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.

In light of the past five pages or so I'd say this:

I think that both Points and power level are important, and I think both should remain part of the game, because I think that each is best suited to the mode of play for which it is the default list-building resource- in other words, I think that there are characteristics of points that are ideally suited to Matched Play, and there are characteristics of PL that are ideally suited to Crusade.

Matched play, love it or hate it has made points a part of the culture of tournament play. Quarterly changes keep things exciting for people and ideally strive to balance the game, and costed equipment in that environment absolutely makes sense. I think people enjoy points as much as a topic for debate and discussion as much as an actual mechanic in the game. What would content creators and forum dwellers talk about without points?

But Crusade, no matter how much you try and say it's just matched play + a progression system, IS a different beast, because the game was built for progression. In this context, the starting cost of a unit is such a small part of its value over time that PL is far better suited to the game. Designers (and players) want the focus of a unit's value to be the characteristics that it earns, not what it costs to add to the list.

PL has additional value to the Crusader for its relative stability. I'm not sure how many updates points have had since 9th dropped, but I think PL has only been updated twice. And that is very valuable to a Crusader- we have to earn our supply limit increases, so quarterly changes in the value of PL would be ridiculously annoying. You bust your ass to earn the extra 5PL, and you add your unit of choice, having lined up the narrative to support the units arrival; you fight your first battle and the unit bonds with the army, you write up the post battle story... And then some Jackhole spams too many of a unit at a tournament and the next week your unit costs too much to include?

No thanks. Keep PL and never have that problem. Doesn't have the same impact in matched, as the games aren't assumed to be connected. Swapping units in or out between games which are separate is just not a big deal in the same way.

GW likes having their two primary modes of play, and I think a lot of players do too. Matched players don't want Crusade's book keeping and the unpredictable and imbalanced impact of experience interfering with rehearsed tactics and the painstakingly play-tested army list, and Crusade players don't want to feel like the fundamental rules (like the aircraft limit or the subfaction soup ban) and roster values are changing every 3-6 months when some of us are engaged in stories that have been ongoing since our codices dropped.

Might GW blow it all up? Sure... They've done it before.

But GW SHOULD keep Matched and Crusade separate. To recombine the games now would lead to compromises that make no one happy, If you want to staple Crusade to Matched, you have to tone down the complexity of progression and tracking at the expense of nuance and options, and if you try to staple Matched to Crusade, you have to dial back the focus on balance and updates.

They also want to keep it separate because it's money. Each season, we get five books: two hardbacks designed to work for both Matched and Crusade, two Mission Packs designed to work exclusively with Crusade and one Mission Pack designed to work exclusively with Matched.

If they combine Crusade and Matched, they need to drop at least one mission pack from that model.

So I don't think Points or PL are going anywhere, nor do I think they should.

PenitentJake wrote:
Designers (and players) want the focus of a unit's value to be the characteristics that it earns, not what it costs to add to the list.

Then why does Crusade use the standard points-based list construction where a unit's point cost is the focus of its value in assembling your list, and the only time its advancements are counted up is the "if one player has way more XP" bonus CP mechanic?

PL has additional value to the Crusader for its relative stability. I'm not sure how many updates points have had since 9th dropped, but I think PL has only been updated twice. And that is very valuable to a Crusader- we have to earn our supply limit increases, so quarterly changes in the value of PL would be ridiculously annoying. You bust your ass to earn the extra 5PL, and you add your unit of choice, having lined up the narrative to support the units arrival; you fight your first battle and the unit bonds with the army, you write up the post battle story... And then some Jackhole spams too many of a unit at a tournament and the next week your unit costs too much to include?

If a unit's point cost changing is such a massive problem (implying it's probably not just a 1 PL change) for you then maybe you should consider the fact that your unit was way overpowered and including it at its former cost was going to be a major negative experience for your opponent. And TBH this is only a problem because of the broken supply limit mechanic, where you're encouraged to play larger games but can only do so if everyone in the group agrees to spend RP to get there. If you use the obvious fix of having no supply limit at all (and why not, total unit pool isn't much of a constraint since idle units don't gain XP) or having supply limit automatically increase at scheduled points in the campaign (like as in escalation leagues). Or you could even just adopt the popular league rule that point changes (and new codex releases, etc) don't apply until the next season.

But thanks for making the very revealing comment that a person making competitive-oriented list building choices in a competitive play environment is a "jackhole" for doing it.

No thanks. Keep PL and never have that problem.

Here's a question: would you support a dual-points system where the matched play points are done as they are now, and the Crusade points use the exact same structure (paying for upgrades, etc) but changes are only applied once per year?

GW likes having their two primary modes of play, and I think a lot of players do too. Matched players don't want Crusade's book keeping and the unpredictable and imbalanced impact of experience interfering with rehearsed tactics and the painstakingly play-tested, and Crusade players don't want to feel like the fundamental rules (like the aircraft limit or the subfaction soup ban) and roster values are changing every 3-6 months when some of us are engaged in stories that have been ongoing since our codices dropped.

But why is PL essential to this? What does the aircraft limit have to do with wanting the point system to be less accurate?

If you want to staple Crusade to Matched, you have to tone down the complexity of progression and tracking at the expense of nuance and options

No you don't. GW had Crusade-style progression in previous editions without needing a separate point system and separate core game mechanics. If anything Crusade and narrative play in general would work better because you would no longer have as much of the tension between what is the best option within the rules and which option best represents the story. It's a win for everyone if you don't have to feel bad about taking a laspistol instead of a plasma pistol.

I don't think PL actually works that way either.

My Legendary KOS with 56 XP is not the same as a 0XP KOS, even if they cost the same PL.

Crusade Points are a whole other bookeeping thing that aren't the that balanced.

That said, I actually play both points and PL games, just depending on whatever I am doing or feeling, and they feel about the same - impossible to have a running narrative alongside gameplay and pretty horribly balanced to boot.

CadianSgtBob wrote:


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.

This is something you're failing to understand, here's an analogy: scales. There are scales which can measure the grams and scales that can measure fractions of fractions of grams. The former isn't objectively worse, it just has a different role and market. If you go to the grocery you won't see ultra precised scales there since extra precision is not needed. On the other hand in some fields or businesses ultra precised scales are mandatory since cheating on the fractions of grams means skimming big money. You seem to consider players using PL just like those who want to skim by using less precise scales while in fact you should consider PL players like an owner of a grocery.

