.

Slipspace wrote:Lots to unpack here. Personally I think those calling CSB "unwell or a troll" are way out of line.

Unwell and a troll, yes. Self-centred and ignorant of other people, I don't think that's untrue. There's only one group here who are calling to actively affect how other people enjoy themselves, after all.

2. PL is a points system, so the quote doesn't even support the contention that PL are superior. PL is just a less granular system of points, which is why most people advocating for points don't understand the purpose of it. For them PL has no advantages over points at all.

I'm not asking them to understand it though. I'm only asking that they *respect* that other people aside from them *do* find advantages with it. That's all.

As to why they're arguing against PL and asking people to justify the use of PL? It's the topic of this thread. That's how discussion and debate works. I can't believe that even has to be stated.

That's not actually true. The topic of the thread is "If GW actually went full in on PL would it actually change the ammount of 40k you play", not "LETS GET RID OF PL SCREW YOU IF YOU ACTUALLY ENJOY IT BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT PLAYING THE GAME CORRECTLY".

The *actual* topic should be going more like "yes, I personally don't enjoy PL, and I would play it less if GW only used it", or "no, I'd actually be totally fine if GW did this". Nowhere in the discussion of that topic does there need to be a discussion or debate over "you're not playing 40k correctly" (a statement made by Karol) or "I think it should be gotten rid of entirely, feth you if you actually like PL, you're just gatekeeping me" (statements made by CadianSgtBob).

If you can't have a discussion or debate without calling to invalidate someone else's enjoyment of a toy solider game, then maybe you need to reconsider how discussion and debate works.

3. That brings me on to convenience. I'm sorry, but claiming adding up a smaller series of slightly larger numbers is a genuine advantage of PL is just bizarre. Yes, it's literally true that there's going to be less cognitive load in adding up PL, but the difference is so miniscule and the time saved also so tiny I have to wonder if this is a serious argument.

Yes, it is. Not only is there less time flipping through the book, but the numbers are much simpler - a unit is a flat single number, instead of counting every model's cost, their wargear, and any extra gubbinz. That's definitely going to be faster. Do you think it's meaningfully so, no - and that's okay! I, on the other hand, *do* find it meaningfully so. Do you respect that?

Karol wrote:If someone doesn't want to learn to play and build an army, PL are an easier way to make an army out of a random collection, as you don't even have to worry if the load outs are legal, if you stick to the new boxs. A good system for people who don't really want to play the game.

I'd like you to elaborate on this - are you claiming that people who play PL aren't "really playing the game"?

Also re the math and ease part:

Personally, I find the single (or double) digit, bam, unit done.
When I want to play 40k, there are times I'm in so much pain I can't remember which army I'm playing, let alone do multi-step math, for each unit.

I might not sound like a big difference, but I also play with folks who have discalcula (I know I'm spelling it wrong), they have issues with numbers and math, it makes PL infinitely easier to get playing the game.

Also, it changes how you build your forces, it's a really different mindset.

I totally understand preferring less granular number-values.

Not the same game at all (or design space), but I much preferred warmachine/hordes' mk2 less-granular implementation of points than their mk1 gw-esque more-granular points.

Much preferred a juggernaut costing 7pts and playing 35 or 50pt games than it costing 103pts and playing 750pt games.

In any game I'd play, I prefer the less-granular Valuing system - 40k included.

Slipspace wrote:

nou wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

nou wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

nou wrote:
It is funny, how nobody in those threads ever answers to „Mawlock type” examples in a way other than „nobody plays anything else than meta chasing competitive/meta FLGS pickup anyway, so the problem averages away”.

I literally have no idea what any of that sentence means. Can you elaborate?

You have a Mawlock example earlier in this thread. It is example of a case fundamentally impossible to balance with points outside of statistical Meta. It is of course not the only one, basically anything that has heavily swingy utility depending on matchup or that relies heavily on synergies (in which case you can’t balance the cost between a single intance of such unit vs spam list with this unit). Balancing of such cases for tournament meta universally ends up with those being a straight handicap in casual/narrative play.

How does PL solve that problem? PL is just points with less granularity.

