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.

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

I am aware of it. I am also aware that their reasons do not hold up to examination, and that people like them enjoyed the game just fine when there was only a single point system. If PL was removed they'd go right back to playing with the normal point system and lose nothing in the process.

Should we remove the Fighter, despite people enjoying it?

Yes. If the Fighter class is literally duplicated by the other class then it should be removed. Or the other one should be removed, if that's the way you want to do it. I'm not sure why you think this is a compelling argument when we're talking about a system that was burdened with rules bloat to the point of being almost unplayable, and that was replaced by a much more streamlined and enjoyable system in 5E. 3.5E/Pathfinder needed to have at least 75% of its content removed and the ridiculous "{core class} but with more bonuses" classes would have been an excellent place to start.

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

I am absolutely in favor of consolidating marine rules bloat. Delete primaris marines (the models can be an alternate true-scale sculpt for normal marine units), delete every chapter's special snowflake units, and merge all of the supplements into a single codex where each chapter gets exactly the same amount of space as the regiments/septs/etc in other factions.

But that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread so that's all I'm going to say on that.

CadianSgtBob wrote:
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.

That they were fine it's just your baseless opinion. Some changes happen all of a sudden without a crowd demanding them and after some time they might be considered a good change. Take the AP system, no one was asking to modify it but now a large portion of the playerbase, including myself, would never go back to the old system. Of all the problems that 3rd-7th had I never considered the AP system to be one of those, but now that I have experienced an alternative I definitely consider it as such. PL might be the same for someone.

Matched and Crusade are two different type of games. Playing both systems is a choice. I've never been interested in Crusade and never even tried it, I'm perfectly fine with that. It's nothing different that playing multiple games, you have to know/remember more stuff.

Hecaton wrote:

 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.

I'd be all for Marine datasheet consolidation actually!

Hecaton wrote:

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.

And this here is the issue with those on here trying to shout down PL. Why on Earth can none of you accept that there players and groups of players who go about the game very differently from you, those who have different experiences than you have?

I never said power levels would work for you, or for everyone, but for those who don’t put the importance on winning then they work very well, as demonstrated by the people who use and enjoy them perfectly well when they could be using points but chose not to. They don’t work for you, then great, guess what, there’s points here too. Use them and have fun your way. I am perfectly happy with that.

“I prefer it” is a perfectly valid reason.

 Blackie wrote:
Take the AP system, no one was asking to modify it

That's revisionist history. Many people were pointing out issues with the AP system, especially in a game dominated by MEQs. It created a sharp division between "weapons that ignore MEQ armor" and "weapons that don't ignore MEQ armor", with AP worse than AP3 being of very limited value. And it created issues with the cover save system, where cover did literally nothing for MEQs against bolters/autocannons/etc.

Now, was the current AP mechanic the solution? Arguable. But it was certainly a change to a system that many people were criticizing.

Matched and Crusade are two different type of games.

Sorry, but that's a ridiculous argument. Matched play and Crusade are both 40k, and they were both the same game in previous editions. Adding a different point system for the sake of being a special snowflake is not a genuine difference comparable to playing both 40k and Infinity. If anything your argument here should be taken as an argument against having a second point system, since for you it needlessly drives Crusade into "different game" territory.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

I'd be all for Marine datasheet consolidation actually!

I am too, but it's somewhat orthogonal to the point of this thread.

 JNAProductions wrote:
“I prefer it” is a perfectly valid reason.

It's a valid reason, but it's also a completely unconvincing reason if you're talking to other people. If that's the best you can offer then don't expect anyone to care about your position when discussing whether GW should remove PL.

 JNAProductions wrote:
“I prefer it” is a perfectly valid reason.

Some people's preferences are for an objectively worse game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CadianSgtBob wrote:
Sorry, but that's a ridiculous argument. Matched play and Crusade are both 40k, and they were both the same game in previous editions. Adding a different point system for the sake of being a special snowflake is not a genuine difference comparable to playing both 40k and Infinity. If anything your argument here should be taken as an argument against having a second point system, since for you it needlessly drives Crusade into "different game" territory.

It's worth noting that Infinity *does* have a less granular points system that is used for its intro version of the game (Code One), but that is explicitly meant for newer or more casual players.

Hecaton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
“I prefer it” is a perfectly valid reason.

Some people's preferences are for an objectively worse game.

Now that’s an objectively stupid thing to say.

