Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 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.

Slipspace wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 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.

You misrepresented my comment about Open Play, for a start. What I actually said was Open Play is a concept that doesn't require GW to formalise it in the rules. There's no point having a rule that literally says "you don't have to follow the rules". I didn't say people shouldn't play Open Play style games.

You also continue to misrepresent what I said about respecting others' opinions. Just because a belief or opinion is sincerely held, doesn't make it immune to criticism and challenge.

 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.

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"?

Andykp wrote:

 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.

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"?

Hecatons comment is ableist i suppose because why does he need to know of blindmage suffers with anything to understand that there are people there who and disabilities that impact their hobby experience. I can’t speak for blindmage but that’s my understanding. Does Blindmage having a specific disability make his comments more or less valid. It doesn’t actually make any difference.

"I enjoy this" isn't a belief that should be criticised or challenged, because when you are challenging that, you are, at that point, challenging not the game system, but the people who play it. That is not fitting of a proper discussion or debate.

Doesn't seem like a healthy place for a discussion a game mechanic to go.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 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.

You misrepresented my comment about Open Play, for a start. What I actually said was Open Play is a concept that doesn't require GW to formalise it in the rules. There's no point having a rule that literally says "you don't have to follow the rules". I didn't say people shouldn't play Open Play style games.

You are advocating the removal of a legitimate form of enjoying the game that doesn't negatively affect you, but others have said they appreciate the inclusion of. By advocating for removal of it being formally included, you are implicitly saying that it is not equal to other forms of enjoying the game.

I stand by my case. I did not misrepresent you: in fact, I quoted you verbatim. I think that you are unaware of the implication of your comment. Now that I have elaborated, do you understand why this isn't a harmless comment?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
"I enjoy this" isn't a belief that should be criticised or challenged, because when you are challenging that, you are, at that point, challenging not the game system, but the people who play it. That is not fitting of a proper discussion or debate.

Voss wrote:
Doesn't seem like a healthy place for a discussion a game mechanic to go.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Voss wrote:
Doesn't seem like a healthy place for a discussion a game mechanic to go.

We're not discussing a game mechanic though. BIndmage and I aren't even attempting to do that. All we're literally saying is that PL is useful FOR US. There doesn't need to be a discussion beyond that.

If you want to have a healthy discussion, it needs to come from a place where we can all respect eachother's right to enjoy the game in a way that doesn't harm anyone else. The very discussion of "let's get rid of PL because it doesn't do anything for me" is antithetical to that. You want to discuss PL, you're welcome to discuss how you could improve it for yourself, or how you would prefer it if it wasn't the only system around, but talking of removing it? That's not okay, as it implies that the opinions of users like BIndmage and I aren't worth respecting - and to imply *that* would be a violation of Rule 1.

Karol wrote:

"I enjoy this" isn't a belief that should be criticised or challenged, because when you are challenging that, you are, at that point, challenging not the game system, but the people who play it. That is not fitting of a proper discussion or debate.

That is an extremly dangerous view to hold, because some people find some really bad things enjoyable or like stuff which is good for them, but bad for others.

But the company shouldn't be made to use up its design time, something they have very little of running the skeleton crew they have, for something that is enjoyed by a minority, doesn't really make the game better and more or less requires special conditions, some which enter the feelings area to be a valid and comparable way of playing the game.

Doesn't seem like a healthy place for a discussion a game mechanic to go.

Plus what is the percentage of players of w40k that have that.

What is next desiginging the game in a way it can be played by people that can speak, what about people who can't learn english or any writen language. What if someone has so sever nerve damage in hand, can easily happen if you do weight lifting or combat sports, and can't move 60+ separate models in a prescribe time of 2.5 hour. Should GW design versions of games for those people too. Because if yes, then the game suddenly degrades to a point where GW has to design a game not just for every w40k player, but for every w40k player playing every other w40k player that they could be playing.

Slipspace wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You are advocating the removal of a legitimate form of enjoying the game that doesn't negatively affect you, but others have said they appreciate the inclusion of. By advocating for removal of it being formally included, you are implicitly saying that it is not equal to other forms of enjoying the game.

I stand by my case. I did not misrepresent you: in fact, I quoted you verbatim. I think that you are unaware of the implication of your comment. Now that I have elaborated, do you understand why this isn't a harmless comment?

"That's just swallowing GW's marketing BS. Open Play absolutely doesn't need to exist because it's only purpose is to codify a rule that says you don't have to follow the rules."

That's what I said. Clearly what I'm talking about is GW attempting to codify Open Play in their rules. Open Play (note the capital letters) doesn't need to exist because every other wargame I've ever encountered gets along fine without specific dispensation from the designers that you don't have to follow the rules all the time. You can still play "Open Play" style games without GW having a specific rule telling you that.