You keep bringing up this idea of "impossible to balance" but that's akin to saying we can't achieve perfection so we shouldn't try to improve. It may be that in some cases tweaking rules is going to be more effective than changing points. But if points are all we have (and they're not - see the recent changes to Necron Command Protocols for a good example) the more granular system allows for more effective balancing within that paradigm.

Mawlock example is as far from "we can't achieve perfection" as possible, the swing in point efficiency of that unit was easily 300-500 points between UP crap and meta unit.

As to how PL handle similar problems - because of the feature that is dismissed by 40k community as "cheating". At it's core, PLs are equipped to handle post-game-initiation tailoring. You have your list of X PLs that has a lot of room to choose upgrades AFTER mission parameters and matchup are known, but the main bulk of both lists is already there and known to both players. This is pretty much an equivalent of staggered deployment or Chain of Command split listbuilding and points are completely unequipped for this kind of process without explicit instructions on how to split list building into back and forth stages. But there is a very, very strong opposition to any kind of sideboard mechanics within competitive 40k community, so this trait of PLs is outright dismissed. So while PLs can't directly handle Mawlock, they provide the room to increase the utility of the rest of the list against that particular matchup, in which Mawlock is a handicap. The best way to handle Mawlock however, is narrative way of doing things - applying value to units during cooperative list building. Which I know, is near impossible in pickup. This is why so many succesful games implement sideboards.

In theory, both Stratagems and Secondaries, being post-game-initiation mechanisms, should increase balance. But GW being GW, and ITC being ITC, both those mechanisms are implemented in a terrible way. Too many stratagems are simply special rules tied directly to units, so in the end aren't really game time decisions, and secondaries can be tailored against and towards in list building stage, so instead of diminishing list building impact, they emphasise it..

Points allow the same sideboard-style approach. As you note, the fact this isn't used is a culture/approach thing. It's not an inherent feature that PL has over points because, as I said before, PL is points, just less granular. That's what makes this argument so bizarre to me. You haven't shown how PL solves the "can't balance the Mawloc" problem in a way that points doesn't also allow.

I'd argue the best way to balance the Mawloc would have been a change in rules. It was fundamentally breaking too many rules and getting extra bonuses on top of that rule-breaking ability. Quick question for you: does the Mawloc still have such an extreme imbalance problem in the current Nid Codex?

I have literally just wrote how PLs are more suited to cross tailoring lists… They are innately suited to two step, simultaneous list building - players choose units, show eachother their list, then choose wargear/weapons to suit the matchip

. And this utility is being used in narrative context a lot. Can you squeeze such utility from points? Not without elaborate army selection rules (with which you still can’t handle variable amount of leeway on per unit basis that PLs provide out of the box), or by folding wargear and weapon options into free unit upgrades, at which point you are simply recreating deniminated PLs. Some games achieve similar result by having two different point systems on top of eachother - unit points and wargear/weapon points (not simply split allowance of the same points).

And could we please stop with this „PLs are just a less granular point system” BS. 1) everybody knows, that we are discussing THOSE points vs THOSE PLs. And 2) equality would be true if PLs were just denominated points with exact same way of handling army selection. They don’t. They are two entirely different SYSTEMS - with different qualities and internal interactions, that get emphasized in different contexts.

And about Mawlock problem - if your answer to balancing points of a unit is „change it’s rules” then you are then acknowledging fundamental limitation of points (of any granularity) as a balancing tool, which has always been my point.

 Blackie wrote:

Karol wrote:
On the flip side the company makes people buy 15-25 models per army, and not gazylion rotated out on a quarterly schedul.

Compared to other skirmish games, say GW ones like Necromunda or Kill Team, the company makes people buy a lot of models.

Truth be told, 40k doesn't make you buy a lot of models. Competitive matched pick-up games at the local FLGS might.

But 25PL games are there. My 25PL Death Watch army is 12 infantry models. I have plans for it to grow a bit- I've got 20 more infantry models I plan to add and a Corvus Blackstar. But that's as big as it will get.