For a PL player there's no point in min maxing the wargear of a sargeant, just like for a scale at the grocery there's no point in being sensible to the 0.00001 of a gram.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:


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.

And this is different than PL how?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:


But Crusade, no matter how much you try and say it's just matched play + a progression system, IS a different beast, because the game was built for progression.

Yes, they're definitely different games. The fact that they're about the same universe and their rules are listed in the same books is irrelevant. Crusade is no different than Kill Team, it's just another game using 40k models, lore and some of its rules/stats.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Andykp wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Andykp wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Andykp wrote:

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?

No it’s not,

Then should they be priced the same, yes or no?

I do not see the point in pricing them differently when it makes so little difference.

You didn't answer the question.

Should they be priced the same when one is objectively better, yes or no?

Quote me fully and you will see that I did. I said for me, price them the same.

But one is objectively better, yes or no?

No, it's inherently Subjective. I like the look of the Laspistol. See? Others might find painting the Plasma way too difficult. Or hate the look of the Bolt Pistol. It's inherently subjective. It's not a Binary choice.

What a clown ass response.

So the person that thinks Plasma looks cooler is already at an advantage when two players take the same exact squads. They don't pay for the weapon that they think "looks cooler" and gets an immediate advantage, yes or no?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Andykp wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Andykp wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Andykp wrote:

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?

No it’s not,

Then should they be priced the same, yes or no?

I do not see the point in pricing them differently when it makes so little difference.

You didn't answer the question.

Should they be priced the same when one is objectively better, yes or no?

Quote me fully and you will see that I did. I said for me, price them the same.

But one is objectively better, yes or no?

We are going in silly circles here and the knock out blow you want to land will never become because as has been pointed out many times, you are wrong points do not objectively make the game better. It’s SUBJECTIVE!

One piece of gear can be better on the table top. But that’s doesn’t mean it has to be priced differently.

fething WHAT?

There's literally no disadvantages to equipping models better under Power Level. The dumb ass excuse of "well you don't have to worry if you self regulate and only take what looks cool" means crap if one person thinks the already better weapons look cooler to begin with. So let's ignore your silly notion of "I like laspistol better".

Is there a disadvantage to taking the Plasma Pistol over the Laspistol, yes or no?

 Blackie wrote:
This is something you're failing to understand, here's an analogy: scales

And it's a terrible analogy. You see different scales for different roles because a high-precision scientific scale costs orders of magnitude more than a common grocery scale. In the PL equivalent a scale with +/- 1% accuracy only costs one cent more than one with +/- 10% accuracy, and if that were the case every single grocery scale would be the more accurate version.

For a PL player there's no point in min maxing the wargear of a sargeant, just like for a scale at the grocery there's no point in being sensible to the 0.00001 of a gram.

Now you're starting to be honest and get at the heart of the issue. The appeal of PL isn't the system itself, it's the concept of a "PL player" having a particular approach to the game. You've bought into the idea that a less-accurate point system is less competitive and therefore more casual/narrative and you cling to PL as a way of demonstrating that you're that sort of player. The fact that removing PL would have no practical impact on your games is irrelevant, what matters is that removing PL would take away your ability to present yourself as a "PL player".

Yes, they're definitely different games. The fact that they're about the same universe and their rules are listed in the same books is irrelevant. Crusade is no different than Kill Team, it's just another game using 40k models, lore and some of its rules/stats.

Lolwut. No. Crusade is just a normal game of 40k with an extra table of bonuses and some solo between-games stuff as an optional extra. It is not in any way comparable to Kill Team, a completely different game with nothing in common besides the art and lore.

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,

Fezzik has heavily implied it, though I'm sure he'd walk that back to keep the bad faith argumentation going if called on it. Kanluwen has said it in previous threads.

Fezzik has repeatedly insisted "there is no benefit to keeping points" which is tantamount to saying "we have nothing to lose by getting rid of points" which heavily implies that he supports that idea.

Andykp wrote:
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.

The problem is you see any defense of PL as respectful and any criticism of it as disrespectful.

Andykp wrote:


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.

No, I said they produce a less balanced outcome than points. Which isn't the be-all end-all of the utility of a points system.

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

Here's the issue - if I say "I like points more than PL" you say ok. If I say "I like points more than PL because x" you freak out because you perceive any attempt to justify a superiority of points over PL as an attack. Also, you bad-faith imply that people who like points more "care about winning," which is an insult that you still haven't retracted. This tells me that you *aren't* treating points advocates with respect, and are slimily trying to claim you are while insulting us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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?

I've definitely been more respectful than you, considering you are constantly trying to find ways to insult the people you disagree with as cutthroat powergamers when there's no evidence of that kind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Have you asked Fezzik “Should points be removed”?

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

Nah, he wouldn't admit to it if called out to avoid copping to it, but he's heavily implying it via repeated statements to beg the question in this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:
Folks who play PL should be allowed to talk and discuss the game without literally being told were playing the game wrong, even when we're straight up following what's in the books.

Fine, but this thread was started by people saying "points have no value as a system compared to PL."

So criticizing PL as a system is fair game. You don't get to act all shocked and attacked in this context.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But plenty of people are insulting Blndmage for preferring to play with PL. Such as this quoted post.

That's not an insult. Stop playing defense for people you agree on this topic with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Also, why if points are always so much better, are the points so ALWAYS TERRIBLE? Why did Trajann VaWreckyoface cost 160 points for months?

If the points are terrible, so is the PL. Voidweavers were dramatically undercosted at release, and if we play by PL, they still are. GW can botch PL just like they botch point, and you need to stop disingenuously ignoring that idea when criticizing points as a system, because you've been repeatedly told this, and you should know better by now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:


This.
This is the constant insulting tone leveled at PL based folks when we try to talk about playing the game.

You started it by being *very* hostile. You're not being insulted; you're just being responded to in kind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:
Do you think that my disabilities put me in some edge case that you can discount?

Do you have dyscalculia?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

And it's a terrible analogy. You see different scales for different roles because a high-precision scientific scale costs orders of magnitude more than a common grocery scale. In the PL equivalent a scale with +/- 1% accuracy only costs one cent more than one with +/- 10% accuracy, and if that were the case every single grocery scale would be the more accurate version.