So yes, you did misrepresent me.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
"I enjoy this" isn't a belief that should be criticised or challenged, because when you are challenging that, you are, at that point, challenging not the game system, but the people who play it. That is not fitting of a proper discussion or debate.

For the millionth time, I'm not challenging your belief that you enjoy something. To be very clear, I accept that you hold that belief.

People enjoy all sorts of things. Doesn't mean we can't have a discussion about whether those things should exist or not.

Your argument amounts to shutting down any discussion as soon as anyone says "I enjoy this thing".

I'm sure some people loved the broken Eldar formations in 7th edition, but it's still legitimate to discuss whether they should exist or not, for any number of reasons.

If you don't play Open Play, which, by many of your admissions, you don't, how does someone else's choices and preferences affect you?

No, it is there. Its taking up book space, rules space and development time. If it isn't used, its a negative effect.

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.

Voss wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Voss wrote:
Doesn't seem like a healthy place for a discussion a game mechanic to go.

We're not discussing a game mechanic though. BIndmage and I aren't even attempting to do that. All we're literally saying is that PL is useful FOR US. There doesn't need to be a discussion beyond that.

I AM talking about a game mechanic. If you aren't even attempting to do that, its bad faith.
If you don't want to discuss a game mechanic, then stop. That's 100% on you.

If you want to have a healthy discussion, it needs to come from a place where we can all respect eachother's right to enjoy the game in a way that doesn't harm anyone else. The very discussion of "let's get rid of PL because it doesn't do anything for me" is antithetical to that. You want to discuss PL, you're welcome to discuss how you could improve it for yourself, or how you would prefer it if it wasn't the only system around, but talking of removing it? That's not okay, as it implies that the opinions of users like BIndmage and I aren't worth respecting - and to imply *that* would be a violation of Rule 1.

You're people with opinions on preferences on a game system, not Woobies that need to be defended at all costs. That seems far more disrespectful.

If you want to be offended that I'm treating you like I treat everyone else, uh... I guess one of us is missing something. I certainly don't like the alternative, though, because it isn't 'you get blanket immunity for your opinions on game mechanics.'

Voss wrote:

If you don't play Open Play, which, by many of your admissions, you don't, how does someone else's choices and preferences affect you?

Covered before, its not about other people's choices or preferences, its about it taking up space in the system- you even quoted it:

No, it is there. Its taking up book space, rules space and development time. If it isn't used, its a negative effect.

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.

The rulebook is only so big. The non-rules taking up rules-space is always going to be a loss.

Blndmage wrote:

 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.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Smudge, why don't you start a thread whose title is "I like Open Play/playing with PL" for you, Blndmage, and any others who want to participate in that topic? I feel like you're trying to redefine this thread to something that it's not. It seems like most of the points you continually try to make are pretty off topic.

 Just Tony wrote:
I am a disabled American veteran. I want that made abundantly clear. Still not seeing it as ableist.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I think Smudge's post has validity, if only due to the fact that I wasn't included in the anti PL/Open side, as I only mentioned that Open Play wasn't necessary and is mostly a marketing thing, but said that I prefer it being there over not. Smudge easily could have changed what I said and had two more examples, but didn't.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Voss wrote:
Doesn't seem like a healthy place for a discussion a game mechanic to go.

We're not discussing a game mechanic though. BIndmage and I aren't even attempting to do that. All we're literally saying is that PL is useful FOR US. There doesn't need to be a discussion beyond that.

I AM talking about a game mechanic. If you aren't even attempting to do that, its bad faith.
If you don't want to discuss a game mechanic, then stop. That's 100% on you.

I'll stop when people learn to be able to discuss game mechanics without invalidating the people who play them and telling them that they shouldn't have space in the book.

It's really not that hard. You want to discuss game mechanics, do so without taking stuff away from other players.

If you want to have a healthy discussion, it needs to come from a place where we can all respect eachother's right to enjoy the game in a way that doesn't harm anyone else. The very discussion of "let's get rid of PL because it doesn't do anything for me" is antithetical to that. You want to discuss PL, you're welcome to discuss how you could improve it for yourself, or how you would prefer it if it wasn't the only system around, but talking of removing it? That's not okay, as it implies that the opinions of users like BIndmage and I aren't worth respecting - and to imply *that* would be a violation of Rule 1.

You're people with opinions on preferences on a game system, not Woobies that need to be defended at all costs. That seems far more disrespectful.

I'm not defending gak beyond people should be treated with respect without having to justify why. If that's too much for you, I kindly suggest you touch grass.

If you want to be offended that I'm treating you like I treat everyone else, uh... I guess one of us is missing something. I certainly don't like the alternative, though, because it isn't 'you get blanket immunity for your opinions on game mechanics.'

No-one cares about "blanket immunity". What they care for is not to be implied that they're inferior for enjoying the game a different way. You say about treating everyone the same - I don't see any other players having to justify endlessly why their version of the game shouldn't be scrapped.