But you really have to stop blaming GW because they only play 2k matched at the store, and the store is the only place you play. Personally, I have some blame to throw at GW: I think that GT Mission packs should contain Combat Patrol and Onslaught Missions as well as Incursion and Strike Force. Not as many, perhaps- tiny games and massive games are always going to be outliers, while most games will cluster in the middle. Those fringe cases don't need equal attention, but including a few of each might help normalize aspects of the game that many organized players currently seem to habitually overlook.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

The *actual* topic should be going more like "yes, I personally don't enjoy PL, and I would play it less if GW only used it", or "no, I'd actually be totally fine if GW did this". Nowhere in the discussion of that topic does there need to be a discussion or debate over "you're not playing 40k correctly" (a statement made by Karol) or "I think it should be gotten rid of entirely, feth you if you actually like PL, you're just gatekeeping me" (statements made by CadianSgtBob).

If you can't have a discussion or debate without calling to invalidate someone else's enjoyment of a toy solider game, then maybe you need to reconsider how discussion and debate works.

What if my opinion logically leads to that though? I've had similar discussions involving USRs and people arguing they shouldn't be brought back because it would ruin their enjoyment of the game. Doesn't change my opinion of them. Clearly nothing we're debating here will influence GW's approach so it's not as if there's some existential threat to your enjoyment of the game. You're essentially asking me not to voice a legitimately held opinion because it disagrees with your preferred method of building lists, which is just asking for discussion to be shut down because it disagrees with your opinion.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

3. That brings me on to convenience. I'm sorry, but claiming adding up a smaller series of slightly larger numbers is a genuine advantage of PL is just bizarre. Yes, it's literally true that there's going to be less cognitive load in adding up PL, but the difference is so miniscule and the time saved also so tiny I have to wonder if this is a serious argument.

Yes, it is. Not only is there less time flipping through the book, but the numbers are much simpler - a unit is a flat single number, instead of counting every model's cost, their wargear, and any extra gubbinz. That's definitely going to be faster. Do you think it's meaningfully so, no - and that's okay! I, on the other hand, *do* find it meaningfully so. Do you respect that?

I fundamentally disagree that it's meaningfully quicker and simpler, except in a few fairly rare cases such as discalcula (discalculus? I'm also not 100% sure) as mentioned recently. I respect that you honestly hold that belief, but I'm not sure I respect the belief itself on the whole, certainly not in the context of applying it to building 40k armies.

Furthermore, at least points are consistent with their approach. I know I just need to look at a unit's entry in the army's point cost page and add everything up. PL isn't even consistent since many units have upgerades that do increase the PL cost, while many don't. Finding that info is harder than it needs to be because of how GW chooses to present it.

nou wrote:I have literally just wrote how PLs are more suited to cross tailoring lists… They are innately suited to two step, simultaneous list building - players choose units, show eachother their list, then choose wargear/weapons to suit the matchip

Yet you also admit they aren't actually used for that in practice. There's also nothing innately better about PL for handling this than points.

nou wrote:And could we please stop with this „PLs are just a less granular point system” BS. 1) everybody knows, that we are discussing THOSE points vs THOSE PLs. And 2) equality would be true if PLs were just denominated points with exact same way of handling army selection. They don’t. They are two entirely different SYSTEMS - with different qualities and internal interactions, that get emphasized in different contexts.

Since you brought up BS, there's prime slice of it here. PL is simply a points system with less granularity than "standard" points. I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise with a straight face. They both assign a value to a given unit with the conceit of some kind of balance between forces assuming the PL or points are equal. Of courses there are differences in the specifics. It's those very differences that many critics of PL bring up.

nou wrote:And about Mawlock problem - if your answer to balancing points of a unit is „change it’s rules” then you are then acknowledging fundamental limitation of points (of any granularity) as a balancing tool, which has always been my point.

I never suggested otherwise. I simply point out that PL doesn't fix the problem either, and in many cases exacerbates it.

Could someone remind me what the "Mawlock problem" is even supposed to be?

This argument is divided into two sides, for PL and against. The difference between the two sides is that the pro PL side don’t want rid of points and understand peoples desire or preference to them. The same cannot be said of the pro points side who seem to see PL as a threat to their enjoyment and often seem to have an inability to see how anyone can enjoy something don’t.

Karol said PL is good for people who don’t want to play the game. This is typical of the above mind set, PL are good for people who don’t want to play matched play or competitive like him, it’s good for people who want to play the game differently than he does. They still want to play, they just don’t want to stress about a 2 point chainsword or not.

