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.

Andykp wrote:
You are very wrong there. I have said throughout that I have no issues with pints and PL existing side by side, they both serve a purpose. Work for different people and that’s great. All for it. I don’t want you to not be able to use points. I want you to play with points and enjoy the game. I want to use PL and enjoy the game.

I haven't gotten that impression from you at all.

Andykp wrote:
I have had nothing but scorn for people lecturing others on how to enjoy the game and saying we are doing it wrong. Nothing but scorn for people being jerks about what I and others enjoy.

Well part of the problem is that there's a willful insistence of the flaws of PL being nonexistent. Not "yeah, these are flaws, but I'm willing to ignore them for x y and z reasons" but an outright denial that PL is less granular etc. Also a denial that PL is capable of producing extremely broken/imbalanced situations as well. And a denial that it invalidates people who don't put every upgrade on their squad.

Andykp wrote:
And please for the love of god stop playing the victim, you do it every time anyone calls out your gakky attitude and it’s very sad. No one is trying to stop you using points, no one is saying you shouldn’t enjoy points based games. You play how you like. Just accept that we enjoy doing things differently. Can you even do that?

Blbdmage *is* saying that they don't want me playing using points, and Fezzik is pushing the idea pretty wholeheartedly.

I haven't been playing the victim; in fact I've responded to people who have been playing the victim (Blndmage) by saying that they should stop. You're perceiving me as playing the victim because you think you have the right to insult me but the reverse is not true.

Hecaton wrote:

Andykp wrote:
You are very wrong there. I have said throughout that I have no issues with pints and PL existing side by side, they both serve a purpose. Work for different people and that’s great. All for it. I don’t want you to not be able to use points. I want you to play with points and enjoy the game. I want to use PL and enjoy the game.

I haven't gotten that impression from you at all.

Andykp wrote:
I have had nothing but scorn for people lecturing others on how to enjoy the game and saying we are doing it wrong. Nothing but scorn for people being jerks about what I and others enjoy.

Well part of the problem is that there's a willful insistence of the flaws of PL being nonexistent. Not "yeah, these are flaws, but I'm willing to ignore them for x y and z reasons" but an outright denial that PL is less granular etc. Also a denial that PL is capable of producing extremely broken/imbalanced situations as well. And a denial that it invalidates people who don't put every upgrade on their squad.

Andykp wrote:
And please for the love of god stop playing the victim, you do it every time anyone calls out your gakky attitude and it’s very sad. No one is trying to stop you using points, no one is saying you shouldn’t enjoy points based games. You play how you like. Just accept that we enjoy doing things differently. Can you even do that?

Blbdmage *is* saying that they don't want me playing using points, and Fezzik is pushing the idea pretty wholeheartedly.

I haven't been playing the victim; in fact I've responded to people who have been playing the victim (Blndmage) by saying that they should stop. You're perceiving me as playing the victim because you think you have the right to insult me but the reverse is not true.

1. I have said that numerous times through out this thread. If you haven’t gotten that impression form me then you haven’t been reading my comments.

“I am in no way advocating GW using only power levels. But for the way I play they are perfect.”

That’s a quote form 3rd or 4th post in the thread and have maintained that stance since.

As for the limitations of power levels, everyone who has defended them has said that they don’t work for everyone or every play style, they can be abused, and if you or your opponents will try and create imbalanced situations allowed by PL then they won’t work. So use points. That’s what they are there for.

Insult me all you want mate, it’s fine but in this thread and many others you playing the victim is standard practice. As for Blndmage playing the victim, I would say she has been very patient with you really.

Can you at least say on here that you accept that other people can enjoy using power levels for their own reasons, even though you dint agree with them?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
“ For upgrades, as power levels are meant to be used in games where you aren’t looking to min/max everything that loss of value is less relevant, simply because in that kind of game it matters less. Which is why I like that they have points as a choice as well for those that does matter too. Power levels is an imperfect system, but it’s supposed to be, it’s sacrificed granularity for simplicity. For me the simplicity is more valuable than the complexity of points.”

Here you go hecaton, another one, not sure why you get the impression I want points to go away.

