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.

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.

The value of points should be obvious, you get a more granular way to present value, and therefore represent unit cost for options much better. This is objectively true.

This is good for both players and GW. For players like myself it's great because we like to fiddle around with points in order to maximise efficiency or whatever. Additionally, it's a different method of interaction with the system when not playing. For some of us tinkering with lists is a hobby unto itself.

For GW, points give them another place to tweak things either for balance, or more cynically, to reinforce the churn which is good for business.

If GW is going to make a lousy use of points such as mis-pointing items, always rounding to the nearest multiple of 5, or whatever, it doesn't mean points have no value. It just means GW isn't using them to their potential.

PenitentJake wrote:


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

40k is a huge universe, with lots of factions, some with massive rosters. I buy a lot of models because I like them, couldn't care less about their rules. And I don't buy models I dislike, also couldn't care less about their rules.

This year I bought an AM army, the absolute bottom tier faction. And I sold my drukhari when they were the absolute top tiers, because even if I loved the models I was tired of handling an army with tons of fragile models and tons of flying stems.

And if I had more money, time to paint and space to store the models I'd buy an additional bazillion of models, regardless of competitive games.

 Blackie wrote:
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 is balanced as long as you never exploit the situations where it isn't balanced."

No.

PL and competitive gaming are mutually exclusive.

Then PL is a failure. The normal point system can handle competitive and non-competitive games, PL can only handle non-competitive games. There is no reason to have two separate point systems when a single point system can cover all game types.

@Blackie- Totally agree. Like you, I collect and play what I want when I want regardless of its rules.

I've just heard Karol (and possibly a few others) say that 40k makes people play 2k armies, or that it is always a huge investment upfront.

When I see this, I just like to remind the people who feel this way that the rulebook does not say "Thou Shalt play 2k points and only 2k points." Because it seems like some people genuinely forget that.

I get that local metas can be restrictive, and people who have little choice but to play at local stores for whatever reason must often fall in line or go without a game. But there's not much GW can do to solve this, as the ruleset they designed clearly indicates that 25PL games are just as valid as 100 PL games.

(Well, except in GT Mission Packs, where there's only 2 sizes of game... But that might be another topic)

 Insectum7 wrote:

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.

The value of points should be obvious, you get a more granular way to present value, and therefore represent unit cost for options much better. This is objectively true.

This is good for both players and GW. For players like myself it's great because we like to fiddle around with points in order to maximise efficiency or whatever. Additionally, it's a different method of interaction with the system when not playing. For some of us tinkering with lists is a hobby unto itself.

For GW, points give them another place to tweak things either for balance, or more cynically, to reinforce the churn which is good for business.

If GW is going to make a lousy use of points such as mis-pointing items, always rounding to the nearest multiple of 5, or whatever, it doesn't mean points have no value. It just means GW isn't using them to their potential.

How do you state an opinion, and then declare it an objective truth?

It's not Objectively true, because it's not a true Dichotomy.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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?

Because they don't really exist in practice.

Matched™ Play™ gets frequent content updates, dedicated rulebooks, and official events.

Crusade™ (which is matched play) gets frequent content updates, dedicated rulebooks, and official events (though fewer of them).

Open™ Play™, the only non-matched-play format GW publishes, gets a brief footnote in the rules saying "you can choose not to use any rules you don't want to use" and that's it. No significant content, no official events, barely even an acknowledgement that it exists.

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).

I see. So we can discuss the scenario where GW removes the point system you don't like but if we discuss the scenario where GW removes the point system you do like it's unacceptable? That's an interesting double standard you have there.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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?

Because they don't really exist in practice.

Matched™ Play™ gets frequent content updates, dedicated rulebooks, and official events.

Crusade™ (which is matched play) gets frequent content updates, dedicated rulebooks, and official events (though fewer of them).

Open™ Play™, the only non-matched-play format GW publishes, gets a brief footnote in the rules saying "you can choose not to use any rules you don't want to use" and that's it. No significant content, no official events, barely even an acknowledgement that it exists.

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).

I see. So we can discuss the scenario where GW removes the point system you don't like but if we discuss the scenario where GW removes the point system you do like it's unacceptable? That's an interesting double standard you have there.

Has Smudge advocated for removing points at all? I don't recall seeing that.

I recall plenty of "I don't play with points" but none of "Points should be removed."

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
How do you state an opinion, and then declare it an objective truth?