The analogy is: some business don't need extra level of accuracy just like some players. For both of them having a more imperfect instrument but also a cheaper/faster-easier one is more practical. I know people who don't like flipping pages when they do list building, let alone using an app or different books with updated points costs. For them having the PL cost directly printed on the datasheet of a unit without it changing multiple times during an edition is better than having a more balanced universe.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Now you're starting to be honest and get at the heart of the issue. The appeal of PL isn't the system itself, it's the concept of a "PL player" having a particular approach to the game. You've bought into the idea that a less-accurate point system is less competitive and therefore more casual/narrative and you cling to PL as a way of demonstrating that you're that sort of player. The fact that removing PL would have no practical impact on your games is irrelevant, what matters is that removing PL would take away your ability to present yourself as a "PL player".

But that's what I said from the beginning. The PL system is for players with specific needs. In a game using PL there's no real advantage in taking a plasma pistol over a laspistol because somewhere else the same player would likely choose less optimized options to compensate that. It's the overall list that should be analyzed to see if the player gained an advantage by using PL instead of points, not just the single loadaout of a single model. Again, min maxing was never in mind for a player using PL.

It's not something in competition with the points system, it's a different system for a different pool of players. That's why I made that specific analogy: those different scales are not in competition with each other and never will be as there's no point in trying to make cheaper but still super accurate scales for businesses like a grocery because there isn't the need for that.

And if it wasn't clear enough I only play points, actually I love the extra minutia of the points system. I'm defending a system that has no value to me, ma I recognize it has value for others.

 Blackie wrote:
The analogy is: some business don't need extra level of accuracy just like some players.

Except, again, your analogy fails because the only reason they don't take the extra accuracy is because of cost. When accuracy is orders of magnitude more expensive you have to consider if it's worth having. When accuracy is effectively free, as it is with PL, there is no reason not to take the highest level of accuracy even if it isn't strictly necessary. And you certainly wouldn't see any scale manufacturer continue to make low-accuracy scales if high-accuracy scales were the same price.

Or, to put it in 40k terms: if making a list with normal points took ten times as long as it does with PL there would be an obvious use case for PL. But when PL saves a few seconds, maybe a minute at most, over an hour plus of list building time (and potentially weeks/months of painting time to use that list) there is no use case for it. Every PL advocate here has already spent an entire lifetime of time savings from PL use on defending the importance of PL. Had they instead used the normal point system and accepted that PL has no reason to exist they'd be at a net gain in time by now.

I know people who don't like flipping pages when they do list building

I agree. This is an excellent argument for the normal point system, where everything is neatly laid out on a page or two. I too find it frustrating to have to keep flipping through datasheets to get the PL point costs off each individual datasheet.

Again, min maxing was never in mind for a player using PL.

There you go again making your own assumptions about what "PL player" means. All GW gives you is a set of rules that can be treated however you like. You can optimize with them, you can take random stuff, it's all your decision. The optimization choices will be different if you use PL as your point system but the idea that optimization is not part of PL is purely your own invention.

But this once again confirms the theory of PL's value: it's not the practical use of PL that matters, all that stuff about it taking a few seconds less time to add up a list is just rationalization for the identity label that certain people have adopted. Even if PL was slower to use, had worse organization, etc, they'd still love it because it lets them create an identity as "PL players" and communicate a particular approach to the game.

And the fact that you can’t fathom that that wouldn’t be a problem for a lot of people and the way they approach the game is why power levels are not for you. And that’s fine. Use points and be happy. The fact that power levEls exist and are used and defended should tell you that they work for some people. Surely you can respect those peoples experiences? You don’t have to agree.

I mainly play tournaments. I don't think i will ever use PL it is a bad system. Some army have just way to much war gear options and some don't so it can't be balanced properly. 9th age the rules for warhammer fantasy are made by people in their free time and they managed to balance it pretty good with points and still keep updating it. so i see no reason way GW could not do it.

Do you never get bored of playing the victim! I certainly get bored of you doing it. No one is attacking you here, even if fezzik thinks points should go, and I don’t know if he does or not, he can’t make it happen and isn’t criticising you as a person by doing so. And just to be clear, you thinking something does not make it objective fact. It makes it opinion, and one I will hold in low regard.

I criticised you due to your constant behaviour in this and other threads. I won’t spell it out to you, you know full well what you are doing. I do not like to use the ignore button but you are getting very close.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nordsturmking wrote:
I mainly play tournaments. I don't think i will ever use PL it is a bad system. Some army have just way to much war gear options and some don't so it can't be balanced properly. 9th age the rules for warhammer fantasy are made by people in their free time and they managed to balance it pretty good with points and still keep updating it. so i see no reason way GW could not do it.

But IF Gw got rid of points and went all PL (I DO WANT THAT BEFORE ANYONE STARTS) would you stop playing? If tourneys went PL would you still play?

For clarity I wouldn’t stop if the reverse was true. If PL went away I would still play, plated for 7editions with points.

If PL amounts to "points/20" then surely it makes no difference. Some things (and whole armies as a result) will be over/under costed.

With that said, if PL="take all the upgrades meta" then its just a different points system to "all these upgrades are overcosted, avoid". Sure, having a laspistol be the same as a plasma pistol seems wrong - but how many 5 point plasma pistols do you see in competitive lists? I can get behind a system where every unit champion has their faction's special pistol & a combat weapon. Rather than a system where this costs 20 points for a negligible upgrade in output, and is therefore an auto-joke. I think there's an argument that's how most "casual" players build their models - because unique weapons are cool.

To do a weirdly dated example - its like Champions, Standard Bearers and Musicians in WHFB. To my mind a unit looks fundamentally unfinished if it doesn't have them. But you quickly realised it was a waste of points for loads of units. (Standard Bearers were okay I guess - Champions & Musicians were much more marginal.)

Tyel wrote:
I can get behind a system where every unit champion has their faction's special pistol & a combat weapon.

Then why have the other options at all? At least in the normal point system the plasma pistol is less common but still occasionally shows up if you have a few points to spare, if you're going to make all upgrades zero points then you might as well delete laspistols/chainswords/bolt pistols/etc and de-clutter the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andykp wrote:
For clarity I wouldn’t stop if the reverse was true. If PL went away I would still play, plated for 7editions with points.

And there we go. You'd still play with normal points if PL didn't exist because the normal point system works just fine for meeting your needs. PL has no reason to exist.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I can get behind a system where every unit champion has their faction's special pistol & a combat weapon.

Then why have the other options at all? At least in the normal point system the plasma pistol is less common but still occasionally shows up if you have a few points to spare, if you're going to make all upgrades zero points then you might as well delete laspistols/chainswords/bolt pistols/etc and de-clutter the game.