Andykp wrote:
As for the limitations of power levels, everyone who has defended them has said that they don’t work for everyone or every play style, they can be abused, and if you or your opponents will try and create imbalanced situations allowed by PL then they won’t work. So use points. That’s what they are there for.

Incorrect, Fezzik has repeatedly stated that there is no downside to ditching points for PL.

Andykp wrote:
Insult me all you want mate, it’s fine but in this thread and many others you playing the victim is standard practice. As for Blndmage playing the victim, I would say she has been very patient with you really.

No. Blndmage came out the gate with insults and accusations.

Andykp wrote:
Can you at least say on here that you accept that other people can enjoy using power levels for their own reasons, even though you dint agree with them?

This seems like a loaded question.

What’s loaded about that question?

“I respect your opinion about this game, even if I don’t share it,” shouldn’t be hard to say.

 JNAProductions wrote:
What’s loaded about that question?

“I respect your opinion about this game, even if I don’t share it,” shouldn’t be hard to say.

It depends entirely on what those reasons are.

Hecaton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What’s loaded about that question?

“I respect your opinion about this game, even if I don’t share it,” shouldn’t be hard to say.

It depends entirely on what those reasons are.

"I enjoy the system, and find it easier."

I haven't seen anyone on the PL side claim that it's objectively better universally-only that they prefer it to points. You know, subjectively better.

 JNAProductions wrote:
"I enjoy the system, and find it easier."

I haven't seen anyone on the PL side claim that it's objectively better universally-only that they prefer it to points. You know, subjectively better.

So any claim of "I find X" must be validated? If we timed the PL advocates who say that they find PL to be a faster point system to use and found that it took them 15 minutes to make a list with PL and 14 minutes to make the same list with normal points are we still obligated to accept that "I find it faster" is a valid justification? Or can we say they are factually wrong regardless of how they "feel" it is?

 JNAProductions wrote:
"I enjoy the system, and find it easier."

I haven't seen anyone on the PL side claim that it's objectively better universally-only that they prefer it to points. You know, subjectively better.

Fezzik claimed there was no downside to ditching points for PL, while not allowing the reverse. By implication, this means that PL is universally better.

Thank you


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
If GW shifted fully to PL, I'd probably get more games.
Win win

I'll point out that you've moved on to stating that you wish I wasn't able to enjoy the game whereas I haven't said anything of the sort to you. JNAP, am I allowed to fling similar insults back or will I be actioned on for doing it?

I was answering the question posed in the title.

 Blndmage wrote:


I was answering the question posed in the title.

Given you said "win win" then, no, I don't think you were. You're implying that both you playing more games and me playing less are good things.

Hecaton wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:


I was answering the question posed in the title.

Given you said "win win" then, no, I don't think you were. You're implying that both you playing more games and me playing less are good things.

I didn't realize that if GW switched to PL only you'd be playing less.

I said "win win" in reference to getting the play more games "win" with more people, as the game would be more accessible "win".

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
"I enjoy the system, and find it easier."

I haven't seen anyone on the PL side claim that it's objectively better universally-only that they prefer it to points. You know, subjectively better.

So any claim of "I find X" must be validated? If we timed the PL advocates who say that they find PL to be a faster point system to use and found that it took them 15 minutes to make a list with PL and 14 minutes to make the same list with normal points are we still obligated to accept that "I find it faster" is a valid justification? Or can we say they are factually wrong regardless of how they "feel" it is?

Why do you care? I haven't partaken in this thread in 10 pages or so, but it's gone to new levels of utter dumbassery.

If someone else prefers PL, how or why does that have any impact on you whatsoever? Why can't their opinion be valid, people as humans often just 'like' things based on illogical reasons that subjective to them. They have no need to justify it and it shouldn't need explaining.

JNAProductions, you're doing a stellar job of keeping it level headed with Hecaton but I gave up back when they were insisting people had to provide citation for pre-game conversations, because otherwise they were lying to try and validate PL's existence. That's not a conversation that going to end between any of you, it'll loop back round infinitely.

To be honest this thread should have been closed a while back for breaching various rules.

Dudeface wrote:
To be honest this thread should have been closed a while back for breaching various rules.

And I'm guessing you've seen absolutely no malfeasance or insults coming from the anti-points side?

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
To be honest this thread should have been closed a while back for breaching various rules.