I mean, SERIOUSLY, did you read the stuff I've quoted?

It's elementary school levels of respect here, my person. Just because stuff exists doesn't mean it's always for you, and it doesn't have to. Quit being so entitled, and accept that other people are allowed to enjoy stuff.

And, if we're being BRUTALLY honest here, in what possible world with GW do you think for a second that getting rid of Open Play would EVER make the rest of the game better? Pure speculation? Naive optimism? Blind faith

Just Tony wrote:And as for the wall of text that quoted me? Unless there is a disability that prevents someone from doing triple digit math yet somehow miraculously allows them to do single digit math, I fail to see how it is germane to trying to drop the -ist bomb to get an opponent to backtrack. Maybe we can name some conditions that ARE applicable to the accusation before we make it?

Voss wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Voss wrote:
Doesn't seem like a healthy place for a discussion a game mechanic to go.

We're not discussing a game mechanic though. BIndmage and I aren't even attempting to do that. All we're literally saying is that PL is useful FOR US. There doesn't need to be a discussion beyond that.

I AM talking about a game mechanic. If you aren't even attempting to do that, its bad faith.
If you don't want to discuss a game mechanic, then stop. That's 100% on you.

I'll stop when people learn to be able to discuss game mechanics without invalidating the people who play them and telling them that they shouldn't have space in the book.

It's really not that hard. You want to discuss game mechanics, do so without taking stuff away from other players.

I fundamentally cannot reconcile game mechanics and invalidating people.

I'm not defending gak beyond people should be treated with respect without having to justify why. If that's too much for you, I kindly suggest you touch grass.

Yeah, 'touch grass' certainly seems respectful, now doesn't it? You'd get further without the hypocrisy.

'<mechanic> shouldn't exist' is not about respect or your justification of why. Its about the mechanic.

If you want to be offended that I'm treating you like I treat everyone else, uh... I guess one of us is missing something. I certainly don't like the alternative, though, because it isn't 'you get blanket immunity for your opinions on game mechanics.'

No-one cares about "blanket immunity". What they care for is not to be implied that they're inferior for enjoying the game a different way. You say about treating everyone the same - I don't see any other players having to justify endlessly why their version of the game shouldn't be scrapped.

You've missed a lot of my arguments with other people, then (but that's fine, its not something you need to keep track of, but its very much not as cut and dry as you assume).
But yes, blanket immunity is very much what I care about now. (or are you going to insist 'no one cares' again now that I've said it twice?). As you go back and forth applying respect unequally (ie, only when it shields your argument, but not when it comes to directly insulting people or 'creatively re-interpreting' their words to fit your argument), it seems very much on point.

I mean, SERIOUSLY, did you read the stuff I've quoted?

Yep. And ever time you insist that people are saying something about inferiority or respect or whatever rather than game mechanics, no matter how many times they tell you otherwise, the only conclusion I get is the disrespectful one is you.

Voss wrote:
I'm allowed to expression opinions on game mechanics even if you don't like those opinons.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Voss wrote:
Doesn't seem like a healthy place for a discussion a game mechanic to go.

We're not discussing a game mechanic though. BIndmage and I aren't even attempting to do that. All we're literally saying is that PL is useful FOR US. There doesn't need to be a discussion beyond that.

I AM talking about a game mechanic. If you aren't even attempting to do that, its bad faith.
If you don't want to discuss a game mechanic, then stop. That's 100% on you.

I'll stop when people learn to be able to discuss game mechanics without invalidating the people who play them and telling them that they shouldn't have space in the book.

It's really not that hard. You want to discuss game mechanics, do so without taking stuff away from other players.

Andykp wrote:

Spoiler:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

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?

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.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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.

Now, as I said - happy to rescind my disrespect, if you'll do the same, and continue doing so.

It's elementary school levels of respect here, my person. Just because stuff exists doesn't mean it's always for you, and it doesn't have to. Quit being so entitled,

 Insectum7 wrote:
Reminder that the very premise of the thread is about the theoretical removal of a mechanic, points. It's in the thread title and first sentence of the OP.

Voss wrote:

Now, as I said - happy to rescind my disrespect, if you'll do the same, and continue doing so.

Yeah, no. I'm not going to give you a conditional on the basis that you get to decide when you're 'implicitly disrespected' by topics that aren't about you.

I'm not going to apologize to a game mechanic, because that is still ALL that this is about, regardless of why you've decided its all about you.

Which is funny, so I'm just going to feed this back to you

It's elementary school levels of respect here, my person. Just because stuff exists doesn't mean it's always for you, and it doesn't have to. Quit being so entitled,

Its not always about you. You can reflect on this, or not.

Hopefully you won't try to shut down too many more discussions in the future, but either way, I'm not going to care if you decide to be offended by people not liking game mechanics.