Sounds good to me.
Get on it James.

As long as people aren't selecting models and upgrades for efficiency reasons, points add nothing to the game and just overcomplicate list building.

As soon as at least one player is optimizing weapon loadouts, points are mandatory to have a fair game.

The reason why this thread is being discussed so passionately is because some people simply fail to grasp the concept of building a list motivated by something other that maximizing their chances of winning.

Tyel wrote:
With that said, if PL="take all the upgrades meta" then its just a different points system to "all these upgrades are overcosted, avoid".

And to add on here:

With the normal point system yes, you have errors but at least the system is theoretically capable of fixing the error. Would you take a plasma pistol if it was 4 points? Or even 1 point? Maybe 5 points isn't the right cost but there absolutely is some cost where taking it becomes the ideal 50/50 debate and there is the possibility that GW will figure out that cost in the future.

PL's error, on the other hand, is inherent to the concept and can not be fixed. As long as a unit with choices of different power has a single point cost regardless of which choice you pick there will always be at least one configuration with the wrong point cost. So, on top of having errors where GW simply gets the cost wrong like they do with the normal point system, you will have additional errors where the design of the system makes them inevitable.

The obvious solution here is to discard the system that has no chance of accuracy (and no redeeming factors to justify the loss of accuracy) and spend more effort on improving the system that at least has the possibility of getting it right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
The reason why this thread is being discussed so passionately is because some people simply fail to grasp the concept of building a list motivated by something other that maximizing their chances of winning.

I grasp the concept just fine. I reject the premise that PL offers any meaningful ease of use advantage. It is absolutely silly and poor game design to have two separate point systems just to potentially save a few seconds of adding up the numbers.

As long as people aren't selecting models and upgrades for efficiency reasons, points add nothing to the game and just overcomplicate list building.

And this is also false. Whether or not such selections are done with deliberate optimization intent you still get units with incorrect point costs with PL and give an unearned advantage to one player. The game is improved when both players can pick their stuff by story/rule of cool/whatever and still have accurate point costs and a balanced game.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
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.

How is PL a failure when people have said that in their experience, it fits their needs? Why are you trying to invalidate people's experiences?

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.

In practice? My person, the fact that BIndmage and I play the game at all is practice. Why are you trying to invalidate people's experiences?

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.

But it does exist.

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.

Do hypotheticals go entirely over your head, or are you just hiding in some trenches of your own making?

No-one's seriously coming after points, not least OP. There is a difference between "WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF..." and "THIS SHOULD HAPPEN".

More importantly, the OP themselves has come in and clarified their stance. Any further efforts to claim that this thread was "advocating" for removing points is pure ignorance.

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

Do I not deserve to get to enjoy the game how I like?

CadianSgtBob wrote: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.

So you're just going to ignore the lived experiences and invalidate the people who have said that PL *is* faster and easier for them, and then later claim that you're not insulting them? *This* is the kind of gak BIndmage and I are talking about when we refer to insults - this argument of "I know you've said that it helps you, but actually, no, you're wrong". It's a complete lack of respect, of good faith, and frankly, it's utterly unacceptable for the "discussions" you're claiming to be having. If you can just ignore the lived experiences and words of those who you're meant to be discussing things with, why does it even matter what they say - you're already cherrypicking their lives.

Why are you trying to invalidate people's experiences?

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.

Great. Let's scrap every army other than Genestealer Cult, because rules bloat is bad. (/sarcasm)

The other system has a use. Just not for you. Get over it.

PL is unnecessary rules bloat that, at best, represents a waste of development resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

And who says that it would go towards 40k? Who says it wouldn't go towards a new edition of Dreadfleet? You'd actively remove something that people have repeatedly said they find useful and valuable just because you don't like that they're getting attention? What a spiteful thing to do. Why are you trying to invalidate people's experiences?

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?

It's not an obvious fact so long as folks like you continue to push this idea that mine and BIndmage's ways of playing the game deserve to be axed.

There isn't a debate here, or at least, there shouldn't be. Why do PL players need to "debate" why their enjoyment is invalid? Why do you demand this from us, by the very nature of you saying that "PL shouldn't exist, screw you if you like PL" - what, do you expect PL players to just accept that you're trying to exclude and insult them?

If the only thing you actually think is a worthy contribution is debating if I should be allowed to enjoy the game, I think this thread has run its course.

Again, why are you trying to invalidate people's experiences?

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 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.

Evidently incorrect, as stated by myself and BIndmage.

PL is not a fundamentally different approach to the game that meets a genuine difference in needs

Yet again, the needs of other users are being ignored, invalidated, and erased. In the case of dyscalculia, there's a word for this: ableist.

Why are you trying to invalidate people's experiences?

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.

And? It's here now, and I like it. Get over it. Sorry, are you implying that the game can't add new things, or that people can't like and be attached to enjoying these new things?

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.

Some people might play one army one day, and a different army the next. That's "textbook bloat there" (sarcasm).

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 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

Yet again, invalidating and gatekeeping player experiences. What kind of blinkered logic gives you the authority to claim that "our reasons" aren't valid?

Why are you trying to invalidate people's experiences?

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.

I'd probably enjoy the game a hell of a lot less, and probably not play at the level I enjoy, if I didn't just quit anyway. Also, this idea of "they played just fine without PL" only makes sense for users who played pre-PL, and also ignores the fact that I enjoy PL more, and wish it had been around earlier. Yet again, it's this idea that apparently, we're not allowed to enjoy new things.

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.

Good thing I'm not trying to convince you of anything beyond having a baseline level of respect and courtesy.

If you're incapable of caring about other people's personal experiences and preferences without them having to "prove" it to you (like you imply), then I don't think you should be let anywhere near the Internet, let alone this forum.

Why are you trying to invalidate people's experiences?

Hecaton wrote:

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

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

I don't think you know what objective means, because you're not using it right here.
The word you're looking for is "subjective".

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.

The "cult"? Totally reasonable language, cheers.

Also, BIndmage and I, two members of this "cult", as you put it, aren't advocating for points to go away, but I don't see any distinction being made for us. Are y'all just happy to catch people in the crossfire, or are you just being ignorant and exclusionary?

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.

Great. Go do that. No-one cares what version you play, so instead of "debating" it, go and play it. The only reason that I'm here in this thread is because certain folks can't seem to get the idea that my way of playing is "incorrect", and I'm here to tell them to grow a basic level of respect.

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.

Your observation is noted. I don't observe this, but your observation is noted.