And I'm guessing you've seen absolutely no malfeasance or insults coming from the anti-points side?

At what point did I say that either "side" of the unnecessary peacocking contest had been better than the other?

Maybe everyone should go outside and take a breath for a bit rather than getting so heated over a FezzikDaBullgryn post which usually end up flammatory.

Dudeface wrote:
At what point did I say that either "side" of the unnecessary peacocking contest had been better than the other?

When you only criticized behaviors of the pro-points side.

Also, from a design standpoint, Power level is EMBARASSING to even talk about. If I were a game designer, I'd NEVER want to have my name behind it.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Also, from a design standpoint, Power level is EMBARASSING to even talk about. If I were a game designer, I'd NEVER want to have my name behind it.

Can you elaborate?

As a game designer, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

 Blndmage wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Also, from a design standpoint, Power level is EMBARASSING to even talk about. If I were a game designer, I'd NEVER want to have my name behind it.

Can you elaborate?

As a game designer, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Well, look at the questions I asked before to begin with in this thread.

The very simple premise is: is a Plasma Pistol better than a Laspistol, yes or no?
If the answer is yes, should they cost the same?
The replies were "I don't care" or "it doesnt have an effect, so no". PL avoids the entire premise weapons are not equal for all situations, and sometime just outright upgrades rather than sidegrades. Telling the players to self regulate is bad and lazy design, period, when it comes from the designers. It's a whole other can of worms coming from players themselves, which incidentally proves the CAAC player is a thing.

It also ignores the fact that some people DO have very optimized squads to begin with, sometimes just BECAUSE they look cooler. I met a guy before that had a Sternguard squad with 2 Grav Cannons and 8 Combi-Plasma, simply because Plasma and lasers cool coming out of a drop pod. In a system like PL, it's about the same cost as my Sternguard squad with just the Grav Cannons.

THAT is embarrassing to try to defend from a design standpoint, period.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Also, from a design standpoint, Power level is EMBARASSING to even talk about. If I were a game designer, I'd NEVER want to have my name behind it.

Can you elaborate?

As a game designer, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Well, look at the questions I asked before to begin with in this thread.

The very simple premise is: is a Plasma Pistol better than a Laspistol, yes or no?
If the answer is yes, should they cost the same?
The replies were "I don't care" or "it doesnt have an effect, so no". PL avoids the entire premise weapons are not equal for all situations, and sometime just outright upgrades rather than sidegrades. Telling the players to self regulate is bad and lazy design, period, when it comes from the designers. It's a whole other can of worms coming from players themselves, which incidentally proves the CAAC player is a thing.

It also ignores the fact that some people DO have very optimized squads to begin with, sometimes just BECAUSE they look cooler. I met a guy before that had a Sternguard squad with 2 Grav Cannons and 8 Combi-Plasma, simply because Plasma and lasers cool coming out of a drop pod. In a system like PL, it's about the same cost as my Sternguard squad with just the Grav Cannons.

THAT is embarrassing to try to defend from a design standpoint, period.

You're trapped in your one way of thinking, that a game has to be perfectly balanced and capable of being competitively played.

I doubt the designer for PL yelled at the heavens in joy at their grand creation and called it perfect.

More likely they were told by the up-highers to devise a simpler method of army construction for those who didn't want to mess about with points. In that regard they definitely accomished their goal. Is successfully completing your work assignment something you should be embarrassed of? I don't know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
At what point did I say that either "side" of the unnecessary peacocking contest had been better than the other?

When you only criticized behaviors of the pro-points side.

Because over the last page or so they've been less bad. Note not blame free, but the "I want to tell you your opinion doesn't matter and conduct tests so I can prove how right I am" side is definitely behaving worse today.

To be honest the fact you're so entrenched in some made up battle of wits with a group of people over a hypothetical that has no real output is the issue.

Dudeface wrote:
More likely they were told by the up-highers to devise a simpler method of army construction for those who didn't want to mess about with points. In that regard they definitely accomished their goal. Is successfully completing your work assignment something you should be embarrassed of? I don't know.

It was a bad goal, though. Adding 3-digit numbers is something you learn in what, 4th or 5th grade?