Because it is objective truth. If a unit has an option for power sword + plasma pistol or laspistol + no melee weapon one of these is indisputably more powerful than the other. And it is indisputable fact that the normal point system, being more granular and accounting for upgrade choices, will more accurately represent this difference than the point system that gives the unit a flat cost regardless of upgrade choices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Has Smudge advocated for removing points at all? I don't recall seeing that.

I recall plenty of "I don't play with points" but none of "Points should be removed."

The entire starting premise of this thread is GW removing points.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
How do you state an opinion, and then declare it an objective truth?

Because it is objective truth. If a unit has an option for power sword + plasma pistol or laspistol + no melee weapon one of these is indisputably more powerful than the other. And it is indisputable fact that the normal point system, being more granular and accounting for upgrade choices, will more accurately represent this difference than the point system that gives the unit a flat cost regardless of upgrade choices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Has Smudge advocated for removing points at all? I don't recall seeing that.

I recall plenty of "I don't play with points" but none of "Points should be removed."

The entire starting premise of this thread is GW removing points.

Wrong. As the person who started it, it was WHO WOULD STOP PLAYING IF X OCCURED.

Andykp wrote:
He doesn’t just disagree, but has spent pages and pages arguing against reasonable people who have just been saying that there is more than one way to enjoy the game and he has spent those pages ranting that they are wrong and just virtue signalling and blah blah blah.

Meanwhile you spend pages and pages arguing against reasonable people telling you that you aren't being reasonable, and somehow that's different? What gives you the right to declare yourself the winner and insist that anyone who doesn't acknowledge your victory must either be trolling or ill? How are you not getting banned for shamelessly breaking the rules about not being rude to people?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Wrong. As the person who started it, it was WHO WOULD STOP PLAYING IF X OCCURED.

So, cards on the table. Would anyone actually have a marked decrease in play if 40k went full Power Levels and abandoned points entirely?

So yes, you did in fact start this thread with the premise of GW removing points.

There's a difference between "If this change was made, how would it affect you?" and "This change should be made, how would it affect you?"

I have to agree with the others now. After 16 pages, you are just trolling. Steel manning people to arguments they never made, putting up fallacious arguments stated as "fact", and just always being a contrarian. CSB is just trolling.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

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.

The value of points should be obvious, you get a more granular way to present value, and therefore represent unit cost for options much better. This is objectively true.

This is good for both players and GW. For players like myself it's great because we like to fiddle around with points in order to maximise efficiency or whatever. Additionally, it's a different method of interaction with the system when not playing. For some of us tinkering with lists is a hobby unto itself.

For GW, points give them another place to tweak things either for balance, or more cynically, to reinforce the churn which is good for business.

If GW is going to make a lousy use of points such as mis-pointing items, always rounding to the nearest multiple of 5, or whatever, it doesn't mean points have no value. It just means GW isn't using them to their potential.

How do you state an opinion, and then declare it an objective truth?

It's not Objectively true, because it's not a true Dichotomy.

It is objectively true that points offer more granularity than PL, and objectively true that more granularity offers more precision in the effort towards balancing.

I don't know what 'true dichotomy' is referring to. I mean, we're here comparing points to PL. It's the options given.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
How do you state an opinion, and then declare it an objective truth?

Because it is objective truth. If a unit has an option for power sword + plasma pistol or laspistol + no melee weapon one of these is indisputably more powerful than the other. And it is indisputable fact that the normal point system, being more granular and accounting for upgrade choices, will more accurately represent this difference than the point system that gives the unit a flat cost regardless of upgrade choices.

Here you have managed to both state and objective truth while adding on an at best subjective conclusion.

It is indisputable that an Infantry Squad with Sergeant armed Power Sword and Plasma Pistol is more powerful than one where the Sergeant has just a Laspistol. But that doesn't immediately mean a more granular points system will better represent the power of the two units. That is depended upon getting the points value of the base squad, the Power Sword, and the Plasma Pistol each independently correct in the combined context.

Is Squad A worth 2, 5, or 10 more points than Squad B?
What is Squad B's worth to start with?
In the context of a 1000 or 2000 point army, does it really matter in the larger context if there is a 5 point difference between the two squads?
And what does that difference do the the nature of the game?

CadianSgtBob wrote:


Then PL is a failure. The normal point system can handle competitive and non-competitive games, PL can only handle non-competitive games. There is no reason to have two separate point systems when a single point system can cover all game types.