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.

Yes, I have read the OP. Have you? It doesn't say what you're claiming.

As mentioned, there's a difference between "if" and "this should".

Overread wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Hecaton was saying that using points makes the game “objectively” better than using power levels. How do you measure betterness? And if that is the case (it isn’t) the. Surely all of us who are having more fun playing the game without using points are doing it wrong. Please answer that, tell me how anyone can conclude that?

Yes you can be doing it wrong.
People do the wrong things in hobbies all the time. Sometimes wrong is just going against convention; sometimes wrong is simply following a lesser known convention/theory (even if they are also unware of the theory); sometimes wrong is just doing stuff outright wrong; sometimes its simply not quite grasping the fundamentals well enough.

You can most certainly play with your toys in an incorrect manner.

And when its you playing with your toys that's fine. If you and your opponent are fine with it and you're having fun and neither of you is willing to learn more or change your approach. That's PERFECTLY FINE.

However it means that when you come into discussions with those outside of your sphere of influence you are going to bump into counter-arguments. You are going to hit the wall of people who know more than you; who understand the game better than you; who play better (yes you can measure that in a game which, at its core, is competitive structured). Sometimes you just have to accept that your understanding only goes so far and that others are going further.

I think the only level of "understanding that only goes so far and that others are going further" is the perspective of anyone who genuinely believes that there is a "wrong" way to enjoy how you play toy soldiers.

If someone can't grasp that people can enjoy the game a different way to them, and that their way of enjoying the game in a manner that doesn't affect them in the slightest is "wrong", then that tells me that they have a critical lack of understanding, namely, in understanding that people are allowed to enjoy things, and that someone isn't "wrong" for doing it in a way that others don't do.

All of your things about PL being "PERFECTLY FINE" is nice and all, but it's underpinned by the simple idea that it is apparently "wrong", and that I should have to even argue for why it's not wrong. The people who are advocating for scrapping PL don't "know more than me", "understand the game better than me" or even "play better" than me - they can play *their* preferred version of the game better, but they do not understand gak about how *I* play the game - and they don't need to.

What's wrong with letting people enjoy what they enjoy without snidely implying that they're a lesser hobbyist and are "wrong" to do what they do?

Power Level really only has one advantage and that's being simpler maths to add up. That's really it.

And *IF* that were the only advantage it has, and therefore was still incredibly valuable for some users (eg, with dyscalculia), why should it still be scrapped?

In a sense this makes powerlevel ok between people who know each other; who have played together before and all. It, however, makes it much harder to use between people who don't know each other; who didn't pre-arrange the game a week before; who might be turning up to a club, event, tournament or such to play against people they don't know for the first time.

Great - so don't use PL for those games. Simple. We'll keep using PL for the purposes we use it for, and you can use points. Simple.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Folks who play PL should be allowed to talk and discuss the game without literally being told were playing the game wrong, even when we're straight up following what's in the books.

And who is stopping you? You came into a thread about points vs. PL and joined the discussion, nobody came into your house and demanded that you justify your incorrect way of playing the game.

So you just expect that, when people are being insulted and told that they're playing the game wrong just to ignore you and your gakky takes?

Or, to put it another way, if the OP of this thread offended you by asking what you'd do if points were removed, you didn't need to get involved, so why did you?

If you're asking "who's stopping you" from discussing the game as we enjoy it, it's you, because you want PL to be scrapped.

The thread isn't even ABOUT PL vs points, it's about "if points were removed, would you still play 40k" - you're the one turning this into some kind of versus match where two different systems can't exist peacefully with one another.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Andykp wrote:
How do you measure betterness?

I've already answered that question for you: "better" is defined by how well the system accomplishes its goal

PL accomplishes the goal I set for it. Therefore, PL is better for me.

 JNAProductions wrote:
But plenty of people are insulting Blndmage for preferring to play with PL. Such as this quoted post.

There is nothing in there at al that is insulting to them.

You don't get to decide what is and isn't insulting to people, especially when you're the one invalidating their lived experiences.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
This.
This is the constant insulting tone leveled at PL based folks when we try to talk about playing the game.

Please do not make this dishonest argument. You are not merely "talking about playing the game", you're voluntarily participating in a discussion of points vs. PL.

This didn't start as a discussion of points vs PL. It *started* as a discussion of "if GW went all in on PL, would you still play" - you didn't need to get involved beyond a simple yes or no, but you changed it into some kind of adversarial contest.

Like I've already said, do you truly believe and expect that you should be able to insult users, disrespect them, and invalidate their sense of enjoyment and lived experiences, and then cry foul when they turn around and say "actually, feth you, I'm allowed to enjoy what I like"? That is the height of ignorance, if so.

There's only one dishonest argument here, and it's the argument that saying that someone's preferred way of playing is "wrong" and that they need to discuss why it isn't wrong.

If you want to even turn this into a lethal deathmatch between points and PL, you can; but that still doesn't mean you should be able to call someone's way of playing "wrong", no matter how much you disagree with it.

If you don't like seeing the full range of opinions there, including the opinion that you are completely wrong

Then your opinion is completely devoid of respect, empathy, and politeness, and therefore wholly unacceptable for a "discussion", as you put it.

You can disagree that PL is good for you, or has meaning to you, or is even useful to you, but when other users turn around and say that it's useful to them, you don't get to turn around and say "you're wrong", because how can they be wrong! All they're doing is speaking from their own experiences. Unless you're invalidating their experiences, and thereby showing incredible levels of disrespect and impoliteness (oh, hi Rule 1 of this forum!), you can't call someone's preferences and experiences "wrong".

don't get into discussions that are clearly labeled as "points vs. PL".

But it's not "clearly labelled" as that. Show me in the OP where it actually says that, beyond you wanting to turn everything into some zero-sum contest.

Nobody here is coming into your private games and demanding to have an argument with you.

And none of the PL players are demanding that your way of enjoying the game should be removed. You (and others like you) are the only ones doing that.


Now, with all that out of the way, I'm going to have a little bit of fun here, and I'm going to collate a list of every time users in this thread have claimed that someone else's way of playing is wrong, or should be banned. I'll get back to y'all shortly.

I think the efficiency argument falls a little flat when half the games narative involves genius super soldiers.
So it’s perfectly narrative for a player to think of there army as an efficient and effective group of units until it hits the battlefield. Planing as best it can for potential threats.

It also becomes a bit of a issue if someone needs to buy and build less effective units to meet some not too good a list.