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Also, from a design standpoint, Power level is EMBARASSING to even talk about. If I were a game designer, I'd NEVER want to have my name behind it.

Can you elaborate?

As a game designer, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Well, look at the questions I asked before to begin with in this thread.

The very simple premise is: is a Plasma Pistol better than a Laspistol, yes or no?
If the answer is yes, should they cost the same?
The replies were "I don't care" or "it doesnt have an effect, so no". PL avoids the entire premise weapons are not equal for all situations, and sometime just outright upgrades rather than sidegrades. Telling the players to self regulate is bad and lazy design, period, when it comes from the designers. It's a whole other can of worms coming from players themselves, which incidentally proves the CAAC player is a thing.

It also ignores the fact that some people DO have very optimized squads to begin with, sometimes just BECAUSE they look cooler. I met a guy before that had a Sternguard squad with 2 Grav Cannons and 8 Combi-Plasma, simply because Plasma and lasers cool coming out of a drop pod. In a system like PL, it's about the same cost as my Sternguard squad with just the Grav Cannons.

THAT is embarrassing to try to defend from a design standpoint, period.

You're trapped in your one way of thinking, that a game has to be perfectly balanced and capable of being competitively played.

I doubt the designer for PL yelled at the heavens in joy at their grand creation and called it perfect.

More likely they were told by the up-highers to devise a simpler method of army construction for those who didn't want to mess about with points. In that regard they definitely accomished their goal. Is successfully completing your work assignment something you should be embarrassed of? I don't know.

Good balance benefits everyone. If two players brought the same exact units to play the same exact army against each other, except one guy has that Sternguard squad with all that Plasma and I don't, that's an immediate disadvantage. Those armies are NOT equal, yes or no?

Also YES if that was the assignment, they should be embarrassed. I'd rather walk out of a job (and I have before) rather than do something that brainless and meaningless to lead into the end product that is Power Level.

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
More likely they were told by the up-highers to devise a simpler method of army construction for those who didn't want to mess about with points. In that regard they definitely accomished their goal. Is successfully completing your work assignment something you should be embarrassed of? I don't know.

It was a bad goal, though. Adding 3-digit numbers is something you learn in what, 4th or 5th grade?

But what's your point? It's existence doesn't impact your match play. If they removed points, which I don't think they will, then I'm sure they'd put more effort into balancing around PL.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Also, from a design standpoint, Power level is EMBARASSING to even talk about. If I were a game designer, I'd NEVER want to have my name behind it.

Can you elaborate?

As a game designer, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Well, look at the questions I asked before to begin with in this thread.

The very simple premise is: is a Plasma Pistol better than a Laspistol, yes or no?
If the answer is yes, should they cost the same?
The replies were "I don't care" or "it doesnt have an effect, so no". PL avoids the entire premise weapons are not equal for all situations, and sometime just outright upgrades rather than sidegrades. Telling the players to self regulate is bad and lazy design, period, when it comes from the designers. It's a whole other can of worms coming from players themselves, which incidentally proves the CAAC player is a thing.

It also ignores the fact that some people DO have very optimized squads to begin with, sometimes just BECAUSE they look cooler. I met a guy before that had a Sternguard squad with 2 Grav Cannons and 8 Combi-Plasma, simply because Plasma and lasers cool coming out of a drop pod. In a system like PL, it's about the same cost as my Sternguard squad with just the Grav Cannons.

THAT is embarrassing to try to defend from a design standpoint, period.

You're trapped in your one way of thinking, that a game has to be perfectly balanced and capable of being competitively played.

I doubt the designer for PL yelled at the heavens in joy at their grand creation and called it perfect.

More likely they were told by the up-highers to devise a simpler method of army construction for those who didn't want to mess about with points. In that regard they definitely accomished their goal. Is successfully completing your work assignment something you should be embarrassed of? I don't know.

Good balance benefits everyone. If two players brought the same exact units to play the same exact army against each other, except one guy has that Sternguard squad with all that Plasma and I don't, that's an immediate disadvantage. Those armies are NOT equal, yes or no?

Also YES if that was the assignment, they should be embarrassed. I'd rather walk out of a job (and I have before) rather than do something that brainless and meaningless to lead into the end product that is Power Level.