And as for PL forcing you to pay for option no one EVER takes,that’s rubbish as discussed before with the whole laspistol vs plasma pistol argument. You might not take that option but some people do. For reasons other than the reasons select upgrades.

Slipspace wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:If you can't have a discussion or debate without calling to invalidate someone else's enjoyment of a toy solider game, then maybe you need to reconsider how discussion and debate works.

What if my opinion logically leads to that though?

If the only way you can express your thoughts is by invalidating the experiences of others, and you're incapable of preventing yourself before you hit that line of rhetoric, that sounds like a you problem, and honestly means you probably aren't someone who should be lecturing others about how discussions and debates work.

Please reconsider this.

IClearly nothing we're debating here will influence GW's approach

By that logic, there's no point in you sharing your opinion either, as the only people it'll affect are the people who you're implicitly devaluing. If we're only talking to one another here, then we should be respectful of eachother.

You're essentially asking me not to voice a legitimately held opinion because it disagrees with your preferred method of building lists, which is just asking for discussion to be shut down because it disagrees with your opinion.

I'm not asking you to not voice your opinion, so long as your opinion doesn't also involve gakking on other people - you know, BASIC levels of respect in an actual discussion and debate.

Your opinion that you dislike PL? Totally chill. Taking that opinion to be "anyone else who enjoys PL can get stuffed"? Not chill. You're welcome to disagree that PL is good for *you*, and you can say how you'll never use it, or how you'd leave 40k because it's not what you want, but the moment you start saying that *other people's opinions are wrong* (which is implicitly the message behind scrapping PL) is a problem.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

3. That brings me on to convenience. I'm sorry, but claiming adding up a smaller series of slightly larger numbers is a genuine advantage of PL is just bizarre. Yes, it's literally true that there's going to be less cognitive load in adding up PL, but the difference is so miniscule and the time saved also so tiny I have to wonder if this is a serious argument.

Yes, it is. Not only is there less time flipping through the book, but the numbers are much simpler - a unit is a flat single number, instead of counting every model's cost, their wargear, and any extra gubbinz. That's definitely going to be faster. Do you think it's meaningfully so, no - and that's okay! I, on the other hand, *do* find it meaningfully so. Do you respect that?

I fundamentally disagree that it's meaningfully quicker and simpler, except in a few fairly rare cases such as discalcula (discalculus? I'm also not 100% sure) as mentioned recently. I respect that you honestly hold that belief, but I'm not sure I respect the belief itself on the whole, certainly not in the context of applying it to building 40k armies.

All I ask is that you respect that belief that there are people who *do* find it meaningfully beneficial. I'm not asking you to find it beneficial to yourself, only that there *are* people who do.

Is that enough?

Furthermore, at least points are consistent with their approach. I know I just need to look at a unit's entry in the army's point cost page and add everything up. PL isn't even consistent since many units have upgerades that do increase the PL cost, while many don't. Finding that info is harder than it needs to be because of how GW chooses to present it.

Not really? Nearly all PL upgrades are marked on the datasheet. Considering that you should have the datasheets for the units you want to use, all you need to do is look at the datasheet. No flipping between pages, no long calculations, just look at what units you're taking, check the datasheet. It helps that PL for units are marked in nice big bold numbers.

 vipoid wrote:
Could someone remind me what the "Mawlock problem" is even supposed to be?

Few editions ago Mawlocs became good because the meta changed and people took big blocks of troops, so without changing their rules at all mawlocs became over powered so had to cost more points.

Some say this shows points aren’t a good way to balance the game and in-games rules rather than list building restrictions would be better.

Slipspace wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

The *actual* topic should be going more like "yes, I personally don't enjoy PL, and I would play it less if GW only used it", or "no, I'd actually be totally fine if GW did this". Nowhere in the discussion of that topic does there need to be a discussion or debate over "you're not playing 40k correctly" (a statement made by Karol) or "I think it should be gotten rid of entirely, feth you if you actually like PL, you're just gatekeeping me" (statements made by CadianSgtBob).

If you can't have a discussion or debate without calling to invalidate someone else's enjoyment of a toy solider game, then maybe you need to reconsider how discussion and debate works.