Really I think if GW did care about it, they could do PL. PL is more like points is for most other games I play.
They would need to rebuild the game, but that would be for the better anyway I think.

 Blndmage wrote:

Spoiler:

Hecaton 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,

Fezzik has heavily implied it, though I'm sure he'd walk that back to keep the bad faith argumentation going if called on it. Kanluwen has said it in previous threads.

Fezzik has repeatedly insisted "there is no benefit to keeping points" which is tantamount to saying "we have nothing to lose by getting rid of points" which heavily implies that he supports that idea.

Andykp wrote:
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.

The problem is you see any defense of PL as respectful and any criticism of it as disrespectful.

Andykp wrote:


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.

No, I said they produce a less balanced outcome than points. Which isn't the be-all end-all of the utility of a points system.

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

Here's the issue - if I say "I like points more than PL" you say ok. If I say "I like points more than PL because x" you freak out because you perceive any attempt to justify a superiority of points over PL as an attack. Also, you bad-faith imply that people who like points more "care about winning," which is an insult that you still haven't retracted. This tells me that you *aren't* treating points advocates with respect, and are slimily trying to claim you are while insulting us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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?

I've definitely been more respectful than you, considering you are constantly trying to find ways to insult the people you disagree with as cutthroat powergamers when there's no evidence of that kind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Have you asked Fezzik “Should points be removed”?

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

Nah, he wouldn't admit to it if called out to avoid copping to it, but he's heavily implying it via repeated statements to beg the question in this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:
Folks who play PL should be allowed to talk and discuss the game without literally being told were playing the game wrong, even when we're straight up following what's in the books.

Fine, but this thread was started by people saying "points have no value as a system compared to PL."

So criticizing PL as a system is fair game. You don't get to act all shocked and attacked in this context.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But plenty of people are insulting Blndmage for preferring to play with PL. Such as this quoted post.

That's not an insult. Stop playing defense for people you agree on this topic with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Also, why if points are always so much better, are the points so ALWAYS TERRIBLE? Why did Trajann VaWreckyoface cost 160 points for months?

If the points are terrible, so is the PL. Voidweavers were dramatically undercosted at release, and if we play by PL, they still are. GW can botch PL just like they botch point, and you need to stop disingenuously ignoring that idea when criticizing points as a system, because you've been repeatedly told this, and you should know better by now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:


This.
This is the constant insulting tone leveled at PL based folks when we try to talk about playing the game.

You started it by being *very* hostile. You're not being insulted; you're just being responded to in kind.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:
Do you think that my disabilities put me in some edge case that you can discount?

Do you have dyscalculia?

You ableist donkey-cave

As I stated earlier in this very thread:

I play the game with kids sometimes. PL is really less energy intensive, I don't need to flip pages, it's right there, easy peasy. I don't care about the points per kill of whatever. Points change constantly, the Power Ratings update much less frequently.
I'm in constant pain.
I can't keep solid focus too long.
There's no solutions for that.

It's not about specific disabilities, I referenced dyscalculia as an example.

There are many disabilities (including chronic conditions) that make 40k difficult to play. I'm frequently in so much pain I forget which army I'm playing.

The Core Rules, Open Play, and by extension Power Levels, make the game playable for many people.

We literally play using the free Core Rules (including the basic terrain rule), published Open Play content, codecs/indexes, and Theaters of War, that's about it. If there's the desire and energy for multiple games in a day, we also use the CA18 battle honours/custom character rules.
Sometimes we use CPs and strats, but that's rarer than using the CA18 stuff.

How is that ableist?

1) Call opposition -ist or -phobe
2) Win argument regardless of other factors
3) ???
4) Virtue!

 Just Tony wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Spoiler:

Hecaton 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,

Fezzik has heavily implied it, though I'm sure he'd walk that back to keep the bad faith argumentation going if called on it. Kanluwen has said it in previous threads.

Fezzik has repeatedly insisted "there is no benefit to keeping points" which is tantamount to saying "we have nothing to lose by getting rid of points" which heavily implies that he supports that idea.

Andykp wrote:
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.

The problem is you see any defense of PL as respectful and any criticism of it as disrespectful.

Andykp wrote:


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.

No, I said they produce a less balanced outcome than points. Which isn't the be-all end-all of the utility of a points system.

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

Here's the issue - if I say "I like points more than PL" you say ok. If I say "I like points more than PL because x" you freak out because you perceive any attempt to justify a superiority of points over PL as an attack. Also, you bad-faith imply that people who like points more "care about winning," which is an insult that you still haven't retracted. This tells me that you *aren't* treating points advocates with respect, and are slimily trying to claim you are while insulting us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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?

I've definitely been more respectful than you, considering you are constantly trying to find ways to insult the people you disagree with as cutthroat powergamers when there's no evidence of that kind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Have you asked Fezzik “Should points be removed”?

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

Nah, he wouldn't admit to it if called out to avoid copping to it, but he's heavily implying it via repeated statements to beg the question in this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:
Folks who play PL should be allowed to talk and discuss the game without literally being told were playing the game wrong, even when we're straight up following what's in the books.

Fine, but this thread was started by people saying "points have no value as a system compared to PL."

So criticizing PL as a system is fair game. You don't get to act all shocked and attacked in this context.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But plenty of people are insulting Blndmage for preferring to play with PL. Such as this quoted post.

That's not an insult. Stop playing defense for people you agree on this topic with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Also, why if points are always so much better, are the points so ALWAYS TERRIBLE? Why did Trajann VaWreckyoface cost 160 points for months?

If the points are terrible, so is the PL. Voidweavers were dramatically undercosted at release, and if we play by PL, they still are. GW can botch PL just like they botch point, and you need to stop disingenuously ignoring that idea when criticizing points as a system, because you've been repeatedly told this, and you should know better by now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:


This.
This is the constant insulting tone leveled at PL based folks when we try to talk about playing the game.

You started it by being *very* hostile. You're not being insulted; you're just being responded to in kind.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:
Do you think that my disabilities put me in some edge case that you can discount?

Do you have dyscalculia?

You ableist donkey-cave

As I stated earlier in this very thread:

I play the game with kids sometimes. PL is really less energy intensive, I don't need to flip pages, it's right there, easy peasy. I don't care about the points per kill of whatever. Points change constantly, the Power Ratings update much less frequently.
I'm in constant pain.
I can't keep solid focus too long.
There's no solutions for that.