Andykp wrote:
And this here is the issue with those on here trying to shout down PL. Why on Earth can none of you accept that there players and groups of players who go about the game very differently from you, those who have different experiences than you have?

I can. But IMO PL is a worse way of playing 40k. I'd rather it be gone but I'm not going to agitate for it. HOWEVER, people in this thread who are part of the cult of PL are advocating for points to go away, and are then getting salty when the same idea gets thrown back at them. That's hypocritical.

Andykp wrote:
I never said power levels would work for you, or for everyone, but for those who don’t put the importance on winning then they work very well, as demonstrated by the people who use and enjoy them perfectly well when they could be using points but chose not to. They don’t work for you, then great, guess what, there’s points here too. Use them and have fun your way. I am perfectly happy with that.

No, let's clarify - PL is for those who don't put an importance on *balance*. If you want to go play an unbalanced game, be my guest, but I have better things to do with my time, and if I'm going to be stuck playing 40k I'm going to want to play the most balanced version of it.

Calling people who want points motivated by an importance on "winning" is both wildly incorrect and insulting, and honestly if you had any respect you'd walk that back. I want *fair games*, I shouldn't be able to just roflstomp opponents by loading up on Voidweavers like I could when the Aeldari codex dropped, and I shouldn't be fighting from underneath for choosing a codex like Orks.

To be honest, I find aggressively casual players to be the ones who care the most about winning, and what's interesting is that they don't allow for the eventuality that they brought a bad list or played poorly - if they're not doing well in games they blame their opponent. But that's just my observation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
Now that’s an objectively stupid thing to say.

It's accurate. That's more or less the definition of a CAAC player. But some people hate the idea of balance and think that tournament players' demands for better balance are ruining their fun. So I don't treat all preferences as equal; some people are just selfish and want games that they have an unfair advantage on, some people's personality type under-emphasizes fairness compared to everyone being properly deferential to authority (in this case, GW) and thus react with hostility to people who say that GW made a mistake balancing something, and so on.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
“I prefer it” is a perfectly valid reason.

It's a valid reason, but it's also a completely unconvincing reason if you're talking to other people. If that's the best you can offer then don't expect anyone to care about your position when discussing whether GW should remove PL.

They aren’t here to say “You should play PL too,” they’re here saying “I enjoy PL.”

Again-no one who likes PL has, to my knowledge, advocated for removing points.
The opposite cannot be said.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Again-no one who likes PL has, to my knowledge, advocated for removing points.

Dude, have you read the OP? Are you trolling? It seems like you have a very biased take on both the issue and the people involved in this conversation.

'I prefer points'


*air horns* Argument won! Get rkt PL *air horns*

Hecaton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Again-no one who likes PL has, to my knowledge, advocated for removing points.

Dude, have you read the OP? Are you trolling? It seems like you have a very biased take on both the issue and the people involved in this conversation.

I did.

“If this change happens,” is not the same as “This change should happen.”

 JNAProductions wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Again-no one who likes PL has, to my knowledge, advocated for removing points.

Dude, have you read the OP? Are you trolling? It seems like you have a very biased take on both the issue and the people involved in this conversation.

I did.

“If this change happens,” is not the same as “This change should happen.”

I see that subtext and begging the question flies over your head. Saying that there's no downside to removing points implies support of it.

Ok,
We're done here
Obviously we're playing the game wrong.
feth it
Might as well just stop playing since we can't even discuss playing without...
*Gestures to thread*

Andykp wrote:
Now that’s an objectively stupid thing to say.

Hardly. Someone can say "I prefer a game where I get twice as many points as my opponent so I can win every game", I don't care if that preference for always winning is genuine it's still an objectively bad game design choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Again-no one who likes PL has, to my knowledge, advocated for removing points.

This thread is literally titled "what if GW removed points". But I suppose you and OP will fall back on the technicality that it doesn't say the literal words "GW should remove points", it merely proposes a what-if scenario where they do and argues that points are not necessary.

Have you asked Fezzik “Should points be removed”?

I’m pretty sure they don’t think so. They’re just doomsaying.

Hecaton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Again-no one who likes PL has, to my knowledge, advocated for removing points.

Dude, have you read the OP? Are you trolling? It seems like you have a very biased take on both the issue and the people involved in this conversation.

I did.

“If this change happens,” is not the same as “This change should happen.”

I see that subtext and begging the question flies over your head. Saying that there's no downside to removing points implies support of it.