What if my opinion logically leads to that though? I've had similar discussions involving USRs and people arguing they shouldn't be brought back because it would ruin their enjoyment of the game. Doesn't change my opinion of them. Clearly nothing we're debating here will influence GW's approach so it's not as if there's some existential threat to your enjoyment of the game. You're essentially asking me not to voice a legitimately held opinion because it disagrees with your preferred method of building lists, which is just asking for discussion to be shut down because it disagrees with your opinion.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

3. That brings me on to convenience. I'm sorry, but claiming adding up a smaller series of slightly larger numbers is a genuine advantage of PL is just bizarre. Yes, it's literally true that there's going to be less cognitive load in adding up PL, but the difference is so miniscule and the time saved also so tiny I have to wonder if this is a serious argument.

Yes, it is. Not only is there less time flipping through the book, but the numbers are much simpler - a unit is a flat single number, instead of counting every model's cost, their wargear, and any extra gubbinz. That's definitely going to be faster. Do you think it's meaningfully so, no - and that's okay! I, on the other hand, *do* find it meaningfully so. Do you respect that?

I fundamentally disagree that it's meaningfully quicker and simpler, except in a few fairly rare cases such as discalcula (discalculus? I'm also not 100% sure) as mentioned recently. I respect that you honestly hold that belief, but I'm not sure I respect the belief itself on the whole, certainly not in the context of applying it to building 40k armies.

Furthermore, at least points are consistent with their approach. I know I just need to look at a unit's entry in the army's point cost page and add everything up. PL isn't even consistent since many units have upgerades that do increase the PL cost, while many don't. Finding that info is harder than it needs to be because of how GW chooses to present it.

nou wrote:I have literally just wrote how PLs are more suited to cross tailoring lists… They are innately suited to two step, simultaneous list building - players choose units, show eachother their list, then choose wargear/weapons to suit the matchip

Yet you also admit they aren't actually used for that in practice. There's also nothing innately better about PL for handling this than points.

nou wrote:And could we please stop with this „PLs are just a less granular point system” BS. 1) everybody knows, that we are discussing THOSE points vs THOSE PLs. And 2) equality would be true if PLs were just denominated points with exact same way of handling army selection. They don’t. They are two entirely different SYSTEMS - with different qualities and internal interactions, that get emphasized in different contexts.

Since you brought up BS, there's prime slice of it here. PL is simply a points system with less granularity than "standard" points. I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise with a straight face. They both assign a value to a given unit with the conceit of some kind of balance between forces assuming the PL or points are equal. Of courses there are differences in the specifics. It's those very differences that many critics of PL bring up.

nou wrote:And about Mawlock problem - if your answer to balancing points of a unit is „change it’s rules” then you are then acknowledging fundamental limitation of points (of any granularity) as a balancing tool, which has always been my point.

I never suggested otherwise. I simply point out that PL doesn't fix the problem either, and in many cases exacerbates it.

Simply unbelievable…

POINTS try to assign a „precise” value to every choice in list building stage by DESIGN.

PLs do not, BY DESIGN, it is a distinct and deliberate feature of PLs. Wargear and weapons choices are excluded from the point system and are selected independently from it. Again, this is BY DESIGN, a feature differentuating it from points. This IS utilised in narrative, I don’t know where you got this „you admitted they are not used this way” when you have testimonies of such use all around this and similar threads.

We are not talking about granularity - if there would be cost in PLs for every option that has a value in points slapped onto it, but in some cases 1PL out of 50 would be listed alongside 20pts out of 2000 and in some cases alongside 1pt because you don’t use fractions, THEN we would be talking about granularity.

As it is we are talking about the experience resulting from two fundamentally different philosophies behind establishing relative powers of two lists.

I won’t repeat myself fourth time in a row, if in doubt, reread my previous answers.

Andykp wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Could someone remind me what the "Mawlock problem" is even supposed to be?

Few editions ago Mawlocs became good because the meta changed and people took big blocks of troops, so without changing their rules at all mawlocs became over powered so had to cost more points.

Some say this shows points aren’t a good way to balance the game and in-games rules rather than list building restrictions would be better.

You still see the same principle playing out today, where new codices affect the existing meta, because armies re-tool to account for the newcomer and it affects balance. A good example would be when Knights were successful in 8th, so armies tooled up to deal with Knights, and then suddenly hordes of cheap infantry became viable. The infantry didn't change, the core game didn't change, but the meta focus on anti-Knight suddenly made infantry more effective.