It's not about specific disabilities, I referenced dyscalculia as an example.

There are many disabilities (including chronic conditions) that make 40k difficult to play. I'm frequently in so much pain I forget which army I'm playing.

The Core Rules, Open Play, and by extension Power Levels, make the game playable for many people.

We literally play using the free Core Rules (including the basic terrain rule), published Open Play content, codecs/indexes, and Theaters of War, that's about it. If there's the desire and energy for multiple games in a day, we also use the CA18 battle honours/custom character rules.
Sometimes we use CPs and strats, but that's rarer than using the CA18 stuff.

How is that ableist?

Disabled players get forgotten about constantly. We're not edge cases, or an insignificant number ~20% of Canadians (~25% of Americans) are disabled.

If you don't understand why that specific response to my question is ableist, I'd suggest talking with disabled 40k players you know. And if you say "I don't know any"...think about that for a bit.

So, going through all instances (at least that I've seen in this thread) where a user has claimed that PL/Open Play should be removed or is otherwise "incorrect".

- HMBC, page 3: We have points. Use points. Don't create a sorta-kinda half-way system that uses smaller numbers to add up.
- CadianSgtBob, page 10: Open Play doesn't need to exist at all
- Slipspace, page 10: Open Play absolutely doesn't need to exist
- Voss, page 10: No, it is there. Its taking up book space, rules space and development time. If it isn't used, its a negative effect.
- CSB, page 10: But why does that require explicitly naming Open Play as an official Way™ To™ Play™ The™ Game™? You don't need to create an entire game mode that consists of "all rules are optional" or tell a parent they're playing Official™ Warhammer™ 40k™ Rules™ when they set up a game with a single infantry squad on each side to teach their kid the basic rules. People were doing all that stuff long before GW made Open Play a thing.
- CSB, page 10: It does not need a separate point system to function and removing PL is in no way the same as removing Crusade.
- CSB, page 11: Removing Open Play and the concept of Official™ Play™ Types™ with their own separate fundamental rule systems is what needs to happen.
- CSB, page 11: What I want is for PL to cease to exist at all.
- CSB, page 11: So what is the official Open™ Play™ adding to this situation? (Also, hey, look! It's you asking people to justify their perspectives how ow they enjoy things!)

(It is at this point that I enter the thread, and ask that people stop people be allowed to enjoy what they want without options being removed. I should note that, at this point, the ONLY advocates for removing anything in the thread have been the above users and comments.)


- CSB, page 11: I want PL gone because the sole useful function I've ever seen from it is CAAC gatekeepers using it as a way to tell competitive players they aren't welcome in a group.
- Voss, page 11: Open play is what people were doing for years, decades without it. So yeah, it needs some justification for taking up space in the book.
- CSB, page 12: If you can't have a discussion of the virtues of different game mechanics without building straw man arguments then there is no point in talking to you. (Note - this wasn't a discussion about the virtues of different game mechanics. You made it so. You can also "discuss game mechanics" without telling people that their way of playing should be scrapped.)
- Karol, page 12: What the open mind set does to some people, is that it lets them to be lazy, not learn the game rules and claim that is an acceptable thing
- Karol, page 12: All [Open Play] does it makes the game worse the general public
- CSB, page 12: Do we really need an entire second point system so you have to type fewer digits?
- CSB, page 12: You can say it, but unlike PL the normal point system has a reason to exist.
- CSB, page 12: Open Play is a solution in need of a problem

(Insert Andykp's comment)

- CSB, page 12: Who exactly are these people that want to change the rules but are so obsessed with the concept of officialness that they can't make any changes without GW telling them it's ok to do it?
- Overread, page 13: The premise of the thread is GW taking points away and going full power level only. (Note: this is a comment being made in response to me saying "hey, let's just let people enjoy themselves with their preferred game without telling people we should be scrapping points or PL", and claiming that this is justification for folks saying PL should be deleted. I hasten to mention again: the ONLY mention of points being removed outside of the hypothetical question posed by the Anydkp as done as a rhetorical question IN RESPONSE to all the various comments made above. There is very clearly one "side" which is make more incendiary comments here.)
- CSB, page 14: Because this is a discussion of points vs. PL. If you don't want to see people disagreeing with your chosen system then maybe you shouldn't read this thread? (Yet again, this idea that this discussion has been in any way fair in terms of how people are arguing. We have pro/ambivialent PL folks who have made ONE rhetorical question on the validity of points, versus EVERY INSTANCE LISTED ABOVE calling for PL to be scrapped or deleted or otherwise being useless. This isn't a discussion. It's thinly veiled ignorance.)
- CSB, page 14: GW needs to stop investing in PL and focus on the better point system.
- CSB, page 14: any time spent on PL is wasted development time that could be spent on doing something useful
- Karol, page 15: A good system for people who don't really want to play the game.

(At this point, BIndmage brings up dyscalculia as a reason that some of the folks they play with use PL for ease of calculation, as well as their own personal experiences of pain - lived experiences and reason why PL helps them.)

- Slipspace, page 15: 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. (Said opinion literally being "you're playing the game wrong and shouldn't be supported to keep doing what you're doing)
- Karol, page 15: 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.
- CSB, page 16: There is no reason to have two separate point systems when a single point system can cover all game types.
- CSB, page 16: 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? (A response to me saying that we shouldn't be *advocating for removing things that people like* - the above comments in this list aren't "discussing GW removing the system that I like", they're YOU calling to remove them, and other users saying that we're playing the game incorrectly. These are two very different things, and an intellectually dishonest argument on your end.)
- EviscerationPlague, page 16: Because PL doesn't DESERVE the bare minimum effort it gets to begin with.
- CSB, page 16: 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". (CSB, ignoring every comment that BIndmage has made, or just being ableist.)
- CSB, page 16: PL is unnecessary rules bloat that, at best, represents a waste of development resources that could be better spent elsewhere
- CSB, page 16: So basic game design says you simplify things and remove the redundant system.
- CSB, page 17: I am also aware that their reasons do not hold up to examination (again, erasing the experiences of folks like BIndmage)
- Hecaton, page 17: Some people's preferences are for an objectively worse game. (Emphasis mine. I don't care if you don't like PL, but claiming it's "objectively worse" is the issue here.)
- CSB, page 17: 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.
- Overread, page 18: People do the wrong things in hobbies all the time [...] You can most certainly play with your toys in an incorrect manner.
- Overread, page 18: You are going to hit the wall of people who know more than you; who understand the game better than you; who play better (yes you can measure that in a game which, at its core, is competitive structured). Sometimes you just have to accept that your understanding only goes so far and that others are going further.
- CSB, page 18: And who is stopping you? You came into a thread about points vs. PL and joined the discussion, nobody came into your house and demanded that you justify your incorrect way of playing the game. (A response to BIndmage saying that folks who play PL shouldn't have to put up with being told that their way of playing should be scrapped - as I previously have mentioned in this thread, the person stopping BIndmage from enjoying themselves is YOU, CadianSgtBob, because you have repeatedly said that BIndmage's preferred way to play IS NOT VALID and insulted them.)
- CSB, page 19: PL has no reason to exist.