Rather than looking for insults and people trying to ruin your hobby where there is none, read the thread, read the comments. No one here has said points SHOULD go away. That’s fact. Many on the points side have said power level should,

Everyone defending power level in this discussion has said that they prefer that system but respect that others don’t. The lack of respect has come from the few points advocates on here like your self, who have no respect for how others enjoy the game. I’m sure the vast majority of folk who use points don’t mind at all that power level exists, it’s just the few that get on here a tell others they are doing it wrong, don’t know how to be happy and are too stupid to understand how they aren’t enjoying playing a game but in fact ruining it for everyone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:

Andykp wrote:
And this here is the issue with those on here trying to shout down PL. Why on Earth can none of you accept that there players and groups of players who go about the game very differently from you, those who have different experiences than you have?

I can. But IMO PL is a worse way of playing 40k. I'd rather it be gone but I'm not going to agitate for it. HOWEVER, people in this thread who are part of the cult of PL are advocating for points to go away, and are then getting salty when the same idea gets thrown back at them. That's hypocritical.

Andykp wrote:
I never said power levels would work for you, or for everyone, but for those who don’t put the importance on winning then they work very well, as demonstrated by the people who use and enjoy them perfectly well when they could be using points but chose not to. They don’t work for you, then great, guess what, there’s points here too. Use them and have fun your way. I am perfectly happy with that.

No, let's clarify - PL is for those who don't put an importance on *balance*. If you want to go play an unbalanced game, be my guest, but I have better things to do with my time, and if I'm going to be stuck playing 40k I'm going to want to play the most balanced version of it.

Calling people who want points motivated by an importance on "winning" is both wildly incorrect and insulting, and honestly if you had any respect you'd walk that back. I want *fair games*, I shouldn't be able to just roflstomp opponents by loading up on Voidweavers like I could when the Aeldari codex dropped, and I shouldn't be fighting from underneath for choosing a codex like Orks.

To be honest, I find aggressively casual players to be the ones who care the most about winning, and what's interesting is that they don't allow for the eventuality that they brought a bad list or played poorly - if they're not doing well in games they blame their opponent. But that's just my observation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
Now that’s an objectively stupid thing to say.

It's accurate. That's more or less the definition of a CAAC player. But some people hate the idea of balance and think that tournament players' demands for better balance are ruining their fun. So I don't treat all preferences as equal; some people are just selfish and want games that they have an unfair advantage on, some people's personality type under-emphasizes fairness compared to everyone being properly deferential to authority (in this case, GW) and thus react with hostility to people who say that GW made a mistake balancing something, and so on.

In the one post you say something sensible, IN YOUR OPINION power level is a worse system. That’s fine, it’s your opinion.

But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.

You start off discussing things like a sensible adult then go back to telling everyone they are wrong! So close.

Andykp wrote:
. . . No one here has said points SHOULD go away. That’s fact.

Well . . .

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, again, is there really any value in GW not going PL only?

^That pretty much amounts to the same thing.

Andykp wrote:

Rather than looking for insults and people trying to ruin your hobby where there is none, read the thread,read the comments. No one here has said points SHOULD go away. That’s fact. Many on the points side have said power level should,

Everyone defending power level in this discussion has said that they prefer that system but respect that others don’t. The lack of respect has come from the few points advocates on here like your self, who have no respect for how others enjoy the game. I’m sure the vast majority of folk who use points don’t mind at all that power level exists, it’s just the few that get on here a tell others they are doing it wrong, don’t know how to be happy and are too stupid to understand how they aren’t enjoying playing a game but in fact ruining it for everyone else.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

In the one post you say something sensible, IN YOUR OPINION power level is a worse system. That’s fine, it’s your opinion.

But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.

You start off discussing things like a sensible adult then go back to telling everyone they are wrong! So close.

Hmmm.
Got a couple of layers of irony with your automatically appended post.

Andykp wrote:
But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.

Because they are. PL is a point system, and the purpose of a point system is to give a numerical score for the on-table power of a choice. PL is objectively worse at this than the normal point system, period, and because its errors are inherent to what PL does it will always be worse. And basic game design says that when you have a redundant system which is just a worse version of an existing system you delete it for the sake of simplicity and focus.

And no, I do not accept the claim that PL represents a sufficient time savings for it to be worth keeping. When you spend hours working on the narrative and strategy side of building a list, often in addition to weeks/months of painting time to be able to use that list, the fact that you can save a few seconds in adding up the total point costs is not a meaningful difference. And that's it. That's the sole argument that is not blatant "competitive players go away" gatekeeping.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
. . . No one here has said points SHOULD go away. That’s fact.