It's a big part of why points systems are considered a structuring mechanism in game design, rather than strictly a balancing mechanism- the actual value of a unit or option is so contingent on the matchup, the meta, and the context within the army that it's impossible to set a single objective value. You can contribute to balance with tweaks to point values, but there are issues that points alone cannot resolve, especially in a game that relies on building a fixed army list without knowing anything about the battlefield, objectives, or opposing force.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:If you can't have a discussion or debate without calling to invalidate someone else's enjoyment of a toy solider game, then maybe you need to reconsider how discussion and debate works.

What if my opinion logically leads to that though?

If the only way you can express your thoughts is by invalidating the experiences of others, and you're incapable of preventing yourself before you hit that line of rhetoric, that sounds like a you problem, and honestly means you probably aren't someone who should be lecturing others about how discussions and debates work.

I'm not invalidating your approach - you can do whatever you want. I'm simply stating that I don't agree with your opinion because in all the points vs PL debates I have not yet seen one compelling argument why PL are actually better than points. You can state it's your belief, and I don't doubt it, but I find your belief to be unsupported by compelling evidence.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Your opinion that you dislike PL? Totally chill. Taking that opinion to be "anyone else who enjoys PL can get stuffed"? Not chill.

It's a good job I never said that then. If you interpreted something that way, I apologise for not being clear enough.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:All I ask is that you respect that belief that there are people who *do* find it meaningfully beneficial. I'm not asking you to find it beneficial to yourself, only that there *are* people who do.

Again, I don't doubt that. I also don't believe that opinion is well supported by any logic. If we're just going to throw out any attempt at logic or reasoning in favour of "but I believe, so you can't say anything against it" we're not having a debate. To me it seems that you;re jsut trying to shut down any attempt at discussion by claiming that belief is sufficient to show something is true.

nou wrote:
Simply unbelievable…

POINTS try to assign a „precise” value to every choice in list building stage by DESIGN.

PLs do not, BY DESIGN, it is a distinct and deliberate feature of PLs. Wargear and weapons choices are excluded from the point system and are selected independently from it. Again, this is BY DESIGN, a feature differentuating it from points. This IS utilised in narrative, I don’t know where you got this „you admitted they are not used this way” when you have testimonies of such use all around this and similar threads.

We are not talking about granularity - if there would be cost in PLs for every option that has a value in points slapped onto it, but in some cases 1PL out of 50 would be listed alongside 20pts out of 2000 and in some cases alongside 1pt because you don’t use fractions, THEN we would be talking about granularity.

As it is we are talking about the experience resulting from two fundamentally different philosophies behind establishing relative powers of two lists.

I won’t repeat myself fourth time in a row, if in doubt, reread my previous answers.

And I view that as a distinction without a difference. There's no narrative-driven reason why PL are better than points, as we can see from the fact plenty of narrative systems use the same kind of points system 40k does, including previous versions of 40k. I disagree that PL is successful at providing any actual, useful difference. I'd further argue that the philosophy behind PL is flawed.

 vipoid wrote:
Could someone remind me what the "Mawlock problem" is even supposed to be?

In 7th, Mawlock was great at killing large blobs of MEQs and even more so, TEQs. In such context it was also virtually untargettable and overperformed. And such was „the meta” at that time. It was however total rubbish against GEQ and MSU, where it never, ever returned the point investment.

You fundamentally can’t slap a static point cost at a unit with so swingy utility outside of „the meta” context. If you cost it for „the meta” it will be hilariously overcosted trap choice for multitude of players that do not face Mawlock’s optimal target builds. If you cost it for casual use, it will break the meta. If you assign the average of such large swing, it will still be, by the nature of average, undercosted for „the meta” and overcosted in casual use.

This is one of the most drastic examples (the swing was measured in hundreds of points), but as I wrote before, the same problem applies to any swingy ability, like poison, haywire, out of LoS shooting, dependence on synnergies etc.

I don't remember Mawlocs being a significant source of ire in 7th edition. Certainly not compared with Flying Hive Tyrants. Given how plentiful Marines remained I'm unclear Mawlocs ate them all, unless this is an especially short window in time.