And now going through all instances where someone has said that points/matched play should be removed, or are otherwise "incorrect".

- Andykp, page 12: Let’s flip the old argument of why you need PL or open rules, let’s ask why do you need points? (Now, you'll notice that even though I've included this, I shouldn't need to. Why? Because it's a hypothetical and rhetorical question! It's not being serious, it's not being unbidden, it's coming after ALL of the previous gak on page 12 and prior that I've labelled, and honestly exists only to attempt to show the previous users some degree of self awareness, which they seem to have missed. This isn't even a serious suggestion, but I am including it solely to say that the first - and possibly only - time that anything was even mentioned about points being removed was done as a rhetorical question.)

- FezzikDaBullgryn, page 15: 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. (A comment from the OP, posing a topical question. Note, this is still not *advocating* or even saying the GW "should" do anything, but posing a question AS THE OP. For what it's worth, yes, I believe there is value in GW not going PL only, because clearly, people value points, and their choice of value should be respected.
Comparing this to some of the previous comments shows they're not even in the same league.)

- FezzikDaBullgryn, page 18: We cannot balance 40k via points anymore. (18 pages in to get this comment, and honestly, considering the amount of times that pro-points folk have said, not incorrectly, that PL is just a different form of points, this comment doesn't exactly defend PL either. It's a "burn EVERYTHING to the ground" option. But hey, I'm going to give y'all the benefit of the doubt.)





I rest my case. That's, what, one, maybe two cases of people calling for points to be removed, and no cases where someone who plays points is called "wrong" or "incorrect", versus... I lost count. Truly, I did, and I don't want to depress myself by actually counting.

You want to turn this into some kind of "versus" match? Let's look at the "versus" of who's actually treating people's experiences and preferences with respect before we even begin to continue "debating" this silly topic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Just Tony wrote:How is that ableist?

Because it ignores the legitimate issues that BIndmage and other players with the game have with using points, and invalidates them when they actually find utility in a different system. It is implicit erasure of their legitimate experiences, and invalidation of them as *human beings* based on their bodies.

It is ableist because it expects them to make do with systems that are not designed or accommodating for their different needs, and then seeking to remove the options that they do have.

It is like banning ramps for wheelchair users, and then wondering why wheelchair users have an issue with that when there's perfectly good stairs everywhere else.

Does that explain the situation?

Lord Damocles wrote:1) Call opposition -ist or -phobe
2) Win argument regardless of other factors
3) ???
4) Virtue!

Just calling a spade a spade. 'Facts don't care about your feelings' (and other buzzphrases), and the comment that was made was a factually ableist one.

Sorry, just calling things as they are.

Mike drop post from smudge. End of.

/thread

Awesome post smudge, exalted.

Haha, stay down!

This seems to be an issue of temperament first and foremost and there is likely no consensus to be had here.

Andykp wrote:
Mike drop post from smudge. End of.

I mean, it's a long and thorough post but it doesn't especially have credibility given Smudge's editorializing (in support of the PL folks and in opposition to the points folks). If the posts were selected without comment, it would be more credible IMO.

Also, I'm sorry but I don't see how Hecaton's question about dyscalculia was ableist. I see it as Hecaton trying to get a little more context from Blndmage. Now you could argue whether the question was asked in good faith or not, but immediately jumping to ableism doesn't pass the sniff test. How does that question "diminish lived experiences"?

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Andykp wrote:
Mike drop post from smudge. End of.

I mean, it's a long and thorough post but it doesn't especially have credibility given Smudge's editorializing (in support of the PL folks and in opposition to the points folks). If the posts were selected without comment, it would be more credible IMO.

You can check every quote. I haven't edited a single one, with the exception of putting an ellipsis on one comment. If you want to say that I misrepresented or otherwise edited a single comment, be my guest and check. I assure you, aside from adding my own *comments*, brief ellipsis, or two instances of adding emphasis (which I am well within my rights to do), I haven't edited a single post. I've even shown pro-PL posts that realistically, I shouldn't *need* to show, because they are rhetorical questions, but I have chosen to do so to emphasise how imbalanced the situation is. Furthermore, the comments I make exist to provide context, as presenting information devoid of context is arguably more dubious and misleading.

If you wish to criticise the credibility of the comments I selected, tell me which ones I misrepresented.

Also, I'm sorry but I don't see how Hecaton's question about dyscalculia was ableist. I see it as Hecaton trying to get a little more context from Blndmage.

BIndmage doesn't need to have dyscalculia, and Hecaton doesn't NEED more context, because they already mentioned their chronic illness that cause disorienting levels of pain. Hecaton choosing not to recognise that, and instead continue to focus on dyscalculia, as if that condition is some kind of "validity benchmark" is ableist behaviour.


Now, if Hecaton enthusiastically apologises and amends their statement, and then further goes on to respect and accept the conditions that many hobbyists face regarding their health and participation within 40k, then I'm happy to chalk it up to an innocent mistake and misphrasing - of course, I don't speak for BIndmage on that.

How does that question "diminish lived experiences"?

It "diminishes lived experiences" because it implicitly says that "you're only allowed to feel like this if you have XYZ disabilities", but also, as I've said, ignores the other experiences that BIndmage has mentioned, which are more than enough to justify *any* choice of how they play - not that they even need to justify it!

The very act of asking someone to "prove" or "justify" their condition as some kind of litmus test as to if they're "allowed" to play a certain way is ableist behaviour, and this is well known within those communities. If you wish to have further information on that, I'm sure there are resources that you can find online which will better explain this.

In previous cases when I've mentioned "diminishing lived experiences", it has been in response to the idea that "PL doesn't meaningfully help anyone" - by saying it, it ignores the testimony of the people who have said that it *does* help them, and thereby continues to marginalise them and push them away from feeling relevant in the hobby.