It's not a failure because for a portion of the playerbase it's a useful system. Not everyone wants to min max stuff or to deal with that kind of minutia and granularity, and with PL listbuilding is incredibly faster and easier. Hence it's a great option for those players.

What's the issue with having two separate systems?

 Blackie wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:


Then PL is a failure. The normal point system can handle competitive and non-competitive games, PL can only handle non-competitive games. There is no reason to have two separate point systems when a single point system can cover all game types.

What's the issue with having two separate systems?

Because PL doesn't DESERVE the bare minimum effort it gets to begin with.

 alextroy wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
How do you state an opinion, and then declare it an objective truth?

Because it is objective truth. If a unit has an option for power sword + plasma pistol or laspistol + no melee weapon one of these is indisputably more powerful than the other. And it is indisputable fact that the normal point system, being more granular and accounting for upgrade choices, will more accurately represent this difference than the point system that gives the unit a flat cost regardless of upgrade choices.

Here you have managed to both state and objective truth while adding on an at best subjective conclusion.

It is indisputable that an Infantry Squad with Sergeant armed Power Sword and Plasma Pistol is more powerful than one where the Sergeant has just a Laspistol. But that doesn't immediately mean a more granular points system will better represent the power of the two units. That is depended upon getting the points value of the base squad, the Power Sword, and the Plasma Pistol each independently correct in the combined context.

Is Squad A worth 2, 5, or 10 more points than Squad B?
What is Squad B's worth to start with?
In the context of a 1000 or 2000 point army, does it really matter in the larger context if there is a 5 point difference between the two squads?
And what does that difference do the the nature of the game?

Wtf did I just read?

Are we contending "will better represent" vs. "Can better represent"? That sure seems like a waste of time when discussing the merits of the systems. Both systems can be used poorly, duh.

But as-is, more granularity offers more resolution for balance. Are we really contending with this?

 alextroy wrote:
But that doesn't immediately mean a more granular points system will better represent the power of the two units.

All else being equal, yes it does. Any error in the base cost will also be included in the point cost under PL because those same incorrect assumptions that generated the error will also be present in the PL evaluation. The only way PL will ever be more accurate is if you dishonestly assume that the people making the PL point costs are more skilled than the people making the normal point costs.

In the context of a 1000 or 2000 point army, does it really matter in the larger context if there is a 5 point difference between the two squads?

Why shouldn't it? Even if 5 points doesn't matter on the army scale it certainly matters on the unit scale, where it removes any argument for ever taking the laspistol option. And I think it says a lot that the best defense of PL here is "it is wrong, but I'm ok with that level of error".

And remember, PL can generate errors an order of magnitude worse. You can even have a 200 point error on some units, if you have a particularly bad set of choices.

And what does that difference do the the nature of the game?

It does great things by eliminating (or at least minimizing) the tension between "equip your dudes however you like" and "make winning choices in the tabletop game".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
It's not a failure because for a portion of the playerbase it's a useful system. Not everyone wants to min max stuff or to deal with that kind of minutia and granularity, and with PL listbuilding is incredibly faster and easier. Hence it's a great option for those players.

It absolutely is a failure. If system A does everything that system B does and also does other things then B is a failure. It is completely redundant and has no reason to exist.

And no, listbuilding with PL is not "incredibly faster and easier". It is a small reduction in the process of adding up the numbers. It does nothing to reduce the time spent figuring out what you want to put in your list, which is what accounts for most of the time required to build a list. And arguably PL makes it harder to build a list since the only way to adjust your list to match the point limit is by adding or removing entire units, while in the normal point system you can often get there by changing an upgrade or two.

What's the issue with having two separate systems?

Why only two systems? Why not five systems? Or ten systems? Why not publish a new point system every month? The answer is obvious: because rules bloat is bad. PL is unnecessary rules bloat that, at best, represents a waste of development resources that could be better spent elsewhere. And at worst it is foothold for GW's anti-competitive element to keep trying to push PL as the only point system.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
How do you state an opinion, and then declare it an objective truth?

Because it is objective truth. If a unit has an option for power sword + plasma pistol or laspistol + no melee weapon one of these is indisputably more powerful than the other. And it is indisputable fact that the normal point system, being more granular and accounting for upgrade choices, will more accurately represent this difference than the point system that gives the unit a flat cost regardless of upgrade choices.