They're not equal, but good on you putting yourself on the unemployment list thanks to your ego.

Again, it's existence doesn't impact you, why so dramatic with your hatred?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Good balance benefits everyone. If two players brought the same exact units to play the same exact army against each other, except one guy has that Sternguard squad with all that Plasma and I don't, that's an immediate disadvantage. Those armies are NOT equal, yes or no?

If two players brought the same units to play the same exact army against each other the game has already failed. And failed pretty hard. Play chess if you want something like that. Or 30k.

Dudeface wrote:

But what's your point? It's existence doesn't impact your match play. If they removed points, which I don't think they will, then I'm sure they'd put more effort into balancing around PL

But, since I don't like PL, I'd rather it get removed and more effort be spent into balancing around points. So its existence *does* impact my play - not all of which is matched. I don't like how PL punishes me for playing Orks in narrative play, compared to other factions.

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

But what's your point? It's existence doesn't impact your match play. If they removed points, which I don't think they will, then I'm sure they'd put more effort into balancing around PL

But, since I don't like PL, I'd rather it get removed and more effort be spent into balancing around points. So its existence *does* impact my play - not all of which is matched. I don't like how PL punishes me for playing Orks in narrative play, compared to other factions.

I thought the entire stance was that power level doesn't have much thought put into it, so I really doubt any effort is taken away from balancing on points.

Likewise, you're not obliged to play narrative with PL if you choose not to.

Dudeface wrote:
I thought the entire stance was that power level doesn't have much thought put into it, so I really doubt any effort is taken away from balancing on points.

Effort, yes, but not thought, you're right.

Dudeface wrote:
Likewise, you're not obliged to play narrative with PL if you choose not to.

It takes more work to translate things.

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I thought the entire stance was that power level doesn't have much thought put into it, so I really doubt any effort is taken away from balancing on points.

Effort, yes, but not thought, you're right.

Dudeface wrote:
Likewise, you're not obliged to play narrative with PL if you choose not to.

It takes more work to translate things.

That translation point is fair, I'd argue for those who use PL the translation to points feels like more work for them.

I'm not sure what effort you think goes into PL? It's pretty much unit cost/20? With maybe an annual pass to bring it in line with the points based balance changes usually using the same formula?

The studio seem to base their efforts on match play points then retroactively put the PL on.

 JNAProductions wrote:
What’s loaded about that question?

“I respect your opinion about this game, even if I don’t share it,” shouldn’t be hard to say.

His refusal to even say that speaks volumes. This thread was done ages ago and hecatons inability to even attempt a discussion in good faith is clear. Sadly I think we will hear more about how he was assaulted by the evil power level cult every time anyone disagrees with him again for sometime.

Things that have baffled me most here is the idea that having PL as an OPTION makes the game worse for people who don’t use them. And the idea that if GW stopped investing the time in assigning PL to units they would free up enough design time to wonderfully balance the game (and probably solve climate change and invent a new ice cream flavour).

Totally bonkers. But chats with folk like hecaton make me realise how things like Q-anon take hold.

Andykp wrote:
Totally bonkers. But chats with folk like hecaton make me realise how things like Q-anon take hold.

You are such a shameless hypocrite. You demand politeness and validation of your ideas and act like your side has a monopoly on civil discussion, and then you turn around and compare the people you disagree with to the Q cult. Maybe you should look in the mirror someday?

Dudeface wrote:
I'm not sure what effort you think goes into PL? It's pretty much unit cost/20?

Nah. If I want to run a Big Mek in Mega-Armor with a Tellyport Blasta, that's 95 points. But I pay 6 PL for him (+25 points over, effectively). Kustom Jobs are always a minimum of +1 PL, even if they only cost 10 points. The stat increases your Waaagh!Boss gets as an Ork in Crusade cost 1 power rating *each* for +1 strength or wounds; that's basically never worth it, so you've got this section of the crusade rules you just don't use.

Meanwhile if I bust out my Harlequins I can get a 130 point Voidweaver for 5 PL, or 6 Harlequins Players w/ 2 Fusion blasters and 2 Neuro Disruptors (normally a total of 128 points) for 4 PL. So there's no fairness between factions, and some of them are just punished super hard by the PL system.