Well . . .

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, again, is there really any value in GW not going PL only?

^That pretty much amounts to the same thing.

Except it’s not, that’s a question not a statement. I think if GW do go away from points as they stand they will do it like in AoS where it’s fixed coast of units but in numbers more like points than power levels.

Another question for you, do you really think the likes of Hecaton and cadiansgtbob have been more respectful of others opinions and experiences in this thread than say smudge or fezzik?

Andykp wrote:
Another question for you, do you really think the likes of Hecaton and cadiansgtbob have been more respectful of others opinions and experiences in this thread than say smudge or fezzik?

Given the fact that it's the pro-PL side saying insulting things like "are you ill or just trolling" I'd say this is a question you really don't want to be asking.

Voss wrote:

Andykp wrote:

Rather than looking for insults and people trying to ruin your hobby where there is none, read the thread,read the comments. No one here has said points SHOULD go away. That’s fact. Many on the points side have said power level should,

Everyone defending power level in this discussion has said that they prefer that system but respect that others don’t. The lack of respect has come from the few points advocates on here like your self, who have no respect for how others enjoy the game. I’m sure the vast majority of folk who use points don’t mind at all that power level exists, it’s just the few that get on here a tell others they are doing it wrong, don’t know how to be happy and are too stupid to understand how they aren’t enjoying playing a game but in fact ruining it for everyone else.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

In the one post you say something sensible, IN YOUR OPINION power level is a worse system. That’s fine, it’s your opinion.

But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.

You start off discussing things like a sensible adult then go back to telling everyone they are wrong! So close.

Hmmm.
Got a couple of layers of irony with your automatically appended post.

So is hecaton right that his opinion is in fact objective fact that points are better than power levels? What metrics are we using to judge “betterness” in war gaming experiences now?

Andykp wrote:
What metrics are we using to judge “betterness” in war gaming experiences now?

CadianSgtBob wrote:
PL is a point system, and the purpose of a point system is to give a numerical score for the on-table power of a choice. PL is objectively worse at this than the normal point system, period, and because its errors are inherent to what PL does it will always be worse. And basic game design says that when you have a redundant system which is just a worse version of an existing system you delete it for the sake of simplicity and focus.

And no, I do not accept the claim that PL represents a sufficient time savings for it to be worth keeping. When you spend hours working on the narrative and strategy side of building a list, often in addition to weeks/months of painting time to be able to use that list, the fact that you can save a few seconds in adding up the total point costs is not a meaningful difference. And that's it. That's the sole argument that is not blatant "competitive players go away" gatekeeping.

Andykp wrote:

But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.

Because it IS objectively worse, LOL
Is a Plasma Pistol worth the same as a Las pistol, yes or no?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Andykp wrote:

But a few lines later you attempt to defend your earlier claim that power levels are objectively worse than points.

Because it IS objectively worse, LOL
Is a Plasma Pistol worth the same as a Las pistol, yes or no?

It's not, and that is the downside to power levels. They represent an approximation of the value of a unit.

Points are also an approximation. They're just slightly better tuned to representing what's actually in your list.

Neither is particularly accurate. What costs 100 points from one Codex may be more valuable than a unit for the same price from another Codex. Power Levels just tend to be more wildly off, and they are never updated to reflect changes in the rules. It's maddening.

Power Levels would be more appealing if they were a measure of something other than offensive / defensive output. For instance, if it was tuned to placement in a FOC, and any unit equipped in any manner could fill a slot for a set number of PLs. Then the focus would be on synergy between different types of units instead of specific loadouts.

Andykp wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Andykp wrote:
. . . No one here has said points SHOULD go away. That’s fact.

Well . . .

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, again, is there really any value in GW not going PL only?

^That pretty much amounts to the same thing.

Except it’s not, that’s a question not a statement. I think if GW do go away from points as they stand they will do it like in AoS where it’s fixed coast of units but in numbers more like points than power levels.

"Should points go away?" Is also a question, but again it amounts to the same thing. Fezziks question, paraprased as "Is there any value in keeping points?" Is highly suggestive.

Another question for you, do you really think the likes of Hecaton and cadiansgtbob have been more respectful of others opinions and experiences in this thread than say smudge or fezzik?

I don't care, I haven't teally been following. I only hopped in to respond to Fezziks suggestion that points dissapear.