Here you have managed to both state and objective truth while adding on an at best subjective conclusion.

It is indisputable that an Infantry Squad with Sergeant armed Power Sword and Plasma Pistol is more powerful than one where the Sergeant has just a Laspistol. But that doesn't immediately mean a more granular points system will better represent the power of the two units. That is depended upon getting the points value of the base squad, the Power Sword, and the Plasma Pistol each independently correct in the combined context.

Is Squad A worth 2, 5, or 10 more points than Squad B?
What is Squad B's worth to start with?
In the context of a 1000 or 2000 point army, does it really matter in the larger context if there is a 5 point difference between the two squads?
And what does that difference do the the nature of the game?

Wtf did I just read?

Are we contending "will better represent" vs. "Can better represent"? That sure seems like a waste of time when discussing the merits of the systems. Both systems can be used poorly, duh.

But as-is, more granularity offers more resolution for balance. Are we really contending with this?

Points in the competitive scene do not provide sufficient balance for the people who want to play that way. Hence the constant complaining from those in that scene about the lack of balance in the game. Points provide a sticking plaster but do not provide the resolution alone.

PL in the casual scene provide sufficient balance for the players who play that way. Hence the lack of complaining form casuals about balance.

There is no need for the level of granularity of points in the casual scene. Hence power levels work just fine. And I still believe outside of the top end competitive stuff most people don’t play in a way where points are needed, in that most players aren’t good enough and the game isn’t balanced enough that a few points difference here and there makes any difference at all.

Andykp wrote:
We have covered balance, and we clearly disagree on its importance, and it’s clearly subjective.

The importance of it is subjective, but the fact that PL has all the flaws of points AND THEN SOME is objective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
Balance is achievable, balance through points is not.

And PL is just worse points, so it'll make it even harder.

Points are going to be a tool to get you closer to balance, no question. It's not the be-all end-all but it's a great tool in that regard.

Andykp wrote:

Points in the competitive scene do not provide sufficient balance for the people who want to play that way. Hence the constant complaining from those in that scene about the lack of balance in the game. Points provide a sticking plaster but do not provide the resolution alone.

PL in the casual scene provide sufficient balance for the players who play that way. Hence the lack of complaining form casuals about balance.

There is no need for the level of granularity of points in the casual scene. Hence power levels work just fine. And I still believe outside of the top end competitive stuff most people don’t play in a way where points are needed, in that most players aren’t good enough and the game isn’t balanced enough that a few points difference here and there makes any difference at all.

Okay, well that certainly is a set of opinions.

I suppose it's arguable whether points are currently being applied appropriately for competetive use. But again, more granularity brings more opportunity for better balance. That should be inarguable.

Andykp wrote:
PL in the casual scene provide sufficient balance for the players who play that way.

And so does the normal point system. Which, again, is the redundancy problem: PL is just a point system with inherent inaccuracy. Anything that can be done with PL can be done just as well by the normal point system but the reverse is not true, PL is inadequate for handling cases where people care about the higher level of accuracy. So basic game design says you simplify things and remove the redundant system.

Except people do prefer it. I don’t-but others do. If you believe that GW would make a good, balanced system if they just got rid of PL and focused that effort on other things… I got news for you. That wouldn’t happen.

Let other people enjoy it how they like.

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

You have made a claim, but it's not supported by the evidence. You can do the exact same thing with points, with more granularity.

nou wrote:
. And this utility is being used in narrative context a lot.

No it's not. In narrative play, you have to use requisition points to change unit wargear.

nou wrote:
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).

It's real easy, actually - just buy your units, and then adjust wargear afterwards after talking with your opponent. But that never happens because the games you describe where people adjust wargear on PL units after the game starts don't happen either.

nou wrote:
And could we please stop with this „PLs are just a less granular point system” BS.

No, because it's not BS and is, in fact, true.

nou wrote:
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.

Yeah, and PL does a lot of dumb stuff like punishing me for not taking a KFF on my Mega-armored Big Mek, or jacking up my warlord's PL by 4 in crusade for a few stat increases. It generally does worse things than points, *because it's less granular*. Points can handle 5 point upgrades, in PL you've got to apply a minimum of 20 points to have a meaningful difference, which means that there's a lot of upgrades (Ork Kustom Jobs for example) that are never worth it because the PL can't go low enough. If it were more granular those abilities would actually be functional.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Let other people enjoy it how they like.