For Catbarf - I don't think it played out that way (i.e. Knights fostering Hordes). From memory there was this idea was that Orks/Boyz spam would dominate the world - only for it to fall completely flat at the 2019 LVO (the height of Knight Meta). The most reliable counter ended up being Eldar (who else?) which were hardly running hordes of cheap infantry.

I think you have seen similar effects - for example despite the dominance of Marines, there was an internet freakout over Tau when Siegler won Nova. But usually (as this proved) it was an illusion, with raw mathematical power telling. This was not the dawn of a new meta - hence Siegler himself switching to IH to win LVO a couple of months later, because he wanted to win.

Ultimately I think there's relatively little in 40k that's a result of "meta". Its just never been balanced that well to allow for a "counter-meta list". You don't get to be a club in a meta full of seals. You just get to be overpowered.

And this is the issue of points. Its all relative. If a unit goes up in points, then the army will do worse (assuming players can't just swap that unit out for something which is now relatively better) because it has less stuff on the table. It will therefore probably do less damage. And is more likely to suffer critical losses in return. It will be less competitive in terms of claiming victory points - and therefore winning the game.

There are certain abilities which are so obnoxious its probably best to change them rather than try to give them a points value (although you can always just make them too expensive, and therefore suboptimal/irrelevant for competitive games). But I still don't think this is a major problem.

Slipspace wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Sgt_Smudge wrote:If you can't have a discussion or debate without calling to invalidate someone else's enjoyment of a toy solider game, then maybe you need to reconsider how discussion and debate works.

What if my opinion logically leads to that though?

If the only way you can express your thoughts is by invalidating the experiences of others, and you're incapable of preventing yourself before you hit that line of rhetoric, that sounds like a you problem, and honestly means you probably aren't someone who should be lecturing others about how discussions and debates work.

I'm not invalidating your approach - you can do whatever you want.

Up until people start saying that PL should be scrapped, yes. That's the only issue I'm taking here.

I'm simply stating that I don't agree with your opinion because in all the points vs PL debates I have not yet seen one compelling argument why PL are actually better than points. You can state it's your belief, and I don't doubt it, but I find your belief to be unsupported by compelling evidence.

I'm not trying to have you agree with my opinion, nor do I need to support it. I don't care to do so, and I don't need to justify it.

What I, and many others, are feeling the need to justify is *our own enjoyment of something*. I'm not here to justify PL to anyone, but I am here to justify that we enjoy it, and at the very least, I want people to understand that there are people who like PL and get value from it. I don't need you, or anyone else, to understand why, because I don't need your understanding. All I ask for is that you respect that we do find a use from it, and to accept that.

I shouldn't have to give a compelling argument why I enjoy something, because I'm not trying to compel you, nor do I need to justify why I enjoy things.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Your opinion that you dislike PL? Totally chill. Taking that opinion to be "anyone else who enjoys PL can get stuffed"? Not chill.

It's a good job I never said that then. If you interpreted something that way, I apologise for not being clear enough.

My apologies if I implied that you'd directly said that - however, some users *have* definitely said words to that effect, and, like you said, you implied that your opinion "logically leads" to scrapping PL - which effectively is saying "anyone who enjoys it can get stuffed".

Again - just to clarify - I don't care what other people enjoy. Just don't take away what I enjoy.

If we're just going to throw out any attempt at logic or reasoning in favour of "but I believe, so you can't say anything against it" we're not having a debate.

Good. I'm not debating you. I'm asking you to respect that I enjoy something.

To me it seems that you;re jsut trying to shut down any attempt at discussion by claiming that belief is sufficient to show something is true.

The only discussion I'm shutting down is "justify why you like this" or "justify why this is good". I don't need to justify gak, and I never came into this thread to do that. I came into this thread to criticise the perspective of people who were making claims of "PL should be binned, and I don't care about the opinions of the people who actually enjoy it". That's not what this thread is about, nor is it particularly respectful.

Does that make sense? If you disagree with the idea that people should be able to enjoy what they want when it doesn't affect you, then I'm happy to continue this "discussion", but I'm not here to justify why I enjoy things.

Andykp wrote:
Few editions ago Mawlocs became good because the meta changed and people took big blocks of troops, so without changing their rules at all mawlocs became over powered so had to cost more points.