Thank you for that insightful non-contribution. If all you're going to offer is stating the obvious fact that there are (at least) two sides to this debate could you please just refrain from posting and cluttering up the page for the rest of us?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

It absolutely is a failure. If system A does everything that system B does and also does other things then B is a failure. It is completely redundant and has no reason to exist.

Those other things might be redundant for some player. Hence it's the points system that could be a failure. If there's a market for a portion of the playerbase then it's not a failure. How many kinds of SM do exist? Aren't they redundant? And yet people wanted them. Heck there's a whole upcoming specialist game that is based on that redundancy and yet the hype about it is already stellar.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Why only two systems? Why not five systems? Or ten systems? Why not publish a new point system every month? The answer is obvious: because rules bloat is bad. PL is unnecessary rules bloat that, at best, represents a waste of development resources that could be better spent elsewhere. And at worst it is foothold for GW's anti-competitive element to keep trying to push PL as the only point system.

But it's not a bloat or part of the existing bloat because systems are mutually exclusive. You pick up one, the other doesn't exist. It's nothing like rules bloat, those you need to know regardless of the points system you choose or you might get gotcha'd.

Me personally I'd never use PL as I love the minutia of the point system. But I know players who started with PL and never left it, who would probably quit if they had to deal with the points system.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Let other people enjoy it how they like.

Thank you for that insightful non-contribution. If all you're going to offer is stating the obvious fact that there are (at least) two sides to this debate could you please just refrain from posting and cluttering up the page for the rest of us?

You don’t seem aware that people prefer it, given your words.

In D&D 3.5, Warblade is better than Fighter. There’s basically no circumstance where a straight-classes Fighter is better than a same-level Warblade. Should we remove the Fighter, despite people enjoying it?

Hell, how many redundant Marine datasheets are there? Where’s your thread asking for all those to be consolidated?

Andykp wrote:
Points in the competitive scene do not provide sufficient balance for the people who want to play that way. Hence the constant complaining from those in that scene about the lack of balance in the game. Points provide a sticking plaster but do not provide the resolution alone.

That's because GW refuses to put out the effort to get a reasonable approximate of effectiveness on the table. Voidweavers at release for 90 points, for example. But they put out a similar amount of effort into the PL (which is 5).

Andykp wrote:
PL in the casual scene provide sufficient balance for the players who play that way. Hence the lack of complaining form casuals about balance.

Wrong. If I bring a bunch of Voidweavers at 5 PL to a "casual" game it will prove very quickly how PL doesn't work just fine. GW won't even adjust their PL to 6-7 to be appropriate for their points cost. But I guess if their opponent complains they're just a WAAC player who needs to be willing to lose every game with basically no chance of winning like a *real* wargamer. Otherwise they're selfish...

To be frank PL *doesn't* provide enough balance for me to play narratively. I look at orks, and a bunch of their upgrades are overcosted because they're rounded to PL, and upgrades from Crusade to their warlords are 1 PL for 1 point of Wounds or Strength. It's not worth it and it turns me off of that mode of play.

 Blackie wrote:
Hence it's the points system that could be a failure.

No, because once again: every situation that is covered by the less-accurate point system can be handled just as well by the normal point system. PL is not a fundamentally different approach to the game that meets a genuine difference in needs, it's just the standard points-based list construction but with deliberate errors included in the costs. For the first seven editions of the game the normal point system met all needs just fine, nobody started insisting on this need for a less-accurate point system until GW added it in 8th and tied it to the "casual and narrative player" identity.

You pick up one, the other doesn't exist.

You do know that many people play different types of games in different places, right? You use the normal point system at a tournament over the weekend, you use PL as your point system for your wednesday night Crusade league. Having both systems is textbook rules bloat there. And that's on top of the bloat factor from a design point of view, where GW keeps investing resources in an additional redundant system instead of simplifying the game to focus on a single system.

 JNAProductions wrote:
n D&D 3.5, Warblade is better than Fighter. There’s basically no circumstance where a straight-classes Fighter is better than a same-level Warblade. Should we remove the Fighter, despite people enjoying it?

Utterly irrelevant as DnD is not a competitive game.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Hell, how many redundant Marine datasheets are there? Where’s your thread asking for all those to be consolidated?

Fezzik started this thread, not him, and so it's disingenuous to make that accusation. We're talking about PL right now.