Some say this shows points aren’t a good way to balance the game and in-games rules rather than list building restrictions would be better.

nou wrote:
In 7th, Mawlock was great at killing large blobs of MEQs and even more so, TEQs. In such context it was also virtually untargettable and overperformed. And such was „the meta” at that time. It was however total rubbish against GEQ and MSU, where it never, ever returned the point investment.

You fundamentally can’t slap a static point cost at a unit with so swingy utility outside of „the meta” context. If you cost it for „the meta” it will be hilariously overcosted trap choice for multitude of players that do not face Mawlock’s optimal target builds. If you cost it for casual use, it will break the meta. If you assign the average of such large swing, it will still be, by the nature of average, undercosted for „the meta” and overcosted in casual use.

This is one of the most drastic examples (the swing was measured in hundreds of points), but as I wrote before, the same problem applies to any swingy ability, like poison, haywire, out of LoS shooting, dependence on synnergies etc.

Thank you both for explaining that.


I can see what you mean with this example, though I find myself wondering if the issue lies more in certain mechanics. If the Mawlock only gets to use its burrowing attack once, then it's always going to be swingy because you're trying to base its point cost on the outcome of a single roll. It's a very similar issue to Deathstrike missiles - you've got a unit that devotes its entire in-game existence to a single shot with its main weapon. If things go well (good target, good rolls), then your mega-weapon can potentially devastate the enemy. If you don't have an ideal target and you roll badly (including scattering in prior editions), then you have no chance of doing better in subsequent turns because you've already used your single shot.

Put simply, I don't think the problem really lies with points so much as with the whole idea of having units with 1/game superweapons.

 Blackie wrote:
.

PL and competitive gaming are mutually exclusive.

Any activity which has a winner and/or a loser at the end of it is competitive. That is like saying PL are not suited for w40k.

What I, and many others, are feeling the need to justify is *our own enjoyment of something*. I'm not here to justify PL to anyone, but I am here to justify that we enjoy it, and at the very least, I want people to understand that there are people who like PL and get value from it. I don't need you, or anyone else, to understand why, because I don't need your understanding. All I ask for is that you respect that we do find a use from it, and to accept that.

Doing something like that always ends in the same way. Two different ways of doing things can not exist in the same space. One will always be the dominant one and prefared one. So people who don't like or want PL don't get anything, specialy as you said it yourself you don't care about them or how they play, from respecting PL. Each minute design spends on it is a minute not spend on points etc.

So, again, is there really any value in GW not going PL only? From what I'm seeing, most if not all the people in the NAY camp, would still keep playing, one person has said they'll stop playing altogether, but as they have admitted, they are not a competitive player. Can anyone point to articles or interviews where the really hard core competitive players have been pro or anti PL? I know Maniac and Kirioth have said in vidoes they like PL for quick games, but prefer Points for competition.

Karol wrote:

Any activity which has a winner and/or a loser at the end of it is competitive. That is like saying PL are not suited for w40k.

Adversarial and conpetitive are two totally different things.

And competitive itself covers a huge spectrum of approaches. The context of 'competitive' is this case is push it out far enough focusing entirely on the efficiency of the list building, this will come at the expense of everything else in the game/hobby.

Karol wrote:


Doing something like that always ends in the same way. Two different ways of doing things can not exist in the same space. One will always be the dominant one and prefared one. So people who don't like or want PL don't get anything, specialy as you said it yourself you don't care about them or how they play, from respecting PL. Each minute design spends on it is a minute not spend on points etc.

Utter garbage.

There is nothing wrong with multiple ways of playing and approaching a game or sport. We are not robots; we do not all want the same thing.

Catering to a variety of needs and approaches is a good thing.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, again, is there really any value in GW not going PL only? From what I'm seeing, most if not all the people in the NAY camp, would still keep playing, one person has said they'll stop playing altogether, but as they have admitted, they are not a competitive player. Can anyone point to articles or interviews where the really hard core competitive players have been pro or anti PL? I know Maniac and Kirioth have said in vidoes they like PL for quick games, but prefer Points for competition.

No more "value" than going "points only". Both systems exist, and we have seen in this thread that there are people who prefer both systems, and will defend said preference at length. I see no "value" in removing either. They're both there. Play what you like.